Loading...
1990-12-04 SP -- QUEENSBURY PLANIIING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 4TH. 1990 INDEX Site Plan No. 17-90 J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider Restaurant 1. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. "'-" QUEENSBURY PLANIIING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 4TH, 1990 6:45 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER. ACTING CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES MARTI N JAMES HAGAN EDWARD LAPOINT NICHOLAS CAIMANO MEMBERS ABSENT CONRAD KUPILLAS DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STEIIOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 17-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT WITH STORAGE OF DRY GOODS, BUSINESS RECORDS ON SECOND STORY PORTION. FIRST STORY OF EXISTING RESTAURANT TO BE RENOVATED. SLEEPING QUARTERS TO REMAIN AS IS ON SECOND STORY. (WARREN coum PLANIIING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-2 LOT SIZE: 0.98 ACRES SECTION 9.010 MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. CARTIER-This is a very informal meeting. Our normal procedures kind of take a back seat, here. There is going to be no vote taken and we're here strictly to resolve what seem to be remaining issues, with regard to the Docksider. Staff has asked to address us. first, on this issue. DAVE HATIN MR. HATIN-I just want to try to, I guess, clarify one issue that the Board was wrestling with. the other night and. if you still have questions. the Town Attorney is here, I think will back me up on this statement. The discussion as to whether the Docksider is considered a restaurant or a tavern or both. for the Board's information, it is considered a restaurant. That decision lies solely with me. This Board cannot determine that nor question that anymore. A decision was made. back on August 29. 1990. to the Board. You had 30 days from that date to appeal it. It was appealed. by Mrs. Popowski and the Zoning Board ruled in our favor. Therefore, it's a dead issue. You, whether you agree with it or not. have to consider that a restaurant. and that's where that has to lie and you are stuck with that decision. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Fine. I don't have any questions. MR. HAGAN-However, we are free to discuss the number of people that the bar does draw. MR. HATIN-You can discuss it, but, as far as calculating the seating, it is based on a restaurant, not a tavern. MR. CARTIER-We base our seating on the square footage of what is called the restaurant, which includes the bar? MR. HATIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Karla. did you have anything that you wanted to add, or not? MS. CORPUS-I guess I would prefer to do it, if the questions came up, and you had some for me. the way we usually do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think it might be worth our while to take a few minutes sort of go back to square one on this thing. because there's been so many numbers that have been floating around, here. just to get us, so that we're all operating on the same wavelength, and then we can pick it up from there, I think. and if the Board. any member of the Board cares to jump in, at any time. feel free. and then we'll open it to the floor, I guess. We have, at present, an item or building on .98 acres. It is a WR-1A Zone. It's present use encompasses a restaurant. which includes a bar, an apartment, eight boat docks, on three hundred feet of property, a boat launch. I also assume that there is outdoor use, use of some of the outdoor property for picnics, barbecues. that sort of thing. 1 ..-' MR. CAIMANO-There has been. MR. CARTIER-There has been, in the past. Essentially, what we are being asked to do. here. is to agree, and anybody feel free to jump in here and correct me, if I misspeak, what we're being asked to do. here, is to agree to an expansion of this property, where, in fact, there are already a number of uses. The expansion, essentially, being expanded kitchen space. expanded storage space. and I think the issue seems to be the deck and what revolves out of that concern about the deck is the parking. I think the sewage system has been more than adequately addressed. StonJIWater management has been adequately addressed, but it seems what the issue reduces down to is the deck and whether or not we're going to require that parking be provided. In the last go around, the applicant included dock parking, that is, parking at the dock and using the dock and using the docks to meet .!Q!!!!. of the parking requirements. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. I think the Board was uncomfortable, to say the least. with that idea. Just to be sure that we are on firm ground with that, I did check, sometime last week, with the Zoning Administrator and I talked to Karla about it, in that. whether or not dock space could be counted as part of the parking. meeting the parking requirements. and the answer was a very firm, no, that we have a parking schedule. and that needs to be followed, and the dock space does not constitute vehicular parking. in the sense that the applicant is attempting to include that. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Cartier. am I free to interrupt? MR. CARTIER-Sure. MR. MARTIN-I just want to. before this is considered going off on a tangent. Karla, what was the basis for this 30 day limitation. on appealing the issue of two uses present? MS. CORPUS-Under Article 78. to appeal an administrative decision, the appealant has 30 days. from the date that decision is filed, and made of record. and that 30 days runs from August 29th. 1990. MR. O'CONNOR-It's also specifically provided for in Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. I think Article 78 is if you're going to appeal to a court. MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-I think what Mr. Martin is talking about is appealing it to the ZBA. MR. MARTIN-Yes. What was the specific wording of the appeal. again. to the Zoning Administrator? MR. CARTIER-You mean, Mrs. Popowski's? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I have that, if you want it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. whoever. MR. CARTIER-I have it, somewhere. MR. CARTIER-Mike, maybe, before you speak, I think it might be helpful. because I really don't want to drag this out into a very lengthy meeting, is to give the Board members a chance to express whatever they care to express, on this issue and then maybe you could address all of them in a -group. instead of. I think. individually. us talking and then having you responding to us, individually. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My reason for speaking. or suggesting that I speak. at this point. is that I think you're under, not. maybe, a misconception. but you're coming at the idea of deck parking and dock parking. a little different than what I am, and I just want to put the thought forward, and maybe it would be general in my comment, but, here. I look upon something, I look upon Paul's application from two points of view. One, I'm representing him and, obviously. I'm trying to get him a permit to do what he wishes to do, but, when I took on this, and I think some comment has even been made. I took it on, in part, and with the reservation that I would present what I thought, in good conscience. would not have a negative impact upon Glen Lake, because I've taken a very strong position. with regard to other applications. that might or might not effect the Lake. MR. CARTIER-But, ultimately, Mike, that's this Board's decision to make. and not yours. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, but I just want to say that, because we've got an existing business, with multi uses on the property. We're not talking about introducing a new business, or a new impact in a negative manner. MR. CARTIER-I don't know that I would agree with that, but go ahead. 2 -..../ MR. O'CONNOR-I think we've been fortunate. in the past few years, in having Paul the operator. If we had some other person come in, it could be completely different, if they're using the property to the extent that it, apparently, is permissible to use it, now. I think the Board, the Town. the Lake is fortunate, in that Paul has come forward and said, I'm willing to restrict my present rights, if I can expand the building. Basically, what we've talked about is some different impacts. If you talk about the traffic. he has offered to put in curved entrances, to have a better safety factor, getting in and out of the premises. If you talk about site drainage, he's talking about a positive, on site drainage system. He's talking about drywells for off site flow that comes on to the site. He's talking about cutting down the docks that he presently has, so that each of them is not in excess of 40 feet. There are a couple of them that are there, in excess of 40 feet, now. He's talking about reducing the seasonal rentals. and I think this bears a little parking and the argument of parking. In the past year, he's had six seasonal rentals. and, before that, he's had more. He's had up to nine or ten. A seasonal rental represents $350 to him. without a lot of concern or care. For him to turn that parking spot or that dock space into!. space that's usable for the restaurant, what he's telling you is that he probably will have 30 trips from that dock or parties from that dock to equal what he's going to be getting from the person who simply rents the spot and puts his boat on the Lake, but he is cutting that down. From an impact point of view, I think that's a great improvement on the Lake. He is also talking about cutting down or not allowing any jet skis of any nature, based on an approval that this Board would give him. He's tal king about limiting the launch ramp use, so that there's going to be less ~ use. This is the only commercial launch on that Lake. Noise, John Goralski made a suggestion, the other night, would he limit seating on the outside deck. I didn't think that Paul would, because I thought. as a businessman. he has gone the full mile. He would be willing to enter a stipulation that there be no new parties seated. after 10 pm. Considering the normal time that they'd be in, they'd be off the deck, most likely, sooner than they are, presently. He has gone. I think, more than the mile, trying to accommodate others with his proposal. Basically, what you're looking at is a decision to say that you want to include parking for the launch ramp and parking for the deck. I think we clearly qualify for parking for the other areas. If we're not using. and we've given you a bunch of sketches and whatever. The winter time, if you use the Parking Ordinance, and you don't consider that there's any launching or seasonal rentals or outside use of the deck, under any determination of the Ordinance. you're looking at 41 spots. We've got 45 spots, at 10 foot wide. in the parking lot. So. I think you're. basically. talking about summer time use. when you may have a peak requirement greater than the 41 spots. If you talk about when the deck's open, in the summer time, you're talking about a building of 3.082 square feet. That's 31 spots. or the equivalent of it. in seats, would be 124. We don't have 124 seats. internal. I think we only have, at that point. 42 seats. internal, plus the 19 at the bar, plus the two in the waiting area, by the fireplace. So, you're going to talk about a building requirement of 31 seats, with Section C closed. You're still talking about three employees. or six employees, three spots for that. You're talking about an apartment or dwelling use. two spots for that, and the seasonal dockage. as we've got it set up, too. You're talking a total requirement of 38 spots, before you get to the deck and before you get to boat 1 aunch use. Now, I don't know if you agree with me on that. or not. I would think that one way that we look at this is try and do it as a building block type system and see where we agree and where we don't agree. MR. CARTIER-Alright, well. let me pick up on things that you've said. I agree with you that we are fortunate that Mr. Barton is the owner. If this were a popularity contest. Mr. Barton would be able to build a five star hotel on his one acre property. but it's not. We have to look at this from a long term situation, and Mr. Barton mayor may not always be the owner, and we have to consider that. