Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1990-08-21
Site Plan No. 50-89 Site Plan No. l7-90 Site Plan No. 49-90 Site Plan No. 43-90 Subdivision No. 7-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE Site Plan No. 56-90 Site Plan No. 6l-90 Site Plan No. 62-90 "--' QUEENSBURY PI.AlDfING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21ST, 1990 INDEX Walter Dombek 8. J. Paul Barton 14. d/b/a Docksider Restaurant Robert Tyrer 29. Leo Lombardo 36. Leo's Lobster-House Farm To Market Commons 40. John A. and Stephanie B. Mason Airron Industrial Corp. 42. John Owen 52. Mike Baird 54. 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 AUGUST 21ST, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY PETER CARTIER JAMES HAGAN NICHOLAS CAlMANO JAMES MARTIN CONRAD KUPILLAS DEPUTY TOWN ATTORREY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-TOM YARMOWICH ASSISTANT PI.AlDfEH.-STUART BAKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECIIOR OF MINUTES June 26th, 1990: Page 36, Mr. Cartier's first comment, half way down through that, the word permit, sib prevent STAND AS AMENDED July 17th, 1990: Page 2, Mr. Steves second comment, first line, the line refers to Mr. Ashline, from DEC, sib Mr. Koechlein STAND AS AMENDED MR. ROBERTS-The first business, tonight, I'd like to put first on the agenda, the Zoning Administrator, Pat Collard, is bringing something before us that has surfaced as a problem to a previous Site Plan Review. Pat, do you want to lead us into this? PAT COLLARD MRS. COLLARD-Pat Collard, Zoning Administrator. As youlre aware, I think it was in February of this year, you gave Site Plan approval to Mark Darius to repair cars on Aviation Road and the stipulation in that Site Plan approval was that he is to park, I think it was, eight cars, awaiting repair, or, after they're repaired, waiting to be picked up. There are a lot more than eight cars there everyday and Mr. Darius has asked to come in and discuss this with you and that's where we are this evening. I appreciate your taking a few minutes before your regular agenda, for this. MR. HAGAN-What is the date of his letter, Pat? It isn't dated. MRS. COLLARD-He submitted that about two weeks ago. MR. HAGAN-Approximately, the 14th or 7th? MRS. COLLARD-I apologize. I donlt know the exact date, Jim. MR. ROBERTS-Well, since I know you and Mr. Darius have discussed this, wy don't we turn it over to Mr. Darius and, perhaps, his representative to see if they've come up with any solutions that might make us all a little more comfortable. BRUCE JORDAN MR. JORDAN-Thank you. For the record, my name is Bruce Jordan. I have appeared before you in connection with this application when it was first considered for Site Plan Review and, also, before the ZBA because there was a Use Variance that was granted, prior to consideration by this Board and, first of all, I'd like to say, as Pat just indicated, there's no question that a stipulation associated with the original grant was that on the Site Plan that was submitted to the Board, Mr. Darius would use the eight spaces located to the westerly portion of the property 1 ,---" for the conduct of his business and there's also no question, as I stand here tonight, that there are more than eight vehicles on the property because I was there at approximately 7 olclock to confirm that myself. So, I'm not here to dispute that issue. What I'm hopeful that we can do is work out a resolution that is satisfactory to the Town and to, in this case, my two clients. I am in the unusual position, here, of representing both the landowner, Mr. Maille, who regrettably was not able to be here, William W. Maille who owns the entire structure, and also Mr. Darius who's the tenant and, effectively, the applicant in the continuation of this matter at this time. As I see it, whereas there are more than eight cars, specifically, if you were to go there right now and look at the cars parked on the westerly side of the site plan, you'd see 13 cars. Does anybody have the site plan there? MR. CARTIER-I don I t really think we need it. so we can see it, though, that may do. If you want to hang it up there MR. JORDAN-It's too small to see, actually. You can pass it around, if you'd li ke . MR. ROBERTS-Most of us are fairly familiar with the property. MR. JORDAN-In front of the building, there are two vehicles. To the east of the building, there are two trucks parked. The site plan that you have in front of you effectively shows that there are 26 spaces available for parking within the configuration required by the Ordinance and, basically, we have 17 vehicles on the lot, at this time. The combined uses by both Mr. Darius and Mr. Maille's operation certainly doesn't exceed the limits of the property, in terms of the design of the parking area. Mr. Darius is, I guess, in that Catch-22 situation of having done a rather good job in providing automobile service and he has obtained a lot of referrals from the immediate area, and I do mean the immediate business area, on Aviation Road and the surrounding residential developments. He's received a number of referrals from area major car dealers who cannot resolve their customers problems, because he's dealing in a very specialized area of diagnosis and they've asked me not to mention their names tonight because they'd prefer to have their customers think t hit they're resolving their problems in-house, and so I think, in that regard, one of the criteria, in this particular zone, is that the services that are provided by any particular business, be of an immediate benefit to the area where the service provider is located and, I think, Mr. Darius has certainly indicated, by his client base or customer base thit he now has, that he's doing that. MR. CARTIER-Can I raise a question, right there? MR. JORDAN-Absolutely. MR. CARTIER-Do you have many people, in the immediate neighborhood, buying racing cars? MR. JORDAN-Absolutely not. MR. CARTIER-One of the concerns is that there appear to be racing cars with for sale signs out there. We're dealing with a Neighborhood Commercial area. MR. JORDAN-If there are, I'm not aware of that. was there Saturday morning, had a racing vehicle parked in the garage. I know Mr. Maille, because I that belongs to his son Mark, MR. CARTIER-But, on the outside, I have observed a couple of times, I don I t know if it was the same vehicle or not, a racing vehicle sitting on a trailer wit h a "For Sale" sign on it. MR. JORDAN-Does that have anything to do with you? MR. DARIUS-That was my car that I take down to the track, so they can see that it's for sale. MR. CARTIER-I think the Board's concern, here, is that there's been an expansion, beyond what we approved. First of all, the sale of vehicles. If somebody drove by and saw the for sale sign, I would assume they ~uld stop and if t hey offered you the right price you would sell them the vehicle, at that point. I have also observed cars up there without any license tags on them and are those cars that are being repaired, that are unregistered, t bat are part of t his deal, or are 2 -./ they for sale? I guess what I need to know, are we selling cars, here? Are cars placed there that are for sale, that are unregistered and for sale? MR. JORDAN-Itls not a used car lot, no, that isn't what was intended, nor what's going on. MR. CARTIER-You're saying to me, no. I'm not asking you if it's a used car lot. What I'm saying to you is, are cars sitting on that lot, for sale? MR. JORDAN-Well, my client is has just indicated to you that he did have one with a "For Sale" sign on it. The other two unregistered vehicles that youl re talking about, I understand, are owned by him and they're being repaired by him and they're going to be moved out of there. MR. CARTIER-Do I understand that you are telling me that no vehicles are being sold on this site, are placed for sale on this site? MR. JORDAN-I just indicated to you that there was one that had a "For Sale" sign on it and I guess the answer to that question is what I just said. It was for sale. I did have a "For Sale" sign. It is no longer there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Are there any other vehicles that are in that state, if I may put it that way, that are placed on that property, that are up for sale? MR. JORDAN-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-If you're rendering a service for another establishment, I fail to see how you've created a Catch-22. Most Catch-22's can be avoided and if those vehicles were not brought from those other establishments until he was ready to repair them, that would alleviate the jam up, or the complaint that we I ve been getting about the over storage of cars there. MR. JORDAN-Some of the jam up, well, it's occurred for two reasons, actually, Mr. Hagan. One is, parts availability for certain cars. He had a Porsche there, I think it was there for, probably, two weeks, is that correct? Longer than that. The problem was it needed a fuel pump that had to be special ordered. The fuel pump was delivered. It was the wrong one. It was sent back and another one came in. When it came in, the car went out. In that case, the car was inoperable until the appropriate part came in. There are, currently, a couple of vehicles on the site that were impounded by the Warren County Sheriff's Department, relative to DWI charges and things of that nature and they're there as the result of the Warren County Sheriff's Department's activities. MR. HAGAN-Is that a necessary storage, for you, to store cars for Warren County? MR. DARIUS-I impound them where they tell me to impound them. MR. CAlMANO-We11, ~ went through this, this wo1e scenario. It's like deja vu, here. We sat here. You gave that exact same talk. We sat here and I asked a question, there's eight spots, here. Are eight spots enough? You said, "they're more than enough. There'll never be eight cars here." I live across the street. I go by there every single morning. There's never less than 17 to ~ cars there. Now, we asked you what kind of a place you were going to run. You assured us of what kind of a place you were going to run. It's not that kind of a place at all. It grows large and it's exactly what we said that night. Your business is going to grow. You sat there and you said, no, I'm going to maintain a very small business, very tight business and I said, is eight spots enough. How many spots do you need? Is eight enough and you said, yes. Because we didn't want those other 26 filled, that place is not to be that way. Itls an open drive way. There are all kinds of other regulations we could put on that thing. We can't have cars running in and out of there without entrance and exits. What bothers me is, \Ie went through this exact same scenario, exactly the same words. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think what we've got to keep in mind, here, is that we Ire talking Neighborhood Commercial and the function of a Neighborhood Commercial is to serve the immediate neighborhood and I think when a business goes beyond serving that immediate neighborhood, we're trying keep small businesses in small neighborhoods and when a business goes beyond serving the character of that neighborhood, the character of the business is changed. Let me go back to one other thing, and I think I'm done with my problems with this. You mentioned that Mr. Darius has two unregistered vehicles that belong to him, personally. 3 ~../ -- MR. JORDAN-That's corr~ct. MR. CARTIER-That are ther~ for r~pair, is that corr~ct? MR. JORDAN-Yes, I did. MR. CARTIER-Are you going to k~ep thos~? Are those vehicles for you to keep or ar~ they going to eventually be for sale? Are these for your own personal use? MR. DARIUS-Y~s, th~y ar~. MR. CARTIER-They are going to remain in your ownership for your own personal use? MR. DARIUS-Yes, they are. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. JORDAN-Mr. Caimano, if I could address your remarks. Much of what you said I don't dispute at all, b~cause we did, very definitely, have some conversations about the size of t his busin~ss and potential problems wit h growth. Everything that Mr. Darius and myself said, at the time, was based upon what we knew and what we could project. Because of the growth problem, Mr. Darius has alr~ady done two things. He's referred a lot of business to other local area service providers and he has eit œr negotiated or compl~ted the negotiations on a lease of space in South Glens Falls to handle the overflow at that location. So, we'r~ trying to minimize what's going on right h~re in Queensbury, to address thes~ concerns. MR. ROBERTS-Are those your only solutions to th~ problem? plac~s on the premises wh~re we could be parking these cars? There are no ot œr MR. JORDAN-Well, one of th~ things, Mr. Roberts, that I had suggested, initially, before this issu~ ever came up, was to try to put some of the vehicles to the rear of the premises, away from t œ Aviation Road area and the problem t hit has be~n, I guess, pr~venting that from occurring is a vandalism problem, kids throwing rocks and so forth. You really can't se~ what's going on out there, at night. It's kind of screened from vi~w and damag~ to the vehicles Wh~n you put them back out there. So, that was kind of discounted as not a possible solution to do it. MR. ROBERTS-It's really funny, but not humorous, how many times we've gotten ourselv~s into this problem, putting small businesses in an area that becomes succ~ssful and then becomes a probl~m to the neighborhood. This is just t he last of many that we've run into. MR. HAGAN-How many times have you reported that vandalism to the police? MR. JORDAN-I don't think there's been any r~ports. MR. HAGAN-Well, you just said that you couldnlt stor~ cars in the rear. MR. DARIUS-We r~ported it t~ times this y~ar. The Sheriff's Department has been down there two times. MR. HAGAN-Two times? MR. DARIUS-Yes, it has. MR. JORDAN-Also, to addr~ss Mr. Caimano's earlier remarks. Unlike the situation that you have across the street, with Sokol's Market, wher~, concededly, you hav~ a rather larg~ parking facility and you do hav~ to designate entrances and exits for the purposes of safety coming on and off Aviation Road, in this location, once the car is parked, there isn't an ingress and egress problem. It is stationary. People are not moving in and around that car like you ~uld have in the Sokol's example. You just don't have that kind of motion and traffic conc~rn, I don't think. MR. ROBERTS-I think we have to decide what are options are, h~re, and, perhaps, I have to ask the Counsel, does it power this Board to withdraw our Site Plan approval b~cause it has outgrown and, basically, in violation of our previous agreement? 4 ~/ --...r MR. CAlMANO-Before you answer, Karla, could I just read something out of Section 4.020 Neighborhood Commercial, Purpose: "Neighborhood Commercial zones are designed to enable residents of Queensbury's outlying areas to obtain staples, necessities, and other goods from small scale neighborhood oriented shopping areas without traveling to the major commercial centers. Often these centers are long established centers of older, traditional communities, usually at an intersection of two arterials." I just want to put that on the record, of what a Neighborhood Commercial business is supposed to be. MR. JORDAN-That, also, is agreed and that is the reason we appeared before the ZBA for the purposes of the variance that brought us back here. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MS. CORPUS-As far as modifying the previous site plan review, of course, the Board has that option to do that. It would be a modification to prior site plan approval, if the Board so found that the applicant was ~rt hy of such a modification. Obviously, if the Board chooses not to modify it, the applicant is forced to remove the cars or be cited for being in violation of that approval, but, yes, the Board may modify, if you so choose. MRS. PULVER-I have a question. You've told us, we've heard all the reasons why you can't comply, because the business, obvious ly, has gotten bigger than you anticipated. Are you saying, now, that you will be able to comply with eight spaces by renting space in South Glens Falls. You will be able to keep the amount of vehicles that are out in front of that building, to a minimum or is it going to continue the way it is? MR. DARIUS-I'm going to try and cut back on the flow on Aviation Road by having another shop in South Glens Falls. MRS. PULVER-Alright, well, that's my question is, originally, you had eight spaces, which, Mr. Caimano said, is that going to be enough and you said, yes it was, but it's not. Now, are you saying that, because you're going to expand your business to South Glens Falls, that these eight spaces will be enough for you on Aviation Road or are you saying, no? MR. DARIUS-I need more spaces. MRS. PULVER-Okay, that's What I, so what you're asking this Board to do is either expand on the original site plan or to do something else for you, t hit there's just no way youl re going to be able to comply, right? Is that what we're saying now? I just want to be sure thatls what we're saying. MR. CAlMANO-What was the date of the original approval? MR. JORDAN-Mid February of this year. MR. CAlMANO-I can I t help it because I live across the street, as I said, and I drove by that place from the day after we gave the approval. I can't help but think that somebody's trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes. We sat right there and said this is going to be a small business. Don't worry about it. It's never going to get any bigger than What it is and now, less than six months later, not only did you say you have a much better business than you ever thought, but you can't even, you don't even know if you can control it. As far as I'm concerned, this thing ought to be scaled back to what it originally started out to be, when it was originally approved and let the applicant come back with another application for expansion of this business. I think that we've gotten the wool pulled over our eye s . MRS. PULVER-He's saying, though, Nick, that he can't comply with eight spaces. MR. CAlMANO-Then he should hire a business manager or something because, in less than six months, I can't help but feel we were lied to, I'm sorry, that's just the way I feel. MR. HAGAN-If we follow your suggestion, this would also give the public a chance to come in and air their views. MR. CAlMANO-That's right. MR. HAGAN-And I think this is unfair that the neighborhood hasn't been given ample notice. 5 '---' -' MR. CAlMANO-Absolutely. MR. ROBERTS-That's a p~int well taken. MR. CAlMANO-Absolutely. We have people here that are going to be here because there's something opening up and they want their voice in the matter. The people in that neighborhood never had a voice in this matter. MR. JORDAN-Mr. Caimano, I'd like to correct a couple of misapprehensions. There was no intent, certainly, on my part, to lie about anything to this Board. I've been in this community for too long and I'm going to be around for a lot more clients than Mark Darius, so I don't make a practice of lying to anybody. Number two, I happen to agree with what you just said. If this is an issue that legitimately impacts on the neighborhood, I don't have any objection tò re-filing the application or modifying the application, as Karla said, and presenting it so a full and fair opportunity can be had for a hearing for anybody Who's interested in it. The purpose of my appearance this evening is not to slide anything under the rug, but I became aware, through my client and Pat Collard, that there was a problem and we're discussing it with you openly and seeking some guidance as to how you would like to have it handled. MR. CAlMANO-Fine. MR. JORDAN-If it is your preference to file an application for a modification or a new application or what have you, so be it, that's what we'll do. MR. HAGAN-I would be more receptive if that were followed. MR. JORDAN-I'll be glad to do that. MR. CARTIER-I think it would be to your benefit, also, to keep in mind, in filing an amended application or whatever is going to be the title on this thing, t hit we are still dealing with a Neighborhood Commercial zone and that we are going to look at it from that perspective. MR. JORDAN-That's understood. MR. CARTIER-I think this Board is pretty committed to Neighborhood Commercial's as being small scale operations serving the immediate area and, as has been pointed out, if we have something that is beyond the neighborhood character, t hen we Ire going to have to take a serious look at that, also. MR. CAlMANO-And I apologize to you, Mr. Jordan, for your thinking that I called you a liar because I didn't. I'm saying that the Board and, possibly, you, somebody said something that was not true. You know we I ve been fighting this thing since almost day one. Were you aware, from your client, that we have gone to the Zoning Administrator from almost Day 1 on this thing? MR. JORDAN-No, but I was aware that it was an issue because Pat Collard was kind enough to copy me, on a letter that she sent to Mr. Darius, and I'd have to look at my file, to be honest with you, to tell you the date of that letter, but it was sometime ago. MR. CAlMANO-Well, please accept my apologies. MR. JORDAN-Your apology is accepted, but it's really not necessary. I just wanted to clear up my position on the matter. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Pat, you brought this before us, do you think this is a reasonable resolution to our problem, or a next step to resolving this problem. I'm not sure what we would call the re-application, maybe you'll have to figure that out. MRS. COLLARD-I would think an amended application, if that I s satisfactory with all of you. MR. CARTIER-Or an expansion of a previous, or something to that effect. As long as we, Mr. Jordan, I want to be very fair to you and your client here. As long as you understand that the only issue here is not going to be, if the neighbors don't come in and complain. Let's not hang the hook that, well, we haven't heard from any neighbors, so it's not a problem. It may not be a problem to the neighbors. It may be a problem to this Board, in terms of the Neighborhood Commercial character of the zone. 6 ',,---,~ -./ MR. JORDAN-I do a lot of zoning work and scr~aming neighbors always have an impact on Board IS, but they' r~ not despositiv~ of the legal issu~s: I und~rstand that, but thank you for pointing that out. MR. ROBERTS-Howev~r, I would like the application to make mandatory a public hearing. MR. CAlMANO - Y~ s . MR. ROBERTS-Or have us agree, at least, that it should call for a public hearing. MR. CARTIER-That's the point of a r~-application. MR. ROBERTS-Regardless of what we call it. MR. JORDAN-Y~s, I don't have a problem with that and I think that's fair to the interests of all parties concerned. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we can leave it at that. MR. JORDAN-Okay, thank you very much for your time. MRS. COLLARD-Just on~ thing, though, on this am~nded application. I gUèss I don't know what is going to be solved by, you're coming back with, basically, th~ same thing we're h~re with. MR. CARTIER-If I understand, he's going to com~ in with an amended application that involves an ~xpansion of parking b~yond the ~ight parking slots and we are going to look at it in terms of the application itself and also from the perspectiv~ of a public h~aring. I don't know if I answered your question or not? MRS. COLLARD-Yes, you did. MR. ROBERTS-And how this enlarged busin~ss fits into the Neighborhood Comm~rcial zone, p~rhaps, to take a hard look at that. W~ may b~ talking more than just an amendment. MR. JORDAN-Well, from a legal point of view, I don I t know, maybe Karla wants to jump in, here, but I think, rath~r than an amendment, I s~~ it as a modification of an existing, not to play on words, but I'd sayan amended application and a modification is two entirely different things, l~gally. MS. CORPUS-Yes, th~ Site Plan would stay as granted, previously, and if th~r~ were violations to the Site Plan, th~n the Building and Codes D~partment would be called in to ~nforce the terms of that Site Plan. This would, technically, be a modification of that. All he's really doing, I'm assuming, is expanding on the parking, not anything to do with the actual business facilities. MR. JORDAN-Agreed. MR. ROBERTS-I think, p~rhaps, the public should know, enforcem~nt is usually the problem with all of th~se things and what we need to have is a resolution that is enforceable which, so far, we haven't se~m to have gotten. MR. BAKER-Before we go any further, I have a question for Mrs. Collard, not to muddy the wat~rs anymore, but couldn't this be considered an ~xpansion of a nonconforming us~? MS. CORPUS-No, it has a variance. MRS. COLLARD-It has a variance. MR. CARTIER-But it's still a nonconforming us~ that a variance has be~n granted for, that does not make it a conforming use. MRS. COLLARD-Well, let me think about that. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think, perhaps, the powers behind the scenes need to work out that application som~how. MRS. COLLARD-You're right, but, also, wen you put a stipulation on a motion, ~ight cars, twelve cars, fift~~n cars, I have to be v~ry hon~st with you and t~ll you that Dave Hatin and I ar~nlt going up there ~veryday and count cars. 7 '--' --,,, MR. HAGAN-No, but you have to respond to complaints about that abuse. MRS. COLLARD - Ye s, we do. MR. HAGAN-And sitirtg it specifically gives people the right to do that. MRS. COLLARD-I guess what I'm getting at, and I don't know if this can be worked out is, maybe, an area to park the cars, in addition to how many cars may be parked there. MR. ROBERTS-That would seem to be one possible answer. MRS. COLLARD-Food for thought. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. Okay, can we put this one to bed? MR. CAlMANO-What was the original Site Plan Number, somebody? MRS. COLLARD-l2-90. MR. CAlMANO-Thank you. MR. JORDAN-Thank you very much. MR. CAlMANO-Do you need a motion from us? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think we should. What do you think, do we need a motion for this? MR. HAGAN-No, because there was, really, no application. There's no application before us. MR. CARTIER-There's no application. It's just a clarification. MR. ROBERTS-11m looking at my attorney. MRS. COLLARD-Excuse me, I guess, we were just looking for some guidance in this matter. MS. CORPUS-Well, the Board does have the decision to make, as to whether this would require a public hearing and you certainly could make a resolution regarding whether to have a modification of this Site Plan and whether it would require a public hearing. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, letls play it safe and have a motion. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MOTION FOR SITE PLAN 12-90 WHICH BAS BEEN FOUND IN SOME VIOLATION OF ITS ORIGINAL INTENT BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BE DTURNED TO THE BOAJID FOR MODIFICATION, IN TEIMS OF WIlED IT FITS UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE AND IN TERMS OF ITS POTENTIAL EXPANSION FOR A NONCONFORMING USE AND I FURTHER REQUEST THAT THERE BE A PUBLIC BEARING HELD, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 50-89 TYPE II HC-lA WALTER DOMBEK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MEADOWBROOK HINI STORAGE MEADOWBROOK ROAD, APPROX. 500 FT. NORTH OF QUAKER ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A 15 FT. BY 100 FT. BUILDING FOR BOAT STORAGE (WARBEN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 59-2-14 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-8.21 LOT SIZE: 78 FT. BY 154 FT., 149 FT. BY 300 FT. SECTION 4.020 K JOHN WYNN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 8 ""---, --..-' STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER. REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-And the Committee for Community Beautification has approved with the comment, "The Committee could find very little difference between this planting proposal than the one previously approved." MR. CARTIER-Let me sneak a quick question in here, for Stu. On Item 8 of John's comments, regarding the Fire Marshal, do you know if he was referring to fuel and gas tanks in the boat, or just? MR. BAKER-I don't know, specifically, but I would assume he was referring to any fuel in any location. MR. CARTIER-Any fuel? Okay. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, I have a concern in that way, too. MR. WYNN-My name is John Wynn. I'm an attorney from Granville, New York, representing Mr. Dombek. Mr. Dombek's already addressed that concern. He has a lease that's required of all tenants and users of the facility. The lease has a provision that says that, "lessee agrees not to use said units for any illegal or unlawful purposes, nor to store any explosive, highly flammable, or other goods on the property." Joe Valenti is the manager of the units and he'd be checking each one to make sure that there would be no flammable storage there. He doesn't want it either. MR. CAlMANO- Righ t. My concern is two fo ld. One, and I think you've started to address that, one is, oil and boats that are standing tend to leak whatever fluids are in them, that is oil and grease, into the ground, that's number one, what quantities are, and what will be taken care of there and, second is, empty gas tanks, which are every bit as explosive as full gas tanks. MR. HAGAN-More so. MR. CAlMANO-More so, as a matter of fact. MR. WYNN-Well, we weren't going to ask them to keep the gas tanks full, though. The floors on the unit will be concrete, so that there'd be no leaching into the ground. Mr. Valenti's there everyday so that he'd know if there was any leakage coming out. I don't see why there would be. As far as the empty gas tanks, therels not much we can do, other than make sure that all the gas tanks are empty when they go in there. MR. ROBERTS-Or should they be full? MR. CAlMANO-I don't know, but I think that one of the things that could be done and, Tom, I was going to talk just a little bit, here, about opening empty tanks, that is, not having them capped, Number One, and having the storage sheds that are going to be used for this, vented in some way, so that fumes do not accumulate inside closed storage sheds. MR. JORDAN-These are all vented units. MR. CARTIER-With regard to winterizing boats, the tanks should not be vented, whether they are full or empty. As a matter of fact, and to address your second concern, if these boats, since we're talking about relatively small boats, we're not talking about inboard engines. We're talking about stern drives and out-boards. If they are properly winterized, well, you'll get an argument from some people about emptying the tanks, but the stern drive units, the lower units of the engines, should be drained of oil prior to storage. Oil should not be left in those. So, if they are properly winterized, they should not have any oil in them to leak out. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. 