Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1990-11-20
'-' -- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20TH, 1990 INDEX Site Plan No. 74-90 Ronald N. Jeckel 3. Site Plan No. 10-90 Frank & Kathleen England 5. Site Plan No. 75-90 U-Haul Company of N.E. NY 7. Site Plan No. 35-90 Michael Saleem d/b/a NAPA Auto Parts 9. Site Plan No. 82-90 John M. Hughes 12. Site Plan No. 83-90 Glens Falls Country Club 20. Petition For A Change P11-90 of Zone Kerry V. Gi rard 31. Subdivision No. 15-1990 Preliminary Stage Edgar Eggleston, Jr. 44. Site Plan No. 84-90 Charles Freihofer, III 45. 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 NOVEMBER 20TH. 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, ACTING CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO JAMES MARTI N JAMES HAGAN EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT CONRAD KUPILLAS DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI (Tape was lost from the Aviation Mall expansion section of the meeting) There was discussion by the Board on the Aviation Mall expansion and a motion was made. MOTION REGARDING AVIATIOII MALL EXPANSION THAT THE TOWII BOARD CONSIDER THE Jl)VEMBER lOTH. 1990 RIST-FROST Jl)TES. THE fl)VEMBER lOTH. 1990 PLANNING STAFF Jl)TES. AIID THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20TH. 1990 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas There was a discussion and it was decided to hold the Second Regular Planning Board Meeting in December on December 27th, 1990. MOTION TO CHARGE SECOIID REGULAR PLANNING IIJARO MEETING IN DECEMBER FROM DECEMBER 25TH TO DECEMBER 27TH, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. CAIMANO-How many pages is this (referring to Resolution to set public hearing on proposed amendment to rules and regulations of the Planning Board)? May I make a suggestion? In the interest of time and the fact that this is a very important change in our life-style, that we take this home. Read it, and vote on it when we come back. rather than make a mistake now? MR. CARTIER-Sure. How does the rest of the Board feel? MRS. PULVER-That would be fine. MR. MARTIN-Yes, the next meeting's only a week away. MR. HAGAN-I have no objections. MR. CARTIER-Okay, this is not anything that's really pressing. All right, let's plan on taking it up at the next meeting. 1 ---- - MS. CORPUS-Before the Board goes on to another matter, I'd just like to tell you that I did make a couple of changes that were not discussed and that is. one is to change the word. "item" to "matter", because basically the rules and procedures deal with "matters" and that's just to keep it consistent. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MS. CORPUS-And the criteria Lee wanted added, it would have been under my second Resolve Clause. It would have been 1 A and B. I just moved it down to 2, where it seemed to fit best. but I still left that in there, the criteria that the Planning Department would be using in their evaluation. MR. CAIMANO-I don't know where you are? MR. CARTIER-Where are you? MR. MARTIN-It's where Procedure Three. MS. CORPUS-If you're looking at the actual Amendments, it's under Procedure. MR. CARTIER-B 1 and 2? MS. CORPUS-B 1 and B 2, yes. Originally, it had been what is now labeled A. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. HAGAN-But you've said what we want you to say? MS. CORPUS-Right, it's still in there. I haven't changed any words. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Just a little format. MS. CORPUS-And there were some words added under what is Letter E and that is that last long sentence, "This will constitute an exception, and will amend and vary the Special Rules applicable to the Meeting Agenda, which rules provide that only four (4) Matters of New Business will be heard, in view of the fact that the applicant will already be before the Board, and the Public Hearing has been commenced or held." That is because the Board may vary the Rules and Procedures and we're also amending the actual Rules and Procedures. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but correct me if I'm wrong, this still means that this block of Expedited Items is one of the eight total items that are on the agenda? MS. CORPUS-Right and because the Rules and Procedures refer to them as "Matters", that's the word I used. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right, so we'll hold that until next Thursday. I'm sorry, the next meeting. MR. CAIMANO-We've got a letter from Adams Rich. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Can we do that in five minutes? MR. CAIMANO-I don't know. I don't know what it says. MRS. PULVER-What's that? MR. CARTIER-The letter from Adams Rich. MR. HAGAN-Mr. Chairman, does the Town Board get a copy of this? MR. CARTIER-Will they? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I would assume they will. MR. HAGAN-You better make sure they do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Karla, Mr. Hagan requests that the Town Board has got to get a copy of this Resolution. MS. CORPUS-The Resolution that I prepared? 2 "-- MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MS. CORPUS-They will once the Board has officially adopted it. MR. HAGAN-You don't think it would be a good idea for them to have it even before? MS. CORPUS-Well, this may not be the final form the Board approves. MR. HAGAN-Okay. I thought it might help stop a lot of nonsense that's being discussed, presently. MS. CORPUS-You can certainly send this to them, if you wish. There's nothing to prevent that. MR. HAGAN-Yes, I think it would be a good idea. MR. CAIMANO-Well, in view of what happened last night. one of the ways of avoiding communication problems is to let other people see what they're going to get. in advance. and what we're voting on. I think thatls what Mr. Hagan is alluding to, right? MS. CORPUS-Certainly. If the Board would like to pass a resolution. MR. CARTIER-In light of the time, letls put that on hold until the end, okay. I don't think we're going to get it done in three minutes. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Consider it on hold. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, if I might ask when the Board might consider this to set a public hearing? MR. CARTIER-The Resolution? We're going to do that next week, next Tuesday. MR. HAGAN-How are we going to advertise that, so the public gets a chance to put their two cents in on it, if we pass this resolution? MS. CORPUS-It's a resolution only to set the public hearing and then a public hearing will be held and it will be noticed in the paper and I've done a Notice of Public Hearing. MR. CARTIER-Just a quick comment. I got a call from Bud Kupillas today expressing his concern that he has not been attending meetings and whether or not I should suggest that he should resign. I said that's not up to me to make a decision about. He did say that he's been placed on some new medication that should get him up and around by next month, so his major concern is. for this month. He said he will. as of December. plan on making a number of meetings, all of them. If he can't, he will let us know in as much advance as he possibly can, so that we can be sure we have adequate Board members here. He does not want to resign. He wants very much to become involved, okay. All right. I think we're close enough to 7:30 that maybe we can jump into the Regular Agenda, here, and get ourselves started. We'll open the meeting to the Regular Agenda. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PlAN (1). 74-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA ROIIALD N. JECKEl OWIIER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9. LAKE GEORGE ROAD AT JECKEL AIID SOliS HOlDA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF All AUTOMOTIVE BODY REPAIR AID PAINT BUSINESS. FORMULA-I-AUTO BODY (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP (1). 73-1-11.3 LOT SIZE: 14,420 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. YARMOWICH-The Board may not be in receipt of our November 16th. 1990 letter. We had received additional applicant information which took into consideration our comments prepared at the time the previous project was reviewed from our letter dated October 25th, 1990. Those concerns relating to the car wash activity have been reviewed by the Department of Environmental Conservation, according to correspondence furnished through the Planning Department and the Department of Environmental Conservation has indicated that the car wash facilities would not be regulated by them and they provided specific recommendations to the applicant on how to handle that. Those disposal techniques appear to be adequate for the project. 3 '- -- MR. CARTIER-Okay, so I'm assuming, Tom, that your November 16 letter covers the concerns raised or the items listed in your October 25th letter and also a letter dated October 31st from North Country Engineering. Is that correct. in reference to, dry clean up will be utilized, that's all taken care of? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct, Mr. Chairman. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We have one additional letter from, well, let me read it, "TO: the Planning Department, FROM: N.W. Bodenweiser, Fire Marshal, DATED: November 20th, 1990 SUBJECT: Formula-l-Autobody "This office has reviewed the completed Hazardous Materials Report form for Formula- l-Autobody received November 19th, 1990. The materials listed are in line with those normally found at such an occupancy. Proper storage facilities are included in the building plans." Warren County, did they approve this already? MRS. YORK-Yes, I believe they did. MR. CARTIER-Warren County's approved it, okay. them, already, correct? Beautification Committee, I believe we heard from MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would the applicant care to address the Board? MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Cartier and members of the Planning Board, I'm Mark Schachner of Miller, Mannix, and Pratt, here representing the applicant. I don't have much of an elaborate presentation at all. I believe the Board is already familiar with the application and we hope that we have adequately addressed all the previous comments both by Staff and by the Board's Consulting Engineer. Those comments, in some cases were minor, in some cases were major, but we've done a lot of hard work, since those comments and we think we've addressed all the issues. I really won't bore you with any further presentation. We'd rather just answer any questions that any of you may have. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Let's open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAGAN-Refresh my memory, Mr. Chairman. On the original application, didn't you or some other member of the Board have a problem with a subdivision. MR. CARTIER-My problem was with the fact that there was in the pipeline, as I understood it, a subdivision that was going along with this. Having to do, something with legal mortgage matters and my concern was our looking at a Site Plan prior to Subdivision. My problem has been taken care of in that the Subdivision application has been withdrawn. MR. HAGAN-Okay. I just didn't want to think I'd missed something. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Nobody cares to comment? I'll close the public hearing on this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-I don't know that we completed a SEQRA Review on this, the last time. MR. CAIMANO-I don't think we ever started it because we were afraid it wasn't going to pass. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would somebody care to take us through the SEQRA on this. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATIOII OF JI) SIGIIIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION JI). 74-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pul ver: MR. CAIMANO-(Referring to SEQRA) "Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: One, existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels. existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. HAGAN-Yes, but it has been mitigated with the use of equipment which could fail, but I think it should be so noted. MR. CAIMANO-You're right. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of an auta.utive body repair and paint business. For.la-l-Auto Body OMIed by RONALD II. JEClŒl on Route 9. Lake George Road at Jeckel and Sons Honda, and 4 -- ---- WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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 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 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MOTION TO APPROVE TO APPROVE SITE PLAII NO. 74-90 RONALO N. JECKEL, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For construction of an automotive body repair and paint business. Formula-l-Auto Body, Route 9, Lake George Road, at Jeckel and Sons Honda. Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAII NO. 10-90 TYPE II WR-lA FRANK & KATHLEEII ENGLAND OWIIER: SAME AS ABOVE HIlUWI ROAD. CLEVERDALE, SECOND LEFT OFF CLEVERDALE ROAD FROM ROUTE 9l. SECOIID HOUSE ON LEFT AFTER CURVE I HILUWI ROAD FOR THE ADDITIOII OF A COVERED ENTRANCE PORCH. A DEI. AIID A GARAGE TO PRESEIIT STRUCTURE. (WARREN COUNTY PLAIINING) TAX MAP JI). 12-3-34.1 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 9.010 FRANK ENGLAND PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) EIIGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-You will recall, I think, that we looked at this back on the 20th of February and it was tabled at the request of the applicant to address some concerns that were raised then and I'm just looking for Warren County's comments. Do we have any from Warren County? MRS. YORK-Let me just check the files. MR. CARTIER-Because I don't. at this point, remember what their determination was. 5 ~ --" MRS. YORK-As you said, this has been going on for quite some time. MR. ENGLAND-I'm Frank England. This was approved by Warren County last week. MR. CARTIER-Last week? MR. ENGLAND-Yes. MRS. YORK-Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. England, I don't seem to have their form, here. Just let me continue looking. MR. ENGLAND-Okay. MRS. YORK-I do take your word for it, sir. Well, I guess we're going to take Mr. England's word, and I'm sure it's good. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-I do not have any comments in the file from Warren County. MR. CARTIER-Do you recall if there were any stipulations that went with their approval, Mr. England? MR. ENGLAND-As far as I know, Mr. Cartier, there were not. MR. CARTIER-The Park Commission, do we have anything from them? DEC? MRS. YORK-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Mr. England, would you care to make any other comments about the project? MR. ENGLAND-No, the only thing that I would like to say, I'd appreciate the Board's patience with this as we finally got this thing in order, that it was acceptable. MR. CARTIER-I'll open the public hearing on this. This is for construction addition of a house on Lake George, on Hillman Road. I assume this was publicly noticed? MRS. YORK-Yes, it was. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Would the Board care to have any discussion, or questions, or comments? Okay. I guess we're ready for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN lID. 10-90 FRANK AND KATHLEEII ENGLAND, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: For the addition of a covered entrance porch, a den, and a garage to the present structure. Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Kupillas ABSTAINED: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin (END OF FIRST DISK) 6 ...- SITE PlAN NO. 75-90 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 U-HAUL COMPAIIY OF N.E. IIY OWIIER: SAME AS ABOVE 112 MAIN STREET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SELF-STORAGE METAL BUILDING. (WARREll COUIITY PLAIINING) TAX MAP NO. 135-1-4 LOT SIZE: 2.43 ACRES SECTION 4.020 (L) STEVE FERRIS PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. CARTIER-Tom, did you look at this again? All I have in front of me are some old notes. MR. YARf'OWICH-Yes. We have reviewed the project. You have your letter dated November 20th. 1990? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I do now. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-I have notes to the effect that Warren County Planning already approved this and, for some reason, I've got Beautification Committee flagged, here. Do we have anything from Beautification Committee on this? MRS. YORK-Let me just check the files, here. I'm not sure whether Beautification reviewed this or not. I would assume so. They review all Site Plans. MR. HAGAN-The actual plans for this haven't changed. have they? No. I didn't think so. MRS. YORK-I don't see any comments from Beautification, here, in this file. MR. CAIMANO-Do you remember any negative comments? MRS. YORK-No, I do not. MR. CAIMANO-Why do you have a flag, Mr. Chairman? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. I just, for some reason, marked this out, here, but I can't remember. I assume, perhaps, that we didn't look at them or we didn't have any in the file. MRS. YORK-Usually, they do send on copies of their comments, just if they have talked to an applicant. Maybe the applicant can discuss that. MR. CARTIER-Okay, yes. Would the applicant care to address the Board? MR. FERRIS-Once again, my name is Steve Ferris with U-Haul Company. We've been here several times. On your original Number Five, it indicated that the Planning Department did not receive any comments on the project from the Beautification Committee and you discussed, verbally, last time, that that flag, they had no negative problems. I MR. CAIMANO-That's why you flagged it. MR. CARTIER-There it is, thank you. MR. HAGAN-But they did actually review it, that's the point. MR. FERRIS-I'd have to be lying to you. It was never indicated that they did or they didn't. MR. CAIMANO-We didn't know. thatls why he flagged it. MRS. YORK-Yes. We keep a list of everything submitted. The Beautification Committee has never submitted any kind of report for this. Have you met with them? MR. FERRIS-No. we have not. MRS. YORK-Have you ever been invited to meet with them? MR. FERRIS-No. we have not. MR. MARTIN-Has the material been submitted to the Beautification Committee? 7 - MRS. YORK-If I can just explain the system. The Chairman of the Committee comes in and goes through all the information and then he sets his agenda based on the information submitted to us. So, I have to make an assumption, here. If they did not review it, there was some decision made as to the advisability of not reviewing it. I really have no comments on this, but our file indicates that there was no Beautification Committee report submitted. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. HAGAN-That seemed. to me. to be a very unfair procedure because their comments certainly influence this Board and if one application is going to be reviewed by them, then I think all of them should be reviewed by them. MRS. YORK-Well, I would agree with you and I think the Beautification Committee is very fair and earnest in their job and their charge. This may just have been an oversight. I can't be absolutely sure what transpired at this point in time. MR. CAIMANO-In any event, the applicant was not aware of this and, certainly, we can't be.... MR. HAGAN-Right. I mean, that's the same as having the engineer review part of the plans and not review the rest of it, because certainly he influences our decisions. MR. YARMOWICH-We do not review all plans, either, though. MR. HAGAN-You don't? MR. YARMOWICH-There are several types of plans that come before the Board, such as interior remodeling, which we do not review. MR. HAGAN-Well, I fail to remember anything that's come before my service, here, that didn't have a comment from the Town Engineer. MR. YARMOWICH-Docks, boathouses. MRS. YORK-Some residential single sided. MR. FERRIS-Well, if it's possible to interject. when we were going before the Zoning Commission, it was a concern of how we were going to shield our building, and on our plans that are up here, a lot of the natural berm or ability to hide this project was going to be left intact. The entire area throughout the back portion, here. is going to be, most of the pine trees are going to be kept. Unfortunately. the only trees that would come down would be in the retention area where the stonnwater runoff would be. We're going to actually add additional plantings, on both sides of the property. MR. CARTIER-So, I think, I'm looking at Stu Baker's comments of 25 September, which you refer to Item Five, I think has been addressed. It says, "Buffer plantings should sufficiently shield the building from surrounding properties." "Lawn areas should be designed so as to insure ease of maintenance and protection from vehicular traffic. The proposed ±150 sq. ft. area of grass extending from the wooded area on the eastern side of the lot may be difficult to maintain", but nevertheless, that's going to be their difficulty, not ours. I'm sure the public hearing was left open on this. Does anybody care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NaCOMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-This is an unlisted action and we need to conduct a SEQRA Review. MR. HAGAN-Before we start this, how do we answer the engineer's comments, the erosion control? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think that's a matter of just, the hay bale thing and I think we can include that in the motion, that that be done, as a stipulation. MR. YARMOWICH-A note on the drawings, indicating that they use the guidelines of erosion control. There is note relating to permanent stabilization, but nothing regarding construction. Our intent is to have a note added which relates to construction activities. MR. CARTIER-Okay. SEQRA process. please. RESOLUTION WHEN OETERMIIlATION OF NO SIGIIIFICAllCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7S-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: 8 -- WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a self-storage _tal building by U-HAUl COMPAIIY OF N.E. NY and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT 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 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 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 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-Okay, if we could entertain a motion as to the disposition of this. I think we want to include in the motion a concern regarding erosion control measures. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PlAN fI). 75-90 U-HAUl COMPAIIY OF N.E. IIY, Introduced by James Marti n who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For construction of a self-storage metal building, with one following stipulation: That the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control be listed on the Site Plan. Duly adopted this 20th day of November. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. FERRIS-Thank you very much. We appreciate your cooperativeness and professionalism. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. CAIMANO-Thank you. SITE PlAN fI). 35-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA MICHAEL SALEEM D/B/A NAPA AUTO PARTS OIßIER: SAME AS ABOVE 121 QUAKER ROAD. SOUTH SIDE OF QUAKER. APPROX. ZOO FT. WEST OF RIDGE ROAD FOR A REVISION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAII. TO PROVIDE ADDITIOIIAL PARKING PARn Y 011 APPlICANTS PROPEm AID PARn Y IN WARREN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY. (WARREll COUNTY PLAIIIIING) TAX MAP fI). 59-5-6. 7 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. CARTIER-I think you'll recall that what we approved here was a demolition and a rebuilding at the same time, and this is simply a revision of their parking, as I understand it. 9 ~ -../ STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. CARTIER-(Referring to Staff Notes) Not owned by the developer. MRS. YORK-I'm sorry, not owned by the developer, that's a correction. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CAIMANO-Where is the parking on somebody elses property? MR. CARTIER-Itls on the Warren County right-of-way. I would assume, closer to the road. MR. CAIMANO-Here? MR. CARTIER-On Quaker. Mr. Nace, can you help us out? MR. NACE-Sure. For the record. my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. Yes. these parking spaces up front here were not in the original Site Plan. The property line is right here. As you can see, those are over onto Warren County property. MR. CARTIER-By how much? By what. 10 feet? MR. NACE-By about eight to ten feet, yes. MR. CAIMANO-What does Warren County say about it? MR. NACE-Warren County has given us approval. Roger Gebo, Department of Public Works, has, I think you should have a letter in the file to that effect. MR. CARTIER-We did hold a public hearing on this, the 22nd of May, but would anybody care to comment on this revision to this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEIIED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-This requires a SEQRA Review, too? MR. YARMOWICH-We would think that the Board would need to address the issue of stormwater management. MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry. I don't have the notes in front of me. MRS. YORK-Yes, you would want to do a SEQRA. MS. CORPUS-A Short Form did you have completed, Tom? Do you have an EAF completed? MR. NACE-No, I don't. I assumed that that would fall under the previous, since it's only a modification. MRS. YORK-Okay, I do have a Short Environmental Form, here, from your last submission, from when the building was removed. I wonder if you had an addendum to that, or no? MR. NACE-No. I haven't. There should be no changes to that. As to the issue of stormwater, I have done some calculations and the additional stormwater from increase in stormwater from the change of tha t surface from exi sti ng bare ground to pavement amounts to three hundredths of a cubi c foot per second, very minimal and. in fact, the original design showed that there was an actual decrease in runoff, since we would be replacing some existing gravel pavement and dirt surfaces with grass. When you add this extra three hundredths of a CFS in, there is still an overall net decrease in the runoff from the site. MR. CARTIER-Does that satisfy your questions, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. There will be no impact on water. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I had a question. foot access to it. Since it's unlisted. we do have to do a Short Form SEQRA, I assume. Excuse me, Handicapped parking. We're going with an eight foot handicapped slot with an eight 10 '---"' ....-- MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. CARTIER-Now, this is showing us 12 by 8, but it seems like if you just add four feet, here, and split this into eight, okay, eight by twenty and this eight by twenty access. Does that create any problems here? MR. NACE-No. Okay, 1'm sorry. Twelve foot £!!l be a standard handicapped parking, which I'm not sure I understand. This is just one parking spot. This is all open here. This is not parking. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so this will remain open, here. MR. NACE-That will remain open. MR. CARTIER-So, somebody can come into this 12 foot and still have use of this space, there will be nothing parked there? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. RESOLUTION 110. 35-90, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a revision of site plan to provide additional parking partly on the applicant's property and partly in Warren County right-of-way and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-Okay, we can entertain a motion on this application. I think any motion should include something regarding the uniqueness of the situation, here. with regard to parking in a right-of-way. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PlAN 110. 35-90 MICHAEL SALEEM D/B/A IlAPA AUTO PARTS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For a revision of their previously approved Site Plan. To provide additional parking partly on applicants property and partly in Warren County right-of-way. This approval is given with the knowledge that there is a special circumstance which, in this case, allows the applicant to use land adjacent to his property for parking. The land in question is owned by Warren County and a letter is on file granting permission for this use only. 11 '--' -.-' Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Kupillas NEW BUSIIIESS: SITE PLAII NO. 82-90 TYPE: UIILISTED "-5 JOHN M. HUGHES OWIIER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF HAYWOOD DRIVE FOR COIISTRUCTIOII OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON LOT 2 IN THE IIJGHES SUBDIVISION. (WARREll coum PlANNING) TAX MAP 110. 60-8-2 LOT SIZE: 0.75 ACRES SECTION 4.020 F TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. CARTIER-Yes. In effect, what we've got here tonight is a Part A, Part B of this application. We have to look at a minor revision to the Subdivision. in terms of moving lot lines for Lot 2 and Lot 7. Once we get through that, we can go on to Lot 2 Site Plan. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-(Referring to Engineer Report) So those six lots are going to require easements. Is that right? MR. YARMOWICH-They should, according to the Subdivision Regulations. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH- That, apparently, was an oversight at the time the original plan was amended and the Board would want to consider it, now that it's before them, or excuse me, at the time the original subdivision was filed and now they may want to consider the appropriateness of that, now. MR. CARTIER-We have a note from Warren County "No County Impact", okay, and a comment from Citi zens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped dated November 15th. 1990 (attached) Okay, would the applicant care to comment? MR. NACE-Again, for the record, my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. I've been retained by Mr. Hughes to take a look at the revised subdivision drainage. I guess the best thing is to just answer Tom's comments one at a time. The first comment, it turns out he is correct. What I had done was simply look at the drainage volumes. compare those to what the original design report had for facilities shown. As it turns out, when you look at the actual grading and height of the berm, the way it was originally designed, even though we have actually less runoff than the original report had shown, in fact, the storage volume is deficient. What I would propose to do there is sit down with Tom. I've already talked to him, briefly. I think we can work out a grading plan for that area of berm to provide the required storage. So. I think that's a detail we can handle. Item Two, the additional area in Lot 8, he is correct. I mistakenly wrote down the wrong number in one of the columns of numbers. I quickly went back through and looked at that, Tom, and in fact the "C" Value is rounded off and it gets rounded off to the same number, even when it's recalculated, for Comment A. Comment B, by the time the new building is constructed it will probably be graded up a little from the existing site and by the time that berming is taken into account, I had roughly guesstimated that about half of the lot would go either direction. That's something, if you would like, we can discuss and look at further, but that was just a quick estimate. I think putting a scale on it, it looks like maybe, instead of 14,000 feet going one way, going to the east, maybe only 12,000 feet go to the east, which means a little more goes to the west, but we can address that if you would like. Item Three, regarding the easements. Easements can be provided. I think not all of those lots require easements. It's simply that, within those lot groups, there are particular lots that receive drainage from an adjacent lot that might not have previously. I don't know what you really want to do about that. At some point, I think you're going to have to come up with a pOlicy. I'm not sure. if you provide an easement there, who, then, is going to be responsible for maintaining drainage on that easement, okay. I can see it where there's a structure that has to be maintained, where there's a culvert that might plug and would have to be cleaned out, that maybe then the Town wants to have an easement so that. if they ever had to, they could get on that property to do the work, but if it's just a berm that's going to collect water behind it during a storm, 1'm not sure what you really want to do about assuming responsibility for maintenance there. 