1991-01-15
--
/
CJ,IEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 15TH, 1991
INDEX
Site Plan No. 17-90
J. Paul Barton
d/b/a Docksider Restaurant
7.
Site Plan No. 87-90
James M. Weller, P.E.
27.
Site Plan No. 88-90
Mi chae 1 Ka i das
29.
Site Plan No. 84-90
Charles Freihofer, III
32.
Site Plan No. 2-91
Bob Baker Pools
35.
Site Plan No. 4-91
C.R. Bard
38.
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.
,
---'
CJ,IEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 15TH, 1991
7:00 P.M.
MEÞBERS PRESENT
PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN
CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY
NICHOLAS CAIMANO
JAMES HAGAN
JAMES MARTIN
EDWARD LAPOINT
MEMBERS ABSENT
CONRAD KUPILLAS
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY- KARLA CORPUS
TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST. REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH
PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI
SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MRS. YORK-Thank you very much for coming early. I got a chance to talk to a number of you before tonight
about, really, what I wanted to say. I guess what we've all been hearing recently is there is a lot
of concern in the community about the Planning Board and expediting things. I think this Board has
really gone the extra mile to help people expedite their projects through a number of techniques, but
what we're hearing is that there seems to be two problems that people feel very strongly about or seem
to feel that ~ problems and I'd like to talk to you about potential solutions that the Staff has
come up with. The first one is, the developer would like to get the minutes. the written Staff Comments,
prior to your meeting so they can address them more saliently when they get in front of you. If you
want to do something about that, I might suggest that the day before the meeting we be allowed by the
Board to release our written comments to the applicant if you feel that's a good idea. This would
give them enough time to be able to address the comments without really threatening the system that
we have. How do you feel about that?
MR. HAGAN-Nick made a comment the other day, after one of the applicant's was done. and he said, you
know, the fact that he had the Engineering Report ahead of time, I had the feeling that we were
stonewalled. He had every answer figured out. Now, I don't know what Nick's objection to it was.
I didn't feel we were stonewalled. I commented that I thought he'd done a hell of a job, and that's
the reason he did a hell of a job is because he had the Engineering Report before hand, informally,
from you people.
MRS. YORK-Right. Well, he had the comments verbally. Up until now, we have been prohibited from giving
our written comments to the applicant, as a matter of course. People that have called my office, I
have always told them what my concerns were, and I know John has done this. We were asked to sit down,
in an informal session, and go through our comments with Aviation Mall verbally.
MR. HAGAN-Now I speak for myself. I think it's a good idea. I didn't feel we were stonewalled. As
I said for the record, I had many questions for the applicant and when his representative got finished
explaining what they had done to mitigate the things that we found at fault, I felt it saved a lot
of time because if he hadn't have done this, I would have had to take the time of the Board and the
audience to ask all the questions that I had written out.
MR. CAIMANO-Actually. what I had meant, Jim, for the Chairman and for you, was the fact that we had
previously, and Pete had previously, been very, very hard on the fact that we had a rule and we seemed
to be subverting the rule for this particular one applicant. That's all I was concerned about.
Actually, I, too, feel that, unless there's some technical reasons, I don't see any reason why this
can't do it.
MR. HAGAN-I think it's a good idea.
MR. CAIMANO-I do, too.
MRS. YORK-Right. Our comments are prepared for the Board, for the benefit of the Board. The only
real problem I can see with this is if the developer gets to a point that they believe that they can
go through, modify their plan. and give you a new plan the night of the meeting, that might be a problem
for you.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Absolutely not.
MR. CAIMANO-No.
MRS. YORK-But many times the Board has the right to ignore our comments or take them or leave them
as they please.
MR. CAIMANO-Here's an alternative, here. If we all get them together, let's say for the sake of
argument, that comments are available. three days before the meeting. As long as we're all able to
get them, that is the Board and the Engineer, who cares?
MRS. YORK-Right. Well, I have said to many of you, often. that I would like you to be able to have
my comments earlier than you do have them. I'll tell you, frankly. that there have been times in the
past when my secretary and I have been there until 5:30 at night, the night of the meeting. writing
comments. So, I tal ked to Tom Yarmowich today and he told me that he felt it would not be a problem
for him to get his comments there the day before the meeting. That would give the applicant that day
and the day of the meeting to prepare whatever statements he felt were necessary and if you feel this
is the way you want to go with it, would you please pass a resolution directing me to act in that
capacity.