9 '---' ---' MR. ROBERTS-But what about the gas tanks? MR. CARTIER-Well, in terms of boating, they say lay them up full, with some stabilizer in them, but I am more concerned about the safety aspect of a bunch of full tanks sitting in there. MR. HAGAN-It's a lot safer than a bunch of empty tanks. MR. CARTIER-It is, in fact, safer than empty tanks, but there's a lease problem, here. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe this is something we need to run past Mr. Bodenwiser, our Fire Marshal. I guess we should have done that. Has he already seen this application? MR. BAKER-Yes, he has. MR. ROBERTS-No comment? MR. WYNN-Well, he was concerned, before the Warren County Planning Board, a year and a half ago, to make sure that the tanks would be left empty. I don't know if he was right or wrong in that regard. MR. CARTIER-Well, if you empty a tank and seal it up, temporarily, with tape or something like that, with temperature changes, what happens is, the vapors or air in the tank expands, they pop whatever sealed the vents up and now you have a vented system and you have fumes getting out. I don't have an answer. You don't have that problem with a full tank. MR. ROBERTS-We've got a lot of boat storages around and this, apparently, doesn't seem to be a terrible problem or maybe there's a logical answer to it. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say, is there some sort of code or something, because I know when you store a tractor in a, what I s the storage place there over by Big Boom Road, you have to have the gas tank empty. Snowmobile, you have to have the gas tank empty. You have to have that gas tank empty. MR. CAlMANO-But as they're saying, though, the empty gas tank is could be much more explosive. MR. HAGAN-The vapors are what explode, not the gas. MRS. PULVER-But the code is, they can't store anything in a building like that, with fuel in the tank. MR. CARTIER-Maybe we could solve some of this if you also insist that no battery be stored in the boat, that's a source of a spark for fuel. Is this building going to be wired in any way, lights or anything like that? MR. WYNN-No. MR. CAlMANO-Good. MR. CARTIER-This is cold storage. in this place as a supply. So, if we've got a cold storage, no wiring MR. CAlMANO-Limit the size. MR. ROBERTS-No work being done, grinding. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. 11m glad you said that. We are talking, here, about winter storage only, correct? A boat is brought in, in the fall, put in and taken out in the spring? We're not talking about storage over the summer time or if somebody keeps their boat in there and they run down and grab it on the weekend and take it up to the Lake and bring it back, is that correct? MR. WYNN-Generally, we I re intending it for boat storage and I don I t think the people would be doing that during the summer time anyway. They may have boat accessories that are there and I don't think that's any part of your concern whether they're skis or something like that. MR. CARTIER-No, what I'm talking about is, if I have a boat and I have no place to store it in my yard, but 11m going to store it in this storage facility and run down every weekend and pick it up and use it and put it back at the end of the weekend. Is that the kind of boat storage we'rétalking about? 10 ~ ~ MR. WYNN-That's not what welre talking about, no. MR. CARTIER-We're talking about seasonal storage over the winter? MR. WYNN-That's right. MR. CARTIER-In in the fall, out in the spring, okay. MR. WYNN-I think there's some boats there, now, occasionally, and I think they were just in in the fall and out in the spring. MR. ROBERTS-They couldn't very well drain a gas tank every week, though, could they? It's almost self limiting. MR. CARTIER-No, I just wanted to clarify that, though, because one of the issues that came up in here was traffic in and out of that place. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CAlMANO-Not only that, but it would turn the situation completely around if it was in and out because then he'd have no control over it. MR. MARTIN-How many spaces are we talking about? MR. WYNN-Ten. MR. MARTIN-Ten. MR. ROBERTS-Thatls not too big a deal. MR. CAlMANO-Well, I think your point about limiting the size of the boat limits the risk. MR. WYNN-Well, the building also limits the size of the boat. MR. CAlMANO-That's right. MR. KUPILLAS-As I read this, are the doors on each end of the narrow end of the building, there, on your plan? MR. WYNN-No, just on the front. The front being the south side. MR. ROBERTS-The south side. MR. KUPILLAS-And the west side it says here, north and south and west side. So, that's the front and one side. MR. WYNN-That's right, I'm sorry, toward the west, wich is the Quaker Ford property. Nothing would be to the north or to the other side because that'll be grass anyway. MR. ROBERTS -Has anybody really doubled checked to know whether there's actually 20, 40, 55 feet between that building and the property line? It doesn't look like it, sometimes, to me. I guess it may be. MR. WYNN-That was done by Buckley, When he did the drawing and the sketch. MR. MARTIN-When I drove through there, it looked pretty wide. MR. CAlMANO-Pete, do you know of any regulation that would make you have a combing around that concrete floor so that nothing could get out onto the ground, in case there was a spill? There's no building regulation, is there? MR. CARTIER-I donlt know of any regulation. A guy is crazy to store a boat below a unit full of oil, because if there's water in there, it' B going to freeze and he's going to come back to a mess. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, thatls a no-no. I agree. MR. WYNN-I'm not sure when these were constructed. On the sides without the doors, are there lips on those, or is that a flat concrete? 11 '---" '--" MR. CARTIER-A lip down or a lip up? I think that's what you're talking about. MR. CAlMANO-Thatls what I'm talking about, combing being the lip up. MR. CARTIER-Probably not, if you're backing vehicles in there. MR. MARTIN-Are we talking about a building type similar to the ones that are there now? MR. WYNN-Yes, it would be the same type, except it would be smaller. MR. CARTIER-The maximum oil out of a lower unit, a pint, four quarts out of an engine, but it would have to get out of a hole before it got to the tank. MR. CAlMANO-Right, and if he's checking everyday, he certainly would see the leak. MR. ROBERTS-Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NO OOMMENT PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-I guess this calls for some kind of a SEQRA Review? MS. CORPUS-Itls a Type II action. MR. BAKER-It is a Type II action. MR. ROBERTS-Short Form? MR. BAKER-No SEQRA Review is necessary. MR. ROBERTS-I guess we're ready for a motion. MR. CARTIER-I'll do a motion, but just a quick question, here, do you know if, in the Beautification Committee presentation, there was screening that showed up? MR. BAKER-I believe all the plantings are shown on the plan you have before you. MR. CARTIER-I'm just looking at John's Comment 7. MR. ROBERTS-Well, there's a second page, here in the application. MR. WYNN-I think the Committee approved it, letter's to say that a minor one, is that the only change. only reason for that is, a year ago, the Beautification we put the plantings in at that time and then the subsequent there's, substantially, no change. One change, wich is the Mountain Ash were changed with Red Maple, but that is MR. MARTIN-You'd also be planting the grass along the northern fence, right? That's all gravel there, now. MR. WYNN-That would be done after the construction. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, it doesn't go, there's grass against the northern boundary, but there's a section, south of that, that will be grassed in. MR. WYNN-The Arbovitae and the Elm are all there. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-89 WALTER DOMBEK, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For the construction of a 15 by 100 ft. building for the storage of boats for long term storage with the following stipulations: That all fuel and batteries be removed; that adequate screening be provided between the Dombek property and the Healy property and that the length of the boat be limited to 15 feet or less and that erosion control measures be provided in accordance with NYS Guidelines for urban erosion and sediment control during the excavation and pavement removal. l2 Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Length referring to, Which one are you looking at? MR. CAlMANO-Number two of Goralski's letter. MR. PULVER-That the longest boat should be l5 feet. MR. CARTIER-It can't be 15 feet. If this boat I s on a trailer, if you put a 15 foot boat on a trailer, you've got 17 feet. I'm assuming, well, wait a minute, now. Okay, youlre right. (Continuing with motion.) And that the length of boat be limited to l5 feet or less. MR. ROBERTS-Do we need to get into that, I mean, they're not going to store anything thatls not going to fit in the building. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute, if he IS got a door on the west end, potentially, he could store 100 foot long boat in there. MR. ROBERTS-He couldnlt maneuver it around the corner. MR. CARTIER-Well, ~atever, but he's asking for 15 feet, that was in the application. MR. WYNN-We don't have a problem with that. MR. CARTIER-There we go. MR. CAlMANO-Number One of Tom's letter, too, you want to look at. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. WYNN-Just one question, Mr. Chairman. The motion was made for winter storage, and I can certainly understand the need or the desire not to have boats in and out because thatls not our intention either, but the way that that motionls worded, if someone wanted to leave a boat year round, I'm presuming that they couldn't do that. MR. CAlMANO-He has a point. I thought about that, too. We can't do that, I don't think and really have a usable facility. MR. CARTIER-I agree, but I also want to control, I don't want this turned into a mini market. MR. KUPILLAS-Maybe we should word it for long term storage. MR. CARTIER-There we go. Thank you. MR. KUPILLAS-You might get around that, in and out. MR. WYNN-That would be fine. Thank you. (END OF FIRST DISK) 13 "-' --/ SITE PLAB NO. 17-90 TYPE I WR-lA J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER. RESTAURANT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE ROAD, NORTH SHORE AT THE SHORELINE TO ADD 1,826 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING RESTAURANT SPACE WITH STORAGE OF DRY GOODS, BUSINESS RECORDS ON SECOND STORY PORTION. FIRST STORY OF EXISTING RESTAURANT TO BE RENOVATED. SLEEPING QUARTERS TO REMAIN AS IS ON SECOND STORY. (WARREN COORTY PI.AlDfING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-2 LOT SIZE: 0.98 ACRES SECTION 9.010 MACK DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-We held a public hearing on this in March and asked them to come back, I guess it was tabled for additional information. Actually, I think it was withdrawn, in order for you to, let's see, was this tabled? You originally tabled and then you, ~ll, ~ extended the tabling for you to get some more input. STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS -And comments the plans as presented. or respond to the recent just received tonight, the from the Beautification Committee, they have approved Does the applicant give us any further input on this recommendation from our Staff and Engineers which you same as we have? MR. DEAN-My name is Mack Dean, from Morse Engineering representing the Docksider and with me, tonight, also, is Mr. Paul Barton who's the owner of the Docksider. The first comment, in regard to, I think, basically, as far as 11m concerned, we could probably skip the Staff Comments. I don't believe that there's anything of any great import. If you'd like a detail of the tree well, ~ are certainly pleased to provide that. In regard to comments from Rist-Frost, Number One, the grading, I believe he IS referring to, as youlre aware, we've re-done this site plan a number of times and, inadvertently, the last time we redid our stormwater calculations, for clarity reasons, I'm told that the draftsman who did this for us, located lines at the westerly property line, adjoining the guard rail placed by the Town of Queensbury Highway Department were placed at the guard rail and they should have been placed at the property line; that has been corrected on our master plan without effecting the stormwater drainage in any manner and, of course, it was never the intention of Mr. Barton to do any grading on Town property. Number two, the well location is shown at less than l5 feet from what, I guess, is, technically, a property line, although I have not come across any requirements for setback from a shoreline, although that is easily corrected, in that, by scaling from the mean high water mark to two points, 15 feet from the property line, still is in excess of 150 feet from any part of the proposed septic system. So, that certainly is no problem. Water supply system, and I apologize to Mr. Yarmowich and the Board, in that, there is no specific reference in the water design calculations, there is no specific reference to the Sullivan supply. However, in looking at the sheet, SP-l, we included all calculations for the restaurant, to indicate how we arrived at the total daily flow and below those calculations you will find, under Treatment and Storage, a contact time of lO minutes at 16.7 gallons per minute, times lO, which is 167 gallon capacity. In doing those calculations, you take 1860 gallons per day, Wiich is the total calculated flow for the restaurant, and you divide that by 1440, which is the number of minutes in a day, and arrive a l.3 gallons per minute and 1.3 gallons per minute times 9, which is a common factor used by all agencies to determine peak flow, we come up with 11.7 gallons per minute for peak flow. We are showing a figure of l6. 7, so when you subtract 11.7 from l6. 7, we have 5 gallons a day and that amount is available for the Sullivan's, but it should have been more clearly stated and I do apologize for that. MR. CAlMANO-Can I ask a question, then? Tom, is what he is saying satisfactory to you? Are we going to get clean water here? Is there going to be contact time with chlorine? What's the story? MR. YARMOWICH-What's youlre indicating is that, you've indicated that the restaurant flow will require 12.7 gallons a minute or less? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-And that the residence will be afforded a flow of 5 gallons a minute or less? 14 ~ - MR. DEAN-That's correct, or more, well, it couldn't be more, based on those. It would be 5 gallons per minute. MR. HAGAN-What is your water supply? That's one hell of a demand on anything less than a municipal supply. MR. DEAN-No, that's not really, that's not inordinate. MR. YARMOWICH-A five gallon a minute well yield would normally be sufficient, provided adequate storage was available. MR. DEAN-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-We are questioning, in addition to the volume required to serve both the restaurants, in terms of the water systeml s ability to deliver demands, not necessarily yields, the way in which the contact time is going to be achieved in a hydropneumatic tank. As you know a hydropneumatic tank operating at low pressure and full demand will not provide the same contact time. MR. CARTIER-I have to raise a concern, here. What we're getting involved in is planning out thi s pro j ect , here, and I don I t think tha t' s our purpose, here. Our purpose is to look at these things, decide if all Staff concerns and all Engineering concerns have been satisfied. If they have, \Ie can vote on it. If they haven't, it's back to the drawing boards time and I don I t think we should sit here and spend an hour going through this thing item by item. I think that's up to the engineer to get together with the engineer and work that thing out. MR. HAGAN-But I have questions, in addition. MR. CARTIER-Let me finish, that's what I was going to say. I was just about to say that I think our time could be more constructively used by adding any concerns that the Board has, so that the applicant can address those also. MR. ROBERTS-So, satisfied, yet. it's fair to say that Is that fair to say? the consulting engineer is not totally MR. YARMOWICH-That I s correct. More details are required to see if the system is adequate to serve the demands anticipated. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And I'm not referring just to that one Item 2. I'm referring to all of those things in your letter. MR. YARMOWICH-With regard to Item's 1 and 2 that Mr. Dean has already addressed, they have been adequately addressed, and, I think, if there are others that are less technical and can be dismissed, it may be convenient to do that. MR. HAGAN-Well, I have one question. I don't see the answer to it in these calculations. I don't see where the water table has been established at the point of disposal, because from a laymans point of view, if that water table is high enough so that the, these are drywells, not leachfields. A drywell dispenses deeper into the ground than a leaching field, generally speaking, and I'd like to know where that water table is, at the point of these drywells, because if it's deep enough to hit that water table in that Lake, from the Lake, you're going to have a leaching, or washing in and out and further contamination to the Lake. MR. CAlMANO-Well, doesn't that bring up the whole question of whether there should be leachfields or drywells? MR. HAGAN-Well, I have a problem with a drywell close to a lake, I, personally, do. MR. CARTIER-One of the things I want to hear from our engineer, at some point, and maybe this is going to answer it, is that whatever happens on this site is not going to contaminate the Lake, ~ether in terms of parking, ~at' s going on in the parking lot, ~at's going on in terms of leachfield or drywell or whatever. What I want to be able to hear from you is that the design that's been presented to us is designed in such a way that it does not have an adverse impact on Glen Lake. l5 "-' --,. MR. YARMOWICH-With regard to stormwater management issues, the stormwater management concept, proposed by the applicant, deals with additional stormwater generated by the applicant I s proposal. I would add that the long term effectiveness of a gravel trench system is less than other more sophisticated methods and will require that the owner, from time to time, make sure that it functions properly, though the concept is acceptable and meets the requirements. MR. CARTIER-But it may not be adequate for this particular situation, is that what I'm hearing? MR. YARMOWICH-The concept is adequate to handle the volume of increased flow that's generated by the proposal. The method will require a level of maintenance, in order to make sure that the water can infiltrate into the gravel trench, that will be the owner's responsibility throughout the life of the project. MR. CARTIER-In other words, considering the fact that we're dealing, here, with a critical environmental area and the fact that we already have intensive use on this site, ~'re not looking for minimal, maybe minimal's not the right word here, but I'll use it anyway, ~'re not looking for minimal systems, ~'re looking for something that is relatively sophisticated and will do the job over the long run. MR. YARMOWICH-That is something the Board may wish to consider, that there are methods which will function for a longer period of time with equal results and require less concern over the long term than what is proposed. MR. CARTIER-Understand, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, here, Tom. I'm just trying to get this sorted out for myself. MR. YARMOWICH-With regard to water table information, there is the fact that the test information was obtained in December, where, normally, for system design, ~ll, not normally, under the Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance, that information should be obtained in the Spring. The occurrence of the water table elevation at the test holes was quite variable. The test holes ~re not spaced very distant from one another. MR. HAGAN-And in what time of year were those test holes? MR. YARMOWICH-They ~re conducted, I recall, December 19th, or 20th of 1989. MR. HAGAN-Well, that doesn't prove anything practical, to me. The busiest time for this establishment is gping to be June, July, August, September. MR. YARMOWI CH - I agree, Mr. Ha gan . MR. HAGAN-So, why don't we take the tests then? MR. YARMOWICH-The tests are required then by the Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance. MR. HAGAN-In December? MR. YARMOWICH-They are required in the Spring. The Ordinance requires that they be conducted in the Spring. The relationship between Lake elevation and the water table is not easily explained, in that, the water table, according to the test data, is lower than that of the Lake. With the transmisivity indicated by the perc tests, thatls not an easily explained occurrence and I think it's questionable because of the time of year the information was obtained. MR. HAGAN-Yes, I was going to say, particularly, if you take that perc test in December. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. CAlMANO-What about Mr. Hagan's question. I don't think it was ans\lered. MR. HAGAN-Well, he's trying to answer it and it can't be established as a fact, is what he's saying. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Ri ght? l6 '~ - MR. YARMOWICH-Thatls correct. MR. CARTIER-Given a specific site we're talking about, when would appropriate time to do testing. I know the Ordinance says Spring. more appropriate to be done in June, July, August? be the most Would it be MR. YARMOWICH-The response of that soil system would most clearly indicate maximum ground elevations after extended periods of rainfall or the release of large, accumulated precipitation like snow melt. MR. CARTIER-I'm hearing Spring. MR. ROBERTS - Ye s . MR. YARMOWICH-Thatls true. There are times, in the Spring, were you don't have a lot of snow accumulated and a lot of it is runoff over frozen ground, that doesn't necessarily represent the maximum condition. I do believe that the December condition, ~en they tested it, would not properly represent the maximum groundwater elevations at that site. MR. HAGAN-In my opinion, it would have no significance. MR. ROBERTS-Can't you usually get a pretty good indication from mottling in the soils, as to what groundwater does? MR. YARMOWICH-Certain soil types will display mottling, others will not. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. Do we have more questions? MR. HAGAN-Well, I just wonder why the applicant chooses to go the drywell concept, rather than the usual leachfield? MR. DEAN-This is the only system which would fit on the property and was acceptable to DOH who was the reviewing agency, in this case, for a SPDES Permit. All the information provided on the septic design was acceptable to Brian Fear, ~o is the District Director of Department of Health who personally reviewed these plans and every detail and aspect. We would not have a problem with the septic design and the well location or the water supply system. MR. HAGAN-But how can they make that determination when your percolation rate was established 'in December? MR. DEAN-My question is, does the Queensbury Ordinance say shall be done or should be? And we have no argument with that, it's that the perc test should be done in the Spring. MR. HAGAN-My only concern is not to the Docksider, but it's for the health of Glen Lake. MR. DEAN-Absolutely. MR. HAGAN-That's why I'm asking these questions. MR. DEAN-Right. MR. HAGAN-I have nothing personal against this establishment. MR. DEAN-I'm not suggesting that you would. MR. HAGAN-But I'm not satisfied that this septic design has been established based on the best available information, that's a laymans opinion, somewhat more than a laymans opinion. MR. DEAN-I certainly have no qualms with that. MR. ROBERTS-But do we want to fly in the face of approvals by Department of Health in this matter? MRS. PULVER-Do you have a letter from Brian Fear saying that he's approved this? MR. DEAN-What I do have is stamped plans, Department of Health stamped and signed by Brian Fear. 17 - MRS. PULVER-Okay, you might want to submit them. MR. HAGAN-It's right here, approved the sewage disposal, New York State Department of Health. MR. DEAN-For me to stand here and respond to these questions, tonight, is a little bit difficult, in that we've been through this with DOH, based on the requirements of DEC, DOH and they have found this acceptable. MR. HAGAN-Everything that I saw, on paper, was acceptable, too, but when we go to inspect the physical site, that's where we have qualms. We see water in the driveway, that indicates to me, if water can accumulate there, the water is coming from a foreign, I mean, not a natural source because we were there considerably before a rainfall. MR. DEAN-I can't understand where this water would come from. MR. HAGAN-Well, neither can I. MR. DEAN-There's certainly no failure of the septic system, currently. MR. HAGAN-Well, you have plans to take care of the runoff and, yet, three days after the latest rain, I still see water sitting in a driveway. MR. DEAN-That's correct because it doesn't run into the Lake in volume. It lays on the land. MR. HAGAN-We know for a fact that's not leaching into the Lake, the surface water? It may not be draining on the surface into the Lake, but it can leach into the Lake. MR. DEAN-Some of it does. Some of it runs into the Lake, at this point, in a heavy storm. MR. HAGAN-Right, and that's my concern. MR. DEAN-But what I would like to suggest is that this design has not yet been implemented because we have not gotten final approvals. MR. ROBERTS-Thatls right these plans are supposed to correct that problem, Jim. MR. DEAN-Absolutely. MR. HAGAN-Well, I just want some assurance that we're not going to rely on the calculations that I see here and accept them as being gospel, that's all. MR. CARTIER-As far as I'm concerned, our Staff Engineer has to say he's happy with the design. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-May I add something? The Board should understand that the Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance is applicable for all individual sewage disposal systems installed. The requirements of the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Conservation notwithstanding, mayor may not be as stringent. In the case of certain separation distances and the requirements for certain types of systems and allowable infiltration rates, the Town of Queensbury Ordinance has adopted standards that are more strict than the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Conservation, ~ere, in the case, in particular, Which was discussed, here, as an issue, the words, in the regulations of the Department of Health, regarding the time of year for perc tests, it is, "shall". In the case of the Town of Queensbury Ordinance it is, excuse me, I have that backwards. In the case of the Department of Health, the wording is, "should be taken in the Spring" and in the case of the Queensbury Disposal Ordinance, it says, "shall be taken in the Spring". The Board should consider that in the evaluation of the system. MR. BAKER-Mr. Ordinance does determined. Dean, for outline your information, the requirements the appendix of the Queensbury Sewage for when high groundwater should be 18 --- '- MR. CAlMANO-And it says? MR. BAKER-It says, liThe determinat,ion of the seasonal high groundwater level shall be made during the months of March, April, May, or June, within six weeks of the time that the frost leaves the ground." MR. CARTIER-So, ~ere are we? MR. ROBERTS-Well, I'm just wondering, it seems to me we're, is this a SPDES Permit? MR. DEAN-Yes, it is. MR. ROBERTS-I don't think this Board is in the habit of overriding DEC SPDES Permits. Do we want to start doing that? MR. CARTIER-Well, I don't think we Ire overriding anything. I think what we Ire doing is looking at a critical environmental area and we're trying to satisfy ourselves that this, ~at is already an intensive use, is not going to have an impact on the Lake that we don't want to see. I've got a lot of negatives in there and I don't like the way I said that, but I think my point is clear, I hope. MR. ROBERTS-Well, then, perhaps we do want to take a closer look than DEC's Permit. MR. CAlMANO-Well, they'd be the first guys up here, if the Lake turned over, they'd be the first guys up here with oranges throwing at this Board. I mean, they're sitting afar. We have to make the determination, not on the Docksider, but on the health of this Lake and I think that is serious enough to warrant a very, very strong look. To me, that's the most important thing we do here, is the future of what the environment has and the people who are down in Albany are certainly not going to be sitting here behind us say, yes, you did the right thing. They're going to be throwing the eggs, right along with everybody else, if we do this wrong. MR. ROBERTS-Some of the Board members have questions that are substantiated by your questions, our consulting engineer also has questions about this? MR. YARMOWICH-The Board should feel comfortable in utilizing a Sewage Disposal Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury because both Title 6, Department of Environmental Conservation Law allows localities to establish requirements that are no less stringent and Title lO, Department of Health regulations, or is it Title 15, allows the same. So, the Board has a guideline in the Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance which requires more stringent treatment of certain circumstances. MR. CAlMANO-I think that, as a philosophical thing, that Mr. Cartier said the right words and I hark back to a commercial on television, Ford says and it IS, "Quality is Job 1". I think, in our case, environment is Job 1 and that is, the applicant, ~oever the applicant is, walks in and says, \Ie I re going to do something, but, first of all, let me tell you how we're protecting the environment, not going back and putting band-aids on and I think that I s our job is to watch that and that's what Mr. Hagan and Mr. Cartier are saying. MR. ROBERTS -I think we just, perhaps, \\ant to step back a minute and remember that a great deal of this plan exists and, a rather minor portion of it is new construction and are we looking at, arenlt we rendering some, overall, improvement on the site, by what we're doing? Are we trying to back track and correct some existing ills that are grandfathered? MR. CARTIER-We are almost doubling t he expansion of the physical building and I don't regard that as minor. We also have problems, occasionally, with parking out on the road, ~ich, this is prior to the expansion of this building. So, the site already has problems. I've kind of, maybe this is not a fair way to look at it, but I've kind of looked at this thing as if it were coming in, if the original, ~at is already there, ~re coming in, ~'d have some major problems