Loading...
1990-06-19 a '----' '-./ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19TH, 1990 INDEX Subdivision No. 2-1990 Adirondack Plantations 2. FINAL STAGE Owner: Charles Diehl Site Plan No. 85-89 Anne Parrott 2. Site Plan No. 28-90 Dunham's Bay Boat Co., Inc. 4. Subdivision No. 3-1990 Roy and Jeanne Tonnesen 23. FINAL STAGE Petition for a 7-90 Anthony P. or Carol A. Ricciardelli 24. Change of Zone or Robert Ricciardelli Site Plan No. 39-90 Susse Chalet 34. Owner: William C. Johnson Site Plan No. 40-90 Michael Hayes 40. Site Plan No. 41-90 Alvin and Sharon Yanklowitz 45. Subdivision No. 7-1990 Patti Rathbun 51. PRELIMINARY STAGE 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 PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19TH, 1990 '1:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CAROLPULVER,SECRETARY PETER CARTIER JAMES HAGAN CONRAD KUPILLAS NICHOLAS CAIMANO DEPUTY TOWN A'ITORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 10th, 1990: Page 7, Mr. Judge's third to last comment, Line 5, where it says they claim it is 10-12 weeks, sib 10-12 days ST AND AS AMEND ED April 17th, 1990: Page 4, on the Motion to Approve Subdivision No. 5-1990, Wiley, fourth line down, the culvert which will allow it to remain at least 15 feet wide, not depth; Page 21, Mr. Cartier's comment, tenth line from the bottom, apperfur sib aquifer ST AND AS AMEND ED MR. ROBERTS-I'd like to reverse the order of the agenda tonight, just very briefly, something that should be listed as "Any Further Business", in case the Board's not comfortable with it,..can call an attorney and have a presentation made here, but I don't really think that's necessary. It has to do with an extension of the site plan review for the Queensbury Factory Outlet Center. I think the letter from Mr. Stewart was self explanatory. I know most of you weren't here for that review. I kind of hoped that you would take Peter's and my recommendations that we had under..review. I thought we had a pretty good plan lined up and, as you all know, the project has been tied up in the courts and I would hope that maybe we could make short work of this, allow for the extension of this. The only complication, it seems to me, to have arisen, Jonathan Lapper is requesting a 1 year extension and Mr. Stewart is requesting a six months extension. Is Mr. Lapper here tonight? I guess not. Probably the 1 year extension might make a little more sense since we've learned from past experience that these things take longer than we think. First of all, are you willing to address this issue so that we can get the main corner of the Town of Queensbury in better hands and accomplish something or do you want a presentation done with Mr. Stewart? MR. HAGAN-I'd be ready to second the motion right now. MR. ROBERTS-Why doesn't somebody make one, quickly. MR. HAGAN-I wasn't here at the presentation, that's why I can't make one. MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION, AS REQUESTED, TO SITE PLAN NO. 16-88 FOR QUEENSBURY FACTORY OUTLET CENTER, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: With the understanding that nothing has changed since their original submittal. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Do we need to spell those(Original approvals) out, again? The reason I ask the question is, we've got a change of ownership here and I want to be sure that the new owner is flagged as to what stipulations have gone along with that. Do I need to do that? 1 MS. CORPUS-You can reiterate or mention the previous approvals. MR. GORALSKI-Right, this is simply an extension of the previous approvals and none of the conditions change. MR. ROBERTS-That goes without saying. MR. CARTIER-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A ADIRONDACK PLANTATIONS CHARLES DIEHL OWNER: SAME SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVENUE, APPROX. 4,000 FT. EAST OF INTERSECTION OF WEST MT. ROAD AND SHERMAN AVENUE FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 4 EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE PURCHASED AS INDIVIDUAL UNITS. TAX MAP NO. 121-1-22 LOT SIZE: 58.264 ACRES WILSON MATIllAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. MA TIllAS-My name's Wilson Mathias. I'm a lawyer here. I'm representing the applicant, Charles Diehl. We've been here a number of times in connection with this one. This is the last one. I think it's, again, there's nothing new. We're simply subdividing four existing units. We've preserved the area that the Planning Board requested to be kept open during the original site plan review of this property. I would simply say that when we submit the mylar, we'll improve the data with respect to all the property being located within the Queensbury School District and that it's all within the West Glens Falls Fire District. Both of those entities, of course,..existing units that had the opportunity of looking at this project once before when the ownership was just slightly different. So, I really don't have anything further to add. If the Board has any questions, I'll try to explain them to you. MR. ROBERTS-Do we have any further questions? If everyone's in favor, I'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1990 ADIRONDACK PLANTATIONS, CHARLES DIEHL, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a subdivision of 4 existing structures to be purchased as individual units in its Final Stage. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 85-89 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A ANNE PARROTT OWNER: SAME TURN ONTO BIG BAY ROAD, GO 2.2 JllILES, TURN LEFT ONTO DIRT ROAD, ~EAR RIGHT AT THE SECOND TURN, GO 50 FT. AND THE PROPERTY IS THE BLUE CAMP IN FRONT TO REMOVE THE SEASONAL DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN BASICALLY THE SAME LOCATION. WILL NOT ENCROACH ON ANY OTHERSETBACK8. WILL NOT INCREASE THE NONCONFORMITY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 144-1-36, 37 LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES SECTION 9.010 ANNE PARROTT, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-And I guess we're seeing this now because Mrs. Parrott has received the necessary septic variance from the Board of Health which is the Town Board and John reminds us that we need to do a Short Environmental Assessment Form on this project. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) 2 '- ----' ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-John, do you want to explain the letters to us, here? MR. GORALSKI-These are, if you want, I can read them. They're letters from neighbors of Anne Parrott's which state that they have no objections to the conversion. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. I don't believe that would be necessary and it was approved by the Warren County Planning Board? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. ROBERTS-Then would somebody care to walk us through the SEQRA Short Form. MR. CARTIER-You've got to do a public hearing. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, okay. Let's open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 85-89, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board and application for: the removal of the seasonal dwelling and the construction of anew, single family dwelling in basically the same location by the owner, ANNE PARROTI and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: The Department of Health, but they have made their comments available to the Board 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment For has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN No. 85-89 ANNE PARROTI, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: 3 -- ----- To remove the seasonal dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling in basically the same location with the understanding that the stipulation spelled out by the engineer that the system will be replaced if and when it fails. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-With the understanding that the stipulations spelled out by the engineer that the system will be replaced, if and when it fails. Am I reading it correctly? Okay. MR. GANNETT-Yes, that is the note on the drawing, that the applicant has stated it will be replaced if it fails. MR. CARTIER-Because my understanding was, we were looking for a new septic system or at least a test of the septic system that is there and it's been tested, I assume, it's been found adequate. Is that correct? MR. GANN ETT-The variance has been granted..interpreted by the Board. MS. P ARROTT-I think when it was originally submitted, we only had.. MR. CARTIER-I just want to be clear in my own head. My understanding is, the septic system that you have is going to be used with the understanding MS. PARROTT-Anne Parrot. MR. CARTIER-Maybe I can solve this, quickly. You are putting in a new septic system? MS. PARROTT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And you've got a variance for the setback on that? MS. PARROTT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Now I understand. It was my confusion. MS. PARROTT-Originally, we were not going to build that... MR. ROBERTS-So, we're comfortable with this? MR. CARTIER-I'm straight with it now. SITE PLAN NO. 28-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-42A DUNHAMWS BAY BOAT CO., INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE DUNHAMWS BAY, EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9L FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE OF 70 BOATS AND UP TO 25 BOAT TRAILERS (WITHOUT BOATS). (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 10-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 13.59 ACRES SECTION 9.010 WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, prior to hearing this, I'd like to go on record, please, as indicating that I have an interest, here, but I feel I have no conflict. I have a son who is a part time employee and for the record I want this noted and I will send something in writing to the Department. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, thanks, Nick. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-To go on, the Warren County Planning Board disapproved with the comment, "Concern over environmental issues. i.e.. disposal on~ite of boats, motors and other assorted trash. After remedial action taken by applicant to clean up site - applicant may re-apply" and then there are several letters which I can read to you. Letter from Gilbert o. Boehm, to Mrs. Lee A. York, dated May 15th, 1990. Letter from Gilbert O. Boehm, to Mrs. Lee A. York, dated June 15th, 1990 Letter from John Schriner, to Queensbury Planning Board, dated May 19th, 1990 Letter from John Salvador, Jr., to Ms. Patricia Tatich, cc: Mrs. Lee York, dated May 18, 1990 Letter from John Salvador, Jr., to Mrs. Lee York, dated May 18th, 1990 (all letters are on file) 4 --- ~ MR. CARTIER-{Referring to Gilbert O. Boehm's letter to Lee York of May 15th, 1990) Was there a variance involved here? MR. GORALSKI-No, there wasn't. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so, I assume, what he means by variance is site plan approval? MR. GORALSKI-I assume so. MR. ROBERTS-Has there been any attempt to contact Dave Hatin's office to find out if there, in fact, have been violations of previous permits? MR. GORALSKI-My discussions with the Building Department have concluded that, yes, the violation is that there is outdoor storage of boats there, which was not allowed under the Special Use Permit that was granted, that is why they are in front of you for site plan review today because the site plan review allows boat storage in the LC-42 zone. As far as the debris that is on the site, first of all, my understanding is that is the Department of Environmental Conservation's jurisdiction. Mr. Hatin has contacted D Be and I do not know how far they have pursued it. I can say that I did go up there today, and a significant amount of the debris has been removed. MR. CARTIER-Do I understand that you're saying that, because it is an LC-42 zone and this is now allowed in that zone and, therefore, the Special Permit 35, no longer applies? MR. GORALSKI-That use existed because of the Special Use Permit. The use, as it concerns the outside storage of boats, is what this site plan review is for. MR. CARTIER-Alright, I guess what I'm trying to find out is, is he still required to abide by the stipulations of the Special Permit that was granted? MS. CORPUS-Yes, I believe so, unless he were to come before the Board and request a special site plan approval of the interior storage of the boats. Right now it is a legal use because that special permit gave it its legal standing, so it was not an illegal use at the time. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm looking at the stipulations of a Special Use Permit, here, and I'm picking the ones that are relevant here, it says, provided all boats be parked within the building, no trailers left outside the building, no work performed on boats outside the building. MR. GORALSKI-That's why they're here, today. MR. CARTIER-That's what we're looking at? They're looking for approval to do that? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Which, in fact, they were doing, apparently, all along. Okay, thank you. MR. ROBERTS-The present Ordinance does allow this. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct, with site plan review. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I guess it's time for some rebuttal here. Can we here from the applicant? MR. REHM-As you know from the material that's been submitted, this site is approximately 14 acres and it's located, according to my scaling, the site to be utilized and that is being utilized, is located a little more than 500 feet from 9L, pretty much across the road from the existing Dunham's Bay facility. As was mentioned, a Special Use Permit was issued in 1972, authorizing interior storage of boats without any indication as to the number of boats and a building was constructed and boats were stored in that building. As time went on, the business expanded. The demand for storage of boats increased substantially around the Lake and the Howards, of which you know own Dunham's Bay Boat Company, built their building and stored boats outside and that condition, a.nd trailers, and that condition has existed for probably more than 10 years, at this point. The original Special Use Permit did not allow for outdoor storage and a number of months ago, the Howards were contacted by Dave Hatin who indicated a neighbor, Mr. Shortsleeves, had complained to the Town of Queensbury that there was a violation and we submitted the application for site plan review. Also, as was indicated, this is an allowable use under the Zoning Ordinance for boat storage. Contrary to some of the rather inflammatory statements I heard in the letters, this is a good distance from any wetland. There is no environmentally sensitive material stored on that property and the property is not an environmentally sensitive piece of land, there are no wetlands, no streams, or anything in the area of storage. Access to the property is over a right-of-way that extends across the Shortsleeves property. It's a deeded right-of-way that has been 5 ,-,' improved and if you'll look at the maps that were submitted, you'll see that there's an area outlined, generally in dashes, around the existing buÜding and that is the only portion of the property proposed to be used and you'll notice that there are setback, 30 feet from the westerly line and about 60 feet at the closest point on the southerly line. One of the reasons that the Howards feel that it doesn't make a lot of sense to build another building there to store boats is a number of reasons, I suppose. One is the substantial increase in stormwater runoff that would result from the construction of a huge structure. Another one is, the fire problems that potentially exist when you put a lot of boats in the building. Third is, the problem with collapse that has occurred over the winter months, most recently, I think, at the Harris Bay Marina when one of their big buildings fell in a few years ago and probably as important as the others is the advent of shrink raft. Now, it's feasible to protect boats very well, out of doors by simply using shrink raft which is something that the wind doesn't blow off, as it did with other methods of coverage. Whether this Board knows it or not, there's a new procedure at the County Planning Board and that new procedure is that the application is presented by one of the Assistant County Planners and the applicant is not given an opportunity to make a presentation to the Planning Board and the Planning Board only allows the applicant or his representative to speak in answer to a question posed by a Planning Board Member. I think that, perhaps, the County Planning Board would have made a more informed decision, the other night, if we had an opportunity to make a complete presentation. I'm sure it's also true that those that are in opposition to this, or other applications would, likewise, want an opportunity to make a more complete statement. One of the real issues, here, aside from the illusory issues, and the illusory issues are the, so called, debris on the property, most of which has been cleaned up. Mr. Goralski was there today and mentioned that that was the case and had been cleaned up at the time that the County Planning Board looked at this and some of which existed prior to 1972. If you'll look at the minutes in 1972, on the first page of those minutes, you'll see that Dan Smith, at that time, indicated that the property had been used as a dump. Well, it is certainly not a dump today. A good bit of that has been- cleaned up. However, by its very nature, the storage of boats is not the most aesthetically pleasing of activities and, as does happen, things get put off to the side, and so on and that probably should not be the case, but it was the case there and a real effort is being made to clean that property up and once everything is out of there, there'll be an effort to put some fill in in areas that have been disturbed and grade them so that there'll be no debris visible. Nothing will be left there that is..trash, but the issue that I wanted to mention to you is the question of traffic. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Rehm, can I interrupt you with a question, first. MR. REHM-Sure, incidentally, the Howards are here, too, if you'd like. MR. CARTIER-Is there, in fact, a quick launch operation going on from this property? MR. REHM-There is none. MR. CARTIER-There is no quick launch operation from this property? MR. REHM-There's none and there never has been one and if you'd like to inquire, the Howards are here for that purpose and, frankly, there would be no problem, as far as the Howards are concerned, with a condition to that effect. MR. CARTIER-I understand, but, so we're all talking the same language here, a quick launch operation is such that, somebody stores their boat and they want to put it in the water for the day, it's put in by the Company for the day and it's removed that evening and put back into storage, that's my definition of quick launch and you're saying there is no quick launch being operated from this storage building in question? MR. REHM-That's true. MR. CARTIER-So, my question's, and that's why I interrupted you because you mentioned traffic. I guess what we need to here about is where this increase in traffic is coming from that people are talking about, if it's not a quick launch, which you say it's not. MR. CAIMANO-Before you go any further, though, Pete, my question here is that, the Planning Department has already made a statement that, whether or not a quick launch is there or not, is immaterial to this Board. It's a zoning problem that should be taken care of by the Zoning Administrator at the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. CARTIER-I understand that, but I can't ignore the fact that we're going to talk about traffic and I want to know where the traffic is coming from. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, traffic is fine, I agree. What I'm trying to divorce one from the other, however. MR. REHM-It's not immaterial an issue, the traffic. 6 ---' -./ MR. ROBERTS-I don't think we need to divorce them. MR. REHM-Frankly, I don't think that there is any substantial increase in traffic. There are approximately 170 boats there. They're moved in in the fall and, largely, moved out in the spring. If you go up there now, you'll find that there are still boats there. There are boats there that are inoperable. There are boats there that belong to people that have not called to put them in the Lake. There are boats there that belong to the applicants. There are boats there that belong to people who will call when they come up in July and say, launch our boat, and, if they're here for a month, at the end of July or whatever that period of time is, they'll say, put the boat back in the storage. There are also boats up there that need to be moved down for maintenance. Remember, no maintenance can take place up there, according to the 1972 rules, and they have to be moved down for that purpose and moved back up, but no substantial increase in traffic. I was just up there and I stopped my car at the intersection and I looked up the hill toward Assembly Point, that's north, and it looks you can see, if I measure everything by football fields, probably 8 or 900 feet or 1,000 feet, that's...road. Now, perhaps, a vehicle, someone mentioned a school bus, you'd certainly see a school bus further than this. The other side, looking down towards Bay Road you can see almost down to the Bay Road corner which has got to be well in excess of a quarter of a mile. Nevertheless, from the north to the south, it is kind of a curving slope downward and care has to be utilized. Anyone that is utilizing that area has to be careful. With smaller boats it is fairly easy because it's easy to make that corner going uphill, generally north, to make the corner into the driveway. With a larger boat, it is necessary to cross the line, the double yellow line, to make a wider turn and in cases like that it's probably prudent to have someone out on the road with a flag or something of that nature to warn people coming from the north to the south. I've got some photographs, here, that'll show you, generally, the configuration of the entrance. It would be nice if there could be some cooperation to MR. ROBERTS-I guess that was my question, is it possible to widen that to where you could get off the road more quickly and safely? MR. REHM-It's not legally possible, as far as easement is concerned. The easement is a 20 foot easement, but it certainly is desirable. MR. CARTIER-In the course of a typical day, whether that day be a weekend or a weekday, how many boats would you say travel across that road from the storage area to the water for whatever reason, for maintenance, or launching, or removal, or whatever? What kind of numbers are we talking about? MR. REHM-I think that's a Roger Howard question. MR. HOWARD-In season, after the storage boats are down, I think it would be unusual to see more than 3 or 4 boats a day that move up and down that road and that's after the storage boats are all in the water. MR. ROBERTS-Roger, is it possible that some of those boats up there are for sale and people are going in and out of there to look at for sale boats, would that be part of the traffic problem. MR. HOWARD-That's part of the traffic. We try to have a representative sample in the showroom, but a person wants to see a blue boat and we've got a yellow one on display, that's the answer that come up and.. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. HOWARD-And most of the boats that are stored outside are my boats, that's new and used inventory. They don't come down until they're sold. MR. HAGAN-I have a couple of questions, in reference to some of the complaints, this isn't directed at you, Mr. Howard, it's directed to some of the complaints I heard read. I heard one of the neighbors complain about the activities going on at the Dunham's Bay site as being detrimental to a sensitive area and I heard that same person advocate to this same Board that we should approve an every day activity on the end of Bay Road which is a far more sensitive area, in fact, in the depth of a wetland, and he was approving a daily, public launch be approved and yet he's advocating that we disapprove this storage site. I would like a little further explanation from the public, regarding this. I live in Cleverdale. I travel this road daily. My egress has never been interrupted at Dunham's Bay Lodge or Dunham's Bay Boat Company, but at the other launching area, I have repeatedly been stopped, been forced to break at a dangerous rate, when I haven't been speeding, but this seemed to be alright with the neighborhood and the other activity isn't. I'd like further explanation as to something that I'm missing here. MR. ROBERTS-Well, let me open the public hearing. Does John Salvador care to respond to that? 7 "---' -...../ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I'd be glad to. John Salvador. I'm here this evening with my wife Kathleen. We are the owners and operators of Dunham's Bay Lodge. To answer Mr. Hagan's concerns, I have never witnessed the operation of the launching facilities in Dunham's Bay Brook potentially contaminating the Lake waters with oil. I have observed in the storage area operated by the Howards, numerous barrels of spent, crank case oil, in fact, some of those barrels show evidence of having frozen and the heads of the barrels domed out. I have seen that. We have referred to the clean up of the area. Much of the debris has been covered with fill and all of this is upslope from us. Any runoff from that area, and there are many, many, you'll find if you go up there, and I can see them from my property, quart size, plastic oil containers that have been just discarded after they've been used, in an area where no work was supposed to have been done. Does that answer your concerns? MR. HAGAN-Somewhat. MR. SALVADOR-ûkay. MR. HAGAN-And I don't wish this to become a debate, but what's going on the other site is far more injurious to Lake George than what's going on at that site. MR. SAL V ADO R-Some experts do not substantiate that. If I could comment, reference has been made to screening. All of the trees that screen this area are owned by others than the Howards. They have stripped the land, right up to the boundary of the area they own. Mr. Shortsleeves owns the screening on the north side. We own the screening on the west side. MR. CARTIER-I'm getting confused. You've got some "they's" in there and I don't understand what you're talking about. Who was the "they" who stripped the screening, who cut the screening down? MR. SALVADOR-The owners of the property, the applicants. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, that doesn't jive with the map we've just been given tonight, either, but would you look at this map and see if you would agree or disagree with it. MR. SALVADOR-ûkay, we are the owners on this side and here and we are owners on this one. MR. CAIMANO-You're saying that where it says wooded lot is not wooded lot? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, that is, but that screens it in the direction of Glens Falls, not the Lake. I think we're concerned with the screening of the building from the Lake. MR. ROBERTS-Well, the building can't be seen from the Lake back there. MR. SALVADOR-Not at all, because Mr. Shortsleeves owns the trees that screen it. MR. CAIMANO-..there's no screening by the house..2/3rd's of it is screened by the house, right? I mean, you did give the impression when you said that, that they clear cut the land, which in fact they didn't if you look at this map. MR. SALVADOR-I'm referring to the land between the building and the Lake. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, this over here. MR. KUPILLAS-This land here... MR. SALVADOR-Yes, this is, I think, our property boundary between the Shortsleeves and our self. We were not the owners of Dunham's Bay Lodge when the 1972 Special Use Permit was granted. We came along three months later. All I've ever heard about that storage facility and "the permit" deals more with spirit and intent than it does with the letter of the law, that variance is poorly written and Mr. Shortsleeves will have a chance to comment, but, in my discussions with the neighbors over the years, a storage facility was something that would have access spring and fall. The boats would go up in the fall. They would be put to bed. They would come down in the spring and there would be no traffic on this road during the summer months when the people are in the area, when the tourists are there, when the vacationing people are there, that's the spirit and intent that I think has been violated, that was an understanding people had when it was explained to them how this storage facility 8 "'--' --- would be used. I mentioned the oil storage, any runoff from that compacted, non-paved parking area runs right down in the valley between the Shortsleeves and ourselves, right to the Lake, through a culvert under the road and across the parking area. A mention has been made of shrink raft. I can't think of a more problematic material in the days of solid waste concerns. I wonder how many diapers you could make out of a piece of plastic material that it would take to cover a boat. The subject of quick launch has been talked about and you mentioned, sir, Mr. Cartier, a days use. Would a weeks use be called quick launch, two days use? MR. CARTIER-I'm trying to get a per day average. I don't have an answer, Mr. Salvador. I'm trying to get a.. MR. SAL V ADO R-Well, I would like that clarification, too. MR. CARTIER-1 don't really care what you call it, by that I mean, whatever you call the operation, what it comes down to is, how many boats a day are going back and forth across that road, whether it's for maintenance, whether it's for putting in for a day or two days or a week is, as far as I'm concerned, not the issue. What it comes down to is how many boats are going back and forth across that road in a typical day. MR. SALVADOR-And my comment to that is, the spirit and intent of the issuance of the Special Use Permit was that, during the summer months, the tourist season, the vacationing season, there would be no traffic. MR. ROBERTS-Are we just interested in boats coming in and out of there or are we interested in general traffic? MR. CARTIER-Vehicular traffic, whatever's going back and forth across the road. MR. ROBERTS-But there's sales business back there. It's not just boats moving back and forth. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Rehm mentioned the site distance in the northerly direction. He failed to mention there's a dip in the road and we've had some, I know of one very serious accident in that area. It didn't involve anything to do with boat storage. We had a very serious accident because of a stupid move someone made passing a vehicle and didn't see the oncoming vehicle in that dip. I have a letter here that I'd like to submit that states pretty much the same as what's in the other two. MR. ROBERTS-This is a third letter from you? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Salvador, I have a couple of questions. How long have you owned Dunham's Bay Lodge? MR. SALVADOR-8ince February 1973. MR. CAIMANO-Ever in the spirit of compromise, have you and the Howard's ever gotten together and talked about this? MR. SALVADOR-We've never had reason to. Well, what bothers me about this is that we're not addressing the root core of the problem which are the violations that exist in the Special Use Permit. This Site Plan Review is nothing but an end run around the problem and I don't like that approach. MRS. PULVER-Are you basically concerned with the quick launch, though, because the Zoning Administrator has said that if you have any concerns, that's out of our hands. MR. SALVADOR-I am concerned with the past practice, the way it's been used in violation of the Special Use Permit and I say in my letter that remedially corrective action should be taken first and then the subject of an area variance should be addressed, that's my personal feeling. - MR. GORALSKI-There's no variance required. MR. ROBERTS-Site Plan. MR. SALVADOR-8ite Plan, right. MR. ROBERTS-Well, perhaps, we could do both at the same time. I don't know exactly why we can't come up with something here. MR. SALVADOR-No, if I may, I take a dim view of being up here, criticizing the activities of my neighbor. We have been good neighbors and we rely on each other to service the public and it's not right that we're put in this position of neighbor against neighbor. 9 '--' -- MR. HAGAN-Who's responsibility is that, sir? MR. SALVADOR-Your Zoning Enforcement Officer, your Planning Department. I pay taxes for this service, sir. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I tend to agree. I've often times think that is a weakness, that somehow it's our job to prevent pitting neighbor against neighbor, but as a practical matter, it doesn't seem to.. MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, once it was found out, they took the proper procedures through the Planning Department and through this Board. MR. ROBERTS-I guess that's, basically, why we're here tonight. MR. CAIMANo-I take a dim view of the criticism, frankly, and I think Mr. Goralski ought to jump up and down. MR. ROBERTS-It's not just directed at Mr. Goralski. It's kind of a common problem, actually, if you call into the Town with a (TAPE TURNED) MR. GORALSKI-Any complaint that is called in to the Town is acted on, whether it's anonymous or not. The way this one was acted on was that Mr. Hatin went out, spoke to the neighbors, spoke to Mr. Howard, determined that yes, he was in violation of the Special Permit, however, with Site Plan Review, he would be able to operate a boat storage facility and that's why he's here. I'm not sure what anyone else would like us to do about it. He legally can operate a boat storage facility there with the approval of the Planning Board and that's why he's here. MR. CAIMANO-That's why he's here. MR. ROBERTS-I'm just saying enforcement is always the problem. Enforcement is never as good as any of us would like to have it and we do, somehow, have a tendency to pit neighbor against neighbor and I would agree with you. I would hope that we could minimize that. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Salvador, I do not understand your last comment. I want you to understand that what's going on here tonight with Planning Staff and Zoning Administrators is precisely the process that allows you to come in and deal with some of the dissatisfactions you have with a Site Plan. If this process were not here, you would have no alternative to deal with it. So, I don't want to belabor this. I just want to be sure that this is the process that is available to you as it is to everybody else to deal with these kinds of issues. MR. SALVADOR-When this issue started over a year ago, it had nothing to do with a Site Plan Review. It had a lot to do with violations of a Special Use Permit. MR. CAIMANO-Which was correctable by going through Site Plan Review and that's why they did it. MR. SALVADOR-Well, that's the process I don't understand. I'm sorry I don't understand that. MR. CAIMANO-Because, in the meantime, the law was changed and the zoning was changed. MR. SALVADOR-Does the law overturn that Special Use Permit? MR. ROBERTS-I think we said earlier it did not. MR. CAIMANO-It did not. MR. SALVADOR-Well then, we're back to MR. ROBERTS-I think maybe you're wrong. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Salvador, my name's Karla Corpus, I'm the Deputy Town Attorney. Let me just clarify something for you. In the Town, the Building and Codes Department has two choices. They can attempt to bring people within compliance or go out and choose the enforcement proceedings which is generally a one shot fine and would take a law suit. If I'm incorrect somebody tell me, but I spoke to Dave Hatin and generally the feeling in the Building and Codes Department is they will try to bring people within compliance before they take them to court. The only alternative that Mr. Hatin would have, legally, is if there is a violation of a Special Use Permit, is to take whatever legal action that would be required which is to bring someone to court and, generally, as I said, it's a one shot fine. It does not correct the problem and each day that this violation continues he would rack up a considerable fine, but there is a maximum limit on that fine, too and there's only so much enforcement that can be done that way. I believe that this is the attempt of Dave Hatin and his Department to bring the applicant within compliance without having to go through the law suit procedure, if there were one available to him. 10 '--' '--" MR. SALVADOR-Well then I think it's incumbent upon you to tell people when they come to you that we have no hammers and we won't waste our time with these complaints. If the man is entitled to do this by his right, he's entitled to do it. I don't care how much complaining is done. MR. ROBERTS-Well, It's not that cut and dried, I don't think. It's not that perfect a world, John, and let's try to go forward with this and see what we can accomplish tonight. MR. REHM-This conversation has been a little bit off the point, as far as the application is concerned, nevertheless, those of you who have been in this area for the number of years that I have, and most of you have, have seen the changes in the Dunham's Bay Boat Company operation from a small, not terribly desirable operation to a modern, very desirable operation with a nice building and I think it's probably one of the cleanliest and best operations on the Lake. There's no question that there's a technical violation of the 1972 decision. From our point of view, we had a couple of options. We could say, look, this has been going on for 10 years and there's nothing you can do about it, but that really is not the way to solve these problems and so we chose, with the cooperation of the Building Department, to make an application, and to come before the Board and give you whatever information you felt that you needed and solicit any recommendations that you might have to make this a better and safer operation. Nobody wants a problem over there and it's a shame, I think one of the point's that was made earlier, it's a shame that if the neighbors had a problem that Mr. Salvador didn't sit down with Roger and Karen Howard and say, look, there's a problem here and let's solve it. It's a shame that he can't get a little bit more land at that intersection to make that an easier intersection, that's a shame and if anybody's really concerned about safety, then that would be a fine way to resolve the problem. A couple of things. It simply is not true that there's no screening there. There are trees in the setback area that's shown on your map and to the south of the building, you'll see that there's a wooded area to remain. There's been no cutting in there. The only area that's cleared is this area that's shown on the map that's the dotted area. There's some oil storage. There has been some oil storage on the site and there's a reason for that. Instead of storing the oil down at the Lake, where the maintenance takes place, the used oil, it's collected down there and moved up to this site for the purpose of storing it until the gentleman that picks up used oil comes and picks it up and it's felt that that's a safer place and a better place to store it than storing it down by the Lake and I think that that makes sense. This site is not used as a selling site, that is not to say that once in awhile someone doesn't run up there and look at a used boat, but the selling, for obvious reasons, you don't try to sell $20 and $30 and $40 and $70,000 boats up in the storage area. The obvious place to sell the boats is down near the Lake where it's much more pleasant and where the boats can be prepared and so on. MR. ROBERTS-Is there someone else in the audience who cares to speak? OWEN CONN ELL Y MR. CONNELLY-My name is Owen Connelly from Troy, New York representing Earl Shortsleeves. With the Planning Board's permission, Mr. Rehm introduced some photographs, here. Is it not possible that they be marked, first, for identification and then introduced in evidence. MR. ROBERTS-Well, this is not a court of law. This is not even the Zoning Board of Appeals. We're all familiar with that site. We didn't need to see the pictures to start with, as far as that's concerned. Let's not get too judicial here. MR. CONNELLy-it so happens that I spent 17 years on the Troy Planning Commission and we always had exhibits marked for identification and then introduced so that the audience here or those present could see them and that's the way we ran our Board and I think MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm certain there's no objection to these pictures being passed around here. MR. ROBERTS-No, and they're being marked as you speak. MR. CONNELLY-Because they come in handy later. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. CONNELLY-And may I offer this on behalf of, I've heard from Mr. Howard, that only 3 or 4 boats or trips to and from the storage area were made. May this be marked for identification. MR. GORALSKI-Are you going to explain what this is? 11 "--' ----' MR. CONNELLY-Yes, I shall, and then later offer it for..now I had the pleasure of a site investigation up here prior to what was going to be March 14th hearing before you and I was surprised to see that a number of boat tuggers, and I don't know whether you people are familiar with what tuggers are, but they are unlicensed vehicles that the youngsters who are driving them attempt to qualify for Indianapolis and they create quite a dust storm and that is what Mr. Shortsleeves, Mrs. Woodin, and Mr. Shriner have put up with and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Mr. Salvador wouldn't have the dust come down his way, too. Mr. Rehm said it was well screened. Mr. Salvador brought out that the screening is all his and Mr. Shortsleeves and Mrs. Woodin's. The traffic is a serious, serious situation. As you know, when you approach from the lodge, down at the bottom of the hill, there is almost a 45 degree curve and when you go up by Mr. Shortsleeves, that is fairly straight until you get to the top of the hill when there is a tremendous curve and you'll see some of our exhibits where the boats will go all the way over the double line when they are taken up to the storage area in this application. The entrance, there, is a 20 foot right-of-way and those boats cannot make that on that 20 foot right-of-way and, in fact, Mr. Shortsleeves and Mrs. Woodin have put up tremendous barriers that were mysteriously taken away after the light of day and, of course, there's only one individual or one corporation that would have profited by taking away the barriers. MR. HAGAN-How many other people use this road, sir, besides the Dunham's Bay Boat Company? MR. CONNELLY-Well, the access to Mr. Shortsleeves, Mrs. Woodin's, and Mr. Shriner's, he is a tenant there, and they have to put up with the MR. HAGAN-Okay, my question is, how many people besides the Dunham's Bay Boat Company uses that road, to establish just how many other people are using the road, when we're talking about traffic. I'd like to talk about total traffic. MR. CONNELLY-You're speaking of right-of-way, aren't you? MR. HAGAN-No. MR. CONNELLY-Oh, the other. You'll have the privilege, if I could show it to Mr. Rehm, I would like to introduce that in evidence and you will find a traffic count of last summer and you'll find a good many more of the boats. MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Connelly, excuse me sir, could I just stop, here, a minute. Can we determine, when we talk about traffic, whether we're talking about the 9 Route or the dirt road route and which we're talking about because I'm getting confused. MR. CONNELLY-Well, I believe, Mr. Hagan, you're speaking of 9L, are you not? MR. HAGAN-That's right. MR. CONNELLY-Well, and I was speaking of 9L, too, and we have photographs. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. MR. CONNELLY-And it is a dangerous, one of the most hazardous things. I'd hate to carry the insurance of you're Town and the County for allowing them to continue what they're doing which is in violation of the original MR. HAGAN-Your accusations are kind of general and they're really upsetting me. What I'd like you to identify, when you talk about dangerous egress and ingress, identify how many accidents actually happened at that point of ingress and egress. The accidents mention so far were only on 9L, not directly at that point of egress or ingress. MR. CONN ELL Y -Mr. Salvador referred to a serious accident around there. MR. HAGAN-In 18 years, I can hardly think of any intersection that didn't have more than two serious accidents in this whole Township. So, I'd like you to be specific when you talk about the dangers. MR. CONNELLY-May I take that and show it to Mr. Rehm, first, and then offer that in evidence? MR. CAIMANû-While you are showing that to him, there's something else that should be brought up. I totally agree that there is a traffic problem on 9L, however, it's no less of a traffic problem for Dunham's Bay Lodge. I mean, the potential for somebody getting hit running across from the Lodge to the beach is every bit as large as it is for the Howard's boa ts. MR. CONNELLY-Yes, but he isn't causing it. He is not causing that. MR. HAGAN-I travel that road everyday. I'm reminding you. I'm very familiar with it and all these things I'm hearing are very strange to me because I have not witnessed them. I travel that road every single day. 12 ~ MR. CONNELLY-Mr. Hagan, we have some pictures that will show you of what I am speaking and we'll introduce them the way I believe they should have been properly introduced, except they were not. MRS. PULVER-Well, I have a question and my question is, is all this traffic that we're talking about related to the Dunham's Bay Boat Company or is some of this other traffic going some place else? Is it just tourist traffic..at the Lodge. I mean, are we to assume that all these cars are going to Dunham's Bay Boat Company? MR. CONNELLY-After you see, I will offer this in evidence, now. MR. CARTIER-Can I ask you a question about that. What time period, I know the dates are on here. MR. CONN ELL Y -They're labeled, here. MR. CARTIER-No, they're not labeled in terms of hourly time. MR. CONNELLY-Mr. Shortsleeves will be able to answer that. MR. SHORTSLEEVES-My name is Earl Shortsleeves and I've counted these boats and when he says three and four boats a day, or something like that, are traveling, every vehicle that goes up there has to come down and you can see the day and the dates, there's 30 and 40 vehicles, a day, that go up and down that road. There's no question about it. MR. CARTIER-l just did a fast thing on the numbers you gave us and that's why I was asking about length of time. Are you saying from, what, 8 o'clock? I'm not trying to pin you down, I'm just trying to get an answer, here, from, like, 8 o'clock in the morning until MR. SHORTSLEEVES-Probably 8 to 9 o'clock in the morning until, maybe 3 or 4 in the afternoon. MR. CARTIER-Alright, let's take 8 to 4. What are your hours of operation where you would have vehicles going back and forth? MR. HOWARD-8:30 until 5:00. MR. CARTIER-8:30 until 5 :00, okay. I'm just going with the data you just gave us and there are six different days listed here. I don't know where to go with this, I'm just trying to speed this up, here. Of six different days, the maximum was 22 vehicles, the minimum was 4 vehicles. That averages out, for these six days,..13 and a half vehicles a day. If we're talking 8 to 4, we're talking 8 hours, we're talking 1.5 vehicles per hour going in and out of there. I don't know what to do with that, yet. I just want to make everybody aware of that. MR. SHORTSLEEVES-It's not unusual to see the salesman go up with his car and two following that, besides, at one time. So, you've got three going up, in a few minutes, they've got to come down. Everything that goes up has got to come down. MR. CARTIER-Well, what I'm saying to you is, you're giving us data, which I love to get, because we can do something with it, but you may not be happy with what we do with the data you've given us because I'm looking at one and a half vehicles per hour is not a major traffic problem. MR. SHORTSLEEVES-One and a half vehicles per hour? We've got many, many more vehicles than that. MR. CARTIER-That's what it averages out, using the numbers you gave us, though. MR. SHORTSLEEVES-Well, you just figure them out, and you'll find there's a lot more than that. I've seen them go up, they go up and get a boat, they send a tugger up. They go up and get a boat. Boat and trailer comes down. They take the boat off, put it in the water, there's no room to leave the trailers down there, he's filled right to the top. The trailer has to go back up. The tugger goes back up with an empty trailer, down it comes again. This happens, maybe, two and three times in an hour. As fast as they can back them in there and get them in the water and get them..out of the way, another one comes down. MR. CAIMANO-Excuse me, sir. Just for the record, what's the speed of a so called tugger or a..truck? How fast can they go? MR. HOWARD-Maximum speed is probably 15 miles an hour. MR. CAIMANQ-Maximum speed, but certainly not.. MR. HOWARD-No. 13 ---" .~ MR. SHORTSLEEVES-About 15 miles an hour, I'd say would be top speed for them, but the kids, they floor it, you can here it for three blocks away. You can hear it for three blocks away. It sounds like a siren going up through the woods. A dual tire vehicle coming up the road at 15 miles an hour and cutting in on a 45 degree angle, skids, the dust goes up. You say something to the kids, they give you the finger. MR. HAGAN-How long have you lived there, sir? MR. SHORTSLEEVES-I've been there for 51 years. MR. CARTIER-Have you ever said anything to Mr. Howard about the way these people drive on this road? MR. SHORTSLEEVES-Yes, yes, many times, I tell his foreman about it. He's a very quiet man. He doesn't say anything, only in his favor. MR. CONNELLY-The quick launch, as Mr. Rehm spoke about, when they take one down for the whole summer and then back in the fall, that is not done at all, now and Mr. Salvador spoke of the contamination and I've viewed those drums up there and they were there for many, many years and it looked like a junk yard and the main thing is, the seriousness of the traffic on 9L. Plus, another thing is that Mr. Shortsleeves owns the boat dock down there and that is cluttered with boats and either the tuggers or trucks and, as I understand, it is a Town road and should not be used as such by Mr. Howard for storage and I think that should be taken care of. MR. CAIMANO-How? MR. CONNELLY-How, by not allowing it. You're the Town, aren't you? MR. ROBERTS-Are you saying the road that goes down really close to the buildings is, in fact, a Town road? MR. CONNELLY-Right, oh yes. It has the entrance on the south, by Mr. Salvador's and has, well, no, there's two entrances and two exits. Up the hill MR. ROBERTS-Yes, we're familiar with the entrance and exits. The question is, when they built the new road, wouldn't they have abandon that road? MR. CONNELLy-it hasn't, I don't think it has been. You people should know whether it was or not. MR. GORALSKI-I do know. It is a Town road. MR. ROBERTS-Really? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CONNELLY-Has it been abandon by, or deeded to, Mr. Howard? MR. GORALSKI-The road in front of the building along the shoreline? MR. CONNELLY-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-No, that is a Town road. MR. ROBERTS-Mr. Shortsleeves has dock access that he cannot get to, is that your problem? MR. CONN ELL Y -That is right and, with the trucks taking the boats up, and some of them are pretty sizable. In fact, when they take the ones down with the fork lift that will go higher than this ceiling, here, then it has to go all the way over, taking the full amount of roadway and if a car is coming down from the north and doesn't see it, there's going to be one terrible accident. MR. ROBERTS-I think that point's already been established. MR. CONNELLY-Yes, and the last, I'll conclude with, the Special Use Permit, as Mr. Salvador called to your attention, has been violated ever since it was granted, November 16th, '72, Dunham's Bay Boat Company Permit Number 35 for a boat storage for commercial purposes as granted. The Board finds the use is one specifically enumerated in the District. Such use will not be prejudicial to the character of the area. The Board determined that there is an appropriate provision for access facility adequate for the estimated traffic from public streets, and/or highways and that there are pedestrian walkways so as to ensure public safety 14 ,--' ,--",' and to avoid traffic congestion in conformity with the proposed parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury and all other related Ordinances, and these last three lines, that suitable plantings or screenings has been provided. Provided all boats be parked within building. No trailers left outside building. No work performed on boats outside building. That has been violated ever since they got the permission and I know they're here now to try and continue violation by going up the right-of-way to the tremendous parking facilities they have up there. Thank you very much. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. Mr. Salvador is the issue of the road dealt with satisfactorily, to your satisfaction? MR. SALVADOR-We had the same situation crossing our property. My understanding is that, at the time improved Route 9L, when the State built the road, the previous road was built on land owned by other people, our predecessors. The Town did not own the land, never has owned the land. When they built the new road, the State acquired land on which to build the road, this is 1930. At the time they acquired the land for the new road, a land taking map was drawn and defined. The reservation that they made at that time was, that the Town reserve the right to the use of the old road bed, that does not imply ownership. MR. GORALSKI-I never said it did. MR. SALVADOR-okay, I thought you said the Town owned the road? MR. GORALSKI-I said it is a Town road. MR. SAL V ADO R -Okay, the papers I have say the Town reserves the right to the use of the old road bed. Now the road we're talking about has been maintained and improved by other over the years. So, what the Town has a right to is a bed and not a surface, that is my understanding of it, if that helps anything. MR. ROBERTS-He's got a good point. JOHN SHRINER MR. SHRINER-Yes, my name is John Shriner. My...been on the Shortsleeves property since 1963. I've got a bunch of pictures here if you'd like to see them. You know about them, maybe you don't want them, I don't know. Boats crossing the double line, we've established, it is dangerous. Just for a point, if you read the minutes of that meeting of 1972, the attorney here stated that there was no stipulation of a number of boats written into that Number 35 Special Use Permit, I believe, but if you read the minutes of that, you'll find out that there was a number, 140, or approximately, I don't know the exact number. I believe it was 140 and it also stated in there that the largest boat would be 24 feet. This was all taken into consideration of making that turn into the right-of-way and as far as this oil not being able to get to Lake George, if it should leak, there happens to be a creek, a small stream, that runs right down between the Shortsleeves and Dunham's Bay Lodge property and it starts out from the Boat Company. From they're property across Mr. Shortsleeves there's a swampy area that was loaded with all this debris and this gets to Lake George because it comes down the stream into a culvert on high water and it can get there. The bump I won't get into because you all know about it, but if you decide to increase this number of boats which they are asking for, now we're talking about upwards of 220 boats that are going to travel this road, more than once or twice a year because, just like they stated, they've got to go up and down. If they go down for repair, you'd have another 3 or 4 trips. All this has to be considered. As far as distance, I never paced it off or I didn't measure it, but I would defy anybody to get more than 300 to 400 feet from that high hill down to that right-of-way road, definitely. He mentioned a football field, fine, but this is distance and I'll tell you how far it is down to the Dunham's Bay brook, which was stated a long distance. It's 1,090 feet, that's what it is from the bridge on Bay Road all the way up to where it meets Mr. Shortsleeves property. This is right on the deed, 1,090 feet. As far as the improvement of this road, I heard that statement made. This road is a mess. The only place this road has ever been improved in that 28 years is the blacktop. They submitted a picture, over at the County, of a blacktopped road. The only place the blacktop is is on the steep incline of that hill and the only reason it went there was because they couldn't the boat over, the truck would sit there and spin, that's why the blacktop was put there and, incidentally, being the witness to this first agreement that they had with the people up there, Mr. Shortsleeves and the Woodins, they were going to blacktop this road all the way from Route 9L, past the Green Camp, so that there'd be no dust problem. Needless to say, this has never been done. At Green's camp or Mr. Shortsleeves, no one has been there in the last six years, but for 20 years they used it. This traffic has been increased tremendously in the last five or six years. You can't even open a window up there now. As far as the oil being stored, you said it's only stored there until it can be picked up. Well, they must have an awful bad pick up, because I've witnessed barrels up there many, many times, unless the same barrels are refilled all the time because these piles don't seem to move and that's all I have to say. If you want these pictures, I'll give them to you, if you're interested in them. 15 "--- ' ---" MR. ROBERTS-Sure, let's pass them around. PETER SMITH MR. SMITH-Mr. Howard, I maybe the only one who speaks in favor of you, by the audience in here. My name is Peter Smith. I live on Bay Road. I own about 60 acres of property. I've been here 43 years and like Mr. Hagan, I have never seen an unsafe accident with a boat being moved across, in front of, your business. As far as oil being stored in a barrel, from an engineer, oil doesn't freeze, or expand the barrel. MR. CAIMANO-I was going to ask that, too. MR. SMITH-Alright. I went to Renselear, maybe you went to MIT. As far as the school bus is concerned, usually the majority of his business would be in the summer months. School buses don't run during the summer months, therefore, an unsafe condition with the school bus doesn't exist. Now, as far as the neighbors around him, I think they should get together and speak with him because he would probably correct any dump that's up there with no problem at all. He would probably take care of all the dust with no problem at all. Now, as far as the marina's concerned, he does run the best one on Lake George. MILDRED WOODIN MRS. WOODIN-My name's Mildred Woodin and I happen to be a neighbor and I'm very disgusted with the whole thing because whoever informs this gentleman, I don't know him, of things he said, they are not true. The road has not been improved, in fact, it's worse than it ever was. (Read letter addressed to Mrs. York from Mildred Woodin) Although I understand the meeting on May the 14th on public hearing for Dunham's Bay Boat Company has been cancelled until June, I wish to object, for many reasons, to any change, very dangerous traffic conditions, which is true. In no way have they lived up to their original permit Number 35. It's devaluating my property and there is absolutely no consideration for any neighbor up there. You could talk to Mr. Howard, which I have done several times, and he'll stand there and listen, like a little angel, then he'll turn around and just forget he even talked to you. Now, originally, when this happened, we had a conversation which I never did sign this application, all the boats were to come in from the north. No boats come in from the north. He comes up and around and curves around the road, crosses the double line, all the time, never misses and not a boat comes in from the north. They all come in from the south, which is very, very wrong and it does cause a terrible traffic jam and you talk about no accidents. This gentleman said no accidents. There was a man killed right in front of my place. There was more than one person killed there and I'll tell you one of them was the Freighhoffer boy was killed right there, along that line. The one that was killed in front of my place was a school teacher from Schenectady. MR. HAGAN-What was the cause of this accident? My daughter was personally involved in a serious accident, but it had nothing to do with the Dunham's Bay Boat Company. MRS. WOODIN-Well, no, this is true. It didn't have anything to do with it. I'm not saying it did. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MRS. WOODIN-But you can see what can happen here. Whether it had anything to do with the boats or not, there's been several accidents. We have to lay awake, waiting for them to happen. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but we can't make the Howard's responsible for all the traffic on that road. MRS. WOODIN-On 9L, no, you can't, but on this other road, you can, on the right-of-way. MR. CAIMANû-Have there been accidents on the right-of-way. MRS. WOODIN-How can he have an accident, he only uses it. It's the people here that are complaining, that's all. MRS. PULVER-Well, that's what we're talking about. MR. HAGAN-Mr. Chairman, I think this thing is going on and on and I think we've listened to both sides. Howard's been a very bad boy and some of us observed that he has not been instrumental in creating a havoc, but I think there's enough questions open to this Board that I'd like to make a motion, with the applicant's approval, that we table this, pending further investigation. Do you have any objection to that? 16 '----' ' ~ MR. HOWARD-I've got no problem with that. MR. ROBERTS-Before we vote on that.. MR. HAGAN-Okay, I'm asking him if he would agree to that. If he does, then I'll make the motion. MR. RE HM-Could I just respond to that? MR. HAGAN-Go ahead. MR. CAIMANO-Before you do so, Mr. Rehm, just before Mrs. Woodin steps aside, here, do we have her letter? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, we do have your letter. I'm sorry it wasn't included in my original packet, but it is here. It was received May 14th, 1990. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. CONNELLY-Has it been marked and introduced in evidence? MR. GORALSKI-It's here and marked. MR. REHM-In direct answer to your question, Mr. Hagan, the Howard's would have no objection to tabling, but it would be very helpful if the Board could articulate the additional information or whatever else you would like, from us, anyway. MR. CARTIER-I'll tell you what I want, I don't know if this is where Mr. Hagan is going, here, I hate to sit here and try to play Solomon with what's going on here tonight. What I would like to suggest be done with this time, from the tabling, is that Mr. Howard get together with some neighbors and try to get as many of these issues resolved as he can. I hear traffic. I hear dust on the roads. I hear, possibly, number of vehicles. I'm not suggesting Mr. Howard has to come up with answers that satisfy everybody. I think there's got to be some give and take on both sides of these. MR. CAIMAN~Yes, I agree with that, too. I think that what you have asked us to do, those of you who have real grievances, is to lay it all..on this business and if we were to take you at your words and do what you want to do, we would shut down a business, literally. You want to take away the road in front of the place. You want to take away access to the top of the hill. You don't want him to operate on the top of the hill. What would you like us to do. MRS. PUL VER-Limit the amount of boats. Cut down on the traffic. MR. CAIMAN~The thing that we really have to do is the traffic. It is a problem. MRS. WOODIN-Yes, I asked you to make him abide by the permit that he had and he hasn't done it. Although he agreed to do it, he hasn't done it. MR. CAIMANO-But because the Town, in spite of what was said earlier, finally found that out, in one way or another, what's happening, now, is to address those grievances. The dump is going to be cleaned up. MRS. WOODIN-Sure, it'll be cleaned up while you're all going through this, but, a week after or a month after, it's going to be the same thing. MR. CARTIER-Okay, ma'am, then that's an enforcement issue and you should come back in to the Building and Codes Department and let them know that's happening. We can't, as a Board, go out every day and check that, but there is a method in place to deal with those kinds of things. MRS. WOODIN-Well, what would you expect us to do, as neighbors. MRS. PUL VER-Just call the Building Department. MRS. WOODIN-No, I mean on this whole thing. You say you're trying to solve it. MR. ROBERTS-One thing that I would like to have the neighbors get together with, you're concerned about the safety in and out of that road. If you folks would give them a little wider entrance, we could solve a lot of the safety aspect of it. MRS. WOODIN-I've tried being nice to Mr. Howard. You cannot be nice to Mr. Howard. 17 ,,-,' - MR. CARTIER-Let's operate in the spirit of compromise. See if we can't get something done. What I would like, I'm speaking for me, what I would like to see happen, the next time Mr. Howard appears here, is here representing Dunham's Bay, is that they come in and also neighbors come in and say, okay, here's what we agreed to do, alright. Here's some things we didn't agree to do. Maybe those are the issues that we can deal with, but I don't think anything's going to get resolved here tonight to any body's satisfaction. MRS. WOODIN-No, this is very true. I can see it. MR. CARTlER-0kay. MRS. WOODIN-Two years ago, as a little example, he went up with a big fork lift truck and I have a power line that comes in to my home and it was pulled, broken, and what not. I spoke to him about it. No, no, no we didn't do that. I stood right here, he says, my..didn't do that. Okay, I had to call the power company, but the power company told me he did do it. MR. CARTIER-Well, Mr. Howard is on notice, as of right now, that we want him to deal with some of these concerns the neighbors have. The onus is on Mr. Howard and the neighbors to get together and get some of these solutions solved. I don't see us, as a Board, solving these issues, I really don't. MR. CAIMANO-So, the answer to your question, I think, is we need to see a continuation of the clean up of that site as a dump and we need to also address that traffic problem although part of that traffic problem is going to lay right in the hands of Dunham's Bay Lodge. MRS. WOODIN-Well, Dunham's Bay Lodge doesn't have the problem, really, because the way they have to turn into. MR. CARTIER-Let's keep Dunham's Bay Lodge out of it. MR. CAIMANO-I meant in terms of getting together with the Howard's. MR. ROBERTS-I guess you are on trial, John, after all. MRS. WOODIN-No, no, he isn't, as far as I'm concerned. MR. ROBERTS-You have one more comment you wanted to make. MR. REHM-Yes, I do, if you're finished here. MRS. WOODIN-Well, I'm finished. You know how I feel, so that's it. MR. ROBERTS-Right, well, maybe I'd ask, are you willing to talk, with some spirit of cooperation, with these folks and see what we can accomplish? MRS. WOODIN-You can't believe the man. If you could believe him, I'd be willing to talk to him, but you can't believe him. MR. CARTIER-Well, that is not, is an issue that we are going to address tonight. MRS. WOODIN-So, that's the way it stands. MR. CARTIER-Well, if it comes down to that, and you walk in here, and you say, we could not get any agreement, then we're going to be right back where we are. We're going to just have to make some judgement calls. MRS. WOODIN-How could I make an agreement? MR. CONNELLY-May I answer that question for Mrs. Woodin? MR. HAGAN-Well, first, I think, the man standing and waiting. MR. REHM-What I would like to suggest is, and it would probably be easier for everyone, including me, is that I deal with Mr. Connelly, who seems to be speaking for most of the people, in terms of trying to schedule and that we try to schedule a meeting to be here, at the Queensbury Town Office. I would love to have some one from the Zoning Department sit in on that meeting and I would love to receive suggestions, professional suggestions, from the Planning Department as to areas where they can see improvements and we will make a real effort to do this, but I'm sure the Board understands that this is a two way situation and we will make a real effort and we hope that there will be a real effort made from the other side and the key to this, the key to this is that entrance because that's the one thing, we even agree, that the safety issue could be mitigated greatly if the entrance could be widened and if they're really concerned, they'll cooperate. 18 \_____1 ~ MR. CARTIER-Let's operate on the basis of ..self interest in here, in that, there's something in this for everybody, in terms of coming up with an agreement. MR. ROBERTS-Would you agree, then, to work with Mr. Rehm, sir, and come up with, and meet with him as a representative? MR. CONNELL Y-I would be very glad to meet with him except I want to call to the Board's attention, plus their counsel, that there is a 20 foot right-of-way in the searches from time in memorial when the Fieldings had it, that nobody can extend that 20 foot right-of-way in the title. MR. ROBERTS-Why can't that be change. MR. CONNELLY-it cannot be changed. MS. CORPUS-it can if all parties to the right-of-way agree. MR. CONNELLY-I beg your pardon? MS. CORPUS-Excuse me, if all parties that are parties to the right-of-way, if they all get together and sign an agreement to widen it, that can be done. MRS. WOODIN-Well, that won't happen, as far as I'm concerned. MS. CORPUS-I'm just answering an esoteric question. MRS. WOODIN-You would like to have me give him some of my property? MR. CARTIER-No, let's get out of this because we're not going to solve this tonight. I think we've got an agreement here that the parties in interest on both sides of the issue are, however they want to do it, get together, here we go with a shoot out in the parking lot again, get together and do whatever they've got to do to come up with an agreement. I think Mr. Howard has been put on notice that he's not going to get an approval unless some of these issues are addressed. They may not be addressed as precisely and as completely as some of the neighbors want, but there are reasons, there are places in which compromise can occur, but it's not going to happen tonight. MR. CONNELLY-Thank you. MR. SHRINER-Can I ask one question, please? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, sir. MR. SHRINER-While all this is going on, it may take months, right? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. SHRINER-What do you mean, no? MR. CA RTIER-That's up to you. MR. SHRINER-I understand that, but it could take months. If Mrs. Woodin doesn't want to give up her property which, personally, I think she'd be a fool to do it, because all she's going to do, now, is make it easier for them to get in. There's going to be a safety factor, right, but then she's going to eat more dust from more boats, I mean, she'd be foolish to give up her property. MR. CARTIER-Nobody has said, here, that Mrs. Woodin must give up her property. All we're saying is that there's got to be a way for things to be worked out. What they are and how they're going to get done, we are not going to decide, here, tonight. MR. SHRINER-You can't answer that, right. MR. CAIMANO-We can. We don't want to, Mr. Cartier is asking that the parties who are agrieved get together and do it themselves. MR. SHRINER-Okay, to bring me back where I started from, this could run into a lengthy thing. All I'm asking is, are they going to be allowed to operate the way they are, in violation, while all this takes place? MR. ROBERTS-l would think, yes, since this is under advisement. Wouldn't you agree, Karla? 19 ,--,' '---" r~lR. ShRINER-Excuse me, Dave Hatin told me, before this was ever entered, they were asking for a change, another site plan review or whatever you call it. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. SHRINER-They were, then, notified that legal action would be taken against them for being in violation, but since they applied for this site plan change, it's all put on hold, correct? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. SHRINER-Well, I want to know, as long as this goes on, is that just going to stay on hold, that's all I'm asking? MR. ROBERTS-I would assume so. MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question, here? Could I ask that we take a 10 minute recess, and that we come back, as a Board, and make a determination that we're going to vote on, here. If this is going to be an issue then we'll just have to take the bull by the horns and vote on the issue, tonight. Obviously, these people are not going to get together. One side wants to, the other side doesn't, or at least part of the other side doesn't, so let's do what we were asked to do and let's make the vote. I ask that we just have 10 minutes. MR. ROBERTS-I think there's already a motion on the floor to table. MR. CAIMANO-There's no second to that motion, though, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAGAN-I'll reintroduce my motion to table this application pending further action on the applicant's part to clean up his area and come back into the conforms of the original permit until such time that we can take action to either approve on the increase of storage of boats or trailers or whatever. That's my motion. MR. CARTIER-I'll second it. MR. ROBERTS-Alright, the motion's been made an seconded recommending a meeting of all the parties for some kind of compromise. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me, before you, could I just ask, is that tabled until next month or tabled indefinitely? MR. CA RTIER-Until such time as the applicant's feel they can resolve some issues. MR. HAGAN-And in no event, more than 60 days, that should be time enough for Howard to show good intent to the neighborhood. . MR. GORALSKI-Okay, so you're tabling this with the stipulations for no more than 60 days? MR. HAGAN-That's right, to give Mr. Howard time enough to clean up the act and take care of all the complaints of the community. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Is that reasonable? MR. HOWARD-That's fine. MR. HAGAN-Is that reasonable to everybody else? MR. SALVADOR-I have a question. MR. HAGAN-Go ahead. MR. CAIMANO-I don't agree. Mr. Chairman, if we're going to vote on this thing, the public hearing is closed, if you have a motion on the floor, it's up to us to vote on it and nobody in the audience can say anything about the motion. MR. ROBERTS-Well, the public hearing's not closed. MR. CAIMANû-We have a motion on the floor, though, Mr. Chairman. We have a right to vote on that motion. MR. HAGAN-Okay, I'll withhold that motion to satisfy the neighborhood. We're not trying to choose up sides, here. We're trying to reach a reasonable solution. So, if you've got something more to contribute that hasn't been said, let's say it. John, is this something new, now? Don't rehash anything that's been said, please. 20 ~' ----- MR. SALVADOR-I'm going to address your motion. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Am I allowed to? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CAIMANo-Mr. Chairman, he is not allowed to address this motion. This man is not a member of this Board. He is not allowed to address the motion on the floor. We address the motion on the floor, not him or anybody else. MR. SALVADOR-I have a question concerning it. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. CAIMANo-you have no right to address this motion and I refuse to allow it. I'll leave and you guys can do what you want to. He has no right, nor does anybody else have any right, to talk on this motion. MS. CORPUS-Well, I don't believe the Chairman has closed the public hearing, that's my only MR. CAIMANO-I don't care if he talks. I'm saying he has no right to speak on this motion. MS. CORPUS-I guess that would depend on what he had to say. MR. HAGAN-Well I'll take care of that, too. I'll withdraw the motion, for the moment. MR. SALVADOR-My question would have been, were you saying, were you suggesting that the applicant come into conformance with his Special Use Permit until this issue can be resolved between the neighbors? Is that what you're saying? MR. HAGAN-Yes, to satisfy the majority of your complaints. MR. SALVADOR-My complaint is only the Special Use Permit. MS. CORPUS-If I could just interject for a second. The Board is only allowed to approve, approve with modifications, disapprove, or table. The conditioning of this applicant for a tabling motion, I don't believe, would be legally proper, here. There are certain conditions that can be done, if a motion to approve would be made, yes. However, a tabling motion does not change the current status of the applicant. MR. ROBERTS-Right, I don't think we can table it with what you wanted to do, here, to go back to the original. So, we can table it for more information and hopefully some... MS. CORPUS-Correct. It could be tabled for more information, to have results of a meeting, whatever other information the Board would deem fit. MR. CAIMANO-Which is why he doesn't have anything to say on this tabling motion. MR. SALVADOR-It was made very clear to me, in preparation for this meeting, tonight, that the only issue to be discussed would be the site plan review, okay. Now, if the aspects of the Special Use Permit enter into this, and the applicant is legally bound to conform to the conditions of that Special Use Permit, whether or not they are successful in obtaining the Site Plan Review Permit, that has not been made clear to me and if that is a fact, they are bound to conform to those conditions, then I suggest the Code Enforcement Officer apply immediate action. MR. CARTIER-You do that directly to the Code Enforcement Office. MR. SALVADOR-We have done that, sir, for the past year. MS. CORPUS-The only power the Board would have, if the Board so chose, would be to make a motion to have more investigation done by the Building and Codes Department, that is the only thing within this Board's power. MR. SAL V ADOR-I think you have sufficient written comment, sufficient input from the neighborhood to understand the situation and to make a decision. MRS. PUL VER-okay, Karla, isn't it, because they are here, they are not bound by that Variance No. 35, anymore? MS. CORPUS-No, I believe that Mr. Hatin has written a letter saying that the enforcement proceedings for that particular permit would be held in abeyance, pending outcome of this particular site plan review. Is that correct, Mr. Rehm? 21 ---- -- MR. RE HM-I don't recall the letter, but it is certainly our agreement. MS. CORPUS-Okay, I don't know. I do not have anything in front of me. MR. CARTIER-The Site Plan Process is taking place in order to bring the applicant into compliance with the permitting process. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CARTIER-That's what's going on here. Now, are we back to the tabling motion, or what? MR. HAGAN-I'm withdrawing it. MR. CARTIER-You want to withdraw it? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-We have one more person who wants to speak. GILBERT B OE HM MR. BOEHM-My name is Gilbert Boehm. I have two questions. At the beginning, that gentleman, I thought, disqualified himself. Now, he's been very active. MR. ROBERTS-No, he told you of his potential conflict of interest and that seemed to be a problem for.. MR. BOEHM-It seems to be coming through. MR. CAIMANO-Let me just say, one more time, I have an interest in this. I have no conflict, in my opinion. If you think I do, I'll walk out that door. MR. BOEHM-I believe your conflict is coming through, crisp and clean in this meeting. MR. CAIMANO-Fine, then I'll walk out the door. MR. BOEHM-The second question is this. As a public body, I think it behooves you to consider the potential of accidents given the conditions facing you right now. I think you're ducking that issue and I'd like you to address that. MR. HAGAN-Would you like us to close down all businesses on this area? MR. BOEHM-That's not the point. The point is, is there a safety problem. If there is a safety problem, you can't just allow a business to continue and say, we'll wait until the safety problem actually occurs. MR. HAGAN-It is not the total creation of this business. MR. BOEHM-I understand that, but it exists. MR. ROBERTS-I don't think we've ducked that issue. MR. CARTIER-No, I think I can answer your question this way, are we going to do a Short Form on this, John? (,TAPE TURNED) Adverse effects, effects associated with the following and one of them says existing traffic patterns, so we'll have to take a look at that. We're not done yet. MR. BOEHM-I suggest you also measure the distances, the dip, the rise, and all of that..look at that. MR. ROBERTS-When should we do the SEQRA. I don't know. We don't all the information in front of us, yet. MR. GORALSKI-By law, you have to do the SEQRA before you make a determination. MR. ROBERTS-I realize that. MR. GORALSKI-Traditionally what we've done, and what is common practice, is that, after the public hearing has been completed, you address the SEQ RA. MR. ROBERTS-But it doesn't have to be done before a tabling, does it? 22 '-' ---" MR. GORALSKI-No, it doesn't. MS. CORPUS-A tabling would effectively stay the SEQRA time limits also. MR. ROBERTS-I think we'd like to see the remedial measures before we address SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-I do, too. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, then let's find a way to table it. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-90 DUNHAWS BAY BOAT CO., INC., Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For 60 days, in that 60 day time period it is assumed that the Howards and the neighbors will get together and attempt to address, to some satisfaction, issues regarding traffic, dust, clean up and so on. It is the hope of this Planning Board that some of those issues will be resolved outside the confines of this room by the people involved. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. GORALSKI-Let the record show that Mr. Caimano is absent. SUBDIVJS[ON NO. 3-1990 FINAL STAGE TWE: UNLISTED WR-1A ROT AND JEANNE TONNESEN TONNESEN SUBDIVJS[ON OWNER: SAME BIBlCH ROAD, GLEN LAKE FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, ONE 1.92 ACRE LOT TO BE CCONVEYED FOR B1JJILDING. TAX MAP NO. 39-1-68.1 LOT SIZE: 4.55 ACRES STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-I would assume things would fall into place by now. Any of the members have any additional comments on this project? It would seem like we could put this one to bed pretty quickly. MR. CARTIER-Do you want a motion? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think we're ready for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1990 ROY AND JEANNE TONNESEN, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a two lot residential subdivision, one 1.92 acre lot to be conveyed for building in its Final Stage. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE (END OF FIRST DISK) 23 NEW BUSINESS: PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE '1-90 ANTHONY P. OR CAROL A. RICCIARDELLI, JR. OR ROBERT RICCIARDELLI EAST SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD TAX MAP NO. 148-1-'1.1 LOT SIZE: 22.46 ACRES (VACANT) PROPOSAL: 40 UNITS OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING CHARLES ADAMS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-New business, tonight. The Town Board wants a recommendation on a Petition for a Change of Zone applied by Anthony P. and Carol A. Ricciardelli, Jr. This property is the east side of Corinth Road, 22.46 acres, almost out to the corner of West Mountain Road. MRS. PULVER-Okay, I have a statement here I'd like to read. The Board of Directors of Homefront Development Corporation voted to sponsor an affordable housing concept presented to them by Adams & Rich Incorporated to the New York State Affordable Housing Corporation. I am the Director of this Corporation, however I have no voting powers on any issues presented to the Board. I have no direct or indirect financial interest in this project, nor will I have in the future. MR. ROBERTS-Didn't we have something from Lee York? John, do you want to read the Staff Notes? STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Is the applicant here? MR. ADAMS-Yes, Mr. Roberts. My' name is Charles Adams. I am not Mr. Ricciardelli or any of his family, but I'm representing him. He is the name on the application. Our Firm is the developer, or proposed developer, for this project and affordable housing that you're considering tonight. In a sense, I guess, we've approached this from a perspective that, first of all, focused upon the ideas of public policy and social need as contemplated in paragraphs B8, B9, and B10 in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Rather than, perhaps, focusing, initially, from the technical aspects of what zoning and planning practices and customs and conventions have been in the past, part of this has to do, I think, with the recognition which is now almost universal among communities who are addressing the affordable program and needs and problems that affordable housing, as a matter of fact, is not being build and to build affordable housing requires some changes from business as usual, so to speak. With that in mind, we contemplated the possibility that, practices in zoning and planning would be perceived as the tools by which a municipality will address public.. Now, by definition, literally, statistical definition, half the citizens in Queensbury, half of the families in Queensbury, make less than $31,000 a year. Well, we don't have to be geniuses to look around at ourselves, at the table, tonight and, except for a few, perhaps a few, dedicated public servants, we don't see a lot of people who are at median income and less, here, but on the other hand, it is our responsibility, both as citizens, as developers, contractors, builders and as public servants, to recognize that there are very decided and important interests of that 50 percent of the citizens of Queensbury there must, in fact, be addressed. Zoning and Planning happens to be one of the tools in the tool bag, by which to address that particular issue. So the request tonight is for you to consider the re-zoning of this particular piece of land to accommodate the economic construction and sales of housing to those families in this area that are categorized as median income and somewhat less. Now, as a practical matter, what that means is that families who are candidates to buy this housing are constituted by, approximately, 50 percent of the teachers in this area, quite a number of other professionals, including bank employees, insurance company employees, nurses, licensed medical technicians and technologists and so on and so forth. We're not talking about low income housing, here. We're talking about the middle chunk of the mainstream labor market. Now, it is a fact, I think, beyond dispute, that zoning has been used as the tool, by means of which aesthetic and other safety considerations, municipal planning considerations, are accomplished in the community, but I think it's also historically easy to determine that every zoning decision exacts some cost. Now, the fact of the matter is that zoning regulations, very often, add quite substantially to the cost of the house and that, as a factual matter, too, the gap between what a median income family can afford to pay for a mortgage, as qualified by FHA or whomever else is writing the mortgage, and the mortgage that's required to buy a median priced house in this area is now, about $40,000. In other words, the difference between what can be afforded to buy a house, and the actual price of a median income house which a median income family could be expected to buy is about $40,000. Now not all of that, of course, is attributable to municipal planning or...the fact that we as developers, contractors, and other interested parties have somehow or another allowed costs in the structure of our economy to get out of hand so that this affordability gap has been created, is greatly to blame as well, but, in addition to that, restrictive zoning practices add very substantially to the problem. As a 24 '-- ~ matter in point of this particular project, say the project were to be built on this land with one acre zoning, it would add about $5-6,000 to the price of a house, just in land cost, in addition to the additional infra structure costs that would happen. Well, if you consider that a house, say, roughly, an $80,000-85,000 house, is going to have an additional $5-8,000 added to it, you've essentially eliminated several hundred more candidate families who could afford that house, were it not to be required to be built on one acre lots. That's the kind of economics that work here, in looking at affordable housing. So, the combination of density, together with clustering concepts and reduction of per unit, infra structure costs are extremely important in being able to come up with some kind of scheme, by means of which this kind of housing can be built. MR. ROBERTS-I wonder, however if we couldn't speed up this process a little bit by telling you that I think we understand, pretty much, the economics of it and we certainly agree with the validity of the concepts of what you're trying to do and what the organization's trying to do. We have no quarrel with that. We've promoted it, before, ourselves. The question before us tonight, can we do it on this piece of land, or can we do it, perhaps, anywhere in the Town of Queensbury or somewhere else, without, in fact, putting ourselves in jeopardy of being taken to task and, perhaps, losing our entire Zoning Ordinance, which is my fear. If we're arbitrary and capricious about re-zoning this, other people with other parcels of property in the Town, I'm sure, are going to ask, why not me, too, and some already have and I don't, frankly, know how, we've sworn to uphold our Master Plan and our Zoning Ordinances, that we can do what you're asking us to do. I think we're being put in a very untenable position that I'm not very happy about, to tell you the truth. I would like to have thought the Committee could have talked to us about this in private and, assume when they were organized, they would be talking to all the Boards and all the various communities around here and, all of a sudden, the first time we get hit with something is when there's already a plan pretty well developed and we sit here as the bad guys having to point out that there's no way in God's world we can approve this re-zoning, or we're making a recommendation to the Town Board, that's my opinion, my fear. MR. CARTIER-1 would agree. I think what we've got going on here is two areas of the Master Plan that need to be addressed. One is, certainly, affordable housing and you've given us a very elusive explain of why we need to..1 don't think you're going to find anybody that disagrees with that. So, we've got to deal with the affordable housing. We also have to avoid spot zoning and what this particular piece of property does, is put those two areas of the Master Plan in conflict. Now, we don't have to be in an either/or situation, here. There are, certainly, other areas of Town where spot zoning is not needed to accomplish this and, secondly, we can get the affordable housing so that we don't have this conflict with ourselves, with..of the Master Plan. As Mr. Roberts said, I wish people had come in and looked, in the Planning Department, and looked at the Town maps and Zoning maps and so on. I'm sure there are pieces of property where we can do this, but I have a very, speaking for myself, a very real problem with this particular piece of property. MR. ADAMS-It's not at all clear from, I suspect, we've probably spent, in excess of 300 manhours, in site..search for sites for this project. It's not at all clear that there's easily available land or even, I suppose, there's, theoretically, available land, but there's not easily available land that lends itself to the economic construction of middle income housing. First of all, just taking a comment out of the Citizen's Advisory Committee of the predisposition to consider infill of nonconforming lots, I think if one looks seriously at that and then looks at the economics of doing that, they'll quickly realize that the reason we don't have middle income housing built there is, you can't build middle income houses there at the prices people can afford to pay in the median income area. In order to get the economies that are necessary to get the price in line with a middle income family you, in fact, have to get a comprehensive scale of clustering and reduction of pre unit infra structure costs which is, frankly, not even possible to conceive of in the infilled.. Now, with respect to other areas of Town that may be conceivable with major re-zoning problems, now we get into areas having to do with cost. Anytime we start seeing per unit land costs get up into $10 or $15,000 per unit, you're no longer talking about middle income housing. You're now talking about $120, $150,000 housing and that just won't work. There's no way to build it that way. So, we have to look at what kind of land, at what price, with enough flexibility and design and construction to get economies that will allow us, for example, to work with New York State Affordable Housing Corporation to bring this kind of housing in to the dollars that would work for the target population in this case. MR. CARTIER-Do you understand that, for example, with this particular piece of property that you've selected, if we're talking septic system, it's very likely that fill systems would have to be put in because of the high perc rates and so on which adds to the cost. In other words, there are costs involved with that piece of property, also. MR. ADAMS-Yes, we've looked at that very carefully. As a matter of fact, that question, will be quickly answered because the testing is scheduled for that, just to see whether the nature of that problem is of that kind or not, but, in general, this particular property has been looked at from one end to the other and, actually, the project has been bid out in very detailed fashion, such that we could get that.. 25 ~ MR. CARTIER-Sir, it sounds like you're putting the cart before the horse, here, because you are in here requesting for a change of zone and you don't yet have that change of zone in hand, yet you are going ahead with a considerable amount, I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but MRS. PULVER-No, I think what Mr. Adams is saying is that you have to look at everything on the site before you can even consider doing an affordable housing project. MR. ADAMS-Yes, before we could apply to New York State Affordable Housing Corporation, we have to pin down what it can be built for because when the application goes in as a possible application for doing this, we have to make certain representations and commitments that, in fact, if everything is approved, that it can be built for this, otherwise.. MR. ROBERTS-I think Peter's question is still valid, though, whether you still don't have the cart before the horse. To me, the re-zoning of it would be a really good place to start. You know you've got good soils up there, that's no big secret. MR. CARTIER-What it comes down to, for me, anyway, is a philosophical issue, here, as to whether the need for affordable housing is so great that we are willing to spot zone and, speaking for myself, philosophically, I'm not willing because I think if we spot zone, we're opening up a Pandora's Box that, for legal and philosophical reasons, I don't want to open up. I think there are other options. Frankly, I think that if this Town is seriously committed to affordable housing, than this Town ought to put it's money where it's mouth is and come up with some of this infra structure that needs to be put into place as suggested by the Master Plan, provide affordable and pick up some of the... MR. ADAMS-Well, that is certainly the desirable thing to do, but in this particular case, since we have pinned down the costs for a project like this, we know we can build a housing and we know we can build it for the middle income families for which it is targeted. The costs are not a mystery to us anymore. This is a doable project. As a matter of fact, it is an eminently approval project from the State of New York, such that, if the approvals can be acquired here, it appears as though they will make up to three quarters of a million dollars available to us to demonstrate this project and how it will work. So, it is a doable project. It can be built for the target population. - MR. ROBERTS-Somewhere, but maybe not on this piece of land and maybe not in the Town of Queensbury. MR. ADAMS-On this piece of land, yes, that would be the Town of Queensbury. MR. CARTIER-Let's be sure we understand this. This is not the only 22 acres in the Town of Queensbury that is suitable for affordable housing. MR. ADAMS-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-There have to be other places and what I'm, and again, I'm speaking for myself, I think what this organization has to do is to look for those other places because I, personally, am not going to sit here and vote to recommend approval of something that creates a conflict with another portion of the Master Plan in specifically, spot zoning. We have a Master Plan in this Town and either we follow it or it doesn't mean anything and there's got to be a way to address the affordable housing issue in this community without bringing other conflicts up and please understand me, I was on the Advisory Committee, still am, and that's one of the that we want, seriously, to address and then forgot to is, affordable housing issue. MR. CAIMANO-Well, that was my question to you, Peter. When you did the Master Plan, was there really a long, arduous, discussion and study regarding affordable housing? MR. CARTIER-There was no study. What happened was, it was an issue that we ran out of time getting to and I want you to understand that it was not put on the back burner. We kept saying this is an issue that we have to address, we have to address and we were hit with the fact.. MR. CAIMANO-But that's my point. MR. ROBERTS-But we did spend a lot of time on it, but we didn't come up with any good solutions. MR. CAIMANO-Fine, now what you seem to be saying, though, is that we can't violate a Master Plan that is, basically, flawed in the area of affordable housing and now someone has come up with an answer for affordable housing, can't we then do something to the Master Plan to accommodate somebody elses good work, or is it a private authorship. MR. CARTIER-It is most assuredly not a question of pride of authorship. I want you to understand that I know that that thing is as imperfect as any...that anybody of a committee like that turns out, but we don't solve a flaw by creating another flaw in the Master Plan. 26 '"--, -....../' MR. CAIMANO-But I just wanted to make sure because the way the words came out it sounded as if the Master Plan was sacrosanct and it could never be changed in one way or another and, yet, in this particular area, it was not done to the best of your ability because of other problems. MR. ROBERTS-Because the Town Board told us, at one point, to lay hands off, that they were going to handle it and they haven't done.. MR. CARTIER-I'm not saying the Master Plan can't be changed, but it's not this Planning Board that changes the Master Plan. MR. ROBERTS-Master Plans and Zoning Ordinances are..subject to change and constant review, however, not in this manner, I don't believe, spot zoning, not without looking at all other parcels around the Town. MR. ADAMS-Is it fair to say, then, that, probably, the position of the Board is, there's certainly no objection to the idea of affordable housing? MR. ROBERTS-No, we made that clear. MR. ADAMS-But the sense that there seems to be, at least in your mind, some irreconcilable difference between what your documentation requires you to do and what, apparently, would be your goal with the Master Plan in providing housing for affordable.. MR. CARTIER-1 don't quite understand what you just said. MR. ADAMS-I guess I'm trying to articulate, in my own mind, what the conflict is you're dealing with. Apparently, it's the idea that you have a Zoning Ordinance and you also have a public policy position for affordable housing and you see those two in conflict. MR. CARTIER-I see the application for this particular piece of land property putting that in conflict. I do not see a conflict in the Master Plan, in terms of affordable housing and zoning in conflict, the way it is written now. What I see is a conflict being created by using this particular piece of property for affordable housing and that's why I'm saying to you, there's got to be another way. This can't be the only place in Town. Okay? Be sure you understand, this Board is more than for affordable housing and I'm delighted to see somebody finally dealing with it because we never have been. MR. ADAMS-Do you think there are very many possibilities in Town? MR. CARTIER-Well, there've got to be ways to create new possibilities, okay? MR. ADAMS-Short of re-zoning. MR. CARTIER-There's got to be, not spot zoning. It could be re-zoning. It could be finding places in Town where the infra service is not there and getting the Town to provide those. I don't have all the answers for you tonight, Mr. Adams. MR. ROBERTS-No, if you'd come to us in a workshop meeting or something, a long time ago, about this, we could look over the whole map and talk to yoú. Tonight, we've got a specific issue to address, yes or no. MR. ADAMS-I understand that and it's not as though this is new. This has been in the talking stages for over a year. MR. ROBERTS-Not with us. MR. ADAMS-Well, it's clear to me that it's not been with you, but, on the other hand, we've been counseled not to approach any of you, also. So, it's very clearly the fact that, we get caught in a bind, too, but this is a nonprofit,..profit activity. We like to think we're on the side of the angels trying to solve it, but an issue for which there is a public policy position, not only in Queensbury, but in other Towns as well. So, we get caught in a bind. We'd love to work with each one of you. We didn't even know..you Citizen's Advisory Committee..researched that. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I don't think, divide and conquer, here. I mean, as the workshop with the Board. MR. ADAMS-And we've spoke with Board members who we were told that we could approach with impunities, such as Town Board members, for example, who are very, very, well aware of what's going on here. 27 '- --- MR. CARTIER-I don't want to know who or why, but I would suggest to you that you give serious consideration in asking the person, whoever told you not to approach this Board, the rationale for that reasoning. I think we could have saved ourselves a lot of headached if, in fact, as Mr. Roberts said, we had been asked to get together. I think you would have found us very favorable to discussing, spending a workshop session discussing affordable housing. I know the Advisory Committee, of which I'm a member, has been champing at the bit to get some affordable housing issues going. MR. ADAMS-Okay, it may very well, though, still end up addressing the issue of re-zoning because you have to really look at possible sites in Town and what the costs are associated with both sites. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with re-zoning, if it's done correct. MR. ADAMS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-We've just gone through a re-zoning in this Town. MR. ADAMS-When we talk about spot zoning, does it make any difference at all, the fact that there are, literally, dozens of less than one acre lots in this same area. MR. CARTIER-Can you give us a definition of spot zoning, from a legal perspective? MS. CORPUS-Spot zoning is a term that's used to talk about what courts have found illegal, illegal spot zoning. When that's found to be true, there are several issues that were addressed, including the size of the area, historically, if it's been a small area surrounded by a large area, etc., the land adjacent and the character of that land to this area and in relation to a Comprehensive Land Use Plan which takes into account not only the written Master Plan, but also the general plan of the community and, third, it also takes into account the benefit or detriment to an owner. If, obviously, it's been re-zoned, specifically for a particular owner, then that could be termed illegal spot zoning. Four is the character and the nature of the use that would be permitted, including such issues for the benefit of the public of low income housing, affordable housing, etc. So, when you take into account all those things, the courts have found, if anyone sticks out, like I said, for example, re-zoning specifically for the benefit of a single owner or a single contract, that has been termed illegal spot zoning, that is the way it's generally been used in the courts. I think the Board, if I'm not mistaken, has been using it just to imply re-zoning a particular a small parcel of land, not necessarily illegal. MR. ADAMS-But it isn't clear to me that any of those criteria are violated by what we're proposing here. Certainly, we're not asking to re-zone for the benefit of any particular owner. We're certainly asking to re-zone for a public benefit, something for which there is a public policy established. It does not deteriorate the community in any sense, whatsoever, in fact, it improves the community. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's you're opinion. We haven't addressed pollution, or groundwater, or traffic and a few things. It's in violation of some concepts of the MasterPlan. MS. CORPUS-Those are the typical issues that the Board would have to look at and if they find that any of those would be, there would be a problem with it, then it would be within their power to deny, or not deny, but just not recommend this to the Town Board. MR. ROBERTS-If it were contiguous to another parcel, added on, we probably could get away with it. Right now, it's going to stand as an island unto itself and it's really a touchy situation. MR. ADAMS-Would it make any difference as to what the neighbors feel about it. Suppose the neighbors support it? MR. ROBERTS-..but it's a long ways away. Karla, I'd like to put you on the spot, for a minute. We all acknowledge that this is, perhaps, for the greater good, I mean, we like the concept. Would we get away with this arbitrary and capricious spot zoning because it's for a good cause, when some other property owner takes us to court and says, why me? I don't think so, but, I mean, what do you think? MS. CORPUS-Well, I believe that the people that would attack this, if there would be an attack, would be those surrounding landowners who, perhaps, came in as applicants for re-zoning in that immediate area and were turned down. MR. ROBERTS-No, I don't think that's who would sue, but there are other major property owners that have already applied for similar things who would have their property substantially devalued, two years ago and who would just be looking for a crack in the door. 28 "--' -..