MRS. PULVER-Well, do I understand it correctly, that it will be available to everybody, not only the
applicant, but to us as well?
MRS. YORK-Yes. I would have them delivered to you, at the same time.
MRS. PULVER-Sure.
MR. CAIMANO-If we don't get them, that's our problem not the applicant's problem.
MR. CARTIER-We", okay. We have to decide how we're going to handle that situation up front.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. CARTIER-I can see our accepting minor changes, and so on. Where do you draw the line at minor
changes? I guess that's the question I have. How do you decide, well, these changes are minor enough
that we can handle them right here, right now, at this meeting?
MR. LAPOINT-I would say you have two different categories. You have Engineering errors. omissions
and additional drawing notes. which we can handle in a common sense approach in front of us, but in
terms of design considerations and alterations. that's got to go back to Rist-Frost for review.
MR. CAIMANO-And who makes the decision, the Town Engineer?
MR. LAPOINT-We", I think we know where we're at there. I mean, if we're talking the difference between
two different types of discharge weirs. I don't want to sit here for a half an hour and listen to that
when we're not going to decide. So, the criteria I draw here would be errors, omissions. and drawing
notes we can handle, except I don't want to design in front of the Board. I can recall two circumstances
where we had people up here for 30 minutes talking about different redesign salvage basins, which we
shouldn't be doing. The only cases which we should talk about design is when it's at an impasse between
the Consulting Engineer and the applicant, where ~ would have to learn the engineering to pass that
judgement. That's, like, the bottom line there, and the other case where we would hear the concept
design would be if that is, indeed. the planning issue, it's a Sensitive Environmental Area, safety
or nonconformance. when the design 1! the actual issue itself.
MR. CAIMANO-So. what we ~ do is. we can, at that point, rather than redesign the project, this group,
along with the Staff. can say, wait a minute, common sense says we can't handle this now, so, you,
the Chairman. steps in and says, I'm sorry. We've got to go back.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. but a lot of this is engineering stuff and I don't have an engineering background.
I think I'm going to lean very heavily on~, as an engineer, sitting on the Board here, to talk.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes, I would, again. if Rist-Frost, and it's quite obvious on some occasions when they
say, yes, we can live with you adding that note. We can live with you fixing that error, correcting
that omission, but in terms of whether you use this type of pipe, that type of pipe, this diameter
that diameter. never here, never in this forum. is what I'd suggest.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Karla, did you want to say something?
MS. CORPUS-I was looking through the Rules and Procedures and everything. I don't see anything anywhere
that states when the comments should, would, or could be given to the applicants or the Board members.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that's just a practice that's been handled by the Planning Department
and. legally, I don't see any reason why you couldn't give the applicant those remarks the day before
and the Board get them. As far as I can see. there is no authority anywhere for the procedure. It's
just something that's normally been done.
2
~
MRS. PULVER-So. we don't have to pass a resolution, or we do?
MS. CORPUS-If the Board would like to, certainly you could pass a resolution.
MR. HAGAN-Actually, the way we do it, I think, is very unfair to the applicant, when he comes in, to
hand him a whole bunch of Engineering doubts.
MRS. PULVER-Well, I do, too.
MRS. YORK-Well, I think it's unfair to the Board, too, to hand them the packet that day.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I have no problem with it, as long as the Board receives the comments in advance,
the same time the applicant does.
MRS. YORK-Right.
MR. MARTIN-I think both groups are served by that.
MR. CARTIER-As long as, somewhere, we make very clear to the applicant that we're not going to get
a re-submission at that Board meeting. I think we still have to make it understood that submission
deadlines still apply.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. HAGAN-Her suggestion doesn't even intimate that.
MR. CARTIER-All right. I just want to be sure that that's the case, though, and are we also to
understand that, if they do have to re-submit. they are subject to the new submission deadline. correct?
MRS. YORK-Correct.
MR. CARTIER-I just want to be sure that's clear.