with it, as an original concept, and we are expanding this, considerably, now. So, \Ie need to be very careful in the way we look at this thing. MR. CAlMANO-Just as an example, I went up there, one day, and there's supposed to be 50 cars on there, there were 59 cars, because cars are parked up in the woods and all that kind of stuff, that's just a small example. I'm not trying to correct the ills of the past. It is almost doubling and I think it's time to just take a strong look. MR. ROBERTS-I just wanted to throw that out, because we sometimes forget that a lot of this existed. I believe we left the public hearing open. Is there anyone in the audience who cares to comment on this project any further? lQ ~ '---' PUBLIC BEARING OPENED SUSAN PAPOWSKI MRS. PAPOWSKI-Hi, I'm Susan Papowski. I've been here within the last year because I'm a resident of Glen Lake and I, too, put an addition on, not too long ago, so some of you are familiar faces. I have written you letters, regarding this, since February. I have not been able to come to any meetings because it's a two and a half hour drive for me and I made the drive tonight and I have the drive back tonight because I feel so strongly about Glen Lake. I have been there every summer for forty some odd years. My mother has been there for over 70 years. She is the oldest living resident of Glen Lake. Obvious'ly, Glen Lake has a tremendous, tremendous meaning to me. I have to say to you that I have no personal feelings about the Docksider. I have never seen the gentleman before and, certainly, this is not a personal issue. This is simply an issue of Glen Lake and I think this is how we must look at it. I hope you'll forgive me for just reading a few notes, but I don't want to forget some of the things that I have been twirling in my mind for about six months. Our concern, as I said, is for Glen Lake. Our first problem, I feel, is the safety of the residents in the area and you have just commented on the fact t hit there are cars allover Glen Lake Road. We come in from Route 9 and come around that corner, it has always been a dangerous corner. It was a dangerous corner 20 years ago, 30 years. MR. HAGAN-Fifty years ago. MRS. PAPOWSKI-It was. We had that playground there, children trying to get back and forth. Within the last year, it has become an extraordinary problem. I canlt even begin to explain to you what I have seen there some nights and I haven't been there that much and I hate to think what's going on all stU1lDler. When Mr. Caimano said, in excess of 50 cars, this is true. I have counted more than 60 cars there, on a week night. If we nearly double this restaurant, I hate to think where these cars and where these people are going to go. I'm very, very troubled about that. The parking situation is one situation, the safety is another, not only for small children, for pedestrians, just trying to walk, for motorists. I have elderly parents who come around that corner and 11m terrified that they're going to hit somebody because you barely have a lane to get through. If someone's trying to cross that road, you can't see. My second concern, for years, obviously, Sullivanls as it was, ~s very much in keeping with the neighborhood. It was just a small, neighborhood store. We all remember going to church, there, on Sunday and getting penny candy, etc., etc. I understand that communities change. Look at Vermont. Vermont is changing drastically and I know that happens and we all expect it. However, I don't think change should be at the expense of the residents and the community that is here today. The noise pollution that exists on that Lake, at this moment, is unbearable. I am an owner of a small business, myself, of a very similar nature, I run it myself. I closed it for one week, this year, for the first break in a year and a half and I drove to Glen Lake for the peace and quiet and, Wednesday night, my first night there, I laid awake, from 11 to l2 and listened to some people who had, obviously, had too much to drink and I'm sure they were having a wonderful time, but they're out on the front by that deck and, on the Lake, that deck is ~ feet from the Lake and the noise carries. I am only 5 residences to the south and the noise is incredible and I don't know, maybe it doesn I t bother some people, maybe some people have less sensitive ears than I do, but I find that very, very troubling. The noise, alone, is a problem, right now. MR. CARTIER-Let me ask you a question, right there, are you saying the noise is from the Docksider or are we talking about noise from Glen Lake, in general? MRS. PAPOWSKI-No, I'm talking about the noise from that deck, from the people out on that deck, from the bar. I know we have occasional noise on the Lake. I mean, that's going to happen. I understand that and I know that that's just, but there are specific times when it is very obviously coming from up there. I mean, it's difficult. You have a bar, and there's only so much you can control in a situation like that. I am also concerned that you have people, I have been very active in graduations with my teenagers. I have three teenagers. I am very concerned about these people and theyl re drinking three or four hours and then trying to get out of that parking lot with the boat trailers and the people. Thirdly, when you increase anything of the nature of this size, you are talking about increasing both boats and people. We have a publicly advertised boat launch on Glen Lake. Now, as it is, I saw many boats being launched, jet skis, there's a constant parade in and out. When you're talking about 50 parking spaces, thatls 20 '-" - all well and good if they're cars, but if you're talking about a boat and a trailer, that takes up much more than, really, you've got two spaces because it's very hard to maneuver those around. Those are coming in and out all the time, that's another traffic hazard, right there. When you get all these boats and all these cars, you get the petroleum products on the Lake, the oil, the gas, all these issues. I am concerned about the milfoil coming in on the outside boats that are coming in on this boat launch. Milfoil has closed down a few lakes in Vermont. I know it was a problem at Glen Lake, years ago. I don't know what the status is right now, but I think it's another thing that we have to be very, very concerned about and increased boats and Cars is more noise. The water quality, obviously, is another concern. Septic is something I don't know a lot about. It was difficult enough for me to abide by the septic ordinances myself. We have a large family. We added on a couple of bedrooms, so that we could all meet there in the summer and we have just put, at a major expense, 5,000 gallons of holding tanks on our lot to abide by the Queensbury Ordinances and we felt this was the proper thing to do for Glen Lake and we do have enough land to put a septic system in to accommodate our camp. I find it very difficult to believe that you could get an appropriate septic system on the same amount of land for a restaurant of 80 people and a bar that seats 20. I don't understand how that could be, but that, again, is up to the engineers, that's something I can't address, that's something, I guess, you have to address. Lastly, I would like to state that I am somewhat puzzled by the lack of communication by the Glen Lake Association, of which we are members. A year ago this past Spring, I received a letter, and I hope you will forgive me for reading a couple of paragraphs. It was regarding the Charles Wood issue, that was a very emotional issue, apparently, to Glen Lake residents and to the Board and the Board appointed an attorney to write a letter to all members of the Association, ~ are paying members, and in this letter, wlÍch I am happy to leave with you, for the record, there were a couple of paragraphs, "The outcome of the matter will determine whether you and your children will be able, in the future, to swim in or drink the water of Glen Lake." Another paragraph, "The Board of Directors of the Glen Lake Association has authorized me to oppose this planned expansion on the grounds that it will interfere with the quality of Ii fe on Glen Lake. Now is the time for you to make known your concern in support of the Board's position." And, lastly, "Besides the effect on the quality of the water, the residents along the west end of the Lake should seriously consider noise levels to be created, hours of operation, lights, and not the least, increased traffic on Route 9." If you amend that to say the east end of the Lake and traffic on Glen Lake Road, that letter is very applicable to the current situation. I am appalled that I have received no communication from the Glen Lake Association regarding this issue. MR. CARTIER-That's between you and the Glen Lake Association, okay? MRS. PAPOWSKI-I'm just telling you, that this is, the Glen Lake Association, for whatever theyl ve said to you or not said to you, I have received no communication from them and, therefore, I think anything that they say should be taken with a grain of salt because I have never heard a word about this from them. They have taken no stand on it, to my knowledge, and I think that's something that the Board should be aware of. MR. CARTIER-Do we have any correspondence from them at all? MR. BAKER-None. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-I'd say that letter's drawing some conclusions that 11m not sure can be substantiated, either. MRS. PAPOWSKI-Well, all I'm saying is, I think an argument was made in prior meetings, that the Glen Lake Association would be enforcing this project and I think it's important to keep the Association out of it because I don't think it's taking a stand, one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, it's certainly not speaking for me. I just want you to know it's not speaking for me, if somebody should say it is, okay? My last thoughts are, I know you have a very difficult task and I wouldn't want your job. I know what small towns are like. I know what Boards are like. My husband has been the Chairman of the School Board for nine years and it's awful. However, I suppose you know that, once you give a green light to something like this, \Ie have a very major change. We have a very major change in our nei ghborhood which I feel has already taken place. We have a very major change in our traffic problems. A very, very permanent change to Glen Lake and I hate to see Glen Lake change. Thank you. 21 "---' --- BOB TYRER MR. TYRER-I wasn't going to make this comment. I'm Bob Tyrer, a Glen Lake resident. I wasn I t going to make this comment until I felt I heard a very paranoid Glen Lake resident. I live on the extreme west shore of Glen Lake. This shouldn't have even been brought up, tonight, because it's not part of the project of the Docksider, about the noise from Route 9. I live as far west as you can be, on Glen Lake, and there's no noise from Route 9. I am a Kiwanian. I meet at the Docksider Restaurant and have nothing to do with Paul or anything, t his issue tonight, but I do meet there every Wednesd ay night. Our meetings are out on the veranda. I have never heard any high level of noise, any high level of abusive language or anything in all the years that I've been at the Docksider with the Kiwanis group. I just wanted to make the statement. Thank you. HELEN DOYLE MRS. DOYLE-My name is Helen Doyle and 11m the owner of the Glenmoore Lodge on Glen Lake and I'm concerned with the preservation of the Lake. We have our guests that come, many of them like to fish. They have come and said to me how boats come very close to them and sOOletimes, could be, hazards. We also have a very conservative grQup that come to our Lodge and, therefore, Wlen they're swimming, they're also concerned with how close the boats come to the docks. My concern is, again, is there any rule or regulation when one expands, as far as space is concerned. You talked about space outside for parking. Would that also increase the boats, again, and what would that do to the preservation of the fish and, of course, the Glen Lake Association and what it would mean to someone like ourselves? MARIANNE MCNEAL MRS. MCNEAL-11m Marianne McNeal. 11m 300 feet from the Docksider. I've been coming to Glen Lake for 27 years and I come there for tranquility and peace and what I find there, recently is that the noise pollution on the deck is so bad that I cannot sleep at night. I have been woken up by people getting on the boats after they've had an enjoyable evening there and it's been very, very loud and I've heard phrases I'd rather not hear and I've also heard noise that was coming right from the deck. I also can hear screeching cars. The other day I was almost hit. Somecne had just put their boat in the Lake and they were coming out and the parking lot was completely filled and the young man driving the truck had to pull completely out into two lanes, and when he did that, that was fine, except some cne came down the hill, some cne was coming the other way and there was almost a car accident and I was almost killed and I was very upset about that, that really bothered me and I think, if I had a camera last year and a few times this year, I could have showed you the congestion and the unsafe conditions that exist when the parking lot is filled at the Docksider. There are cars on both sides of the road. We've had to come out and ask people to please move their cars because they block our driveway and if we were only speaking about, you have to have the right seating capacity. The different times that I have been to the Docksider there's been pe ople standing allover, so what do about the cars that they come in. We have a correct seating capacity for the people, or parking place for the people who are driving, but what about the people who are standing there? Is there any rule about that? I mean, you could have 50 more people standing there, so you'd have 25 more cars. I didn't know how the Board addressed something like that and you've also spoken of Glen Lake. I'm sure you've been there and I imagine, you know how, Wien things happen near the water, how it's greatly magnified and I think you consider that, for the people that are living in that area, that when there is a noise, it's even louder than it might seem to the people staying there and I'm objecting because I think it's going to change the nature of the neighborhood, Wiich is one of the reasons I hope you do vote against something, and I think it has already started to do that. I know you mentioned that you had come around to look at the establishment. Are you going to come around again, or is that mainly it, you only look at it once or do you come again? MR. HAGAN-Some of us have been there three and four times. Some of us were there last Tuesd ay night. MRS. MCNEAL-Okay. I didn't know if, maybe, Wlen you came, residents could also, like myself and Mrs. Papowski, could also come and walk around with you. MR. CARTIER-Well, this is what a public hearing is for, that's what this is for. 22 '--" '---' MRS. MCNEAL-Because, I mean, the close proximity of the houses in that area and the value of the property that's there and I'm afraid that our property values will decrease and, for most people, it I S probably the biggest investment they'll make in their whole life and I really don't think they want someone to say, no, I don I t want to live here because of the noise or the extreme amount of traffic coming and going all day and I didn't know if there Was really a positive reason why this expansion was necessary and how is it going to benefit the people that live in this area. Isn't that what it's supposed to do, small business was supposed benefi t the pe op1e that live there. I couldn't see where it was really doing that. MR. ROBERTS-Well, to answer that question, it may keep the owner in business and it is the only piece of property on the Lake where you can go by boat to have a restaurant and bar facility. It's been pointed out by some other residents that it does serve some purpose, some useful, neighborhood purpose, I guess. However, v.e are talking about a substantial increase in the size and the usage of the property, I guess, that does seem to be creating some additional parking problems, possible pollution problems, additional noise problems. I don't know. Is the property able' to really handle this addition, I guess, is what we're really coming down. MR. MARTIN-I have just a couple of comments, since they relate to the Ordinance itself and thi s maybe helpful to the engineer and even in the planning of the sanitary. I don't think that the deck was included in your square footage calculations, was it, the front deck, by the Lake? MR. DEAN-No, this is an issue discussed on many occasions, in that, the deck and the space within the, the deck is a limited use type of thing. MR. MARTIN-Right, \le1l, I was just referencing the Ordinance, in regards to how floor area, or gross floor area is designed in a commercial or industrial use and it says, "Sum tot al of all floor areas of the principle and accessory buildings or structures under single ownership or business." I think, then, under that definition, you would include the patio or the deck in any square footage calculations or seating calculations and, if you were to do that, you would effect all the calculations right on down through sanitary, parking, all that. MR. DEAN-We're well aware of that. The trade off is that those, When the conditions are favorable to sit on the deck, people do not sit inside. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DEAN-So, \Ie're looking at a trade off in that situation. To include the deck as part of the gross floor area of the building would give you an inordinately unreasonable figure that's not even close to reality. We've already overdesigned the turnover rate of 2.2 and a half, turnover rate per chair, per meal, Wlich is twice, that is a maximum situation on the very best day of the year. This is how these calculations were done. MR. MARTIN-What is the seating capacity of that deck? What's it seat right now or What's it laid out for? MR. DEAN-I can't answer. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. I want to be very clear about what you're asking. You're saying the deck has not been figured into the calculations? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-But ~e do have a situation, here, where the deck could be full of people and the restaurant, itself, could be full of people. MR. MARTIN-That's What I'm trying to get at and that effects the sanitary sewer, as well as the parking, that maybe something that the Staff would like to consider and also, again, referencing the Ordinance, this is Off Street Parking Design, "For any building having more than one use, parking space shall be required as provided for each use" and I believe, given the design configuration that we have, of the floor plan, you have a building that houses a tavern as well as a restaurant, a bar, as well as a restaurant. MR. HAGAN-Isn't there also a dwelling above the restaurant? 23 '- - MR. DEAN-That's included in the calculations. MR. MARTIN-No, I have no question, but my, and then going on and referencing the Parking Design Schedule, under Restaurants, "One space per each lOO square feet" and you've addressed that, but also, under Tavern or Bar, "One space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area" and you've done that, "Plus one space for each linear foot of bar". So, if you were to conform to that, you'd need to add, I think the bar is, like, 35 feet long. MR. DEAN-That was included in the calculations, in the square footage per seat calculations. MR. MARTIN-I didn't see it, because, when I did the mathematics of it, it was just right off the square footage and t here was no reference to, because it says, "One space per each lOO square feet of gross floor area, plus one space per each linear foot of bar", in addition to the 100 square foot calculation. MR. DEAN-That's under Tavern. MR. MARTIN-Under Bar or Tavern. MR. DEAN-Right. This is a restaurant. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but the Ordinance says, "For any building having more than one use, parking space shall be required as provided for each use". MR. DEAN-That's such as, if you have an apartment, you would include that. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DEAN-If you have a marina, you would include parking for that. MR. MARTIN-Right, and if you had a bar, you would include that. MR. DEAN-The bar is part of the restaurant. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think this is something that needs to be clarified. MS. CORPUS-I think that these are good issues that Jiml s brought up. However, I do believe theyl re within the purview of the Zoning Administrator I s decision to be made, ~ether that is a use that should be accounted for on this site. Also, whether the deck should be included in the square footage, that would initially be the Zoning Administrator's decision, which this Board could request, obviously, that she make that decision. MR. MARTIN-I'm just saying, if designed according to this Ordinance, you would need parking requirements of, maybe, 85 cars, which, from what I'm hearing from the public, ~uld be much more in line with the real use. MR. ROBERTS-And that hasn't touched on the boat launch. MR. CAlMANO-That's the boat launch. MR. MARTIN-We 11, he's already included specifications, the mooring and all that. thit. According to the design MR. CAlMANO-No, he hasn't, that's in the notes. MR. MARTIN-Well, all I'm saying is, the real discrepancy, to me, appears to be the bar. MR. CARTIER-Youl re right, I think it's an extremely valid point that you brought up. We're not talking about an either or situation. Somebody can be having dinner and somebody else could be at the bar. It's not, theylre either having dinner or they're at the bar and I think your reading of the Ordinance is correct. MR. CAlMANO-That kind of brings up what was said by the audience. MR. CARTIER-I agree, and that's ~y we're having parking on the road, okay, ~ich should not be there. 24 "---' - MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, if I may suggest, at this point, perhaps the most productive use of your time might be to, in the form of a motion, have the Board direct some questions to the Zoning Administrator, specifically asking for determinations on these two points and, as I understand it, the two points that need to be clarified are, does the square footage calculations for parking adequacy include the square footage of the deck outside and, two, were both USeS on the property looked at. MR. MARTIN-And, in addition, if you include the square footage of the deck, you're then, you're going to effect the whole calculation for sanitary/sewer and everything right on through because that is the basis for which all these are made. MR. CAlMANO-Can I go back to a basic point, here, too. nonconforming use, right, for this zone? This is already a MR. BAKER-Yes, it did receive a Use Variance. MR. CAlMANO-We're going through a lot of hoop jumping, non answers for a nonconforming use? MR. CARTIER-How many variances did this receive? MR. BAKER-I believe they received three. MR. CARTIER-Three variances. Well, let me just add a couple of things that I have some conCerns about. Number one of which goes back to this parking. We have, Over and over again, not considered gravel parking as being permeable, in that it compacts after awhile. In the calculations that have been offered to us, that gravel parking area is calculated as part of the permeable. Another concern I have is the location of the handicapped parking. I know it's been moved once, but it's still not very close to the door. Another major concern I have is the maneuverability of boats and trailers through that parking lot area and, coupled with that, is the fact that, as Staff has pointed out in Item 3b I guess it is, even though it's not numbered or lettered, is that trailer parking has not been considered also and also Item 6. Somehow Staff's comments kind of got jumped over, here, and I think they need to get picked up on. I guess that's about all that I had. I do have a major conCern with the parking. MR. YARMOWICH-Mr. Cartier, with regard to your comments in gravel and permeability, there I s a distinction that should be made for the benefit of the Board and the applicant, in this particular caSe. The gravel areas are considered, not green space, in that, they're impermeable to the extent that they don't offer the same value for green space calculations. They can be considered partially permeable, or that would have a modified runoff coefficient associated with gravel and that is an appropriate treatment for stormwater management. The two issues are separate wit h regard to the use of gravel. Stormwater management, gravel is partially permeable, but it is not considered in the green space calculation. MR. ROBERTS-I think we've taken a harder line on that, recently, haven't we, Peter? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying, in the calculations that are shown up here, the parking area is included as part of the lot permeability and what we have been saying is that, when we calculate permeability on a piece of property, to meet the particular zone parts of the Ordinance, dealing with permeability, that we do not calculate in gravel parking as part of the permeable. MR. YARMOWICH-That's true. MR. CARTIER-All I'm saying is, it's calculated in, here, as part of the permeable. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but not as lOO percent, Peter. MR. DEAN-Thatls not correct. MR. ROBERTS-It's not? MR. DEAN-No, that was revised months ago. MR. YARMOWICH-Zoning is in terms of green area and not in terms of percent permeable. MR. DEAN-There is no gravel area included in the permeability of that lot. 25 '''---' - MR. CARTIER-I see, I'm looking at a thing stamped July 25, 1990, proposed l6,500 feet parking area. MR. YARMOWICH-That's not permeable. MR. HAGAN-It's under lot permeability. MR. DEAN-I'm sorry, that's strictly, that's not. MR. HAGAN-Well, that shouldnlt be there is what you're saying? MR. DEAN-That's correct. MR. HAGAN-Well, it sure is deceiving, because it sure as hell looks like it. MR. CARTIER-It's there and that's what I've got to go by, Mr. Dean, if it's there. MR. YARMOWICH-Excuse me, the first two item's, 2, 212 square feet building area is impermeable; l6,500 square feet gravel parking area is impermeable. Those two sums represent 43 percent of the total lot area for 43,054 square feet. MR. HAGAN-Well, itls the heading thatls confusing. MR. CARTIER-That clears up that, thank you. MRS. PAPOWSKI-I have just one other comment that I hadn't thought about until you mentioned it and it's something I have seen, myself. I have seen pe ~le launching the boats and jet skis, now they are not accounted for in pe ~le that are using the bar or are using the restaurant. They are launching it, parking their vehicle and going on the Lake. Now, that's another whole element of parking that's not been taken into consideration. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we have considered that, as a matter of fact. MRS. PAPOWSKI-Have you? That is figured in to the square footage? MR. CAlMANO-Thatls one of the things we've mentioned, though. MR. ROBERTS-That's one of the intangibles I'm not sure we're satisfied with, but I think welve certainly thought about. LYNN MCNEAL MS. LYNN MCNEAL-My name is Lynn McNeal. I grew up on Glen Lake and I'm just coming from a different generation and I I d like to say that, besides the parking and everything, I would like Glen Lake to remain, pretty much, around for me and my children and, at the rate it's going, you bring more pe~le in there, you're bringing more pollution. Something you didn't point out is that, with the Docksider cutting down the trees, he IS also creating erosion and, right now, the land stands as it is, but with the trees being cut down and the rainfall, it's going to keep coming back and it's going to get closer to the septic tank. I think t hit's something you should keep in consideration. Also, to that man, he can go home to the east side of the Lake, but we can't. We stay right there and if he'd like to spend a night over at my camp, he's more than welcome to. MR. ROBERTS-It would appear that we're coming down to a list of unanswered questions or not satisfactorily answered questions that still continue to need to be addressed. MR. CAlMANO-Well, actually there's more than enough grounds to disapprove. MR. HAGAN-I agree. MR. CAlMANO-I mean, I could make a case, right here, and so could Jim, he made the case. I don I t know why we keep fighting this thing because we're going to see it time and time again. MR. CARTIER-Yés, I would hate to send the applicant away with a tabling and have him try to address these issues and come back and say, no, you haven't done it, because I'm already seeing a use without t he expansion that's creating problems and I can't believe we could possibly convince ourselves that an expansion of the use is going to alleviate the problem. 26 '-' ---,,' MR. CAlMANO-And we're going through hoops for what already is nonconforming, that seems to be suicide. MR. HAGAN-Plus, it has a total adverse impact on that community. MR. CAlMANO-That's right. MR. HAGAN-It is a governing factor and take the percentage of property that they own on that Lake, they have far too great an impact on that community, now, as it stands, without an expansion, and I think that is basis, in itself, for disapproval and I don't think we're subject to an Article 78 on that statement, either. MR. ROBERTS-Let me ask, have we done SEQRA on this? MR. BAKER-The SEQRA Review was done. MR. DEAN-We did a Long Form EAF. We did the next thing to an Environmental Impact Statement, and now we're sitting here, tonight, talking about turning this project down . MR. CARTIER-That's something that bothered me, too. MR. BAKER-Yes, I'd like to clarify a point, here. The Board did do a SEQRA Review, already, for the Zoning Board and you did Negative Dec this. MR. HAGAN-Not unanimously. MR. BAKER-Agreed. However, given the information that you have before you, now, if you would like to retract t hit negative declaration, it is within your right to do so. MR. CARTIER-Yes, just a commen t, because Mr. Dean has brought up an issue that I've been chewing on, here, tonight. I think we Negative Decked this thing, at least I did, voted for a Negative Declaration, on the basis of all these issues were being addressed and what has been presented to us tonight is new information that suggests that these issues were not being addressed. So, I think t hat is appropriate, that there be a decision. MR. CAlMANO-Well, not only that, but I don't see that what Mr. Dean says is germane. Just because you have a Negative Dec doesn I t mean that, for other reasons, it can't be turned down. MR. BAKER-That's true. MR. CAlMANO-I don't see one has anything to do with the other. MR. ROBERTS-That's probably true and, yet, it's unfortunate we didn't do that before because now the ZBA has gone ahead and done a variance or several variances on the basis of our SEQRA Review. MR. CARTIER-I think we were trying to be fair to the applicant because this is a very complicated issue and we wanted to move it along and we figured that all of these things are in the process of being addressed and that's why we Negative Decked it and moved it on to the ZBA and my impression, now, is that these things haven't been addressed. MR. DEAN-May I make a request to the Board that we do table this application, tonight, for reasons, Number one, that I and my applicant would like to confer with Town Attorney. We would like to confer, further, with your engineering consultants as to what some of his specific concerns are, so that we may be very clear, be very clear where we are proceeding from this very moment. MR. CAlMANO-Disapproving this will not prevent him from discussing it with the Town Attorney, or discussing it with the engineer. What it will do, however, is make it very clear that this application, as it stands, is no good, so you will know where you stand. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. ROBERTS-But does it preclude him from coming right back with another application? 27 -- .- MR. CARTIER-As long as it's a diff~r~nt on~. MRS. PULVER-W~ll, ~v~n if it g~ts tabl~d, h~ could com~ back with t he sam~ application, but I would think h~ would probably want to am~nd it. MR. HAGAN-W~ should not tabl~. MR. CARTIER-Y~s, but l~t's b~ cl~ar, h~r~, in t~rms of, if we tabl~ it, and w~'r~ still unhappy and w~ tabl~ it again and w~'r~ still unhappy. I think Mr. Caimano's corr~ct, h~r~, we fish or cut bait. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, prior to th~ Boardls making a motion r~garding th~ application, in ord~r to do that, you would hav~ to r~~valuat~ th~ Environm~n tal Ass~ssm~nt Form and the N~gativ~ D~claration that was giv~n and cit~ ~ach particular ar~a in which you b~li~v~ th~r~ has not b~~n suffici~nt addr~ss of th~, or mitigation of the impacts by this proj~ct. MR. CAlMANO-What if we' r~ not going to turn it down for ~nvironm~ntal r~asons? Do w~ still hav~ to do that? MR. ROBERTS-W~ still have to addr~ss SEQRA b~for~ w~ addr~ss th~ issue. MS. CORPUS-Y~s. MRS. PULVER-W~ will probably turn it down for ~nvironmental r~asons. MR. CAlMANO-That's on~ of th~ r~asons you could turn it down. MR. CARTIER-What' s th~ probl~m with going back and r~vi~wing th~ Long Form SEQRA on this, right now? MR. ROBERTS-I think, p~rhaps, th~r~' s a tim~ factor. Do we want to sp~nd all night on this issue? MR. CARTIER-Do w~ hav~ to r~scind that first? MS. CORPUS-B~for~ doing that, I would, at this point, pr~f~r that th~ Board tabl~ this so that w~ could look into this issue further. MR. CARTIER-Okay, we hav~ 30 days in which to act. MS. CORPUS-Y~s. MR. CARTIER-That m~ans we can ~ither do it n~xt w~~k or w~ can do it som~tim~ in S~pt~mb~r. MS. CORPUS-I would lik~ th~ opportunity to sp~ak with th~ applicant and his r~pres~ntativ~ and also to do som~ inv~stigation on my own r~garding th~ impact of wh~th~r th~ SEQRA can b~ chang~d, giv~n th~ varianc~s that w~r~ grant~d alr~ady and th~ impact on this application. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. KUPILLAS-Can we, in the m~antim~, g~t a ruling, as to What Jim brought up? MS. CORPUS-Th~ Board can c~rtainly pass that. MR. KUPILLAS-That, is this thr~~ us~s, four, if you count th~ apartm~nt, b~caus~ that was, c~rtainly, g~rman~ in what w~ d~cid~d to do with th~ SEQRA b~caus~ parking is part of it. MS. CORPUS-In fact, I think that's an important pi~c~ of information you n~~d. MR. KUPILLAS-And if it do~sn' t fit parking, th~n we should know t hit b~for~ th~ n~xt tim~ w~ bring this up. MS. CORPUS-Certainly, you can r~quest th~ Zoning Administrator addr~ss thos~ issu~. MR. MARTIN-I don't s~e what th~ r~al difference is between, he is certainly adanant about this ~xpansion and it appears as though he'll be back again, one way or the other, so if it I S more accommodating to table it. I mean, it's certainly not an approval. 28 '--" - MR. ROBERTS-I think that's our recommendation from both Counsel and Staff, why don't we do it. MR. HAGAN-The only problem I have with that, personally, is that if \ok do this, then this man is going to have to come back in, or the applicant is going to have to come back in, satisfying the parking problems, the roadside parking, the noise contamination and if he does all this, then what is he going to do with the expansion. He will not need it because the only way he can satisfy all these things is not to have the expansion, is to reduce his amount of business. So, if \ok give him approval to expand, therels no way, any way he can figure to satisfy all the problems that we have with his application. MS. CORPUS-I believe he must, legally, be given that opportunity, given the information that Jim has presented this evening and the rulings that we don't have, yet. MR. HAGAN-Alright, I've said my peace. MR. CARTIER-I don't think postponing our decision, postponing our decision? we're talking about tabling. We I re just talking about correct? Is there a difference between tabling and MR. CAlMANO-Well, we only have three options. MR. CARTIER-Do we have to go through the tabling procedure, in order to postpone? MS. CORPUS-Well, the time frames for SEQRA run, if you do not table it and you are given so many days to make a decision and that's done. MR. KUPILLAS-We should table it, then, is that what your recommendation is? MR. ROBERTS-I think it is your recommend ation to table it, so it covers ourselves on the time clock. MS. CORPUS-You can table for as short a period or as long a period as t he Board wishes, also. MR. ROBERTS-If we're going to table it, I guess weill just leave the public hearing open, but I guess we'll accept a motion for tabling. MR. CARTIER-We do have the agreement of the applicant to table it, is that correct? MR. CAlMANO-He asked for it. MR. CARTIER-Okay, let the record show that Mr. Dean indicated yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-90 J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Tabled with the agreement of the applicant. So, that various concerns that have been raised can be addressed and some issues clarified. As part of the motion, direct the applicant to consult with the Zoning Administrator to clarify, Number One, the definition of floor area as it relates to the outside deck and, secondly, to clarify the number of uses present on the property, i.e. the marina, the bar, and the restaurant. Tabled for a period of 30 days, until the first regular meeting in September. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Roberts NOES: Mr. Hagan SITE PLAN NO. 49-90 T1PE: œLISTED BC-lA mBEaT TYREll. OWER: SAME AS ABOVE 60 GLENWOD AVENŒ FOIl. AN ADDITIŒ OF 3,072 SQ. FT. BUILDING WITB 18 NEW PARKING SPACES. THIS WILL BE USED AS AN ANTIQUE MALL VITB A CX>NNEcrING WALK TO THE EXISTING ANTIQUE MALL. (VADEN c:oœTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 62-1-1.2 Lar SIZE: 3 AæES SEcrION 4.020 (K) RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT ROBERT TYRER, ALSO PRESENT 29 ..-- MR. ROBERTS-This, again, was tabled for additional information, as I recall and the Board has, subsequently, been in receipt of late information from DEC that muddys the waters, here, a little bit, but let's ask for comments from Staff, as we normally do. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. CARTIER-(Referring to Staff Notes which say "An intersection analysis performed by Warren County (1989) states that the intersection of Glenwood and Bay is at an existing Level of Service F (failed - DOT's lowest rating)." Is that when it was two lane? MR. BAKER-That's the intersection of Glenwood and Bay. MR. CAlMANO-Glenwood and Bay. MR. HAGAN-Bay. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. BAKER-Glenwood and Bay. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Stu, do you want to refer to the other letter's on file here? MR. BAKER-Certainly, we have a letter dated August 15th, 1990, from Les Saltsman, Principal Fisheries Technician at DEC in Warrensburg, to John Goralski (attached) We also have a memo to the Planning Department, from N.W. Bodenwiser, Fire Marshal, dated August 2lst, 1990: lilt is our determination that sufficient access to new buildings for fire fighting purposes are adequate for this project." And the Beautification Committee did approve. MR. ROBERTS-Did the Board members get copies of that letter from DEC? MR. BAKER-It should be in your packet, yes. MR. ROBERTS-Well, let me turn it over to the applicant, then, and see if he can address some of these concerns. MR. JONES-My name is Richard Jones. 11m from Richard Jones Associates and we're representing Mr. Tyrer, here, tonight. Weill start with the Departments comments. Of the comments, I think only Number 2 requires any addressing by my client. We have added l8 spaces, which is the requirement for the new facility that we've placed on that side of the site. With the calculation we have for parking, we. only require 70 spaces. We've provided 72 because it is our hope that, in providing the 18 spaces, we're going to provide enough parking to keep the majority of the people on that side of the street. We recognize the potential danger and my client has, in the past, provided new barriers on the opposite side where the parking exists. Hels provided some fencing and he's broken that down into an entrance/exit. We do not feel that the additional 18 parking spaces that we've provided for cars is going to provide an adverse impact, in regard to this project. Pedestrian circulation, as I said, we. have taken into account the fact that people do walk across that street. When the initial project was approved several years ago, that was a concern at that time, as well. That is why we, have provided a new parking on the side where the existing Manor is presently. The comments from Rist-Frost, our consulting engineer, Morse Engineering, has supplied a memo to Rist-Frost and I don't know if he has that with him or not. MR. YARMOWICH-When was this memo prepared? MR. JONES-Today. MR. YARMOWICH-We don't receive that information prior to these meetings. We'd be happy to discuss it with you, now. MR. JONES-Welve got several copies. I believe one was dropped off at the Planning Department, as well. Comment Number One, as shown on the attached drawing, and 30 ---- '-' there is an attached drawing, if the single storm drain were to become clo gged, the storm runoff ~uld probably follow the route shown, i.e. up the driveway and along the north edge of Glenwood and into a low area located within the Niagra Mohawk Power Company right-of-way, which is the direction the over land flow was directed prior to the proposed development. However, a ditch would have to be constructed on the north side of Glenwood to ensure the runoff is directed in an easterly direction and to prevent flow across Glenwood Avenue. I believe these comments were discussed with Mr. Scartelli and the representative from Rist-Frost. Comment Number Two, the invert of the detention basin outlet spike has been raised to the elevation 316. Therefore, providing 4400 cubic feet of storage for siltation and 3450 of storage retention with a one foot freeboard to the top of the retention basin. Comment Number Three, by raising t he outlet pipe of the rentention basin to invert elevation 316, this elevation will be equal to the 50 year flood plain, allowing for the retention basin to discharge at the 10 year predevelopment rate. Comment Number Four, the letter received from New York State DEC with the comment for additional rip-rap which will be accomplished on the plans. MR. ROBERTS-How are we addressing that letter from DEC as to, not allowing the warm water to go into Halfway Brook. I've left my copy home, I guess. MR. CAlMANO-I don't have mine. MR. ROBERTS-Do you know what letter I'm referring to, Stuart? MR. BAKER-Yes, I do. MR. ROBERTS-It came in after the applicant, after the submission date. MR. BAKER-I do not know the details of what changes were made or what information was given to Les Saltsman, but, apparently, from the letter we have now, the main concern is rip-rapping the inlets and outlets. MR. ROBERTS-Did that come in after the previous letter? MR. BAKER-Yes, it did. The most current letter we have. MR. JONES-Yes, the most current, which, that is a result of discussions with Morse Engineering and the DEC. They went through the comments that DEC had and made revisions to the plans and those were then submitted to the Town, as well as a copy was sent to Mr. Saltsman. His review of those plans resulted in the memo that you have. MR. CARTIER-You're referring to August 15th, the August 15th letter? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, all this means changes after the submission date. I'm not sure whether they're significant enough. MR. JONES-The changes that resulted in his letter were part of the submission. The one comment in regard to the additional rip-rap, that has not been done, at this point, on the drawings. That was proposed and will be accomplished. MR. CAlMANO-Tom, these answers to your comments, can you, off the cuff, answer whether this is sufficient, or do you need more time? MR. YARMOWICH-Comment Number One provides a fail safe method to dispose of stormwater that would eliminate any critical impacts to Glenwood Avenue. MR. CAlMANO-So, you're happy with it? MR. YARMOWICH-Provided that the ditch construction is possible. There is the question of, can a ditch be constructed there because it's a roadway. Regarding Comment Number Two, verifying those numbers ~uld be required and I think that can be done relatively straightforward from previous information received and further discussion with the applicant's engineer. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-And the same goes for Comment Three and Comment Number Four is self explanatory. 3l "-' - MR. CAlMANO-So, your concern, only, is location, on Number One? with, can a ditch be constructed at that MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. BAKER-That would require permit work with Warren County D.P.W., I believe. MR. YARMOWICH-I believe that the approach, here, appears to be satisfactory. The applicant has addressed the substance of the comments, the accuracy of their method I can't determine by looking at this information. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-I'm still confused. The letter's that came in from DEC and Trouts Unlimited, I donlt have them before me and you donlt seem to have copies of them. MR. JONES-Those were from the original submission and those were responded to before the submission, for this meeting. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, that wasn I t my understanding, I guess. I thought Staff got those comments after the submission and we understood it was new information, that, perhaps, had me confused. MR. BAKER-We did get those comments afterwards and they were forwarded over to the applicant and that IS wy they were able to do the revisions and get them in by the deadline time. MR. ROBERTS-No, this came in from DEC after the deadline time. MR. BAKER-youlre referring to the August 15th letter? MR. ROBERTS-No, I don't see any letter, here, that I'm talking about. three pages, from DEC. It was MR. JONES-This is two pages, this is July 26th. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, this was it, that had to do with not putting warm water into a Class A Trout Stream and there was an accompanying letter from Trout Unlimited that seemed to be working in cahoots with them. MR. JONES -Yes. MR. ROBERTS-And that letter, whatls the date on that letter? MR. JONES-July 26th. MR. ROBERTS-After the submission deadline date. MR. JONES-These comments ~re discussed with Morse Engineering. This letter, part of this letter, resulted in the changes that were made. We knew these comments, some of these comments were coming because we had been in contact with DEC. MRS. PULVER-See, they knew there was problems, so they corrected them and then they got the letter, right? MR. JONES-We got the design planned to DEC for his review. MRS. PULVER-Right. So, they actually fixed it before the letter came. MR. KUPILLAS-Were those comments addressed satisfactorily? MR. BAKER-That's up to Les Saltsman to determine, but, from the tone of his letter, apparently, they have been and his major concerns remain, rip-rapping along the ditches. MR. KUPILLAS-So, this letter that we now have in the packets, with the rip-rap? MR. BAKER-Right, and that still needs to be addressed. MR. KUPILLAS-That's a resultant letter, after the letter ~ don't have? MR. BAKER-Right. 32 '-- ~ MR. CARTIER-DEC wrote a letter that he has, Mr. Jones, has in his hand. Correct me if I'm wrong, DEC wrote a letter dated? MR. JONES-July 26th. MR. CARTIER-July 26th. This applicant made some revisions as a result of that letter, correct? MRS. PULVER-No, they made it before the letter. MR. CARTIER-Before you received the letter? MR. CAlMANO-The letter is really the confirmation. MR. BAKER-As the result of conversations with the DEC. MR. JONES-We made direct contact with DEC. MR. CARTIER-And now the results, what that all boils down to is, t he August 15th letter from Les Saltsman finishes, if I'm reading this correctly, any concerns he has. MR. JONES-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. CAlMANO-All of wich brings us to the traffic. MR. CARTIER-Which brings us to traffic, is that what you're saying? MR. CAlMANO-Yes, which, apparently, is a major concern to the Planning Department. MR. ROBERTS-Again, did we get a satisfactory answer to our question, was that done before the improvements to the Quaker Road? I think it was, wasn't it? MR. JONES-Yes, it was. That report was done prior to the improvements on Quaker. MR. CAlMANO-Then Quaker Road isn't the problem. MR. ROBERTS-It's the intersection, isn't it? MR. JONES-It's the intersection they're referring to. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, but she's more concerned with the impact that you will have, if you have five access points onto Glenwood Avenue, that I s Number One, and one of the exit points will be Glenwood and Bay, which is a Service Level F, and those of us who travel that intersection can attest to that, and, by the way, the other one, the Quaker and Glenwood, isn't going to get any better is because it's four lanes. There'll be twice as many accidents now, because there's four lanes. MR. ROBERTS-As a practical matter, I think it is working better. MR. KUPILLAS-It now has a turn. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Letls remember, there are already four, is that correct, and we're adding one more? MR. JONES-Yes, there were four existing. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-So, what are we talking about, eliminating one of these? MR. ROBERTS-I don It think that's gOing to solve any problem. MR. CAlMANO-That I s not going to solve any problem. The question is, should we allow an addition to this business which will engender more traffic, which will hurt the two intersections which, already, are not good, that's the question. 33 -- - MR. ROBERTS-We've been led to believe that lights are scheduled for Glenwood and Quaker, right? MR. CAlMANO-That certainly is a help. MR. CARTIER-Eighteen more spots. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say, 18 more spots, which probably won't be filled all the time. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I don't think we're talking a big deal, here, in terms of increase in traffic. MRS. PULVER-I don't think this business is going to generate a hundred more cars on that road a day. MR. CAlMANO-If you go across the corner of Glenwood and Bay, however, one more car is enough to drive you nuts, but what I really think is, if there's a light at Glenwood and Quaker, then traffic exiting there, smart traffic, will go to that light, go down to Bay and make that light, as opposed to fighting that ridiculousness down by the Queensbury Racquet Club and I really don't think that intersection should impact on this business. MR. KUPILLAS-I don't think that this would be a better business to put on the street, as far as traffic, either. There's not much else that can be added anywhere that brings the speed of the traffic that's going there. It's close enough to that intersection that it's not up to a major speed and t he type of people that business brings there, I don't think, create an onslaught of rushing traffic. Probably, nothing better could be there. MR. CARTIER-There is a cross walk painted there, isn't there, or not? Is there a cross walk painted across the road, there? MR. JONES-No. MR. CARTIER-Are there any pedestrian crossing signs there? MR. TYRER-Not as yet. MR. CARTIER-Not as yet? MR. TYRER-We're not required to put one up yet. MR. CARTIER-Alright. I just can't remember the site. MR. TYRER-I was never told that I had to put one up. I will gladly put one up. MR. CAlMANO-Do we need a SEQRA on this, or have we done it? MR. BAKER-Yes, you do. MR. CAlMANO-Short, Long, In between, or what? MR. BAKER-I believe it would be a Short Form. It's an Unlisted action. MR. CAlMANO-I guess what I'm thinking is, that if we do that SEQRA and nothing pops up from there, I mean, some other questions may pop up as a result of doing SEQRA. MR. ROBERTS-Well, didnlt we determine that DEC was an involved agency in this project and wouldn't that require a longer form SEQRA? MS. CORPUS-No. As long as DEC's comments are sufficiently addressed, then this Board can make it's determination, if DEC has no more negative comments. MR. ROBERTS-And they have been notified, obviously. MS. CORPUS-Right. They have no qualms with the Board being lead agency. MR. CAlMANO-Well, Where were we with the public hearing? MR. ROBERTS-I guess this was tabled. The public hearing is still open. 34 --. ~ PUBLIC BEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEAnNG CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-W& probably ought to hav& a map on th& wall. well dig into SEQRA. I gU&SS w& might as MR. CAlMANO-L&tls do th& SEQRA and see what pops up. MR. ROBERTS-Right. RESOLUTION WIlEN DETEBlUNATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 49-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: MR. CAlMANO-(R&ferring to Short Form SEQRA) , "Could action result in any adverse &ffects associated with the following: C 1. Existing Air Quality, Surface or Groundwater Quality or Quantity, Nois& Levels, Existing Traffic Patt&rns, Solid Waste Production or Disposal, Potential for Erosion, Drainage or Flooding Problems" MR. CARTIER-W&ll, existing traffic patterns. I don I t know if that I s where the p&destrian cross walk fits, but that's about the closest I can come. MR. CAlMANO-Well, it appears that we said it's be&n mitigated anyway, in that, Quak&r Road has become a four lane highway. Th&re' s going to be a traffic light th&re and, ~ assum& that, since this busin&ss is clos&st to th&re, smart p&opl& will do their driving in and out of there. MR. CARTIER-And the applicant's alr&ady indicated that h& III put up p&destrian crossing signs. MR. ROBERTS-And that's a situation that exists. The n&w parking spac& is on the same sid& of the road as th& new building. MR. CARTIER-But th& assumption is that you'll fill up some stuff on the other sid& of the road from th& n&w addition. MR. CAlMANO-And the surface or groundwat&r quality, so far, has b&&n handl&d? MR. BAKER-I b&li&ve th& &ngine&ring concerns regarding that still ne&d to b& addressed. MR. CAlMANO-That's right. MR. HAGAN-W&re th&y totally addressed? MR. YARMOWICH-I find that the method that theyl ve chosen to address them has substantial merit, th& accuracy I can It d&termine without looking back into the calculations. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, but at least it's something that's being addr&ssed, at this point. MR. YARMOWICH-I don It s&& any r&ason why, without minor arithm&tic corrections, things wouldnlt work out. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. WHEREAS, th&r& is presently b&fore the Planning Board an application for: an addition of a 3,072 sq. ft. building with 18 n&w parking spaces that will be used as an Antique Mall with a connecting walk to the existing Antique Mall and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has d&termined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under th& State Environmental Quality R&view Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 35 -- - 1. The DEC is involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: Warren County Highway Department 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 21st day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-90 IOBERI TYREll., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For addition of a 3,072 sq. ft. building with l8 new parking spaces, owned by Robert Tyrer, that will be used as an Antique Mall with a connecting walk to the existing Antique Mall with the following stipulations: The response of August 21st to the engineer's letter of August 8th has to be checked for accuracy prior to the next meeting; that the letter from the DEC written by Les Saltsman, of August l5th, is to be complied with and two pedestrian crossing signs and other markings which may be necessary will be installed. Duly adopted this 2lst day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. BAKER-Mr. Tyrer, revised plans should be brought to the Planning Department and we will forward them to the engineer. ~. . ~- SITE PLAN NO.. 43-90 TVE: œLISTED JlC-1A LEO LœBARDC LEO'S LœSTER-HOUSE OWNER: L & c: LœBARDC Ø!:ST SIDE .. llOorE 9 FOR œNSTII.1JCTIŒ Œ' A NEW DINING ROœ SO THAT THE EXISTINC SPACE Q\N BE A 1/IAITINC AREA. (1/I!\RBEN ooœTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 33-1-10, 11, 13 Lar SIZE: 3.851 ACRES SECXlœ 4.020 K RON RUCINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-This, again, was tabled for some additional information. Letl shear what Staff has to say about this. STAFF INPUt Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. BAKER-I might add that, Mr. Rucinski has brought in additional information this evening which the Board may choose to review if you like and it's regarding the two septic systems, an existing system and the proposed. MR. CARTIER-Does Tom have copies of those? MR. BAKER-No, I haven't distributed any of these copies, yet. MR. ROBERTS-That's a rather late submission that we normally don't accept at this time, unless w:; can peruse it rather quickly. Is that information going to be necessary? Well, let's here what the engineer has to say. 36 - .-' ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-11m not sure where this leaves us. I'm wondering why we're reviewing it, if we didn't get what we asked for here. MR. BAKER-I believe the information that Mr. Rucinski brought this evening is meant to address the current Rist-Frost comments. MR. CAlMANO-That opens up a can of worms that I, certainly, don't want to open up because that means that every applicant who appears in front of us can do that. MR. CARTIER-We have been doing a pretty good job, in the past, of getting away from that. I don't want to start over. MR. HAGAN-I thought we established the fact that this addition was going to create more people on the premises which would eventually put more demands upon the septic system. MR. CAlMANO-We did. MR. HAGAN-And that was, specifically, the reason this was tabled. MR. CAlMANO -Tha tis ri ght . MR. HAGAN-And now, the applicant comes before us, again. He still has not addressed that question, according to everything we have here. MR. YARMOWICH-The information provided by the applicant by the submission deadline did not do that. MR. HAGAN-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-I would suggest that the applicant explain what it is that are the circumstances of his lack of providing that information. I recognize the Board's problem with accepting additional information. We'd advise the applicant that that could not occur. I think that if, as in the previous case, if the applicant can address the comment in substance, through their explanation of it, that that may satisfy the Board, to proceed. As far as reviewing new information, at this time, we refrain from doing that and we don't offer opinions during the proceedings. MR. ROBERTS-Well, can the applicant quickly bring us up to date and answer some of these questions? MR. RUCINSKI-I'm Ron Rucinski, architect representing Leol s Lobster-House. Our Letter of 24, July, documented, as best we could, the conditions with the two existing sewage disposal systems on the site and provided design data based on criteria that were in effect at the time the systems were built and based on criteria that are now in effect and we suggested, in our letter of 24, July, a procedure for following up on that data, to confirm the results and arrive at some decision. Last week, I received a copy of Rist-Frost I s comments on our 24, July letter and, as a result of those, we did go ahead and run percolation tests at the site. Those were run yesterday. We also exposed portions of both tile fields. The supplemental information that I delivered, tonight, effectively, says that System 4/2, wich serves the public toilets, is working adequately and is proper. System 411, which serves the kitchen and the employee toilets, is reaching the end of its useful life and we are proposing to rebuild it in accord with current criteria and obtain a SPDES Permit as part of that process. Probably, the SPDES Permit would cover both systems. MR. CAlMANO-Again, sir, as Mr. Cartier said earlier, we're finding ourselves in the position of engineering this thing on the fly. We asked for, the reason this was tabled, last time, was to answer this question. I don't hear an answer as to why that was not forthcoming. MR. RUCINSKI-Again, my letter of 24, July suggested a procedure that we followed, that I was comfortable with, as an architect, saying whether this system was adequate or not and I was looking for concurrence from the Board or your consultants that that procedure would be reasonable. 37 '--' '--' MR. CAlMANO-Okay, is it, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-The need to reconstruct the system will require a review, in accordance with the Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance, that's now apparent from the information being offered by the applicant and it's not appropriate to render a decision until that review is complete. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-I think that's borne out by the results of What's here. Furthermore, I donlt completely understand the relationship between System #2 and in the increased use, based at looking at the cover letter and whether or not it is, in fact, being certified by this letter. MR. ROBERTS-Would it be productive, here, since he's going to need a SPDES Permit anyway, and we would, perhaps, like to see that, can we table this until such time as we see the SPDES Permit and our own engineer is comfortable that it meets the Town Ordinance, as well? MR. CARTIER-With the understanding that any new submissions may be done by submission deadlines, so we don't run into this problem again. MR. ROBERTS-Correct. MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, we should have copies of the design details for the proposed reconstructed sewage system for engineering review, as well. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I would assume that goes without saying, but I'm glad you said it. MR. CAlMANO-Let me just ask one more time. This man submitted the answers to our questions tonight, in effect, right? MR. BAKER-Correct. MR. CAlMANO-How did this get on the agenda? MR. CARTIER-Because he was placed on the agenda long before tonight. MR. BAKER-They submitted information that suggested that we put them back on the agenda for your review. I don I t understand, myself, Why this information wasn't provided earlier, but here it is tonight and the Board can take it now, although I wouldn't recommend that, or the Board can ask for further information, specifically, design details on the proposed system to be reconstructed and the Board can table it to be reviewed when all the information is provided and the Board has had time to review it, as well as, Planning and Engineering Staff. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, my concern, real quick, is that, we get criticized a lot for not assisting the applicant. The applicant is here, tonight. We have wasted his time because the reason we tabled this motion comes up in Tom's comments that haven't been answered and yet here it is in the agenda. Now, his time is wasted. He I s got to go back at it again. Our time is wasted, but that's okay because we Ire here anyway, but we get the rap that we don't do this job properly. We don't assist the applicant's When, in fact, this applicant shouldn't even be here. MR. CARTIER-I think we have to understand the timing involved, here. There is a submission deadline that provides the Staff with time to review the application information before it comes to us. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-So, an applicant walks the submission deadline, but in submission deadline has been met, it comes to us. in and delivers some information. He's made the review process that follows, after the something shows up that is incorrect and then MR. MARTIN-And he's responding to that as soon as he can. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, point well taken. MR. BAKER-The letter that the applicant submitted, dated 24, July, '90, was meant to respond to the Board's concerns. 38 '--' - MR. CAlMANO-Okay. Then I misunderstood what you said earlier. I thought the response just got here tonight. MR. BAKER-Well, this is an additional response. The original response was submitted with the application. MR. RUCINSKI-We provided you some additional information in response to the comments that were made by Rist-Frost last week. MR. CAlMANO-Okay, but, at any rate, they canlt just give you an off the cuff answer, so welre requesting, I guess, that we be given the okay to table. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, what we're saying is, that I'm satisfied with System 1. If the language in my letter isn't strong enough, 1111 make it strong enough and System 4Þ2 will be redesigned and reconstructed. We will obtain a SPDES Permit. It would seem that the Board could approve the project, contingent on producing a SPDES Permit and we wouldn't have to be here again. MR. ROBERTS-We've had a little problem, in the past, doing that. DEC decided to completely redesign one project I have in mind, not far from here. We lost total control and it's a project we would never have approved if we had seen what they wanted to do to it. MR. MARTIN-Didn't you say earlier that sometimes the Town requirements are even more stringent than what's required for a SPDES Permit? MR. YARMOWI CH -Tha t can occur. MR. CAlMANO-That's right. MR. MARTIN-So, I think it would be prudent to see the design. MR. RUCINSKI-To address that issue, I spoke with John Goralski about that last night and he talked to, I didn I t get the gentleman's name, whoever your Sewage Enforcement Officer is. MR. BAKER-Dave Hatin. MR. RUCINSKI-And the indications were that if it was acceptable to the Department of Health, it was acceptable to him. MR. ROBERTS-Well, apparently, that's not necessarily true, as we've determined tonight. So, I guess it's the feeling of this Board, with your agreement, æ will table this for the additional Engineering and to see the SPDES Permit and to make our engineer comfortable with the design of it, as well. Is that an agreement with you? What are we doing with the public hearing? Is there anyone in the audience who cares to comment on this project. I think the public hearing was left open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN L EO LOMBARDO MR. LOMBARDO-My name is Lombardo, frcm Leol s Lobster. Three years ago, in 1987, I had an application to put in a complete septic system, a thousand gallons, you've got to have leachfie1ds, youlve got to have a tank. This man came in, yesterday, to dig the ditch and everything was working fine. Now, I need a grease trap. So, now I've got to build a grease trap, but what do I have to do to get the okay to build the addition? You've got a new system for the public, so everything works fine and I can't see why you waste time, table it, table it again, back and forth. MR. ROBERTS-We're going to go back and forth until we get it right. You're right. MR. LOMBARDO-They need a parking space. We did everything required. It cost them all kinds of money to do everything that's required by the law and now you table it again. I mean, I've got all the, whatever you need to be done. MR. CARTIER-Not quite. MR. ROBERTS-If we had done everything according to law, æ wouldn't be having a problem, here, tonight. We did not get the information that we asked for, on time. 39 ~ - MR. LOMBARDO-And they wanted wheelchairs. What are they going to do with wheelchairs? The place is on the ground floor. MR. ROBERTS-I don It think we're having a problem with that. MR. CARTIER-Understand, all that we need to get back, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, is a design septic system of the new septic system that I s going in. We need to see a design of that that is in accordance with Town Ordinances and we also need to see a SPDES Permit, correct? MR. ROBERTS-Correct. MR. CARTIER-And if we have those two things, and you architect is familiar with what we're talking about, here, once we have those two things, \..e will be done with this application. MR. LOMBARDO-I will do it and come back another month. Canlt you approve it and we do it in September? MR. ROBERTS-We canlt do it that way. We make it a policy not to make approvals subject to this kind of thing. We want to see the bottom line. I guess welre ready for a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 43-90 LEO LOMBARDO LEO'S LOBSTER-HOUSE, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Conrad Kupillas: For construction of a new dining room, in order that engineering concerns regarding the septic system design can be addressed to Engineering Staff's satisfaction. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO.. 7-1989 PIlELIMlNAII.Y STAGE T1'PE: UŒ.ISTED BC-1A FAJIt TO KAlKE! (X)MMONS JOHN A.. AND STEPBANIEB.. MASON SOmBEIL Y BOœDS OF P]IOPEKIY ARE 20o± F'J.. NORTB OF THE INTERSEcrrON OF :ROmE 149 AND BA~ ROAD AND LIES BET1mEN THOSE IOADS FOR. A 3 LOT SœDIVISION FOR OJMMEII.CIAL RETAIL USB. TAX MAP NO.. 27-1-40 LOT SIZE: 3.79 AGES LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-Do we have Staff Comments, please. MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt, just for a moment, maybe to save ourselves some time. I'm here tonight, without the engineer or Mr. Mason and, therefore, without being properly prepared, I would like to ask the Board to tab le this application for one month. MR. ROBERTS-I think we're amenable to that. with that, since we have advertised a public people here that, perhaps, \..e should hear from. Let's see. We do have a prob lem hearing tonight and there may be MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, the public hearing could be re-advertised for next month, that would have to be at the applicant's expense, though. MR. ROBERTS-Let me ask, is there anyone in the audience interested in this project, tonight? Well, maybe that's not a big consideration, then. MR. CARTIER-Leon, can I ask a question? You're going to get Staff Comments. I assume you already have. Are you going to make changes between now and next month and, if you are, then the only thing I would like to bring up is a submission date. In other words, are you revising the Preliminary application, here, between now and next month? MR. STEVES-No. MR. CARTIER-So, you're going to come in with exactly the same stuff. 40 "-- - MR. STEVES-Exactly. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. STEVES-It may be, can I expand on that a little bit? One of the comments were, I think, that Stu brought up, was the change in the entry location. We can bring in evidence that says why we did that. MR. CARTIER-Will it be submitted prior to, well wait a minute. MR. BAKER-Can you get that to us by the deadline date for next month? MR. STEVES-Definitely. MR. CARTIER-Which is, what? MR. BAKER-That is the 29th, I believe, the last Wednesday of the month. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. STEVES-I was told by the engineers that the request was made. I would like to get that in writing and bring that to you. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, are we all in agreement? MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 7 -1989 PJŒLIHlNARY STAGE FAJIt TO MAJlKET <XIØtONS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a three lot subdivision for commercial retail use, Preliminary Stage, be tabled at the applicant's request. Applicant assures the Board that the project will remain the same or that any changes will be submitted by 8/29. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. ROBERTS-Stuart, we better be a little careful. We I re filling up the first meeting in September rather rapidly, aren't we? MR. BAKER-The first meeting in September is filled, right now. MR. ROBERTS-So, we may have already gotten ourselves into some trouble, agreeing to see some of these the first meeting. MR. HAGAN-Who gets pushed out, the applicant or somebody that's already on the agenda? MR. BAKER-The agenda control law is written so that, in each meeting, there are spaces for four items of Old Business and four items of New Business and that's the way it should be divided. Right now, just with the applications we received, as it stands, it doesn't include, of course, any Old Business that was tabled this evening that will be reviewed next month, we have 11 applications on next months agenda, Old Business and New Business. MR. ROBERTS-Well, my point, then, is interesting. This may not be getting on the first meeting. MR. CAlMANO-We didn't say that. MR. ROBERTS-Didn't we? MR. CAlMANO-I didnlt say that in my motion. MR. ROBERTS-We said 30 days on one thing, earlier. the first meeting. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, but that was informational. No, I think we finally said MR. ROBERTS-That kind of thing of thing, we might be able to, well, no, that might be a lengthy discussion. 41 "--' '-' MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, th~r~ is room for Old Busin~ss on th~ first m~~ting in S~pt~mb~r. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, \lell, ~'r~ alright th~n. L~t's hop~ so. MR. CARTIER-W~ll, I think it's a good point. I think what w~ n~~d to do, ~~n we tabl~, is indicat~ wh~n we want to s~~ it, a sp~cific m~~ting, and wh~th~r we I r~ willing to mak~ it a ninth it~m b~caus~ w~ hav~ that discr~tion. W~ can add at our discr~tion. MR. ROBERTS-Y~s. MR. CARTIER-And, for som~ r~lativ~ly minor things, ~ may want to add th~m as a ninth it~m, if th~y'r~ only going to b~ a short p~riod of tim~. MR. ROBERTS-Y~s, minor things. MR. CAlMANO-I wouldn't say this is minor. MR. ROBERTS-I'm not sur~ any of th~s~ things tonight w~r~ minor. SItE PLAN NO.. 56-90 T1PE: œLISTED LI-3A AIRRON SAME AS ABCONE OOœTY LINE 1IOAD 145 QUEENSB1DII.Y AVINUE THE VAQ\NT LAND FOR SALE Œ' IllEAVY EQUIPMENT. (a\RØN NO.. 109-5-3 Lm SIZE: 111..39 ACRES SEClIŒ 4.020 N INDUSTRIAL CORP .. OWER: Fell. USE Œ' A PORTldf Øl COUfTY PLANNING) TAX MAP RICHARD MCLENITHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPur Not~s from Stuart G. Bak~r, Assistant Plann~r (attach~d) MR. ROBERTS-W~ donlt hav~ ~ngin~~ring comm~nts on this on~, I tak~ it? MR. BAKER-No. MR. ROBERTS-Th~ Committ~~ for Community B~autification disapprov~d this for som~ l~ngthy r~asons. May I turn this ov~r to th~ applicant. MR. MCLENITHAN-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My nam~ is Richard McL~nithan. I 'm h~ar on b~half of th~ applicant, tonight and I'd lik~ to stat~, first, to th~ comm~nts on th~ Qu~~nsbury B~autification Committ~~. I spok~, p~rsonally, with Rob~rt Eddy and apologiz~d for not att~nding his m~~ting. It was, plain and simpl~, a mix up, as far as knowing th~ m~~ting was going to b~ sch~dul~d and I hav~ no oth~r r~ason oth~r than to say that w~ w~r~ not th~r~ b~caus~ w~ w~r~, simply, not awar~ that w~ should b~ th~r~ and I would draw th~ Board' s comm~nts to th~ fact that th~r~ w~r~ pr~vious comm~nts, at th~ July m~~ting, and I can only say that I think that th~ Qu~ensbury B~autification Committ~~ would hav~ r~act~d a littl~ bit diff~r~ntly, as far as if w~ w~r~ th~r~ to sp~ak to th~ issu~. Th~y said what th~y said and I would only, also, mak~ th~ comm~nt that som~ of thos~ comm~nts, I think, ar~ not within, th~y ar~ r~l~vant, as far as comm~nts b~ing mad~, but I don't think th~y'r~ r~l~vant, in t~rms of b~ing binding or authoritativ~, as far as this Committ~~'s played with. MR. ROBERTS-No, actually, th~ir authority com~s into play wh~n we mak~ th~ir r~comm~ndations as part of our motions, wich we often do, if w~ do. Oth~r than that, th~ylr~ r~comm~ndation only, at this point. MR. HAGAN-Ar~ you sug~sting that we should not consid~r th~ir sug~stions? MR. MCLENITHAN-I'm only suggesting that th~ir r~port is in varianc~ with what it was th~ pr~vious month and, as far as th~ir comm~nts on planting and things lik~ that, I tak~ no issu~ with that. I think som~ of th~ir oth~r comm~nts, I m~an, v~ry frankly, v.e'r~ d~aling with what your Plann~r has said, that this is a p~rmitt~d us~ and I think that that's the r~l~vant thing for this Committ~~ to h~ar and think w~ could work with that, within th~ scop~ of that. MR. HAGAN-Th~r~ ar~ p~rmitt~d us~s, y~s, Dick, but I think th~r~ ar~ also abus~s on this prop~rty that ar~ not p~rmitt~d without p~rmits and I think that's what this Board and this community is having a probl~m with, on this particular application. 42 '-- "--'" MR. MCLENITHAN-You raised the question, last time, and all I know is that there are no violations or anything planned, filed or Whatever with any of the municipal authorities and I think that the record is clear, that we made that point last month. I can only answer your comment by making that statement and we can make supposi tions or opinions, but the answer is there's no pending violations. There are no variances or anything that are required, as far as I know. I mean, I think you have to deal with it that way. If the Building Department wants to file something, fine, but they haven't. It's over with, as far as I'm concerned. MR. HAGAN-In other words, if we get away with an abuse of the law, and we Ire not caught at the time of the act, that it should be forgiven? That's what you're telling me. MR. MCLENITHAN-You're asking me to defend against a charge that's not here. It's not in front of you. MR. HAGAN-Well, maybe I'm proposing that there should be one. MR. MCLENITHAN-Then there's a proper place to do it. It's called the Queensbury Justice Court. I don't think it's right here. MR. HAGAN-Okay. Well, I'm taking exception, and I think itls my right, with what's going on in this property that isn't even explained in your application. MR. MCLENITHAN-I can't deal with, your raising a question and you're making, in effect, an accusation. MR. HAGAN-That's right. MR. MCLENITHAN-But youl re not backing up the accusation. You're not making a formal charge. There's nothing coming through the Queensbury Building Department, that I'm aware of. I don't want to be difficult, but it hasn't happened. MR. CAlMANO-Well, let's talk about some things that are directly relevant, here, in terms of the Planning Board. Let me just read some things that we are entitled to do. Article 5, Site Plan Review, in 5.010, the purpose of the Article, in itself, "The purpose of this Article is to allow the proper integration in the community of uses and actions listed in Article 4 through 7 of this Ordinance. Because of their characteristics or the special characteristics of the area in which they'd be located, these uses and actions require special consideration so that they may be properly located and planned, with respect to a number of things." In addition to that, under 5.070, this is where I have my concerns, as we discussed last time, under Section 5.070, under requirements, Section B says, "That the use would be in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this Ordinance, specifically taking into account the location, character, and size of the proposed and a description and purpose of the District in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services." In addition to that, Section D says, "The project would not have any undue adverse effect upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wild life, historic, recreational, or open space resources of the area that we I re talking about." And Section E 1 says, "The location, arrangement, size, design, and general site compatibility of buildings, lightings, and signs." Number 9 says, "Adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding, or erosion." There's also more. I guess, under Article 5, looking at that roadway, regardless of whether it's even residential, the character would be changed considerab ly, in my opinion, by the introduction of this kind of business, having looked at similar types of businesses in this Town and I think we have justification, under Article 5, to warrant the turning down of this application. MR. ROBERTS-What is it that you've given us, this time, that we didn't have the last time? Is it more clearly marked out, on this map, Where you're going to parking these vehicles. I guess it's not all that clear to me, yet, exactly what, maybe we should have one of these (maps) on the board. MR. CAlMANO-Illl put this up. MR. ROBERTS-It's kind of a small map, but you might point this out, for those in the audience who can't see it or, perhaps, pass this around to some of the people in the audience. 43 --- --.../ MR. MCLENITHAN-If I could, briefly, in line with what your recommendation of what Mr. Baker has determined, I'll indicate that we are prepared to have an area, in this section of the property, that would be marked and we would be willing to concede to indicate a number of vehicles that would be parked and certainly the manner in which they would be parked. When I say vehicles, pieces of equipment, this industrial equipment and we' re sug~sting 20 and designate an area and, essentially, they'll be parked in two rows and we're suggesting that there will be lO, over here, Wlere we keep the wheel vehicles, over on this section of the property by the house. MR. ROBERTS-On the paved areas? MR. MCLENITHAN-That' s correct, that would be the tire track vehicles. I would make a comment. Coming this way, there is a parcel of land thatls also owned by Airron Construction which is zoned Residential, but it's owned by them and I don I t know the distance factor, but I think it's more than 350 from, I think the location of the equipment is much more than 350 feet to, in effect, a defined residence. MR. KUPILLAS-Is 20 the total number you're talking about, or the track vehicle would be? MR. MCLENITHAN-Thirty. Twenty track vehicles, that's correct. MR. KUPILLAS-And how many? MR. MCLENITHAN-Ten. MR. KUPILLAS-Ten, Wleeled? MR. MCLENITHAN-Obrrected, ten wheeled vehicles. MR. ROBERTS-That's a fairly substantial number. Excuse me, here. We're still a little confused about the map, I guess, as to just where you're going to park these things. MRS. PULVER-Yes. You see where it says, "Vehicle Show Area Proposed"? MR. MCLENITHAN-Yes. MR. PULVER-Okay, right behind the buffer zone. MR. MCLENITHAN-Right. MRS. PULVER-Now, how many vehicles are we putting there? MR. MCLENITHAN-Twenty. MRS. PULVER-We're putting twenty there. Now, ~'re putting ten vehicles on "Vehicle Show Area", paved area, in front of the office, okay. We're putting ten vehicles there. Now, Wlat are we putting on the other paved areas? I mean, how many other vehicles? MR. MCLENITHAN-We I re talking industrial equipment. There will be two sections. MR. PULVER-Right. MR. MCLENITHAN-These would be for the tire vehicles. These would be for the track vehicles. MRS. PULVER-Okay, so, then the other paved areas would just be for access to the house and customers? MR. MCLENITHAN-Storage and whatever inside, thatls correct. MR. ROBERTS-Well, let me re-open the public hearing. PUBLIC BEARING U-oPENED STAN RYMKEWICZ 44 '-" ~ MR. RYMKEWICZ -My name is Stan Rymkewicz. This for Airron Industrial Corporation. According to is the site. Is that still on the application? is the third time I've been here the agenda, l45 Queensbury Avenue MR. ROBERTS-We didnlt get a new application, this time. We just got a revised map. MR. CAlMANO-But itls on the agenda as 145. MR. BAKER-I'm sorry, that should have been corrected on the agenda. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. RYMKEWICZ-I'm the owner of l45 Queensbury Avenue, if you want to correct that. I'm not associated with have a 35 name petition. was from last year. Airron Industrial Corporation and I disapprove. I also I just want to state, the one we turned in last meeting MR. ROBERTS-A lot of times you get answers to questions depending on how you ask the question. This has heavy equipment sales/junkyard. MR. RYMKEWICZ-A junkyard is permissible under that new rule. MR. BAKER-That will be changed in September. The Town Board is looking into removing that as an allowable use from Light Industrial zones. MR. RYMKEWICZ-But, as of tonight, it's an allowable use, is that correct? This is August. MR. ROBERTS-Except that we are not talking about a junkyard, here. MR. RYMKEWICZ-We're not talking about a junkyard. MR. ROBERTS-No, I guess that was my point. MR. RYMKEWICZ-The petition goes for a junkyard, also. As I stated the last time, and you can see by the pictures, there's homes to the south, landscaping, industrial buildings to the north, ~ll landscaped, farm settings to the west, \lell landscaped. Those pictures are on the front, the first five pictures. The property, looking at the east, like we said, is the recycled pole barn. There, again, the roof does not match. The Beautification Committee was notified. They told us only one person went up to look at it and we weren't aware of the buffer zones. It was cut down. The names on the petition are not comfortable with whatls there now. They're not happy with the cement dumped there every day. They're not happy with the black top dumped there everyday. As you can see in the picture, it's heading my way and the next door neighbors. Questions came up, tonight, about gasoline and tanks, diesel fuel, possibly, stored, junk batteries, old oil from these machines having oil changes. We have recycled cement, recycled pavement. Are we going to have recycled oil spread on the sand next to my house? I have pictures of the illegal dump, from last year. I have pictures of the sand pile next to my house. Is there going to be oil spread allover this to keep the dust down? There's also pictures of the gentleman that was here, earlier, with the eight cars. You can see, there's more than eight cars in that picture. All those pictures were dated July 25th, a couple of days after the last meeting. There's also a place on Dix Avenue, similar to what proposed, here, tonight and that's even bigger now. There's a new building on that property. Are we going to come back, in six months, and ask for a change, again, if we do not have room? Do we want to have a change? Are we going to have to go through this, again? This is the third time I've been here, fourth time for this company, with another project different from this. How many times do we have to come back. This is one Board. Therels another Board. These people have been here since 7 o'clock tonight. A couple had to leave. I donlt know how we have to get the message across, that's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you, anyone else? Do we need a SEQRA Review on this? Unlisted, I guess we need a Short Form. MR. CARTIER-Well, maybe, before we go that far. I have to go back to the Beautification Committee. I understand the neighbor's difficulties with this. I also 11m in mind that it is an allowable use in this zone. Somewhere in there I would hope that there is some middle ground where what is permitted can, in fact, take place, and that the concerns addressed by residential users of the area, that their concerns 45 '~ - are also addressed and I think that can happen by way of the Beautification Committee. This is an application that, as far as I'm concerned, is right for consideration by the Beautification Committee in great detail and I'd like to see this go back to the Beautification Committee and that, I would hope, I don It know. Are those public meetings, Beautification Committee, public? MR. MCLENITHAN-For the record, I have no objection to what you're proposing. MR. ROBERTS-I don't think they hold public hearings, but they're open to the public. MR. BAKER-The Beautification Committee is strictly advisory. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay, the reason I raise the question is, that I would hope that, and, perhaps, they already have, but the Beautification Committee is aware of the neighbors concerns about this issue. MR. CAlMANO-He's aware of his own concerns. Five (paragraphs) down, he says, "This property is almost directly opposite one of Queensbury's Picturesque and Historic Homes. The appearance of the property in question and the plans for this applicant could depreciate the value of this picturesque and historic home and not encourage its owners or tenants to maintain it in its fine condition." Now, he may be a man that didn't show up, but he has a lot of things to say about not having this project. (END OF DISK TWO) 46 --/ '--" MR. CARTIER-In t~rms of, what I'd lik~ to s~~ out of this proj~ct is a landscaping plan of th~ quality of thos~ that hav~ shown up at th~ north ~nd of th~ road up th~r~, Tom Albr~icht' s Construction, Polhill, what~v~r it is up at that ~nd and if w~ ar~ going to go that rout~ in this industrial ar~a, th~n I think w~ ought to r~quir~ it of any applicant for that area, that th~y have a quality landscap~d plan. MR. CAlMANO-But th~ ~vid~nc~, P~t~, is ~xactly as Jim Hagan has said. Th~ ~vid~nc~ is contrary on this applicant. MR. HAGAN-W~ll, just with this sp~cific application. I had a probl~m with th~ last application, that it didn't d~fin~, in particular, wh~r~ th~y w~r~ going to stor~ th~ v~hicl~s. Now, I'm looking at it and it do~s sp~cify wh~r~ th~ v~hicl~s ar~ going to b~ stored. On th~ oth~r hand, it also d~signat~s pav~d ar~a and, Dick, again, I'm not trying to b~ argumentativ~, but th~ fact is, if you go to that prop~rty and insp~ct it, right now, you are not showing all th~ pav~d ar~a b~cau8~ that pav~d ar~a chang~s w~~k by w~~k. I us~d to go by th~r~ ~v~ry day on my way to work. Now, I only go down onc~ ~v~ry w~~k or two, but ~v~ry tim~ I go by th~r~'s additional pav~m~nt or additional black top and that's wh~r~ I'm having a probl~m with your application. It do~s not truthfully display what you hav~ on your sit~. MR. MCLENITHAN-I would agr~~ with th~ comm~nt about b~ing abl~ to have som~ dialogue. Again, as I und~rstand, th~ Queensbury B~autification Committ~e is an advisory committ~e and I would hav~ no obj~ction to going back th~m and I don't really hav~ any obj~ction to what Mr. Hagan has just said b~caus~ I think that might b~ well taken, but I' d lik~ to hav~ dialogue with som~on~ as w~ d~v~lop th~ plan or what~v~r, so we don It, and your ag~nda is busy and it's difficult to do that, w~ try to g~t that kind of f~~dback, in terms of, wh~ther we can do that with your Planning D~partment, Engine~ring D~partment, whatev~r. MR. HAGAN-In th~ m~antim~, I would sugg~st that your cli~nt stop undermining what w~lr~ all trying to do, h~re. He k~~ps adding without permits, at l~ast I haven't s~~n any. MR. CARTIER-And h~ could c~rtainly do himself a world of good, as far as I'm conc~rned, if h~, hims~lf, could get tog~th~r with n~ighbors and sort som~ of this out inst~ad of turning us into a, you und~rstand the situation? MR. MCLENITHAN-I appreciat~ that. We' v~ got som~ diff~renc~ of opinion and this is th~ forum it has to b~ dealt with. I m~an, that's what public h~arings, those are th~ r~aliti~s. MR. CARTIER-W~ll, wat I'm saying to you is, it would be much ~asi~r to g~t past this Board if w~ could b~ assur~d that some of th~ concerns rais~d by n~ighbors hav~ b~~n addr~ss~d appropriat~ly and that's Why I think th~ B~autification Committ~~ mayb~ a plac~ to do that. MR. MCLENITHAN-I strongly disagr~~ with som~ of th~ things th~ Beautification Committ~~ said what~v~r, but, I m~an, b~caus~ I do think w~lr~ d~aling with th~ qu~stion, and Mr. Caimano said, about conc~rns and that and that r~ally boils down to th~ fact, g~tting into th~ qu~stion of how you do it, as opposed to wh~th~r you can do it or not b~caus~ I think th~ issue, at this point, is how you do it, as oppos~d to wh~th~r you can or not b~caus~ it is an allowabl~ use. MR. CARTIER-I hav~ no argum~nt with that. MR. MCLENITHAN-Th~n I would lik~ to suggest that your comm~nt's ~11 tak~n and w~'ll try to deal with this. W~ will d~al with this. w~lll com~ back with mor~ d~tail and what~ver and d~al with what~v~r way you want to d~al with this, as far as communicating with you to try to mak~ it b~tter. MR. CARTIER-Well, I had hop~d that you would bring up th~ quality of this application and sit~ to ~qual th~ quality of what is alr~ady going in along that ar~a to the north. MR. CAlMANO-W~ll, let m~ just bring up anoth~r probl~m. You, ~sp~cially, ar~ on~ who constantly talks about th~ cumulativ~ eff~cts and th~ fact that this Board is a Planning Board. It is down th~ road. Ther~ is ~vidence to the fact that this particular proj~ct will not ~nhanc~ this ar~a. Now, Mr. McL~nithan, obviously, h~' s r~pr~s~nting th~ applicant. H~ has to do his very b~st to r~pr~sent th~ applicant, on~ applicant. Th~r~ ar~ doz~ns of p~opl~ who liv~ on that road who 47 I "'-- -../ don't like that project and have told us they don't want this project. We have evidence to show this project will not integrate with that neighborhood, regardless of the fact it's permitted in this use and if we are to go on what you talk about all the time, and the cumulative effect of what I s happening, t he evidence is that those types of businesses, no matter how well they're kept, are not the best type of businesses to have in residential areas or next to residential areas and, on the other side, in the industrial side, are low site buildings, beautifully landscaped. No matter what he does with this kind of a business, it doesn't lend itself to fit in and make that neighborhood nice, continue to keep it nice. It doesn't. You've seen Scotty McLoughlin's place. You know it. I don't know why \æ even argue about it and if we're looking at the cumulative effect of things, you know what the cumulative effect of this project is going to have on this nei ghborhood . You know it. Deep in your heart, you know it. Don't you? MR. ROBERTS-I think there's some other people in the audience who care to speak. PATRICIA FRENCH MRS. FRENCH-I'm Patricia French. I live at 131 Queensbury Avenue, just down the road from this abomination. We have watched cement, asphalt and everything else being dumped on this property. All the trees have been cut down around the house, once a nice little secluded home and it all looks very nice on paper with the paved areas and all the nice little trees and shrubs, but what are paved areas. This is a patchwork quilt and, to me, a patchwork quilt should be beautiful and this is not beautiful and if it's any indication of what they intend to do in the futur;:-it's going to get worse and I don't want it. MR. ROBERTS-Anyone else? DON DUELL MR. DUELL-I'm Don Duell on Queensbury Avenue and I was just wondering, on paper, how did that one on Dix Avenue look? Anything like it does now? MR. ROBERTS-Small, to start with. MR. DUELL-Have you looked at it today? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, \æ've looked at it more than we care too. MR. DUELL-How about Dan Olsen's old place, there, with the sign, the gas sign still up there. I don't know if he still owns that, but that stands there, not good. GARY BRUNNELL MR. BRUNNELL-Gary Brunnell, County Line Road. Next month, \æ' re going to have 75 to 100,000 people at the Hot Air Balloon Festival. Do you want them to see that? MR. ROBERTS-Well, it's been brought up that this is an allowable use in that zone, however, it's allowable under Site Plan Review and the Site Plan Review Section has been read, here. I think this gives us some reasons as to why, perhaps, this particular usage might not be pertinent in that. MR. CAlMANO-I didn't even get as far as I could've gotten. MRS. PULVER-Well, I'm wondering is it really that the business is unacceptable or is it the way is being done that's unacceptable? I mean, I tend to agree with the asphalt paving, that it is kind of a hodge podge of, kind of, left over materials, but if it were done extremely nice, as we. would like to see a nice, commercial business done, ~uld it be more acceptable? I mean, it is in an accepted zone. MR. CAlMANO-If you drive from PBS up that road and go into the Residential section of that road, my guess is, regardless of how he keeps it, that particular type of business in that area will always look like an eyesore, compared to everything else. MRS. PULVER-Remember, the residents are living in a Light Industrial or a Light Commercial zone. 48 '-' -./ MR. CAlMANO-I understand that, but that type of business does not conform with what we look at here, in this book. It will be an eyesore and I don't care whether the person who owns it is a mess, keeps it nice or whatever. How are you going to make old tractors look attractive? MRS. PULVER-I'm just asking you, Nick. I'm not saying I approve of it. MR. CAlMANO-Well, that's my point. My point is that, no matter what you do, that particular type of business is not going to be conducive to MRS. PULVER-I thought the site needed a lot of work. ED FRENCH DR. FRENCH-I'm Ed French from County Line Road and what I wanted to ask the Planning Board was, is this the type of business that you had envisioned when you re-zoned this area Light Industrial? Did you think you would have this beautiful piece of work over there, along with the other buildings and businesses that you have up the road, that you planned carefully for? MR. CARTIER-That's a valid point. MR. MARTIN-The problem is, not the fact that it's Light Industrial. The problem is that it's Light Industrial and a permitted use in the Light Industrial zone is heavy equipment sales, thatls the problem. MR. HAGAN-But the manner in which it is portrayed is What's objectionable. MRS. PULVER-That's what we're saying. Is it the patchwork quilt that you object to? DR. FRENCH-There are places in Greenwich and in Salem that have farm equipment that are beautiful. MRS. PULVER-Well, thatls wat we're saying. You object to it because of what you've already got there, but if he were to bulldoze the whole thing down and do it absolutely perfect, like all the paving was level and the new building, would you like it better? DR. FRENCH-Are you kidding? This guy has bulldozed around through the woods. He's torn everything. I visit that country all the time. MRS. PULVER-No, I'm saying if he made it as nice as those places in Greenwich. DR. FRENCH-Well, sure. He should have started that long ago. MRS. PULVER-You would like it better, is all I'm saying? MR. CARTIER-But do you understand? DR. FRENCH-Yes, I absolutely understand. business there. I would be delighted to have a nice MRS. PULVER-Okay, ~ll this is what we're saying. Hels allowed to have that. He doesn't, but he's allowed to have that and, my question is, is that why you are against it? DR. FRENCH-Certainly. I mean, that's obvious. MRS. PULVER-Okay, then you're not really against him having the business, you're against the way he wants to run the business, if he wants to continue it on the property. DR. FRENCH-That's right and if he can't do it the right way, let's get out of the kitchen. MR. ROBERTS-I think, maybe, that ought to be clarified. You say "he" is allowed to have that. My interpretation would be that this is a permitted use in those zones, but not necessarily everywhere in the zone. I think we can be more specific and say that, in one part of the zone, might be perfectly okay and other areas, ~ere it may be still a Residential or something, it might not be appropriate, thatls my interpretation of it. 49 "--' ...- MR. MARTIN-Well, it's a common problem of, this is a parcel that borders with your Residential zone. It's a buffer area. MR. CAlMANO-That's right, that's why we made Neighborhood Commercial zones. MR. CARTIER-Do the neighbors out there understand that, if we say no to this project, \Ie have absolutely no control over what happens out there, that there could be more patchwork paving? There could be more asphalt put down and so on and so forth. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Stan Rymkewicz, again. You know darn well there is going to be. It hasn't stopped. It goes on daily. That's not going to stop, regardless of what. MR. CARTIER-What I'm trying to do, here, is playa little devil's advocate, here. If you understand it, if we approve some kind of project, ~ could get some, gain some control over what he does and doesn't do out there. MR. RYMKEWICZ -We don't believe so. We know what's been going on there, since Day 1, that's not going to change, that's obvious. MR. CAlMANO-There's no control, now. MR. RYMKEWICZ-As far as used equipment, that's objectionable. brand new tractors, all freshly painted, is something different, the pictures. There's four old vehicles right there now. New equipment, than, look at MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-What Pete is saying, though, correct me if I'm wrong, if you approve a project, if it goes through this process, and we tie it down tightly enough, then you have something that is forever subject to inspection by the Building Inspectors office. Whereas, right now, it's not. MR. RYMKEWICZ-I believe the petition states there IS 35 residents against it, wo don't want it, regardless, don't want that particular business on that spot. MR. ROBERTS-Well, ~ have to have some pretty good reasons to say no, Stan. SUSAN BAYER MRS. BAYER-The first reason that this gentleman gave, initially, wen this issue first came before the Board is, it impacts negatively on the character of the neighborhood. Current evidence exists to show what kind of a set up you'll have. So, there's two negative issues, here. MR. CARTIER-Let me ask you a question. If we turn this down, then the applicant has a right to come in with a new proposal and he could come in with a pristine proposal to sell heavy equipment, new, used, Whatever, that is fantastically landscaped and so on. Would the neighborhood still object to it? I'm trying to get a feel for what we're talking about. Are we talking about this particular application or are we talking about heavy equipment sales, in general? MRS. BAYER- I think, probab ly, in general, because I think we're concerned about the way it is handled, because of the property. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Alright, now, supposing he came in and now he wants to do a junkyard. MRS. BAYER-That's your petition against heavy equipment sales and junkyard. MR. ROBERTS-Well, ~'re going to change the junkyard in a month or so. MRS. PULVER-I mean, it could be that he could come back with something else. He's within a permitted use. MRS. BAYER-Then we'll have another public hearing and then the neighbors will react to that. MRS. PULVER-Susan, What will happen is that, he will claim hardship. I mean, he's got to be allowed to do something with his property. I mean, ~ would like to know what you feel would be reasonable. 50 '-' -- MRS. BAYER-I agree, but let's deal with that one that he's applied for. MR. CARTIER-If there's something going on on this property that you do not think is correct, please do not assume that we have people who ride around Town looking for violations. We don't. We don't have that kind of Staff. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Then we invite you all to go up there, then. MR. CARTIER-No, you're missing my point. My point is, if you think there's something wrong, please bring it to the Enforcement Office's attention. MR. ROBERTS-This is not Enforcement. MR. CARTIER-That's not us. If it doesn't work, you keep doing it and you keep doing it and you keep doing it until finally you get some satisfaction. MR. ROBERTS-We all have been there. We're familiar with the site. MR. MARTIN-Well, what has your response been from the Code Enforcement Officer? MR. RYMKEWICZ-I haven't seen him. MR. MCLENITHAN-I'd like to speak to that, if I Can. I think it's just kind of an interesting forum we have, here, inviting people to come in and make a public complaint and violations. Let's deal with the reality of the world. One year ago, there was a complaint made. It was dealt with. It was over with and it was dismissed. I think that's very appropriate. Mr. Hatin can speak for himself, in terms of what he's done. His office is part of this record and if there were any violation pending, it would be part of this record, tonight, and it's not here. I take a real objection to asking people to come forth and make a complaint. There's a way to do it, but it's not for a public hearing to do this. MR. CARTIER-No, you misunderstand me, Mr. McLenithan. My point is not to make a complaint. My point is that people understand what the process is if they think there's something going on that shouldn't be going on. MR. MCLENITHAN-That's a fair question. That's not what I was hearing happening here. MR. CARTIER-Well, I stand corrected, appropriately, then. My point is, you can't wait till somebody else in Town is riding around checking. You've got to do it yourself. You've got to get involved yourself. Well, we're kind of getting off the track. MR. ROBERTS-I think welve heard from the public, both now and before. here, again, we still need to address SEQRA or, as you suggested, we werenlt going to get that far, maybe that's a wasted effort. Let's see, earlier, if MR. CAlMANO-Well, let's try it. MR. ROBERTS-Going through SEQRA? MR. CAlMANO-No, let's try the other way and see what happens. MS. CORPUS-The Board need not address SEQRA if you plan to either make a motion to table or deny the project. MR. CAlMANO-Can we just try and see what happens? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Sure. PUBLIC HEARING a.OSED MOTION TO DISAPPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-90 AIRH.ON INDUSTH.IAL OORP., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For use of a portion of the vacant land for sale of heavy equipment under Section 5.071 A7, C-2A, and specifically what that says is, 5.071 A7, says, Scenic Vistas. C-2A says, Adjoining a nearby land use, that is, it does not conform with those. This whole Section of 5 is nonconformance, non-integration. Also, Section 5.070 B, wich says the use would not be in harmony with the general purpose or intent 51 '--" '---' of this Ordinance and D and Eland 9 and, in general, Article 5, in which we have a right to deny based upon non-integration. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 61-90 T1:PE II VR.-1A JœN miEN OIØE.: SAME AS ABOVE 816 LAKE PARKVAW ASSEMBL W POiNT, LAKE GEOIIGE FOil OONSTRUCTION OF A 34 FT. BY 21 F'l'.. DECX OVER THE EXISTINC V-SHAPED DOC{, AND ENCLOSURE Œ' THE EXISTUC POOl. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (VARREN C01lNTY PLANNINC) TAX MAP NO.. 8-1-6 Lor SIZE: O..56± ACRES SECTION9..0l0, 4.020 D JOHN OWEN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-I, in a way, kind of take exception to one of these comments, here, saying, "The Board must decide at what point the cumulative impact is no longer tolerable." I wonder if that isn't something for a change in the Ordinance and, perhaps, should be, I guess we had discussed, maybe, looking at docks, in general. 11m not sure changing the game plan with one dock, here, or something, is quite appropriate. However, I think we have all said that we wanted to look more closely at docks, in general. MR. HAGAN-I'd like to just expand on that a little bit, please, Dick. It's not exactly the dock covers that I think is beginning to have an impact, it's that every dock cover seems to require a deck with a railing and that's where I think that we're really expanding upon a use of our land over the Lake. Now, there's a practical need for a cover, on some docks, because a lot of people have wooden boats that require covers. I say thatls their problem, but, however, not everybody needs or has a hardship because they cannot have a deck on that cover and I think that's what we, maybe, should be asking somebody to consider in our zoning changes. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I agree that's something that needs to be discussed at some length. MR. HAGAN-I mean, if a property owner has a practical need, I don't think they can be denied, continuously, but I don't think, particularly in this case, were the applicant has plenty of lawn, all kinds of area to sunbathe, wy he has to have a deck, a sunbathing deck, on top of the cover. MR. CARTIER-Well, ~ have, coming up, at the next meeting, some zoning changes that the Town Board wants US to consider and, maybe, ~ can add them to that. MR. HAGAN-Alright. MR. CARTIER-The Town Board's asking us to look at some specific changes that they want to make and get our input. MR. ROBERTS-But, as a practical matter, at this particular time in history, g~v~ng decks with railings that you can sit on has been a rather routine matter. It would be kind of hard to stop at one guy's deck, until we change the Ordinance. MR. HAGAN-Well, I think, somewhere along the line, ~'re gPing to have to. MR. ROBERTS-That may be, but I'd like to do it with stiffening up the Ordinance. MR. HAGAN-To set the record straight, \\1.Í. th this particular application, I don't have a great problem because he's not interfering with other people's views. He I s just adding one more, as far as I'm concerned, an eyesore on the shoreline. MR. OWEN-Can I answer that question? John Owen, I'm the builds in the first place, I'm not building what I had something else much smaller. If I were to put a peak roof be interfering with my neighbor's view, in the first place. the rain water owner. If I were to there. I'm building on that, then I would In the second place, 52 "-' -- would be dripping on asphalt, coming down, hitting the dock, basically, ruining the boards on the dock, if you know the water stays there and it eats away and I don I t have treated wood. I did not put that in the Lake, that would cause a problem. By having a flat deck, I can run the rainwater off the front. I can pitch it towards the Lake, run it off into the Lake and do it with less pollution. MR. HAGAN-You can do that without the railing, though, too, and not have a sundeck. MR. OWEN-Well, a railing is nothing more than a couple of slats and they're only going to be about 3, 4 feet high and I need a railing because I have lots of small children. MR. HAGAN- You've got lots of yard for your children. I'm not going to argue the point because your place is not as objectionable as most. MR. ROBERTS-And this particular project is a little unique because, as you sug~sted, you showed me a picture, I don't know if the rest of you saw the picture of the old boat house that was taken out with the snow load and you're, basically, replacing it, to the extent, I wondered whether you couldn't replace thi s wi thout coming before us, to some extent, but, here you are before us. MR. HAGAN-Well, he waited too long. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, right, it's been over 18 months. I guess you've reviewed Staff's comments. Do you have anything further to add than what you've just said? MR. CARTIER-Can you add anything about this Warren County deal? MR. OWEN-It was my stupidity. MR. CARTIER-No, I don't mean that, that I s not what I'm suggesting. "Application does not state what is applied for."? There's something left off the application. MR. OWEN-Yes, I left something off the application. It was my mistake. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, \\e ran into this, once before, and we didn't wait for the County. MR. ROBERTS-No, \\e didn't. MR. CARTIER-But we said subject to County approval, I think, didn't we? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, \\e did. MR. CARTIER-So, you still have to go to the County anyway, correct? MR. OWEN-Absolutely. MR. ROBERTS-So, I guess we can address it, as you said, subject to County approval. We don't need SEQRA on the dock, but do we need it on the addition to the house? MR. BAKER-Both additions are Type II actions. MR. CARTIER-So, \\e d on I t need SEQRA Review. MS. CORPUS -However, \Ie do need, Mr. Chairman, a public hearing. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC BEARING OPENIØ> NO o>MMl!NT PUBLIC BEABlNG o..OSED )lOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-90 JOHN OWEN, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Conrad Kupillas: For construction of a 34 by 21 ft. deck over the existing dock and enclosure of the existing porch with the stipulation that this approval is also subject to the Warren County Planning Board approval. 53 '---" '--" Duly adopted this 2lst day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano SITE PLAN NO. 62-90 TIPE: UNLISTED LI-lA MlKEBAI:RD CJWØE.: LORETTA BAlJlD CORlNTB ROAD, 1 MILE WEST or EXIT 18 LOO\TED BETWEEN WEST MT. DELI AND GAII.~ BALL OOUNTEJrIOPS P~PC1SAL FOR A 30 FT. B~· 60 FT.. ADDITION TO BE USED FOR SICiN MANUFACTURING.. <aDEN C:OlllNT~ PLANlUN«;.) TAX HAPNG.. 126-1-35 Lar SIZE: ]r ..34 AamS SEClION 4.020 N MIKE BAIRD, PRESENT STAFF INPM Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGlNEEJt REPmrr Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-And Warren County approved without comment. Do you care to read Mr. Ba111s letter, Stuart? MR. BAKER-Yes. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Roy Ball, Jr., to Queensbury Planning Department, dated August 16th, 1990 (attached) MR. ROBERTS-And a letter from Mr. Bodenwiser. MR. BAKER-~ad letter from N. W. Bodenwiser, Fire Marshal, to Queensbury Planning Board, dated August 17th, 1990 (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Is this something you can comply with? MR. BAIRD-Absolutely. My name's Mike Baird and, if I may, I could address each of the questions. I've spent a lot of time up here. First of all, I'd like to address my dear neighbor, Mr. Roy Ball. I have, right here, a copy of, in the last year, I have come up with petitions. I'd like to show everybody the signatures, Roy Ball. I'd like to read this to you, if I may. "Let it be know that I, Michael J. Baird, of 35 Corinth Road have submitted a request for a building variance from the Town Planning Board. In doing so, I have discussed the proposed building project with the all property owners, the undersigned, Roy Ball, has reviewed the building plans and completely understands what is entailed. By way of signature, he or she grants their consent and under no circumstances wishes to negate this building project." I have just seen his letter tonight, for the first time. I spoke to my neighbor, Roy Ball, probably every other day for the last year. He has no problem with me. Tonight is the first I've seen his letter. He is in an Industrial zone. I am not in a ~sidential zone. This, hopefully, should be one of the small problems from our project. I understand that the neighbors have a big say, okay. I am a neighbor, too. I don It complain about his son, with the counter top place never getting site plan review or anything. I have a feeling that I opened a can of worms, way back, when I came to the Planning Board, here, which is only half of the people that I originally approached, just to get an addition and now I have educated myself to the point where I should have just stayed and made do with what I have. My neighbor, Roy Ball, who's not here, the one who wrote the letter, I will talk to him tomorrow and he will be no problem. I can tell you, right now, if I understand the way that the Board operates, as long as you can see it on paper, you can justify it within yourselves. I can tell you that I have talked to my neighbor. I have bent over backwards wi th him. As a matter of fact, I told him, if you tell me now, I will not even approach any Town meeting for any such addition. I'll move first, and I told him, that's what I told him, everyday, no prob lem, no prob lem, if you do this, no problem. He's grateful to have the addition, so he's told me. MR. CARTIER-Well, let's wrap this up, very quickly. Item One, from Mr., I'm reading Mr. Balli s letter. "Septic system be at least lOO feet from my well". It is, correct? We've already established that when we were out there looking at it. So, Number One is no problem. "Michael Baird should agree to do all the painting 54 '--" '--" or spray painting, etc., within his building because of airborne materials effecting my health problems." When we were there, there was evidence of outdoor spraying. You have done some spray painting outside. You are indicating to us, I hope, that no spraying of paint will occur on the outside of this building, that all spray painting will be done inside the building, as per Mr. Bodenwiserls letter, correct? MR. BAIRD-In layman's terms, I would not have ever sprayed one inch of paint outside. MR. CARTIER-No, you're not answering my question, Mike. MR. BAIRD-I will abide, but, the point is, if he had come to me, first, instead of writing a letter and not showing up to back it, I would not have been put on the spot like this. MR. CARTIER-Well, ~Ire clearing this up, here. MR. ROBERTS-These are not unreasonable requests, I don't think. MR. CARTIER-"Should make sure all vents, open windows, fans (whatever), are away from my house not to expose the neighbors to airborne chemicals." You represented to us, Wlen we were at the site, that you have a legally approved, watever the approvals are involved, spray booth, correct? It meets all, you have a spray booth that filters any material before it's vented, is that correct? MR. BAIRD-I have filters. I have a fan. I have a spray booth that I've been using for the last few years for the same nature business. Hopefully, I can continue to make my livelihood without a problem. MR. CARTIER-Alright, with regard to his last item about cleanliness and neatness, \Ie mentioned, or I remember a comment from you, I guess, wen we were at site visi t, was that one of the reasons you wanted the building was that you could have everything inside and clean your site up? MR. BAIRD-Absolutely. May I make a comment on, as he calls it, a junkyard. I'm really getting a little MR. CARTIER-lid just as soon leave that between you and Mr. Ball. MR. CAlMANO-He said it's going to become a junkyard. He didnlt say it was. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, he says he doesn't want it to become a junkyard. MR. HAGAN-You really shouldnlt spray outdoors when there's people there, for your own benefit. MR. BAIRD-I realize that. My shopls not big enough. MR. CAlMANO-Didnlt I see, somewhere, that Mr. Ball does counter tops? MR. BAIRD-His son has a place that he's just moved in the garage out back a couple of years ago, of course, without site plan review. MR. CAlMANO-But don't you cut formica table tops to fit? MR. BAIRD-At 5:30 in the morning. MR. CAlMANO-No, but my point is, doesn't the cutting of formica table tops generate a dust Which is injurious to your health? MRS. PULVER-He probably was there, didn't have to get site plan review. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but there are very specific conditions, with regard to spray paint. MR. CAlMANO-I understand that. I'm just saying that, in all fairness, Mr. Ball, since I saw that he does do some formica cutting and stuff. MR. ROBERTS-I think he just wanted to get things on paper and it's just business like procedure. MR. BAIRD-Youl ve got to understand that this really doesn't have anything to do with the Board, this particular letter and I'm just a little defensive on it, seeing as how he isn't here. 55 "-../ '-./ MR. ROBERTS-Don't take it that seriously. I doesnlt sound like he is. MR. BAIRD-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-Mike, can you show us where Mr. Ball's well is? Is it a drinking water well, or does he use it for lawn water? MR. BAIRD-I don't have it on my drawing because, I have MR. YARMOWICH-He' s got Town water and your other neighbor? MR. BAIRD-Yes, as far as I know. He showed me the Town water line. We talk all the time. I have no explanation, where his well is. MR. YARMOWICH-He's not supposed to have a well. MR. CAlMANO-}ie' s got Town water. MR. CARTIER-I don't remember, now, wo said it or where it come out, but MR. YARMOWICH-If he's using it for lawn watering and car washing, it's all right. MR. BAIRD-Is he hooked up to Town water? MR. YARMOWICH-He's supposed to be, if itls out front. MR. BAIRD-He's not allowed a well, but I have to be lOO feet from it. MR. CAlMANO-Mike, settle. MR. ROBERTS-Do you have to hook up to Town water? I thought I did that voluntarily, this last winter, hook up our two houses. MRS. PULVER-I think you have to pay for the frontage, but you don't have to hook up unless you want to. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, if he IS hooked up, he's not supposed to use his ~ll. MR. CARTIER-It was my tmderstanding that Town water runs in front of his house, but he's not hooked up to it. He's hooked up to a well. Whether he has to or not, I don't know, but, if I understand Mr. Bairdls waiver request, he is going to provide us, at some point, before he begins digging holes and hammering nails, with a survey plat that will show that, is that correct? MR. BAIRD-The purpose for that was absolutely on contingency of approval. He would have to do that anyway. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, if it is close, you donlt know where it is, if it is close, it'll present a problem. MR. BAIRD-Could you clarify that? If my use, proposed septic system, is too close to his ~ll that is not being used, are you saying that? MR. YARMOWICH-He' s ~ll for drinking. connected to the Town water. He's You can't have a cross connection. not supposed to use his MR. BAIRD-Then he doesnl t have to hook to Town water? MR. YARMOWICH-Not necessarily. MR. BAIRD-And if he's not, then I have to abide by the 100 foot? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. BAIRD-That's all I want to know. MR. ROBERTS-That I s not by his request. Ordinance. He's requesting it, but that's Town MR. BAIRD-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Your Number One comment, Tom, here. How serious a problem do we have, here? What are you really looking for, here? 56 ~ -...../ MR. YARMOWICH-Well, you're showing a thousand gallon tank, Mike. We would like to know, \\hat's that based on. How many people do you have working there? How much flows are you getting? MR. BAIRD-To begin with you, as you know, it has been exactly a year since last August when, this, not this exact Planning Board, approved the re-zoning for this project which was the point of the whole thing, to come up to date and go through everybody, Lee York, Pat Collard, John Goralski, Stu and everybody. This is what you've got to do. You've got to have a plot plan and I said, make sure because I don I t want to come. So, I went through the variance and I put my septic tank down and the plot plan as ask, a thousand gallon tank, the deed, the, plot, the whole thing and everything like that. Then I get up to the point where theyl re asking questions and Dave Hatin says, \lell that's not good enough. I asked him if I could do it before I got passed for this. He says, sure. He says, go somewhere else in New York State or something because I don't do that. All of a sudden, I get passed for a variance. You're asking me about the septic. He says to me a thousand gallons. I'm telling you, I was passed for the variance for this building, for the thousand gallon tank and the drywell and everything, only to find out that Dave says, how can they pass you. He says, you can't just do that. MR. YARMOWICH-Thatls not an element of their variance. MR. BAKER-Mike, variance didn't expansion. you received the variance deal wi th anything else for the building expansion only. The on your property, just the building MR. ROBERTS-Just the side lot line? MR. BAKER-Yes, it was the side yard setback. MR. HAGAN-Did you get your question answered, Tom? MRS. PULVER-No, he didn't. I didn't recognize the answer. MR. YARMOWICH-What I was looking for was if you have information about how much septic waste are going to be generated from your operation? MR. BAIRD-As far as number of ~ployees? MR. YARMOWICH-Something like that. MR. BAIRD-We have two ~ployees. That was a hard question to answer because I haven't looked at it recently because it's been so long. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the six parking spaces, \Ie don't know, it's very difficult for uS to understand how much use the system is going to get. MR. BAIRD-Right, those parking spaces don't correlate with the employees. I just fill the space. What I'm saying is, there's myself, as an employer, I have two employees. MRS. PULVER-How many vehicles do you own? MR. BAI RD -Two. MR. CARTIER-But youl re expanding. You're adding a 30 by 60 building. Are you also going to expand the number of ~ployees. MR. BAIRD-That is not correct, at this time. MR. CARTIER-That's a question. Youlre not going to? MR. BAIRD-No, I'm not. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BAIRD-That is not the intent. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Well, back to Tom, here. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. 57 '~ - MR. YARMOWICH-The. se.ptic syste.m de.sign is to be. base.d on a pe.rc te.st. Did you do a perc test for that site? MR. BAIRD-Yes, I was, among everything else, it says in here, in this report, that the.y want a perc te.st and everything. It's right he.re, in the drainage report and it says, one contradicts the other. The letter about the perc te.st says, "The pe.rcolation test at the leaching facility site. is necessary." My stormwater drainage. report, \tbich I have purchased to get to this me.eting, says, "The percolation test has bee.n performe.d at the location of the. test pit and was observe.d to be approximately 1 inche.s pe.r minute. ave.rage. square. foot at a two foot." MR. YARMOWICH-That's suppose.d to relate., spe.cifically, to the. e.ave. trench design, Which has satisfied the pre.vious comment. MR. BAIRD-The.y're. not the same.. MRS. PULVER-Where. was the pe.rc test eve.n done., on the map? MR. BAIRD-I'm not sure. I was not there at the. time.. MR. YARMOWICH-It says, "at the re.ar of the proposed building addition, a couple. of te.st pits were dug to observe soil type. which were light brown me.dium and fine sand." MR. ROBERTS-Those. soils in that area are reasonably uniform. A couple of te.sts on that size lot, wouldn't that suffice? MR. yARMOWICH-Do you know e.nough about what's on your ground, as far as soils? MR. BAIRD-It's sand. MR. YARMOWICH-De.ep sand, no water? MR. BAIRD-Yes, live lived on that property most of my life.. MR. YARMOWICH-I ne.ed to here from you, that's all. I'm not disagreeing with you. MR. BAIRD-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think we're familiar with that, to some exte.nt, too. MR. BAIRD-He drives his tractor next door and loads the sand on my place. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's on the. surface. We ne.ed to know how deep it gpes. MR. MARTIN-Well, it make.s refe.rence to the fact that a test pit was dug. MR. YARMOWICH-That was in association with drainage re.port, but I don't disagre.e that it could be exte.nded, to be used. It's not an ele.ment that's reflecte.d in his plan, but we can get to the. answers. How are you going to put that in, the septic syste.m? How are you going to get that done? (END OF DISK THREE) 58 '---' --" MR. BAIRD-I'm going to have to have it done, if that's what you mean, contract out. MR. YARMOWICH-Hire somebody, yes. MR. BAIRD-Could I just ask you a technical question on that? I mean, from the start, I wanted somebody to come out and say, you should have this or go to New York State, What is down on Ridge Street, or whatever. MR. ROBERTS-Department of Health. MR. BAIRD-Right. All this time, you know, I talk to these people, they say, that's fine, that's fine, they pass it, that's fine. I get here, all of a sudden, what's this thousand gallons. It's not good enough. I mean, I don't even know if I can do it, if I've got to redesign it. I was so willing, with this Board, some people, here are very mean to me. I've been here a year ago. I change the zone myself without a lawyer, only to be discouraged, time and time again. I really have been trying. I do, I feel a little up tight, I do. I'm just a small person. I'm not Valcour, and I just want to work with you people. I asked him to tell me what kind of tank, that's fine, that's fine. I get here, well, ~ have to redesign it, now, not to mention the additional cost. MR. BAKER-Mike, you may be jumping the gun here. I don't think anybody's said that you have to redesign the septic tank. MR. BAIRD-No, I know that. MRS. PULVER-And you understand, Mike, ~ canlt do your planning for you. You have to have it all done before you come here. MR. BAIRD-I wasn I t directing it to this Board, okay. I've been trying to work wi th every Board in the building. Of course, some don't know what the others are leaving it up to the other ones to do. Itls certainly a hard job on your side. MR. ROBERTS-It's not a perfect world. We're talking three employees, a thousand gallon tank, and sand. We're not talking a problem, here. MR. YARMOWlCH-I see, actually, no problem, here, Mike. The water line that comes off of the road is already in, right? MR. BAIRD-Yes, sir. MR. YARMOWlCH-Okay. If you get a contractor to build this and you have him apply for the Building Permit for the septic system, it's all going to work out. You really donlt have site restrictions, here, that would appear in other parts of Queensbury, as far as disposal. MR. BAIRD-As far as setbacks, you mean? MR. yARMOWlCH-Well, now the setbacks I canlt be assured of. Like you say, you don't even know where your neighborls ~ll is. MR. BAIRD-Yes, thatl s one that just got thrown in. I don't know about, now. MR. YARMOWlCH-Right. I canlt see any reason why this site cannot be used for adequate, on site sewage disposal system. I'm not convinced that this particular si te plan is going to work. We don't know where your neighbor' s ~ll is. I see absolutely no reason, though, wy you don't have the right conditions to make it work. MR. CARTIER-There is some indication and, again, I don't know where it came from, that the neighbor' s ~ll is in their backyard, more than lOO feet away from the proposed septic system and I don't even know where that came from, but somebody said that. MR. YARMOWlCH-Okay, all I'm trying to indicate to the Board is that, I can't, from this particular site plan, say that all elements of the septic system comply with the Ordinance. The construction of this system, by a contractor, would require the issuance of a permit through the Building Department's, and solely, the Town of Queensbury. youlre not dealing with the DOH or a DEC issue, where the Ordinance requirements may differ, so that the Board can be comfortable in knowing that the permit to construct this system will require compliance with the Queensbury Ordinance. 59 '---"' ..-- MR. ROBERTS-But we do have to find the location of that well, clarify that. MR. YARMOWICH-That is also a part of that application process. MR. BAIRD-I even have an ans~r to that, as far as staying away from that well. I was going to show him on this map. Right here, where the proposed tank is, if you do have a map, it comes straight out, from the. front door of my shop underneath, of course. I, ori ginally, proposed, to Lee York, way back, I mean, way back, months, that I was going to angle it out, underneath the parking lot and I was told, and I quote, "You cannot put a septic system under a parking lot". MR. CARTIER-Uhless you go to another Board of Health. MR. BAIRD-Steve Borgos says, yes you can, and all it takes is one Town meeting. I'm confused. This is what I've been up against. MR. CARTIER-The.y're both right. MR. BAIRD-You see where I'm coming from, then, at least, please. MR. CARTIER-No, they're both right. You cannot put it under a parking lot without Town Board of Health approval. MR. BAIRD-I wasn't told that. I was just told I couldnlt do it. I changed my whole plans, now I'm closer to his ~ll, if I couldlve preve.nted it. MR. ROBERTS-We.ll, that would've taken a variance from the Town Board and you, maybe, wouldn I t want to have had to go through that. MR. BAIRD-Right. MR. ROBERTS-It would be better to try to avoid it. MRS. PULVER-That would have been more meetings, more public hearings. MR. BAIRD-I'm hoping this is my last one. MR. YARMOWICH-I feel that the issues raised in my letter will be properly addressed with the issuance of the Building Department Permit for construction of the sewage disposal system because there are no other involved agencies. I think that the Queensbury Sewage Ordinance requirements are going to be met, absent the perc test results. I fe.el that the perc test results are close enough where they can be extrapolated to be representative. MR. BAIRD-Excuse me, sir, are you an engineer for the septic system or what not? All I'm asking is somebody he.re, is this possible. to make. a pe.rson like. me. put in pumps and all this? MR. YARMOWI CH -No, it won't, Mike.. MR. BAIRD-I me.an, that's pre.tty close. to what I may be allowed, is it not? MR. YARMOWlCH-You have. a site. that works ~11 with the type of syste.m that youl d like. to have.. MR. BAIRD-Be.cause. if e.ve.r my plan ge.ts approve.d, I've se.en pe.ople. walk out of he.re. not re.ally knowing what was approve.d and I didn't want my $3,000 syste.m to be approve.d only if I got a Town variance.. I've. se.e.n that happe.n. MR. YARMOWlCH-As long as you agre.e to ge.t the. permit for the se.ptic syste.m that's re.quire.d, be.fore. you install it, I have. no proble.m with it. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, have. we got any othe.r burning que.stions, he. re. ? How about SEQRA on this Unliste.d? Do ~ need to do a Short Form? MR. BAKER-This is an Unlisted action, so do nee.d to review the Short Form. PUBLIC BEARING OPENED NO a:>MMENT PUBLIC BEARING ø.OSED 60 ---' -- RESOLUTION WHEN DETEJlKlNATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 62-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: by MIKE BAIIID, OIDrinth Road, for a proposed 30 ft. by 60 ft. addition to be used for sign manufacturing and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review tn'lder the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano !lOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 62-90 KID BAIRD, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For the construction of a 30 by 60 ft. addition for sign manufacturing, with the following stipulations: that a survey plat be provided to the Planning Board showing all information on the current Site Plan, the location of the well on the Ball property and proposed location of the fuel tank; that all spray painting be confined to an approved spray booth inside the building only; and that soil erosion control measures in accordance with NYS Guidelines for urban erosion and sediment control be provided, as necessary. Duly adopted this 2lst day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. cartier, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Tom, what do you need? Design data be provided? MR. YARMOWlCH-No, ~ can allow that to occur through the, the applicant must apply for and obtain a sewage disposal construction permit from the Town of Queensbury. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so, do I need to add anymore? 61 '-' -/ MR. YARMOWlCH-And the soil erosion control measure during construction. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BAIRD-The most important question, I was approved for my variance a couple, three months ago, it may be too late for me, after a whole year to bui ld this, is it a year? MR. BAKER-You have from your Planning Board approval. MR. BAIRD-If it's three months behind the variance, will I have to go back for through the variance? MS. CORPUS-Mike, I told you that two months or so before your thing is up from Zoning Board MR. BAIRD-Is it the same with the Planning Board? MS. CORPUS-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. BAIRD-Alright, they're both the same. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, if you don't get to us, just come back for an extension in time. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPEcrFULL Y SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 62 '-" - LOCATION MAPS August 21st, 1990 Planning Board Meeting OLD BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 50-89 Walter Dombek (see Staff Notes attached) Q 1 ..,... « ÇQ Iv -J ... C! Noftrlj Site Plan No. l7-90 J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider Restaurant (see Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 49-90 Robert Tyrer (See Staff Notes attached) ~ Site Plan No. 43-90 Leo Lombardo Leo's Lobster-House (See Staff Notes attached) " œ ~ tb..t) N ~t tJ [; ~ I -r &:C:. t~ "'-- '--" LOCATION MAPS August 21st, 1990 Planning Board Meeting OLD BUSINESS: (Cont'd) Subdivision No. 7-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE Stephanie B. Mason Farm To Market Commons John A. and (See Staff Notes àttached) Site Plan No. 56-90 Airron Industrial Corp. (See Staff Notes and Map attached) NEW BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 6l-90 John Owen (See Staff Notes attached) c.Co \r~ ( Site plan No. 62-90 Mike BAird (See Staff Notes attached) Á. .- = - "--' -.; TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ptAftftiftgDepartment -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J ohD S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Ass~stant Planner Date: AU ;lust l4. 1990 John S. Goralski By: Area V...... U_ VU"iace - Sip VU"iace := mt6&pletatiGD SubdmIIiaa: Sketch. _ PrelimiDary, ---x- Site PlaIa Rnie.. - - Petitioa for a Chuge of Zcae - Fresh.at.. WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: Site Plan Review No. 50-89 AppUcatiGD Namben Walter Dombek Applicaat'. Namel MeetiDa Date: August ZI, 1990 ..................................................................................11........ This Site Plan Review was tabled last year so that the applicant could obtain a side setback variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. At this point, the Zoning Administrator has determined that all necessary variances have been received. I have reviewed this site plan with respect to the standards set forth in Section 5.070-E of the Zoning Ordinance, and have the following comments: 9. JSG:aed ( l. The location of the proposed building minimizes its impact on Meadowbrook Road and on the Healy residence. No additional lighting or signs are proposed. Z. The proposed building is to be used to store boats. This is a tight site for maneuvering trailers.. however, the longest boat that could be stored is 15 feet. 3. The parking requirements for this type of use are minimal. Parking should not be a problem on this site. 4. Pedestrian circulation should not be a concern. 5. Storm water drainage facilities will be addreaaed by Rist-Frost Associates. 6. The site is serviced by municipal water and sewer. 7. I would recommend that the applicant provide adequate screening between his property and the Healy property. Any plant material be of a variety that will surrive in extremely wet conditiona. 8. There ia sufficient access for emergency vehicles. The Fire Marshall's office haa requested that no fuel be stored in the building. The incre... in green area should offset any impact relating to ponding or fioodinø· ~ þ ~ RIST-FROST "SSOCI"TES. P,C, CONSUL TING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 '-" - August 8, 1990 RFA #89-5000.050 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Walter Dombek, Site Plan 50-90 Dear Mrs. York: d JE©iUWL!:)" (~ AUG~O ~~ ¡LANNI . 'ONINI OEPA TMENT We have reviewed the above referent project and have the following cOlllllents: 1. Erosion control measures should be provided in accordance with NYS Guidel ines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control during excavation and pavement removal. 2. All previous engineering comments have been addressed sat i sfactoril y. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. 8-. &v~V"~~iL Thomas M. ~~. wich, P.L Project En~ er TMY/c_ cc: Town Planning Board Members @ GI.ENS FALLS. NNACONIA, NH " ~ -." '·0 . . , , t )''¡ , "«, ! (,; '" .. TOWN OF ~UEENSBURY ""--' - COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION r- . , _ :... - -; . Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 11 Owen Avenue ~eensbur.J, R. Y. 12801 To. ( x) Warren coUl1ty Planning Board (x) ~eensbu1'7 'fown Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Applicant . Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280! Date. 8/6/90 Re. Site Plan #50-89 - Walter Dombek Meadowbrook Road We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variance, (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (x) Approval ( ) Disapproval The Committee could find very little difference between this planting proposal than the one previously approved. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conto~ing 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. R~~UllJ, ~i tted, ~dY.· ~~ " ~ -""'~- . . .. -.-.-......- ....:-..~~~ " TO\VN OF QUEENSBURY c_ ;-: - - -, ..! :. "-' Supplemental application for Special Permits and Use Variances: (to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for: Landscaping, Plantings and Screening) 1. Applicant's name: Street address: City, State, zi,ì Telephone number: Location of Planned Construction: .r 2. Plot plan: (to a comprehensive scale) Zoning Board application plot plan may be used (or a separate sheet). SAoW location of driveways, ramps, walks, buildings, signs, parking areas, storage and refuse areas, existing trees (of six inch caliper (diameter)or greater) and existing tree or shrub border. Trees and shrubs? Screenin~ plans: (show on plot plan) Ce.J~.r-~" 'f Variety and numbers lJ~J MtL ,JI! -..J" ~ I 3. Landscapina. Plantina or Grass or other ~round cover? Gr.s~ Flower beds. planters or window boxes? ~Y1G. Mulchina? (material to retain moisture and inhibit weed growth) Marble chips Stone Redwood chips Bark Pine needles Screenina? Storage or refuse areas or unsightly areas? Buffer zone? (required by ordinance abutting residential zone) Maintenance? Give plans for care of all plants, shrubs, trees, lawn, flowers, etc., watering, prining, weeding, feeding and necessary periodical care. Removal or trash and snow? Indicate plans for litter removal from parking and public areas. Show location on plot plan of trash reeeptacles and snow storage. 4. Exterior bu~. finish? Clapboard? Other? Brick or stone? Painted blocks? ~Tc.c..J hI dJ $' Your customers and the community will be attracted to a beautified, well maintained place of business and you and your "'I.y"s~il'e'.ke pride in the appearance of your place of business and better serve your customers. Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification I ~. , . ----- .. ._"- ...- ,r..i " - f$S' - "'-- ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1:anning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: August 10, 1990 John S. Goralski Area VuiaDce Use VuiaDce - Sip Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi"-oa: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, --X Site PIaD Rmew - == Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Application Number: Site Plan No. l7-90 Applic:aDt'. Name: J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider Restaurant MeetiDg Date: August 2l, 1990 ............................................................................................ The Zoning Board of Appeals has granted three variances for this project. A shoreline setback variance which would allow the building to be 53 feet from the shoreline. A variance from the permeability requirement and a use variance to expand a nonconforming use. DEC has approved the shoreline reclamation and DOH has approved the septic system. In my notes of March l5, 1990, I listed 7 areas of concern. I will comment on how these items have been addressed in subsequent submissions. l. The shoreline setback will be increased II feet by the reclamation project. The addition has been moved back 8 feet from the existing shoreline. The proposed addition will still be 4 feet closer to the shoreline than the existing building. 2. A post and rail fence is proposed to control traffic flow to and from Glen Lake Road. 3. The parking layout has been adjusted to provide a 20 foot driving lane. The handicapped parking spaces have been moved away from the lake. The question of trailer parking was brought up at a previous meeting. This has not been addressed. 4. The storm water runoff calculations have been revised. The consulting engineer will comment on this. 5. The Sullivans' have agreed to abandon the existing well and will not hold the Town liable for any problems arising from the agreement. 6. Several large trees have been removed from the site. Many of these will be replaced by 7 to 9 foot maples. The site plan indicates tree wells will be provided to protect the existing trees from damage due to grading. No details of the tree wells are provided. ~ ~ "'--" -./' 7. A silt fence is proposed, to prevent erosion and sedimentation, on the lake shore side of the construction area. One final recommendation is that the Planning Board require the applicant to file a copy of the DEC Shoreline Construction Permit with the Planning Department, and that any conditions of that permit be part of any site plan approval. JSG/sed _._--~ ~ t ~ I'!IST-FI'!OST ASSOCIATES, F'C CONSUL TING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE SOx 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 -- - August 13, 1990 RFA #89-5000.017 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: J. Paul Barton, Site Plan 17-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referent project and have the following conments: 1. Grading is shown beyond the west property 1 ine on Town of Queensbury property. 2. The well location is shown less than 15' from the property line. The water system design does not account for use at the Sullivan property. 3. The water supply system apparently includes chlorination as required by the NYS Department of Health for this type of establishment. The water supply design notes indicate that the hydropneumatic tank will be used for chlorine contact time. Proposed system piping and tankage details are necessary to determine the adequacy of the chlorine disinfection system. 4. 10' of separation must be maintained between the septic tank and the water line to the adjoining Sullivan property. 5. . Although the NYS Department of Health has approved the septic system design, Town of Queensbury Ordinances remain applicable. As the septic system proposed is clearly an expansion to accoDllOdate increased use, current Ordinance criteria can be required. The Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance adopts the stricter of DOH or DEC standards. DEC standards would govern for unit design flows and drywel1 spacing, which are not met by the septic sytem design offered. Further, the perc tests and deep test pits used for septic system design were conducted in the winter. The Board may wish to consider if the applicant should reevaluate the septic system. * GLeNS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH ; I ,. t t t ~ ........, - Town of Queensbury Attn: Mrs. Lee York Page 2 August 13, 1990 RFA #89-5000.017 6. The feasibility of relocating existing seepage pit B to a location at C is questionable. 7. All other previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~ II . I G\v\ \.th. 1...", , \ ",-/ L "- Thomas M. Y~rmowich, P.E. Project Eng'1neer " TMY/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members ; ~ t TOWN OF QUEENSBURY '-' .......,A.- , COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbur,y. ft. Y. l280j To . (x) Warren County Planning Board (x) Queensbur,y Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Applicant Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280! Date. 8/6/90 Re. Site Plan #17-90 J. Paul Barton j/b/a Docksider Glen Lake, N. Y. 12804 We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variance, (x) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (x) Approval ( ) Disapproval Plans presented by Mack A. Dean of Morse Engineering with Paul Barton present. Plans approved, as presented after answering many questions on various aspects of the planting plans. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to fo on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming s gns, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached 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. ~e tfully submitted, it: $¿¿ Ro ert L. Eddy, Cha~an I ~ t , . - "--' - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planni"K Department -N OTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J OM 5. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: AURust 21, 1990 Lee A. York Ana VG"iaace U.Variance - Sip Variance == IDterpretaticm Other: SubdiYiåoa: Sketch, X- Site P1aa Reriew - - Petition for a ChaDge of Zoae - Freshwater WetJaDda Permit PreIim~-- _ -7' FiDaJ AppUcatiaa Number: Site Plan Review No. 49-90 AppUc:aDt'. Name: Robert Tyrer MeetiDg Date: August 2 I, J 990 ............................................................................................ The revised plans show a 12" culvert ~oing beneath GlenwooQ Avenue to an area adjacent to the parking lot. This eliminates the concern of the Board that water traveling across Glenwood would cause a safety hazard. Les Saltsman, Principal Fisheries Technician for DEC, has submitted a letter in which he comments on his concern about the stormwater drainage situation. The Town Engineer also has expressed concerns about the drainage flow. I have reviewed the site plan with rep,ard to Section 5.070-E of the ZoninR Ordinance, and have the following comments: I) The location of the proposed building minimizes its impact on Glenwood Avenue. The lighting sl:1all be arranged not to illuminate adjacent properties and buildinp,s (accordin, to notes on plan). The plans do not indicate any new si~nage. 2) There is sufficient Darking. The plans indicate that this one facility will have 5 access I)oints on to G1enwood which is an already short and overtaxed roadway. The plans do not indicate any intent ion by the developer to control the ingress or egress Doints. An intersection analysis -1- ; ~--~_.- ~ I i '-' - performed by Warren County (1989) states that the intersection of Glenwood and Bay is at an existing Level of Service F (failed - DOT's lowest rating). The County report states that the Glenwood/Quaker intersection is at a Level of Service E and by the year 2008 wi 11 be at an F. The Town of Queensbury Comprehens i ve Land Use Plan ident i fied Glenwood Avenue as a Local Arterial. According to Sect ion 5.070 of the Zoning Ordinance the Planning Board wi 11 have to decide if the proposed use would creat~ a public hazard from traffic or traffic congestion or otherwise be detrimental to the health. safety and general welfare of the persons in the neighborhood or town. The Glenwood intersections current level of service would indicate that no further traffic should be added to this roadway. 3) The pedestrian circulation on the mall side of the road is sufficient. The pedestrians crossing Glenwood from the opposite side of the road have not been considered in this plan. The pedestrians will enter the Arterial to get to the facility or back. This situation creates further health and safety problems for the pedestrians, as well as, the vehicular traffic. 4) The stormwater drainage has been addressed by the engineer. 5) The water supply and sewage disposal facilities will be addressed by the engineer. 6) The Beautification report refers to an agreement for more trees to be placed on the site. 7) The Fire Marshall has submitted a comment regarding the adequacy of fire lanes and emergency zones. 8) ponding, engineer The adequacy of the development with regard to the susceptibility of flooding and eros ion has been· discussed in the comment of the and DEC. LAY/pw '" ~ RIST.FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C, CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS FlOST OFFICE BOx 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4148 518.793-4141 '-' - August 8, 1990 RFA #89-5000.049 Town of QUeensbury Office Bu i1 ding Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Rè: Robert Tyrer, Site Plan 49-90 Dear Mrs. York: )LANNI ~ OIPARTlfe':'Nr We have reviewed the above referent project and have the following conwnents: 1. The potential impact of a clogged single storm drain inlet, regardless of opening pattern, has not been satisfactorily addressed. The appl icant should indicate the course surface drainage will follow if a single blocked inlet should occur. A redundant inlet is advisable if a clogged single inlet would cause a critical impact of water flowing over Glenwood Avenue. 2. The detention basin bottom elevation appears to be lower than Halfway Brook suggesting that groundwater may fill the bottom of the basin. 3. The 50 year flood elevation of Halfway Brook will fill much of the detention basin. Calculations' should be provided that relates the functioning of the basin during a 50 year flood at a flood plain elevation of 316. 4. In light of the previous comments by NYSDEC regarding discharge of stormwater into Halfway Brook, the stonJlllater management plan may need to be entirely reevaluated. Very truly yours, R8:T "J Thomas M. wich, P.E. Project Enginl!er P.C. TMY/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS. NY-I.4CQNIA, NH .. ~....-_.- I ~ ~ i '-' SrTfP!ANREVlEWNO.47'- 5f '-" í' ~ New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ~ Inland Fisheries Management - Region 5 ~ Hudson Street, Warrensburg, New York 12885-0220 ~ Tel.: (518) 623-3671, 668-5441 ~ Thom.. C. Jortlng Comml..loner t()~'{ ~\\~ Mr. John Goralski Town of Queensbury Planning Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804 Dear Mr. Goralski: !ð~.-a~~,- -~ g"\" August 15 11 ~ \\ ')"~ ~~\ ~,,<:)~\I ~ Department ~~~~.. . -- ~;'(\"~ I reviewed the revised stormwater plans for the proposed Glenwood Manor expansion. The revision has addressed most of my concerns. I suggest the rip-rapped ditch at the outlet of the stormwater culvert be rip-rapped to the bottom of the retention basin. Also, the rip-rapped ditch at the outlet of the retention basin and the rip-rapped spillway be extended to the limit of the disturbed or unvegetated area with a fan-shaped, rock rip-rapped energy dissipating structure. Sincerely, ~4 --8,._ik~ LHS/llw cc: N. Sciartelli W. Miller .. Leslie H. Saltsman Principal Fisheries Technician ~ f !JIll- ~, - '--" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY fJLE (OPy 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725 (518) 792-5832 . . "'-........ "~ IJ ;:--1 \ ))li©IUW~)~, ~\ AUG211990~ TO: Planning Department N. W. Bodenweiser, Fire Marshal 91 fiJ 8 \.ANNINO II ZONIN( rtEPARTMENT FROM: RE: Site Plan No. 49-90 Robert Tyrer DATE: August Zl, 1990 It is our determination that sufficient access to new buildings for fire fighting purposes are adequate for this project. NWB/sed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 . I TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION . "'J ' r- /" - .., ........... :;: .' " - , , '.p- ~ Robert L. Eddy, Chairman Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 17 Owen Avenue 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbur,J. R. Y. l280j Queensbury, N. Y. 1280! To. (~ Warren Ccnmty Planning Board Date. 8/6/90 ( Queensbury Town Planning Board ( Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Applicant Re. Site Plan #49-90 - Robert Tyrer - Glenwood Manor Quaker Road at Glenwood Avenue We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variance, (X) 5i te Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (X) Approval ( ) Disapproval The architect for this project informed this Committee that the only change from the previously approved plans is the addition of some trees to the rear, so there was no need to conduct a rehearing. In addition to the above landscaping. screening and planting provisions, the Committee wiShes to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforminl signs. 