-' MS. CORPUS-Well, my legal opinion for that is, I don't believe they would have legal standing to sue. People that are not related to this application in some way or some application or neighbors, would not have legal standing in this case. I just wanted to get that out of the way. An unrelated person from the Town, who did not like that, unless they had MR. ROBERTS-Really? MR. CAIMANO-You mean precedence wouldn't enter into it at all? MS. CORPUS-If there were a group or someone else who could prove they had standing to attack the Board's decision. MR. ADAMS-Yes, and I think there would also be reason to require them to have the same land use if they wanted to successfully challenge that. MS. CORPUS-Well, that wouldn't necessarily be criteria, but MR. ADAMS-Not necessarily, but, if this were, in fact, zoned specifically for this purpose, and the re-zoning would fail if it were not used for this purpose, certainly that's the kind of precedent we.. MR. CAIMANO-Let me ask the Chairman and Mr. Cartier a question, and Mr. Hagan to, I guess,..the negative comments, if we were to table this and you were to get together at this workshop that we talked about and get some questions answered, would that be helpful? MR. CARTIER-It wouldn't be for me because that doesn't deal with the specific issue of this particular piece of property. MR. CAIMANO-So, you're saying, for you, this particular issue, this particular piece of property is.. MR. CARTIER-It seems to me, yes. Let's see if I can sum up my reasons, here. It seems to me that, in considering affordable housing and..affordable housing, spot zoning, however you want to define that, is the method of last choice. You go to spot zoning when you've exhausted all other possibilities, but we are sitting here, confronted tonight, with spot zoning, again, however you want to define it, as the first choice and I think there have to be other alternatives. MR. CAIMANO-But what if you were to put this in abeyance for awhile and go out and test that theory and go out and test Karla's theory, test all the theories and find out, if indeed, there is this ground swell of people who are against it or if, in fact, the people, in general, would accept the fact of what we're doing. Would that be something you could do? MR. CARTIER-I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish, here. MR. CAIMANO-I'm trying to keep this thing going. MR. CARTIER-I think what that might do is slow the process down and, frankly, I'd like to speed the process up. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-The other reason, one other reason I have a problem with this particular piece of property, too, is that, prior to the new Ordinance, the new Zoning Ordinance, it was three-quarter acre and we bumped it up to one acre zoning and this asks us to come back to 20,000, is it 20,000? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Which is, I come up with a third of an acre. MR. CAIMANO-I guess I want to do is to alleviate the Chairman's concerns that this Board, again, will look like we are against apple pie and motherhood. I'd rather we went the extra mile and looked at it from the extra mile than have that.. MR. ROBERTS-Well, if we're only recommendation to the Town Board, we can do that with throwing up red flags and make suggestions and the suggestion may be, I don't know, an overlay zone for the Town or reassessing some major re-zoning. I don't know. MR. ADAMS-I guess, perhaps, our naive hope, and, to me, now, it sounds terribly naive. MR. CARTIER-No, I would prefer to think that you are idealistic. 29 --- ~ MR. ADAMS-My naive hope was, perhaps, the thought that the middle income housing problem is so substantial and so immediate that there could be some motivation for leadership by this Board to stimulate the Town Board to take action in this area. I would like to have requested that this petition be approved with an additional resolution to the Town Board that they review the Zoning Ordinances and make such changes as they find to be necessary to build affordable housing without having to rely upon petitions for re-zoning or Zoning Variances. MR. CARTIER-1 think I could go along with half an apple on that. I could certainly go along with the second half of that, but not with this particular piece of property. MR. ROBERTS-I think, perhaps, you're making an unreasonable request. MR. CARTIER-What? MR. ROBERTS-Well, his suggestion to go along with this and suggest we look at the rest of the Town after we re-zone this. I can't buy that. MR. CARTIER-All of it is unreasonable or just the 22 acres we're talking about? MR. CAIMANO-No, his request. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think his request that we go ahead with this re-zoning, recommending yes, but that at the same time suggest the Town Board look at the rest of the plan. We've just done that, as far as that's concerned. We've been suggesting that right along. It's an ongoing process, but I'm still in great fear of ..losing the entire Ordinance if we do something like this. MR. CARTIER-Nick, just to get back to you, your comment. No matter what we've got to do, whenever we do, we're going to look bad to somebody out there. MR. CAIMANO-Well, it's funny that you actually said those words, you know. You look to us for leadership and the implication, of course, is the fact that you're not going to get it, and that's not so. MR. ADAMS-Well, that's true and, frankly, that's a relatively..public, but I think this is a major initiative and.. MR. CAIMANO-The problem is the baby and the bath water, the old adage of "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" and that's what... MR. ROBERTS-..to lend some leadership and that is, we're sending a message to the Town Board, it's time to live and die by a Master Plan. It's tended to be forgotten. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think, though, we don't have anything for affordable housing and the Master Plan does leave the door open for us to step in to have sõñië sort of Zoning or something for affordable housing and we can't just say, live and die by the Master Plan because there's no affordable housing zone in it. MR. ROBERTS-But the Town Board hasn't done this. This is not the way to do it, piecemeal. The Town has not looked at extended, to having taken the suggestions that we've already made. We've suggested prioritized sewage going out into several different areas that would allow us to have.. MRS. PUL VER-I would love to see the sewage out there, but they do not put the sewers in unless there are homes that are going to be serviced and if there's no homes, there's going to be no sewers. MR. CARTIER-Well, we've got to get the Town to do things, that's why I say, if the Town is really, and the County is really, in support of affordable housing issues, they've got to bite the bullet and do something about it..and election time. MR. ADAMS-Is there some way that the Planning Board could make that view..to the Town Board? MR. CARTIER-They are going to get the minutes of this portion of this meeting. We do that, normally, when we recommend a motion on a petition. Hopefully, they read them. MR. ADAMS-Is there anything that you would suggest that we might do. Again, in a sense, we're naive enough to think we're on the side of the angels. We're trying to do something that's good and, yet, somehow or another, we get booby trapped in a crack, here, that we don't know how to 30 ~ ---" MR. CARTIER-Lee York, has already been, as far as I understand, working on things in the affordable housing area. Lee York is our Senior Planner. Members of the Planning Department, I'm sure, would be willing to provide some of their time to go through Zoning Maps with you and look at places and make suggestions and so on and so forth. There is a ground swell of interest, on everybody's part, in affordable housing and there's got to be a way that we can get it. It's just that we have, I have, a problem with this particular piece of property because of the conflict it brings up with other portions of the Master Plan and all I'm saying is, we can do both and not have conflicts. MR. ADAMS-So, we really need to spend the effort to resolve the conflict because it's not, truly, it's not altogether clear that there exists in currently, well facilitated areas of Town, like sewer and all that sort of thing. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ADAMS-It is not at all clear that the cost structure in those parts of Town will permit affordable housing.. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ADAMS-So, we might as well put that in our pipe and smoke it because it is a fact, not an exclusive fact, but it is a general fact, and so, what I'm really asking you for is, what do we have to do to try and get the change accommodated so that the public policy position for affordable housing and senior housing and so on and so forth can, in fact, be built and be built in compliance with Municipal Law, so that we don't have to go back into the petitions for re-zoning and make..variances and that sort of thing. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe the Town of Queensbury isn't quite ready to, this isn't the place, I mean, you're project should be nearby to support the.. MR. ADAMS-The problem with letting the stuff..down here is that, very often, with the erosion of the labor market that comes from not having affordable housing, often the problem is not recognized to be too much until it's too late. I've lived in Greenwich, Connecticut. I've lived in Stanford, Connecticut. I've lived in Westchester County and I've literally watched the middle income people vanish from that area so that the..have to have people coming in by buses to work in there. MR. ROBERTS-We understand. MR. ADAMS-So, the question is, do we wait five years for a sewer line to get put in before we build affordable housing. Well, that's not a viable alternative. So, we're suggesting that there are other ways, maybe that we could be more clearly brought to the attention of the- Town of Queensbury, that might allow that to occur before we see the kind of erosion. MR. ROBERTS-We're certainly willing to listen, but I just don't think we've heard the solution, here tonight, that we can live with. MR. CARTIER-One of the things I think has to happen, all of the places, and this is not unique to the Town of Queensbury, it has to become a politically hot issue and I think that's the feeling. MR. ADAMS-It is that. MR. CARTIER-Because, ultimately, the direction this Town goes lies with the Town Board, okay, and our elected representatives. That sounds like I'm passing the buck, but I'm not, that's the way the system's supposed to operate. MR. ADAMS-I can't say that I really disagree with that or that I don't understand it, but I guess I'd like to sense a little bit more commitment from this Board to push it onward and I don't think I'm seeing that tonight. MR. CA RTIER-Commitment to affordable housing? MR. ADAMS-To literal, hands-on, let's get it in the ground and let's see that the 50 percent of the citizens in this Town can, in fact, be permitted to buy a house. MR. CARTIER-Okay, I don't know how else to do that. MR. ROBERTS-We have a commitment to protect our existing Master Plan. MR. CARTIER-Somebody comes in to this Planning Board with a site plan for affordable housing that is not in conflict with some of the Section of the Master Plan, I would like to see us getting up and cheering and voting for it, which is more important. 31 '-'0 -----' MR. ROBERTS-You've got us between a rock and a hard place and I, frankly, don't even like being put in this position, which I said earlier because we believe in your project, but I don't know how you expect us or how your Committee expects us to do what you've asked tonight. MR. ADAMS-There's not anything more that I know how to do. If ideas occur to you that you would suggest for us to do, we'd be happy to do it, but it sounds to me like..to rely upon your Town Board's direction to get this.. Is that a correct assumption? MR. CARTIER-Yes, it would seem to me it would also help you to go through the Planning Department, that's the process, and let them take you through the process and it may reach a point where the Planning Department says, this isn't going to fly or I don't think it's going to fly and maybe you need to consider the re-zoning issue, but on a much broader scale, or a new kind of zone, whatever you want to call it. MR. ADAMS-Okay, we have, for several weeks, been doing that and the first reference in it was, as Lee York's letter said, the possibility of an overlay zone or, perhaps, another type of ..zone. I know several members of the Town Board are in favor of that and so on and so forth. The reason we didn't propose that in the first place is it appears as though it would take a very extensive and environmental conformance to get it through. It could take, really, quite some extended period of time to get that..process through. We wanted to try this other way first, to see if we could get a site approved because we believe we can get funding to make this a very real possibility. In fact, a real live probability here in the Town of Queensbury, which would then allow us to have the 6, 8, 10, 12 months for everyone to consider, then, the broader issue of how to use overlay zones or floating zones, specifically dedicated to special need types of housing, affordable housing, senior citizen housing and so on and so forth, that's a much larger and more expensive program to go through. We had hoped, perhaps naively, and it's not as though we haven't been working with the Planning Department or anyone else. We've been discussing these issues for weeks and weeks and weeks. In the Tri-County area for well over a year, but somewhere there has to be an issue that you can look at to begin focusing it and crystallizing it, so we can be stimulated as to what to do next, and maybe this is that issue, I don't know. MR. ROBERTS-We'll probably get enough bad press about this to stimulate some discussion. MR. ADAMS-Well, I thank you for listening. MR. CARTIER-I want you to know that I am impressed and delighted with your sincerity and your interest in this thing and, frankly, you're going to be successful. You are, just from your demeanor, I don't mean to sound like I'm patronizing you, I'm not. I'm extremely impressed and this thing's going to fly, somewhere in the Town of Queensbury and you are going to have a great deal to do with the fact that it's going to fly, so hang in there and keep plugging. MR. ADAMS-Thank you. We're going to try an awful lot. MR. KUPILLAS-Can we be more informed, or myself, on the answers to these questions that Lee York posed because I'm not as negative as some members of the Board, but I..understand the questions, but I would like to know, if it's possible, beforehand, that we have answers to some of these things, either from the Planning Staff or someone, the impact on traffic and things. I would be interested in knowing that. Number two, the necessity, and there's a need override, I mean, I feel strongly the need override,..zoning or any other zoning, but, I mean, I'd like the answers to the other things, myself. Are there any other areas in Town? Everybody keeps talking to me. Is there areas in Town? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know how extensive your property search has been. I really haven't been that involved. One thing I can say is that the Planning Department has just recently finished a study. We do have a list of vacant properties in the Town. We also have a list of nonconforming, vacant lots in the Town. There are, I believe, 2500 vacant, nonconforming lots in the Town. I don't know if that helps you or not. What I'm saying to you, Bud, is that we do have some information. We do not have any information as far as what the cost of those properties are. MR. KUPILLAS-I understand that. MRS. PULVER-Let me just address that. I have seen the list. The Planning Department has given me some lists of nonconforming lots and that's not really the way to do affordable housing because we're talking, they want, 15,000-25,000 per lot. Now, try to build anything affordable on that. You can't. The other thing is that you've got one lot in West Glens Falls and another lot, you know, wherever, that you can't get a contractor to run here, there and everywhere to do single units or get a better price on it and we, or the Board of Directors that I have, have been searching for a piece of property to do an affordable housing project 32 ',-" ~ on and, yes, there's property out there, but the property owners, either, one, won't sell, or, Number Two, we can't afford it. MR. KUPILLAS-I guess what my quandary is, Carol, I don't want to, I don't know if I'm listening to a very good speaker that's representing the owners of a piece of property that are trying to get rid of the piece of property and use it for a political, worthy cause, or am I listening to someone who has sought out every other avenue in the Town of Queensbury and is not dumping on us, as an owner of a piece of property. I'd sell you my back yard if I could get it zoned for you. MR. ADAMS-Just a brief comment, there is, obviously, no limit to how much time one could spend on site selection, that's very clear. If there's 2500 pieces of vacant land, how many manhours do you have to put in to really do an assessment of all of that, but to build affordable housing, you have to be able to work with strong landowners who will cooperate and this particular tract of land, the purchase price of the land is substantially less than the appraised price of the land and when the landowner came to the affordable home leadership in the community and said, I've always contemplated that I would develop this land like Bedford Close, which is across the street, but he says, I've read all about the affordable housing initiative here and I'd like to be a part of that. I'd like you to look at this land and see if it would work. In doing that, he has given us site control of the land for many, many months for $100 so that we can dig through the application process with the New York State Affordable Housing Program in New York State for funding and then he's willing to finance the land, at no money being conveyed to him until, actually, the housing is built, mortgages are signed and new families take possession, at which time, that portion of the land gets released and he gets paid whatever that pro-rate portion of that is. The land owners have being nothing but marvelous to do this. As far as we're concerned, I know you're very accustomed to seeing developers come in for half million dollar houses or $200,000 houses, or $125,000 houses and these are, typically, and we build them too, you have to make a living some way or another I suppose. We tried to figure out how to make a living in pro-bono work, but it's hard as you discovered, too, but here's a case where it's a limited profit program through the State of New York, such that, whatever fees that we have in it, essentially, we serve as developers of the entire project, taking all of the financial risk for it, doing all of the work such as this, for essentially nothing more than the equivalent of a real estate fee, roughly 6 percent of the price of the project and, out of that, we have to cover two years of overhead. Well, you say, why would you do a silly thing like that. We do it for the same reason you sit on that Board. This is our way of working with the community for a socially identified project to work with. It's certainly not the way you get rich. So, we're caught in the same bind that you are, trying to work, in a sense, on the side of the angels to address this kind of a problem and then attempting to find what the cracks are in between this so we can figure out, hopefully, to show how cooperation will work with this kind of a job. MR. CARTIER-Another avenue that I think should be emphasized here is the fact that the Advisory Committee rewrote the PUD Ordinance which is a way of re-zoning a substantially large portion and we were very specific about including requirements for affordable housing, if somebody were coming in and that is in front of the Town Board, that's another way to go. (TAPE TURNED) go forward with thing, I think I'd rather see a long form and I could, very likely, end up declaring this thing,..do an environmental impact study to come up with answers to some of those things. I wouldn't want to just wing that. MR. ADAMS-On the other hand, if you want..to briefly assure you that those issues have not been ignored. We've attempted to use..counsel on this, the engineer for it is Tom Nace who's well experienced with the ideas of the Town of Queensbury, many years was your Town Engineer, Paul Cushing, being the architect and he's had a lot of experience, as well, in this kind of Town. So, we've attempted not to miss those bases. We've tried very hard to look at them and I don't think we'd be coming in here straining your credulity. If you didn't find, otherwise, there to be a confrontation, I don't think you would find the credibility of the project strained to approve it. MR. CARTIER-Well, keep in mind, too, and I hesitate to say this, but I'll say it anyway, this is not your court of last resort and, as Mr. Roberts pointed out, we are making, a recommendation only, to the Town Board, ultimately, it lies in their hands. MR. ADAMS-Well, I hope we won't offend you if we try to aggressively pursue the Town Board and..this kind of thing. Thank you very much. MR. ROBERTS-There's no public hearing. I guess we might as well bite the bullet, here. I'm not sure we have a consensus of the Board, on this issue. Does somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY APPROVE PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE Pl-90 ANTHONY P. OR CAROL A. RICCIARDELLI, JR. OR ROBERT RICCIARDELLI, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Conrad Kupillas: 33 ~ Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano NOES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts MR. CARTIER-Could we also, well, the motion's been made and done, what I want to do is include the minutes of this Board Meeting to be sent to the Town Board Members. MS. CORPUS-You can make a motion on that, yes. MOTION THAT THE MINUTES OF TIUS PORTION OF THE MEETING AND THAT THE NOTES ON FILE FROM MRS. LEE YORK TO THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD BE SUBMfITED TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO.. 39-90 TnE: UNLISTED CR-15 SUSSE CHALET OWNED; WILLIAM C. JOHNSON JEN DOT CORPORA'nON BIG BOOM ]tOAD AT CORINTH ROAD EXISTING TWO STORY, 42 BROOM, EXTERIOR CORRIDOR MOTEL TO REMAIN AND FOUR ROOMS TO BE ADDED.. PROPOSED ADDI'nON OF NEW THREE STORY, 49 ROOM, INTERIOR CORRIDOR HOTEIJ... (WARREN COUNn PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 135-2-3.2 LOT SIZE: 2.31 ACRES SECTION 4.020 L RA YMOND IRISH, REPRESEN'nNG APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-(Referring to Staff Notes) Now, I just want to point out that that is an extreme case. Obviously, you would not have 100 percent occupancy all in a motel. MR. ROBERTS-Is there something from the Zoning Administrator, variance? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, there were two letters from the applicant discussing signage and the loading area. The question of signage, the applicant would be allowed to put an additional sign on this addition and, secondly, the letter from Pat Collard reads: "My review of the above referenced site plan is as follows: A variance from Section 7.073 Off Street Loading is not required as this refers to commercial and industrial establishments. I interpret the sale of goods/commodity as the definition of a commercial establishment." The Citizens Advisory Committee for the Handicapped state that three of the 53 new rooms should be accessible and Warren County Planning Board approved. MR. ROBERTS-Don't they have an elevator in here? It sounded like all the rooms were available. MR. GORALSKI-They probably are, but they typically, when they review, they just state what's applicable to the project. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, does our Consulting Engineer have any comments? ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, I just have one additional comment from the Highway Department and I don't think this is a big problem. There is a drywell that is, according to the plan, within the right-of-way Big Boom Road and that should be moved onto the applicant's property. MR. CARTIER-Is that what that letter from him says? MRS. PULVER-We can't read a word of it. 34 --- MR. GORALSKI-Is it in there? I didn't see it. Well, that's what it is, yes. And I should also add that a septic variance was granted by the Board of Health to have seepage pits under the parking lot. MR. ROBERTS-Oh, that's what this is, from the Town Board. Actually, all the new seepage pits are going to be in the grassed area to the south of the property, right? MR. GORALSKI-No, there are some that are in the parking lot. MR. ROBERTS-Oh, are there? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I'm sure Mr. Irish can tell you. MR. ROBERTS-We better hear from the applicant. MR. IRISH-For the record, my name is Raymond Irish. I'm the consulting engineer for the applicant and what I would do first is put up a couple of copies of the drawing. MR. ROBERTS-John, the signage they're asking for, one more sign on the building, will that be conforming? MR. GORALSKI-That will be conforming. The reason it will be conforming is because they have frontage on both the Northway and Big Boom Road. So, they will be allowed three signs. MR. ROBERTS-This doesn't seem out of order. MR. IRISH-I would like to approach these questions in kind of a reverse order and take the simplest ones first. In regards to Mr. Naylor's letter, the drywell that he's speaking of is this one right here and, basically, the reason it was located there was to keep proper separation distance from existing sewage disposal systems. We had looked at it and we had no problem with eliminating that drywell and revising the grade a little bit here so a little more of the area is drained down towards this area where we have plenty of dry well capacity and thereby reducing it and this dry well would have adequate capacity to handle what was remaining. So, that was no particular problem. MR. ROBERTS-Where are the existing septic systems? MR. IRISH-Okay, the circles, theoocircles that aren't filled in are existing leach beds. MR. ROBERTS-Alright. MR. IRISH-The double circles are new, so we've leached this. Those were the dark, filled in circleoodrywells for drainage. MR. HAGAN-Part of them are under parking areas? MR. IRISH-Yes, these few along here, they're under the parking area. The new laundry placeoois out here. Due to the configuration and the long range route to get down to here, we would have been deep enough so that we would not be able to fill all the pits in here and have separation distance from alloosooorequired. MR. HAGAN-Don't you show three on your westward side, at least being partly, one totally under the parking area and two more MR. IRISH-Three on the westward side. There's four, fouroothe laundry. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but MR. IRISH-They were being paved there. MR. ROBERTS-That's what they got the variance from the Town Board for. MR. IRISH-That's what we got the variance for, and, by the way, just for your information, this plan has been approved by the Health Department and D EC is about to issue the SPD ES Permit because of the signs and theoodesignsoowhen DEC refers back to the Health Department for review and the Health Department has approved it and we have approved plans. MR. GORALSKI-And just for your information, Mr. Chairman, DEC has sent a letter to us concurring that the Town Planning Board should be the lead agent and that they have no further problems with the plan. MR. CARTIER-Has Warren County Highway looked at this? You're going back to Warren County? 35 ~ -- MR. GORALSKI-No, they have not. It's a Town Road. You mean because of the proximity to Main Street, or? MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-To answer your question, no, they have not. MR. IRISH-With regards to the handicapped spaces, as..your point, actually a...area that showed five space, but we have four spaces and we still meet the requirement. With regards to the handicapped access, I'm not the designer of the motel, but I do know..and, certainly all the rooms on the first floor would have access and my client's here to respond to whether the rest of this building would have access. We would have well in excess of the three..required. With regards to traffic, this material serves very much more like a business hotel than a resort motel. They have a lot of, I understand from the.., sales type people and that type of people coming in and out, and if you look at the trip generation data for a business hotel and, obviously, this is not a hotel, that would indicate something close to the range of something like 300, when you consider the real occupancy, which is about 75 percent in 1989. MR. CAIMANO-Can I ask you a question, Mr. Irish? MR. IRISH-Sure. MR. CAIMANO-Aren't we going to a 95 room motel? MR. IRISH-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-Then, if you go 10.5 times those numbers, it's 998. MR. IRISH-He's talking about the increase. MR. GORALSKI-I'm talking about the increase. MR. IRISH-We're both talking about the increase. MR. CAIMANO-Well, doesn't that make worse, though. Since it is a transient, more of a transient motel, doesn't that make the traffic problem worse. MR. IRISH-No, because a business hotel, basically, the people come in there, go out, they go out and spend the day around, whereas, if you have a resort hotel people come in, they go out and shop, back and forth more frequently. If you look at the trip generations for a business hotel, the average there is something like, a little more than seven trip ends per room, per occupied room and even for the typical motel, that John was picking, John or whoever did pick out of the booklet, that shows an average of, like, a little more than 10, but, in reality, if you look at the statistics, they talk about a range running, from the ones they've measured, from a little more than four, to something considerably more than ten. MR. CAIMANo-Also, my guess is that tractor trailer traffic would diminish in this area because of the change to that motel, right? TONY JOHNSON MR. JOHNSON-I'll address some of those issues. My name is Tony Johnson, son of the owner. As far as the information..data concerning the trip data and that's something new to me, but, what I've gathered is, the average stay for our clientele, right now, is about two days. It is the traveling salesperson, so when you're trying to measure the trips, a person comes in, possibly goes out to dinner, comes back, does that a second day and doesn't actually come back for the second day because he's leaving. MR. CAIMANO-My concern, since you're there, my concern, having been on the site and having lived around here, frankly, is, you know what and that's the..of that road and the traffic problem that you have there. Do you want talk about that? MR. JOHNSON-Right now, they just put a new light, two lights, at that intersection and that has mitigated a lot of the, well, it seems to be helping. MR. CAIMANO-It does? MR. JOHNSON-Yes, I haven't had a problem, I mean, before there was a problem just getting out, now, because there's a stoppage, you can get out and, if someone is patient and gives you the benefit of doubt, he'll let you in, but I have found that it has solved the problem, most of the problem. 36 -- --' MR. CAIMANO-Do you want to answer the other question about the tractor trailer? MR. JOHNSON-Yes, the tractor trailer, we're not going to be actively attracting that type of business anymore, so that, the number of tractor trailers, will come down substantially. MR. ROBERTS-I was going to say, you now have a lot of space for them, plenty of space over here, I guess, and you really aren't going to have any place for a tractor trailer to park. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, there is space. If you looked out there, there was space. MR. ROBERTS-Now, there is. MR. CAIMANO-No, when they build that other space is still there. MR. JOHNSON-There will be space, but MR. ROBERTS-Right now this is MR. CAIMANO-On that corner. Where were we standing when we were out there? MR. CA RTIER-The left end of the... MR. CAIMANO-Right here. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's where we were standing. MR. JOHNSON-That's going to be grass. MR. ROBERTS-Are you saying that's going to be further parking? MR. CAIMANO-There is adequate room for tractors to park there, but I didn't hear.. MR. JOHNSON-It will be substantially diminished because right now we do have a couple of contracts with people soliciting that business and we won't renew those contracts. MR. CARTIER-Yes, because how are you going to get tractor trailers..through there. MR. JOHNSON-We won't be able to. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, well, maybe that will take care of itself, then. MRS. PUL VER-My question is, are you putting in a sprinkler system? MR. JOHNSON-This man over here. WILLIAM JOHNSON MR. JOHNSON-We just don't..money..but we're going to put one in. MRS. PUL VER-I was at the Town Board Meeting and this gentleman was the only one that got up and spoke for sprinkler systems. So, that's why I asked if you were going to put one in. MR. JOHNSON-My name is William Johnson. I'm the owner of the Susse Chalet Motor Lodge. We think it's incumbent upon our industry to take care of a good portion of the County against unforeseen accidents that might happen. In the long run, that building is going to be up for thirty years, so the cost of that sprinkler system is not very expensive, certainly, a lot less than the cost of one life and..the industry, whether people want to admit it or not, have to live with that factor and that's why Tony's..tonight. MR. ROBERTS-Access to these rooms are going to be from interior hallways? MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. W. JOHNSON-Yes, there's a change in the building as there is a change in the industry, when that building was built, 12 years ago, outside doorways were the "in" thing, so to speak, but because of the change in energy costs and the need for safety, because there are more and more women traveling and they want a safer place than an outside door, the industry is going to inside hallways. 37 '-' -- MR. CAIMANO-Are they locked to get into? MR. W. JOHNSON-Oh yes. We just finished a new building up at Plymouth, New Hampshire which is an inside hallway, which is almost the prototype of that new thing that you see right there. MR. CAIMANO-I'm more concerned with the traffic and, frankly, it's a great place for a motel. MR. W. JOHNSON-I think the traffic, that Tony put out a point that I can reiterate. That new light on the corner, there, they just put in recently, has really regulated the flow of traffic on Main Street, up Corinth Road a lot more than you realize. It used to be a run and shoot. I'd come out of that restaurant and/or Big Boom Road, but now I notice, when you come out, the light does control the traffic coming in from the West Mountain area and there's another light, about two blocks down, two or three blocks down, on Main Street, that controls the West Mountain traffic. So, it has helped. It surprised me. As far as the truckers are concerned, I think you should know that the Chalet System, as a whole, is now advocating that we go very, very easy on the parking for trucks, not that trucks are any bad business, trucks are really very, very good business. The men who drive them are very responsible. They have a very expensive piece of equipment, that they come in and they have their dinner and they go to sleep and they leave early in the morning, but they do take up too much room and they do make a lot of noise. MR. ROBERTS-They keep their rigs running all night. MR. W. JOHNSON-They have to because of the refrigeration and the diesel engines and it's not conducive to the type of building and clientele that we are now going to gear ourselves toward, in essence,..upgrade the motel. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ROBERTS-I suppose we could leave it open for awhile until we begin the SEQRA. MR. CAIMANO-We need a Short Form? MRS. PULVER-Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 39-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: addition to the existing two story, 42 room, exterior corridor motel by four rooms and a new three story, 49 room, interior corridor hotel. WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: DEC and they have no problem. DOH and they have no problem. 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration tha t may be required by law. 38 -- -- Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. HAGAN-Mr. Chairman, before any motion, I'd like to direct a question to engineering. I'm totally confused on the interpretation of the quick relation tests. On some applications where I've questioned the time for the drain per second, or inch per second, or seconds per inch, I'm told that when it gets below one minute or two minutes per inch, it's very bad and here we've got 19 seconds per inch, at 36 inches, 20 seconds per inch, at 60 inches. Now, last month, they told me that that would be totally unacceptable. MR. GANNETT-Which drawing was that on? MR. HAGAN-Right here. With all of the sewer systems there are. MR. ROBERTS-Are those perc rates really that rapid? MR. HAGAN-Not only that, but they are the ones taken in 1976, it doesn't show what they are in MR. IRISH-No, those are the ones taken in 1990, by me, the ones you just read. MR. HAGAN-No, it says 1976 on them. MR. IRISH-No, the 1976 are the ones by C.T. Male that said just less than a minute. They didn't get to that detailed. I would like to point out that there are some other soil characteristics that you don't ordinarily see, here, that, because of the fast soils, I went into the uniformity coefficient drain size, which we don't usually see and the uniformity coefficient is within the limits for a sand filter which is your secondary treatment and the grain size is, basically, actually, finer than a secondary sand filter which would allow better treatment, and other State Regulations where theYooallow percolation less than a minute per, DEC and some of their regulations will allow you to dispose into the ground if you provide secondary treatment. In effect, this is a case that shows you that percolation by itself is not the only measure that is significant. MR. HAGAN-That's why I'm confused. MR. IRISH-Yes, and in fact, you have conflicting regulations between DEC and the Health Department. The solution I have for this site, that would satisfy DEC, the Health Department wouldn't approve, and vice versa because of the conflict in the regulations and the Health Department has jurisdiction. MR. HAGAN-I'd like to hear a comment from our engineering. MR. GANNETT-I think the point is well stated about the fact of the uniformity coefficient, that there can be different variations in the degree of treatability in a rapidly permeable soil depending on how fine grained the soils are. Rapidly percing gravel would really offer no opportunity for his waste water to build up. MR. HAGAN-But my second question is, where is the nearest water source from these drainage systems? MR. ROBERTS-You mean ground water? MR. HAGAN-Yes. I'm talking about wells because you're talking about 96 rooms. That's a lot of sewage. MR. IRISH-This is all within your public water supply. MR. GORALSKI-There's water under Big Boom Road. MR. IRISH-It's within the Town Water District. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. IRISH-There aren't any wells in this vicinity and, also, the groundwater table, if you notice the..because empire soldoobuilding, which were much deeper than I could go with a backhoe, they indicated that they went down 21, 22 feet and, in fact, we have a soils report from them that indicates that they think you would go much deeper before you would hit groundwater. So, you have a tremendously deep layer of medium sands of a uniform coefficient, very uniform sands. 39 ~ - MR. HAGAN-Twenty feet of that kind of sand will clear up raw sewage. MR. ROBERTS-Well, as a practical matter, that's not true, is it? Because most of the treatment occurs in the upper few feet where you've got some oxygen to kill the bugs. MR. IRISH-WeIl, the fact is that you will have air in the deeper areas of the soil because of all the percolation leach pits we have bring it down, somewhat, but, you're right, your great mass of treatment is in the first couple of feet, that's why Health Department Regulations ask for 2 feet above groundwater and DEC, in some cases, looks for more, but if..sand filter, if you look in the regulations, 2 feet of measurement in sand will give you secondary treatment. So, the first 2 feet of this, they're going to be as effective as putting a treatment plant in and more dependable, frankly, in my opinion and I've designed a lot of sand filters in many places. MR. ROBERTS-Shall we be comfortable with the experts, here? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Sounds like it's right. I don't like to be confused, that's all. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-90 SUSSE CHALET, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the existing two story, 42 room, exterior corridor motel to remain and four rooms to be added. Proposed addition of new three story, 49 room, interior corridor hotel. The Board understands that the owners are no longer going to actively solicit tractor trailer business and this should help the traffic problem. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 40-90 TTPE n LI-IA MICHAEL BAYES OWNER: SAME HOLDEN AVENUE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN 840 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE/STORAGE 81JJILDING FOR DAGGETT VENDING (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 117-9-27 Lor SIZE: 5.760 SQ. FT.. SECI'lON 4.020 N PAT DEPALO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPOJrI' Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-And the County approved with no comments? MR. GORALSKI-The County approved. MR. ROBERTS-Do we have any questions? MR. CARTIER-I've got a question. John, location proposed is, I don't see anything. Is that your point? MR. GORALSKI-That's the point. MR. ROBERTS-Are you talking about your electrical entrance? MR. CA RTI ER- Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Right. The point is, that is one of the requirements on the Commercial Site Plan checklist. MR. ROBERTS-Can somebody tell us where the electricity is coming into this building? MR. HAGAN-How come you didn't get it before you.. MR. GORALSKI-Because we really didn't think you'd want us to hold it up. 40 MR. DEPALO-Pat DePalo representing Mr. Hayes. ..explaining that there's an existing electrical entrance going to the building. MR. ROBERTS-I think there probably is an existing one for the present building. MR. GORALSKI-That's fine. MR. ROBERTS-I guess it just, maybe should be scribbled on the site plan. MR. GORALSKI-We just wanted to clear it up, that's all. MR. ROBERTS-okay. It would appear that this would be an improvement to the property. Originally, I guess, you wanted a larger building than this? MR. DEPALO-Yes, about 10 feet bigger and we were told we had to stick with the same footprint. MR. ROBERTS-I'm just wondering, can you build two stories? Would that be any good or do you have to MR. DEPALO-That's of no value. MR. ROBERTS-of no value? MR. DEPALO-No value. MR. ROBERTS-I thought maybe that would solve some of your problem. MR. DEPALO-I'd make an interpretation..the exact footprint situation, but does that mean that we have to build in the exact same location that it's in now? MR. ~OBERTS-Well, generany:-- MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. D EP ALO-Is that your interpretation. MR. GORALSKI-Well, what I would do is check with Dave Hatin, but yes, that is traditionally what it means to build within the same footprint. MR. DEPALO-The same footprint, and it seems to me that you'd do a much better service to the neighbor and the project in general if you moved the thing up about 8 or 10 feet because the existing building is approximately 3 and a half to 4 feet from the adjacent property line. I don't think that's a wise thing to do. I think it probably behooves us to move that over, but we will build it on the same footprint. MR. CARTIER-Doing what you suggest deals with Mr. Baker's third item regarding roof drainage on the right side of the property. So, I think that's an appropriate thing to do. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. DEPALO-Should we clear that with the Building Department? MRS. PULVER-Well, you can make it part of the motion. MR. D EP ALO-It seems only practical. MR. GORALSKI-You could recommend that, but that MR. HAGAN-Why didn't you show that on the Site Plan, Pat? MR. DEPALO-I did show it in the Site Plan, exactly the way it is now. MR. CAIMANO-No, he wants to know why you didn't show it moving over. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that gets us into some other complications. Isn't that the problem, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they may need a variance to do that, okay. The way the Ordinance is written, you can rebuild what was there, the size and the location, okay. It's a Catch-22 situation. They may need a variance, even though they're improving the situation. MR. CARTIER-Who would decide that? MR. GORALSKI-Dave Hatin or Pat Collard would decide whether a variance was required. 41 --./ MR. HAGAN-Could we make that recommendation, that we approve it, moving it over 8 feet, or whatever? MR. ROBERTS-Well, hasn't that decision already been made, by Pat Collard? Isn't that why we're dealing with the footprint? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I believe so. MR. DEPALO-That's the way I understand it. I'm just making a suggestion to you people that.. MR. ROBERTS-I'm not sure we do. MR. D EP ALO-It only makes practical sense to MR. CARTIER-What the gentleman is suggesting makes a whole lot of sense. There's got to be an easier way to do this. MR. GORALSKI-The only way to do it is to get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. D EP ALO-I say we don't go through Zoning again, please. We'll build it on that footprint. I mean, it's immaterial to me. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, what about the outdoor lighting for the safety, requested. MR. DEPALO-There's an existing, I didn't show it on the drawing, probably, but I didn't think I had to. We don't intend to use this thing other than a storage build and maybe, at some future time, if need be, we might want to add something more to it, you know, in line with mechanical stuff, but all we intend to do is put an overhead door and four walls to store material in there. MR. CAIMANO-You've got to widen your driveway 20 feet. MR. D EP ALO-We'll widen it 20 feet. MR. ROBERTS-Well, it's too bad we can't move the building. MR. CAIMANO-Do we need a SEQRA on this? We need a public hearing. MR. GORALSKI-You need a public hearing. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, let's open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEAmNG OPENED KATE LANSING MRS. LANSING-Good evening. My name is Kate Lansing and I'm here as a representative of the Kensington Road Elementary School PTA. We have some continuing concerns about the development that's being done along western avenue, both by the Queensbury and the Glens Falls side. We are aware that this is going to be the third expansion Daggett's is doing, even though they are tearing down the building and building another one in its footprint. This, I'm assuming is indicative of an increase in business, which I've also noticed an increase in the amount of trucks that appear and are parked there. What we would like to have this Board recommend, we make the recommendation that the Queensbury Board address the impact this continuing development will have on children walking to the Elementary, Middle, and High School in this area. It's becoming very over developed down there and the issue of safety of getting our children back and forth to the Elementary, Middle, and High School, at this point, should become an issue that should be addressed. So, I just would like to call this to your attention as a representative of the Kensington PTA. MR. CARTIER-Are there signs out there about children slow, or anything like that? MRS. LANSING-Not in that area, not that far up, no. There's no signs until you get over on Sherman Avenue and part of the Middle School/High School and not until you get onto Roosevelt, right in front of Kensington and it's 30 miles an hour which is a guesstimate because people usually aren't traveling 30 miles an hour, but MR. CAIMANO-The trucks are a problem because the kids are walking in between there and they can't be seen, is that what you're saying? MRS. LANSING-No, they just have no safe place to walk, period. 42 MR. CAlMA NO-Okay. LISE FULLER MRS. FULLER-They walk on the roads. MRS. LANSING-Yes, they walk on the roads, all the way down Western A venue and the surrounding areas that lead into the three schools that we have there. MR. CAIMANO-There's no sidewalks there. MRS. LANSING-Yes, there's no sidewalk at all and with the continuing development going on it's just time that the situation be looked at and a recommendation to be made that it should be looked at, that it's time to look at the issue itself. MR. CAIMANO-John, any comments from the Planning Department? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think safety of the children is definitely an issue. MR. CAIMANO-I mean, have you looked at it before and what have you done about it? MR. GORALSKI-I think this organization has spoken to Lee and I think Lee has spoken to the Supervisor about it. What those discussions were and what came out of them, I do not know. MRS. LANSING-I'm going to have to defer to the other individual, here. MRS. FULLER-My name is Lise Fuller. I live on Reservoir Park, Reservoir Road and I have talked to Lee York about this situation. There's no sidewalks on Western Avenue. There's no sidewalks on the Dixon Road. There's no sidewalks anywhere and these children have to use the roads as sidewalks and, obviously, we all know that there is development up in that area. As far as I can see, there's no pedestrian studies every been done. There's no traffic studies been done in this area and I have a question to the Board and I don't know, really, who to address this to. I know that the Town sets standards for growth and development and what I'd like to know is, why is it so powerless to do anything about this situation when I've asked, time and time again, about the sidewalks on Dixon Road. I've been told that there's nothing they can do. MR. CARTIER-For some reason, and I don't know why, my understanding is that this Town is adamant against sidewalks and I don't know where that's coming from. MS. CORPUS-Well, I was at the meeting held with the Supervisor and several representatives from around the Town regarding the sidewalk issue. Basically, the Town is restricted by State Law as to what it can do for sidewalks. Either the Town decides that, unilaterally, there will be sidewalks on every single street in the Town, and that can be a Town charge, or special sidewalk districts can be created wherein those property owners on whose property the sidewalks are located, pay for the improvements. The problem we have here is that most of the people on whose land the sidewalk would be located are not the people who have the concern. MRS. FULLER-Or will benefit. MS. CORPUS-Right. So, basically, there are very few practical options that the Town has. I know we've been looking into all sorts of things, including, apparently, having recommendations for pedestrian and traffic studies, which is something that the Planning Board, Planning Department, could recommend to the Town Board that the studies be done, but I know that we have been researching the legal issues involved with having to put in sidewalks and, again, there's just certain constraints that you have to follow. MRS. FULLER-Well, my question, really, is, what does have to happen? What does have to happen and what, when they had an accident on Fort Amherst, when they got the stop sign, that seemed to be the way the events happen. We're wondering, well, what does have to happen on Dixon Road? At what point does the Town deal with an issue like this because this is a really serious issue and now it is becoming commercialized at the end of Western Avenue, that shopping center that Glens Falls would like to have in there at the end of Western Avenue, the traffic is going to come from somewhere. It's going to come through the Queensbury neighborhoods and it's not just going to come down Broad Street as they'd like, they want to believe. It's a Queensbury issue, that development, the Windsor Development, is a Queenbury issue and what makes it really sad is that these are children, these are elementary school children that walk down Dixon Road and it's 35 miles an hour, that's the speed limit. They have not a sign. They don't have reduction in the speed limit. We don't have anything. We still don't have anything. We've been going to the Town Board. We've been going to school boards. We've been going everywhere since February and we have nothing. 