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we're suggesting stipulations that you could enforce. Peter. MR. CARTIER-Well, when you start putting limits and saying. we're going to close Dining room C, or we're not going to use the deck in the winter time. or whatever, when you begin to impose those kinds of limits on the use of the property, what you're doing, as far as I'm concerned. is you're passing the buck on to somebody who has to enforce that. other than Mr. Barton. MR. MARTIN-And the other problem I have with that, and I think this was a misconception of some of the members in the audience, of the public, of last week. is that we are not just deciding on this restaurant. in regards to Paul Barton being the proprietor and owner and that's fine. We're not judging his character or anything like that. We, as a Planning Board. have to look at the use of that structure, by Paul Barton, and the owner after that and the owner after that. We're looking, simply, at that structure, and who's to say what limitations Paul Barton agrees to is fine, but what about the owner, or if he sells it. three years from now, or something else happens where he's not the owner. We have to look at the use of that property as a structure, and not as it relates to what one individual's willing to agree to. MR. CARTIER-Okay. and, with regard to Mr. Barton agreeing to limit use on have to recognize that there is, in fact, an incredible amount of use on recognizing that things are grandfathered and these are preexisting uses. in the back of my mind the fact that if somebody came in, today. starting piece of property and listed all of these uses. that this application would the property. sti 11. we that property. already, I can't help but keep from scratch with thi s not get this far. So. 3 --- we have a considerable amount of use, here, on the property, already. and it's not as if we are denying Mr. Barton the ability to carryon a business. here. He can still carryon a successful business. Anybody else? MR. HAGAN-Yes. I would like a comment on one point. In the beginning of your dissertation, Mr. O'Connor, you mentioned conscience. and that's the thing that troubles me. I have a lot of qualms and my conscience bothers me, on this project, because I think of places, in past years, the Cotton Club, in Boston that had a disaster. many people were killed. I've been up to a restaurant that we can compare the Docksider Restaurant to. and that is the Shoreline Restaurant. When there was a meeting. the meeting finished. They went to the boat. I'm trying to compare all the things that this restaurant has, as the Docksider has. and I was in attendance that afternoon, and when I went out to get into my car to move it, I, literally, had to wait 25 minutes before all the other cars moved, because they not only took up the parking spaces, they jammed the lanes, the driveways. nobody could move. If there had ever been a fire, it would have been a complete disaster. Nobody could have gotten in to help out. Now. last week, I asked you about the seating capacity. in reference to the parking spaces, and I asked, why do we want to expand the seating capacity, when. previously, the parking spaces that were there couldn't take care of the present seating, because all the cars parked out on the Glen Lake Road. Now. the Town has made that off limits, no parking. Now. if I'm attending there, at a banquet, or a wedding reception. and I drive into that parking lot and all the spaces are full. where do you think I'm going to park? I'm going to jam the lanes, so is anybody else. and that's the part that bothers me. Why expand the seating capacity when the present parking can't take care of the present seating. Now, I agree that all the other things are pluses, the sewage, all the restrictions the owner is putting on the place. However. if I were to walk into that establishment. when the dock was filled, and the maitrede. or whomever. said that he didn't have anymore seating capacity, and I looked in a section of the restaurant. with empty tables. I can't conceive. most proprietors. not allowing those tables to be used, and when you say, when the deck is filled, you're going to close off part of the dining room, I just wonder who is going to enforce that, again. as Jim said. If a new owner's in there. he isn't going to have the same conscience as the present owner. or possibly not, and he may just take advantage of all the capacity that he has and these are the things that bother me. I agree that he may need a larger kitchen. He may need more storage, granted, give it to him. but why does he have to expand the seating when the present parking does not facilitate the present seating? (END OF FIRST DISK) 4 -- '- MR. CAIMANO-I have a minor question. really. in regards to this. You talk about six employees and three spots. I have a tough time with six employees running that place. when I consider the kitchen help. the bar help, and the wait help. MR. O'CONNOR-That's more than what there presently is there. now. That's two more than what you have, per shift, presently. MR. CAIMANO-Fifty six people seating and you only have six people in the entire place? MR. O'CONNOR-Presently, that's what we have. and Mr. Barton is an employee. but Mr. Barton, and we presume whoever is in his position of ownership. will be charged because his parking spot is part of the dwelling unit. So, you may have one extra fluff in there. as far as employees go, but that's presently what we presently have, and that's what we propose. I have a problem. I guess. with some, and not necessarily total attitude. and I'm trying to stay away from that. but you either have a complete lack of faith of the enforcement arm of the Town, enforcing restrictions that you put upon applications, or some misunderstanding of motivation of business people. MR. CARTIER-I don't think either one of those is accurate. In terms of enforcement, what I'm saying is, we're adding an additional burden. By going along with this application, we are imposing an additional burden on the enforcement process that does not always get enforced. That is not to criticize the enforcement arm of this Town. This is just to indicate that there are time limits, in terms of the kinds of things that they can do. in any given time. So, I don't think it's a lack of faith in the enforcement process. MR. O'CONNOR-My comment back is that we do have an existing situation. We have the opportunity. I think, to improve it, improve it greatly, and I think, from a planning concept, that's a very sound proposal. Do you have specifics? Can you accept the fact that we would use either the deck or Section C, exclusively, and have it enforced the same as, the back of the wall. here, and on the wall of every other building and even in the wall in our present restaurant. with a maximum occupancy? MR. CARTIER-Speaking for myself. no, because I don't know that that specifically addressed parking. by closing down a section of a restaurant and not using it. I'm not sure that that really. in fact. addresses parking, particularly when we have parking spilling off property, now. The other thing has to do with the deck. I can see occasions, in the winter time, when that deck might be used. A nice. warm, sunny January day. that would be a wonderful place to sit out there and have a party. on a good warm day. So. I hate to lock the applicant into closing off sections. MR. O'CONNOR-What we're trying to design, though. Mr. Cartier, is the parking, I think the maximum parking at site is required when the deck is in use. So, whether or not the deck was open, occasionally, during the winter, really wouldn't be of great importance if the design was so that it would accommodate the deck. during the summer. I'm not trying to argue the fact that the deck, probably, is principally, used for maybe 30. 40 days during the course of the whole year. I acknowledge the fact that you've got to design for the maximum. MR. CARTIER-The rub appears to be what you consider to be improvement and what this Board considers improvement. MS. CORPUS-I wondered if maybe I could jump in for a second and perhaps save some discussion on the deck. Paul and Dave. Pat and I had a meeting, regarding this issue of the deck and. after reviewing the situation and doing our legal background work on it. basically. our legal conclusion, as far as the use of the deck. is that that is part of the restaurant use. It happens to be, in this case, a loop hole that works in favor of Mr. Barton, in that, it needn't be calculated as a separate use. It is part of the restaurant use. That use is calculated the way that Mrs. Collard said, which is "the sum of the horizontal area within the exterior walls of the several floors of the building". MR. CARTIER-It sounds to me what has happened is that the Legal Department has made an interpretation of the Ordinance that I assume is in the hands of the Zoning Board. that's what I'm hearing. It sounds, correct me if I'm wrong. the Legal Department has determined that the deck is part of the restaurant. MS. CORPUS-No. We haven't made that determination. There is a determination that, within the Ordinance, that parking is calculated per individual uses. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. CORPUS-The use of the restaurant has been determined. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MS. CORPUS-There is no use of deck listed in, it is not a separate thing. It is part of a restaurant. MR. CARTIER-So. therefore, but the square footage of that deck needs to be provi ded for, in terms of seating and parking. is that correct? 5 "'--'" MS. CORPUS-No, in other words, it can't be, because of the way you calculate for parking purposes. MR. MARTIN-The way for parking in a restaurant is per 100 square feet of floor area. MS. CORPUS-"Floor area for the purposes of computing parking requirements shall be the sum of the horizontal area within the exterior walls of the several floors of a building". MR. CAIMANO-You mean you're going to leave the dock out because of that? MS. CORPUS-The dock? MR. CAIMANO-I mean, the deck. MS. CORPUS-I'm not doing that. 1'm just reading the Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but you can also read the Ordinance like I brought through at several meetings. you can also read through the Ordinance to tie the deck in, due to the fact that the definition of Gross Floor Area, an accessory use. an accessory structure. MS. CORPUS-Well. I'm just taking what Mrs. Collard has already determined in her letter of August 29th. MR. CARTIER-Where is that? That's what I'm looking for. MR. HATIN-If you'd like a copy, I have it right here. MR. CARTIER-What I'm looking for is the motion by the Zoning Board. MR. MARTIN-I have it, right here. That's the other thing, the Zoning Board never. specifically. made a motion. as to the two uses. The motion of the Zoning Board. and this is verbatim, "Motion on Notice of Appeal No. 1-90 Susan C. Popowski That the Zoning Administrator determined the Zoning Ordinance properly when referring to Section 7.071 Off Street Parking Design, Letter B, Floor Area for the purpose of computing parking requirements shall be the sum of the horizontal within the exterior walls of the several floors of a building, excluding the basement. cellar, and attic area, used primarily for storage or service. Also, that the outside deck is not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance, as it pertains to the Parking Schedule Computation". That motion makes no reference to the issue of two uses. They didn't give an interpretation. MS. CORPUS-They didn't. They let whatever the Zoning Administrator said stand. MR. CAIMANO-It doesn't say that. MS. CORPUS-She said, therefore. for parking purposes.... MR. CAIMANO-Hold it. It doesn't say that. MR. MARTIN-The motion doesn't say that. MR. CAIMANO-It doesn't say, let it stand. MR. MARTIN-After the motion. there's some discussion of the presence of two uses, but no motion was made. in regards to that. It was just left. MR. O'CONNOR-My point is. I tried to get them to make that interpretation. They said that it was not part of Mrs. Popowski's appeal and. therefore, they were not going to make a determination on that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Therefore. it's still a moot point. MR. MARTIN-It's still an open issue, then. MS. CORPUS-No. it's a moot point, in that. the Zoning Administrator's letter was issued on August 29th, 1990. The time for appeal has past. MR. CAIMANO-Here's what I'm a little bit concerned about. I'm concerned that this man. here. has, for months, made an issue of this. I'm concerned that a time frame has gone by that no one has bothered to keep us informed about. I'm still thinking that we can appeal this thing, based upon what Tom has been talking about. I'm a little concerned that all of this thing has gone on and we don't know about it. That's what I'm concerned about. I don't see anything in this motion that says that we can't argue this point, and go back and appeal Mrs. Collard's determination. 