12 --- MR. YARMOWICH-Those facilities are an integral part of a stormwater concept. They should not just be modified by any property owner without consent of the Town. I think that the Highway Department does have authority and control over stormwater management facilities. Common stormwater management facilities and they're part of their responsibility. It can be handled in a number of ways. Once these lots are transferred to new owners, there has to be somethi ng there that protects the i ntegri ty of the stormwater management system. It's an administrative thing, in the case of this plat. The requirements are quite clear. You need to set aside a 20 foot area and what Tom is saying is true. Certain lots are not effected by upstream, well, they are the limit of the upstream area, but at the same time, it's an integral part of the stormwater management system. When you're dealing with an on-site approach, that individual is sOlely responsible and can be cited, in the event that they are violating the stormwater management regulations. So, here you have a case where you do have groups of lots that are interdependent on one another for a functional concept. MR. CARTIER-Is there, in this development, any kind of something similar to a Homeowners Association? MR. NACE-No. MR. HAGAN-Well, at no time should the Town become responsible for this. That's what the applicant has indicated. MR. YARMOWICH-Thatls not necessarily true. MR. HAGAN-That's what I interpret the applicant said. MR. NACE-Well, no. All 1'm saying, according to your existing regulations, that is true. The Town, in some way, shape, or form is going to have to maintain all these drainage structures and drainage facilities that are being constructed as part of a subdivision. Who else is going to be there to do it? All that I'm doing is bringing up an issue. It's easy enough to write into the deeds and easement for Town access and I think it may be prudent, in the long run, so that if there ever were a severe problem, the Town would have access. MR. CAIMANO-Is that something we want to do for the Town? MS. CORPUS-That's possible Paul Naylor has various easements in between lots in different subdivisions. 1'm not sure whether he reviewed that or not. I know he signed off on the original plat, and this exists on the original plat. I don't know. Perhaps the Board would want to get his input on that. MRS. YORK-I have the original file here. I know Mr. Naylor did approve this drainage concept. MR. CAIMANO-That is giving the Town easements? MR. NACE-No. There was only one easement in the original subdivision. MRS. YORK-Yes, there was only one easement in the original subdivision, or two. Two. MR. NACE-Okay. Yes, two when you cross the adjacent lot. MRS. YORK-Yes, and he never had any problem with the way it was. I think Mr. Yarmowich has a good point, here, that providing access to all drainage facilities is a good idea. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. NACE-So, at any rate, I'm sure we can accommodate that, if that's the Board's wish. MR. CAIMANO-Before you go any further, though, in your opinion, Tom, this is an administrative type thing that we can handle here? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. I believe it's something that can be added as a condition of the approval. It can be done, the subdivision regulations normally would require that drainage easements be provided. The fact that they weren't provided at the original approval of this is beyond my explanation, but now that it's before you again, it's up to you to decide whether or not you want to make that a condition of your approval at this time. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. so I interpret that it i! the Board's wish? One thing we could do is talk to Paul Naylor and find out what easements he really thinks he needs and would like, in light of Tom's corrnnent and in full knowledge of what the regulations call for and do whatever he wants. MR. CARTIER-Item Four, have you addressed? 13 '-" ...-I MR. NACE-Item Four, okay. I read Item Four as simply recommending that the facilities be in place, prior to further site construction. Do you have a problem with that (asked applicant)? Okay, no. We would have no problem agreeing with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I guess the question is how does the Board want to handle this? Does the Board feel comfortable with approving this with a number of conditions, tabling it? We're going to get tangled up with the Site Plan here also. Now we get a bit of a domino effect here. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, that, first of all, this applicant has gone through hell and high water for this thing. That's Number One. Number Two, it appears that we can handle this from an administrative standpoint and get a yea or nay from Mr. Naylor regarding the easements and Number Three, I think we've learned a lot from the study of this particular one in that A. we do need a comprehensive subdivision layout, prior to starting, but that as we go along, obviously. the applicant needs to revise and all that needs to be done is that the original plan be revised as we go. As long as the applicant understands that the end of this thing, if i\'S not careful, he or she may end up with a piece of land that's unusable because of thelmechanation~ of using the land. However, having said that, I'll say that the problems that were brought up here tonight are just the problems that could be avoided if something more comprehensive, I guess, is thought out beforehand regarding the entire place. In view of all this, in view of the work done, I don't think we should hold this applicant up any longer than it takes to. get with Mr. Naylor and say yea or nay. If he says no, obviously, then it goes further. That's my opinion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else from the Board care to comment on the issue? MR. HAGAN-Isn't this the second subdivision that we had the same type of problems with? MR. CARTIER-Say that again? MR. HAGAN-We had the same type of problems with the project across the street. MR. CARTIER-The project across the street? MR. CAIMANO-No, I think this is the same one. MR. CARTIER-Youlre talking about over here? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Didn't we? MR. CARTIER-Somewhat similar. I guess. I'm not sure they're exactly the same. MR. HAGAN-So, I hope two parties have learned lessons, this Board and the group representing the two different applicants. MR. CAIMANO-We don't want to hold you responsible for the sins of your father, but we still have a drainage problem across the street. MR. HAGAN-Well, I noticed we have the same engineers involved. That's why I say. Don't we? MR. CAIMANO-No. I don't think so. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. HAGAN-Isn't he representing this group. too? MR. CAIMANO-Nace is. MR. NACE-No. Across the street was entirely different. MR. CARTIER-That way across the street. MR. NACE-The housing project? LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Yes, DeSantis. 14 -- MR. CARTIER-DeSantis. That's what we're all talking about, right? MR. MARTIN-No, we're talking about the office park. MR. NACE-We're talking about the office park. That was not anybody involved with this project. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-You were not involved with that? MR. STEVES-Yes. I was. MR. HAGAN-Okay, and you're involved in this one? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Okay. That's what I had in mind. I said both parties should have learned a lesson. This Board and you. MR. STEVES-No. My involvement was not in Phase I, but in Phase II. MR. CARTIER-Let the record show that Mr. Steves is speaking, please. MR. STEVES-I'm sorry. My name is Leon Steves. MR. HAGAN-All right. MR. STEVES-Yes, you're right, Mr. Hagan. I was involved in Phase II, though, not Phase I. MR. HAGAN-All right. We sort of had the same arguments in both cases. MR. STEVES-I understand and it's legitimate. I'm wondering if what Tom said earlier shouldn't be addressed and he said the regulations call for an easement or for maybe a deed restriction and if, perhaps, it would be better addressed if the deeds ~ written that any maintenance of that berm, because that's what we're really talking about is that the responsibility and requirement of the individual lot owner and he accepts that deed accordingly because otherwise you're going to put it back on the Town for a maintenance problem and I think that's what everyone here is concerned about, tonight. I don't think Paul really wanted that up front. and I don't want to speak for Paul either, but in the original plan all these berms are shown, but no easements were shown on any areas of the berm, only in the channelization itself where the easement's shown. I'm wondering if that wouldn't take care of the requirement that is in the regulation and get us moving right along here. MR. CARTIER-I'm just wondering if, in the real world, deed restrictions would keep these things cleaned out and functioning the way they should? MR. YARItlJWICH-In the event of a problem with the system, there has to be an authority, there has to be some authority in order to correct the problem. That's something that Paul Naylor and his department has to consider when they review these types of projects. The placement of fences and all sorts of things are possible without people recognizing the significance of the berm. This particular plan and one of the important features of it is that the outlet to the water course occurs on a very, very small part where that water course crosses the property, otherwise an easement outside the subdivision would be required to discharge the water, if it's not to a right-of-way or anything like that. I agree that it's relatively simple maintenance. The necessary mechanisms should be in place, though, to prevent the system from being altered. An alteration of the system or breach of the system could cause a loss in functional capability as well as a change in the discharge point. That's something that the Highway Department usually. the Highway Department itself is relying on the system. by the fact that some of the stormwater discharges off of the road into the system and they do have a certain role and responsibility here. Karla's indicated that Mr. Naylor should have this issue discussed with him. Let me say this, in concept, there's absolutely no problem with the way in which it's supposed to work. Keeping it working is the issue. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The way I hear the Board going here, at least some of the Board members, is an approval with a number of stipulations. Is Staff comfortable with that? Okay, because what we're going to get into is, if we look at the Site Plan, which we are, that is also going to be conditioned upon the approval of this revision to the subdivision. okay. That Site Plan, or any work on that site isn't going to go forward until the subdivision approval. or the conditions attached to the subdivision approval have been met, I assume. Am I correct? MR. CAIMANO-That's the way I see it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We don't need to hold a public hearing on this part. We will on the Site Plan, but, in effect, this is a revised final that we're looking at. 15 -- - MR. HAGAN-Do you really see it as that? I'm looking at it as construction of an office on Lot 2. MRS. PULVER-No, that's for the Site Plan. MR. CARTIER-Not yet. All we're doing. we're going to get to that in a minute. All we're looking at, here, are some modifications to lot lines in the subdivision. I assume we're talking about Lot 2 and Lot 7, is that correct? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-He had to change the lot lines. MR. CARTIER-That's why I said this is a Part A and Part B. It doesn't show up on the agenda that way, but it's a Part A, Part B kind of situation. MR. HAGAN-Well. if it's not on the agenda, how can we put it there? MR. CAIMANO-Well, I guess it was understood. MR. HAGAN-You mean we're assuming? MR. CARTIER-No. Let me see if I can, when Mr. Hughes was in for Lot 7, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, he indicated that in the approval for the subdivision he was given permission to make some lot line changes and we approved Lot 7 with the stipulation that that be documented. We went back and looked into the records and no such indication showed up in the record and I wrote a letter to Mr. Hughes, I think I gave you copies, to that effect, indicating that what he should do is submit for a revised subdivision. MR. HAGAN-Okay, I've got it. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. So that's where we are. Would the Board care to have any more discussion? I think what we're going to do here is have a motion, deal with that and then get on with the Site Plan, if I'm correct. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Let's start and see where we get. MOTION 10 APPROVE AMENDED SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1989 FOR LOT LIIIE ADJUS11ÐITS. AS SHOIII ON A REVISED SUBDIVISION MAP THAT WILL BE FILED III THE coum CLERK'S OFFICE, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: This approval is given with the following stipulations: Number One, in reference to Rist-Frost's letter, dated November 20th, Point Number Three, the required easements for retention basins and how they are to be maintained must be discussed and approved by the Town Highway Superintendent. Number Two, Item Four of Rist-Frost's letter of November 20th must also be provided. As noted. all subdivision stormwater management facilities must be in place, prior to further site construction activities. Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-How about Items One and Two of the Rist-Frost letter? MR. CAIMANO-They've been addressed. MR. CARTIER-Have they? MR. YARMOWICH-They are part of Item Four. MR. CAIMANO-And they're part of Item Four, anyway. MR. NACE-Item Four stipulates that One through Three be addressed. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. YARMOWICH-(Referring to sentence in the motion) That will mean that the corrected and revised stormwater calculations must come in and be satisfactory before any more construction takes place. 16 ~ ---' MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-In the entire subdivision. MR. YARMOWICH-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-We're talking about a subdivision, now. MR. CARTIER-That's understood. okay. We can get on to the Site Plan for Lot 2 in the area. Lee's Staff notes have already addressed that and she did the subdivision. We can get on to Tom's notes of October 22nd, please. MR. YARMOWICH-Before I read these notes, I would like the Board to know that, in view of the previous action that you just considered, I'm going to revise these notes to delete certain items. (The October 22nd, 1990 Rist-Frost Notes were read. attached) Item One. deleted. (Item) Four. deleted. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I have a number of other comments. Has Warren County looked at, no, they wouldn't be involved here, would they. MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, the Beautification Committee comments. I have none. Would the applicant care to address the Board? MR. STEVES-Good evening. For the record, my name is Leon Steves. Tom, I'd like to address your comments. You said that pumping maybe required and you also asked if inverts could be shown. I think if you look on the plan, you'll see that the inverts ~ shown and in addition to the inverts the floor elevation is shown. The distribution box has an invert on it. It's 323.8. Do you see it there, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, I do. MR. STEVES-And then you see the floor elevation? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, I do. MR. STEVES-Do you think that anything more is required? MR. YARMOWICH-No. Thank you for pointing that out. MR. STEVES-Thank you. Item Three. the erosion control measures, the original subdivision addressed the erosion control and it had notes on the map, accordingly. We could either put the same notes in or say refer to the subdivision map, if you wish, or put on special notes, here. Whatever way you wish to have it done. MR. YARMOWICH-In relation to the same requirement that the entire subdivision and stormwater management system be in place, I think the same is generally true for these lots. In the absence of the subdivision erosion control and all the protection on the inlets and so forth. it'll need to be provided on an individual basis and I think that the direct answer to your question is, yes, it should be provided for this particular Site Plan. MR. STEVES-We'll put the notes on the map. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-So, Number Two has been addressed and we're, in effect, deleting Number Two? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anything else? MR. STEVES-You deleted Number Four. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. STEVES-So we've addressed them all. MRS. PULVER-Yes, they're all done. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. If I might just have a moment of your attention. I think this is a perfect example, although site conditions may not precisely suit it. where individual on-site stormwater management systems can be a lot better in that you don't have the interrelationship of various lots and subdivision construction. It should be noted that this particular subdivision had some site constraints that may have not permitted that high groundwater and other things. Nonetheless, it's important to be careful when you look at subdivisions how the stormwater management's going to function with development. 17 --- '- MR. CARTIER-Point well taken. Does the Board have any comments? I'm getting a little out of order, here. We need to conduct a public hearing on this matter. I'll open the floor to a public hearing with regard to Lot 2. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-I had a concern about handicapped parking, here, in that it seems like they're going to be crossing a driving lane. Normally, when we do handicapped parking we get it right up adjacent to the building so that somebody with a handicapping condition is not crossing a traffic lane in here and I think that's what they're doing, here. Is there any way that that can be adjusted so that people are not crossing a travel lane. MR. STEVES-I would say, yes. That could be addressed. We could just flip flop that. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's what I'm thinking of. MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't know. Do we want to go against the Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped? MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm saying that we can improve on the handicapped accessible. MR. CAIMANO-She says it's very accessible. MR. CARTIER-It may be accessible. All I'm saying is, if we very simply make a minor change in here where somebody in a wheelchair isn't having to crosS a traffic lane, it seems to me that's a relatively simple thing to do. I think we've done that in the past, and if it's a matter of a minor change that the applicant has agree to, I don't see why there's a problem. How many handicapped parking spaces have you got? MR. CAIMANO-One. MR. STEVES-One. MR. CAIMANO-That's why she says they may want to consider additional handicapped. This is a physical therapy place. MR. STEVES-At present, the physical therapist's office is adjacent property and is used in conjunction with Dr. Bannon's offices. They have one parking space which seems to be adequate. I don't know what more I can say about it. MR. MARTIN-Plus, you've got a grade level entrance, right? MR. STEVES-Yes. I think the greater problem isnlt the providing of the handicapped parking, but the abuse of the parking in the handicapped spots and more stress should be made on the people in power to stop the parking by the citizenry and the general public in these spots. MR. CAIMANO-I agree. MR. CARTIER-Yes. That's a problem I've thought about, too, and I wish we could do something like what Shop N' Save does and that is paint the whole block yellow. MRS. PULVER-How about giving them $50 fines? MR. STEVES-Tickets will work, like, $50 fines. MR. CARTIER-But what I'm saying is, those people who park there stand out more, that don't belong there, stand out more in that big yellow block and it might raise their level of guilt by pulling in there, but I think that's something that's got to be changed. MR. STEVES-It raises my ire, personally. MRS. PULVER-I'm still for $50 fines. MR. STEVES-Yes. 18 "'-" -/ MR. CARTIER-What I'd like to see happen is something get placed on their windshield to the effect that they're parking illegally and I'm a handicapped person and I can't get in their because of that. MR. CAIMANO-How do you know, though? How would that person know, see. MR. CARTIER-Yes, well, we're not going to solve that tonight, and by the way, Warren County indicated "No County Impact" here. MR. CAIMANO-Do we need a SEQRA with this? MR. CARTIER-If it's unlisted. yes. We do. RESOLUTIOII WHEN DETERMIIlATIOII OF II) SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION 11). 82-90, Introduced by Ni cho 1 as Ca imano who moved for its adopti on, seconded by Ca ro 1 Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a professional office on lot 2 in the Hughes Subdivision on BaJ'llOod Drive and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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 Secti on 617.11 of the Offi ci a 1 Compi 1 ati on of Codes. Rul es 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 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas. Mr. LaPoint MR. CARTIER-Okay, we're ready to entertain a motion regarding approval. I think any motion that we're going to do here should stipulate Item Three of Tom's notes plus some reference to the fact that no construction should be taken place until the subdivision issues have been cleared up. MOTION 10 APPROVE SITE PLAII 11). 82-90 JOHN M. IIJGHES, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For construction of a professional office on lot 2 in the Hughes Subdivision, with the following stipulations: Rist-Frost's letter, dated October 22nd, Point Number Three, is to be complied with and the accompanying map is to be so marked. Number Two, this approval is contingent upon final approval of revised Subdivision. Site Plan 1-1989, as amended by the Planning Board on November 20th, 1990. Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Kupillas 19 '--' -- SITE PlAN (I). 83-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-3A GLENS FALLS COUNTRY CLUB OWIIER: SAlE AS ABOVE ROUND POND ROAD. PROPERTY BORDERS COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. MANNIS ROAD. AID BOTH SIDES OF ROUND POND ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEIl CART STORAGE BUILDING. AN EXPAlDED PRO SHOP. A REMODELED LOCKER HOUSE. AID A NEIl SNACK BUILDING WITH PAVILION. (WARREN COUNTY PlANNING) TAX MAP (I). 60-7-6.1 TAX MAP (I). 67-1-1. 5 TAX MAP (I). 67-2-11.31 LOT SIZE: 196.78 ACRES SECTION 4.020 0 CARL SCHRODER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, slight though it may be. I have a financial problem, here, and I am stepping aside. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Staff Notes. please, Lee. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MRS. YORK-We also had a submission, would you like me to read it, from Fire Chief Brian LaFlure. MR. CARTIER-Yes, please. MRS. YORK-(Read letter from Brian LaFlure, Chief of Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co.. to Queensbury Planning Board, dated November 20, 1990, attached) Also, Warren County stated there was No County Impact, and we had Clough Harbour and Associates review the plans for engineering comments and their comments are as follows (notes from Clough Harbour and Associates, to Mrs. Lee York, Senior Planner, dated November 5, 1990 are attached) MR. CARTIER-And we have a comment from the Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped (attached) Okay. Is there anybody here to address the remaining Board? MR. SCHRODER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I would note, or maybe you already mentioned this, Lee. Warren County indicated No County Impact. MR. SCHRODER-Good evening. My name is Carl Schroder. I'm from Rist-Frost Associates and I'm representing the County Club on this matter and I suppose the most logical thing to do would be to address the various sundry comments on a one on one basis. First, starting with the comments from the Planning Department. I recognize and concur with One, that there will be no visual impact to neighbors. I guess, let me step back. first. Is everyone quite clear as to what the exact scope of this work is, or should I go into that. Does that bear explanation to the Board. MR. CARTIER-Unless anybody else want's it, I think we understand. MR. SCHRODER-Okay. There's only one point that makes me wonder on that and that's that, on the agenda, and this may have been .Q.!!!:. error, possibly, in some correspondence, but a remodeled locker house was also noted. That's remodeling within an existing structure. It's not really something that we have intended to discuss or present tonight. The remaining three items. those being the cart barn, the extension of the pro-shop, and the snack area, or the snack pavilion are indeed issues that I'll address. Item Two, again, on the Planning Department's comments, traffic circulation patterns are basically unchanged. I do concur that the maximum slope indicated on the arrow, the slope referred to is indicated here as a maximum of five percent slope. That is indeed an error and this bears some explanation as to what the grading intent was in this area. The existing grades are between 15 and 20 percent at the back side of this building. We were working such that we would keep a reasonable setback. a 75 foot shore 1 i ne setback from the Cri ti ca 1 Envi ronmenta 1 Area from Round Pond and in 1 i ght of the fact that we were in proximity to the Pond, tried to minimize the disturbance of the existing soil cover and put in no worse of a condition, with regard to slopes, especially from the point of view of operating carts on these paths, but also no more elaborate work in there than would be absolutely necessary to do the construction, again, to maintain as much cover as possible. Any questions on that? MR. CARTIER-I don't have any. Does anybody else? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. SCHRODER-Okay. Regarding Item Three, the pro-shop and the pro-shop extension is intended for use by membership. I don't see that there would be any increase. Certainly, this is not a public facility that's open to the general public. So I think Item Three is a null point. Item Four, yes. there are no fire hydrants currently on the site. As, and if I can jump ahead to the Fire Department's comments, as noted, there is accessible a four inch line, on-site, which is less than what would normally be required to serve as a fire hydrant, that being a six inch main. If the Fire Department deems it necessary to have a hydrant on this site and if itls a requirement of the Board I certainly think that we can work out the location at a mutually acceptable spot, discuss it with the Fire Department and provide that and include it in our design. 20 '- --' MR. CARTIER-Well, how does the Board feel about that? Are we in agreement that we ought to have a fire hydrant there, even if only on a four inch line? MR. MARTIN-I think it's better than none at all, given the situation. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Can we insist on that, though? MR. CARTIER-No, but the appl i cant has just indi cated that if we would 1 i ke to see one. if I understand what the applicant is saying. they're willing to do it. MR. HAGAN-By all means. MR. SCHRODER-I would especially like you to consider that in lieu sprinklering of the buildings. if I can tie those two things together. for this building is acceptable visa vi New York State Building Code we're doi ng here is we're gi vi ng a miti ga tive measure to any ki nd of fi re of any discussions regarding The fi re a rea that's provi ded Requirements and I think what protection. MR. MARTIN-I think sprinkling is excessive. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. You've changed the rules of the game, here, on us. MR. SCHRODER-I'm sorry. MR. CARTIER-What we're being offered, now, is not a hydrant. but a trade off. A sprinkler system for a hydrant and I just want the Board to, is that going to change anybody's mind? MR. HAGAN-No, then I'm not in agreement. because it's not that far from the Lake and which is going to offer the greatest safety, a sprinkler system or a four inch feed to a hydrant when there's a whole Lake nearby and I've watched the firemen operate and they can get water from that Lake so quick and I'm not willing to trade off a hydrant, which to me would be superfluous, comparing it to the service a sprinkling system would offer. MR. SCHRODER-Okay. I might offer a point on that. A sprinkler system, in this application, would be serviced by a four inch main. Typically, a sprinkler system is a hydraulically designed system where adequate water supply is there. This is a privately owned four inch main. It's a very long pipe. The installation of a sprinkler system would be a difficult undertaking regarding flow. MR. CARTIER-Why. because of lack of pressure? We've talked about sprinkler systems, I think, on smaller lines than four inch, haven't we? MR. SCHRODER-I'm not saying it can't be done, but I think it certainly needs to be investigated. can't say, carte blanche, that with a four inch line. especially a four inch line of that length, we would have the adequate hydraulics to do that. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think there is resistance to sprinkler systems simply because of the complexity and the expense, but I'm speaking for myself here, I think we have to look at it from a safety issue and I tend to agree with Mr. Hagan, here. I would much prefer to see a sprinkler system built in than a hydrant on a four inch main, particularly as he points out. MR. HAGAN-I mean, I'd like to see both, but I don't see it as a trade off. MR. SCHRODER-I apologize if I put it that way. I'd like to consider the entire issue of fire protection at that site and what would be deemed necessary and acceptable. The site is readily accessible to fire trucks, obviously. It's kept plowed. It's kept maintained. The sprinkler system. if there's one that's put in, the cart storage building, in the winter, would be an unheated structure. MR. CARTIER-How many do you have, can you have. How many people can that building hold? MR. SCHRODER-The cart storage building? MR. CARTIER-The area that we're talking about here, in terms of a sprinkler system? MR. SCHRODER-As far as people, you would have the folks that maintain the carts on an occasional basis within the structure. They'd be moving carts around, bringing carts outside for golfers. It's not an occupied structure that would be routinely occupied. It's not intended for that purpose. MR. HAGAN-Okay. I'm willing to back off in that area. MR. CARTIER-Are these electrically powered carts, they're not gasoline, right? 21 -../ MR. SCHRODER-They're both, I believe. MR. CARTIER-They're both. MR. SCHRODER- Yes. MR. CARTIER-So. we have a building in which gasoline powered equipment is stored. MR. SCHRODER-There's no intent to store bulk gasoline, obviously, but yes, you're correct. There will be gasoline in the tanks. MR. CARTIER-How many vehicles? How many gas powered vehicles? MR. SCHRODER-I don't know the number. MR. CARTIER-Five, ten? MR. SCHRODER- In that range, yes. You're not tal ki ng about hundreds of vehi c 1 es, here or many ga 11 ons of gasoline. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHRODER-The difficulties with a dry pipe system, of course. are needing a dry pipe valve, getting service to the building. Keeping it from freezing. Keeping it effective. MR. CARTIER-We're not talking about people occupying this portion for long periods of time. In, get a cart, get out. MR. SCHRODER-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-That's what I was going to say. If this were a hotel or something like that, it would be different. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. SCHRODER-That's correct. MR. HAGAN-I'm backing off on that. MR. CARTIER-I would, too. MR. SCHRODER-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-I'll go for the hydrant. MR. HAGAN-In that particular area, but what about the rest of it? MR. SCHRODER-The rest of the facility? MR. HAGAN-No. The rest of your proposed additions, here, the Snack Bar. MR. SCHRODER-Okay. There are two other additions. One is the pro-shop addition and the other is the Snack Bar. With regard to the Snack Bar. again, on similar lines of logic, there's an occasional use structure. The sum and total of that building being essentially a 34 by 15 foot building, half of which is a bathroom. It's not intended for long term habitation. Again, it's an occasional use type of a thing. An attendant would be in there. MR. MARTIN-Again, we're talking about seasonal usage? MR. SCHRODER-Seasonal usage only, that's correct. MR. MARTIN-And the only thing is in a bathroom/snack bar situation, there's no hazardous materials. MR. SCHRODER-None. The only heat source therein would be a hot dog roller, the electric type hot dog rollers. No cooking facilities per se, other than that. No real potential fire source. With regard to the pro-shop, what that is is that's a small extension on the second floor over what is a current shed roof that extends and pushes out to the back, the existing pro-shop. Again, transient use, but I guess my concern would be for that small addition. the change in any level of risk or any level of protection within that building I think is pretty minor and it's someone walking through that area. MR. CARTIER-There is no sprinkler system in the remaining building. is there. the banquet system? 22 -' MR. SCHRODER-I don't believe so. MR. CARTIER-I wish we could, but I don't think, as Jim has pointed out, we can't require retro fitting, I guess, as much as I know I'd like to, in some cases. Okay. Are we agreed that we'll buy the hydrant at the expense of a sprinkler system? MR. MARTIN-I think the hydrant makes sense. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think we'll want to incorporate that in any motion. MR. SCHRODER-Okay. On Item Five on the same correspondence, a 16 to 20 percent slope. I think they address that in noting that, yes, there was an error, here, and stating our reasons for, again, the ground cover disturbance. If there's any further clarification necessary there. MR. CARTIER-But nevertheless we're still talking about a 16 to 20 percent slope, right? MR. SCHRODER-Yes, which is approximately what the existing case is. Okay. What I don't have is a copy of the Fire Department recommendations. Did I adequately address those? Okay. The hydrant I think we spoke about and the sprinkler system I think we spoke about. Access, fire department apparatus for three sides of the building. Currently, there are structures and there's topography that realistically prohibits the vehicular access as discussed. Essentially. the existing structure sits in here and what we're doing is removing that existing structure and expanding out to the north, approximately, I think it's 15 feet or 18 feet. The current access is between the tennis courts and the existing locker house in this area. To be able to try and give three side access, here, would require demolition of facilities that are existing and have no intent of being modified as a result of this project. What's more, to try and get behind here, you're working against some very steep grades and difficult topography to try and provide that. MR. CARTIER-So they're going to have access to one side only. MR. SCHRODER-They're going to have access to one side, exactly as per what there is now. Essentially, there is an alley in here. As far as vehicular access. I wouldn't pull a fire truck in there. I wouldnlt think they would think that to be safe. MR. CARTIER-No. MR. SCHRODER-But they will have access to this side, up along the side of the tennis courts and have fairly ready access, by way of firemen, to that side and to lay those lines. MR. CARTIER-Well, I can understand the Fire Department's concern, but ultimately that is a risk assumed by the owner of the property here, in terms of fighting a fire. MR. MARTIN-There's only so much you can do, given the man made and natural limitations. MR. HAGAN-Your insurance company might have a problem with that, too, as far as your rates are concerned. MR. SCHRODER-It may effect something in the rates. Yes, I wouldn't doubt that. Okay. Let me move on to Clough Harbour Associates comments. On the first item, the proposed location and details for relocation of the existing four inch water line should be shown on the plans. We. obviously, have no problem with that. The proposed route for that relocation. currently the line goes out, around, and back. What we are anticipating is going down through this alley as the most li kely routing and into the same entrance point and we can modify the drawings to show that. As far as details, and I believe there's a comment on trenching later, a typical section can be shown that would show the depth to the water line and the nature of the bedding material and the like. Regarding the second item, I believe we've gone through that. MR. CARTIER-Well, with the exception of the cart path. That's kind of a steep slope. MR. SCHRODER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I'm not a golfer. Somebody help me out, here. That seems like a steep slope for a golf cart. Is it or is it not? MR. HAGAN-Well, I'm not a member. I've played several times and they have some grades there that are worse than that and you make out with it, Peter, even in a golf course. MR. SCHRODER-That slope is about the same as what's there right now only moved out, if you will. Currently, the path is here. Later, the path will be shifted over, so, essentially, it's jogged out to follow that. We're trying not to modify that substantially. MR. MARTIN-I think given the location of this particular comment next to the Lake, I'd rather see it left undisturbed. 23 "'--- -- MR. HAGAN-They presently have, I know they have a cart track that's blacktopped that goes down in back of the Club House and that's steeper than you're talking about there. MR. SCHRODER-And the new one will also be blacktopped. MR. MARTIN-You're only talking about seasonal usage, again. I mean, no winter time usage. MR. SCHRODER-That's correct. All right. I think we spoke also about the retail space, number of parking spaces and the like in addressing the Planner's comments. The next item, what provisions, if any, are proposed for handicapped access to the second floor expansion of the pro-shop. MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. Let me just back up to Item Three here for a minute. This is, in fact, an expansion, correct? This is not just a replacement. This is an expansion of facilities. MR. SCHRODER-This is an expansion. MR. CARTIER-And I think it's safe to assume that when you expand facilities, you're going to also expand the number of people there, that can be accommodated. MR. HAGAN-But this is not a public facility. It's not like a shopping district. MR. MARTIN-What's different about this is they limit their membership, internally, based on a number of other factors and how much floor space is available. MR. CARTIER-They do? MR. SCHRODER-And this is not intended to increase that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-It's a private club. MR. SCHRODER-If I can just clarify a little bit on that, and we're going up to that in a moment, here, if I can get to the right perspective drawing. Yes, this is it. We're looking at the back of the facility looking up the hill. Essentially, there's currently a shed roof in this location. What we're talking about is building this piece onto that, okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-If they don't have enough parking. Peter, their members are going to scream at the Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Yes. It's not going to cause any public hardship. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHRODER-All right? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. SCHRODER-On Item Four, my thinking on Item Four. as far as handicapped access proposed second floor addition to the pro-shop, I am not sure, but I believe that the pro-shop. currently, which is on the second floor, is accessible to handicapped. I am not sure of that. If not, it may require some very extensive modifications of the interior of the structure to be able to even get to it. What we're talking about here is developing, essentially. a room next to an existing retail installation associated with the Club. We're not creating a new service or anything to that effect. MR. MARTIN-And, again, I think the private nature of the Club has some bearing on that. MR. HAGAN-Again, I question what handicapped people would have a desire or a purpose for going into the pro-shop. I'm sure it could happen, but, again, it's a private club and if the members are handicapped, I think they have a right to create what they need. MR. SCHRODER-Within the workings of the Club. MR. HAGAN-Yes. Does Staff disagree with me? MRS. YORK-No. I do not disagree with you, Mr. Hagan. 24 ~ ~ MR. SCHRODER-Construction details for repair of the cart path pavement should be shown on the plans. The type of pavement I would offer up that's being proposed here is a fairly minimal blacktopping, if you will, of the cart area to provide better traction. What we, as designers. are looking for is, essentially. to match exactly that with a blacktop type pavement. We're not looking for any double layers of extensive asphalt placement. We're not looking for a significant sub-basement. We could certainly add that detail, if necessary. but what we did do, in lieu of that, was note to a construction contractor that he is to match what the existing pavement section is. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Your comments there address a new paving. I'm interested as to why they say repai r of the cart path. MR. HAGAN-Well, they want the structure of the pavement shown so that they can make arrangements to repair it, if it ever breaks down and, again, I don't think this is anybody's business except the private club. If the pavement goes to hell. they've got to fix it or the members have got to put up with it. It doesn't effect the public at all. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. SCHRODER-On the next issue, according to Queensbury Planning Board, the location of fire hydrants should be shown. I would note that there are no fire hydrants on the site. as the fire department has also stated and fall back on our answer to the previous questions regarding that. MR. MARTIN-You will supply fire hydrants? MR. SCHRODER-Yes, we will. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. SCHRODER-Well, what we're thinking about, for the fire department, is supplying ~ hydrant. I don't think it makes any sense to supply more than one. If you hook two pumpers up, if you supply more than one, the four inch line would be very dry very fast. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. SCHRODER-Let's see if there's anything else there. Material Safety Data Sheet regarding materials stored in the cart storage building, there will be no materials stored, per set in that building, other than what's incidental to the motors. MR. CARTIER-But there will be gasoline in the tanks of some of those golf carts and I think it's appropriate that an MSDS be in there. MR. SCHRODER-Not a problem. MSDS will be posted at the cart storage facility. Is that sufficient? MR. CARTIER-Sure. MR. SCHRODER-Absolutely. MR. CARTIER-Well, don't you normally send an MSDS to.... MRS. YORK-We would also like a copy to refer to our Fire Marshal's office. MR. SCHRODER-Absolutely. MRS. YORK-So, if you could get me a copy of that, I would certainly appreciate it. MR. SCHRODER-We'd be glad to. Item Seven. Item Seven is a technical discussion relative to the merits of applying one method or another to achieve the same end, from an engineering point of view. The approach that's utilized in our stormwater we, professionally, stand behind as being adequate and suitable. I would note that the runoff that we're talking about here is .425 cubic feet per second, which is a very small area. The amount of additional coverage I could look up, but, again, the amount of additional ground that's being covered, the proposed cart building occupies a total area of 5,040 square feet, which is .116 acres. The existing building is 2,735 feet of that area or .0635 acres. So the additional area that we're looking at, if I can find it, is small. MR. HAGAN-Well. you're talking about a base of six percent. against something per acre. MR. SCHRODER-I'm sorry? MR. HAGAN-You're only talking about six percent of an acre, here. MR. SCHRODER-.06. yes. 25 ~ -' MR. HAGAN-Well, a sixteenth. MR. SCHRODER-Yes, it's an extremely small area. MR. HAGAN-Now, while the comments that are made in regard to generating Mass Inflow Curves bear validity, the approach that's utilized here is one that's intended to be conservative and at the same time to yield an answer in a fairly fast method that doesn't really justify a lot more. On the Mass Outflow Curve portion of that, yes, I concur that if you have soils that are suspect or, certainly, if you have any fairly substantial volume of infiltration that would be necessary or infiltration rate, for that matter, that would be necessary to mitigate the stormwater runoff. the types of tests that are suggested would be appropriate. However, here we have a fine that's an excellent sand for infiltration. It's a fine loamy sand. essentially, that's according to the Soil Conservation Service Surveys, one who's engineering properties, while we may not have the exact parameters noted in here certainly conform to the ~ of material that would be reasonable for the infiltration rates assumed. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What I'm hearing you say, and I'm not an engineer, is that we've got some high perc'd soils, here. MR. SCHRODER-Yes, that's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. At what distance from the Lake? We are uphill from the Lake, okay. MR. SCHRODER-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-We are at a higher elevation than the Lake, obviously, to some extent. MR. SCHRODER-The Lake elevation's about 398. We are at elevation 406 in the area in question. MR. CARTIER-So that's eight feet over a horizontal distance of... MR. SCHRODER-Eight feet over, it's a fifty scale, so we're looking at about four inches here, so a couple of hundred feet. MR. CARTIER-Okay, four feet per hundred, okay. I guess my concern is contamination of the Lake if we've got a high perc'd soil in the area. Okay. MR. SCHRODER-There is a second point made regarding that in their review, yes, about oils and grease. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay. MR. SCHRODER-The only runoff we're looking at is roof runoff on this. We're not looking at increasing any pavement areas in the runoff that has to be dealt with by these infiltration basins that would have the tendency to perc into that would be from roofs.. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Approximately, what is the square footage of roof you're adding to the whole thing? MR. SCHRODER-The new is 5,040. The old is 2,740. So, what's the difference there. MR. HAGAN-Less than 3,000 square feet anyway. MR. SCHRODER-Yes, 2300. 2200 square feet. It's a quite small area. There's not a lot of change. MR. HAGAN-It's causing quite a bit more runoff, but for the open area around it, it's not. MR. MARTIN-It's the size of a fairly good sized house. MR. SCHRODER-But it does have 320 cubic feet worth of runoff volume, located such that it entraps the runoff from the two roof slopes as it's coming down and does not permit it down into the Lake. There's no intention of having any off-site disposal on it. It's all infiltration. MR. MARTIN-I'm encouraged that it's not runoff from a parking area. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I'm satisfied. MR. HAGAN-Well, that's already been happening for years. MR. MARTIN-But we're not expanding the parking area. MR. CARTIER-Right. 26 "-' --- MR. SCHRODER-Just as one other point that should be mentioned. roof. There's no change in anything here. This pro-shop addition is an existing MR. MARTIN-Well, I realize that, since it's a second floor expansion. MR. SCHRODER-Yes, it's an existing covered area. Right. If I can move on to the Snack Bar with Pavilion. Let me get to the right drawing. MR. CARTIER-Let me just interrupt there. Ed, with regard to Item Seven A and B, are you comfortable with everything? MR. LAPOINT-I understand what Rist-Frost has done here with their calculations. I'm not entirely sure what Clough Harbour is getting at. It seems a bit over complicated for this particular application, for four tenths of a cfs. MR. HAGAN-I think they were a little tenacious, myself. MR. MARTIN-I think this was one engineering firm taking a shot at another. I don't know. MR. HAGAN-That's right. MR. LAPOINT-I think that if you use their model, you'd come up with almost the same results. I'm assuming you'd get something on the order of four tenths of a cfs. MR. HAGAN-In fact, before I read that, I was quite impressed with your storm management report, and then when I read this I said, my God. I am a layman. MR. SCHRODER-I don't really want to comment on their assessment of it, if that be right or wrong. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I think it would yield about the same results. MR. SCHRODER-I will offer that there are technical merits to their comments. However, there are also techni ca 1 meri ts to uti 1 i zi ng the procedure that we uti 1 i ze whi ch is a fa i rl y typi ca 1 procedure for this level of accuracy. If I'm doing a large parking area or something to that effect, I might question that. MR. MARTIN-Fine, leave it at that. MR. SCHRODER-All right. "Snack Building with pavilion. The existing utility connections for the existing restrooms should be shown on the plans. In addition the plans should indicate if this building is going to be removed or remain." Anything that we are not indicating to be, we're specific on the drawing. Anything that we're anticipating to be removed should be noticed as such and one note is being put on because I remembered saying exactly that to a designer tOday who's going to be writing that under the word "Existing Covered Pavilion to be removed". The remainder of the items shown here are anticipated to remain. including those restrooms. The utility connections to those restrooms, quite obviously, the service would be, there's an approximate location of a four inch water line, here. There is a septic system for the restrooms which is remote from the the septic system. I'm not sure exactly where it is, but I do know that there's more than adequate separation distance on the other side of the building and it really wasn't intended in our thoughts to be part of the structure or part of this project or it's incidental to the use of this facility, but it's also incidental to the use of the remainder of the golf course. We can show those items if you feel that they're necessary. It's your call. We'd be glad to. MR. HAGAN-I'm satisfied. How about you engineers? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. SCHRODER-Leave them as is? Thank you. "A pipe bedding and trenching detail for the sanitary sewer lateral should be shown on the plans." Again, this is an item that we could do. but the sanitary sewer lateral, we go to the details, if this septic system that's being spoken of here looks like a house septic system, a fairly standard one, that's exactly what it is. The pipe leading out to the septic tank is a four inch pvc pipe. The bedding of that pipe and the lateral he's referring to of course is the pipe coming into the septic tank. The rest of these are quite well detailed, but that's a solid pipe that's buried in the ground in a typical manner to how a house lateral would be put in. If you would like to see that detail, we can show it, but it's not going to show much. MR. MARTIN-Again, you're dealing with soils or an area that's nothing unique. MR. SCHRODER-Yes. If I have rock. if I have large cobbles or something that might effect the performance of the pipe I would probably not even show the details unless requested. What I would probably do there is cover it with a note that I wanted sand to be around the pipe. Here I don't have much choice. No matter what I do, I'm going to wind up with sand around the pipe. 27 '"'--' -- MR. CARTIER-Are we doing a new septic system here, a new tank? MR. SCHRODER-Yes, you are. MR. CARTIER-Are we going to need, with high perc, a fill system at all here or not? MR. SCHRODER-I don't believe so. I believe that we're in accordance with your standards. MR. CARTIER-Perc rates are such that you don't need a fill system. MR. SCHRODER-That's right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHRODER-One minute 35 stabilized perc rate. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. MR. SCHRODER-The next point to also address is the septic system. sort of round about grease traps. "cooking of food will be performed in this building, a grease trap be installed between the building and the septic tank, in this way, grease will be removed..." We would concur that if you have large amounts of grease that get into a septic system, there is a potential for damage to the septic systems in operation. However, in this application, the snack bar is for cold sandwiches. I think the only thing that would entail the use of grease would be, there is a hot dog roller in there and I think that that's lightly greased and certainly would be washed, but we're not anticipating, here, major cooking efforts where hamburgers are being cooked and the like. MR. MARTIN-Nothing beyond the normal level of a typical residential home. MR. SCHRODER-Exactly. That's exactly right. MR. CARTIER-In other words, you maybe don't need a fire suppressor system in there either. MR. SCHRODER-For the same rationale. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHRODER-Yes. "Sanitary sewer clean out should be provided on the lateral outside of the building." I don't have much on the plumbing with me, unfortunately, either on the lateral outside the building or accessible such that you can get a snake into the pipe from the inside. depending on how the plumbing layout is exactly. I don't have that with me, but we would concur that we would want access for a clean out and that can be shown. Thatls a good point. Last item, "The NYSDEC Design Standard for Waste Water Treatment Works states that it may be necessary to reduce waste water application rates for difficult wastes such as kitchen wastewaters. If Again, when we characterized this as kind of a house system, that's fairly true. The bulk of the waste, here, will be from the restrooms. The water generating, or waste water generating facility in the kitchen is limited to, what was it my architect called it, a three pot sink I guess. which is a three tub sink, which would be used to clean the snack trays and clean utensils and the like. Nothing outside of what you would expect from a house flow. Consequently, I think we have addressed that in providing a system that will be adequate, as it stands. MR. LAPOINT-You're not going to have any automatic dishwashers or anything like that in the buildings? MR. SCHRODER-No. MR. LAPOINT-Just strictly manual. MR. SCHRODER-I can read you the equipment list to clarify exactly. MR. LAPOINT-No, that's fine. MR. SCHRODER-I think we have one last concern, if we're done with Clough Harbour's comments. that being the Citi zen's Advi sory Committee for Access for the Handicapped. "According to New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, all new and renovated buildings must be made accessible to the disabled. Lavatories need to be made accessible for wheelchair users, with doors to open outward." The lavatories you see are here. Can they be made accessible to wheelchair use? Yes. The doors can be made wide enough. However, I submit to you, again, is that something that, by way of the private is something that should be considered here? MR. CARTIER-The fact of the matter is that non-members can be there, by invitation. MR. SCHRODER-Yes. 28 --- ----' MR. CARTIER-So, it's not just a matter of private members only. People can be invited there. A member, correct me if I'm wrong, but a member can have a wedding reception there, or an outdoor reception or something like that where non-members of the Country Club who are members of the public can be present, correct? MR. HAGAN-Right. MR. CARTIER-So it's not entirely accurate to say that this is entirely by members use only. MR. HAGAN-Well, for these particular facilities, you wouldn't involve them in the situations you just described, though, Peter. MR. SCHRODER-This is the location of that facility. It's quite removed from any of the banquet or general areas. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-These are facilities that I foresee would be used by the golfers only. MR. SCHRODER-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm satisfied. MR. SCHRODER-Okay. With that, if there are any further questions, I'd be glad to address them. MR. CARTIER-I've just been trying to reduce down to what still is outstanding or things that we're concerned about. I guess you've been doing the same. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Hydrant, MSDS. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Volume runoff for a 50 and 24 year storm. Is that right or is that cleaned out? MR. HAGAN-They have done that, Peter. It's a matter of interpretation on how they have done it. MR. CARTIER-Okay, that's taken care of. Clean out access, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes, clean out and I had, they offered to provide a typical section of four inch water line. MR. LAPOINT-As far as the clean out access, no respectable plumber is going to install this without it. MR. SCHRODER-No, you can't. You can't get it approved. MR. LAPOINT-No. That's a common joint that's going to be put on the inside of the building or outside. MR. SCHRODER-Yes. I would prefer not to show that, if at all possible. It's something that the plumbing code requires. MR. HAGAN-The Building Inspector's going to check all these things you're talking about anyway. MR. CARTIER-Okay, in other words, you're not going to get a CO without it, right? MR. MARTIN-It's required in Code, then, that's a non-issue. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay. MR. HAGAN-Itls all covered by the Code. MR. CARTIER-Okay. a public hearing. Does the Board have any more questions of the applicant? We're required to hold Is there anybody in the audience who would care to address this issue? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAGAN-Hold it. The applicant went to great length. because he has a tremendous number of neighbors. Did all the neighbors receive notice. MRS. YORK-Yes, we notice them in the case of a Site Plan. The Town notices them. 29 '- - MR. HAGAN-Okay, then that's fine, then there's nobody here. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does Staff have any questions or concerns? MRS. YORK-No. We do have a Long Form SEQRA here, because it is in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHRODER-Excuse me. The ZBA took lead agency on the SEQRA and completed the Long Form, I believe. MR. CARTIER-The ZBA? No, the ZBA doesn't usually touch that. MR. SCHRODER-Okay. I may be wrong. MR. CARTIER-Did you need variances here? MR. SCHRODER-We had a Use Variance. They were permitting agency and I'm quite sure that they completed that. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Wonderful. MR. HAGAN-What variance did you need for use on this? MS. CORPUS-I'm not sure if it was a coordinated review. MRS. YORK-It must not have been a coordinated review. MS. CORPUS-I don't believe that it was a coordinated review, in this case. If this Board wasnlt noticed and wasn't requested to do a resolution concurring that the ZBA would be lead agency, then a coordinated review was not done. MR. MARTIN-So we need to do one on the Site Plan? MS. CORPUS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMIIlATION OF 110 SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION 110. 83-90, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a new cart storage building and expanded pro-shop. a rMOdeled locker house and new snack building with pavilion and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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 detèrmining 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, thi s 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. 30 '--' -./ Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Kupillas tmTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAII (1). 83-90 GLENS FALLS COUNTRY CLUB, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For construction of a new cart storage building, an expanded pro-shop, a remodeled locker house, and a new snack building with pavilion. with the following stipulations: That a fire hydrant be placed on site and shown on the plat, near the new cart storage building. Two, that a Material Safety Data Sheet be prepared by the applicant and filed with the Town's Planning Office. Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Kupillas PETITION FOR A CHAllGE OF lOlIE Pll-9O KERRY V. GIRARD CURRENT lOllING: SFR-ZO PROPOSED lOIIIIIG: SEIIIOR CITIZEN/SENIOR HOUSING ZONE TAX MAP (1). 108-1-4.1 WEST SIDE OF MEADOWBROOK ROAD. BETWEEN CITY LINE AID QUAKER ROAD LOT 7. CLINE MEADOW DEVELOPMENT W. MERYL SMITH. JR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-We have a letter from Warren County Planning Board. Lee, could you read that. MRS. YORK-Yes. Letter from Warren County Planning Board, to Ms. Lee York, dated November 15, 1990 (attached) MR. CAIMANO-(Referring to letter) What's incomplete about it? MRS. YORK-Basically, the applicant, and I think we will be able to help him out here, requested a change of zone. The proposed zoning was Senior Citizen. okay. We have no designated zone called Senior Citizen, but my Staff and the County Staff, when we reviewed it, came up with trying to incorporate it into an existing zone with some type of stipulations for specific senior citizen use, such as was recently done for the Homefront project. something along those lines. Use an existing zoning designation with specific stipulations. Since the County did not have any language that addressed that, in front of them, that's the kind of thing they want to see. MR. CARTIER-And neither do we. We have no characteristics of the zone, in front of us, either. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, I was just brought up to speed with this with Paul Dusek today and. basically, this is one of those opportunities for the Board to give a great deal of input for the Town Board. At this point, there are, basically, three options the Town Board could look at. as well as the Planning Board and one would be this conditional re-zoning to an existing MR-5 zone. The second one would be the creation of a new zone and then this property would be re-zoned to that particular zone, in which case the Planning Board would have the ability to state what specific requirements would be in that new zone. The third option would be a massive undertaking which would be an overlay zone and the Planning Department has come up with a recommendation for a conditional re-zoning. At this point, the Board can decide which particular option it would choose and have its input given to the Town Board when the Town Board decides which way it will hear this application. MR. CARTIER-There is a fourth option. also, and that's to recommend that we don't agree with it. MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. HAGAN-Before we start to exercise options, this uninformed person needs to know what advantages would be offered to the applicant if this was changed to a so-called Senior Citizen Housing Zone. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and it's a good question, but can we go through Lee's notes, first, and then come back to that? MR. HAGAN-Okay, because if it's what I think it is, I don't want to listen to anything. 31 '---" ...- STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MRS. YORK-I have the approval, here, of the Cline Meadow Development and I will be happy to go through the conditions placed on that Development or at least show you what the Subdivision looked like with the easements protecting the wetlands. MR. CARTIER-Well, let's see if we can do this as a two step process. What I'd like to see the Board do, first of all, is have a discussion as to whether they want to re-zone this area, Number One. Let's get that issue out of the way and if, in fact, the Board does want to re-zone this area, which of the options that we are being offered do we wish to consider and recommend to the Board. Does anybody want to open this for discussion as to the appropriateness of re-zoning? MR. HAGAN-First of all, I'd like to bring up my question again. Just what constitutes a Senior Citizen/Senior Housing Zone? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I agree. We don't have any information. MR. HAGAN-I don't what we're talking about changing it to? MS. CORPUS-Mr. Hagan, there has been no formal proposal, such as in the Pyramid Mall Company proposal, at this point. This is where this Board would have the greatest input in determining what criteria to be used in such a zone and recommend that to the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-My question, relating to what Jim said, is. from a Planning perspective, I don't know what attributes or what traits make a Senior Housing Center unique in a Planning context. It's still housing and that's as far as you can take it in the Planning context. I don't see what attributes to a Senior Citizen Housing complex are... MR. HAGAN-The applicant must have had something in mind when he requested this, so wouldn't it be best interest to listen to him, at this time? MR. CARTIER-Okay, but what 11m gathering from Karla is ~ are being asked to create the new zone and we are being asked to create the characteristics of that new zone. MR. HAGAN-For what reasons, though? Can we initiate the reasons without listening to the applicant? MR. CARTIER-I don't know? Does the Board want to take comments from the floor? MR. CAIMANO-Sure. MRS. PULVER-Well, yes. I don't think we know enough about what we want to do with Senior Housing. Let's hear what the ideas are. MR. CARTIER-Fine. Is there someone here who would like to address us? MR. SMITH-My name is W. Meryl Smith, Jr. I work as an independent consultant under contract to a number of different not for profit organizations that developing housing under a HUD Program called a Section 202 Program and some of the housing is for elderly people and some is for developmentally disabled, some physically handicapped and some chronically mentally ill. There are a few comments that I might read through and maybe it can help you understand why elderly housing is somewhat different from normal multifamily housing where you have two and three and one bedroom apartments with couples and children and so forth. We're calling the project, Queensbury Apartments. It's a 41 unit apartment development which will serve elderly or handicapped persons. Four units are designed for use by wheelchair bound persons. All tenants must be at least 62 years of age or older. except handicapped persons who may be under 62. The building will ultimately have an occupancy similar to other projects, in that 35 to 38 of the tenants will be single older women, most of whom would be widows. Two to three may be single men and there may be two to five couples and at maximum the occupancy would be 46 or 47. It is not a care facility so that tenants are required to be able to, basically. live independently on their own. Single persons with an income at or under 50 percent of the County median will be eligible. Couples can have a slightly higher income. The project is financed directly by a government construction loan and a mortgage loan through HUD and the tenants receive Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments. Since the housing is financed and subsidized by HUD, we are required to develop it within HUD regulations and requirements. MR. CARTIER-I think what we need to hear is what is unique. however, about the characteristics of the Senior Housing Zone, as opposed to other zones that we have. I haven't heard anything. yet. MR. SMITH-All right. The zoning implications relative to elderly and multifamily housing. housing design developed and limited to elderly/handicapped occupancy is a relatively new phenomenon. The past 25 years have seen its greatest growth. Because of this, the limited number of projects devoted 32 '''----" -- exclusively to this use, few Zoning Ordinances take into consideration the unusual differences that exist between multifamily housing and elderly housing in design, space needs, parking. outside activity recreation areas and so forth. The most difficult concept to explain relative to density is as it relates to the intensity of the use. Where Elderly Housing Ordinances have been adopted or variances granted. the municipal officials have made their decisions recognizing certain facts. Though the elderly unit density may be higher than in multifamily one, two, and three bedrooms zones, the actual intensity of use, as it relates to number of occupants, activity, noise, parking, and traffic is about the same for an elderly zone permitting 20 to 25 units per acre as a multifamily zone permitting seven to eight units per acre. The need for variances is not unusual. I've worked on about 38 projects, except for two projects in communities which do not have Zoning Ordinances, everyone of the projects for which I'm the consultant required similar zoning actions. In addition, as far as density is concerned, it's not a need for space. for example, for children's play areas and to reduce parking requirements reduces the needed for this use. Because of this. the housing and parking can be accommodated and green space retained without significant adverse effects' on the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. One of the major objectives of the Zoning Ordinance is to control the intensity of use and there is justification for permitting variances for elderly projects without creating a precedent for variances on typical multifamily projects because of the difference in intensity of use and where parking is concerned, the tenants who occupy HUD Secti on 202 Projects and we have thei r records from the actua 1 church residences, less than 50 to 60 percent of the tenants have cars. We'll have our healthiest population and the most cars in the parking lot the first day that we have full occupancy. From then on, Mrs. Jones goes for her eye test and doesn't pass it, she loses her license and the car is gone. Most of these, in this particular instance. a single person can have an income of, I think it's $10,500 or $10,050, in this area. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SMITH-And many of them, when that last car wears out, do not have the financial capacity to replace it. MR. MARTIN-So what you're talking about is parking in, like, maybe .5 space per unit or something like that? MR. SMITH- Yes. MR. MARTIN-A half a space per unit. MR. SMITH-Generally, we know that an occupancy, as far as the need for a parki ng space is goi ng to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 60 percent. We request to build a little bit more than that. We've been told, for example, that won't work because on holidays you'll be inundated with visitors. Well, on holidays the place is empty. They all go to visit. It's easier to move one than it is to bring five, their units are not large and so it's difficult to entertain 8, 10, 12 people for a Thanksgiving dinner in one of the apartment spaces. Usually, at the national church residence, they run from 40 to 80 percent of the people leave. MR. MARTIN-So, what you're basically saying is that the intensity of usage is lower? MR. SMITH-Significantly. They don't enter the traffic stream at the normal business hours and so forth. MR. MARTIN-No, I'm talking about all levels, besides just parking. Square footage requirements, all that is just across the board, generally, lower. MR. SMITH-Yes. MRS. PULVER-What he's saying, in this project. you'd have about 46 people living there. MR. SMITH-At the most. MRS. PULVER-Yes, at the most. MR. SMITH-You don It get many couples, because the pension system and the social security system where you have a couple is sufficient that they probably wouldn't get under the $12,000. There are a few people, I guarantee you, living in Queensbury, who are at a level under that, but not a significant number and it isn't until the husband has died and the support system as it has existed in the past clicks into effect and the income goes way down that you have a situation where you have a widow who's in significant need of some type of assistance. MR. MARTIN-Now, I take it the driving force behind this is a 202 Grant application in and submitted and approved? MR. SMITH-Yes. 33 -- MR. MARTIN-Approved? MR. SMITH-Yes. It was submitted in June of last year and we've been searching for a site for quite a bit of time. MR. MARTIN-You've got an approved 202 application with no site control? MR. SMITH-We had the site control, but we decided to try to change the site because the site we had was too far out from the center of the area and we wanted to get a better site, one of several that had been recommended to us. MR. HAGAN-We're talking about a small Stitchman Towers here, aren't we? MRS. PULVER-Well, you're only talking two stories. MR. HAGAN-Yes, we're talking about a very small Stitchman Towers proposition. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. SMITH-It would be a two story building in the center noted corridor and it will have a multi purpose room, a little in-house laundry for the people that live there, storage and maintenance space and so forth. There would be a building of about 32,000 square feet on both floors. so you'd have about 16,000 square feet of coverage. MR. CARTIER-Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not anti-Senior Housing, here. by any means. I think it's something very appropriate, but I haven't heard anything, I haven't heard you say anything, that could not be accommodated in an MR-5 Zone in Town, with a possible variance. I'm not sure that what we're hearing, here, is so unique that it requires another zone. MR. SMITH-Well, some communities have them and some don't. This is a decision that Queensbury would have to make. As baby boomers go up over 62, we're developing a significant increase in the number of people that are going to be needing this type of housing and it might be advisable, looking into the future, to create a kind of a mechanism within your Zoning Ordinance. You don't have to. If we can get the variances, we could do it with a simple re-zoning at this time, but I'm not trying to force a re-zoning. I offered it as an option to perhaps make it easier in the future. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. SMITH-I think that a Senior Citizen Zoning Ordinance should be designed for two different types. One is the affluent elderly and the other is the elderly who are strapped for cash and the affluent elderly may have two and three bedroom units, whereas these are built as one bedroom units. MRS. PULVER-1'm more inclined to go with an MR-5, a re-zoning for an MR-5. rather than create. Do we need 28 zones? MR. CARTIER-No. MR. SMITH-Well, your 28 is more than most other Zoning Ordinances. MRS. PULVER-I know. MR. CARTIER-And my question becomes, do we want an MR Zone in this particular site? It is SFR-20. MRS. PULVER-Well, the only problem is, again, we can suggest that he go somewhere else and find a site, but I'm sure he's been everywhere to find a site. MR. CARTIER-Well, let me finish my thing, here. Let me just read "Purpose- Single Family Residential Zones are established residential is strictly single family detached residences on standardized lots. reinforced and preserved through SFR Zones." you the purpose of an SFR Zone. neighborhoods where the character This character will be strictly LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-I think you're not in the correct zone. MR. CARTIER-Why not? MR. STEVES-I believe you are in an SR-20 zone. You're reading out of the SIR-20 Zone. MR. CAIMANO-No. It's SFR-20. 34 -- MR. CARTIER-It is my understanding this is SFR-20. Cline Meadow Development is an SFR-20 Zone. MRS. YORK-It's SFR-20. MR. STEVES-SFR-20. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay. My concern here is that we're being asked to take what has, generally, been sacrosanct in this Town, in terms of Zoning. that you don't mess with SFR Zones and being asked to convert either a new kind of zone. Multi Housing Zone, or an MR-5 Zone. My other concern is with the specific site. I'm note sure it's suitable, simply because of its proximity to a wetland. Wetlands are wonderful places, but they make lousy habitats for humans and it bothers me to, this is a piece of property that has some serious constraints on it and, frankly, I'm a little bothered with, and this is me talking. only, relegating senior citizens to relatively poor pieces of property. It seems to me, in this Town somewhere there's more appropriate, in an MR-5 Zone, more appropriate pieces of property where this kind of thing could be developed. It seems to me. if I'm going to be a senior citizen, I don't want to live next to a swamp. MR. MARTIN-Was there any notification to adjacent property owners done? MRS. YORK-Not at this point in time. At this point in time, you only have a resolution from the Town Board requesting a recommendation. Let me just say that if you look on your Zoning Maps that you have there, most of the MR-5 Zones in this community are built out. MR. CARTIER-They are? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. YORK-Exclusive of the Bay Road corridor which I think we're all well aware of the cost of that kind of property. MR. MARTIN-What is the source of acquisition money? MR. SMITH-The source is through the loans which are supported by the Section 8. MRS. PULVER-Let me say something. here, about Peter saying that it's wetlands and maybe it isn't suitable and so forth. My opinion is, that's an engineering problem, and if they can't solve that, then it is unsuitable. MR. CARTIER-No, that's not what I mean. What I'm referring to is. that's a breeding ground for mosquitoes and that's not a very pleasant place to live by. MR. YORK-Yes, it's a designated Class II Wetlands. MR. CAIMANO-But that's an argument totally against your first argument. Let me just go back to what you said, first. You read the purpose of a single family residence and it says, "are established residential neighborhoods where the character is strictly single family detached residences on standardized lots". You could hardly have standardized lots and a whole bunch of single family residences in a "swamp", as you call it. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CARTIER-Not.!!!.. a swamp, adjacent to a swamp. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. I can't think of a better place to have one of these places than next to an area that's going to be relatively undisturbed. I can't picture the senior citizens going out an tripping the light fantastic in through the swamp. What a better place to have it. MRS. PULVER-But they're not going to be sunbathers. They're not going to lay on their decks. They may walk around the parking lot and that's going to be about it. MR. SMITH-Some of them are bird watchers, too. MR. CAIMANO-I think just the fact that there is a wetlands there. this almost acts as a protector to it. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Living next to a wetland is not necessarily a very pleasant experience. MR. CAIMANO-Then that's why you're not going to sell a lot of single family residences there. 35 --.-/ MRS. PULVER-Yes. If you don't have a place to live and you're a senior citizen, I think you'd look forward to living there. MR. HAGAN-I own some land that's been declared wetland, Peter, and you'd love to own it. It's a matter of what kind of wetland. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Well, then the question becomes is this a suitable place for development, at that particular point? MR. HAGAN-Right. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I think maybe that's engineering. MR. CARTIER-Also, I hear what you're saying about the wetland issue. but I also want to go back to the issue of taking what is an SFR Zone and are we suggesting that they are no longer going to be sacrosanct? MR. CAIMANO-No. I'm suggesting that this particular SFR Zone may be subject to scrutiny. I'm not saying change every SFR Zone in the Town. I'm saying that this SFR Zone. just for the very reason that you mentioned. because it's going to be very difficult to develop as Single Family Residence around a wetlands, maybe just the most suitable place for this kind of a place. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're jumping gears, here. That's partly my fault. Let's back up to our original question and the original question was. do we want to create a new zone or do we want to take whatever piece of property is the issue and re-zone it with what is a present zone? MR. CAIMANO-If you're taking a straw vote, I'm against making a new zone. MRS. PULVER-I am, too. MR. MARTIN-I think all your points are well taken, about a growing need across the country and g1vlng the fact that the baby boomer generation is now moving up in age and, if anything, it's going to keep increasing. I don't see anything at this point, though, this is the first project of this nature that we've seen in this Town. I'm not saying there might not be more and at that time, a zone change or the development of a new zone would be appropriate, but I think, at this point, this project could be with the existing Multi Family Residential Zone. MR. SMITH-Well, I think it could be, and believe me, all Planning Boards and all Zoning Boards don't do everything I ask, so you're not going to be unique. MR. CARTIER-Well. let's finish that off. Does anybody else care to comment? We've heard from three members. Does anybody else care to comment? MR. LAPOINT-I like the idea, the concept of setting aside some particular zoning for this type of housing, in general. MR. MARTIN-It's definitely going to increase. MR. LAPOINT-The need for it will increase. It will be a precedent setting measure. I wouldn't want to reject it out of hand. Maybe it's time to do it or at least consider it. What we're being asked to do is recommend to the Town Board? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Would we have to come up with that language, here, tonight? MR. CARTIER-As to what would be in a new zone? MRS. PULVER-Yes. If you wanted a new zone. MR. LAPOINT-I don't think we can do that. MRS. PULVER-No, but that is something that we can work on. Lee, this MR-5 would suit their needs? MRS. YORK-Yes. What the MR-5 Zone is, the purpose of it is "Multi Family Residential Zones are designed to provide an anticipated increasing demand for high density multi family housing and professional office buildings in areas located near commercial services subject to intense development pressures." It doesn't fit all the criteria of that zone. certainly, but it would give them the density they need to be able to put 45 units. 36 '-- ~' MRS. PULVER-Okay. That was my question. With this zone, they would be able to have 40 units. MR. SMITH-Well, 40. What we actually have within 5.5 acres, we could have 44 units, but we're only doing 41. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So, this would work and then you could still.... MR. SMITH-The major variance is going to be the parking variance. MR. CARTIER-So, they could get eight units per acre, right? I'm reading in the MR-5 Zone, here. "Duplex and multi family projects, 5,000 square feet of land area per acre. So. we're talking roughly eight units per acre. How many acres are we talking about? MRS. PULVER-Five. MR. SMITH-5.5. MR. MARTIN-That's my question. You're purchasing five and a half acres? You're not purchasing the 9.96 acres that is mostly wetland? MR. SMITH-Well, it was more than 9.96. That's what's left over after we take the five acres out. MR. MARTIN-Right. You're purchasing the whole, what is this, essentially, 15 acres? MR. SMITH-No. Just the 5.5. Well, it's owned by a family corporation, I guess. They're going to retain. I think he'd be open to an offer from some municipality to buy it from him. MRS. YORK-We can't go any farther. because there's a significant problem, here. You can't re-zone. What you have here is a piece of property that was subdivided out in July, showing 15.47 acres. Now, you're going to purchase five of those acres and you want the Town Board to re-zone five acres that are not designated in this community. MR. SMITH-It is right on the map. MRS. YORK-Yes, but that map does not exist. It is not recorded. It is not on our Tax Maps. MR. MARTIN-You mean, that 5.5 acre lot does not exist at the County? MRS. YORK-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Because there's a 15 acre piece of land that was part of the Cline Meadow Development, is that correct? MRS. YORK-Yes. This is the final subdivision plat, if I may be so bold. MR. CARTIER-That 15 acre piece is part of an approved subdivision? MRS. YORK-Right. This was the subdivision. There were seven lots. Two quite large lots. This lot with the proposed house, and this lot and then there were some smaller lots in front. MR. CAIMANO-All these are part of it? MRS. YORK-Yes. These were existing houses, here, okay, and these were part of the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Yes, proposed. MR. CARTIER-No, these are here. MRS. YORK-Well. we know that. now, but at the time, they were part of this subdivision. This was a large lot and this was a large lot. MR. CARTIER-This is Lot 7, I believe. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CAIMANO-So, what are you saying? MR. SMITH-Well. you could approve the re-zoning of the whole 15 acres. MRS. YORK-That's what we're going to have to do. yes. That's how this Board is going to have to do it. 37 ''--" - MR. SMITH-Okay. We're only going to buy a portion of it, because nobody's going to be able to build anything in there, not even a shack. MR. CARTIER-But the point still is valid that whenever that happens, there's going to be a subdivision process. MRS. YORK-What I would like to say, also, is that, if you re-zone the entire 15 acres, here, you are re-zoning all these wetlands to MR-5 also. You are not just re-zoning this five acre parcel which maybe a problem down the road. MR. HAGAN-The present owner may object to the home, too, the present owner of the boundary. MRS. PULVER-Well, what about conditional re-zoning? I mean. you zone MR-5 with conditions protecting the wetlands? MRS. YORK-Well. that's exactly what you Would have to suggest to the Town Board. First of all, there were many restrictions placed on this. There were wide buffer zones from the Board suggested. Well, a Site Plan issue might be that now that you're developing a multi family structure, here, you might want a buffer zone, here, on this side of the wetland, too. where there isn't, but those are things to be dealt with another day, but at this point you could make a recommendation to the Town Board simply to look at re-zoning of this property conditional on protection of the wetlands. I think the Staff Notes outline seven things that you might want to put in there, but I would think that the Board would want to make sure that this property is only used for Senior Housing. MR. CAIMANO-Well, actually what you're saying is, because of these restrictions. we actually can do a better job. We've just got to go about it another way. We can keep the MR-5. Do a better job because we have to re-zone the whole thing and have it all.... MRS. YORK-Ri ght. Well, there were many comments made and, I mean, there was a DEC Permi t issued on this property and a lot of conditions when the subdivision went through and the reason the applicant came up and, do clarify this for me, Mr. Steves, if I speak awry, here, that there was one large areð with one proposed house. It was to be a kind of country farm atmosphere, but because of the wetlands there, the intensity of use on this particular parcel had to be limited. So, that has to be a concern of the Board, also. MR. STEVES-Well, if I may help you along, here. Actually. the intent, here, this is to scale. It's an overlay showing the building in this area within the five acres, within, or not within, outside of the hundred foot buffer of the wetlands. I agree with Lee and what she's saying in that the re-zoning shouldn't include the wetlands, but it's my understanding that the wetlands were offered, or should be offered, at least, to the Town for their acceptance and done so outside of this and since the Town is exempt from Subdivision Regulations, they could easily take over the ten acres of wetlands. MR. CARTIER-They would have to take over the entire 15 acres. MR. STEVES-No, they could take over the 10. MR. CARTIER-No, because before they take over the 10, you've got to subdivide the ten off from the five. MR. STEVES-No, the Town is exempt. MR. MARTIN-The Town is exempt. MRS. YORK-The Town does not have to subdivide. The Town is exempt from subdivision. MR. STEVES-That's why I said the Town is exempt from the regulations. MR. CARTIER-I understand that, but what I'm saying is, welre dealing with a 15 acre piece. MR. STEVES-The Town can take the 10. MR. CARTIER-The Town can take the 10. These guys end up with five. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. CARTIER-When did that get divided up? MRS. PULVER-When the Town took the 10. MR. STEVES-When the Town took the 10. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Cartier, if I might interrupt one second. 38 ''''--' -- MR. CARTIER-But isn't that defacto subdivision of property? MR. STEVES-The State does it all the time. MR. CARTIER-And that makes it right? MRS. PULVER-I think this Board approved that, too, didn't they, that the Town could do that at any time? MS. CORPUS-Yes. There was an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance wherein if property is sold to the Town and the parcel itself is less than 100 acres in total, that parcel can be "subdivided off" and sold to the Town without going through subdivision. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. CORPUS-But it had a stipulation that the remalnlng parcel had to comply with the existing Zoning District. In other words, it could not be made nonconforming. In which case, I believe this wouldn't be, but I don't know if that piece has been offered to the Town. I have no information on that. MR. CARTIER-Well, that raises the question, Leon made a comment that the wetland, has been offered to the Town, or should be? MR. STEVES-Should be offered to the Town. MR. CARTIER-Has it been? I want to find out if there's a subrosa deal, here. MR. CAIMANO-We have a member of the Town Board, here, if you choose to ask her to response, if she wants to. MR. CARTIER-Mrs. Monahan, would you care to comment on that, whether or not this piece of property has, in fact, been offered to the Town? What I'm after is, that this Planning Board needs to, as far as 11m concerned, has to have all the information it can possibly have to make an intelligent decision. I don't want to get into one of these deals where there are things going on that the Planning Board is not aware of. (END OF DISK TWO) 39 -.-/ BETTY MONAHAN MRS. I'ONAHAN-As many of you know, I am Chairman of the Senior Committee for the Town Board. I have been working in the field of affordable housing for all ages for two or three years. I have particularly working in the area of senior housing because the need is so extreme. If you knew how some seniors were having to live, the conditions, with stoves that don't work, windows they can't open, stoops not large enough for their feet, ice and snow on them. MRS. PULVER-That's why wetlands are nothing, right Betty? I mean, that's nothing to live by. MR. CARTIER-No. Don't dismiss my concerns about wetlands that easily. MRS. I'ONAHAN-We were advised by Jerry Solomon's office. I can't tell you the exact date. that Queensbury had qualified for a HUD Grant. The money is there. The money is to be administered, apparently. through the National Church Residences. Mr. Smith came to the Town. We looked at various pieces of property. We went out and did some tours of the Town. This is one of the pieces that he came up with. He sat down with Mr. Borgos and myself. If I remember the conversation correctly. there was this 15 acres of land, only part of which would qualify to have housing put on it because of the terrain. The rest was to come to the Town as a passive recreation site where we could make some walkways along it for the seniors so they could have their exercise and it would also be a protection of the wetlands. Now, that is my memory of the conversation. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. MRS. I'ONAHAN-I would like to say. also, that when we're talking about senior housing, particular senior affordable housing, please think of the parameters that are going to be necessary for us to have successful senior house. One, they're definitely going to have to be on Town water, in my opinion. Sewer, if possible, but the Town of Queensbury has so little of its area that's sewer that we may have to gi ve that up. They need to be cl ustered wi th open space around them. I woul d suggest to cut down water and sewer bills and etc., that we think of water saving devices within them because they're not that expensive. They have to be accessible, it would be nice if they were accessible to bus lines, which this site could very easily be, because a lot of these people will not have transportation. The Fame bus will come up in the area of the normal bus routes if the people need the Fame bus, which is, as you know, a handicapped type of bus. They need to have access to the shopping and the churches in the area. So. when you think of senior housing, maybe you would think of the parameters that you want to establish. please. MR. MARTIN-Right. I was just going to say, also, with this type of housing, you have to take in proximity the services, such as the hospital and all that type of thing and this is clearly right on the perimeter of the Town that borders the City where all the senior centers are located within the City of Glens Falls. Those are all factors to take into consideration. MR. CARTIER-Has the Town Board, in effect. guaranteed that they will develop this wetland for use for senior citizens in terms of walkways, or is that just, at this point. just being informally discussed? Is there any kind of commitment, at this point, from the Town? MR. SMITH-I misspoke at that meeting, prematurely. MR. CARTIER-Which meeting are you referring to? MR. SMITH-The one that she's referring to. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SMITH-In that I had discussed with Kerry Girard that if he sold the portion to us, the balance he could potentially donate to the Town and take a value similar to the value per acre as a tax deduction and he didn't discount that idea and he said that was something he thought he very possibly would do, but since that time, he's heard that the Town, occasionally does buy some land and he would, I think, prefer to sell it than to donate it, and so I misspoke at that time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I have a suggestion that would maybe facilitate some of our concerns about this remaining wetlands. I'd like to see, maybe. a two part zone, here. The 5.5 acres be an MR-5 and the rest of the remaining acreage of the lot be Land Conservation. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. MR. CARTIER-Do we have an LC One Acre? MR. MARTIN-Yes, we have an LC-I0. 40 "'--" --- MRS. YORK-We have an LC-I0. MR. CAIMANO-What's wrong with that? That's a good suggestion. MR. MARTIN-Because that would facilitate the concern about protection of the wetland and maybe provide a possible recreation for use by the seniors. MR. CARTIER-How big a buffer area is required for an LC One Acre? Well, wait a minute. We don't have an LC One Acre. It's LC-I0. MRS. YORK-No. You have an LC-10. MR. CAIMANO-lO. MRS. YORK-But you only need a 50 foot buffer adjoining commercial and industrial zones, not residential zones. MR. CARTIER-Are there 10 acres in that wetland? Ten acres in the wetland and five that could be developed. MR. CAIMANO-That's what welre talking about, right? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Or close enough. It's going to be actually 9.5 and 5.5. right? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. MARTIN-"Land Conservation Zones encompass zones where lands have serious physical limitations or unique characteristics that warrant restricting development to very low densities." MR. CAIMANO-That's perfect. MR. CARTIER-That's perfect. Well, wait a minute. Let's take a look at Park and Recreational 10. too. "PR Zones encompass where lands are controlled by municipalities and are set aside for the protection of natural resources or recreational activities which can support minimum development or low impact land uses". MR. MARTIN-Fine. MRS. PULVER-It's not owned by the municipality, yet. MR. CAIMANO-It's not owned by the municipality, yet. So, we're stuck there and it's not going to support any kind of minimum development. We don't want it to have any development, at least that's what you said. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to see, the fact that it's a wetland, I'd like to see it conserved. MR. CAIMANO-Land Conservation. That protects us, restricting development to very low densities, though. MR. CARTIER-Well, ultimately it would be owned by the Town and the Town would have a right to do whatever it wanted in there. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's what I'm saying. The Town Board ultimately approves the Zone Change. MR. CAIMANO-Actually, the Park Land Recreation, a Type II Site Plan Review says, riding stable and trails. It talks about trails. MR. CARTIER-But you could do that. also, in Land Conservation. MR. CAIMANO-You could do that with the other one. MR. MARTIN-I like the connotation of Land Conservation. MR. CAIMANO-I do, too. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What I'm hearing is, if I'm getting the sense of the Board here, and we didn't finish that out, was that we're not really interested in creating a new zone. MR. CAIMANO-No. MRS. PULVER-Right. 41 "--' -..-' MR. CAIMANO-Ed is. MR. LAPOINT-We have 27 zones, now, right? MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-And we're willing to establish a new one for a mall. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. LAPOINT-And what difference would it make. MR. CARTIER-Some of us are willing to establish a new one for a mall. MR. LAPOINT-Well. some of us, including myself, are willing to establish one for a mall, what difference would it make for 28th or 29th for this important group? I mean, we have 27. I can't even make up 27 categories in my head. MRS. PULVER-It wouldn't. but an MR-5 will work very nicely for them. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. We already have a zone that fits nicely. MRS. PULVER-An MR-5 will work. so we really don't need to create a new zone for him. MR. CARTIER-It seems to me the reason you create a new zone is because you can't do something with what you've already got and what we're saying, at least what I'm saying, is we can do this with an MR-5, with a condition for this particular piece of property. MS. CORPUS-With regard to those two options, the creation of a new zone and the re-zoning, those are pretty much tempora ry sol uti ons to an overall problem whi ch I be 1 i eve that Mr. LaPoi nt is bri ngi ng up and thatls where the overlay zone might come into play and if the Board saw fit and had any recommendations to the Town Board regarding future work in this area, regarding an overlay zone. Of course, that's a major undertaking, something that takes a while. That might be something the Board would want to recommend or not recommend that it be looked into for the future. MR. CAIMANO-Well, my understanding is that the Planning Department's already doing just that. MRS. YORK-Yes. I have been asked by the Town Board to create, for want of a better word right now, a floating zone concept within specific areas of the Town, for applications with certain criteria, providing a social need, and I am working on that. I want you to know, it is a time consuming piece of legislation and it will not be done as soon as this application requests the re-zoning. MRS. PULVER-But also I think. too. if you make that recommendation to the Town Board, we start to leave a little paper trail that the Planning Board has also recommended this, so that, two or three years from now. if they haven't acted on it or nothing has been done, we can say we recommended it. MR. CAIMANO-That's fine. MR. MARTIN-With something like this, I think itls important to get back to fundamentals, as to what you're looking at, here, and usually when you re-zone or you create a new zone, you're talking about. you've encountered a situation that you just can't deal with, like Pete said. and also you're encountering a more intense use that just can't be dealt with and the changes that are going to be brought about by thi s project are of a nature that are less intense and I think that's an important criteria there that isn't needed. So. this is a less intense use, not something more intense that can't be dealt with in our existing Ordinance. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay, where are we? Again, if I hear the direction we seem to be taking, most of us anyway, we don't have to get into the legalities of the division of this process. MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-We're making strictly a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. CAIMANO-That's all. MRS. PULVER-Right, what they should do with it. MR. HAGAN-There's a petition before us. MR. CAIMANO-That's all. 42 ~ -- MR. CARTIER-Would it be appropriate, I don't mean to cut anybody off. here, but would it be appropriate that we make a recommendation regarding this particular property, that it be divided up into a MR-5 and an LC-lO? MR. CAIMANO-Well, first of all. we have to deny the request of the petitioner for a change of zone and in doing so, we are making the following recommendations. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-If that's the most expedient way to move this along in the direction for this. MRS. PULVER-Why are we denying him? MR. CAIMANO-Because they asked for it and we're saying, this Board. that we don't want to have a change of zone for this particular application. MR. MARTIN-They asked for a new zone, Carol. MR. CAIMANO-They asked for a new zone. MRS. PULVER-No. He asked for a change of zone and that's what he wants. MR. MARTIN-No. He wants to go to a Senior Housing Zone. MRS. YORK-What he says is, he wants you to create a Senior Housing Zone. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I thought he wanted something that would allow him to create senior housing. MR. HAGAN-I agree with what you're proposing to move. however. I think we should leave the door open and state, if, in fact, the applicant is unable to get whatever variances are required to qualify his project, then this Board would then reconsider. MR. LAPOINT-I agree. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Because if we don't. we could kick their whole deal down. This way, he's free to go ahead. MR. CARTIER-I don't even know what variances would be required. MR. HAGAN-That's what I'm saying, if any. MR. MARTIN-He meets the density requirement. MR. CAIMANO-Wait a minute. It's a Single Family Residence Zone. It's got to have a change of zone. MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-No. I'm talking about a variance once it's MR-5. MR. MARTIN-Once you re-zone it, you don't need a variance. MR. CAIMANO-He may have a parking variance to meet. MRS. YORK-Yes, parking requirements. MR. CAIMANO-He may have some problems. MR. HAGAN-If a guy with .19 acres of land can get three variances in nine months of ownership, why can't a reasonable project like this be granted whatever it needs? MR. CAIMANO-I agree. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So are we at a point where we feel like we can make a motion, here? MR. MARTIN-Yes. 11)11011 TO DENY PETITIOII FOR A CHAIIGE OF lOlIE Pll-90 KERRY V. GIRARD, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: 43 -- That the Planning Department has the following recommendations: First, that the entire parcel of 15.47 acres, plus or minus, be re-zoned as follows: A. 5.5 acres MR-5, and the balance LC-lO which would be POTENTIALLY acquired by the Town. Further, the conditions in Mr. Goralski's November 10th notes to the Planning Board, Numbered 1-6, should be followed, as to the MR-5 zone. In addition, the Planning Board wishes to make all of this conditional upon the approval of the Town Board, thereby leaving open the potential for the petitioner to re-apply for a change of zone to a Senior Housing Zone. Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-I think that's a good case of getting other Boards plugged into processes and having their input and I hope that that will encourage the Town Board to consider us as a good source, in the future. MR. STEVES-Mr. Smith would like to express his thanks tonight. SUBDIVISION fI). 15-1990 PRELIMIIlARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 EDGAR EGGLESTOII. JR. MER: SAME AS ABOVE NEIl IWFSHIRE AVENUE. CENTRAL AVENUE. AIID VERMOIIT AVENUE FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. SEPARATION OF EXISTING PARCEL TO ESTABLISH SITES FOR CHIlDREN. MOBILE HOME PRESENTLY OCCUPIED. TAX MAP fI). 128-4-6 LOT SIZE: 36.000 SQ. FT. STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. CARTIER-Would the applicant care to make any comments? Okay. We'll open the public hearing. Does anybody in the audience care to address this issue? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-Is there any other correspondence? Do we have anything from Warren County or Engineering or anybody else? MRS. YORK-There is no Warren County Planning Report. MR. CARTIER-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to do a SEQRA Review. There is a waiver request, however. associated with this. MR. HAGAN-Why do we have to do a SEQRA on this? MR. CARTIER-And an October 24th letter. This is from Mr. Eggleston, Jr.: "Sirs and Ladies: I am requesting a waiver from the following items listed on plat requirement applications Items IF., G., 2A, B. C. D, 3A, B, C. D, E. F, G, 4A. B, C. D. E. F, 5A, B, C, D, E, F, 6A, B, C, D, and 7. I feel that all the items listed do not apply because all buildings presently exist and there is no requirement for new construction on the site. If my request is approved, I will be including it in the deeds issued to my children a statement that no further subdivision will be made to the property." MR. HAGAN-All we're changing is a piece of paper. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but my point is we have a waiver request and we have to decide whether or not we're going to grant it and include it in the motion, but we do have to do a SEQRA because this is at Preliminary Stage and it's an unlisted. MR. CAIMANO-We do? MR. CARTIER-Yes. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMIIlATIOII OF fI) SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTlON fI). 15-1990, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a 2 lot subdivision. Separation of existing parcel to establish sites for children. Mobile hoEs presently occupied. and 44 '--" ..- WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-Now, we'll entertain a motion regarding this Preliminary Stage. KJTION TO APPROVE PRELIMIIlARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1990 EDGAR EGGLESTOII. JR., Introduced by Ni cho 1 as Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For a two lot subdivision. Separation of existing parcel to establish sites for children. Mobile homes presently occupied. Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas SITE PlAN NO. 84-90 TYPE II 1IR-3A CHARLES FREIHOFER. III OIlIER: SAtE AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L. WODS POINT AREA TO CONSTRUCT A U-SllAPED CRIB DOCK OF APPROX. 624 SQ. FT. TO EXTEND All EXISTING SUI DECK OUT OVER THE PROPOSED DOCK SYSTEM. (WARREll COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 2-1-3 LOT SIZE: 1.2 ACRES SECTION 4.020 0 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MRS. YORK-The County stated that there was "No County Impact". MR. HAGAN-Did the Lake George Park Commission act on this? MRS. YORK-The Lake George Park Commission, to my knowledge. has not submitted anything to us. MR. CAIMANO-Excuse me, Mrs. York, you said what, about the County? MRS. YORK-The County said that there were no impacts. MR. CAIMANO-No, they didn't. They returned it. 45 "-" ......./ MRS. YORK-I'm sorry. MR. CAIMANO-They returned it with no action. MRS. YORK-They returned it with no action. MR. HAGAN-Which is approval. No action automatically approves it. MR. CARTIER-Is that right? Wait a minute. Hold it, that's not what it says. "The Board voted 4-2 to approve the docks being covered with the center section left clear. The Board then voted 3-3 on original proposal. No majority agreement could be made." Now, when we have a 3-3, here, that's a di sapprova 1. MR. HAGAN-Well, at the County level, it is not. The no action indicates that it's left up to the Town. MR. CARTIER-I hear what you're saying. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with what's written. here. They took action. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but the fact that they ended up in a deadlock, it's their philosophy to say. well we can't take any action on it, whenever it's a tie. MR. CARTIER-But that doesn't suggest they approve it. They just don't take any action. MR. HAGAN-No. That means it's dumped on the Town to take care of it. MR. CAIMANO-I just wanted to make sure that Mrs. York was reading the same thing I was reading. MR. HAGAN-Okay. I would like to ask for this Board's and the public's patience with me because I have always had a real problem with this type of project, and rather than rely or try to introduce the right of this Board's philosophy in interpreting these things. I'm going to try to bring out the words from the Zoning Ordinance that I think we are being asked to protect, that we are asked to take responsibility for. Number One, reference Page 15, Paragraph 140, by means of Definition, I'm saying that this project does not enhance the landscape. The Landscape means "all the natural features, such as fields, hills, forest, water, etc. that distinguish one part of the earth's surface from another part. Usually that portion of land or territory which the eye can comprehend in a single view, including all of its natural characteri sti cs. Thi s project does not enhance .!!!l natural characteri sti cs. In addi tion to that, I think it's this Board's responsibility to avoid potential disasters or potential situations that this Town finds to be disagreeable. So I refer to Page 17, Paragraph 162, "Marina means any water front facility which provides accol1lllOdation services for vessels by engaging in any of the following: the sale of marina products or services." It's not going to do that. "The sale, lease, rental. or charter or vessels of any type." It's not going to do that of that. "Or the sale, lease, rental, or any other provision of storage. loft space, or mooring for vessels not registered to the owner of said facility, a member of the owners immediate family. the owner or lessee of the immediately adjoining upland property, members of their immediate families or an overnight guest on said property." Those would be the only people allowed to use those moorings. Now. in addition, I go on to some of the regulations. On Page 62, "Accessory Use or Accessory Structure", which I believe this dock is proposed to be, ri ght? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Okay. "An Accessory Use or Accessory Structure shall be permitted if the use to which it is accessory is a lawful use pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance and for which a permit has been issued. If required pursuant to the terms of Article 12 hereof. as long as said accessory use or structure does not result in or increase any violation of the provisions of Article 4 and Section 7.030. An Accessory Structure shall not be used for commercial purposes by residents of residential structures nor shall it include a sign except as permitted by Queensbury Sign Ordinances. Further," I missed one little spot, here, that references individual or residential ownership. MR. CARTIER-Article 7. maybe? Is it under docks, Jim? MR. HAGAN-No. It was under the description of family or single residence. This application or this applicant claims to be and what I'm trying to say is, as a single residence, what need or what purpose can all these docks and all these decks serve except purposes that are disallowed by our Town Zoning Ordinance? I wish I could find what I had the paper clip on and I don't take the time to read through the whole thing, but the applicant claims to have a residence, a private and single family residence is what he claims to be, and if he does, there's nothing but illegal uses that this addition can be put to, in my opinion. Does this Board agree or disagree with anything I've said? MR. CARTlER-I agree with that. I have some other concerns that I guess are not nearly as detailed as yours is. MR. HAGAN-Well, I think we have to resort, somehow, until we get our Ordinance changed to prevent this kind of exaggerated use. 46 "'--' - MR. CARTIER-Well, my concern is the precedent. We havenlt seen any proposal like this. First of all, what's been submitted to us does not show what is being proposed. The sketches do not show what in fact is being proposed. It only shows two docks. It doesn't show the deck. The deck's involved, so there's a problem with that. That's a minor, technical problem. I have a problem in terms of setting a precedent, here. What we're being asked to do is approve another dock, an expansion of a deck over that dock from another dock and as you have pointed out in the past. literally. in effect, extending out over the shoreline into the water. MR. HAGAN-It represents a gross obscenity. MR. CARTIER-And it seems to me if we approve this as it is submitted to us, we can expect to see a great deal more of those kinds of things coming at us in rather huge structures along the shoreline that create problems that Jim has very well pointed out. We're sort of jumping ahead of ourselves. I don't mind that. Does anybody else want to make a comment, first, before we open it up to the floor for the applicant? MRS. PULVER-Well, I, personally. don't want to judge this applicant as doing illegal things with his residence, like having multifamily residence when it's stated it's a single family residence. I don't feel I have any information to lead me to believe it's anything, but a single family residence. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but what single family residence would require the need of over eight moorings, which he's going to create, here. MRS. PULVER-Maybe he has 10 children. I do know a family with 10 children, but I have no information at all that this is anything but a single family residence. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else care to comment before we open it to the floor. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I just have a question. I don't know how DEC or the Army Corp of Engineers would allow 8 by 8 cribs in Lake George. Do they do that? My experience has been that there's no way they'd let them get away with that. MR. HAGAN-I think so, if it's single. They may not permit this because he's already got all he needs. MR. MARTIN-Well, why don't we open this up to the applicant and let him try and address some of these concerns. MR. CARTIER-Sure. Mr. Roulier, please. MR. ROULIER-I'm Joe Roulier. I'm representing Mr. Freihofer and I'll certainly attempt to answer all the questions that you may have. I want to put something to rest, right off the bat. It is a single family residence. It's Mr. Freihofer's house with his wife. two children, and one on the way and that could be, certainly, backed up by the Building Department who has been, on numerous occasions, to the house, and they would certainly confirm what I'm saying to you. One of the issues that Mr. Hagan just brought up was, possibly, the proliferation of docks along the shore. I think under the example or at least the idea that you have is that there should be ~ docks on Lake George. MR. HAGAN-No. I live on Lake George. I have a dock. MR. ROULIER-That's right. MR. HAGAN-But it's a very reasonable one and most of my neighbors on the Lake have reasonable ones. MR. ROULIER-If you read further into the Ordinance, and I'm sure that you have, there's a section of the Ordinance that was adopted by the Town of Queensbury from the Adirondack Park Agency that indicates that an individual that has property in excess of 100 feet can have two U-Shaped crib docks. Mr. Freihofer owns 240 feet of shoreline, both with the Town of Queensbury Ordinance, the Lake George Park Commission, and the Department of Environmental Conservation Rules. He is allowed, at the present time, a boathouse and a U-Shaped crib dock, not to exceed 650 square feet. He's allowed two of them, okay. So, I mean. even though I respect the fact that you had read out of the Ordinance, I can respect your feeling, that's what it is in the Ordinance. MR. HAGAN-And, again. this Board points out to you, if it was only the law that we had to depend on, we wouldn't need this Board and I also own 235 feet of Lake front and I have two little cribs, and they're not even rock cribs, and I've got four kids and I've got five grandchildren and I only need one dock because I'm a single residence and I own two and a half acres of land on the property. This man does not need it. If you show me any real need for it, I'll consider it. MR. ROULIER-I respect your feelings. MR. HAGAN-And you can cite me with an Article 78 and I'll fight it myself at my own expense. 47 "---- --- MR. ROULIER-No, but you, at least, you know, this is the United States of America and these rules have been written by people, but you at least have the ability to increase the size of your dockage. You have two children you just indicated. If each one of those children were to purchase additional boats, I can't believe that you wouldn't make some provision for them to keep those boats at your property. MR. CARTIER-We're not going to talk about what Mr. Hagan's going to do. What we're going to talk about, here, is the application before us and one other point, Mr. Roulier, since you're citing what is allowed, also in the Ordinance. by authority, we are allowed to make some decisions about the appropriateness of an application. MR. ROULIER-I understand. MR. CARTIER-So let's stick with what's on the agenda, here, and let's get into Mr. Freihofer's application and let's talk about that. MR. HAGAN-Let me ask the applicant, point blank, if he doesn't have some intention for putting these docks to some of the uses I say he might possibly put them to, what in fact does he need or intend to use them for? MR. ROULIER-First of all, he does not want to operate a commercial business. I mean, he's a fairly well to do man and he doesn't need an extra $1.000 for a boat. He has four boats currently registered on Lake George. One boat is under the cover. That's there already. He has a second boat that's a 21 or 22 foot Donzi that he's having a very difficult time mooring there because of the exposure of that piece of property. The wind that comes down out of the northwest, there are four and five foot waves, consistently, at the dock and because of that he feels as though he needs an additional U-Shaped dock to maintain the Donzi over at that position. That's the reason. There's no commercial intent involved. MR. HAGAN-Granted that that's a real need, but why does he have to have a deck covering both of them in one piece? MR. ROULIER-I have spoken to him, extensively. about that and he feels as though, because there was concern with Warren County. regarding what you had just mentioned, if we could just be allowed a cover over the U-Shaped portion of the new dock, we would limit it to that only. So, there would be no connection between the existing dock and the proposed dock. MR. CAIMANO-In other words, you're changing your application? MR. ROULIER-I would make a slight modification to it. MR. CAIMANO-You can't do it without going through the Planning Department, that's Number One. MRS. PULVER-No. He wants what he's proposed before us, but he would compromise. MR. CARTIER-No. What he has proposed before us is not what we have seen in the application and the fact is, the application does not show these decks, okay. MR. ROULIER-May I just show you. this drawing right here indicates that there's a sundeck above the proposed U-Shaped dock, that it goes over and extends to the existing one, and what I'm proposing to you, Mr. Cartier. MR. CARTIER-Okay. When I looked at this, I was looking at this from a different perspective. MR. ROULIER-Has everyone seen the drawings? MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but I didn't see that. MR. ROULIER-Okay. What 1'm proposing to you, because of the feelings that I got from Warren County, was that we just limit the sundeck to the U-Shaped portion of the new one. MR. CARTIER-What will the total square footage of dockage be, with these two U-Shaped docks? MR. MARTIN-624 square feet I think he said. MR. ROULIER-Times two. MR. CARTIER-Times two. MR. CAIMANO-Just to make sure we're talking the right wavelength, is this 14 feet of water line, here, from the bottom of there to there? 48 '-- -- MR. ROULIER-Yes, out on the front. MR. CAIMANO-You can't get consistent four to five foot waves in fourteen foot water, but that's okay. MRS. PULVER-He would be allowed 1300 square feet for 200 feet of frontage. So, he's less than what hels allowed. MR. MARTIN-Is this going to be a totally connected structure? Meaning that, this new dock is going to be connected to the old dock, therefore, it's one structure? MR. ROULIER-No, it's not. Under the rules of the Department of Environmental Conservation, docks cannot be connected. They are two, independent, U-Shaped crib docks. MR. MARTIN-How are they independent if they're connected by a deck? MRS. PULVER-They're not going to be. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm saying. It's not one structure? MR. ROULlER-No. It's not one structure. Excuse me, Mr. Martin. Are we referring to the docks, now. or the deck? MR. MARTIN-The decks are part of the dock. The decks are connected to the docks. MR. ROULIER-The decks are on top of the docks. MR. MARTIN-Right, connected. MR. ROULIER-But under the DEC Rules, the docks cannot be connected. MR. CARTIER-But if they're connected by a deck, an overlaying surface called a deck, as far as I'm concerned, they're connected. MR. ROULlER-That's right, but I'm just saying to you, Mr. Cartier, that I. at this juncture, would be modifying the deck so that the deck would just be over the U-Shaped portion of the new dock. MR. CARTIER-I just want to get it on record. though. that two docks connected by the deck are now connected, correct? MR. ROULIER-They would be connected, that's correct. MR. MARTIN-And then the other point I would like to make is that you show cribs here, 8 by 8 rock filled cribs, indicated as Letter A on your diagram. MR. ROULIER-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-And I'm reading from the Ordinance, "No fill or hardsurfacing shall be permitted within 50 feet of any lake, pond, river, or stream, or wetland except by Site Plan approval of the Planning Board. " MR. CARTIER-That's landfill. MR. MARTIN-Well, what is hardsurfacing or fill? I mean, these are 8 by 8 cribs filled with rocks. MR. CARTIER-Yes. but I think what you're reading applies to fill on land. MR. MARTIN-Well, it says within 50 feet of the.... MR. CARTIER-Yes. but that means he'd have to put them beyond 50 feet, the crib. MR. ROULIER-Right. Mr. Martin. I think. and I'm guessing, but I think the intent of that was so that people didn't randomly start taking additional shoreline, claiming additional shoreline by dumping rock in. MR. MARTIN-Yes, well. I'm just saying that the first series of these cribs is so close to the shoreline, they might as well be part of the shore. MR. CAIMANO-Well, let me short circuit something, here, a little bit, before we get here until 4 o'clock in the morning. Number One, he has, apparently, from a legal point of view. the two docks independently, are legal in terms of the size of the lake frontage. Is that correct? MR. CARTIER-Yes. 49 -- MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Number Two, there is a problem with this Board regarding aesthetics. There's a problem with Article 5 and that is that it does not conform to what we think should be on that Lake. That's what I hear from Mr. Hagan. That's where we are. We're not arguing about whether or not this is a .J.!.gli thing to do. We're getting down, again, to the philosophical point of. just because it's required in the zone does not necessarily mean that it should be approved in that zone, okay, because there are things, for example, let me read you one. Section 5.070 "The Board shall find 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 use and a description and purpose of the District in which such use is proposed, the nature intensity of activities", etc. There is a broad range, in Article 5, for this or anything else to be turned down with an Ordinance if it does not fit within that Ordinance, with everything else that's in that Ordinance, and there has been a philosophical problem on this Board, regarding our charter, I suspect, of all of us who work for the Town to protect the environment of the Lake and the proliferation of what looks to be, in this case, visual pollution of that Lake, that's the problem. So, for you to argue the legality of it, we're not arguing the legality of it. We're arguing whether or not things look like hell on the Lake and whether or not we should continue to approve those things or whether we should say, hold it. Mrs. Monahan, members of the Board, let's look what we're doing here, because we keep looking at these things and we say, why are we doing this when people are concerned about water, air, and visual pollution of our natural resources, that's the whole issue, here. It has been, not Joe Roulier, or Freihofer, anytime anybody comes up here. MR. ROULlER-And I agree. There's a spirit involved, here, but, first of all, if that were two independent lots. Let's look at them as if they were two independent lots. MR. HAGAN-They're not. MR. CARTIER-No. I don't want to get into hypothetical situations, Mr. Roulier. They're not. MR. CAIMANO-They're not, and even if they were, Joe, the fact of putting the deck on it is what causes us the problem, that's what causes the problem. MR. ROULIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-And if it were two separate lots, you couldn't put docks that close together because you'd have a 20 foot setback. They have to be 40 feet apart. MR. CAIMANO-It doesn't make any difference. It's the philosophical point of view. MR. ROULlER-Well, let me, can I just back track one second. From what you're telling me, then, do you have a problem with the docks or with the sundeck over the new U-Shaped dock? MR. HAGAN-Both. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. ROULIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I have a problem with the docks more than I do the sundeck because more dock space on Lake George means more boats and more boats means more pollution. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay. Let's try something, here. MR. ROULIER-I just would like to tell you this. Someone just brought up if any permits have been issued and I, at this juncture, have a permit from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. MR. HAGAN-What about the Lake George Park Commission? MR. ROULIER-There is an application that was submitted to them. MR. HAGAN-But you haven't had comments from them yet? MR. ROULlER-I havenlt received any comments and I do expect, probably in two to three weeks. I should get some type of notification. MR. HAGAN-Just in that light alone, then, I don't think we have the right to take any action on this because the Park Commission might deny it. MR. CAIMANO-Peter has a solution. 50 '-' - MR. LAPOINT-I just have a quick question. I'm ignorant on this. The Adirondack Park Commission and DEC have been approving these along with the Army Corp of Engineers, 8 by 8 rock filled cribs in Lake George? MR. ROULIER-Yes, sir. MR. LAPOINT-I hadn't realized that. MR. ROULlER-Well, at one time, let me just give you a little background, here. At one time. you were able to build a solid full length crib dock so if the structure was 8 foot by 40 foot, the entire area would be that. They've since limited it to 8 foot square docks with an open type construction and that's for water action and for fish, etc. and that's a type that is currently being approved by DEC and the other agencies. MR. LAPOINT-And this is plain lumber in the water? MR. ROULlER-For the most part. The way I build them, I use native white pine below the water and then above the water I use treated lumber. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, thank you. MR. CARTIER-I'm going to open a public hearing, shortly. Do you have any more comments you want to make? MR. ROULlER-Just so that the Board knows, I would certainly limit the sundeck. I would limit it so that it's, Mr. Frei hofer, I know that you've been up to the property and I know you've seen the house. When we did the entire project, we cut down four trees for that house. There are properties up there that are raping the land, literally, raping the land. You're concerned about the aesthetics from the Lake. We took down four trees. We've returned the ground to a really natural type of environment. You don't see any grass around the Lake. You see all natural type of growth that's growing around there. From the Lake, the house is as visually unobtrusive as we could possibly make it. We left the trees, as I say. We tried to pick out a color and the reason why I'm bringing this to your attention, there's a house that was just built down the street. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. ROULlER-I'm sure all of you have seen that house. They raped the land. They took down almost every tree on the land. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It made the Chronicle. Our house certainly never made the Chronicle. MR. HAGAN-Then why do you want to dump another big dock in front of it, then? MR. ROULlER-But I just want you to know. Mr. Hagan, your concern is, from other meetings that I've been to, your primary concern is how it's going to how it's going to look like, you know, or how it's going to look on Lake George and I'm saying to you that this man has gone through a lot of expense to keep.... MR. HAGAN-That doesn't impress me a bit. Every dock and deck I see is an eyesore. That's my opinion. MR. CAIMANO-But you're right, though. I will say that standing on the dock, turning around, looking for the house. it's hard to see the house, even standing on the dock. So, he's to be congratulated for that. MR. ROULlER-Thank you very much, and what I'm saying to you is that we can make the dock, if we have to alter the dock somewhat, if we have to even alter the sundeck to make it as clean as possible on that shoreline. we will, that's the type of man I'm working for and I hope that the Board considers that and approves the project. MR. HAGAN-But you can't put rock and timbers in that water in front of that lake front and improve on the present beauty that's already there. MR. CAIMANO-Would you like to go away and come back with a revised plan of how you would hide that and make Mr. Hagan and me happy? MR. ROULIER-I could give you some suggestions as to how it could be hid. right now. MR. CARTIER-It's 11:30 at night and I really don't want to get into redesigning a project, here. MR. ROULlER-Okay. Let me just say thi s to you, then, okay. There's no reason why, on top of the sundeck, let's just call it a boat cover. We don't need any railing because I know at one time, and the last time I was in here, that was a real concern. It's a concern that you've had with all of them. This is not a sundeck. It's only a boat cover and because of that, I can build it very narrowly. I can 51 "---' -- do anything. I can limit the amount of post on the dock. MR. CARTIER-Let me see if we can get into a direction, here, because you're redesigning, what you're doing is throwing options at us and trying to pick and choose some things that we might agree to and I really don't want to get into that. What I'd really like to do is open the public hearing, close the public hearing. let this Board have a discussion about this particular application, the way it is now. in terms of Article 5.070 and see where it goes from there. If we get approval, okay. If we don't get approval you always have the right to come back with a revised application, but for us to negotiate a solution tonight, at 11:30 at night, is not an appropriate use of our time or your time or anybody else's time. MR. ROULIER-But, can I just have one more minute, please? The last time when we went through this exercise, I went back and I revised the plans and it created a lot more paperwork. It created a lot more time for the Board, and if we could very easily come up with a solution, it would save everyone piles of work. MR. CARTIER-We are not in the business of designing projects, Mr. Roulier. MR. ROULIER-Okay. I thank you very much. Are there any additional questions that you have, though? MR. CARTIER-I don't think so, at this point, not that I have, anyway. Has anybody else got a question? Okay. Let's open the public hearing. Is there anybody who'd care to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CO_NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Okay, if you'd consider it appropriate, what I'd like to do is take us through the Sections of 5.070 that apply and answer questions based on those sections, okay. 5.070A, "The use complied with all of the other requirements of this Ordinance, including the dimensional regulations of the Zoning District in which it is proposed do be located." MR. CAIMANO-I think it did. I mean, it's allowed by the law. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN- If you consi der the dock to be two separate structures, that the deck is not connecti ng them and making it all one structure, just so it's in the record. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So it's in compliance with A. "B. 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 use and a description and purpose of the District in which such use is proposed." MRS. PULVER-The Ordinance says he can have 650 feet of dock for every hundred foot of frontage and he's not asking for anything more than what he's allowed to have. MR. CAIMANO-That's correct. I agree, but that's part of it. The character and location I find, that's where I'm finding the problem, but that's just me. MR. CARTIER-Let's finish Part B. "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 and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use." MR. CAIMANO-Well, you could draw a long line from Jim's concern about boats to that, but I think that's a long line. MR. HAGAN-When you get through this particular discussion, before you adjourn the meeting, I'd like to add something to your agenda. MR. CARTIER-Sure. "Item C. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use would not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion, or the parking or vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health. safety, or general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the Town." Does that apply? MR. MARTIN-Well, the next one, maybe. MR. CARTIER-All right. "D. The project would not have an undo adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic. recreational, or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supportive facilities and services made necessary by the project." 52 ''''''--"' .......,,' MR. CAIMANO-I think this applies, certainly aesthetically. Ecologically, you could make a very sound case. MR. LAPOINT-Well, if DEC approves and they handle that, right? MR. CAIMANO-That's true. MRS. PULVER-Yes, and you don't have any neighbors here, or anybody at public hearing complaining that it's going to have any impact on them or is infringing on their ability to see the Lake. MR. CARTIER-But, nonetheless, we don't have any neighbors here speaking for it, either. so I'm not sure. I think that's kind of a wash. I never know what to do with the fact that nobody's here. It could be read both ways. MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't know. They were notified. They could have dropped a line. They could have made a phone call, all of it, the Planning Board keeps records. MR. CAIMANO-In support, too. MRS. PULVER-That's it. Well, could have done either, but I know that if I didn't like it, I'd do something. I wouldn't allow it to slip by. MR. CARTIER-And Lee has taken us through Item E. in her notes. Gee, that really solved it, didn't it. Where are we? Does anybody else want to raise a question or make a comment before we call for a motion on this issue? MR. CARTIER-This is listed as a Type II, Lee. I assume we don't have to do SEQRA. MRS. YORK-You're correct. What I was thinking was some of the questions are very similar to Article Five and might help you in your review of the project. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you want to do that? MR. HAGAN-Well, the application, as it stands before us, I don't think can be acceptable because he calls for a new dock, extending the existing sundeck out over the proposed dock system. Now. we have legal grounds for denying that. So, should we ask the applicant. for the benefit of both parties, if he wishes to table this and re-submit, or, if not, I'll make a motion to disapprove the Site Plan. MR. LAPOINT-It isn't that the case that's before us right now. is that what's on the agenda. MR. CAIMANO-That's correct. MR. LAPOINT-That's correct. So, I agree with Jim. MR. HAGAN-So, I'm asking the applicant, would he approve tabling this until you have time to re-submit it, so it could at least be reviewed as being legally acceptable, since you want to keep it on a legal basis, and then we'll hammer it around some more, later on? MR. ROULIER-If it's my general feeling that, because of the way it's submitted, that it wouldn't be approved. then I would. certainly, at this juncture, withdraw this application. MR. CARTIER-Withdraw? MR. ROULI ER-We 11 , I'm tabling this until the plans that I have can be modified and re-submitted to you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does this Board wish to give the applicant any specific direction to take or not? MR. CAIMANO-Well, we're not going to accept the covered docks, the covered over boat dock system, at least that's the way I hear. MR. HAGAN-It would be my suggestion to the applicant, if he does reappear, that he have some significant arguments to prove need. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I'm not sure he has to do that. MRS. PULVER-Yes. He doesn't have to do that. MR. HAGAN-All right. I withdraw my statement. 53 -- -' MRS. YORK-Mr. Roulier, I would appreciate it, if you hear from any agencies, to bring us a copy of the documentation right away. because I would hate to see you held up. pending something. MR. MARTIN-That's the reason that I'd like to table, is for the Lake George Park Commission to have their. MR. ROULIER-Right. Mrs. York, I do have the DEC Pennit with me, right now, and if either you or the Board members would like to review that, I could certainly leave it with you. MRS. YORK-Well, I see you every day. We can make a copy. MR. LAPOINT-If you could get a copy to Lee, lid love to see that. MR. ROULIER-Okay. For verification, that's all. MRS. YORK-Yes. we would also like to know if there are any conditions placed upon any of those pennits. The Board would be very interested in that, too. MR. ROULIER-Okay, are we all set? MR. HAGAN-Well, you're definitely going to wait until you get something from the Park Commission, aren't you, because that's one of the requirements you have to have. even if we gave you approval and they didn't. MR. ROULIER-It is. that's correct, Mr. Hagan. MR. HAGAN-So, I think we should see it first. MR. MARTIN-That would be helpful. MR. HAGAN-Or at least with your reappearance. MR. ROULIER-Okay, thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay, then, a motion to table is in order. flJTION TO TABLE SITE PLAII (1). 84-90 CHARLES FREIHOFER. III, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Pending a redesign by the applicant. Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. CAIMANO-Jim's going to make a speech. MR. HAGAN-What's the procedure to make a recommendation to get the Zoning Laws changed on docks. Say, for instance, to limit one dock per residence. MR. MARTIN-The Section that's killing you, Jim, is right here. "Docks and Moorings, Number Two, Letter G". MRS. PULVER-You've got to bring it up to the Town Board. MS. CORPUS-Our office is working on some amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-And I would also say, "Moorings, N, Number Two". This right here, "The number of private docks permitted be restricted to residential use lake front lot as limited as follows". Those standards have got to be upped. MR. CARTIER-Karla brings up a good point. We're in the throws of making some changes. As far as I'm concerned. the change that needs to be made is to stop talking about docks and talk about number of slips or moorings. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-That's a way to get a handle on this. 54 ~ ..- MR. HAGAN-But Jim points out the two paragraphs that we should request a change be made on. MR. CARTIER-Right. I think what we ought to do is some rewriting. BETTY K>NAHAN MRS. K>NAHAN-Dave Hatin has been asking the Town Board to relieve him of docks because of the conflict with other agencies. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. K>NAHAN-On top of that, though, came a problem of what happened when super structures got put on top of docks. Therefore, the Ordinance that Karla drew up, plus the comments that came from the Planning Department. plus I'm trying to get a comment from Dave Hatin, plus the cOfllllents the Advisory Board has done, previously relative to docks are all being gathered together so they can go up to a committee we have that's called the Lake George Committee, which is composed of people who live up in the area and I've asked the Town Board not to do any action on this until we get the feedback back from them because they're the most intimately involved and notable. So, now would be the time, if you people have some comments that you would like to put in, get everything into a packet and throw it up to this cOfllllittee. MR. CARTIER-Betty, is Joan Robertson on that committee? MRS. K>NAHAN-No. Who's on it is Dr. Blake, Mike Scoville, Karl Kretz, he's the secretary. MR. CARTIER-Well, if I were you, I'd mention this idea of working with someone on docks. MR. MARTIN-I would like to see, also, and you can tell me to go take a hike if it's too much work. I would like to see an analysis of the average lake frontages and how many docks per frontage or per linear foot, as a way to establish what's reasonable for any changes in the Ordinance. MRS. YORK-You would like us to review an analysis of the average lake frontage? MR. MARTIN-In other words, the average size lot frontage on the Lake. MRS. K>NAHAN-I would like to get all your ideas so we could throw it all up to them at one time. MR. MARTIN-As a basis for establishing how many docks are reasonable. Right now we're saying. in this gentleman's case, he could have two docks, because you had how many linear feet of lake frontage? JOE ROULIER MR. ROULIER-240. MR. MARTIN-So, he fell in that range of 100 to 250, so he could have two docks of 650 square feet each and that's the standard that's throwing us awry, here. MR. ROULIER-Mr. Martin, could I just say one thing? In Queensbury, I believe the Ordinance reads 700 square feet per structure. MR. CARTIER-Yes, it is. MR. MARTIN-Right, okay. 700. Yes. You're right, 650, 700, but that's the standard that's leading the problem. Maybe it should be reduced down to one dock for every 250 linear feet. I don't know. MR. CARTIER-Okay. have a suggestion. The Town Board i!. working on all these changes in the Ordinance. MRS. K>NAHAN-Well, this one we've pulled out separately and it's going up to this committee before the Town Board tackles it. MR. CARTIER-All right, but what I'm saying is, we, as a Board. I hope we'll get to look at that. MRS. K>NAHAN-Well, I think you ought to be right in on the input part of it, right now. that goes up there. MR. CARTIER-Yes. but how long is it going to be buried up there? How long are they going to come out with it? MRS. MONAHAN-In that cOfllllittee? MR. CARTIER-Yes. 55 --- -- MRS. MONAHAN-I wouldn't think too long, knowing those kind of people that are on that committee. MR. MARTIN-If we do propose a change and there's an outcry, I want to be able to say to people, well here's the basis for our change. MRS. MONAHAN-Something else that I noticed the other day when I was up on a boat ride on the Lac Du Sacremant and I was up on one of the upper decks. there's not only sundecks going on, there's another structure going on on top of that, in one place that I saw. So, you had three actual stories going up there. MR. CARTIER-On the Town of Queensbury property? MRS. MONAHAN-That's what Dave said. I couldn't tell out on the boat. MR. MARTIN-The other thing, we have to have language for definition of decks. That's not in the Ordinance, all that type of thing. It gets more and more involved. MR. ROULIER-Can I say something else? I think, you just asked about an analysis up there and I think, and I may be wrong on this, almost every piece of property has a dock, okay. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. ROULIER-And it has changed. There's been an increase in docks in the last five. ten years and in some of the places, you go up there, and Mr. Hagan will back me up on this, dock, dock, dock. Sixty feet of property and you've got four docks in there. You've got five docks. They're operating little marinas. They say they're not, but they are, but you're looking at the boat traffic. You've got all the marinas. You have a huge marina in Harris Bay and then, on top of that, you have all this quick launching. So, you want to tell my customer, for example, Mr. Freihofer, you can't keep your four boats at the dock, but yet a marina will go ahead and have 200 boats that they're dumping in there on Fourth of July weekend. I think, based on what I know, I've been around Lake George for an awful long time, okay. The bulk of the bul k traffic on Lake George comes out of the marinas. You go up there during the week when it's the residents up there, that Lake is as calm as can be. MR. HAGAN-It's true, but our lake shore is being ruined by the proliferation of docks. MRS. YORK-We are not the only agency concerned about this. The Adirondack Park Agency just recently requested me to go and take pictures of the docks and boathouses that we are experiencing in Queensbury because they are looking to also make some comments regarding our Ordinance. They feel that. potenti ally. open si ded boathouses, with our Ordinance, it I s the only ki nd of boathouses you can have, are basically not boathouses. They are simply excuses to create decks over water, and I think that the Ordinance, the intent was certainly to leave people open space and not disturb the visibility of the neighbors by leaving open spaced boathouses, but what we've created is another kind of problem, here, and so they also are reviewing these kind of things, in light of our Ordinance and with existing conditions. MR. CARTIER-Given the lateness of the hour, I would like to suggest to Mr. Martin and Mr. Hagan that they may want to take those pieces of the Ordinance and rewrite them and come back to this Board and throw them out in front of this Board and have us take a look at them. MRS. YORK-Form a subcommittee. MR. CARTIER-We never had a subcommittee. Wouldn't you guys like to be the first subcommittee? Okay. We have another issue in front of us, at least one, regarding a request from Adams Rich Incorporated. MR. CAIMANO-Do you want to start at one end of the table and just ask everybody's opinion, or what? MR. CARTIER-Well, I want to be sure everybody understands what they're asking for, here. because I had a lot of trouble with it. myself, and that is that they're asking for Preliminary and Final all in one shot, if I understand this. MR. CAIMANO-No, they're asking for Preliminary. MR. MARTIN-The way I look at it, the bottom line is, they're asking to have their final approval by January 1st. 1990. That's the bottom line. So, we have certain time frames that we would have to waive, right, to accommodate that? MRS. YORK-That is my understanding of what the Adams' are requesting, to be able to submit their final application after the deadline date, which would occur on November 28th. MR. CARTIER-For the December meeting? MRS. YORK-For the December meeting. 56 '-' - MR. CARTIER-Well, what's the Board's feeling? MR. CAIMANO-Are they asking to get back on next week's meeting? MR. CARTIER-December. MR. CAIMANO-Just December? I thought they were on December? MR. CARTIER-Yes, Jim's pointed out, what they want to do is they want to have their final approval by January 1st because they're afraid some other stuff's going to kick in. MR. CAIMANO-Well, they could be on both meetings in December, right? MR. MARTIN-No because there's time frames involved. MR. CAIMANO-Can they be on. Lee. both meetings in December? MRS. YORK-They could be on the first meeting for their Preliminary and the second meeting for their final review. The problem. here, is they cannot create their final application before the submission deadline date. There's another point, here, that I have to make. Even if the submission deadline is extended, I don It know what agenda control is going to mean to them. with the submissions, either. At this point in time, we have pretty much one agenda full and I wanted to talk to the Board about another issue, too. Tabling an application, like Mr. Roulier's, I'm just using this as an example, gives him preference. He is now one of the two items on the second agenda. Do you see what I mean? MR. CAIMANO-Yes, I do, and that's just the point I want to bring up and you called me on the phone the other night, Pete. This is where I thought we were, taking no sides on this issue, but this is where I thought we were with this applicant and let's just call him and her an applicant, right now. What happened was, at the last meeting. we had a vote and because of absences and abstentions, we didn't have a quorum. So we said, look, we're going to have an emergency meeting because of the mall. Why don't we force ourse 1 ves to get a quorum and we'll go vote aga i n on thi s, all ri ght. We agreed to do that and we pushed it ahead, because as I remember it, the applicant said, and I think! said, well, is this going to be, will this be able to get on a November agenda, and I can't recall, without hearing the minutes, but it seems to me that was the reason why we pushed this thing to a quick vote and again. I don't understand and I'm not taking Mrs. Pulver's side, I don't understand why this applicant was denied a November date because I thought we already knew they were going to be on one of the two meetings in November, that's the way I left this meeting. MR. CARTIER-Because the agenda filled up. MRS. YORK-That's the problem. Everyone who's tabled from months before can come back, they are gi ven preferential treatment on an agenda. If they're tabled. they're Old Business. you see. MR. CAIMANO-Didn't we say. though, that night, and I thought I said it, that this is our fault. We shouldn't make this applicant suffer because of our inability to get a quorum. MRS. YORK-I believe you said that. Mr. Caimano. MR. CAIMANO-Then they deserve the same kind of up-front treatment as a tabling motion, do they not? MRS. YORK-I don't know. They were never tabled. They were then a new submission that had to be stamped in and go in the same order. If the Board had other thinking, they really should have let me in on it, or let the Staff person in on it, because we were totally unaware that the Board felt that this applicant should get on the November agenda, or there should have been an extra slot made for them. MR. CAIMANO-What was the date of that meeting? MR. MARTIN-November 5th, as I remember. MR. CAIMANO-What was the last regular meeting in October. What was the date of the last regular meeting in October? MRS. YORK-The 25th. MR. CAIMANO-The 25th. Do we have the minutes? MR. CARTIER-Of the 25th of October? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. I'm not going to read the whole minutes. MR. MARTIN-October 16th. 57 "--' ..-- MR. CAIMANO-That's what I've got, October 16th. MR. CARTIER-16th. MR. CAIMANO-I don't have the 25th, yet. I'm not calling you a liar or saying I'm not a liar or whatever. I just remember the whole thing was, and I remember sitting here saying, we should not make the applicant suffer, obviously, we were talking about the November meetings, because we couldn't get a quorum. MR. CARTIER-All right. Let me see if I can solve this. They have submitted all their stuff for Preliminary. It's already in-house, correct? MRS. YORK-Yes. it is. MR. CARTIER-Has the Staff reviewed it? MRS. YORK-Our Engineer is reviewing it now. MR. CARTIER-All right. MRS. YORK-Yes. Staff has reviewed it. MR. CARTIER-So, the Preliminary stuff has been reviewed? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We could add that to an agenda, if we so desired, as a Board. Could we not? MRS. YORK-Absolutely. MR. CARTIER-Could we add it to, well. no. We've got time limits in terms of public advertising. MRS. YORK-They have time limits in terms of also making the public noticed and things like that. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but we could add it to a December meeting. We could add it to the first December meeting? MRS. YORK-Yes, and if you would like, that's the point I wanted to bring out to you. If you want to extend the deadline submission date for this applicant. you should also assure them that they will have an opening on your second meeting. MR. CAIMANO-Let's do it. MR. CARTIER-Well, we do that simply by saying we're going to add a ninth item. MS. CORPUS-Yes. the Board can vary their agenda. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so that takes care of that. All right, and then we go to final for the second meeting in December, but it has to be crystal clear to the applicant that if they don't make it through Preliminary. then it's a wash. They're washed off the second December meeting. MRS. YORK-I talked to the applicants today, at length, and explained to them the pros and cons of doing this and I think they are well aware that one change at Preliminary would throw out their final review. They aware of the risks they have to take. MR. MARTIN-Well, why can't we do something like, and I know everything we propose is going to be an exception or trying to accommodate, then it strikes me that it would be better to have a special meeting early in December. We had a Special Meeting to deal with the Mall, specifically. Deal with this, specifically, and if something comes up where they have to change it, they'd still have time to change it and meet their public notification deadlines for the last meeting in December. MRS. YORK-Well, they will be getting the comments rapidly. They have requested the comments. MR. MARTIN-That's what I mean. If we have a meeting, say, anywhere in the December 5th time frame and there is a change needed. they can still make their change in time to meet the regularly scheduled meeting in December for the final approval. MR. CAIMANO-Alternatively, though, we could get them on the first meeting in December and, should they stumble, then go to the Special Meeting, right? MR. HAGAN-No. 58 '-' --.-' MR. CAIMANO-Or is the timing all wrong? MR. MARTIN-I'm saying, this is a safe guard. If the desire is to give this applicant a Special Meeting, give it early in December and then if they do run into a problem or there is a change needed, they can still address that change and then be on the last meeting in December. MR. CARTIER-But you're also going to, and I'm not objecting to this, I'm just pointing it out. You're also going to have to give them a new submission deadline for their final. You're going to have to waive the normal deadline for final. MRS. YORK-To tell you the truth, I think the applicant felt very positive about just being on the first meeting and the second meeting. MR. MARTIN-He's taking an awful risk, though. from their standpoint. MRS. YORK-Well, I'll tell you, Jim. I have advised them to request pre-review and they are doing that. They will have those comments back and be able to make their changes. So, they are in a better position than a lot of people. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-I would tell you frankly, all the Planning concerns were addressed at their Sketch Plan submission. MR. CAIMANO-That's what I thought. MRS. YORK-I mean, with the Town Board criteria, there is very little to really discuss, as far as Planning concerns. I think the concerns you are going to see are going to be engineering in nature and they have requested the engineering comments early. If their engineer can satisfy those and prepare a plan which comes before the Board which does satisfy it, I don't see a problem there. As you said, I have explained the risks to them and they were very gracious about even requesting any special treatment by this Board and didn't want, with the ho1iday season coming on, were concerned about your feelings about even giving them any consideration. I don't know. What do you want to do here? MR. CARTIER-Okay. What I suggest we do is we agree to put them on the first December meeting as a ninth item. MRS. YORK-Mr. Cartier, if I may just interrupt. Their Preliminary application is already on your first meeting. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-What they need is an extension of time to prepare their final. Now, we have Staff Review on the 5th, okay. I would like the total Town Staff to review it. at that time, if it's possible. If we could get it by the 4th. I would be delighted. MR. CARTIER-All right. So. we tell them that they have to have their final application in by 2 p.m. for December 4th, is that correct? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-December 4th, for Staff Review, to be placed on the second meeting in December, and that will be where we have the ninth item, correct? MRS. YORK-Yes, or you may not require a ninth item. I just want to make sure that these people have a space. I mean, we may have nobody walk in this month. MR. CARTIER-Highly unlikely, but just to cover ourselves here and provide them with what they're requesting that we do it in terms of a ninth item. MRS. PULVER-Did we decide that we were having the 27th? MR. CAIMANO-Yes, the 27th is the meeting. MR. CARTIER-And you can also inform them of that fact, that the meeting is the 27th. MRS. YORK-Okay. MS. CORPUS-Could the Board please do this in a resolution. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Certainly. 59 - --- MOTIOII 10 EXTEND THE SUBMISSION DEADLINE DATE FOR SUBDIVISION 110. 14-90 IIISPIRATIOII PARK TO DECEMBER 4TH. AT 2 P.M., Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 20th day of November. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Acting Chairman 60 '--' "'-"" LOCATION MAPS Nove.ber 20th. 1990 Queensbury Planning Board Meeting OLD BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 74-90 Ronald N. (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 10-90 Frank & Kathleen England (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 75-90 U-Haul Company of N.E. NY (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 35-90 Michael Saleem d/b/a NAPA Auto Parts (See Staff Notes attached) NEW BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 82-90 John M. Hughes (See Staff Notes attached) I! -_-:!.,&"Á! -/-4 ' i I . ",,-:eT5--~ - ~'I ® ~ - !N I I ~ I ~~~ ® ® I I' \\ ~~f'" I {) ~~~ ~ ® "f\ ~ 0101 . ,~ ~~~ "I') " .,.... 'i 0'1 ~ ~ ~ '" " ~a " ~G "/ .~ Ç'o'G (þ ~ª~ I I ... ® Q ~ 1- "'"f\ ) ~ ~ l-j " ~ ,. ~ ~ \>¡~~ ® ® ~ . ~ ~ @ '> \) C ~~~ ® (9) ~ ~~~ ~. ~~ ~ ~ .~ © ~ r ® Ii?OA 0 ~ -<,)D.'-OI..(.~ ~ - . . Site Plan No. 83-90 Glens Falls Country Club (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Petition for a Change of Zone P11-90 Kerry V. Girard (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Subdivision No. 15-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Edgar Eggleston, Jr. (See Staff Notes attached) ., ~ I ~ ----r --_... -- -- --.... -- ---..-- lJ.1. ~ ~ i,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6ë Lv Z£4liN j 40 ~. Site Plan No. 84-90 Charles Freihofer, III (See Staff Notes and Map attached) .J ~i ¿é os·a.-(, c:- £.. . - -- """" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804·9725 (518) 792-5832 AVIATION MALL P1anni~g Staff Comments November lO, 1990 The Planning Board may wish to suggest the Town Board discuss the following issues with the developer relative to the SEQRA review. 1. Traffic DOT reviewed the traffic study (attached). Ken Carlson of Region I discussed the letter with staff. Mr. Carlson stated that although the traffic increase was incremental and did not of itself cause a change in the level of service, the increase would cause greater congestion. With respect to that. the Board may want the developer to identify other potential traffic circulation options. These may include the potential for another access point which would deflect the local traffic from the two major intersections of Route 9 and Route 254 and the primary Mall access and Aviation Road. 2. Location of parking area behind Burger King. The Board may wish to review the appropriateness of having individuals parking at this location and walking up to the Mall. Specifically, will a 5 foot wide concrete side walk be sufficient to separate pedestrian and traffic areas. 3. Stabilization of slopes and erosion control. The Board may wish to be assured how the soil banks on the site will be stabilized. The Board may also want to review the potential for erosion and stormwater runoff from the adjacent property once the bank is excavated on the western portion of the property. Also, that the erosion control devices be properly maintained during and after construction. 4. Underground infiltration devices. Maintenance of these devices should be done regularly or flooding can occur. The Board may wish to pursue this with the developer. 5. Noise Noise increases created by the development on residential areas (Greenway Road and Queensbury Gardens), and on the City of Glens Falls recreation area. page 1 of 2 "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 '---" .~ 6. Retention Areas on adjacent areas. The Board may wish to ascertain who cWTently maintains the storm water devices on the NIMO property and review the easement and maintenance agreement. 7. Loading areas ~d fire lanes. The Board may want input as to whether this action creates a greater demand for community services. These issues should be reviewed by the Fire Marshal, and/or the Fire Chief of that district. Concerns are unloading which takes place in the existing fire lanes and potential access problems due to the traffic increase. 8. Permeability The Board may wish the applicant to address the 21 percent permeable area to be maintained on site, and define any alternatives which could be untilized to increase the permeable area on site. ------ page 2 of 2 ---~----- ---.. ß CS1-1e~/N-~- -rei ......- _ f'1bÐ.~ L E [ r ~ '¡/~tfWt~) l~NOV .it -- STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 84 HOLLAND AVENUE ALBANY. N.Y. 12208 LAN ., JOHN E. TAYLOR. PE. REGIONAL DIRECTOR FRANKLIN E. WHITE COMMISSIONER November 8, 1990 Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury PlaDnin~'Department 531 Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804-9725 k Dear~k: . We have reviewed the Aviation Mall Traffic Study as you requested in your letter of October 9, 1990 and we generally concur with the study's major conclusions - that additional traffic ~enerated by the propo.ed expansion will probably not by itself have a significant impact on traffic conditions on the surroundin9 road system. We believe that it will, however, in concert with numerous other developments in the area, contribute to qrowing traffic congestion. Thank you for the opportunity. to comment on this proposal. Sincerel , 2th- Kenneth . Carlson Senior Transportation Analyst cc: R. Carlson, Director, Re9. 1 Planning and Program Management J. Kelly, Re9ion 1 Traffic In9ineer P. Austin, Warren County Highway Superintendent R. Pearson, John Meyer Consulting AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMA TlVE ACTION EMPLOYER ._-------- "--"' -- I I TOWN OF QUEENSBURY OOMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION Robert L. Eddy, Chairman Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 17 Owen Avenue 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280~ Queensbury, N. Y. 1280~ To. (x) Warren County Planning Board Date. 11/12/90 (x> Queensbury Town Planning Board (x> Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x> APplicant (x) Town Board Ret Pyramid Mall Aviation Road We have reviewed the (x) Other - and have (x) Approval The main concern Beautification on this embankment. It was explained that the grade would be no greater than the ~resent west embankment which will be removed west some 70 feet. The material to be used and-the hydroseeding was explained and the planting of pine trees, many of which may not survive, was explained to the Committee's satisfaction. Many of the problems with the present embankment were caused by persons bent on driving their vehicles up or down this embankment and the fact that vetch was not used so it turned out to be an unsightly mess of weeds. The Mall is attempting to have the area rezoned to a special "Enclosed Mall" Zone which will call for many chan~es to diferenciate from strip plazas. Parcels of land are being obtained to make the project possible. It appears to the Committee that tighter controls are going to be used, which will make a requirement for a bond to guarantee performance unnecessary, in that an inspection will be made by L/A Group at the time the job is finished and another check one year from that date, copy of which will be furnished the Town either by the Mall or by L/A Group. Explanation was given that the project will comply with Section 7.071 of the Zoning Ordinance, except for the change in the number of parking spaces per pod in the rezoning. The plantings shown for the present project were explained and the Committee ap~roved the project as presented. In addition to the above íandscap1ng, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. request for. (X) Variance, (X) Si te Plan Revi ew , the following recommendations. (Rezoning) ( ) Di sapproval of the Queensbury Committee for Community project was the stabilization of the west 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. ~tfuJ.ly s~bmitted, ~J-J¡"l (, .¿;~U-l Robert L. Eddy, ~airmãn '--" '-" . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 531 Say Road, Queensbury, NY 12804·9725 (518) 792-5832 TO: Planning Board Planning Department FROM: Pete Cartier, Vice Chairman Planning Board RE: Petitions for Zoning Changes DATE: November 13, 1990 Dear Members: While the Planning Board has very specific review processes for Site Plans and Subdivisions, there is no such formal review process when it comes to our recommendations to the Town Board regarding a Petition for a Zoning Change. I think that a formal review process should be developed and would like to suggest it be in the form of a series of questions that are answered as we review such a Petition. I have included a sample list of questions. If you feel this idea has merit, please give it some thought as to the proper approach to take, and more specifically, what other questions should be added to the list. Perhaps, we can discuss this further at a meeting where we have a light agenda (Hal). Sincerely, QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ~~ÆtwŒi!? Vice Chairman PJC/sed Attachment ----- "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LiVe" SETTLED 1763 ---..----. - "-' ..-. Questions to be considered by the Planning Board when reviewing a Petition for a Change of Zone. 1. What need is being met by the proposed new zone? z. Can the need bè met by a cUlTent zone? 3. Is the proposed zone compatible with contiguous zones? 4. Are the physical characteristics of the site involved suitable to the proposed zone? 5. Is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Master Plan? 6. Are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? ~ <lST.FAOIT ASS()CIATØ. P.C. :ONSUL TlNG ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-.146 518.793-.1.1 ~ -...../ November 20, 1990 RFA #89-5000.201 RC 09 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attention: Mrs. Lee York, Senior Planner Re: Aviation Mall Expansion Proposal Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project with regard to potential environmental issues that will relate to SEQR review from an engineering perspective. Our review has investigated and evaluated the project concepts only. Detailed site plan engineering review will be reserved until requested at a later time. The long form EAF topics are the guidelines for the substance of our environmental review. In addition, we have developed our cORlDents within the context of proposed zoning law changes to create the ESC25A Zone. We have the following cORlDents: 1. Land ImDacts: a. Construction of the project will significantly increase the amount and degree of steep slopes. Severe slope erosion and maintenance problems are possible with the concept proposed. b. The initial site disturbances required for the project are extensive and warrant an erosion and sediment control plan that coordinates construction sequencing with erosion and sediment control facilities. c. All channelized water flow should be evaluated for adequacy of channel capacity and proper protection from erosion potential. 2. Water ImDacts: a. The stormwater management concept proposed is acceptable. b. Additional design details addressing storage/release relationships of detention/retention facilities will be needed. @ GLENS FALLS, NV-LACONIA, NH -------<- --- -.- '" ~ ~ "-'" Town of Queensbury Page 2 November 20, 1990 RFA #89-5000.201 RC 09 c. The appl icant should address the stability of all retention bas ins for events in excess of des ign capac ity. In particular the retention basin at the parKing area behind Burger King. d. The basis for runoff coefficients must be justified in the context of design details. In particular the ability of 1 andscaped permeabl e areas to inf iltrate precipitation should be demonstrated. e. The previous mall facility commitment contained in the of 1974, Raymond Keyes Engineer's P.C. report, that limits discharges to the Aviation Road storm drain system to 20 cfs should be honored. 3. Transportation Impacts: a. Our review is limited to the on-site roads, parking and sidewalk system. N.Y.S. DOT and Warren Country Department of Public Works are presumed to be providing the review of off-site traffic impacts, with the exception that we note projected traff i c volumes off - s He are not projected beyond 1992, which is only slightly after the projected opening date. Designing to handle only traffic expected in 1992 does not seem prudent. b. The internal traffic system is not developed in the study. The applicant should define the use of the internal traffic system loop road, critical controlled intersections and the relationships between pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Vehicular traffic should consider trucks, automobiles and bicycle uses. c. The loop road looses definition at the west side of the J. C. Penny building. d. Additional points of vehicle conflict have been created at the new parking area behind the Burger King restaurant and at the corners of the J. C. Penny building. e. Head-in parking is being proposed along the loop road. This type of parking movement will restrict traffic flow on the loop road. _.._~._._-_."_.-- ~ , '-" ~ Town of Queensbury Page 3 November 20, 1990 RFA #89-5000.201 RC 09 'f. The proposed loading dock for J. C. Penney building and department store "0" will require truck movements (turning and back ing up) with in the proposed road system. The traffic study does not address impacts of truck unloading activities to serve mall stores without loading docks. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ,-.-1\ . ~,. . I ~ \""....v....~ .,,,,",^,,v.,.í L Thomas M. Yar~ ich, P.E. Managing Project Engineer TMY/cam cc: Planning Board Members Ii - ~ -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlAnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- By: November 19, 1990 John S. Goralski Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Area VariaDc:e Use Variance == Sip Variance _ Interpretation Other: Subdi9Ï8ioø: Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary. --x- Site Plan Reflew - == Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Application Number: Site Plan No. 74-90 Applicant's Name: Ronald N. J eckel Meeting Date: November 20, 1990 ............................................................................................ This application was tabled on September 24, 1990. The revised site plan has addressed all concerns raised by the Planning Staff. At the September meeting, there was significant discussion regarding a pending Subdivision of the property. This Subdivision application has been withdrawn. Also, at the September meeting there were concerns regarding the septic system. D.E.C. has recommended a certain method. The Planning Staff has requested documentation of this method, and it has been reviewed by Rist-Frost Associates. JSG/sed ---- --.---- -'~ ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4148 518.793-4141 ~ (Jh'~~~~1J SITE PtAN REVIEW NO.1 r -10 - ~. f- ,- October 25, 1990 RFA #89-5000.074 RC 90 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Ronald N. Jeckel, Site Plan 74-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the resubmitted project. All previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed. We note that the proposed auto body repair and pa int shop project includes a car wash. Car washes are defined as an industrial activity (Standard Industrial Code 7542). The car wash could be subject to regulation by the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Wastewater Facilities Design dependent upon a H.Y.S.D.E.C. determinat ion. The app 1 ;cant has proposed an oi 1 /water separator system with seepage pit subsurface disposal. We have brought the issue to the attention of the applicant's engineer. The applicant's engineer indicated that they will coordinate the project car wash facility with D.E.C. as applicable. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. 'y~ j\ ! J . ( ~.....,-..('v\,..,..... _'........:\ _,' '_........... Thomas M\-Yarmowich, P.E. Project Ehqineer TMY/cam '1 * GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH DAVID M. KLEIII, P.E. Principal I""" ~ ,v. U c..-~ SITE PLAN iìfVlEW NO. 74 - CJ¡ ~ ' ~(J~~nW~)11 -T~r.:::~~~ OGr3~O~ LANNING~NIN( "E8~~lMr31, 1990 . . ' . ..... .-:>.';'.:, :;-:~': >..:" :,:,::,,;'::,:~,(,: .::,:'..:.:;:.:. . North Countrg Engineering P. o. Box .4187 GIena Falls, N. Y. 1280.4 Queensbury Planning Board Town of Queensbury Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12804 RE: Formula 1 Auto Body Gentlemen: On various occasions we have discussed the above referenced project wi th New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. On August 20, 1990, Environmental Analysis Randy Galusha informed us that floor trench drains through an oil/water separator for an auto repair facility were no longer permitted and that dry clean-up is encouraged. Randy also suggested a separate wash area of which we have incorporated into our design. In following DEC's recommendations, dry clean-up will be utilized and we have proposed a separate disposal system for the hose down area with an oil/water separator and a drywell. Although NYSDEC may claim no jurisdiction, a SPDES permit has been applied for and a copy of the application is enclosed. We feel that this process will mitigate all impacts as minimal as they may be. Respectfully submitted, NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING w )/t1. /ÚÌ-:... David M. Klein, P.E. principal DMK/cmm Encs. cc: Formula 1 Auto Body Mark Schachner, Esq. '. ----_.._----_.._~. · North Connlrg Engineering ..........- ......,/ MEMO OF TELECON DISTRIBUTION: Ron Jeckel JOB HUMBER: 90-20 Mark David Don McNeice DATB: 8/20/90 TIME: 1:50 PERSON CALLING: Dave Klein PERSON CALLED: Randy Galusha REPRESENTING: North country Eng REPRESENTING: NYS DEC TEXT OF TELECOM: Discharge of floor drains of auto repair shop thru oil-water separator into the soil is no longer permittable. DEC is encoura9ing dry clean up procedure. Floor drain is acceptable for hose down area where vehicle is cleaned prior to bein9 worked on. We should apply for DEC Permit. howevèr, they will probably indicate no jurisdiction. SIGNED: <David Klein DATED: 8/20/90 ._----~-_. 1-· '-' W VORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION APPLICATION FORM "D" for a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit (A SPDES .Application When Signed by a Permit Issuing Official Becomes a SPDES Permit) PLEASE PIINT 01 Tm -.;' o APPLICATION TYPE I[ New 0 Renewal 0 Modification OWNER'S NAME (Corporate, Partnership, Individual) FoImUla 1 Auto Bod IF RENEWAL OR MODIFICATION, GIVE PREVIOUS NUMBER NY- TYPE OF OWNERSHIP IKI Corporate D Individual o Partnership o Public OWNER'S MAILING ADDRESS (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Route 9, Lake George Road, Queensb ,New York 12804 REFER ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: (Name, Title and Address) P.O Box 4187 TELEPHONE NUMBER David M. Klein, P.E. c/o North COun En ineer' Glens Falls NY (518) 668-4522 FACILITY NAME FACILITY LOCATION (Street or Road) 12804 CITV,TOWN OR VILLAGE Fonnula 1 Auto Body Route 9, Lake Geor e Road Queensb COUNTY GIVE EXPLICIT DIRECTIONS TO LOCATION 3/4 mile north of Route 9 and Aviation Warren d intersection, west side of Rt. 9 site is behind Jeckel & NATURE OF BUSINESS OR FACILITY Sons Honda, north side. POPULATION SERVED (S.. Instructions) Auto Bod 15 FREQUENCY OF DISCHARGE All Yearl [ Ves 0 No If No, Specify Number of Months _ I All Weekl D Ves iJ NI:! If No, Specify Number of Days 5 DOES YOUR DISCHARCE CONTAIN OR IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOUR DISCHARGE TO CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANCES ADDED AS A RESULT OF VOUR OPERATIONS, ACTIVITIES OR PROCESSES& Pleast check: OAlumlnum DAmmanla DBeryllium OCadmium OChlorine DChromium DCopper DCyanidt o Gruse DLead OMerCury o Nickel OOil o Phenols DSelenium OZinc i]None of These OUTFALL NO. . TYPE OF WASTE TYPE OF TREATMENT ic & !each Field DESICN FLOW 170 TYPE OF WASTE Private Car Wash Depth of Water Tabl over 15' Gal/Day SURFACE DISCHARGE DYes 0 No SUBSURFACE DISCHARGE If YES, Name of Nearest Surface Water Depth of Weter Tlbl D~ O~ ~ I hereby aHirm under penalty of perjury that Information provided on this form and any attached supplemental forms Is trUe to the best of my knowltcl.. and belief. False statements made herein are punishable IS a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Section 210.45 of the Penal law . DATE PRINTED NAME 10.. ZS' -10 ~,,~ c! Iv\.. <"l e.\ '" PERMIT VAUDATlON SECTION (Department 0' EiMronmental Conservation Use Only) NY- This SPDES permit is issued In compliance with Title 8 of Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law of New York State and in compliance with the provision, of the federal Water EFFCTIVE DATE Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-500, October 18, 1972 (33 U.S.C. 11251 et. seq.) (hereinafter referred to as"the ATTACHMENTS: Act''). and subject to the attached conditions. EXPIRATION DATE Slanature of Permit Issuin, Official Date CARD J,pI Trill SIC COOE 'Out DiJ CARD Recion County M.ljor Sub Com HIct CARD Latitude Lon.itude CARD Lirn I ht Own Fall. CIIS' 8aslll 8asin ",.a 1 66 " 70 73 74 76 3 71 72 74 76 7. S3 5. S9 64 7 57 "'--' -' \ USE OF INFORMATION All information contained in this application will, upon request, be made available to the public for inspection and copying. A separate sheet entitled "Confidential Answers" must be' used to set out information which is considered by the applicant to constitute trade secrets. The information must clearly indicate the item number to which it applies. Confidential treatment can be considered only for that information for which a specific written request of confidentiality has been made on the attached sheet. However, in no event will identification of the contents, volume and frequency of a discharge be recognized as confidential or privileaedinformation, except in certain cases involving the national security. POPULATION SERVED For residential subdivisions, apartment or condominium developments or mobile home parks, give total number of lots or dwelling units. For retail or commercial establishments, give total number of employees and/or customers per day. For summer camps, resorts, etc., give total number of residents. DISCHARGE DATA For discharges to surface waters, each separate outfall pipe shall be assigned an outfall number. Surface water discharges are outfalls to streams, lakes, ponds, ditches, oceans, etc. Subsurface di~posal systems are discharges to groundwater from such facilities as seepage pits, seepage lagoons, tile fields, etc. Design flow is the average gallons per day of wastes that the disposal system is designed to handle. Examples of types of wastes are: sanitary (e.g. toilet, lavatory, showers, etc.), cooling, kitchen wastes (restaurants), laundry wastes (laundromats), filter backwash, etc. Examples of type of treatment are: septic tank-tile fields (or seepage pits), activated sludge, biodiscs, sand filtration, etc. Name of water should be given for discharges to surface water if water body has a name, or designated as a tdbutary or subtributary of the nearest downstream named body of water. Class (official classifica- tion) and waters index number are published in the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Relulations of the State of New York, Title 6-Conservation, Volumes B, C, D, E, F. The name of and distance to the nearest surface water shall be given for subsurface disposal systems as well as the soil type (sand, gravel, etc.) and depth to the watpr table below the ground surface. If this application is for a facility or subdivision which will have a number of similar disposal systems to handle the same type of wastes (for example, a 40 lot residential subdivision which will have an individual septic tank and leach field system on each lot), then the Discharge Data portion of this application should be completed using the following example as a guide. SAMPLE: DISCHARGE DATA (U.. additional '0IIIIf, If nec:estllryl (See Instrudlontl OUTFALL NO. ¡zg Proposed 140 0 Existin SURFACE DISCHARGE Dyes q No SUBSURFACE DISCHARGE If YES. Name of Nearest Surface Water IX! Yes 0 No Brown Brook TYPE OF TREATMENT se tic tank & leach field DESIGN FLOW 600 GallDa I Classification I Waters Index Number I Distance SOIL TYPE I Depth of Water Table SOO Ft. Sandy loam 10 feet SIGNATURE ON APPLICATION An application submitted by a corporation must be signed by a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice president ~r his duly authorized representative, if such representative is responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge{s) described in the form originate. In the case of a partnership or sole proprietorship, the application must be signed by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively. In the case of a municipal, state, federal or other public facility, the application must be signed by either a principal . executive officer, ranking elected official or 'other duly. authorized employee. ._-~--- ~ RlST.FAOST ASSOCIATES. P.C, CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793·4146 518.793-4141 ~ Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Ronald N. Jeckel. (Formula 1 AutobQdy) Site Plan 74-90 Dear Mrs. York: -- November 16, 1990 RFA #89-5000.074 We have reviewed the resubmitted project. All previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Very truly yours, l RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~{~"^"'" / ~~~~( Thomas M. Ya~1I wich, P.E. Project Engin~ r TMY!cmw cc: Planning Board Members ~ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH . - '-' ........" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1J11ftfti~g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 19, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area VariaDce Use Variance - Sign Variance := Interpretation Other: SubdirisiOD: Sketch. Pre1imiftJII_ _ _ _ -7' ---1f.. Site Plan Review _ Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Final Application Number: Site Plan No. 10-90 Applicant's Name: Frank and Kathleen England Meeting Date: November 20, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant wishes to add 499 sq. ft. to the existing structure. The addition will consist of a den, porch, and garage. A Variance was granted for construction within the 75 ft. shoreline setback. Also, a new septic system has recently been installed which has received all of the necessary Variances and approvals. The only planning issue is storm water runoff. The Board's engineer should confirm that the proposed dry wells will handle the increase in peak storm water runoff. JSG/sed -- -- :lOST c1FF;ce x 838 21 BAY TREer GL.EN FAL.L.S N 12801 FAX 518.7 3·4146 ~18 .7 3·4141 November 20. 1990 RFA #89-5000.010 Town of Queensbury Office Bu il ding Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Frank and Kathleen England, Site Pian 10-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following comments: 1. Although construction details and design calculations for the stormwater drywe 11 s are not prov ided, increased stormwater runoff will likely be minimal and the drywells provided should be adequate to manage the increased runoff. 