2. Plastic or artificial trees. shrubs or flowers. In approvinl the above (or attached 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. ~~d~r~~an ; ---- I ~ I \ RICHARD E. JO~ES ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS . -----JTERIOR DESIGNERS 119 AVIATION ROAD aUEENSBURY, NY 12804 (518) 793-1015 kÀ_ QÚ SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. Ii I .- OJ 0" July 27,1990 Committee For Community Beautification Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury,New York 12804 Att:Robert L. Eddy,Chairman Re:Robert Tyrer, Site Plan 49-90 Dear Mr. Eddy: Attached are two copies of the revised site plan. We have added nine (9) Austrian Pines along the property line adjacent to the bike path as per comments of the Warren County Planning Board. As per our phone conversation on Friday July 27,l990 it is our understanding from John Goralski and yourself that we do not have to come before the Committee again for the referenced project. Should you require additional information please feel free to contact me. ~~- Mark Hanchett Richard E. Jones Associates cc:John Goralski --. . . ~. -- - I þ . - - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI:lnninK Department -NOTE TO FILE- Date: Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Area VariaDce U.. VariaDce - Sip VuiaDce - IDterpntatioa Other: By: -- August l5, 1990 John S. Goralski SubdiWliaa: Sketch, _ PrelimÜlarJ, --x- Site P1aa Rniew - == Petition for a ChaDge of Zaae Freshwater WetJaDù Permit AppUcatioa NalDbeI': Applic:mat'. Name: MeetiDg Date: Site Plan No. 43-90 Leo Lombardo, Leo's Lobster House August Zl, 1990 FiDaI ............................................................................................ It appears that concerns raised regarding parking, ingress and egress, and increased roof runoff have been addressed. The applicant has also provided additional information indicating the size of the existing septic systems and the probable flow rates for those systems. The Town's consulting engineer has reviewed this information and comments on its adequacy. JSG/sed ~ ....... '. , . " NSf~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. PC, CONSUL TING ENGINeERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 . 793-4146 518.793-4141 "--' ..-- August 8, 1990 RFA #89-5000.043 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Kavtland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Leo Lombardo, Site Plan 43-90 Dear Mrs. York: d_fiW[~)',. t~ AUG~O ~Vi 'LANN'N~ONIN("'" OEPARTMENT We have reviewed the above referent project and have the following connents: 1. The applicant has submitted information on the existing septic systems servicing the property, and in particular, the restau- rant. The applicant's information includes some design calcula- tions. The Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance requires compl iance with the most restrict he appl icablestandards (per Ordinance Section 3.010 A). The applicant has not clearly identified the proposed standards and criteria for the proposed use of the sept ic systems. The appl icant must ident ify the selected design criteria. Based on the Planning Board's determination that the proposed waiting area will increase the restaurant septic systems use, the applicant had been requested, by the Board, to certify that the existing systems are adequate to accommodate the proposed use if the systems were not to be altered. The applicant has not furnished such certification. If the applicant cannot certify the adequacy of the existing systems, with respect to the Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordi- nance, for the proposed use, then altered or replacement septic systems should be provided. Z. Other previous engineering comments have been addressed. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~ . It '-.:.- / ~ , ("v"'-'\./\........''-''\'\' ..."" Thomas M. rmowich, P.E. Project Eng eer TMY/c_ ce: Town Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS. NY·I,ACONIA, NH .. .. · - --- -./ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI.....¡"i Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: AU2ust 21. 1990 Stuart G. Balter Area VariaDce U. Variallce == Sip VariaDce _ IDterpretatiaD·· --1L SubdmIiaI: _ Sketcb, -L PreUmiDary, Site PIaD Re9iew == Petition for a CbaDge of Zcae Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: AppJicatiaD Number: Subdivision No. 7-1989 AppHcaDt'. Name: MeetiDg Date: Farm To Market Commons John and Stephanie Mason AU2ust 21. 1990 ............................................................................................ This 3 lot commercial subdivision received Sketch Plan approval from the Board on April 25, 1989, and a 6 month extension on the Sketch Plan was granted February 27, 1990. I have reviewed the appróved Sltetch Plan and the Preliminary Plan submitted and I note the following changes: A.) Access onto Bay Road , . Moved from 470 ft. north of the intersection of Bay and 149 to only 380 ft~ north. B.) Stormwater Mana~ement Sketch Plan proposed drainage showed catch basins in the par'ting area and along the road directing water to existin~ . and altered drainage swales. Preliminary plans for drainage indicate no catch basins. Sheet flow drainage will be directed to p'reen areas and drainage swales. Retention areas are as bein~ feasible, but are not proposed for construction. 1 -1- '> "'-" '''-- c.) Access road/Parking design At Sketch Plan approval, both the access road and the proposed parking were to be of paved material. Preliminary plans show the parking road to be covered with crushed stone. The proposed roadcuts on Bay Road and Route 149 have both been reduced in width and are no longer divided by traffic islands. Ingress/egress to parking areas are also no longer divided by traffic islands. The prOposed access road must be built to Town design standards, as per Article VIII of the Subdivision Regulations. The Highway Superintendent has reviewed the proposed drainage plan, and he has submitted a letter requesting that a revised system be submitted which provides for more on-site stormwater management and is designed to Town standards. Mr. Naylor also states that he would like drainage aprons along the access road instead of the proposed riprap ditches. Ken Carlson of DOT has submitted a letter requesting that a traffic study be done to DOT standards. This traffic study should be reviewed by the Planning Board before an't, SEQR review is completed. DOT will' review the traffic study and submit their comments to the Planning Department. SGB/pw .. ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. PC, CONSUL TlNG ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 --- - August 8, 1990 RFA #89-5000.507 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Farm to Market Commons Subdivision 7-1989 - Preliminary Stage Dear Mrs. York: d~fiwt~)" t~ AUG~ WJ >LANNIN~ONIN( f)EPARTMENT We have reviewed the above referent project and have the following comments: 1. The driveways should provide deeded right-of-ways or easements which would include agreements between the lot owners for maintenance responsibilities. Drainage and stormwater easements are required (per Subdivision Regulations Article VIII, Sections E. 1. b ., I. 4 . m. and I. 6 . f. ) . 2. Access to the site at Route 149 is not recommended due to the steep slope of the proposed driveway and the proximity to the Bay Road intersection. 3. The outlet of the 8" pvc perforated driveway underdrain should be shown. It is recommended that the ditch outside slopes have no more than a 3:1 (H:V) slope, subject to more severe soil capabilities as determined by the applicant. Grading from the driveway edge to the ditch line should be no more than 4:1 (H:V). 4. (a) The applicant proposes that the increased runoff will be infi1tr~ted into the pervious driveways and parking areas found on site. Retention areas are proposed to be built if the driveways and parking areas are paved in the future. Gravel driveway and parking areas can not be considered entirely permeable as the applicant proposes in the stormwater management report. They can ref1 ect some permeability through use of a proper runoff coefficient. The driveways and parking areas should not be relied upon for stormwater management, and stor'lll1ater management by detention should be required. Sizing for all the proposed culverts should be provided. Further, it is not recommended to use a 12" culvert at the Bay Road intersection, since siltation and plugging can be a problem with culverts 12" and smaller. (b) e GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH '" ~ --- -- Town of Queensbury Attn: Mrs. lee York Page 2 August 8, 1990 RFA #89-5000.507 (c) The relocated drainageway and 24" CMP should be sized to adequately handle any additiona·1 stormwater. Additional future stormwater that may flow to the existing ditch on Route 149 should be addressed. (d) The eave trench detail is shown to be 2' deep, however, seasonal high groundwater is at 12". The eave trench design requires revision. 5. The driveway profile should indicate culvert locations and depths. 6. (a) The Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance (Para. 3.040 B.1.) requires 2 feet of naturally occurring soil above seasonal high groundwater to utilize fill systems. Alternative sewage disposal systems other than fill type should be provided, and construction details and design should be revised. (b) Wells and septic system components on adjacent lots should be shown and the required separat ion distances must be maintained. (c) ,Fl oatat ion of pump stat ions and sept ic tanks shoul d be addressed due to the high groundwater condition. (d) Pump station volumes between pump levels should be indicat- ed and should be consistent with dosing requirements for the proposed disposal system. Very truly yours, RIjT-FRtOST AS~I~S. P.C. l/ I f..w-. . ~"'" ~omas ~ Yarmowich, P.E. Project ng1neer TMY Icmw cc: Town Planning Board Members . , ~ '" 'momn of {@ueenøburv ~igqmnV ~epnrtment f1LE COpy - .., a. HavUand Aoada Office Phone 518-793-7771 Queen.bury, New York 12801 PAUL H. NAYLOR Superintendent Highw.ya 0#'- '.... .~ : ..vr...i"":: r: l:::, "1 (¡)paw~)~', .~ . AUG 161990 ~]J RICHARD A. MISSITA Deputy Superintendent Highways 'LANNING. ZONINt, DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 15, 1990 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD PAUL B. NAYLOR '1'0 : PROM: RE: Also it shows most of and I would . '~",:" system. Respectfully, ./ .".- -'..' .-. ~. ' ·/C~'- .' Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent " -' ", . ~ t tp1LfII \ (ü iVLA1(' K. (: -- F Il E COP '.' SUBDIVISION NO. ï -I q y c¡ PREUMINARY PLAN CU/'1 /VI UN ...J ~(l£Cê.riftWi[ . ~ AUG 20 1990 ~~ 'LANNING & ZOH'Nf I'JEPARTMENT STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 84 HOLLAND AVENUE ALBANY, N.Y. 12208 JOHN E. TAYLOR. PE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR FRANKLIN E, WHITE COMMISSIONER August 10, 1990 Mrs. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Planning Commission Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12804-9725 Re:Farm to Market Commons Proposal Dear Mrs. York: We concur with your letter of 8/1/90 designating the town of Queensbury Planning Board as the SEQR Lead Agency for the Farm to Market Commons review. If the applicant desires to do any work in the right of way of NYS Route 149, a NYSDOT permit will be needed. Since a project of this scale (a 3.79 acre commercial/retail subdivision) is likely to impact traffic conditions, a Traffic Impact Study will be required as part of the permit process. I have enclosed NYSDOT's Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies for the applicant's information. For further information of the Permit process, the applicant should contact Herbert F. Steffins, NYSDOT Warren County Resident Engineer at 623-3511. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. ~~ Ken Carlson Senior Transportation Analyst cc:R.Carlson,Director Reg 1 Planning and Program Management H.Steffins,Warren County Resident Engineer F.Austin,Warren County Highway Superintendent AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER . ; .. P............1 of 2 - GEN!U1. GUIDELINES rOl l'W1IC IMPACT S1't1DI!S St1lHI'!T!:D to NYSDO'I' tlUlING '1U SEC. PROC!SS Prlparlel by. .rl~-la.ioa 1 'l&lUWa, , ])IVIJ.O,..C (July 1988) . '.f '....:. 0p '''~..'; f,. . - ~ Traffic Imp.ct Scudy .hould bl p~.p.r.d ~y . qualifild indiVidual or ft:. , \Will, thl 1IO.e currlllt m.chou .IC fol'tb by thl IuCitutl of T~&Da,oreaC1o11 laciaalr. (ITS) (for ertp ,ID.r.Cioll), thl l'raDIporcac10a a....reh Boarel (TRI) .. (for htl'" capac1e,. &ul,.i.) &ad thl L.~1...1 of t1úfom Traffic Co.er01 ~. ])e.icI. (MlJ'fCD). - ~~ Scud, .bould 1l1Glud. a .tel ,1.. .baw1D. .tCI aeel.. poiDe. 111 rl1&t1011 co tla. an.'. t¡oautt0l'eae1oa tactl1UI', 1aelmal .crl,C lyeC. au parJåq laycNC't a 10...4\&1. of 1&,1_.C&t1aa (proj.ce pbuiq). a <iltatlad de.art,ctoa of eM clnllap1UDc (1I~lr. Ii... C,.,I .. u.... of ICruCCUz.o... .eo.) ad ., ocher izstonatioa 41_eI perc1Dac to tba &ll&ly.1.I. .... fila W iñ.a,. ....ld iu.1u4. a ."Oz.o1,c10. of tbe Iwtiq cl'aupozoc.e1oa .,..CIa rielda e.... ,njece ar.. 1ulwU.q 1'0".' vt4eba. .hoa14.rl. .,... l1aitl., l.tiMe" actual .,..... hari.oacal .. vI.cical cll8aetel1.aeic.. .ip. clue... lJId....tou (1f all'). lea. - '1'be .C1Id, .hou1d 1u1ud. . l!at of cric:I.W 10o.ciou :f.Dø.11&dad 1Ia w .e..,.. fte .... uaJ.,.ta ar.. abcN14 aacad .. fa: .. the .1ea II~nt.4 eraffia hu . .ipifiuaC tapuc. - Tba .*, .1aoaJ.. 1DcJ.uU .11 ........, MÛ:Lu tr.ffio coac. &Del tunUI __.... coa.. to pro,e1rl,. &11&1,.. boela da11y .... pe. h.. cnflic.. tA 14.&1C:l.Da .. enUal wekd&, eaa... eau1ú1racioa .hDuJ.. b. liwa to ~ .._.... da. if .. Uewl &ad loca.s.oa of cha daftl...... W&ftla.. 1t. - fte ..., llIaaW SMluU ftaun. ,nø.,tq C1Ø'I'''C C1'1, dUuiltuC1ou. en.,. ........ 11, ,1Ia ,njlCc. &ad ,n~..t" Uf.p clia.1rUt..f.0D8 .. wU .. .. e.,Jaaciola 01 ,1Ia zoacioula UK m ....1opiq .... - fta I'" .....W tla.1Ue fipn8 111uc",_ tJaa tatun O_UN cnffia "~. 2'd . . ",'~ ,i~'~'~~:~·~ .\ ~..' ., . þ' .,.i i~\' -,~, , ~1~f, >:' :,j'. .~~ NÓI.LI;f.L~dSNt:Ièjl·æ: v't 1216 t,' i:~:::n.r. ',;' " :.,:;\ , . ( " GEN'IUL Gt11DILINIkOl 1'WiIC L'iPACT STtmI!S Pa,~ of 2 - Th, ICudy .bou1d taa1u4a baeklT0UDÄ (i. I. uo~-p'tojact r.latad) eralt1c l'tovcb . a. au1Y'lI of 11..18 01 .a"t.:a at all cd.e~cal 10c:atiou fo~ .stlcta.. baek,rouDd wiChout 4Ivllo,..~c aD4 futurl wich davIlo,.aDc eo~1tiou. for tha Iud of lach projlc:c phall aa4 for coœp1aeiou of tbl projac:t. - Tha Itudy .tuNlel. iuelw11 a ':OPY of all LOS co.,ucar au1y.i. Ib.au au ra" coat data al _ .ppaaciu to chi ICwI". cS' ... C· - Th. ltudY~lhou1d 1ucluda a vatraDt ch.ck ac klY uu.iraalialel. iaclrllc:c1oAl co 4aclraiDa if cbe 1~ca11ac10R of a traffic lilD&l i. rlquirlel.. - The IC1Mi,. .bcn&ld S.4Isac~ IX11CiAI ad projaccac! probl_ al'a'l (frena both \ Idaey au. ea,..1C7 leau, tau) au Ihould c1a..lo, au Ivaluca .olutt.ou to tb._. - n. ICUc!' ltaftlc! 1=1ucl.e CßI penn to "". qUleiou raprel. . ael.cI.~a.. a" calapboae uu.bel' of a CODtact CßI SCUd, .., ba 411'1.'''. HoCI' :rúf1c 1IIpaa. Itwiia. Iuba..eld 'to~ rain by NtSDOT vU1 bl ebecW 1ft \ both coapl.c..... aDd aceul'&cy. OIIiui-...,. causl chI rlnaw co ba 4a1&,., o~ tlla llIboåtea1 ~... n~..u4. Quue~ ......"" ebu. p1daUaa. MY ... I~!."N "~ON " clUlet. to , ta.1oMl .' a-i,.. .. DIYllopUILc. 84 Boll.... Av.... ~Na1. I.. Yo~k 12201 (.hou. (511)'1"'6ZU>'~ .,. i 'c:I it ~J~ NOI11:I1~~ 9£:vi 06, €Z "r t' -- . .. TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 'COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION 'tILE COpy Robert L. Eddy, Chairman Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 17 Owen Avenue 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbur.y, R. Y. 1280¡ Queensbury, N. Y. l280! To . 'x) Warren COunty Planning Board Da te I 8/6/90 (x) Queensbu17 Town Planning Board , ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board ot Appeals (x) Applicant Re. Sub Div. #7-1989 - Farm-to-Market Commons Bay Road near Rte. #149 We have reviewed the request for., ) Variance, ( ) Site Plan Review, (X) Other - and have the following recommendations. ( , Approval ( ) Disapproval The Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification is asking all developers of industrial, commercial and office parks to propose a theme for design of buildings to be constructed in the park and a theme for plantings on the lots to be sold in the park. It is the Committee's opinion and others, that the idea will assist in sales of lots in the development and should improve the appearance of Queensbury which has hodge podge of building designs and planting plans. This developer has been approached with this thought in mind, but has not, as yet, come up with ideas. 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 artiticial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans). the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement ot 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. G?"ful~ £bmi:1l ~~ddY. ~i"ijin j: ~ --"'-- , . -- .-._-..- . .. ~, - '-" - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planni"'g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner By: August lO, 1990 Stuart G. Baker Date: Area Variace U. Variance - Sip Variance == IDtel'Jlfttatioa Subdi.uäoa: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary, --X Site PIaD Rmew - := Petition for a ChaDøe of ZoDe Freshwater Wet1aDda Permit FiDal Other: Applicatioa Number: Site Plan No. 56-90 Applicaat'a Name: AhTon Industrial Corp. MeeâDg Date: August Zl, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant wishes to display and sell heavy equipment. This application was tabled by the Board on July Z4, 1990 for further information. I have reviewed the new site plan submitted according to Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, and I have the following comments: The display and sale of heavy equipment is an allowable use in the Light Industrial zone. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact of this use on adjoining residential uses. The nearest residentially zoned property is over 350 feet to the south of the area proposed for this use. The residential use across Queensbury Avenue from this site is also in the Light Industrial zone. In order to adequately protect the residential uses, on and adjacent to this property, from adverse aeathetic impacts, I would recommend that all vehicles to be shown be restricted to a limited area behind the prop sed buffer zone, north of the house. The Board should place a limit upon the number of vehicles to be shown on the property. The area to be used for cUaplay should be marked on the site by some method (iron pipes, railroad ties, etc.) in order to enaure ease of enforcement by the Building and Codes Department. AU stipulations by the Board should be carefully outlined in the motion made. The Board should also discuss full buildout plans for the parcel with the applicant. There has been much cut and fill work on the parcel, and the cemented area on the north side of the pole barn haabeen increasing in size. SGB/sed .j , . . t, " TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ~ COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION -' FILE COpy Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, ft. Y. l280¡ Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280! Tos (x) Warren County Planning Board Dates 8/6/90 (x) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) APplicant Res Site Plan #56-90 Airron Ind. Corp. County Line road (145 Queensbury Avenue) We have reviewed the request fors( ) Variance, (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendationss ( ) Approval (X) Disapproval No one appeared to present revised plans requested by the Queensbury Planning Board. Furthermore a site inspection of the property indicates questions the Committee would like answered. There appears no good reason for the approximate one half acre of pavement located to south of the house. A neighbor reported the pavement was increasing frequently. There is a very large pole barn on the property which might be used for this display of used heavy machinery which would remove the operation from an outdoor activity. There appeared to be two or three abandoned vehicles at the rear of the house. This property is almost directly opposite one of Queensbury's Picturesque and Historic Homes. The appearance of the property in question and the plans for this applicant could depreciate the value of this pituresque and historic home and not encourage it's owners or tenants to maintain it in it's fine condition. Should the application be approved based on the approval of planting plans by this Committee at it's July meeting, the Committee would like that approval amended to require a Bond in at least the amount of $5,000. If planting plans are changed, the Committee would like to have the applicant directed back with such plans. This is additional evidence that the Light Industrial Zone definitions should be changed or a new zone established to permit Light Manufacturing which this area is rapidly becoming. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to fo on record that it does not approves 1. Non-contormin. s gns, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached 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. ~l"11t1.' , Robert L. Eddy, Cha~ , , . .. . , 't- ·,-""ro' , "\¡J , I . . ,. .,". . "...r.o. ¡.. ... ~ ~ ""j~~1~_.,'" .'0 '~j,I:H~f;!iíN:f~-- ti~it.",'k . jJ~r:" 01; .., ;T':: :., ··¡·'t·' - " ' ,0 . "~" . ,: .. , .-.:i. 55 '. , ;z . Q ... .:. ..:' !~~t~ ,,~ " . . . ' ';~""'~~¡",., "',~:; :>;~~f~~<~~~í , ' :' ,. ~.'iJ '.\ ,...... .~, ',~;:!:t:,,!;lift' ;.,' "::a~H~(Mf.~r ::<~;ff '~~~~t . ..~ if~~J~='.~. i . ;"'J~ '!'!, , ,"¡:"d<¡(;i Q ro~~~;~ií,r-~' , .s .c:.·t~~~} ·X' (b ",'f,;"".:' .'. .' . ··;i1~~.M;.:(;· :"" ~"\.: ,,,,~,.,' " .', .' >~~~äJ: . -. 3 ·;:b·I::~~ 6 ~ ' - :., :¡¡:'(~"'" V' .,; ~·;;¡..i.'!· , ·,..:·....1n~, ~t·; , '" Q.: :..r~,i1::~·~~.;: V,,, . "". ,,,,r·, ~. .v~·i:l~Jt.:"t' . ... .:..Jo'.('ir:~ C. " "-',"; ,- ,.a, . ,;; ",; ,~::~." ~ '!' ~ P '.~.' ·f·;·:,:' ~ """\¡~:' . . (f\~j{H~~" ~ E:;P;~¥i~~ . " . .: , . .~, ~': '!' C·' \! ;~j.~I~;: ~...~.~~.,.~~:, : :,,~¡r~f*l () .~;i1~¡.~.:: r'.':1'··~~~1 , (JJ.~:~¡ ...:~ , t:;~~~t~~ ,1 oJ.. "';';..¡4 :'~.;i~f! f 'i :. '''i:''fi~·' \,,~~~ ,'to'¡ .,.~ 'I')' ,~ 1!'. .···~·f ""..å;""- I::I~,,:~: .;:¡:,~iili '."'." :.II.f..·...:~", . .ft~,... 'I ~ .: \ ::: f· Y3:41~~~' :'¡¡'~\" ..:.:.~:.,~;!;: t..,.,,· I,,'. 'I .'~ ~~î~;~-·· . ". : ~¡: ,,< ·;.;V;;"~ b z~: ~.' ~ .'", ....\-.~ 'i""~ ~':. '; - f ~.," ~..,,' ~ c:::::a ~~. . ~·t!.'·'·O;'· . , ~ ., '... ': ::7¡~~~:~: .' .~~. ~.~,' , " .... '- / t· 1- , " . ~ ¡4c... . .' , .' (3) ( 2) ~t.fll AÇ( $) , , . I \ 2.1 2ij,62AC(S) ~ ~ -!1 ð- ¡:.. .:z ~ '" \ 7.3 IO.32AC(S) u.. C? .:. .... :~; ; ':.L, ¡;.dú~~~·~~ ., : ";'":";: ._-.;.... ..n. ft. A ',((On !:ý\du<; frÎA I Cor~, t ~ .. - --- ..-- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1ann;ng Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: August 21. 1990 Lee A. York Ana VarWac:e U. VariaDce _ Sip VariaDce _ IDterpretatiaD SubcItriåoa: Sketch, _ Preliminary, --X Site Plan Rmew - - Petition for a ChaDge of Zaae - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Final Other: AppUcatioa Number: Site P~an Review No. 61-00 AppUaat'. Namel John Owen MeetiDa Date: Au~ust 21. 1990 ............................................................................................ The request is to place a 34 ft. by 21 ft. deck over an existing U-shaped dock. A further request is to enc lose an exist ing porch. The Zoning Administrator determined that the enclosure would be an alteration to a nonconforming use, although the footprint of the structure would not be modified. The applicant stated that the enclosure would not be an addition of bedrooms or bathrooms, but an extension of the dining area. The house is over 75 feet from Lake George, and therefore, septic information was not required. Warren County tabled this application for further information. Mr. Owen did appear at the County Planning Board meeting. My understanding is that he was not allowed to address th~ Board. I reviewed this site plan with regard to Sect ion 5.070 and have the following comments: I) The proposed development is not incompatible with the surrounding area. However, Lake George and the environs have been dec lared a Crit ical Environmental Area. Continued expansion of nonconformin~ uses and the proli ferat ion of decks over boathouses does have a cumulat i ve impact on the scenic and ecological resources. The decks on boathouses are an extension of -)- ; , , ~ J --- ..-- living area into Lake George. The Board must decide at what point the cumulative impact is no longer tolerable. In this particular case my understanding is that this was formerly a covered boathouse which was destroyed and the applicant wants to rebuild. 2) There are no problems with traffic. 3) There are no parking concerns. 4) There are no pedestrian concerns. 5) Stormwater drainage will not be increased. 6) The water and septic are sufficient for the development. 7) The vegetation existing on site is adequate. 8) There is adequate emergency access. 9) The proposed structures will not increase the susceptibility of ponding or erosion. LAY/pw -2- I ~ -- " - . (,.; '" - ~, - '-' - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1:anning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: August 17, 1990 Stuart G. Baker By: Area Variance U.. Variance == Sip Variance _ Interpretatioa Subdi'rision: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, .,- Site Plan Reriew - - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetJaDda Permit Final Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 6Z-90 Appliamt'. Name: Mike Baird MeetiDg Date: AUlZust ZIt 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing construction of a 1,800 sq. ft. addition to the existing Z4 ft. by 3Z ft. sign shop. An Area Variance for this project was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on April Z5, 1990. I have reviewed the applkation in accordance with' Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, and I have the following comments: The proposed expansion is in a neighborhood that was recently rezoned from 5R-IA to U-IA. The owner of the adjacent property to the west has submitted a letter to the Planning Department regarding concerns about impacts to the adjacent residential properties (letter attached). These concerns must be addressed by the applicant, and may mandate design and layout changes. The expansion will allow for more office and manufacturing space for the applicant's sign busineu. The location of the expansion leaves ample room for future expansion and vehicle circulation. The applicant haa requested a waiver from the survey plat requirement, but has expressed wi11ingne.. to submit one as part of a conditional approval. The survey plat should show all the information on the cun-ent site plan, the location of the well on the Ball property, and the proposed new location of the fuel tank. 5GB/sed ~ ~ ~ --... RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. PC, CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS - POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793.4148 518.793·4141 August 8, 1990 RFA #89-5000.062 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Mike Baird, Site Plan 62-90 Dear Mrs. York: ~~üwt~~ ~þ ~ 'LANN'NWióNIN( OEPARTMENT We have reviewed the above referent project and have the following cOlllllents: 1. Design data should be provided for the replacement septic system showing design flows and system components sizing in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance (5.030 B). A percolation test at the leaching facility site is necessary. Septic system horizontal separation distances from the building, property lines and water service per Appendix A of the Ordinance must be met. 2. Erosion control measures, in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion Control and Sediment Control should be provided, as necessary. 3. All other previous engineering cOlllllents have been addressed. Very truly yours, ' TMY/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members ti GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA, NH " ,<.,' ! ~ t I ",--,. . - - -- '. /_1l 'il AUG 10 'LANNIN I)Q -' F' t f ropy ({'VU'~ 16/ 199 () me P¿A Nil/iN,! ¡/èt'Î. ~wr¡ of 3veel".sbL.Jl/ Mr. and Mrs. Roy Ball West side boundary of Michael Baird Corinth Road , Town of Queensbury I , Mr. and Mrs. Roy Ball ,[am Michael Bairds' immediate Neighbor to the west. I am a disabled veteran , and have asthma and emphyzema . I am concerned about Michael Bairds' development for a number of reasons . I would like to request the planning board consider these in your review. I am concerned that: 1) Michael Bairds' septic system be at least 100 feet from my well . My well is now 37 feet from the common property line. 2) Michael Baird should agree to do all the painting or spray painting etc. , within his building because of the airborne materials effecting my health problems. 3) Michael Baird should make sure all vents , open windows , fans (whatever) , are away froD my house not to expose the neighbors to airborne chemicals. 4) Michael Baird should agree to keep his property clean and well kept. This should not become a junkyard for old signs and debris. He is located on one of the towns busiest roads , we do not need another eye sore in the neighborhood. Thankyou for your consideration , Mr. and Mrs. ~.~R'ì ~øß rw... _ ~ ~ f71 , 13 aJlJ- 1 ,. ! . t I , ! . - F J J f ~a.f- y TOWN OF QVEENSBVRY ì~'itq¡" \(:\\. BaY at Havi/8IId Road. ~sbUfY. NY 12804-9725 ~~,,~~ ~ ~ U ~ AUG2~ ~ '1..AMN,~~~'Nf ne,Ø11IEM'" 5ITE PLAN REVIEW NO ? J. - c¡ 0 TO: Town of Queensbury Planning Board N.W. Bodenweiser, Fire Marshal FROM: DATE: August 17, 1990 site-Plan 62-90. corinth Rd. project of Mike Baird paint Fumes RE: It is the opinion of this office that an area within the confines used for sign painting of spray nature that this area be confined in a bOoth designed for a controlled atmOsphere. SO as to prevent paint fumes from being expelled into the atmosphere without first passing through a filtration process of some sort. This is in accordance with National Fire protection Association Vol. 2-33-3. 'þ'Ji ~G"..Ä N.W. Bodenweiser, Fire Marshal "HOME OF NATURAL eEAUTY· . . A GOOD PLACE 10 LIVE" SETTLED 1163 l' -----' . \