6 '-- '-.-/ MR. MARTIN-And. also, I'm not making a motion for an appeal. I'm making a motion for an interpretation. MR. HATIN- The Board cannot interpret. The Board can only rule on an appeal. They cannot just give an interpretation. There has to be. a ruling by the Zoning Administrator. it has to be appealed. that's the only way they can rule. MR. CARTIER-Alright. Let me see if I can finish this off because. I'm not sure I'm understanding something, here. with regard to the deck. In Article 7.071, it does say. for uses not specified in Section 7.072. the Planning Board may establish parking requirements consistent with those specified in Section 7.072. It has been my assumption. and I assume for the rest of the Board, that that is the authority for requiring parking to be provided for the deck space. whether or not it's included in the restaurant. MS. CORPUS-The use of the deck as restaurant seating. as part of the restaurant, that's what it's used for. Am I correct, Mr. O'Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MS. CORPUS-That is defined in the Ordinance. Restaurant. MR. O'CONNOR-And it was addressed in Mrs. Collard's August letter. MR. CARTIER-I don't agree with that. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not necessarily asking whether you agree, I guess, Mr. Cartier, but I think it's correct to say. factually. it was addressed in Mrs. Collard's letter. She specifically made a statement with regard to it. MR. CARTIER-But I'm reading the motion, with regard to the motion made by the Board. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Cartier, I understand that, but her letter is clear. It says. therefore. the outside deck is not considered in computing the number of parking spaces. MR. CARTIER-As part of the restaurant. MS. CORPUS-Correct. That has to stand, in and of itself, at the moment. because the appeal time has past. Of course, this also works in Mr. O'Connor's disfavor. also. in that. when Mrs. Collard determined that docks cannot be used as parking spaces, because they're not included in our definition of parking spaces. which is for automobiles. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't have a determination, to that effect, from her. MS. CORPUS-I have one, and I don't know where it went to. MR. CARTIER-No. that was, strictly. an informal discussion I had with her, sometime last week. That is not a formal... MS. CORPUS-I have something in writing. So, I wasn't sure where it had come from. MR. O'CONNOR-When is that dated? MS. CORPUS-December 3rd. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. CARTIER-You have something in writing from Pat? MS. CORPUS-From Mrs. Collard, yes. MR. CARTIER-Have we gotten that? MS. CORPUS-I don't know. MR. CARTIER-Could you read that to us. MR. GORALSKI-lilt is my determination that dock slips may not be designated as parking spaces. Section 7.071 Off Street Parking Design. and Section 7.072 Off Street Parking Schedule are referred to parking of automobiles. not boats. Patricia Collard. and it's dated December 3rd, 1990. MR. CARTIER-Well, with regard to this deck issue, that totally throws me, now. because I still disagree wi th that. 7 '- --' MS. CORPUS-Well, the Board can do that and. obviously, if Mr. O'Connor's willing to take that into consideration, on the deck, that's his prerogative. also. He seems to be moving in that direction. MR. CAIMANO-I think we go back. though, to Mr. Hagan's question. which is a very simple question, and I didn't hear Mike or anybody else answer it, yet. Mrs. Collard and Mr. Hatin. and everybody else not withstanding, the question is. why should there be an allowing of increased seating in a place where the parking. currently. is inadequate. and I haven't heard how you're going to mitigate that. MR. 0 'CONNOR-My answer to that, Mr. Caimano, is that we're not increasing the seating. Presently, my calculations, and I gave you a sheet on it. We're talking 115 seats. You're talking 56 dining. 15 at the bar. and 44 on the deck. With my proposal. with the deck closed. you're talking a total of 85 seats. Of those 85 seats, you're talking 66 dining. What we're going to do is increase the dining, in the winter months, bad weather months, by te~. We're increasing the bar, by one and we've got three in a waiting area. Now, that's a new category. It's not even in the old category. It's by the fireplace. Hopefully, that will be for parties that are waiting to get to a table or somebody waiting to get to a table, cocktail area or whatever you want to call it. Total, at that point. is 85 seats. compared to the permitted 115, right now, and I guess. I may have to correct that, based upon the fact that the inside space is limited to 70. and I've got 71 in those calculations, but this is what we've been carrying through all the application, at this point. There is no limitation. right now. on the deck space, that I'm aware of. The deck is in existence. It was not given with a set number of seats that are on there. So, we're being conservative, if we wanted to. by telling you what we're telling you. Again, I'm trying to say something, that we've got an existing use. from a planning concept, and what Karla has told you, tonight. is a surprise to me. I was not aware that they have had the meeting, they have taken the positions that they have taken. If they have taken those positions. I step back and say, you've got 3577 square feet of building. It's one parking spot per 100. We've got X number of employees, X number of dwelling units, and we qualify, but I'm still trying to get into the planning concept. What is going to be good for the neighborhood. What is going to be good for the Lake. What is going to be good for the community. To get off your question, in the summer time, we're talking about 105 seats. as opposed to the UO, right now. Now. that's a mitigation. to some degree, if there is a problem, right now. What Paul has indicated is that, really, what limits the. we're trying to change the focus, here, and change it to a restaurant. a year round restaurant. You heard the neighbors. You heard the people on the Lake say that it's part of the Lake Community. This isn't something that draws people from Troy or Schenectady. It's the people on the Lake that want to go out for a dinner, and that's who he's trying to cater to. As the residences on the Lake become more year round, he would like to be able to do this. in the winter time. Right now, if you go there, the front part of the building has got some made up windows. It's cold. It really doesn't work well. Even some of the storage is not heated, that he presently has. You're talking either 85 seats or 105 seats. and Paul is willing to put whatever stipulation is required to give you and give the Town the authority to enforce that. MR. HAGAN-How would you accept the proposal that the parking be restricted to 45 automobiles, only. and that the establishment be subject to some penalty. if more than 45 cars occupy the parking spaces? Because you keep saying you have enough parking spaces, and I'm saying, yes, if all you're going to do is fill 45 parking spaces. I really am not concerned about how many people are in there. because I don't see how we can restrict that. MR. O'CONNOR-Then, if we can squeeze more than 45 on to the lot, why would you be concerned and penalize us? MR. HAGAN-Well. you claim you're accommodating 45 parking spaces, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Because that's the square footage requirements that we have. MR. HAGAN-Alright. and I'm saying that you ought to be able to live with those 45 parking spaces. and that's the part that doubt. I don't think you ~ live with 45 parking spaces. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. actual need is. think the 45 spaces, at 10 foot, are. probably. over planning, for what your MR. CARTIER-Okay. but that's what the Ordinance says. We're not going to debate the Ordinance. here. MR. HAGAN-Get back to my question. Would you accept that restriction. of 45 cars being on the entire lot, at one time. no more than 45 cars? MR. CARTIER-I don't know that that's even going to do it, because, looking at this issue. we're talking about a need for. how many, 57? MR. MARTIN-I think that the closest correct calculation, or accurate calculation. that I've seen is the one that we had on our Site Plan that was submitted for the last meeting, where they calculated, based on square footage. and the requirements for employees. dwelling unit, marina. dock. and boat launch. 62 spaces. 8 "-' ---- MR. CARTIER-Are required. MR. MARTIN-Are required. and the Ordinance clearly says, whatever requirement is greater, when you're calculating on seats or square footage. MR. O'CONNOR-That included nine spots for the deck. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And it included Section C. which is what we're proposing to be closed, which is another five spots. So. that is 14 spots difference. as far as.... MR. MARTIN-And you're method of meeting that 62 space requirement. previously. was. 45 on the lot and 17 at the dock and boat slips. MR. O'CONNOR-Which we still have. MR. MARTIN-So. that 62 is. to date, the most accurate that I've seen. MR. O'CONNOR-I still never got into my full discussion and we've got a list of, like, 35 families that come, regularly, on Friday and Saturday night, by boat. and actually park at these docks that we're talking about. MR. HAGAN-And a lot of people walk there. MR. CARTIER-I don't think this Board. somebody correct me if I'm wrong, there is no way that this Board is about to accept 17 dock spaces as part of the parking schedule. Karla? MS. CORPUS-Actually, what I have to say. the Board might like this time. That's correct. In reading the Ordinance and looking at what is required for a parking space, in the definition of parking space, within our Ordinance. it includes the word, "automobile". MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. CORPUS-It may be a loop hole in this Ordinance. and it may be something that needs to be addressed by a revision of the Ordinance, by the Town Board. to include dock slips as parking spaces, but. as far as the parking calculations go, there is nothing within the Ordinance that allows that to be used in calculation. and this Board is bound and can only determine that which it's empowered. by statute. to do. and it's not in the Ordinance. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, where I back door that, and I admittedly back door it, and that's the purpose of having a workshop meeting. is that, what you're looking at is. supposedly, meeting a parking requirement that's not specified in the Ordinance, whether you were talking outside dining or you're talking boat launch. Now. both of those things are supposedly specified, or the requirements are specified. like any other requirement in the schedule, based on need. If we show you that half of the deck is used, generally. by people who get there by boat, because it's a nice weather operation and it's a day that people come by boat. Then, I think. when you determine. if you got to a point where you were determining something for the deck, you could consider the actual need of the deck. in light of, maybe. the fact that some people won't be coming by car. That's the only point I'm making. I understand that there's a definition of parking spot that says 200 feet of terrafi, rma four vehicles. but I think. when you get into alternative needs. here, you were going under the particular section of the Ordinance that says that you could create, or may determine other parking requirements. in accordance with Section 7.072 and Section 7.072 is based upon need. If you don't need 100 percent of the square footage of the deck to be calculated for deck parking, that's the point I'm trying to make. I think you can't go there. on a Friday and Saturday night, and say that there aren't a lot of people that arrive there by boat. and I don't even count the people that walk, Mr. Hagan, but I think that's another consideration. too. MR. HAGAN-I'd like you to answer my question. Could you live with a restriction on the number of automobiles on your premises at one time? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know. I truthfully don't know. MR. HAGAN-Well. you made a statement, at the last meeting. when I questioned you on this. I said. what's going to happen when a customer comes by, who has a reservation. or is going to attend the party, and the parking lot is full. All the legal parking spaces are filled. You said they would have to drive on and go some place else, and, if I could be convinced of that, I wouldn't have a problem with my conscience, on approving this project. MR. O'CONNOR-If there's no place on the lot for a car. in the parking area. 9 '- ,-,,' MR. HAGAN-No. Listen to what I say. Don't interpret what I say. Listen to the fact that I said the number of automobiles, in the furnished parking spaces, be restricted to a certain number. You claim you have 45 parking spaces and I'm saying. then. we should restrict the number of automobiles to the count of 45. MR. O'CONNOR-I have a problem with that. MR. HAGAN-Yes, I'm sure you do. and that's the point I'm trying to make. MR. O'CONNOR-My problem is that you may end up with two Volkswagons. and maybe that's not the good example, okay. We have a septic system that is designed for 108 dining seats and 19 bar seats, okay. That's the actual out limit, outer half of use of that particular site. There's a proposal that's going to go before the Town Board to change the parking requirements to nine feet for commercial sites. MR. CARTIER-Then. we are not about to ask, at this meeting, wait a minute. I want to get this straight. I am going to interrupt you, Mike. We are not about to act on something that the Town Board may do. If the applicant would like to wait. until such time as that new parking requirement goes through, if it does, and come back to us with a revised plan. fine. but I'm not about to count, in this discussion, what the Town Board may do. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not asking you to count, today. tonight. what the Town Board might do, but I'm trying to answer Mr. Hagan's question, would we limit. forever, to 45. I think there are too many other factors. There's also the factor that, maybe, like they did last evening. or they're going to do, for the Mall. they're not going to include storage in the parking requirements. They may do that in other commercial areas. MR. HAGAN-The only problem I have. with this whole project is. that, somehow, I can picture 70 cars, jammed right in there. and then we have a calamity, a fire or something, and the fire trucks, nobody can get in and nobody can get out. that's the part that bothers me on this small confines of this parking area. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Hagan. I would defer to Mr. Hatin, on that issue. I don't think that's a possibility. MR. HATIN-I want to throw something at the Board. and I don't know if you're aware of it or not. Again. I'm going by some figures that Mr. O'Connor has, here, but I think their accurate and I think the Board has accepted them. He's going by the building. which is 3577 square feet, requires 36 parking spaces. that's interior. The employee's is three. The dwelling unit is two. We also have another use, on here. which is marina. Something that may change the Board's light, a little bit, but I know this will stand, because I had an appeal and I've been appealed, so I know I can stand this one. I recently ruled that a boat launch was separate from a marina use. The Zoning Board overruled me and said that you can not segregate out use of the marina. Therefore, docks and boat launches are part of a marina. So. if you take that into consideration. the Docksider has to come up with 12 parking spaces, per the definition of Marina. So, if you take the 41, and 12 to that, that's 53. This Board cannot go less than 53. They have to provide 53 parking spaces, otherwise it's a moot issue. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HATIN-They have to provide 53. MR. CAIMANO-Dave, can I see if we can narrow something down, here, Pete? I don't think. I just want to get it in perspective and keep it in perspective. A, to echo what you said. and B. to echo what Mr. Hagan said. and that's the fact that we have no problem with the current owner and the nice place that he has built. but it is, in fact, something that's going to go down the road. Number Two. and on the other side of that. is the fact that, there was a very interesting last sentence to Mrs. Popowski's letter. This is a quote, "The business was grandfathered in as a quiet neighborhood tavern, a situation it has clearly outgrown." So, we have to wrestle with that. at the same time that we wrestle with the fact that Mr. Barton, as nice a gentleman as he is, and as nice a place as he has, has shown no hardship for us to have to expand this place. All that notwithstanding, we only have one issue. The issue. it seems to me. is simply, the parking issue. We are not going to be Fire Marshal Bodenweiser. We are not going to be Dave Hatin. All we are going to do is to say no or yes. with restrictions and, really, the issue here, correct me if I'm wrong, the issue is a parking problem. which we perceive with our own eyes, regardless of what numbers say, as a problem. now. and we just don't want to create more of a problem, down the road. MR. MARTIN-And I want to back that up, because I live in this area and I go by there. I've even gone there. I've gone there for broom ball hockey games. out on the ice. I've gone there for barbecue picnics in the barbecue area. here. Those are all uses that are not figured in. here. that. in the reality of the situation, that is where people park, and that is why I'm being such a stickler on parking on thi s one. because there are several uses occurri ng here, all at once, whether you want to formally define them or not. and it's a reality and it has to be addressed and I fully concur with 53 as a bottom bench mark, a minimum. 10 '- - MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me see if I can wrap this up. or sum this up a little bit. here. What we've said to the applicant is. you've got to provide this. The applicant has attempted to satisfy this Board's concerns. We are at a point where those concerns have not, in fact. been satisfied. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Now, we have a couple of options. here, not tonight. The option we have is to approve it. as is. Another option is to disapprove it and allow the applicant to come back with a revised plan that we can live with. One of the things we can do, tonight, to give the applicant some kind of direction, here, is to indicate what we are. in fact, willing to accept, as part of any Site Plan changes that occur, here. MR. CAIMANO-That's a good point. MR. CARTIER-Before we do that, I mentioned, the other night, that I would only be willing to hold a workshop session if in fact, we would allow members of the public to speak. MR. LAPOINT-I'd like to agree with Mr. Hagan despite all the calculations and this and that. I think the positive aspects far out weigh the negative. here. and I agree with him that if you can keep this to 45 spaces and guarantee we're not jamming up.... MR. HAGAN-53. MR. CAIMANO-It's 53, now. MR. LAPOINT-Well. 53. well, actually, 45, as you show it, because I still think it out weighs. that if you're not parking in the driving lanes. and that type of thing. and creating a traffic problem, that if you can limit that to 45 spaces. I think that alleviates the problem I have with it. MR. CARTIER-But I think Mr. Hatin has pointed out that what's required. at present. is 53 spaces. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I've just heard that. for the first time. and if that's the case. I would agree with 53, but. again. I think Jim's point that, if you parked right in the driving lanes. and you created an emergency situation, you have the real parking problem. If you restrict your parking to the spaces. only, and you've got your driveway through, I think that's going to limit your occupancy of your building and solve all your problems. MR. CARTIER-I didn't mean to cut Board members off. Does anybody else want to say anything? Okay. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to address what. I guess, has come down to a parking issue? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN BROWN MR. BROWN-I just want to clarify something. Good evening. I'm John Brown. I'm the current President of the Glen Lake Association, and I want to address an issue that was brought up, the other night. on the meeting that we had about this issue. It was told to the Board that there were only 20 people. 22 people there. There was, approximately 40 people that voted, no negative, for this issue. and, at our regular meeting. during the summer, usually, it's about 50 or 60. That's all I wanted to say. thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. is there anybody else? Okay. Mike. you had something? MR. O'CONNOR-Are you then saying, you're seeing a minimum of 53 spots? MR. CAIMANO-Wait. Stop right there. I'm not going to buy six employees at the height of a season. I want to put a couple of more spots there. I just can't buy six employees. I can't buy a dining room full of people, a bar full of people and six employees operating the place. I think there is some. you said there is some fluff in there. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, Mr. Barton is an employee, himself. He is not charged with providing a parking spot for himself, as employee, because he's there as a member of the... MR. CAIMANO-Well. now you're playing funny games. MR. CARTIER-Does he live there? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Does he live in the building? 11 '-"" MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MARTIN-He's the apartment dweller. MR. O'CONNOR-He has one car. and he's charged with two, as a dwelling unit. I can't see charging him another one, as an employee. MR. HAGAN-I don't care how many you charge to whom, or to what section. My concern is safety. I don't want a holocaust or whatever on my conscience because we approved this plan. as is. I want to see a restriction on the number of automobiles that's allowed on the entire premises. MR. CAIMANO-Is 53 a good number? MR. CARTIER-Mr. Barton. are there times when the restaurant is open when you're not there? What I'm getting at is that, when you're not there, somebody else is working in your place. PAUL BARTON MR. BARTON-Not necessarily, because I am there at peak times. the important times, at 2:30. 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. on a winter day. if we have one or two customers in there, sometimes, that's a lot. Those are the times that I'm not there. I am there when I need to be there, lunch time. dinner time, weekends. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so we're talking about one parking place, here. On the other hand, again, if we go back and look at this, long term, if Mr. Barton is no longer the owner and if the owner is an absentee owner. has to drive there to work, and he rents the apartment to somebody else. I think we still have to include that. MRS. PULVER-But, if you have to have 53 parking spaces and you have 55 cars there. no matter who owns it. it's in violation and that becomes an enforcement issue. MR. CAIMANO-That's true. MRS. PULVER-So, I don't think we should worry about who Mr. Barton is going to sell to. down the road, and whether or not he's going to 1 ive on or off and have an extra car. If there's 53 spots and 54 cars, they're in violation. MR. CAIMANO-We're just trying to pick the right the number. whether there's 53. 55. 52. MR. MARTIN-The only thing is, we have to make sure that the calculations are done, according to what the Ordinance reads. MRS. PULVER-Right. I think, when we're all said and done. if he says he's going to give 54 spots. and we're going to accept and we're going to accept 54. that there should be no more than 54 vehicles on the premise, if there is. then he's in violation. MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe addressing, in part. what you're saying and what Mr. Hagan is saying, I have no objection. or any intention of not stipulating to the fact that what is permitted as number of vehicles on the premises will be the number of vehicles, Mr. Hagan. If we design this with 55 spots or 53 spots or whatever. that's what we intend to put on there, and, if that's a violation of an existing rule. then an appropriate action wants to be taken by the Town. I think the applicant is willing to abide by that, but to try to work in some specific thing for this particular application, that says that the applicant acknowledges that there's some fine that's going to be created that's not within the Ordinances. I have a problem with that. and that's a philosophical problem, not a practical problem. I'm not trying to be cute with you. MR. CARTIER-Okay, we are talking about 53 parking spaces. Is this Board saying to the applicant that he can design, within limits, he can design into this application whatever he can get into, with 53 parking spaces. MR. CAIMANO-Fifty three delineated spots. right. MR. CARTIER-Fifty three delineated spots. MRS. PULVER-No. He needs 53 parking spaces, for this particular design. MR. CAIMANO-Right, delineated spots. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Not just anywhere on the lot. 12 --- MRS. PULVER-Right, but if he comes up with a new design, that changes the parking. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So. we're back to our 45. Is that right? MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask a couple of questions, and I don't have authority for one of the questions I'm going to ask. okay. Mr. Barton has agreed to stipulate that there be no more than five trailers on premises. If we present, to the engineering firm, a plan which shows that we are going to, if you watch this area. right here. okay, a boat trailer weighs about 300 pounds, okay. just for a reference point. which is not something that this Board has to get involved with, necessarily. If we show. to the engineering firm, Mack, do we have a plan, where we will create four spots which, in essence. will mean that the people will back their car up with their trailer, and their trailer will go up, partially. on to the septic area. with travel tops, on that part, which would not. in any way, inhibit the septic system from working or functioning to their satisfaction. MR. MARTIN-That would be a designated trailer parking area, only. MR. O'CONNOR-Only, yes. MR. CAIMANO-And there will be no arguing about the size of the trailers. four trailers. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Those trailers are towed by vehicles. Where do those vehicles park. MR. O'CONNOR-In front. MRS. PULVER-In front, vehicle, trailer, vehicle, trailer. vehicle. trailer. MR. O'CONNOR-There is going to be a slope, there. So, they'd have to back up on the slope a little bit. MAC K DEAN MR. DEAN-It's only six inches higher than the current elevation. MR. O'CONNOR-We've talked to Rist-Frost. They've talked about volley ball courts and doing other uses, on top of this type septic. The boat trailer doesn't weigh an awful lot more than a good sized lawn tractor. MR. CARTIER-Let me ask a question. John. the Septic Ordinance. I don't know if you know this or not. the Septic Ordinance, in order to allow parking over a septic system, don't they have to get Town Board approva 1 ? MR. O'CONNOR-A Town Board variance. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MS. CORPUS-A Sewer Variance. yes. MR. HATIN-Yes. If I might add one thing to that, also, is, I know the Board is considering trailers, but. also. remember. these are required parking spaces. They have to take a car. MR. CARTIER-Say that. again? MR. HATIN-You have to be able to park a car on them, because they are required spaces. MR. CARTIER-Okay. You have to be able to park a car on the trailer space? MR. HATIN-Because if the trailers aren't there, because you've got to maintain 53 spaces. It doesn't have anything to do with trailers. It has to do with automobiles. If an automobile can't park over it, you've got a problem. MR. O'CONNOR-David. accept this. I would argue, okay. We're talking about accommodating the unspecified use of boat launch. MR. HATIN-A boat launch is part of a marina. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but there is no. a boat launch is part of a marina? MR. HATIN-Yes, and that's an appeal. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. what's the requirement for boat launch? MR. HATIN-There isn't. It's part of a marina. If you look under the definition for Marina. it's one space for everyone and a half boats. 13 "--'" -' MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. we have only two boats that are long term. seasonal, rental. MR. HATIN-I count 18 spaces on your docks. MR. O'CONNOR-But we're not going to rent them out. MR. HATIN-Yes, but you have nine docks that can accommodate eighteen boats. So, if you divide one and a half by eighteen. you come up with twelve. whether you rent them or you park them or whatever you do. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, we happened to come to the same figure. differently. I came to twelve by saying that we're going to have five cars with five trailers, and two seasonal rentals, and the two seasonal rentals represent one and a half boats, so you end up with two spots. MR. HATIN-Yes, but you'd have to go by the Parking Schedule. The parking schedule says one space for everyone and a half boats. You have nine docks, that's eighteen boats. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. then. as I understand what we're talking about, it's a travel top, a traffic top. We've put them in. I did, behind Lake George Plaza. The septic system in the Lake George Plaza is underneath the parking area. I had to go to the Town Board to get a variance to do that. That's a possibility. here. on this site, of doing that for those four trailers. MR. CARTIER-Just to finish that off. I think that's not a decision that I'm ready to make. That's something our Consulting Engineer's going to have to look at. MR. MARTIN-Dave just got done saying. though. that if you're going to include that as part of the parking calculations, they have to be able to accommodate a car. MR. O'CONNOR-And we would build them and design them to do that. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-The other issue. there. is, I'm a trailer boater, and the maneuverability in that parking lot, from the boat launch, is going to be a significantly difficult problem. MR. CAIMANO-But that's the owner's problem with insurance, is it not? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. MARTIN-Well. plus, they have mitigated that. somewhat, by placing them over in this area. That would alleviate a lot of driving in. MR. CARTIER-No. you've got to make the whole loop. there. MR. MARTIN-That's true. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. the other possibility, if you get to 53 as being the magic number. is. actually, us awaiting some action by the Town Board. which would give us, changing, if they would. changing from ten feet to nine feet. which is one. two, three, four spots. across there. because you pick up eleven feet, there, and you pick up 10 10. you make not pick up a full parking spot, there. 45 and 7 would give us the 52. We may come back and say that we would be willing to, we're not talking about changing the building in any nature. say we're willing to stipulate to four trailers, on site, as opposed to five trailers, on site. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, if I could maybe try to move this along. I would make a suggestion, and throw this out to the Board and see how they feel. I think there's some consensus, with some of the Board members. that the main concern, here, is safety, as far as parking is concerned. MR. CARTIER-Safety within the site. and also parking off the site, or not wanting to see parking forced off the site. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, and it appears that they do not have the required number of parking spaces. I would suggest that Mr. Hatin give a written determination, based on this plan, that's in front of you. It seems the August 29th letter was based on an old letter. So. that Mr. Hatin give a determination as to how many parking spaces are required for this plan, in front of you, and that everyone agree that the applicant would have to meet that requirement, to satisfy the Board. whether it's 51. 52. 53 spaces. MR. CAIMANO-Sounds good to me. 14 -- --- MR. CARTIER-Fine. MR. GORALSKI-That's my suggestion, at this point. MR. CARTIER-Fine, that's great. MRS. PULVER-Can the applicant get a variance for that? MR. CARTIER-Sure. MR. BARTON-Well. we can try. MR. CARTIER-You can apply for a variance. correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me ask the question, how you got to your 53, David, if I can, okay. and see if I can suggest something. MR. HATIN-Let me just make one clarification, too. I counted nine dock slips. I just went back, there's only eight. So. that drops it down to 51. okay, my mistake. MR. O'CONNOR-Explain to me how you did it. because you're telling me something I'm not.... MR. HATIN-Okay. I'm using some of your calculations, because I don't have everything in front of me. here, to calculate it up. and I haven't done this, prior to this. You said the building's 3577, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is. MR. HATIN-That's 36 parking spaces? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HATIN-The employees are three? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HATIN-The dwelling is two? MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. HATIN-That's 41. correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HATIN-Okay. we have eight dock slips, which, if my math is correct, I don't have a calculator. that requires ten parking spaces, under the definition of marina, correct? MR. CAIMANO-One and a half, per? MR. HATIN-One and a half, divided by sixteen. is. roughly. close to ten. a little under. or a little over ten. MR. CARTIER-That includes the use of the boat launch, correct? MR. HATIN-That would be the boat launch, the docks. together. MR. MARTIN-David. I just want to clarify one thing. now, before we get. under Marina. one space for each one and a half boats stored. MR. HATIN-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay, now, some of these docks accommodate. is it only, then. two boats per dock, or? MR. HATIN-I would have to go with that. because I don't know of any other way to do it. A 40 foot dock, I've seen 40 foot docks, on the Lake, but you can only get one boat on them. because of the water. Granted. I think a 40 foot dock, you could accommodate two boats on each side. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm asking. MR. HATIN-What I think, if you go by the Ordinance, let me check the definition of dock and just see if it says anything. 15 '--' "-"" MR. CARTIER-Dave, this may help you. The applicant has indicated, on two docks, four spaces from four boat tie ups. In other words, he's showing 20 slips, if you will. for boats. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but if you look at the definition of Marina. David, aren't you talking about the rental of dock space? That's in that definition. I think you've gotten us off into some area that. I appreciate your thought, but I think you got us into some we're not talking about. The only thing that we rent. here, is two seasonal spaces. We've got a unique thing that there doesn't appear to be a provision for, in the Ordinance, and that's how we got into this 10 car business. where we talked about a launch ramp that was not, basically, related to rental. MR. HATIN-If you look at the definition, under Marina, Number Three, it says, a sale, lease. rental. or any other provision of storage. MR. O'CONNOR-We don't provide storage for boats. MR. HATIN-I think storage, in this case, again. maybe this is my opinion. but I think storage refers to the parking of a boat at a dock. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but the ramp use is not related to the docks. The ramp use is just for people who want to go on the Lake. for the day. MR. HATIN-And I've already had a determination, an appeal, against me, when I tried to say that a boat launch was discontinued, for eighteen months. and that we could segregate it out from marina. The Zoning Board overruled me and said you cannot segregate out uses of marina, i.e., boat launch. MR. O'CONNOR-If you had both. but we've never had both. Let me ask you a more direct question. How many docks would we have to eliminate to get to 45? MR. MARTIN-Three docks. MR. HATIN-Three docks. I believe, yes, a quick figure. MR. O'CONNOR-And that would leave how many docks? MRS. PULVER-Five. MR. CARTIER-As long as we understood that we were being real. here. in terms of what we eliminated, because I'm looking at two docks that have four boat spaces available, so we would be sure that we would eliminate. in fact. how many spaces? How many dock slips did you say? MR. HATIN-Well. if you eliminate three. this is a question that's never come up, before, is how many boats can you accommodate, at a dock. and I'd have to do some research, there. MR. CARTIER-Well, what I'm saying to you is, the applicant is showing dock spaces on this application. I don't know if he's got them marked out. colored out. MR. HATIN-No. but I know which ones you're talking about, the three longer ones, you're talking about. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-But. the point is. as Mr. Goralski said, we're down to a consensus, here. The actual numbers depend on the final plan and your determination and we can handle that at a regular meeting. when we're going to vote. in terms of the actual numbers. MR. HATIN-I guess what I would ask. does the Board and Mr. O'Connor want a written determination on how we came to that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Well, given all the paperwork we've got. Dave. I think that would be a good idea. MR. HATIN-Okay, I'll do some research. I'm saying 51, now. that may change, depending on what I research. MR. MARTIN-I would recommend elimination of these three, out front. MRS. PULVER-Yes, because I'm confused. Are we talking 51 spaces, now? MR. CAIMANO-Well, we were talking 51, but now I think we're talking 45. if he eliminates the docks. MR. CARTIER-In other words, what I understand the direction Mike's going here is to reduce the application down to fit 45 spaces, is that correct? 16 ',"-' ........- MR. MARTIN-Right. He's going to eliminate three docks. MR. O'CONNOR-Unless, in the meantime that we work this out, I can get the Town Board to decrease the width of a spot to nine feet, as opposed to ten feet, on land. I understand what you're tell ing me is that I've got to live with what's on land, and I've got 45 spots, on land. I've got a possible. maybe. four spots up on the septic area, on land. They may be questionable, as far as getting a car on them. I knew, when we came in here, I could get a boat on them. I could get a trailer on them. I don't honestly know. from an engineering point of view, whether I could get a car on them. MR. MARTIN-The other problem I would have would be. if you're going to calculate, or consider the accessibility. I mean, there's no lane to get in and out of those. MR. O'CONNOR-We may not get four. You may get three. You may get two. You just get some improvement, because, basically. what you're telling me, tonight. which is not necessarily the first time we've gotten to this point, a number and how do we get to that number is what you're telling me. There's different ways of me trying to get that number. One is get the Town Board to decrease the width from nine feet. or ten feet to nine feet, and they all seem to be agreeable to that. last night. with the different presentations that were made. even. conceivably, get the Town Board to eliminate storage. There's four hundred feet of storage. here, that's counted against this commercial establishment. The other thing is see if we can. engineering wise. fit a couple of cars on there. If we can't, knock some docks out. MR. CARTIER-The only thing I have a concern about, here, is that we seem to be tweaking the Ordinance to fit a given application. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-And, somehow, that seems to be going at this backwards. MR. GORALSKI-I have a comment on that. What I tried to say, before. I may not have been completely clear. My recommendation is that the applicant give, I assume this is their proposal, give this proposal to the Zoning Administrator. This is the proposal that you're planning on voting on. The Zoning Administrator then say, you need X amount of spaces for this proposal and the Planning Board and the applicant agree that that would be acceptable, whatever the Zoning Administrator determines. based on this proposal. is required for parking, that everyone's satisfied. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that. MR. MARTIN-And in order to do that, though. the applicant has to be thoroughly understanding of Dave's method in procedure at arriving at that calculation. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. HATIN-It will be fully explained in a letter. MR. CARTIER-In increasing trailer parking. here. that's going to change your permeability numbers. but I guess that's not significant enough to make that an issue. MR. CAIMANO-That's nonpermeable there, any way. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. GORALSKI-They have a variance for their permeability. right now. MR. o 'CONNOR-I think we had a variance. Mr. Cartier, for 54 percent. We're up to 61 percent, now. So. we have some room to play with. MR. CAIMANO-There is one other thing. It has been kind of off the parking issue. as long as we're leaving the applicant with some things to do. I, for one. would like to take up Mr. Barton's nice plan to close down the deck. at night, and I'll tell you why, after the last serving, have a time limit on the last serving. and I'll tell you why. The only serious complaint we have had from any of the neighbors had to do with late night noise across the surface of the Lake, which all of us feel is a problem. that's the only one. and if we can mitigate that. by Mr. Barton agreeing to have a time limit on outside use. then I think that would be good. MR. MARTIN-I received a call from Lee York. today. She had a comment that would be relevant. She said that consideration should be given by the Board to maybe eliminating the outside lighting of the deck. MR. CAIMANO-And that's the other point. 17 -../ MR. MARTIN-That. in itself, would reduce the late night use. MR. CAIMANO-Is that a problem. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that that would be a problem. I think that we would be willing to stipulate to reasonable hour. li ke no further seating after 10 pm, which was suggested. If you seat somebody at 7 o'clock. and it becomes dark. MR. CARTIER-Well, lighting can be designed in such a way as not to be intrusive. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don't think, the outside lighting, right now. correct me if I'm wrong, is along the rai l. MR. GORALSKI-It's pretty dark out there. MR. CAIMANO-The complaint has been noise. not light, that's number one. MR. O'CONNOR-We are willing to recognize some time constraints. MR. CAIMANO-Number Two, it will not say, "seating". There will have to be some other word because that means in the dining parlors, that I could seat you at seven, and you could stay there and party for the rest of the night. There would have to be a closure of the deck. at some time, similar to what Mr. Wood has to go through. on the Great Escape. MR. O'CONNOR-This is the discussion I had, with John, and that's how we came to 10 pm, as a seating, thinking that you would be closing the people, and they would be off by 11 pm. MR. CAIMANO-No. because you could be seated at 10 and not leave until here 3 in the morning. The seating has nothing to do with it. MR. CARTIER-Lets be specific, then. MRS. PULVER-No service on the deck. MR. CAIMANO-No service on the deck. MR. CARTIER-If the point is to get people of the deck. in an hour, then you don't say, we're going to stop seating after such and such an hour. You say. there will be no people allowed on the deck after such and such an hour. In other words. as of 11 pm, or whatever. MR. CAIMANO-We say that. He determines when his last seating is going to be, based upon how he serves his food, and that kind of stuff. If we say, no more. for example. 11 o'clock is it. then Mr. Barton backs it off and says, his last seating is at 7:30, or whatever, but the point is, the only serious complaint. from other people on the Lake. has been noise. late at night, across the surface of the Lake. and I think. if that's the one, then we should take care of it. especially since Mr. Barton has agreed. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you really have to consider the fact that the three intervening owners. who have places in much greater proximity to the deck than the complainant, have no complaint, and. in fact. have supported the application on the petition. This is an operating business. We're not talking about increasing the deck usage in any manner. In fact, if we provide !!!2!!. inside dining. which is our proposal. with some better windows to the Lake, which is what Section C is, we probably will discourage some of the deck use. We also are going to get into having a fully air-conditioned interior. which we presently don't. We're going to have a much better insulated noise factor type retardant, than what you presently have. I mean, there are some other mitigation facts. I can go on. forever, and I don't mean to draw the point. MR. CAIMANO-All I'm saying, Mike, is we're in a workshop. When this thing comes up, I have heard the complaints from the public, and the only complaint I have heard is noise. I am going to attempt an amendment. The rest of the Board can tell me to jump in the Lake, Glen Lake. for that matter. That's what I'm going to do. because people have asked for that. MR. O'CONNOR-Anything else. honestly? MR. CARTIER-Yes. this is the time, this is the night to get all the issues down. MR. MARTIN-I agree with what Nick said, and in a session where this is under consideration I will back him up on some limitation on the usage of the deck. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and. presently, under the present Ordinance, we're talking 53. or whatever Dave Hatin is talking about. 18 -- MR. CAIMANO-Well. he's going to make a number. MR. LAPOINT-To be determined, yes. MR. CAIMANO-To be determined. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HATIN-It will be done tomorrow. MR. HAGAN-Dave, I'd like to ask a question, in regards to my philosophy on this thing. Would you have a problem if the motion gave consideration to enforcing the maximum number of vehicles that can be parked on that premises. at anyone time? For instance, if you come up with 53, or whatever, and we say that's the limit. also, do you have a problem enforcing that? MR. HATIN-Well, obviously, any time the Board puts a stipulation on a project, I am bound by that approval and that stipulation, to enforce it. Then it becomes an enforcement action, through the Zoning Ordinance, which. ultimately, results in somebody being cited for a violation. Obviously, I'm not going to park at the Docksider every Friday and Saturday night. or if I'm there, I'm not going to go out and count cars every hour, but. obviously, if I get a phone call, it will have to be investigated. I will be talking to Mr. Barton, and we will resolve it. Usually. it starts out with a warning. Eventually. it will get to a court summons. MR. HAGAN-I hate to sound like I'm stepping in the way of progress. here, but unless that stipulation is met, some way, I'd also like to know what the penalty would be for abusing. MR. HATIN-It's in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. GORALSKI-It's in Article 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. HAGAN-Okay, it's covered. MR. HATIN-Yes. there is a fine, up to and including imprisonment. MR. HAGAN-Alright, that's fine. MS. CORPUS-Article 13. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. HATIN-It's treated as a court summons. criminal action. MR. CARTIER-So, again. we are all in agreement. here. We are not talking about closing off a section of a restaurant, to meet. MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-We're talking about the assumption that these places are going to be used, full time. but we're going to have to provide parking on that basis, correct? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any other issues? MRS. MCNEAL MRS. MCNEAL-Mrs. McNeal. You were suggesting putting a limitation on the people not being allowed to go on to the dock. after 10 o'clock. MR. MARTIN-The deck. MRS. MCNEAL-The deck. I'm sorry. Could they, possibly, could you, like. all of a sudden. decide to change that. I mean, like, say, next year, someone brought it up before the Board. would that be on for the next 50 years, or? MR. CARTIER-That would be an amendment to an approved Site Plan approval and then. yes. they would have to come back before this Board for that amendment. MRS. MCNEAL-Okay, one other thing. John, did you decide that you were going to have a proposal where it's going to have to go to the Zoning Board and have the people say that they'd have to get the X number of spaces for this? 19 --../ MR. GORALSKI-No, that would be the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Hatin and Mrs. Collard would make that decision. and Dave indicates that he will make that decision. based on the plan in front of us. that will be made tomorrow, how many spaces they need, and I think the Board agrees that if Dave comes up with a number of spaces, they'll accept that number of spaces, provided by the applicant. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MRS. MCNEAL-Okay. MR. BARTON-My name is Paul Barton. I think. right now, I'd like to address the subject of noise. I believe, maybe, at the outmost, we've had three people that have publicly opposed this project. in reference to noise. I think that the number of people that have supported the idea of the project. and have spoken, that said that noise is not a problem. As Michael mentioned, our immediate neighbors. they're not five. six, seven places away. I can't take credit, or responsibility, for all the noise on that Lake and I think I am being criticized for noise on a deck which, basically, the majority of it. what I hear, myself, is coming from people on the Lake, on boats. It is not coming from my deck. Most people there. after 10 or 11 o'clock at night. are sitting there, relaxing. enjoying themselves. They're not screaming and hollering. There's no music played on that deck. There's not a band on that deck. I feel that I'm being criticized for something that really isn't my responsibility. Along with cutting down with noise, I've offered no jet skiis on the Lake. that is a lli noise factor. As far as noise goes. I really don't think there's any justification for it, when the immediate neighbors, themselves. have said that noise is no problem. MR. CAIMANO-Well, not being an engineer, but having lived around water for a long time, I will say. the engineer is not here. and he mayor may not back me up at the meeting, that doesn't surprise me. It isn't the people close by that are going to hear it. It's the people over there. that's why you get the complaints around the point, and stuff. and I understand what you're saying and I'm not saying we're going to turn the thing down or anything like that. I'm saying. that's something we're looking for. MR. BARTON-I've never received one complaint from the Warren County Sheriff's Department, in reference to noise in my establishment. and that's a fact. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Residents in the area do have that option to complain to the appropriate authorities. and they will deal with it. MR. CAIMANO-That's a very good point. MR. CARTIER-Okay, is there anything else we want to make the applicant aware of, that we want to be addressed? Anyone else in the audience. MRS. MCNEAL-I don't really know if this is valid. but I went around talking to people, this year, and I know that one of the people who spoke, at the last meeting, proceeded to say that, when they had broom ball. his little boy would waking up screaming, so he had to put him in the back room. There's another woman who works at the Community College, and she said to me. if you think it's noisy in the summer. then you ought to be here in the winter. She said it's even worse. She said the ground shakes, and she said she also had to go to the back room to sleep and if you wanted to go to sleep at night, you really had to wait, sometimes, until 10 or 11 o'clock, and I think I've said that. Very gradually. the neighborhood has been changing and, even though I'm not there in the winter time, to see this. I think that sort of supports one of the things that I said that. very gradually, the neighborhood has been changing. and one of the things I'm really upset about is that this has been gradually escalating and, all of a sudden, now that the Docksider wants to expand, all of a sudden. these wonderful things are being done and I feel very badly that the owner was not aware of these things going on, at the time. but now that he wants to make things look a lot better. and I'm grateful he's doing these things, I just hope that maybe, in a year or two, they don't gradually come back in. and everything goes back to the way it is, if the restaurant is approved, or the addition is approved. that's all I have to say. MR. CARTIER-I don't know if this addresses that or not, and I don't mean to speak for this Board. I'll speak only for myself, but I would be very reluctant consider. in any positive way. any further expansion beyond what we're talking about, here. I still have a great concern, and I'm not sure it's completely addressed to my satisfaction. with the amount of use on the site, already, but I think I can live with some of these compromises. I would still support a limitation on the use of the deck, after a certain hour. I would also encourage anyone who has problems with the noise to report it. so that it is dealt with, somehow. MR. BARTON-Mr. Cartier. My changes, as Mrs. McNeal has said, are probably more dramatic, now, than they have been, through the years. I have always tried to control the people that come on that Lake. what they do when they come by my property or come on my land. I'm making even further restrictions because I am looking to make this, as we stated before. a year round restaurant, that is my primary use, year round, and. as far as broom ball goes, that's one more concession that I am, probably. willing to make, that if I get this, and have a year round restaurant. broom ball will be eliminated from Glen Lake, from access from my property. 20 ---- ...-' MR. CARTIER-I'm assuming that you are, with whatever direction this application finally takes is we're talking about a full time, year round restaurant. MR. BARTON-Thatis correct. MR. CARTIER-And. therefore. if we were to stipulate. in the possible approval, are we limiting this just to broom ball, or any outdoor activities, or what, here? MR. MARTIN-No. I think now that he's gone through this process, and we've gone through this pain staking process. that we're limiting that parking lot to those uses that have been approved. and that's it, and this is not meant to be an intramural, recreation, parking area. MR. CARTIER-Okay, anything else? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't always agree with you, but I thank you for coming out on a night for a special meeting. I think we madè some progress. MR. MARTIN-How long is your bar. anyhow, just so I can know? How long is the bar going to be? MR. O'CONNOR-I truthfully don't know. MR. MARTIN-Is it as you submitted in your old one, last summer? MR. BARTON- Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It's 8 and 18, 26 and there's a service area on one end. MR. CARTIER-This Board. I do not think, will look kindly on any surprises that might show up in the next application. but I don't anticipate that we're going to see any. is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-We're trying to avoid that. MR. MARTIN-I would lean, strongly, towards elimination of three docks and coming in at your 45. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I would encourage that. too. MR. MARTIN-That would be my strong recommendation, those three docks across the front. the three 40 foot docks. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, you don't, and I guess you have to be there to get an appreciation of the importance of those docks for Lake business. If you go over there. on a Friday and Saturday night. you. sometimes. cannot get a dock space. MR. CARTIER-But that is also a potential source of noise, potential source of noise, late at night. MR. O'CONNOR-We're not increasing that. in any manner. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We're not increasing that. In fact, we've already offered to cut down a couple of the docks. before we got into the discussion with Dave Hatin. Basically. I've sat in that Bay. sometimes. and waited for a dock to open. to get to the dock. That's an important part of his business. MR. CARTIER-Are we finished with the Docksider? (END OF SECOND DISK) 21 '-.-/ MR. CARTIER-I've got a few quick items, here. We are. this is strictly for your information for you to think about. This may require a resolution. at a future date. We are receiving some, for lack of a better word. pressure. to consider a Site Plan Review for the Aviation Mall project, prior to its re-zoning. My initial reaction to that is, I don't understand how we can do a Site Plan for a zone that is not yet in existence. We do not do Site Plans for subdivisions that are not yet in existence. MR. CAIMANO-Where did the pressure come from? MR. CARTIER-The applicant. MR. GORALSKI-Just a little bit of clarification. They are going to re-hold the public hearing on the re-zoning. That will be done~ December 17th will be the next public hearing. Your first meeting of December is on the 18th. MR. CARTIER-But the agenda's full. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is. MR. CARTIER-That's not an item on the agenda, is it? MR. GORALSKI-No, it's not. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. GORALSKI-And your second meeting would be on the 27th. and it has not been placed on that agenda, either. MRS. PULVER-Is that meeting full? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. but what I guess I'm saying is, on the 18th of December. I would like. to get pushy here, I'd like to see a motion from this Board rejecting the idea of considering Site Plan applications for a zone that doesn't exist yet. I think that's opening a can of worms that we don't want to open. MR. MARTIN-I don't see how you could do it. MR. CARTIER-I don't either. MRS. PULVER-I don't either, but I don't object to giving them a special meeting. MR. CAIMANO-Except for one thing. Let me understand something. We have a full agenda and, because of a special request, we are going to put a meeting on. we're going to add an item on to two meetings, is that what you're saying? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. CAIMANO-What did you say? MR. GORALSKI-You have two full agendas. MR. CAIMANO-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-For December. MR. GORALSKI-The question came up of whether or not the Aviation Mall should be placed on an agenda, given the fact that no action has been taken on the re-zoning. MRS. PULVER-No. I think it should have the re-zoning. MR. CAIMANO-Me, too. MRS. PULVER-But I don't object to a special meeting. MR. GORALSKI-As soon as the re-zoning is a reality. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I would have a lot of concerns about having that Site Plan Review in with seven other applicants. given the magnitude of that project. 22 '- -- MR. GORALSKI-Good point. MRS. PULVER-Well, I have concern with a Site Plan, when half of the site is going to fall under the new zoning, and if the new zoning isn't approved. MR. MARTIN-No. I'm saying, when we do get to reviewing it, after the zoning issue is done. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-That's going to be quite a Site Plan to review. in among seven other applicants. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I guess I'm going to say two things. There's two things that I want to say. Number One, if there's going to be a movement to add on to an agenda. at the request of somebody... MR. GORALSKI-You would have to vote on that. MR. CAIMANO-I guess my problem is that I'm still a little miffed, if you will. regarding the action, or inaction, taken with Site Plan 14-90, especially after I received the minutes of the October 25th meeting, where an applicant. clearly. understood that they were going to get a meeting. and it was clearly understood by this Board that they were going to get that meeting, and. yet, they didn't get that meeting, and they didn't know why, but my minutes are here. They came today, and it proves my point, and I want to discuss this with you and Lee, at some point. and find out what happened, what we can do. I just want to find out what happened, so it doesn't happen again. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Why don't they understand why? I received the request to add them to the agenda. I polled the Board. by phone. MR. CAIMANO- The other thing was. I think that there is, probably because most of us. many of us. are new. There is a problem that's cropped its head, here, that I'm not comfortable with. and I think Jim and I. maybe Jim Martin and I may agree with this, and that's the situation where somebody came up to an appeal, there was a time clock running, and. frankly, it's ignorance on my part. I'm glad to admit it, but we're left out in the cold. MR. MARTIN-I agree. I feel we got sand bagged on this one. MR. CAIMANO-We got sand bagged. MR. MARTIN-And I feel, a way was found, or minds got together to find a loop hole or do something, where this whole appeal situation could be avoided, and. again, I feel li ke I got sand bagged. because my concern. and the issues I raised on any project is not that I have any personal things against any of these applicants. It's strictly with the intent of what's best for the Town. given our existing Ordinance. and I feel like I got side stepped on this. and we never even saw it coming. MR. CAIMANO-No, and we get mail and we get communications from the Town on everything from a split finger nail to anything in the world. This is an important item. This man has been arguing about it for months and we find out, tonight, that we've actually been sand bagged. Now. you can argue that we should have known the time clock was running, and maybe you'd be right. We didn't. We depend on the Staff to let us know that. and now we're in the situation where we can't even argue. and it makes us look like jerks. MR. CARTIER-I don't know that this is a solution to that, but we can. certainly, we may not be able to appeal it. based on this particular application, but that certainly does not.... MR. MARTIN-No. I will agree with that. I have learned my lesson. MR. CAIMANO-Me. too. MR. MARTIN-And that 30 day time clock will be closely adhered to. on my next issues with applications. MR. CAIMANO-Well. one thing I'm going to do is, at the end of every meeting, I'm going to ask that, if you will review everything we've done, are there any time clocks we should know, because. obviously. we can't depend on being notified. MR. CARTIER-I think it might be appropriate for Staff to take five minutes. some night, and talk to us. in generic terms. about the various time clocks that do run. and when they start. MR. GORALSKI-Sure. MR. CARTIER-Okay? Will that help? MR. MARTIN-That's fine. 23 -- --- MR. CAIMANO-No. that won't help. It will .!!..tlE.., in the short fall, but it won't help in the long run, because somebody's got to do it at the meeting night or I'm going to forget it. because I'm dumb. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The only other item I have, on the assumption that these minutes are going to the Zoning Board of Appeals, that they will be read by the Zoning Board of Appeals. that, if they were the culprits who borrowed some life savers from the closet, that this Board expects that they be replaced. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Peter Cartier, Acting Chairman 24 f .' " , . "---- BARRY T. CHOUINARD. INC. t ~ NORTH MAIN .TR&;ET NO~T'I-tFIe:LC. VI!!:~MONT O!lESE53 , (802) 485-8600 F~~ (802) 485-6609 FAX MESSAC,Z COVER P~GE .. DATE: I ~ tljcrÙ Ie', ~ 5 Lt t. ~-(~}(~ ~~~ io [-=>e ".,)~ l.- ...:) TIME: TO: FROM: NUMBER OF !'AGFS JNCLUDING TRTS COvER PAGE -..- IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A;J~J PÞ.GES OR HAVT:: A:'JY PROS::'£MS WITH RECEIVJNG, PLEASE C;U,T, (802) 485-8600. THANK YOU *-*******..+**..******-**********..*************.*** ....... --- .' . '- '- -./ SUSAN CAROLAN POpOWSKI 64 South Main Street Northfield, Vermont 05663 DeCêmb~r. 4, 1990 Ms. Lee York Queensbury Planning Department Town of Queensbu~y 531 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 11804-9725 Dear Ms. York: I am for.wardir'lg you a copy of a letter I ,rnai.i.,~d to ~ð-:1 member of the ?lanning Board last Friday. as ~ell ?S a follow-up note to each today. I would appred.ate it i. r: /'':;1:' would ensure that each member receives a copy of the e3~_ler letter together with today's letter and also that each i3 made a part of the public record as well. / 51;0 rell, YOU,~' / /! //' .f '../¿ '~,//I.ø·./--- Susan C. popo~~ki " :. 1 ~; I I \. I { t I . ~ I -- SUSAN CAROtAN poPOwStt 64 South Main street Northfield, Vermont 05663 November 30, 1990 Oueensbury Town píanning Board Town of Oueensbury 531 Bay Road Oueensbury, NY 12804-9725 Dear Board Membera At the outset I addressed the DOcksider lssue first ç~ February 26, 1990'because of my family's and?ilr T1eighbor.~" difficulty with the noise from the Docksidet', espec;tally -3t night. Mrs. Doyl., my immediate neighbor and owne~ of th~ Glenmoore, has spoken befor.e your board and t!"I.4;;! ZOT1 ing BoÞ.l r':1 regarding the difficultiê5 increased noise poses to her quiet, conservative business. Her clientele, like many ~f us, come to Glen Lake for the beauty, serenity ~nd quiet. All of my neighbors to whom I have spoken, whet.her. will í,.,ç 1:0 come forward or not, have expressed dismay at the ìT1creased noise from the docks anë'deck of this restaurant. The best solution to the noise problem and part of t~e parking problem would be to remove the deck a~d the five (5) docks that don't conform to present zoning requireTTlents. Short of that I would hope this board would c0~sid~r restrictions on the use of the deck and docks after dusk perhaps by eliminating lakeside lighting to di~colJrage loud, noisy activity. In addition, I have stressed to you the sertot.Js tr,:¡ff:'-: problems that cur~entl¥ exis't--hazards to motQrists and pedestrians alike~ ThlS issue has absorbed mo,ths alr~ady and we are still unable to learn basic facts ,ecessary f~~ resolution. For ~xample, even the current seating figure, changed last Thursday. My calculations indicate 56 cur.r.ent dining seats, j6 cocktail seats and 26 deck seats--a total of 100 seats: the ap~licant told Mr. Garulski that the current seating is 105; the Fire Marshal says it is 70; and Mr. O'Connor told yo~ Tuesday that there are 116 seats! Another ques~,tionab1e figure is the parki~J calctJlatj,':)T1 for 6 employees. ¡ This 1: igure <f1d not increase wi th the addition of 1497 square feet and an additional 24 seat õi~ing room. I own a small 28 seat tak.-out restaurant with no waitresses and no liquo~ license (no bartende~~): I staff 6 employee. on a b~sy weekend night. Also, the new septic system on Site Plan 12 is goinç to eliminate some of the CURRENT parking lot. Seating will increase to 127 $eats, flo~r space will increase 71.9% and ! ; ( f I ~ .- , I '---' -../ Board the current 50 pa~king spaces (from p. 3 EAF) will be reduced to 45. As you know I appealed the Zoning Administrator's interpretation regarding the deck to the Zoning Soard on November 14, 1990. After much discussion the Boarð agree<J that the Zoning A4ministrator correctly read Definition 97g but added that the "deck is not addresseð in the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the parking schedule computation" (emphasis added). Mr. O'Connor Qbjected to this language and aske~ that it read "the square footage of the deck not be included in the calculations for the restaurant requirements for ~arking" (emphasis added). Mrs. Collar.d commented that Shr "didn't say that, though-, Later Mr. O'Connor again tr ed to substitute the word "excluded" for "not addressed" in the motion. The Zoning Board declined to do this. I am frustrated and uncomfortable with the attempts to alter the site pl,n submitted and to include contingencip,5 which cannot be ehforced on the use of parts of the buildings. In light of all this, I would ask that y~u carGfully reconsider and review the EAF submitted with Site Plan fl. I have particular' difficulty with the answers in Part 1: B questions IF, C qµestions 3 and 8, and in Part 2: 114 Transportation, i~6 Noise, 119 Substantial Change and t19 Controversy. Thank you fo~ your time and patience. PIGase keep in mind 1n your deliþerations that this is an intensive commercial use in; a waterfront, residential and critical environmental are~. The business was grandfathered 1n as a quiet neighborho~ tavern, a situation it has clearly outgrown. " 51;: ëu;tJ; I.- ~usan c. Popow~ ....._--_.. ~ .. > '. .. '---' -../ SUSAN CAROLAN POPOWSKI 64 South Main Street Northf1eld, vermont 05663 December 4, 1990 Queens bury Town Planning Board Town of Queensb1Jry 531 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804-9725 Dear Planning BoÞ~d: Due to inclement weather I may not bê able t~ ðtt~oé tonight's workshop regarding the Docksider. Even though r.o decisions were to be made at this session, ! remain concer~ed about any discussion to expand any commercial establishment in a residential neighborhood. These site plans should never have been all~wed to get to this point: the parking is currently insufficient and the noise levels ar.e currently unacceptable and disturbing. I trust you will discourage this venture before mo~e time is put into this by all concerned. Any approval f0r additional expansion sctg a most alarming precodent on Glen Lake. ve"CY¿? truly ?ur/:?, ' .~._ '. t/ /'11/'-._,. Susan c. POPQWS~ ~ ,"'0::.-1 . ')1-1 I (t~rnOH:) /,è!~a 0€: 0t 06 t Þ0 :J3(l .~_....._--~- , 1 -.. -....--- .---.-.- ..----- .._.. ',--" ~~ ... ~ -,~. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Regulatory Affairs P.O. Box 220, Hudson Street Warrensburg, New York 12885-0220 Telephone: (518) 623-3671 or 686-5441 Nõvember 26, 1990 Thom.s C. JorIlng Commls.lon.r J. Paul Barton, D.B.A. Docksider Restaurant Glen Lake Road, Box 1748 Lake George, New York 12845 Re: state Pollutant Discha~ge Elimination Permit 'NY-0230162 DEC '5-5234-00184/00002-1 Queensbury (T) Warren (Co.) ~~,-ùÐ) INI~~;~~~1fIJr~ 1990 .f',......".. Dear Mr. Barton: Enclosed is your state Pollutant,Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit with attachment. Please note Section 9(c) Special provisions - New or Modified Disposal Systems of the attached General Conditions Part II. section 9(c) references that the construction of a new or modified disposal system shall be under the general supervision of a person or firm licensed to practice professional engineering and upon completion of construction that person or firm shall certify to the Depa~tment that the system has been fully completed in accordance with the approved plans. Noncompliance with the certification process outlined in section 9(c) may subject the permittee to fines and penalties as stipulated under Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law. In that the sewage system was constructed as a replacement system to an existing facility, please be aware that formal approval of as-built plans is not provided nor required. If you have any technical questions concerning this permit, please direct them to Al Matrose of the E~'ironmental Quality unit at Warrensburg, telephone (518) 623-3671. Sincerely, /' 1)' . / ¡, ~ '- I ~v. \' 1"-'''.\ Th~maB W'.Hall Deputy Regional Permit Administrator ~¡..r.~/dd Enclosure c::: A. Matrose R. Hannafcrd B. Fear Morse Engineering / ..UC,&;AoIi 4K~5Il,~' 17E..-~7" U"'A"~ ~)~wr~~!'1 "C :;;JUT' ~r'l:.NJ. ~ ~ 0 E C 3 1990 'l,,!!; )LANNING & 2 ONIN' PA-RI:«/J6r II}J.E~E NT Dec.l< HO. of -se,lflS DININ6 6AR.. r;pA:c:.£~ '-5 PAC.-E $ t: AL60NQUI N f7IJI<; ~ :Z~_ /ø R £;51; - BDLTòN. LN.J)6. 24 '3ð ., 5"1 ré5 f- ",I gDl-~ ~D WACK KC''5í /30 2at 11t 4: ('¿ -I&,t Yes - ¿:.. ¿,.;tl!\ [ 4-. ,= ")r·:: -.~ V'f', . (;z P081.1'¿) c:;..:.., _~c. i f:'¿" ~~ k;. f,' fþ;'. .3. ' 'l.l " " I 132.; 18 4? 30 - }(;:.J,. 'Nt, I c," . (O/" (~ ~Kì.(I· ;.~ ' t - ¿ME (i.E(»).i;// 0t'¿fi ''''.Î ¿~ ' 1.5I-10~¿IAJ6· ~-;..'r .2-68 L:.?It8 &¿vJv:,li V,ùM" ~I 5I1EI-?ARl>s (';;' /E ~ð . KliSri- l5Æ~-¿,6 VI¿¿.. 17 t 31- -4 () t ¿)JJf.wåA4'\' ¥ES- Irð PRI '(Wi:" 'Pvsut::- ; II PU 15U: G D°d<:.S 6 '{'liE ~'Þë Res/... "H-!l~ub- cd ¿.6. roo 6 10 ws- , ' , , . Ii; ,'; :!t ~ ~..~ J _. ~~ . . DEG 3 1990 ,.,... - tt Q ~. -LANNING. ZO~I"" '\,~ OEPARTMEN ~,~. , , - ~~- ~9~ l..\C ~ ~ ~~ \~ ~ ,"" -~_:\ - -- r-_«~ ~ l.~ . 1-\ S ~ \ --.../ 5') ',-" ~ ¡LANNING & ZONIN' OEPAATMENT ~;5 C) ') ~b ~ 3 ~ - ~ ~1\ l.\S · \~ ~\ - l.\~ ·LANNING Ie ZONIN' I)EPAATMEN"f' . ~,\ -.----..-. , ~.~ '" d~ÜW[~l· (~ DEe 3 19~O;." I ~\" \~~ ~~~~~: N ~~ \ 10 'i\ ~~. 3 . -- ~ . ßS s-~\\ J, ~ ~~ _ \ b ~' ~~ ~ _ .- - ~l.\ ,~ \~.s . -----.--~---_._._- It , .. . . " " '-" f i I , ~ t-. , " t ~ , -- .uQ~~ ------~ .--_. .. ,ð)¿.DQ . . r;::-;-- ~.~ .:j¡r;-- C~u_-O·~,',~'·, - .' ------ -, '.. .'.' .. , ' ~ ~. ;_..X7~ --- - t-, ~ ~! ~--- f: -- , t ....- r t ~ -' '-'-'-- - --- ----.- .. -_.~- ---- ----- ----- .. -. -, " i l-- ------- f ~ . r----- ¡. t r. , ! I h r- r----- r-- ¡;.' '" ~- " ~ ~_.. _21 .- --~ /J,,"'" -:-::: - - "" - ) , ..s~. . ......~,' -- d, ._~~(..A~ -d?. /\ ~'''- '-.J ' ./ ~'G-' ./~," ~ ~~~ /L) /") Ú-:;;: ~ -- ' ,'~ ~() ~./ .'~, ,_..,.---'~. -,' -- --.---- - :' t --- -- -- . ¡--- .- - . . I ~ ~ JI i -, ,-I l :C"{ t- I - ..... "'- i ·1 ' I '~ . 0...- bo (t- '- -C çJ , ~ ::s ~ .. ~- \. " 1 I i-I ~\)C) - _1:- I' : ¡ ¡ ¡ I ¡:! I I. I! ! i I : I . ,I I " _I fIi\.¡ ("il:f _, -.J :,' <:'6,: ,', I I 'I II _I {'("\ ("'tl¡: r'Ý. \/'"'\ I .. 'I '\), : . : ì C'6 -, - 'Õ d ') . U · Q "~ <t ( Iii Iii ,; ! I I : , , I I I I I I :: I: I ¡: :: ! Ii, : I i I ! I I 11 :! :' I' I I I ' I I I ' I ¡ I i I : I I I' I; I I \¡): ~"::ti i~ " ire-J- i I I : I -! -II' ¡ i \0; t<)1~' C\\ i . ~ \()¡ -:tr~ rC): 'õ r-i.3 Ii - (() \ ~ I tt') , ~ ":ì --- I' ! I I , I I I \ I I I !:, I ' I, i I \, \ I, \ À I ~ ! _ \n ~I ¡-I I I , ~ ~ ('() () ."., ~,~ ~ - ,~-a~~~ ,~~M~(>o~~'~~~?- I r-l r- r-¡ I :,...; r-: ~: r-: r-- : ì" I ¡- , : I i Coo, \ QO ! : ! - I \ \ : v C) -, ,-I , l '-../ ! ! 1 I I I ."...¡........ f I I ! -1 - ~. -' ì 11~:.... ;\1 I I I I I ",. I ' 1 I . I i I i I : I ' I ' I ' ,I tf\: -i r¿·rt~· i ~ C\,~ - ~V~ -. \'6 I' ' I ' , ' " II, I I I I , ' I ¡I' ! I " ! ¡ : I : ' : ¡ ('6\ ~I-:ì "" ~ 'I \ \_ ,,-' I ~~~~~Q: ~~~~ I~~ . ~,~~~~ ~ ¡~~~~ I' I I ! I I {1 . . ~It'fl~~! I I' I 0 \; ~ 1~qn ~~ , I I I 'i! NM, IN* & lO"," I OEPA ,.-~.. I ' ' , ' , , ' , Ii: ' I I : : 1 : I i I I I I I I \ .I I I I I I I I · . ! --, ~ \6 ~ I ' I :<1 -' fÕ. I .._.-.._~----....-.----