2. Erosion control measures have not been indicated on the plan. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. i'\ .\ \ ('~~\ . ...:::"...... \\ : ~. \ "~~~ . '..\..;:\.,..'"^.......~,-,/ ( T lì'bma SM. -t'8. rtnatl , c h, 1". t. . -.... Managing Projè~\Engineer .\ TMY/cam cc: Town Planning Board Members ." GL.ENS FAL.L.S. NY-LACONlA. NH .~ .,----.--.- "--" .-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ptSlftftb,g Department -NOTE TO FILE- e A. Yark, Senior Planner S. Goralski, Planner G. Baker. Assistant Planner Date: November 16, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Subdiri8ioa: Sketch, _ PrelimiDary, --X...-. Site P1aD Review - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetJaDda Permit FiDal Site Plan No. 75-90 U-Haul Company of N.E. New York November 20, 1990 .......... ................................................................................. This application was tabled by the Board at the Sept. 25, 1990 meeting in orde to allow the applicant time to provide further information. I have reviewed the revised site plan according to my counnents of Sept. 25. 1990, (att ched) and I have the following comments: I) A one recommended. storage area. way traffic circulation pattern has been provided, as A "Do Not Enter" sign will be posted at the egress from the I Iz> A 10 mph speed limit is proposed and will be posted at the entrance o the storage area. 3) The one way traffic circulation pattern adequately addresses the of the Fire Marshall's office. ) There are no further planning concerns. Ja . - ~ -..-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI.nwling Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee . York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: September 25, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Suhdi.uäoa: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, --,r Site Plan Rmew - := Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Other: Site Plan No. 75-90 Applicant'. N U-Haul Co. of N.E. New York MeetiDg Date: September 25, 1990 ............ ............................................................................... The applicant is proposing the construction of a 19,450 sq. ft. self-storage building behind the existing U-Haul Rental facility. A use variance for this project was granted by the Zo ing Board of Appeals on May 31, 1990. The location of the zoning boundaries on the site plan, along both the southern and westerly roperty lines are shown incolTectly. The actual location, as shown on the tax maps, is i the middle of the Niagara Mohawk property. ve reviewed the application in accordance with Section 7.070 of the Zoning , and I have the following comments. 1. The proposed self-storage building will be set back over 230 ft. from Main Street, and will be well buffered from adjacent properties. As the Rist-Frost comments indi ate, the proposed building may be too big for this site. The proposed exterior buil ing lighting will not affect adjacent properties. A 2~ ft. 'wide driveway is provided around the building. Considering the potential size of trucks that will be arriving at this facility, a one-way traffic circulation pattern is recommended. Par~ing provided should be adequate. A 1~ mph speed 'limit (at most) should be posted at the access gate to insure pedestrian safefY. I I page 1 of 2 I I I, 2. 3. 4. ------_.__..~ - - - Site Plan No. 75-90 -- 5. uffer plantings should sufficiently shield the building from sWTounding properties. e Planning .Department did not receive any comments on this project from the eautification Committee. awn areas should be designed so as to insure ease of maintenance and protection rom vehicular traffic. The proposed ±150 sq. ft. area of grass extending from the ooded area on the eastern side of the lot may be difficult to maintain. 6. e Fire Marshall's office has submitted a letter regarding emergency access. SGB/s d page Z of Z POST OFFICE e X 838 21 SAY 5 REET GI.ENS ALI.S NY 2801 FAX 518 . 793 4146 518.793 4141 ., ~ "--' November 20. 1990 RFA #89-5000.075 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury~ NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. lee York, Sr. Planner Re: U-Haul Company of N.E. New York, Site Plan 75-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following comments: 1. Erosion control measures have not been indicated. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. .:::\ L~", \,\w~ ~-jl Thomas M. Yarmow\ch, P.E. Managing Project Engineer "'..\ TMY/cam cc: Town Board Members .~ ~LENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA. NH ~~ \ I \ I I I I I I \ \ . - -- -' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI~n'ftb'g Department · N cO T E T 0 F I L E · Mrs. Le$A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stu G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November ]6, 1990 Stuart G. Baker By: Appücant'. Subdiñsioa: Sketch, _ ~iDary. ..1L- Site Plan Rmew - _ Petition for a Cbauge of Zone Freshwater Wetlands Permit FiDal Area Use V, . - S· v, . - JgD IDt Site Plan Review No. 35-90 Hichael Saleem d/b/a/ NAPA AlIto P;:!rt!'l November 20. 1990 ................................................................................ T e applicant is requesting a approv d by the Board on May 22, 1990. revision of the site plan which was The proposed changes are as follows: The addition of 7 parking spaces along the Warren County R.O.W. 2 Relocation of the existing sign. 3 Relocation of gas, water, and sewer service lines. T e grante will b proposed changes· conform with all previous variances which were by the Zoning Board of Appeals. It appears that no additional grading necessary to pave the additional spaces proposed. T e Board should give careful consideration to the pros and cons of allowi parking to be provided on properties adjacent to a development site. Althou thi~ may seem to be an ideal ~nario for parking on this parcel. approv 1 of the proposed parking on 10ts9ðwned by the developer may not be the preferred scenario in all other cases. SGB/pw POST OFFICE S X 838 21 SAY S REET GLENS ALLS NY 2801 FAX 518.793 4146 518.793 4141 I I ~ ~\ I I '-.. ~ November 20. 1990 ~RFA #89-5000.035 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Michael Saleem. Site Plan 35-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following comments: 1. Seven (7) additional parking spaces (1400 sf) are proposed, stormwater runoff should be addressed for the increase in impermeable area. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCI~TES, P.C. . "J C ~~) , . A ~ \, ,I ¡..../.."-'".~ \ .A. - ,.'" ',. .. ''''"_'. l Thomas M. Yarmowich, P. E.' Managing Project Engineer \ \ TMY/cam cc: Town Planning Board Members GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA. NH - ---- -.- . - "-- ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI.ftfti~ø Department -NOTB TO FILE- Mrs. Lee . York, Senior Planner Mr. John . Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 19, 1990 By: John S. Goralski SubdiYWoB: Sketch, _ P1'eIimiDary, X Site PlaIa Reriew - == PetitiOD for a CbaDge of Zoae _ Freshwater WetJaDds Permit FiDal Other: AppUcatioa N bel': Site Plan No. 82-90 AppUcant's N e: John M. Hughes, Lot 2 MeetiDg Date: November 20, 1990 ...... .............................................................................. In Se tember the Board approved Lot 7 with the condition that the Subdivision be revised to reflect the property line changes. The applicant has submitted documentation regarding he revision. The Planning Staff has no concerns regarding this amendment if the drain ge plan has been appropriately modified. After reviewing the Subdivision revision, the Board should review the site plan for lot 2. Ther are no planning concerns regarding lot 2. JSG/sed --~---- --~..-.-.- Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped NOVEMBER 15, L990 frt:: E [D P Y . ~)~ftwìf~¡" .ß NOV! ~ 1990~ ~LANNING a ZQNlNr DEPARTMENT . '-- Present: Margo Burrell Kay Cornwe 11 Joseph Denig Nancy Calano Recol1'lJ1endations Re: Site Plan No. 82-90' John Hughes Dear Chairperson: The Committee has found the exterior plans for this professional office very accessible. Given the fact that this office will be used for physical therapy. they may want to consider additional handicapped parking spaces. Respectfully submitted, 7?a/ÿJ~,~ ¿~~'¿~'Y1--t:~ ~ýL- ~/fl-~ /-/ "IßJlv_t;ce~Ü!-i'J {h->vr~ ,-i;.¿; cc: Stephen Borgos, Town Supervisor Lee York, Senior Planner Dave Hatin, Code Enforcement Admin. Planning Board Committee .~_._._._~-. .."- POST OFFICE OX 838 21 BAY TREET GLEN FALLS N 12801 FAX 518.7 3·4146 518.7 3-4141 I I I I I I I I I~ ~ ......,/ November 20. 1990 RFA #89-5000.501 RC 89 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Hughes Subdivision, Subdivision 1-1989 Amended Subdivision Plan Dear Mrs. York: . We have reviewed the amended subdivision plan, dated 11/7/90, and have the following engineering comments: 1. The stormwater retention storage· provided in the southwest corner of lot 6 is deficient at the design elevation of 320.25. The Storage required is 6336 cf. The functional relationship of the retention basin to flood levels of the receiving stream up to 50 year events should be coordinated with the stormwater retention basin design. 2. "C" value computations should be adjusted as follows: a. The total area of lot 8 is mistakenly used as lawn area. The ca 1 cul at ions shoul d be adjusted to account for the correct areas of pervious and impervious surfaces. b. Lot 1. contributes more than 1/2 of its drainage area to subarea 1 based on existing contours. The calculation should be adjusted to reflect this unless site grading will modify this condition. . 3. Subdivision Regulation VIILL6.f. requires easements for retention/detention basins. The regulation applies to stormwater management systems that include more than one lot sharing common stormwater management facilities. Lot group 5,6,7, and 8, and lot group 3 and 4 of this subdivision share cemmon stormwater management detention basins. GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA. NH ~ Town of Queensbury Page 2 November 20, 1~0 RFA #89-5000.501 RC 89 , -- 4. The original stormwater management concepts of the original subdivision project remain appropriate for the amended subdivi- sion. Adjustment to the stormwater management design is necessary to address comments 1 and 2. As a condition of approval of the amended subdivision, the Board may wish t. require the applicant to submit for review a revised plat with a revised substation stormwater management drawing to address comments 1 through 3. Also as a condition of approval the Board should stipulate that all subdivision stormwater management facilities be in place prior to further site construction activities. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~\~~ ¡}. ,w,,,,A Thomas M. Ya~ch. P.E. Managing pro~a: Engineer TMY/cam cc: Planning Board Members - ----.- - ... ~1 - --- ..- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI--H.g Department -NOTE TO FILE- I Mrs. ~e A. York, SelÚor Planner Mr. J hn S. Goralski, Planner Mr. St G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 20, 1990 John Goralski By: SubdiY.Ïlliœal Sketch. _ PreUmiDary. :x::: Site Plan Reriew - Petition for a CbaDge of ZoDe - Freshwater WetJaDda Permit FiDal . ApplicaJ Number: ApplicaDt'~ Namel MeetiDg D tel Site Plan Review No. 83-90 Glens Falls Country Club November 20, 1990 . ............................................................... I have reviewed the project and have the following comments: I) Both the cart storage building and snack bar are significantly set back from the property line. There will be no visual impact to the neighbors. 2) The traffic circulation patterns are basically unchanged. There is a discrepancy between the note near the cart path which states max slope 5% and the proposed contours which are 16% to 20%. 3) The Board should consider the increase in retail space with regard to parking. If the Pro-Shop is not open to the public then this is not an issue. 4) There are currently no fire hydrants on the site. I recommend that either a hydrant be installed near the buildings, the new structures be sprinklered, or both. If . cooking facilities are proposed for the snack bar, a fire suppressor system should be installed. 5) The 16% to 20% slope indicated by the proposed contour lines is severe. Given that this is a Critical Environmental Area the slopes near Round Pond should be less severe. JG/1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -...---_.~ CLDUGH.HARBCUR & ASSOCIATES eNGINee~S & PLANNERS ALBANY & ROCHESTER, NEW YORK -ROCKY HILL, CONNECTICUT ~-- ",.., \.,..,,,~ /\; . .'1 ." -- P RT R ASSOCIATES W'LL'AM A, HARBOUR, P,E. RICHARD B, OVEE, P.E. LARRY V, FAI CH'LD. P,E. THOMAS L. H SNOR. P,E. JEFFREY R, HO T. P.E,. C.P,G, WILLIAM S, LUC RELLI. P,L.$, RAYMOND J, RU ANOWSKI. P.E, JAMES 0, RAN. PE. r ! . r j L :- )....,~ ~,J ~:' 'i... U' l'lol/ember 5, ,............. CHAR LES L. BURNS, P E. ~aw~ PETER M CONWAY, L,A. ) I WAYNE L DEYETTE. P L,$, ~ PETE" FAITH. P E " JOHN M KRUEGLER P E 199~ 'NOV - 61990 illt,~:,.,~~: '~~;;'::::'::' PARTNER E ERIT RONALO J, CL UGH. PE. 'LANNING. ZONIN' "EPARTMENT SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 83 -" q ù "AYMONO L "UOOLPH JR" PE, SHAWN H VELTMAN. PE, OIR PRO!,OEVELOP, RAYMONO J. K'NLEY. JR, Mrs. lee ork, Senior Planner Town of Q eensbury 531 Bay R ad Queensbur , New York 12804-9725 SERVICE GROUP MANAGER OAVIOO,KELLY RE: GLEN FALLS COUNTRY CLUB EXPANSION SITE PlAN REVIEW CHA IL~: 1601.01.01 Dear Mrs. York: Pursuant 0 your request, we have rev'j ewed the en9i neeri n9 aspects of the above mentioned project prepared by Rist Frost Associates, P.C., dated September 24, 1990 and ave the following comments: New Cart 1. The proposed location and details for the relocation of the ~xisting 4 inch waterline should be shown on the plans. 2. The plans indicate that a maximum slope of 5% will be maintained on the west side of the building. The proposed contours, however. show a 20% slope. This appears to be excessive especially on the cart path. As such, the plans should be revised to reflect the 5% maximum slope requirement. 3. Due 0 the increase in retail space, the number of parking spaces should be evalu ted to determine parking adequacy according to Section 7.072 Off- Stree Parking Schedule of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. 4. The lan should indicate what, if any, provisions are proposed for handi apped access to the proposed second floor addition to the Pro Shop. 5. Const uction "details for the repair of the cart path pavement should be shown on the plans. 6. Accor and 0 shown mater trans ing to Queensbury Planning Board Checklist Item P; location of fire her emergency zones, including the location of fire hydrants should be Also, a Material Safety Data Sheet should be submitted showing what als will be stored in the cart storage building (i.e., oil, gasoline. ormers) . III WINNERS CIRCLE-P.O, BOX 5269 -ALBANY, NEW YORK 12205 - 5269 Tel: 518-453-4500 FAX: 518-458-1735 .-"-.--------- Mrs~ Lee York, Senior Planner Town of ueensbury '-' November ~ 1990 age 2 --../ 7. In light of the proximity of the proposed construction to the lake, proper con ro1 of stormwater runoff is critical to keep contaminants such as oil gasoline, etc., out of the lake. As such, we offer the following comment~ reg rding the proposed stormwater management plan: A. MASS INFLOW CURVE - While it is common practice to utilize onsite infiltration basins to mitigate increases in stormwater runoff due to development, the application illustrated in the report does not appear to conform to the limitations of the methods used. The rational method was used to compute pre and post development flows which in itself is acceptable to compare peaks. Page 2 of the report however, shows a table which computes data points to be used in a mass runoff from the proposed cart building site. We take two exceptions to this method: (1) Each point on the intensity-duration-frequency curve, i.e. each combination of duration, intensity, and recurrence interval, represents a statistically unique storm; these curves cannot be used to construct d mdSS runoff curve which represents a single event or a single event which resembles a commonly accepted rainfall distribution. (2) The rational method is an empirical equation which should not be extrapolated to compute parameters for which it was not intended. This method is intended to predict a volume of runoff. The. applicant should, therefore, submit calculations which predict the volume of runoff for the 50 and 24 year storm. B. MASS OUTFLOW CURVE - In order to predict the mass outflow from an infiltration structure, several soil parameters need to be identified through field and laboratory tests such as: hydraulic conductivity, in-situ porosity, specific gravity of soil solids, and capillary suction potential. The mass outflow of stormwater runoff through an unsaturated soil is an unsteady-state process of flow, meaning that the flow rate varies with time under a given head and as such a complex groundwater mounding analysis is required to verify that the size of the infiltration structure is adequate. In lieu of conducting this costly analysis it will be acceptable to size the infiltration basins to store enough volume (ignoring outflow) to reduce post development flows to pre development levels. Snack Bui din With Pavilion 1. The existing utility connections for the existing restrooms should be shown on he plans. In addition the plans should indicate if this building is goin to be removed or remain. 2. A pi e bedding and trenching detail for the sanitary sewer lateral should be show on the plans. 3. In he event that cooking of food will be performed in this building, a grea e trap should be installed between the building and the septic tank. In hat way, grease will be removed from the sanitary effluent so that it will not adversely affect the anaerobic operation of the septic tank. CLOUGH. HARBOUR & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS & PLANNERS -...._--~ Mrs·. Le York, Senio' "lanner Town of Queensbury -- November ..--", 1990 --'Page 3 4. A anitary sewer cleanout should be provided on the lateral outside of the buil ding. 4. The NYSDEC Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works states that it may be necessary to reduce wastewater application rates for difficult wastes such as kitchen wastewaters. The applicant should address this concern. Should Y u have any questions or comment or require anything further, please do not hesi ate to contact Peter Conway of our office. EJO: cjn 1601-C.l Very truly yours, CLOUGH, HARBOUR ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS N Ryan, cc: Joh Goralski . .._--_._~ - ---- --.... Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped November 15, 1990 r- l E ( 0 P Y '...-' .. ...u~c.Ai...1. e~!~ -- ~LANNING a ZONIN( DEPARTMENT Present: Margo Burrell Kay Cornwell Joseph Denig Nancy Ca1ano Recomnendations Re: Site Plan No. 83-90 Glens Falls Country Club Dear Chairperson: According to N.Y.S. Codes, Rules and Regulations, all new and renovated buildings must be made accessible to the disabled. Lavatories need to be made accessible for wheelchair users, with doors to open outward. Respectfully submitted, '- }/(~ (&¿a;' "U .v .:'?--ÿr-- /U~·,~/ ./1.. r J~' ~ // .,/ ¿!., r/-: , f.' ~ <0';, / í' ' -~ d {.~.£-tff L-"~_A -J_ ' .... . L. " ,_,. rc--r r j" ... _ ) / - - cc: Stephen Borgos. Town Supervisor Lee York. Senior Planner Dave Hatin, Code Enforcement Admin. Planning Board Committee ,.-._---_.~ ..-- .-- -- -- Queensbury Planning Board Querernsbury Cerntral Voluntererr Firer Co., Inc. STATION NO t. 1 FOSTER AVENUE STATION No 2, AVIATION ROAD Brian LaFlure, Chief . Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co. November 20, 1990 ,e: I ~fter ~: Glens Falls Country Club Site Plan #83-90 reviewing the above plans, a few items should be addressed. During this expansion, a hydrant near this building would be ideal, even if only on the 4" water main. Although not required, a sprinkler system is also recommended. 3. Consideration should be given to access for fire apparatus to at least three sides of this building. The Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company reserves the right to further review this project as it proceeds. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 798-9551 or 793-6401. ~ (&~ LaFlure .-.---.--<..-.- -- (): J(\\> \ '-- \) ~o ~'Y " -- '- / / \ \ \ '\ \ \ o t ~ ~ ~r ~ ~r ~ ~ ~I f I -\'~~ . I ~ I -- ~ / .... \0 '----~-~-)/ -- I -, I I I ~I "-.! S ;T e I I I ~ç ~O 'l--¡ ~" ft'-~ ~ fI1/t/llIl/: s ýùJ A D G(~fCN) FAlt~ CO~+rj C\Vb --- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY f 1 Lé .... ~- PI_ftftiftg Department -NOTE TO FILE- e A. York, Senior Planner S. Goralski, Planner G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: NoveuDer 20, 1990 By: John Goralski SubdiYiaioa: Site Plan Re'riew -1L- Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetJaDda Permit Sketch. Prelim' - mary, FiDal Petition P 11-90 Kerry Girard November 20, 1990 .... ................................................................................ The above referenced Petition actually consists of two requests. One is a requ st to create a new Senior Housing zone and the second is to change this parcel on M adowbrook Road to the Senior Housing designation. The Town of Queensbury currently has twenty-seven zones. Although there appe rs to be a need for affordable Senior Housing in the community, it does not seen necessary to create a new zone. In the case of the proposal before you the density requested by the applicant coul be achieved by zoning the property MR-S. Parking requirements and other issu s unique to Senior Houainp, should be addressed in the parking schedule, in the appr priate section of the ·Ordinance. or by variance. Creating zoning districts for ndividual uses, causes or special interests is not good planning. The Board should next consider whether it is appropriate to zone this parcel MR-S When the Cline Meadow subdivision was approved. lot 7 was created to protect the yetland ·habitat. Further~ore, several conditions and ea s'ar-ents t-lere pla.ced on the property. All of the Resource Maps in the Planninf, Department indicate mode ate to low development suitability for this site. A significant factor in support of an increased density in this area is the avai ability of the sewer system. This will eliuinate any potential for ground wate or wetland contamination from septic effluent. Page 1 ...,----- -_. -- ....-' Petition P 11-90 If the Board wishes to consider the MR-5 zoning, I would recommend the following conditions: I) All conditions of the Cline Meadow Subdivision approval be met. 2) No construction take place within 100' of the wetland boundary. 3) No parking be allowed within 100' of the wetland boundary. 4) Stormwater from the parking lot and roof area be infiltrated and not ctly discharged into the wetland. 5) If the MR-5 density is to be applied, the property must be used for Senior ing. 6) A mechanism be established to insure that the wetland be maintained as space. ~..._---_._._- , --- ~ WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MAE BITNER CHAI MAN WARREN COUNTY MUNICIPAL CENTER LAKE GEORGE, NEW YORK, 12845 TELEPHONE (S111711-M10 JOSEPH I.aROCOOE VICE CHAIRMAN I I I NOV~mber 15, 1990 __ "'U':I:õ"'-'''' ~)~ilWW1r, ,~ flOV151990 'llL ~LANNINQ . ZONIN( DEPARTMENT Ms. ee York Que nsbury Planning and Zoning Office Tow Office Building Bay @ Haviland Road Que nSbury, NY 12804 Dea Ms. York, The County Planning Board, at its November 14, 1990 meeting, deemed that the petition for r zoning, submitted by Kerry V. Girard, was incomplete. The County determined that bef re any action can be taken, the Town must forward the language that will be inco porated into the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance relative to this petition. The Cou ty also questions whether a new zone is really needed. There is a concern that with con itions attached to the project, the Town's existing MR-5 zone classification could achi ve the same results. Pie se keep this Board advised of the status of this petition. Sin erely, ¿¿/ ¿Id /1tJ/ 'i&:.!L~ Wylla Mae Bitner Ch irperson Wa ren County Planning Board WMB/sjp . .----------- , -- _ ...uc~ ~)~~r, ~ t40V151990~ PLANN/~lNr WARREN COUNTY Warren County Municipal Center Lake George. New York 12845 Telephone 518· 761·64 '0 TO: November 14. 1990 RE: Queensbury Planning & Zoning Town Office Bldg. Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 QBY P 11-90 D 'IE: Kerry V. Girard Lot 7, Cline Meadow Development tlemen/Ladies: At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14th of November 1990. the above appl1c.:1tion for a request for creation of New Senior Citizen Zone not addressed in current ordinance and a lication of that zone to parcel in question. reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: ) Approve ( ) IHsapprova1 ( ) Hodify with Conditions ( X) Return ( ) No County be prov"ided. knowing what is being Impact ents: Need language for changes to Ordinance to County can not act on application without changed. -------------------------------------------~--------------------------------- t t ls the policy of the Warren Connty PJ.anning Board to follow the pro edures of the New York St¿Jte General HunJdpal I.aw, Section 239-H. with reg~rd to ~Jnlcipal Zoning actions that are referred to and reported tl~reon. Thel following are procedur<ll requirements that must be adhered to: I.) The Warren County Planning Board shall report: lts recommendations to the referring municipal agency, accompanJed by a full st<ltement for such actions. If no action is taken within chirty (30) days or agreed upon time, the municipal agency may act without such report. 2.) If the recommendátion is for disapprotJal of the proposal. or mod if ication thereof, the municipal agency shall not. act contrary to such action except by a vote of a majority plus one of all the members thereof and after the adoption of a resolution fully setting forth the reasons for such contrary actions. 3.) Within seven (7) days after the fin<ll nction by the municipal agency having jurisdiction on the recommendations. modificntions or disapproval of a referred mé1tter, such municipality agency ",hall file a report with the Warren County Planning BO<lrd on the necessary form. OR Joseph LaRocque. Vice-Chairperson . "'...----...-- -' ÑOv 5 '90 13:05 TOWN OF QUEENS BURY 215 P02 ~ -../ AUTBORIZA110N TO ACT A AGBNTJ'OR I, l to (seller, owner) of premises located at ~ '1- CU ~ t!MJ/iò. 'c..I, umber Ic>h -}- 4. J hereby delignate .}Lj.-poJo)AroL C Hu'R.C.~ ~~, ~ as my aa nt reaarding an application for (StÑlài.l.ivn, Site Fl... R..!..1ft., ·'__¡adee) of the ~~~\ to.:)' above p misel. Deed R. er.nce Book Page Date Doe. the above parcel repre..nt owner'. entire contiguoua holdin¡.? Pl..... attach ~ CG AP'Pc...tCA \\ () U Date: hfrfð Signed: ........ ....................................................................... content tbat the pro edingl wbicb relult from the within OI"ded and tranacrib by the Town Clerk 01' hil agent aDCl e tranacribed Ih 1 coutitute the official record. of all proceecti II reg.reUDI thil app' atioD, weu e ..me may vary from the handwrittn tary of the Planning Board or Zcmiq Board minute. u to luch mconailtenci.. lhall be PLEASE READ AND SI AppUc t'l Sipatun Datel ~ .----- , . - ~ -- ... '! ... . ~ , ... I verts .> .fiL. PH e " g . c . - .", '¥6ií-( Ij. G.'fAr() ~. 1þs1 - -- -.-' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI.nn;~g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J OM S. Goralski, Planner Mr. St G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Novenber 19. 1990 Stuart G. Baker By: ........... ................................................................................ x SubdiYisioa: Sketch. -1L. Pre1imiDary, Site Plan Rmew - == Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater Wet1aDdø Permit Final Subdivision No. 15-1990 Ed~ar H. Eggleston. Jr. November 20 .1990 T e applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision of a ± .83 acre parcel. No new development is proposed on Lots A and B. Lot C is to be conveyed to the ad acent property owner, Joseph Fuller. T e Long EAF indicates subdiv'sion. I recommend prelim'nary approval. no environmental the Board issue impacts associated with this a negative declaration and SB/pw - -----.-.-.-..- ---- - ~ - - , TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FilE (Opy PI=-nning Department "NOTE TO FILE" Mrs. ee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J hn S. Goralski, Planner Mr. St art G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 20, 1990 By: Lee A. York SubdiYisioa: Sketch. X Site Plan Reriew - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetJanda Permit Pre1imiDary. FiDal Site Plan Review No. 84-90 Charles Freihofer. III November 20. 1990 ................................................................................... stated proposal is to construct a U-shaped crib dock in order to create a out over the dock system. The dock will be ~ 624 square feet. \ In the past the Board has expressed concern about the expansion of decks out over the water. These were usually situations where there was an existing dock over which an open sided boathouse was proposed. The deck on the top was simply an acce sory and aesthetic use. What appears to be happening is that these "boa houses" are now being constructed as a way to provide for the deck which exte ds up to 40 feet in to the lake. This application is an illustrative of this. The applicat ion is bas ically to allm.¡ extending a sun deck. The applicant currtntlY has a dock with a deck. The proposal is to construct another dock with a deck and connect the two. ~'-J~'" - -:;.~. The BoardJ;,maYkwant to consider requesting that the Town Board modify the Zoni g Ordinanc.~if1to>address your concerns about the overexpansion along the sh or 1 ine witb~d.c~..,>" " ~ {',;;·;·<-_·<·_::':~,~f~~~0r't~~:~:>' X reviewed~'this application with regard to Section 5.070: 1) Location of buildin~s are not a concern. The Board may want to review the appropriateness of connecting the two decks and what the total impact will be. 2) Vehicular traffic is not a concern. 3) Off Street parkinr, is not a prohlem. Pw~e I - ..._-~~-_...- -- l ....---.-- .~..-' ..-,..---._..... ...-.'.....----,,'.. --- ~ Site Plan No. 84-90 Charles Freihofer, III 4) Pedestrian access is not a problem. 5) Stormwater drainage is not a problem. 6) Water supply and sewage disposal is not a problem. n Buffering is not necessary but impacts of the proposed development the new and existing structure. the Board should consider the visual as well as, the total impact created by I 8) Fire access is not an issue. I I 9) The potential for erosion during and after construction should be reviewed. LA~/PW I ¡ I I Page 2 ~7,' ~~ - /:? - ~ .---. , "c . I' ".:;¡' Co'" ',,---,,"c 4> " ". ~ ~t,~r.o~-. L~.&s '<::.<.,4 gr ~ ?, ~¥¿"'" -<~ (.'''AL' 5.: 0 ¿-, ~ ~p-r; /¡/i.'/f" .--. . Co·.;' ,.-- -/ FflCM TlCCf'¡DERCG,\ '" :::. 1 I 1 _I ~i ~I ':! CI :::j ~ ! ;1 .. -, I c.., ~i ~ ~ ~ ?; ~ ~ g wt o 1 I I APPROXIMAIE SCALE - --.-.-, I " . HUDSON'¡ FALLS! I I .-.-.- MILES Copyright 1976 J. D. F¡tk cf/1¥LFê5 r 'I r ~-fL e. I he> ¡--e{' / In ". .