MRS. YORK-Yes. If that is the way the Board wants to go. I will be happy to do a mail out to all the
engineers and developers that we have in our community. Mr. Hatin has a list of them and I'll be happy
to do a mail out stating just exactly your policy on this.
MR. CAIMANO-It seems as if we ought to let the public know, too, well in advance.
MRS. YORK-Right.
MR. CARTIER-Well, if we do a resolution, here, we need to do a resolution, do you want to incorporate
into that resolution. Ed's comments under "Suggestions"?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Does that cover all the bases that we want to cover?
MR. LAPOINT-Does that make sense to you, Tom? I know you said you've skimmed through it.
MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. I've looked over what you said and I think your comments are well taken and the
suggestions would improve the process. There will be, in certain cases. a certain advantage given
to those who are at the second meeting, in that those response letters could often be prepared in
advance. That may be the way the cards would fall in certain circumstances. I think it would be good
to keep this dialogue open, so that we might even be able to consider ways which could expedite things
further. There are certain cases where there are extremely complex things that would deserve design
review prior to Board review in any way. So, I just thought I'd mention that part of it, keeping it
open, maybe even looking into this further.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, so, are we ready for a resolution?
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MOTION TO AMEND THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AS FOLLOWS: WE DIRECT THE PLAfUHNG DEPARTMENT TO INCORPORATE
THE SUGGESTIONS MADE AT THE JAlUARY 15TH MEETING BY ED LAPOINT AND THE SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE SENIOR
PLANNER, LEE YORK, REGARDING A CHANGE II ENGIIEERIftG REVIEWS. HERE AND AFTER ENGINEERING REVIEWS WILL
BE AVAILABLE TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND ALL APPLICANTS, TOGETHER, AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE, THE DAY PRIOR
TO THE SCHEDULED MEETING. THE PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS WOULD BE A.VAILABLE AT THAT TIME, ALSO., Introduced
by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Hagan:
Duly adopted this 15th day of January. 1991, by the following vote:
3
---
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MRS. YORK-Thank you. The second item that we've talked about, the Staff people at this table and myself
have talked about, ad nauseum, for the last year is trying to find a way to provide for developers
to bring a project in and get it reviewed and corrected for Engineering Comments prior to submission
to the Planning Board.
MR. CARTIER-This is like a pre review, review.
MRS. YORK-A pre engineering review before it's submitted to you, to clean up the engineering concerns.
In many cOlllllunities it is done this way. In the Town of Queensbury, because we don't have a Town
Engineer. we have a situation as it is today. Many people are concerned that engineering takes up
a great period of time for the Board and also that a lot of these things could be handled prior to
submission to the Planning Board and that engineering comments seem to be, to a great extent, the reason
applications are tabled. What I would li ke to suggest is that maybe we could come up with a system
where applicant's could have a pre engineering review of their project and then submit it to the Planning
Board.
MR. CAIMANO-I think that's a good idea.
MR. LAPOINT-Is this at the applicant's expense. the reviews?
MRS. YORK-Well, let me just explain, Ed. That's our big problem. here, because, at this point in time
we have a charge back system, where, when the applicant gets on an agenda, he's given a number and
we use that number to track all engineering and charge him through that mechanism. Doing it this way,
which is Karla's large concern. if I may be so bold as to speak for you, that we don't have a mechanism
in place to charge the applicant for this service and I'd like Karla to discuss that with you.
MS. CORPUS-I think what Lee was saying is a good point, and I was thinking about this the last couple
of days and ways to get around it. The Legal Department, and I talked to Paul, is hesitant to recommend
any pre application review by the engineers, simply because the application form triggers all our charge
backs through the Zoning Ordinance. There is a provision in there and they do sign a statement on
the application form. Any other change in that would require some sort of amendment to the Ordinance
or whatnot. On a practical level, however, and I'm not too sure of what the procedure is right now,
when the applications are reviewed, but if an application could be sent to an engineer immediately
upon receipt by the Planning Department, that could speed up the process. I don't really know what
happens now. The other thing is, although the Board would not really be able to make a determination
on an application that was not complete, and it would not go before the Board, certain, people can
submit applications that are lllcomplete and still get engineering review.