43 '-""'" MR. CAIMANO-You have no relief from the School Board from Glens Falls? MRS. FULLER-The School Board is very supportive of us, but they cannot build sidewalks. MR. CAIMANO-What about busing? MRS. FULLER-Busing does not work because if you have, in Glens Falls, that's a City District and you can't bus children. Hazard is not an issue. It's also a city. There's a lot of reasons why you can't have busing. MR. CAIMANO-I can tell you it became an issue with us and we had the same problem you did on the other side of Town and we broke through that limit, that mile and a half or whatever that silly limit was, by going, on mass, to the School Board and proving our case and they put the buses in our subdivision to bus the kids to school. MRS. FULLER-Is this Queensbury? MR. CAIMANO-Queensbury, yes. MRS. FULLER-Yes, see, the problem is, is that these residents that we're talking about are Glens Falls School District. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think the question you want answered is, who has the power to build sidewalks? MRS. FULLER-That's exactly right. MR. CARTIER-And the answer to that is the Town Board. MRS. FULLER-Is the Town Board, and the Town Board refuses to do anything, that's basically where we stand. I really wanted to clarify this because I've been bounced from Board to Board to Board and I'd really like to know just how that works. MR. CA RTIER-Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, everything comes down to your elected officials. That takes the pressure off us, for one thing, okay, but that's the way the system should work. MRS. FULLER-Okay, well, I have learned a lot about the system. MR. CARTIER-Well, I understand it's very frustrating, but it has to become, it becomes a political issue and, as insane as that sounds to say, that's the way it is. MRS. FULLER-I know it's a political issue. MR. HAGAN-I'd like to ask..a little more directly to what's in front of us, here. Do you really believe that this 840 square foot building is going to increase the traffic that much? MRS. FULLER-I don't know. I have no idea. It's a commercial building and it does attract trucks. MR. HAGAN-Well, there also is a building there now and it's for storage. MRS. FULLER-That's right. There's a lot of buildings. MR. HAGAN-And it's an eyesore. MRS. FULLER-I'm not against development at all. MR. HAGAN-I don't mean to be unsympathetic to the children because I have a family, too, but I don't see where this particular building is going to have any direct effect on the children's welfare. MR. ROBERTS-What I think she's asking is to look down the road and the cumulative impacts and so forth. MRS. FULLER-Right. MR. ROBERTS-I think the Town has agonized over Dixon Road, at great length and I think they have widened it..bike paths and so forth. 44 ..-' MRS. FULLER-Well, we hear that they're going to widen it again. I would think that would be a total II?istake because when you widen the road, you get increased traffic and now, they go 40, 50 rmles an hour down that road and now they're going to widen it even more according to MR. ROBERTS-I'm not just sure what else they can do. I mean, that is, maybe, the best they can do. MRS. FULLER-Sidewalks. Okay, well, I really, this issue did come up towards this Board. I was told to talk to, Steve Borgos told me to talk to the Planning Department, so. Thank you very much. MRS. PULVER-Have you tried getting the Highway Department to put some signs around? MRS. FULLER-Yes, according to the meeting that we had, the Highway Department can't do that. MS. CORPUS-it's governed by the education law and you can only put the signs within a certain amount of feet from the schools. MRS. FULLER-I'm getting nowhere, absolutely nowhere. MS. CORPUS-We've checked every single law that we could think of checking regarding those issues. MRS. FULLER-I don't understand that. What happens, at what point, does a child have to get hit by a car and then? How does that happen, though? If a child gets hit by a car, then what happens? Who takes responsibility then? MR. CAIMANO-Nobody, or you embarrass a politician before that happens. MRS. FULLER-What happened on Fort Amherst, I think it was Fort Amherst, where they got a stop sign, but a child was killed, a four year old child. MR. CA RTIER-It became a public issue. MRS. FULLER-Well, this is pretty public. We had a demonstration. It's pretty public, but it's not public enough. Well, thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. Anyone else from the public care to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GORALSKI-This is a Type II because it's replacing a facility in kind and, therefore, no SEQRA is required. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-90 MICHAEL HAYES, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the replacement of a building on the original footprint with the understanding that, the driveway be widened to 20 feet and that proper erosion control measures be provided as necessary in accordance with NYS guidelines for urban erosion and sediment control and that roof drainage on the right side of the property, near the close property line, be directed away from the adjacent property. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. CAlMA NO-Outdoor lighting for safety and security? MR. GORALSKI-They said they don't need it, that's fine with us. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. SITE PLAN No.. 41-90 ALVIN AND SHARON YANKLOWITZ O"NEB; SAME CORNER OF MAINE A VENUE AND EAST AVENUE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ONE DUPLEX BESIDENCE. TAX MAP No.. 128-9-23.1, 23.2 LOT SIZE: 0.355 ACRES SECTION 4.020 F ALVIN YANKLOWITZ, PRESENT 45 ., STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Read letter from Dave Hatin, to John Goralski, dated June 18th, 1990 (on file) ENGIN EER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-So, you're not comfortable with their proposal, here? MR. GANNETT-Well, it really comes down to the issue of varying degrees. We've just had a similar discussion on the Susse Chalet. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. GANNETT-What we have been recommending and the Planning Board has, in general, been going along with is, those Site Plans where the Town has the ultimate jurisdiction, the Town Planning Board, going by the Town's Sanitary Ordinance, which references either the D EC Regulations or the Health Department Regulations, whichever are more stringent, has, in general, been adopting the D EC Regulations for rapidly permeable soils where the Town is the ultimate approving authority. Now, in cases of conventional realty subdivisions, where the Health Department is the ultimate issuing authority, the Health Department has not adopted those guidelines, therefore that becomes a non-issue for the Planning Board and in cases such as a commercial application where, in fact, the Health Department is reviewing plans by their standards, as opposed to DEC standards, again, in the case of the Susse Chalet, although DEC issues the permit, the Health Department reviews it by their regulations, which are different, in some degree, than DEC Regulations. The Health Department has, basically, not been requiring that. What I'm suggesting is, it's preferable, from a policy standpoint, for protection of groundwater, without extensive information, above and beyond what would normally be done for perc tests, it's preferable to require a fill system for the rapidly permeable soils, based on the way the trend of the regulations, currently, for DEC, and in the future, for the Health Department. As Mr. Irish pointed out on another project, there are additional tests that can be done, in terms of the specific characteristics of the soils, which can be mitigating factors for that. We have been recommending, and generally the Planning Board has been concurring with the recommendation that, for soils less than one minute, of not going with leach pits or conventional systems. MR. CARTIER-We're going with fill systems. MR. GANNETT-Exactly. MR. HAGAN-Who ran this percolation test? MRS. PULVER-Morse Engineering, I think. MR. YANKLOWITZ-What's a fill system? MR. GANNETT-A fill system, in this case, would simply be a system where it's excavated andoosoil to replace.. Morse Engineering did the perc test. MR. YANKLOWITZ-That's all black sand up there. MR. GANNETT-Yes, that's what it shows. MR. ROBERTS-That's the problem. The perc is too fast. The soils are too good and we need to slow it down a little bit. MR. GANN ETT-Too fast. MR. ROBERTS-But, is there room enough? Doesn't a fill system mean laterals and a tile field and is there room enough on this property for that, for a double sized system? MR. GANNETT-I would suspect there would be. We're talking about a design flow of 600 gallons per day, that's probably 500 square feet, probably 250 feet of trench. MR. ROBERTS-Well, it would also mean we'd have to cut a lot more trees. We're defeating ourselves in another category. 46 ---- -- MR. CARTIER-Well, he's got, let's see. He's got over a third of an acre, which is what, 20,000 square feet..15,000 square feet. How big is the house? MR. ROBERTS-Twenty-six by sixty. MR. CAIMANO-That's 14 percent, 13.7 percent. MR. CARTIER-What did you say? MR. CAIMANO-It's 13.7 percent. Your actual third of an acre, is, like, 13,000 square feet. MR. CARTIER-Alright, 13,000 square feet. He's putting up a 1,560 (square feet) house. He's got a lot of room. MR. CAIMANO-It takes up 13.7 percent of the lot. MR. CARTIER-The house does, that's what you mean? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CA RTIER-So, he's still got 86 percent green area. MR. GANNETT-It looks to me like there would be room for a conventional leach field. What he may have to do is have the septic tank come out the center of the house and have, maybe, five laterals, three going in one direction and two going in the other direction. (T APE TURNED) perc test where there's that situation, it means there are subdivisions where this can't be applied. So, as a matter of general policy, we'd recommend that, but if there are extenuating circumstances, then that's something that the Board can certainly take into considera tion. MR. CARTIER-Given a third of an acre, and having to make a choice between trees and the fill system, I'd go with the fill system. MR. ROBERTS-You would? MR. CARTIER-I would. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. That's why I was shying away from a fill system because it's cutting down more trees. Leach? MR. CARTIER-Well, something's got to give..like this, I guess. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Twelve hundred gallon septic tank, will that handle what we're talking about here, that's what's listed, or should that be larger? I don't know. MR. ROBERTS-What size? MR. CARTIER-Twelve hundred gallon. MR. ROBERTS-That's a pretty good size. MR. GANNETT-I believe that sizing is correct for his size house. MR. CARTIER-It is correct? MR. GANNETT-I believe that is. MR. CARTIER-So, if we said a 1200 gallon tank with a fill system, leachfield, instead of seepage pits, that would do it, correct? MR. GANNETT-That's correct. MR. ROBERTS-Well, is that the feeling? MRS. PULVER-That's right. P1JJBLIC HEAIDNG OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEAIDNG CLOSED 47 "-' '--'" MR. Y ANKLOWITZ-If I can ask you a question. My original plan for this was three mobile homes on the property for which I didn't need Site Plan. MR. ROBERTS-But I don't think you'd be allowed to place two individual mobile homes on tha t property. MRS. PULVER-You'd need a variance for MR-5. MR. GORALSKI-No, he could because it's 5,000 square feet per unit. MR. CARTIER-It's 5,000 square feet. MR. ROBERTS-Oh, in that area, that's right. MR. GORALSKI-So, he could put two mobile homes there. He is in the mobile home overlay zone, also. MR. YANKLOWITZ-If I did that, and put in two separate septic systems, I could go with dry wells? MR. CARTIER-No, you'd still have to put a fill system in. MR. GORALSKI-No, he wouldn't. MR. CARTIER-He wouldn't? MR. CAIMANO-No? Why not? MR. GANNETT-Well, the Sanitary Ordinance says whichever is the more restrictive of the standards, the D EC standards or the Health Department standards, the issue really only crops up when it's raised in the Site Plan Review with an engineering review. MR. GORALSKI-I can tell you that the Building Department would allow seepage pits. MR. CA RTIER-If he put the mobile homes. MR. GO RALSKI-If he was going to just put two mobile homes. MR. KUPILLAS-They would, you said, John? MR. GO RALSKI- Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Wouldn't we be better off with one building, here, instead of two mobile homes? MR. CAIMANO-It depends on your point of view. MR. HAGAN-That's the point he's trying to make. MR. YANKLOWITZ-What I'm saying is, you're restricting me because I'm putting up a nice looking home. If I put in two mobile homes, I can go ahead and do what I wanted, but because I'm putting in a house, things change. MR. GANN ETT-Is there any reason why your engineer didn't propose to use a fill system for the rapidly permeable soils? MR. YANKLOWITZ-As far as I know, he got together with, or called the Planning Board, well, they gave me a book that I took to him and then, after he did the perc test, he called the Planning Board and they said it was alright. MR. GORALSKI-Probably the Building Department. MR. GANNETT-Probably the Building Department. MR. YANKLOWITZ-Which is why he said,..built this drive way. MR. GANNETT-Because it may be possible to fit a conventional fill system on here because fill systems for rapidly permeable soils really is no larger than a conventional leachfield, it's just built differently? MR. CA RTIER-Different material. MR. HAGAN-You have to bring in a little real estate. 48 ~ MR. GANNETT-Exactly. MR. YANKLOWITZ-Well, when I first started this, they could go ahead and do whatever they wanted to do, but, let's do it. Ac cording to the engineer, when he talked to the Town he got back to me, it was the drywells. ' MR. ROBERTS-Obviously, there's some confusion. MR. Y ANKLOWITZ-It probably doesn't make any difference. I don't think it would be any more expensive. It just means clearing more property. MR. GANNETT-Is the lot wooded there? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, that's my point. We're clearing a lot more property. MR. CARTIER-How much more? What are we talking about? Are we talking about a difference of three seepage pits, is that what's on here? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-You've got to clear, to get the seepage pits in, you've got to clear and get the line for the seepage pits in. MR. ROBERTS-True. MR. GANNETT-Is the area in front of the building going to be cleared? MR. YANKLOWITZ-In front? MR. GANNETT-Yes, is there any reason why you can't have the leach field out front? MR. YANKLOWITZ-I'm not saying I can't have MR. GANNETT-In an area that would be cleared, anyway. MR. YANKLOWITZ-The only point I'm trying to make is that if I want to put in two trailers, I can build drywells. If I want to build a house that's going to cost $100,000, I can't. MR. GANN ETT-I understand. MR. ROBERTS-And you think the fill system's going to be that much more expensive? MR. YANKLOWITZ-I have no idea what that costs. MR. GANNETT-It probably won't be MR. YANKLOWITZ-At this point, what's a little more money. MRS. PULVER-He's not complaining, but what he's saying is that, we're making him change to something when, actually, I mean, if he didn't even come here, he could do whatever he pleased. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MRS. PULVER-So, if he can do whatever he pleased and now we're making him do what we want him to do or what the Town want's him to do, or whatever. MR. CARTIER-Well, the difference has to do with whether or not he goes to Site Plan. MRS. PULVER-Well, that's what he's asking. MR. CARTIER-Traditionally, and I think there are valid reasons for it. When they come to Site Plan and run into these situations, this is what we've been requiring. I think to make an exception, now, I know you're probably not going to like what you're hearing, but to make an exception, again, would open up some problems for us, in terms of inconsistency, but I don't think what needs to be changed is the way we do things. I think if anything needs to be changed, it has to do with the mobile home, the way the mobile home is done. The bottom line is, what's a better system? MR. YANKLOWITZ-Well, if I put in a one family house 49 ~ ~ MR. CARTIER-No, now wait a minute, now. If you put in a one family house and you appear here, well, you wouldn't appear here. MR. ROBERTS-He wouldn't appear here. MR. CARTIER-I hear you, but I don't think we're broke, that we need fixing. I think it's the other, they're probably going to tell you the same thing about us, but you are..put in a fill system. MR. CAIMANO-Do we need a SEQRA on this? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MS. CORPUS-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 41-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: an application for the construction of one duplex residence on the property of ALVIN AND SHARON YlANKLOWITZ comer of Maine Avenue and East Avenue and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official CQmpilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-90 ALVIN AND SHARON YANKLOWITZ, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For construction of a one duplex residence by Mr. and Mrs. Yanklowitz on the corner of Maine and East Avenue with the following stipulations: That the seepage pits be replaced by a leachfield fill system sized for the duplex to offset the high perc rates. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE 50 "'--' --- SUBDIVISION NO. '1-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 PATI'I RATHBUN OWNER: SAME WESTERLY SIDE OF OHIO AVENUE TO DIVIDE THE SINGLE LOT WITH TWO HOUSES ON IT INTO TWO LOTS, ONE LOT PER HOUSE. TAX MAP NO. 12'1-9-6 LOT SIZE: ±12,000 SQ. FT. DA VID COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. CARTIER-Have we got a Short Form on this thing? MR. GORALSKI-Well, it's probably a Long Form.. MR. ROBERTS-We wouldn't need a Long Form for this. MR. GORALSKI-Well, it's just that we usually include a Long Form, but they did a Short Form, fortunately. Do you have it in your application there? MR. ROBERTS-I've got the Short one in the applicant's packet. MR. GORALSKI-Good. You can review the Short one. MR. CARTIER-Did we hold a public hearing? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, you should hold a public hearing. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, let's open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEAIDNG OPENED MR. COLLINS-My name is David Collins. I'm here on behalf of Patti Rathbun. Basically, I'd just like to state that, as you've already said, there is no new construction and she'd be very pleased if we could come away, this evening, with a decision one way or the other. I realize there is another stage to this subdivision process, but being as though we have no..to be made or construction to be done, I'd like to see it..tonight. Also, there's a question on behalf of the recreation fee. I don't know whether the Board deals with that or if that's through another agency. MR. GORALSKI-No, that's the Town Board, again. MR. COLLINS-That's the Town Board, again? Okay. MR. ROBERTS-They're required to pay the recreation fee. MR. COLLINS-There is no additional residences here, so we would like the recreation fee waived in that we have no uses for recreation. MR. ROBERTS-We don't, I guess we don't have any ability to waive that. MR. GORALSKI-No, you have, that's got to be a Town Board action. The Zoning Board, Planning Board can't do anything about that. MR. CARTIER-You've got a fee on one lot, right? MR. ROBERTS-I think we certainly can MR. GORALSKI-It gets very complicated, believe me. MR. ROBERTS-We can honor your..probably to not require topo work, here. You asked for that, I would think we would go along with that in this situation. I don't know that we can give you final approval tonight, however, but preliminary approval is a pretty big step forward, the rest is a formality. Any other questions to ask this gentleman? Okay, then we'll go back to our SEQ RA. PUBLIC HEAmNG CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. '1-1990, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: 51 '--' -...-' WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: to divide the single lot with two houses on it into two lots, one lot per house, owned by PATTI BA THBUN on the westerly side of Ohio A venue and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BElT RESOL VED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1990 PArrI RATHBUN, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: The issues appear to be addressed and, also, that the waiver request regarding the requirements for Town fill line and drainage calculations be granted. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1990, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 52 '- '"-' LOCATION MAPS June 19th, 1990 Planning Board Meeting OLD BUSINESS: Subdivision No. 2-1990 FINAL STAGE Adirondack Plantations Owner: Charles Diehl (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Site Plan No. 85-89 Anne Parrott (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Site Plan No. 28-90 Dunham's Bay Boat Co., Inc. (See Staff Notes attached) Subdivision No. 3-1990 FINAL STAGE Roy and Jeanne Tonnesen (See Staff Notes attached) LAKE '1~ . LOCflT/ON M¡:J p. N &¡¡ fiUtiHE&>: Petition for a Change of Zone 7-90 Anthony P. or Carol A. Ricciardelli, Jr. or Robert Ricciardelli (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 39-90 Susse Chalet Owner: William C. Johnson (See Staff Notes attached) ~ --../ LOCATION MAPS June 19th, 1990 Planning Board Meeting NEW BUSINESS: (Cont'd) Site Plan No. 40-90 Michael Hayes (See Staff Notes attached) ') I- '1: ( "I ¡. " ... 'l ~c:¡ v) !.. " .~ I.J t ~ ~ VI', f e. -;~;;; ~ 'f:~/. .(" ) .C ~ \. j . /V(JI (1, it'; âV-------·--- . ".-.-- '.. Site Plan No. 41-90 Alvin and Sharon Yanklowitz (See Staff Notes attached) ~ ~-----~-_._~ \, III C(J~¡I',!\:,__ ~ . .'r---- -'-~ D"¡"S> '. \ ',{;.-fr5. . .r'-oJ...~..~.' L. ~~-- ~ . ~\ C .. - '!(;:"t:'n ~1' ~/e1- '-..,"," " \ , t" ~ . 'v' I Þ\: "I G\i . ~ ! \ '{ In ',. . \~ I ~ì, ~: ! I ~ ~ ~ ¡ \ 1 . _1._. .....1... ...... ". I i \ \ 1 \ Subdivision No. 7-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Patti Rathbun (See Staff Notes and Map attached) ·. - ;- ¡ r . .- ~-~ t ( 0 P '/ ~ -../ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- By: June 12, 1990 Stuart G. Baker Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Area VariaDce Uøe VariaDce - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: x Suhdiftllioa: Sketch. _ Pt'eIiminary, X Final Site Plan Re-riew - - Petition for a ChaDge of Zooe - Freshwater Wetlanda Permit AppHcatioa Number: Subdivision No. 2-1990 AppHcant'. Name: Adirondack Plantations - Final Stage Charles A. Diehl June I 9, 1990 MeetiDg Date: ............................................................................................ No changes have been made to this subdivision proposal since the Board granted preliminary stage approval. Final approval should be granted on the condit ion that all required information be included on the mylar submitted for the Chairman's signature. SB/pw ; '" ~ ,T·FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C, )NSUL TING ENGINEliRS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 fiLE COpy ',,-, ...~. ""U~t:~~U _ Q Y ~)PilW[F1~1 ~ JUN lß~O f']t ØUNNINÆ'ONINC DEPARTMENT June 18, 1990 RFA #89-5000.502 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Adirondack Plantations Subdivision 2-1990 - Final Dear Mrs York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and all previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed. We have no further engineering comments. Very truly yours, ~OST A ~~~nnett, P.E. Man~~~~ Project Engineer P.C. WG:cmw cc: Planning Board Members $ GLENS FALLS. NY-L.ACONIA, NH .. " J)~RW~1I1 ~~ .Jl:JN 121990 dCOMMITTEE Robert L. Eddy, Chairman lIIUNNING\....NC' Que...... Y. 128011 TOWN OF QUEENSBURY SUBDlVISIONJ40. ø2.- J q q 0 FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFI CATION '-'- Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280~ TOI () Warren County Planninf Board Date I 6/11/90 (x) Queensbury Town Plann1ng Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals f , ,_ E (x) APplicant - " (n ,... ,rI ., ~ ,.:" . Rei Subdivision #2-1990 Adirondack Plantations - Charles Diehl s/s Sherman Avenue east of intersection of Westmountain Road We have reviewed the request fori ( ) Variance, ( ) Site Plan Review, (x) Other - and have the following recommendations I (x) Approval ( ) Disapproval When the term Subdivision comes up, most people think in terms of a developer of land selling off building lots. In this case the developer plans to go one step further by building the buildings which are to be clustered. There will be 12 buildings, each of which will be for four families, except one which will house two families. The purchaser will buy one unit and will only own the "footprint" of the unit. The land will be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. No exterior changes will be permitted without the approval of the association. The developer will not only construct the buildings but will install the plantings described on the landscape plan. It was suggested that mulch be provided as the plants are installed consisting of shredded bark 4 to 5 inches thick or, better yet, a landscape fabric with a thin coat of shredded bark for appearance and to protect the fabric from deterioration by the sun. There are several features of the plan that deserve praise. (1) There will be no buildings facing Sherman Avenue. In fact, a heavily wooded area will be left between the highway and the buildings. (2). The buildings will be clustered, each on one acre, leaving over 30 acres wild. (3) A deep buffer will be left to the south effectively screening the trailer. park behind this development. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve I 1. Non-con!orming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attaohed plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ectfully submitted, , e:. ff ~ek ert L. Eddy, Chaifman i' ,. ~--- - ... ... \ ,:~ . -----.. ^ LOCA T'ON MAP ~- A JJJ- e.o rJ [) (>,C. if.... f L ArJ <Tf'r'ÇW)Ñ5 C HI1f-LS ') p\ et- \ \ . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY F 1 L__ (0 p y pI:anning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 18, 1990 By: Lee A. York Area V8I"ÏaDce U.., Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: SubdiYisioa: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary, .lL- Site Plan Reriew - Petition for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 85-89 Applicaøt'. Name: Anne Parrott MeetiDg Date: June 19. 1990 ............................................................................................ This applicant has received the necessary sept ic variance from the Board of Health. I have attached the staff notes from Dec. 26 to refresh the Boards memory. The short environmental assessment form should be completed. LAY/pw ~ '·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. 