MRS. YORK-Yes. What happens now is, after a submission, they are reviewed for completeness and they
get on an agenda by the next week, after a review for completeness.
MS. CORPUS-Is there a reason, even if they weren't complete, that they couldn't be sent?
MRS. YORK-No, there probably isn't. We could probably work out a situation where that would happen.
What do you think. Tom?
MR. YARMOWICH-Well, one way to consider doing this is making it clear that there is an option for
applicants to go with the course in which we've always pursued in which, if they have a simple project
and they feel it can be processed in a relatively straightforward manner, that the engineering review
be, as we always have done. in conjunction with the Planning Board review. That would facilitate many
of the simple sort of projects. In a project that's more complex, and the applicant recognizes this
and maybe, after having discussed it briefly with Staff prior to formal, or at least up until the
submission deadline when that decision would have to be made, they could be given the option to submit
what is considered a formal application. get this review and get feedback and thereby eliminate in
certain types of projects where there's a tabling due to Engineering Comments, and there are numerous
ones that we could cite, that would eliminate the three and four times before this Board. That's slowing
down the activity of the Board. It's causing some expense to applicants. It's also changing applicant's
plans and the implementations of those projects that do get approved. That's one way that I had thought
of, is furnishing them the option, at the time they make a submission, and to indicate, at that time,
how they wanted their project handled. In some cases, things similar to that have been done with pre
application agreements. That would strictly be an applicant's option and I don't think that we would
be able to really make that determination for them until we took a good hard look at their project.
There's also the opportunity, if that system were implemented, to perhaps the applicant to make minor
changes if their application came well in advance of the submission deadline and they were able to
get feedback, make the necessary revisions, and still make the application deadline. That would.
perhaps, expedite matters even further. Certain projects. we can provide quick turn around review.
Other projects take a little bit more time, depending on the involvement of various types of review
we do. The hopeful
4
-.-'
result would be to decrease the amount of Old Business items and I think there's even applicant's here
tonight that would be sensitive to our recommendations and you may even want to solicit comments from
the engineering community that comes before the Board. The applicant charge mechanism would still
need to be the same way it is. We could not. at any time, except any relationship with the applicant
for obvious reasons. Those relationships have to be strictly through the Town~ It might also be through
the use of that option by the applicant that they would agree that there would not be an agenda date
set for them until a review is complete. These are all things that your Legal Department and Planning
Department. as well as yourselves, should discuss further.
MR. CARTIER-Let me interrupt you just for one second, right there. If I understand what you're saying,
all of this material would come in to the Planning Department. first. and then go to you. It would
not be directly between you and the applicant. correct?
MR. YARMOWICH-As always has been. We would not ever be in a position of receiving information directly
from the applicant.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. YARMOWICH-Now, once the process has begun, unless there were a legal reason not to, I don't see
why we couldn't exchange conversations and information after that formality of the signed application
with the agreement to bear the expense of the review had been completed.
MRS. YORK-I guess my point, here, is the easiest mechanism that I can come up with is to have a situation
occur where an applicant could bring a plan in without formally making an application to us and get
it reviewed by the engineer. I know that that's. no matter which way we cut it here. we're still talking
about at least a two month time frame, one month getting on for the regular Planning Board meeting
and probably a month prior to that or some period of time prior to that for a review. I would like
some feeling from this Board. Do you want us to pursue finding some mechanism to do this, Number One,
and I guess that's really what I'm looking for. My other question is something we're going to have
to look into as a Staff. I think having people submit, some of them for the regular agenda, some of
them for pre review might really get mUddy and we're going to have to look into that to a great extent
before we come to a decision, here. but is that something you want the people at this table to get
involved in and really work at and come back to you with a solution?
MR. CARTIER-I would make two comments. Number One. what it's going to lead to is less tabling because
of engineering, at this meeting and. secondly, and I'm just throwing this out as a question, we're
removing from the public review process, the engineering concerns about a project. Does anybody have
any problem with that?
MR. HAGAN-No. I don't think so. I don't agree with you there. I don't think we are because this
is all Preliminary and the public need only be involved with what is actually going to happen and what
they're doing is going to avoid having a lot of controversies that would otherwise come up and we're
not excluding the public from anything.
MR. CAIMANO-I agree.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-It's the applicant who puts the final plan before the Board.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-I like the application. I think they should file for the application, if they had some
type of option sheet attached to go through this draft as their option. I still like the idea of having
them formally apply and get in ahead of time and have the option for a draft review.
MS. CORPUS-If I could just go a little bit further on Mr. LaPoint's comment. Again, our office doesn't
really feel comfortable at this point. I'm not saying it's illegal or anything. We do feel
uncomfortable in that there could be some comments that it's our engineers designing certain projects.
prior to them being submitted to the Planning Department as formal applications. Something I don't
think the Board would want to happen and also changing what's in the Ordinance and things like that.
I'm not saying you can't do it at all. It might require that the Zoning Ordinance be amended. If
the Board is interested in a streamlined. quicker solution. as a practical matter, if these people
are serious and they were willing to pay the cost of some pre engineering review, prior to an
application, I believe they would be able to pay the application fee. If they don't go forward with
their application, that's fine. If they don't get on an agenda, that's okay, too. Right now, the
Planning Department makes the determination as to how the agenda is set up where the application's
go, whether they go to engineering or not.
MR. MARTIN-I have a suggestion, as a compromise solution. here, in the interim. Why don't we see how
thi s change that we just voted on plays out because I think that's going to take care of a majority
of the problems with the engineering review and then if we're still running into an inordinate amount
of delays then we can consider this Preliminary Draft Submission or whatever you want to call it, but
I think the step we've just taken could eliminate a lot of the delays and it seems like we're duplicating
effort here.
5
-.../
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. MARTIN-We're approaching the problem from two different ways.
MR. LAPOINT-Doing ourselves one better without seeing what the first one does.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think, based on what I've seen, the problem with engineering delays, a lot of it
will be averted by what we just did, having the engineering comments issued in advance.
MR. CAIMANO-And just a thought to what you said, Karla, and going back to what Mr. Hagan said. that
potential conflict or thought of conflict from the public could happen, now. Mr. O'Connor comes up
and he has a project, brand new. There are engineering concerns and we say, tabled. You've got to
go talk to the Engineering Department. So, the pUblic doesn't see what the Engineering Department
and the applicant talk about anyway. So, that potential conflict or thought of conflict is still there
anyway, even now. It isn't happening, but if somebody was going to think about that, it could happen
now.
MRS. YORK-Thank you very much.
MR. CARTIER-Do you have direction, as to which way to go here?
MRS. YORK-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. CAIMANO-I would say one more thing, if I might. Since we're looking at stream lining and since
these things may very well speed up things, I guess I think that the agenda control as we currently
know it is in place because of the high volume of things that we're happening in '86, '87. '88, etc.
If we are going to move these meetings along, one of the things you might want to consider is, and
we all might want to consider, is a change in the Agenda Control.
MS. CORPUS-That expires in April. It will be expiring.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Thanks.
MR. CARTIER-So, we can bring that up in April.
MR. CAIMANO-Good.
MR. CARTIER-Anything else from Staff? Okay. We have an organizational meeting. We have to go through
some voting here, but before we get into that, let me just mention one item in case somebody's sitting
here. Item 3-91, Roland Rich, to operate an automobile sales facility on the northeast corner of Dix
Avenue and Queensbury Avenue has been withdrawn. So if there's anybody here to address that, it has
been withdrawn. We determined at the last meeting that we were going to conduct elections for various
positions on the Board by way of secret ballot. According to Robert's Rules of Order, I have to appoint
two tellers. I'd like to appoint Karla as one teller. John, would you be the other teller please.
What we've got to do, I think, is do one position at a time, get the results of that, do the second
position, get the results of that. go to the third position.
MS. CORPUS-Can I ask, Mr. Chairman, what I do?
MR. CARTIER-Yes. What you're going to do, Karla, is you and John will collect the ballots after they've
been voted on and count them. announce the results, and then we'll go from there.
MR. HAGAN-I believe your motion about this was that we could elect to either have a secret ballot or
make it public.
MR. CARTIER-You can read your vote on your ballot, I guess. as long as you turn it in so it's counted.
We'll do Chairman first. The results of this, by the way, are all subject to Town Board approval,
correct? This has to go to the Town Board?