'NSUL TING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4146 518.793-4141 '-' '--" ~)Ii©im~iri ~ JUNlJ:!90~ "LANNINcfrzONINC' ...ARTIIENT June 18, 1990 RFA #89-5000.085 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Anne Parrott, Site Plan 85-89 Dear Mrs York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. A statement by a licensed professional engineer regarding the suitability of the sanitary septic system for continued use has not been provided. However, NYSDOH has granted a variance for separation distance requirements to the river and wells with concurrence of the ne ighbors. The app 1 i cant states that the system will be replaced if it fails. With these stipulations, we have no objections to conversion to year round use at this site. Very truly yours, ~OST AS OCIATES, ~~nett, P.E. Ma~;~~~fproject Engineer WG:cmw cc: Planning Board Members œ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH " SPECIFIC WAIVER PROCED'I~e: CSFP 502 9/15/G TL 83-5 Attachment 1 ',-, for ·F J l E (Opy From Requfrements of Part 75 (NYS Sanftary Codl) Indfvfdual Household Sewage Disposal Systems r.EI/EP.Al HlF'ORl1ATlON (Applicant CQapllte) lIam'! of Applicant: Pqtrott Anne ~. as t Name First pt. . 88 Bay Street Glens Fa 11 s NY 12801 Address : No. StrIct CI ty/Tcwn State ZIp Site Lpcatlon: Lot 36 & 37. Big Bay Road Queensbury Warren 12804 No. Street CltV/Town COIIntv ZI!' (APPUCAHT - 00 IIOT WRITE BElOW THIS UHE) I. REASON WHY SITE OOES NOT MEET PART 75 OF NYS SANITA~Y CODE: (check approprfate box(s» ~ Seo.ratfon distance cannot be achfeved. c:J Exclssfvl sloPI. c:J High groundw.ter. c::! Inadequate deoth to bedrock or fmpenneable Ia.ver. o So11 unsuftable. CI Other (explafn) .-.....----. 2. p~oroSED OES Ir.¡¡ OR CONDITIO/IS OF I~AIVER: 1) A110w seepage pit ~ 80 feet from river. 2) We11 1ess than 150 feet from onsite seepage pit. 3) IJpJh on adioining lots Jess than 11)0 feet from seepage oi.t. 3. THE PROP1SEP DESIr~ HAY HAVE THE FOLLowINr. LIHITATIONS' (check approprfate box (s») ~ Increlsed risk of well or sorfnq contaml"ati~n. ~ Increlsed risk of surface water contamfnation. c:J Incroasld risk of inadeoultely treateo sp.waqe on the ground surflce. o ExPlcted desf~n Iffe of thl syst~ will be dlmlnfshld. o Oner.tfon of sewl9' s1st.. Is subject. to mechanfc.1 problems. c:J Other (exolaln) ~ Additional Informatfon ^ttached Letters of permission - Hi11is, Haag, Doty Constructfon øursuant to this wllver reQuest shoul~ not øose Gny foreseeable health or environmental nro~I.... In Accordance wfth Hew York Stat. Deøartment of H.alth Administrative Rules and Requlatjons. Plrt 75.6 (b). a waiv.r ishereb, !lranted. This !,Iiver ma.v b. revolced b.y the issuing offIcial for a change in conditions for whtcll this w.iv.r was !1r.nted. ~ ~~/?E: !I Itr' ct nCl1,neer or ountv tie. <!r:i n Itn torI Clue '"PI 152 ORIr.INAL . LOCAl ~ellth Þ"enev Copy I - Aøoltclnt COpy Z . Þure.u of C~nlty Sanltltlon t S.fetv ; ~---------- fI& .þø - '- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FI í"-Ç í... '- . ~ P1anning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner December 26, 1989 Date: By: John S. Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi'riaion: Sketch, _ PreümiDary, X Site Plan Reflew - - Petition fer a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Final Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 85-89 Applicant's Name: Anne Parrott MeetiDg Date: December 26, 1989 ............................................................................................ Mrs. Parrott wishes to replace her existing seasonal camp with a year-round single family residence. This is a very sensitive area which abuts the Hudson River. All of the necessary variances have been received. The portion of the lot where the construction will take place, slopes away from the river. Because of the sandy soils it does not appear that storm water will be a problem. The Zoning Ordinance requires that any change from seasonal to year-round use be accompanied by a licensed engineer's certification as to the adequacy of the septic system. To date this has not been provided. The application states that the system will be replaced if it fails. In this case it would be impossible to place a septic system on this lot without a Septic Variance. The Board should consider this situation carefully. It would appear that a policy decision should be made. The Board must decide how they are going to deal with existing septic systems that do not meet current requirements, especially in sensitive areas. JG/sed -------,~--- ~ RIST·FR05T ASSOCIATES, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518' 793-4141 ~)~~t ~ OEClb 1~~ ,.. pLANNING. 10NIN' DIPARTMINT -..../ IJIll toO .j December 15, 1989 RFA #89-5000.085 Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York Re: Alme Parrott, Site P1an 85-89 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following cOßlllents: 1. According to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the conversion to year-round occupancy of any seasonal dwelling requires certification of the suitabil ity of the sanitary septic system by a 1 icensed engineer to accommodate year-round use. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASS CIATES, P.C. ~~ett. P.E. Manag~"Project Engineer WG/c~ cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures e GLENS FAUS. NY·LAOONIA. NH ; ---.--- ) \ I ,\ ¡) ~ .:_~.: r,(l{ ,)\..N.."-- 1¡\ / -- r ¡ \ \ I [ ?k91 I; ~ \ 'f:- ~~ ~ne-.) F- fov.'II:i Ii" _____ :...--- P" r )((~ ... ,v- J \.£Y'1..f eo '" e. ---tí\ ), \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ I I \ I I . vÎi~ ~ \ \ ~ d ~ ~\ \ ;. \ ~ \ \ . ~ \ \ ~ \ \ ~\ ~ \ ~\ ~ r I \ ~-~ J --- - --- --- 1\''"'' \ 'J:"P.t>f' " r~ 8.r '" p.f~F \ G ~t'¡O" I,Jq..¡ "" " R¡)q þ' "- .......... ........ -- --:-------- - 4-._~ ( 0 ~\>I~L '. ,J <\~,311 ;;.- ~ thJf' p;('E. /~~ )"""O . N ,,)...).:¿r ~ }.-J. r r\fee \ I 75 ff}(cel COrTl\ ,~ -- -..- " -. , '. __ r¡(e~\M.~ , ' "" - ,I Nil'}.· /ß N ~?~7r \. .I.. 1.()." ¡ r' ( .. e -w(\() 8 LP\NO~ ~oC~OR \c.rl't'e.r-li D~~ (1..0 .:?,~~í ~., JOý l i 1\1N . II....... ,oJI\~ ~I\ ")r µ>,.. / ... lI\ND? rJM~ or ~o(""'e..v-li of- e, ~ A \ ~ íL. ~ \. 0-" c,~f'I:..e. \.. . ~Ly..~O-r'"'\ í\ f\P ç ~~ °0- _ tJ... ðA.e~O\ \ PI""'!: r . .st~'e ~ (,."I(.....~ ')..oç"c:c.r nA'ÎC' ~",6ov"~ t..\ \~~ 1 -...../ -- _ /.f ~,'l..0I'1 - (7.; !( c- o , Ù ' '"rY1'\ · ' w- I I :¡-.. i \ M/' ~'~L- -........, tvt/I t:- ¡2..0t'\ f~ f'€- . "..,- f OvA£> t' 1/,"- :':> oJ"" ,{' tJ' 1", lJ' (,. «' , , ,..t-&' -"\ tr- 'f-r \Þ'" . ~~~ ( 'y\-~ "ì/ 00'tt-' /'t- ,,\. y.. _ -; &.(,~~, \,o,}I~ i JA . - f=î í í- r 1'"'1 _. " . '-" -../ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1rann¡ng Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: T""I> JR, !qqO By: John Goralski Area V8riaDce Uøe Variance == Sip Variance _ Interpretation Other: SubdiYiaioa: Sketch. _ PrelimiDary, --L Site Plan R~ew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater Wet1aDds Permit FiDal AppHcation Number: Sit~ Plan Rpview No. 28-90 AppHcant'. Name: Dunh;arn'R B;:¡y Bo;:¡t" Co MeetiDg Date: June 19, ]990 ............................................................................................ As the application states, the applicant received a Special Use Permit in J 972 for interior boat storage (minutes attached). The applicant current 1y stores approximately 70 boats outside on the site. Because boat storage is listed under Type II uses in the LC-42 zone, the Zoning Administrator has determined that the storage of boats (outside or inside) is allowable with Site Plan approval of the Planning Board. This site is very well screened and it does not appear that this use will have any visual impact. Two issues have been repeatedly raised by neighbors and staff. One is traffic· on Route 9L and the other is the operation of a "Quick Launch". As far as the "Quick Launch" is concerned, the Zoning Administrator has determined that this is part of the preexisting nonconforming marina use. If any party disagrees with this determination, that party should appeal the Zoning Administrators decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The traffic on 9L is an issue that should be addressed by this Board. NYSDOT was notified of this application and has not responded. The geometry of this curve is far from ideal, and the continual transporting of large boats from the storage site to the lake shore site could be danp,erous. Perhaps liI'1itin~ the movenent across 9L or establishinp.; specific time periods "10u1d elininate this concern. JG/pH ------~-_.-- ~ ., - '-" ,-",f ILl.. I... ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 12. 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area Variance Use Variance == Sign Variance _ Interpretation x SubdiñåoD: Sketch, _ Preliminary, X FiDal Site PlaD Review == Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Other: Application Number: Subdivision No. 3-1990 Applicant'. Name: Roy & Jeanne Tonnesen MeetiDg Date: June 19. 1990 ............................................................................................ The Final Plan has been altered to show those items requested by the Planning and Engineering staffs, and stipulated by the Board at preliminary review. There does not appear to be any further planning concerns with this project. SB/pw " ~ r.PROST ASSOCIATES, P,C, INSULTING ENGIN£i:RS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS tOST OFFICE BOX 838 21 SAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 -- ~ June 18, 1990 RFA #89-5000.503 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Rb, afM"'i1eanne T Oftm::n:lI Subdivision 3-1990 - Final Dear Mrs York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and all previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed. We have no further engineering comments. Very truly yours, WG:cmw cc: Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA, NH ; -----.----- . - .,,-- ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department "NOTE TO FILE" Mrs. Lee A~ York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 15, 1990 By: Lee A. York Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdi"oa: Sketch, _ Preliminary, Site Plan Review X Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetJaDds Permit FiDal Other: Appücation Number: Petition P7-90 Applicant's Name: Anthonv P. or Carol A. Ricciardplli, Jr. Robert Riccicarde11i June 19. 1990 MeetiDg Date: ............................................................................................ The petition is to rezone a 22.46 acre lot from SR-IA to SR-20. The locat ion is the east side of Corinth Road. The statet:1ent in support of the petition indicate the rezoning is necessary to develop the site for middle income housing. This petition brings up an issue identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. (pgs. 51-53 attached) The Plan identifies the need in the community for moderate income housing. The conflict that arises in this particular rezoning request is that t;he strategies outlined with regard to changing densities are tied to are·as where infastructure is provided. In this particular instance the lot requested does not have municipal sewer services. The 1988 rezoning was substantially based on the physical limitations of the land and the appropriate density given those limitations, Le. soils, slopes, environmentally sensitive areas, and available municipal facilities. There petition. are a number of issues confronting the Board in revie\'l of this These are: I. The a1)propriateness of rezoninp, a 22 1:. acre lot at a hir.her density uhich ~<TOul<i be surrounded by a zone of a 10TÑer density. This could be construed as "spot ::oning". -1- ~----~.- '- --' 2. The necessity for the Board to clearly define why the social need should override the original criteria used in preparation of the zoning plan. Further, why th is part icu1ar lot is appropr iate for a higher density and the surrounding lands and other similiarly zoned lands in the Town are not. 3. The availability of other areas in the conununity where moderate income housing could be placed in which the current zoning would not have to be changed. 4. The impact of increased density on the roadways and other municipal services. 5. The impact of this density change on the neighborhood. 6. The necessity to specifically require that any change In zoning would meet the social need. An option the Board may want to consider is to recommend rezoning of a larger area. This might be an expansion of the SR-20 zone on Corinth Road. The zone could potentially be broadened to the south side of Corinth Road to the WR-3A zone on the south and the LI-IA zone on the east. This would eliminate some of the issues but would still require justification. Another option to consider is to tie this specific rezoning request to alleviate the social need by providing a rezoning only if the target population ~~il1 be benefited. This could be done by stipulating that the rezoning would only become effective if Homefront Development Corporation receives the financial support necessary to develop the site for middle income housing. LAY/pw .¡ -------- Aa . - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY F I l ~~ ( 0 P ~/ Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- June 19, 1990 Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: .T n hn ~ ~np~ 1 Q1r; Area Vaiaace U. Variance - Sip Variance := IDterpretatioD Other: Subdi.uioD: ~-t-lo. Prelim· ~ -. _ DIary, X Site Plan Reriew - _ Petition for a CbaDge of Zcme Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit FiDal ApplicatioG Number: Site Plan Review No. 39-90 Applicant'. Name: Susse Chalet MeetiDa Date: June 19, 1990 ............................................................................................ This proposal is for an addition which will effectively double the size of this facility. This could significantly increase traffic on Big Boom Road. The Trip Generation Manual gives an average of 10.5 trip ends per occupied room for a weekday. At 100 percent occupancy, this would mean approximately 500 trips per day. Another concern related to traffic is parking for tractor trailers. The area that will be occupied by the addition is cun-ently used for tractor trailers and large trucks. There is no provision for tractor trailers on the proposed site plan. It is my opinion that there" should be some additional information provided to determine the impact of this proposal on the traffic on Big Boom Road and the intersection of Big Boom and Main Street. Also, some provision should be made for large vehicle parking. JSG/sed .. ~ . - \J. ....UCIõ:...:t'h'·1· r~t'::.~nd C:~. ~~;~;I~~~r51&~~![~ 39-9Ò SITE PLAN REV1EW 10 PLANNING' ZONINC .'ARTMENT riLt ( 0 ~ '.' J ., \ . To: Planning Office From: Patricia M. Collard, Zoning ADministrator Re: Susse Chalet Site Plan Date: June 19, 1990 My review of the above referenced site plan is as follows: A variance from Sec. 7.073 Off Street Loading is not required as this refers to commercial and industrial establishments. I interpret the sale of goods/commodity as the definition of a commercial establishment. ~~ "HOME OF NA rURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 I J L t L I...Ì - -.-/ ß~~~ PLANNING . ZONINC' -ARTMENT Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped June 13. 1990 Present: Nancy Ca1ano Sue He1ffrich Margo Burrell RecolTl1'lendations Re: Site Plan No. 39-90 Susse Chalet . Dear Chai rperson: According to the New York State Codes. Rules & Regulations regarding the proposed addition of 53 new rooms. three of these must be usable and accessible. Effective December 6. 1989, a new ruling on parking spaces went into effect. Article 13. Part 1100 of N.Y.S. Codes now requires an 8' wide parking space with an 81 wide access aisle. Two accessible parking spaces may share a common access aisle. Respectfully submitted. ?1~ C~ Nancy Calano. Secretary. on behalf of the Committee cc: Stephen Bargas, Town Supervisor Lee York, Senior P1anner Dave Hatin, Code Enforcement Admin. Planning Board Committee " ._--"------- ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS --- c npV -../ . POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793·4146 518.793-4141 June 18, 1990 RFA #89-5000.039 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York,' Sr. Planner Re: Susse Chalet, Site Plan 39-90 Dear Mrs York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. One (1) parking space will be lost from the front of the building since four (4) handicapped spaces will take up a full 48 feet. This will still leave 96 spaces which is adequate. 2. The Drainage and Grading plan and Wastewater Disposal Facilities plan should be coordinated as to the type of drywell, type A or B, that will be used. Very truly yours, Æ10ST ASS ~~~nett, P.E. Ma~~~~g"project Engineer P.C. WG:aw· - . cc:.Pl.ann1ng Board Members @ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH ._---_._~ - -drofun of (@ueenøburv ~iglyfuav c!Eleparlment '--" Bey et Hevllend Ao.dl Office Phone 518-793-7771 Queenlbury, New York 12804 PAUL H. NAYLOR Superintendent Highway. RICHARD A. MISSITA Deputy Superintendent Highways r'~-:"l DATE: April 17, 1990 TO: Planning Board \ \, .\ \ ~e tfu11y, '.\",' // ~ \, ,/ '-ae # ¿,;:¡ # . .: Paul H. Nay or, Highway Superintendent RE: Susse Chë\lat... -.-- :;.- FROM: Paul H. Naylor of-way on Big , ~ ..:',\ 'e t- . . ....:: ,.,.~-: ~. .;iIt" .. JV.. · -//.>""" . ."~' ,.....'""..:.~ ~ ' . < Ìi'lf.· --- , / .. .... , . / "-.{. '. "'''} :'?- '..... ... :lpi . 1t.l~.1.y, airman ~CY. l280i1 To . (X) Warren CoUDty Planning Board (x) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) APplicant rr- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY SITE PLAN R"·W NO. 3 'f - q 0 COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION ~ Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280! Date. 6/11/90 Re. Site Plan #39-90 Susse Chalet Big Boom Road We have reviewed the request for.( ) Variance, (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the fOllowing recommendations. ( ) Approval (x) Disapproval Although a blueprint of planting plans was available, no one appeared to discuss the plans. In addition to the above landscaping. screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming signs. 2. Plastic or artificial trees. shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attaohed plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees. shrubs or plants. and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened. all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~tfUllY submitted, , ·¿E~ ob rt L. Eddy, chai~an -------- '. - -- ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI:anning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: June ]2. 1990 Stuart G. Baker Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance ~ Interpretation SubdiYision: Sketch, _ Preliminary, X Site Plan R8YÏew - Petition far a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 40-90 Applicant's Name: Mic.hae1 Hayes Meeting Date: June 19, 1990 *.........................................................*...***....*...................*.. The applicant wishes to remove the existing debris, demolish the existing structure, and rebuild a 840 sq. ft. storage building in the existing footprint. The Zoning Administrator has determined that no setback variances are necessary for this action. This proposal will substantially improve the appearance of this property and the neighborhood. The Board may wish to discuss the following items: ]) Location of p~oposed electrical utility line. 2) The necessity of outdoor lighting for safety and security. 3) Directing roof drainage on the right side of the proposed structure away from the adjacent property. SB/pw , ~ T·FAOST ASSOCIATES. P.C. )NSUL TING ENGIN~eERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFice BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4146 518.793-4141 ~ Fll__ (opy June 18, 1990 RFA #89-5000.040 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Michael Hayes, Site Plan 40-90 Dear Mrs York: .... "'. ...Uèll:r..au . ß~awr~~ ~~~:~INC- DEPARTMENT We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. Because the new building will be built in the existing building footprint, no increase in stormwater runoff is expected from the building. 2. The driveway will need to be widened to 20 feet to meet the Town Standard for commercial drives. 3. Proper erosion control measures should be provided, as necessary, in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control~ Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASS IATES, P.C. ~ett, P.E. . Manag' g Project Engineer WG:cmw cc: Planning Board Members $ GLENS FALLS, NY-LACONIA, NH .; -------- . - r " .- . -- .-....../ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlAnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 18, 1990 By: Lee A. York Area Variance Uøe Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation SubdiWlicm: Sketch, _ Preliminary, -L Site Plan R~ew - _ Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Final Other: Appücation Number: Site Plan Review No. 41-90 Applicant's Name: Alvin and Sharon Yank10witz Meeting Date: June 19, 1990 *.....*.....................**.*.*.*....**.*...***........*...........................**.... The applicat ion is to place a duplex in an MR-S zone on Maine Avenue. The applicant states that the duplex will be owner occupied. The only concern that was brought up at staff review was the single septic system serving both units. David Hatin, Director of Building and Codes has prepared a letter. LAY/pw ;;> ~ ~ - - r -.-It E (Opy TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 ¡~)~fiJ~~, ~ JU~90~ 'LANNfRft ZONINC DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: JOtIf GORALSKI Assistant Planner SlTlPlAII RMPN 10 If / ~ 70 DAVID HATI", DIRECTOR Building I Code Enforcement DATE: June 18, 1990 FROM: RE: Yanklo.rttz Duplex Site Plan Review Application Dear John: This is to advise you that a single septic system designated for both units of this duplex is allowed by our Ordinance, although the system should be sized accordingly to the number of bedrooms and the capacity that the system will produce. jjd "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 -.---_.__. '" ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITEeTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4146 . 518.793-4141 r '0 - -- June 18, 1990 RFA #89-5000.041 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 ... "'. ..nJi:Cft.au.·' ~ ß~:r~] "LANNING . ZONINC DEPARTMENT Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Alvin and Sharon Yanklowitz Site Plan 41-90 Dear Mrs York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. The percolation rate on the site is 30 sec./inch. It is reconwnended that extens ive pretreatment be provided prior to seepage pits when the percolation rate is faster than 5 min./inch or that a fill system be used in place of seepage pits. This is currently a NYSDEC requirement to protect groundwater which the Town has adopted for site plans, and which will soon be adopted by NYSDOH. 2. Stormwater runoff will have minimal impact on the site. Proper erosion control measures should be provided, as necessary, in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Very truly yours, '. RIST-FROST AS ~nett, P.E. Mana~~lIproject Engineer WG:cmw cc: Planning Board Members $ GLENS FALlS. NY-LACONIA. NH -------- .- ~ . - -- '-' r-- . . TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: June 19. 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area Variance U. Variance == Sip Variance _ Interpretation Other: X SuhdiÑiOD: Sketch. -K PreUmiDary, - Site Plan Reriew - - Petition fer a ChaDge of Zoae - Freshwater Wet1a:ada Permit FiDal Application Number: Subdivision No. 7-1990 Applicant'. Name: Patti Rathbun MeetiDg Date: June 19, 1990 ............................................................................................ The lot which presently exists has two houses on it. Each house has its own septic system. This proposal would not create any new dwelling units or septic systems. The Zoning Board of Appeals has granted a Variance for the 4,941 square foot lot. It is my opinion that this proposal would have no negative impact on the neighborhood, on any public facilities, or services. JSG/sed ; ~ ._" '" : Î" !10--' '-¡ ,0) KC{~ t"1 t~)l..jtì I :n-Lf \......./ \ " J':I, ---'t t..A"' I rtt';~ca 10 r\ ,,,¡cIF) ,'\ , , Y"CI'. CX:=-'c'-( tco..:> \ .i\"" ~' . ..'¡." . .. '-' .. ~ ..' ~.' ,', d' ',\ ~ !;!! (::~ i:)~ , . ; .¡ \', '\ (.1" ~;'I~\~\' ,~' ;'\' '0 ~'i" "\~"O"':i\:""~~ ' \t \\ ì' 1\ t ,.: \ \\ 1\ () 0 II" ' .. \1- ~\\ .~ .\~ ~. ,f!. 'Ir ~~. ¡~jc= ~J~, ~~\\. \\ ~.\.,~.~~~,: \\.r...[t.¡Ìr~~· \ .....~VE.~ \f ~ \\~1E.;.¡. ::1\ ~!" \\~.\ "~ : II ~\ ,- ) ec"+ r"::J'!.L.... ·t" "'I , II . ", ~ C ( ,c:.¡\ \"We5t (~Iuns Falls . (¡utI! \~vd ~ .~. "". IiI';: ~,~~ ~ .;' ¡;,.\ \I\~" \'!" \f (l) I ' '\~ '.. \ \\\\ .J:-¡ ~ ' ,\ .\ \' ~-1l1J ~ I L..J\.- '. ~ I' _,,,II. .-,., .. ' n". ' .~... ,..'..\\..... ,.. " ~v. .___...- ! \\ ~.,\\ ,r-\ i'J ~, \ \' ";!:I~"'<\ ('-/ ,J, . G'.. t't I~"t" ((III '-.;~~-:flJ I ~....,.. '''''''. , .~, ~. / , , '. I ~ . ", ':1' r :I¡; I tü~ ., " !) ~ ,~ : i " ! 'i" " ;¡': '!,¡ n.- ,'. j' I il " I¡' G " f : \1 " , , I ; ·.1 Î j , i' ...~.., ..~ .\ .\\ 'I!' I. , \ 'I . ii 'µ' :, ¡ , .j' ¡;d~: 1 : :./, 'a iri,I·'ln :1 f¡¡ I" .\ ' :-11- .' j;!¡, I 1~ ¡ I ¡'J I:: ~ : {:I\ I ¡ ¡ , I )..¡, , ,1,"1 I", 1 'I ,--:-....... ,kl\ .j.. J I ,,\:1 ,!:. 'F' in¡;;!.:!'.;I: '~ '¡, f¡fiwr: ¡ 1 t: 'I: ':: ¡ :¡-::: J . .' r . ~ I~n. I; I ,_. ....-.,. . ~ ~ o o '" ~¡~).. I,I'i.t, 'I !~ '\1'1': ~. ;¡i ,;; . ,..I", :0 :f) '..1 ,)!' ,I '~"? ri~¡l.~'¡:;,;: kl' :1::.;: :')It: t¡f.1i\':í"~' II' t ~"", '~ .h ~ .',I:,: I I' ij \ . ; ~ :. :" ',r t.' ~/ f '. I ,- '~r :1:1"~r " \ ! t .:', .: i,i ::'j:;:" I ~'\;f¡t· 1 1',i: . ¡':; l!' :" " I'.":: '6 ¡'·,il ;' :11 · ,I ,,1 .fJ-fef. .,If'I,,, t~:I' ""!.;. I " ¡",t,.. ,IT'll ," I' '.1 ' .), ~~l:,;if:·:·¡:l;: '~If'j: l;j¡: '~¡~ ",. t ~ ,t ,.j, ¡ '1 \ r I I: I' :¡ J I ' , J kj;" \ ¡ . ;1\' ,1 I I¡" ), ¡ ,I , ,"- 1" ,¡ , 'I. " 1'1' , "" , 'L\ .,",' I ~ ,- .¡I' ,i ,:' I~ 'I~ I, '~""'1 '¡\.'~: ,; .F"t¡' iijì.\' r".:" " ,1'1..1 'I," II " ""'¡', f ~1 \ 1 t I!' . I \ t ~' . :' ~:,¡: I ¡ , : , "'I' :, l' ; ./ ' ,i t.: ¡ J.. ,: I 't ! \ ¡;, I,'r f ~, ,_ ~ .~~ I' "", I I J ¡ It ii' i l- ì', ~.d,:;; ~' :¡,:\' ,. ,': " '~ ", 1'" 'I d, t,' II' U '!" r;1{ \, I,i ¡" r:, I I' I,' ~ It J I, .N 'k .1 I· .' '" I ':' t.! ~.' ." .\ r' ' t' 1.1' jf/ìI< ":',: I !!;II jY,: I' , CO!,"'" rx ',¡iIi, : '.:,~ ,ii1 . ;. :~ " ;, :;; :' . d, 'iJ·I,!'" I \';Xþj~~l~' '.'[¥:il,·\· .... ,~' ! h',' . , ~'" :' I, if::" :. I i ¡: r '," " (: ,¡1 ,~! : :1: ~ ! >, ',f ; ,¡ I, : I I I , , , 1:1 :'1,: ,,\ : j ~ ~ :\ ! 4 [)I.'o/V .~~ "'\ ,~ 1'u~ ~, '"' . ~ (¿YDÇ{ . "',. - /' ~,~ ........ --~ '/-", :s: o ~ .. '" '-' ',\ I.\=i \\ .,~. I " 'I\'¡:~ ,\\\ \" 1~1\ ("1\\ \(i,~I\\I'\"'; I,i ¡ \\, \ I I. '\ ' \ f "1 ", '~, ;:,I~ \, .~ \\ lilt. V' ., Î. I .1 II \' 1\ 1\, ;i <, '" >- « .., ¡¡¡ å cr: >- <t to // ,.-' ··...1.. ....... t' iñ '-........., ----....---. ....~..þ..-....