MR. GORALSKI-This is only a recommendation to the Town Board.
MR. CARTIER-Karla, there's a question here.
MR. MARTIN-It's not really a question. I thought I read in the Rules and Procedures that only the
Chairman is subject to Town Board approval.
MR. CAIMANO-That's right.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
6
MR. CARTIER-Okay, would you count those and check on each other and give us the results.
MS. CORPUS-The results are as follows: There were four votes for Peter Cartier as Chairman and two
for Nicholas Caimano.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We'll do the Vice-Chairman now, please.
MS. CORPUS-The results for Vice-Chairman are four votes for Nicholas Caimano as Vice-Chairman and two
for James Martin.
MR. CARTIER-For Secretary.
MS. CORPUS-For Secretary the vote was unanimous for Carol Pulver as Secretary.
MR. CARTIER-I believe the procedure is I would request that the Secretary direct a letter to the Town
Board including those recommendations.
MRS. PULVER-I sure will.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much.
MR. CAIMANO-Could I make one request? The request I have as a procedure for this meeting is that from
now on, instead of fumbling and stumbling over the SEQRA Review, that you appoint one person to be
the SEQRA Review reader, either the Vice-Chairman or the Secretary, preferably the Secretary.
MR. CARTIER-Do I hear a volunteer?
MR. CAIMANO-I'll be glad to do it if you want me to.
MR. CARTIER-I'd be glad to have you do it.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much. That's a good idea. Thank you for your patience all. We'll get
into the regular agenda here. One more minor item. December 31 minutes regarding the Special Meeting.
Does anybody have any corrections or additions or deletions or changes?
December 31. 1990: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 31ST, 1990, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its
adoption, seconded by James Martin:
Duly adopted this 15th day of January. 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 17-90 TYPE I WR-lA J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE
GLEN LAKE ROAD, NORTH SHORE AT THE SHORELINE TO ADD 1,559 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING 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 COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.
38-4-2 LOT SIZE: 0.98 ACRES SECTION 9.010
MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. PULVER-Nick brought up something awhile ago and it just happened to occur to me that if it's
possible for the Staff at all to put some sort of notation, here. on our sheets saying, Short Form
SEQRA, Long Form SEQRA.
MR. GORALSKI-Well. it's kind of on there. If it says Type I...
MRS. PULVER-Well. you say, Type I, Type II, but every time we say, what is this, Type I. Type II?
MR. GORALSKI-Why don't I do it this way. Why don't we include in our notes for you, what it should
be.
7
---
---/
MR. CAIMANO-Fine.
MRS. PULVER-Right, sometimes we loose our sheets.
MR. GORALSKI-From now on, we will include in our notes what type of SEQRA Review should be done.
MRS. PULVER-Thank you. John.
MR. CARTIER-Yes, if it helps, correct me if I'm wrong, here. Type I and Unlisted requires a SEQRA
Review.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. CARTIER-Type II does not.
MR. GORALSKI-That's correct.
MS. CORPUS-And Type I is a Long Form.
MR. GORALSKI-Type I requires that you do a Long Form. Unlisted, it's really the choice of the Board
depending on how much information they feel they need.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-Past practice of this Board has been for Subdivisions to require a Long Form from the
beginning.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I believe we do not have any further Staff Comments on this application. Would
the applicant care to address the Board at this point?
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the Law firm of Little and O'Connor. Again. I'm
here on behalf of the applicant. With me is J. Paul Barton, the applicant and Mack Dean from the
engineering firm of Morse Engineering. We did meet, in December, at a Workshop Meeting. We discussed
in length the application. At that meeting, we were directed to confer with Mr. Hatin as to the required
parking. We did confer with Mr. Hatin thereafter. He issued a letter indicating what would be the
required parking and we then immediately revised our map and our plan, our site plan review. in
accordance with his findings as to a requirement of 46 parking spots and submitted that and that is
what is before the Board this evening. I would point out to the Board a couple of changes that were
made, basic changes, and I think the only changes, although I may be called on this. is that of the
eight docks that were provided before, three of them were eliminated. The two docks along the front
of the property. the two docks to the easterly end of the property were eliminated, and the dock
immediately nearest to the launch ramp was also eliminated. What that would leave us with is one dock
for the owners occupancy and four docks that would be used in connection with the operation of the
restaurant. In addition to that. because we had 45 spots and we needed 46 spots, an additional spot
was developed for parking and some engineering or some detail on the actual construction of that spot
was submitted to the Board. I think they were the concerns that the Board had at that meeting. I
know that I happened to be here at another meeting of the Board and the Board went over this application
in part of the public meeting and, again, the only issue that we appeared to have at that time was
the issue of parking and were we going to satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Administrator. I
think that we have. We'd be ready to answer any questions as to that or to any other portion the Board
would direct us to.
MR. CARTIER-There's still a public hearing to finish out.
MR. HAGAN-I have some comments first.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Go ahead.
MR. HAGAN-I ask for your indulgence, here, but I have spent quite a lot of time reviewing all the minutes
of the previous meetings, the minutes of the Workshop and it's my personal opinion that this Board
and this applicant has deviated from the truth in regards to certain questions, in particular, those
asked by this member of this Board. When I asked if the capacity of this establishment was going to
be increased, I was told repeatedly it was not. Now, part of my background is accounting. So I can
add pretty good and we can toss figures around, but first I have to read Webster's explanation on
capacity. He says its the "ability to receive, hold, or absorb", and I'm saying that this application
represents an increase in capacity no matter how you cut it. So, for the sake of the full extent of
the truth, I'd li ke to have the applicant state that he .1! increasing capacity. Otherwise. I can't
go any further with this application, personally. because I asked you repeatedly. was this plan going
to increase the capacity of this establishment and you said no and it is. I don't care how you add
it.
MR. 0 'CONNOR-It allows for further capacity if all portions of it are open and fully operating at any
one time.
8
~
MR. HAGAN-And that's a possibility?
MR. O'CONNOR-That's a possibility, yes.
MR. HAGAN-Right. Okay. 1'm glad you finally admitted it. In addition to that, during our Workshop,
I thought we made it pretty clear. at least I thought I did, that we had hoped that the applicant,
since his main intent for this change was to increase, let me refer specifically to the application,
"to add...to the existing restaurant with storage of dry goods, business records", and so forth. Now.
he doesn't say anywhere, at least on this part of the application, that he intends to increase the
capacity for catering to the public. and I thought we made it pretty clear that we were hoping he would
back off and be content with the addition for his increase in storage and his kitchen to better
facilitate the public that already comes to that establishment.
MR. O'CONNOR-As part of our presentation, Mr. Hagan, we have offered that in the scenario that we have
defined on the plan, one portion of it as being Section C. I don't have the floor plan up here. now,
but if we're going to get back into the, there is a particular section of the interior dining which
I believe. from recollection has 22 seats in it and that section we have indicated, if it .i.! a
requirement of the Board, the applicant was willing to stipulate that that portion of the premises
would not be open at the time that the deck was open for use.
MR. HAGAN-I don't see it in the plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-We submitted that as part of our oral presentation and got into discussion in the November
meeting. and that was when we decided that we would go to a Workshop Meeting to discuss in full more
details of it. When we got into the December meeting, we then got focused on definition of parking
spots. We have not withdrawn that stipulation and. as I understand it, we have no objection to this
Board conditioning its approval upon that, and when you get into that scenario of numbers and you do
the accounting on it. I think that you will see the total capacity, then, is less than what the present
capacity is.
MR. HAGAN-Also, in reviewing all the data that we have had presented to us, I notice there's been quite
a lot of formal controversy on this, and I don't see, anywhere, where you've made an attempt to mitigate
that contro~sy. Now. this has become a very popular project and I'm not here to waive with the
majority. ~'m here to waive what's best for this community and a lot of the controversy was presented
by some pretty impressive people and in no case do I see anywhere where you've tried to mitigate that
controversy.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well. I am not aware of a general feeling of, aura. of controversy. In fact, if you will
review the minutes of the application before this Board and before the Zoning Board of Appeals, there
are numerous petitions, numerous signatures, numerous letters of immediate neighbors and people upon
the Lake. the Glen Lake Association, who have applauded the application in its present form, as it
has been modified, to meet different concerns and requests that this Board had made of the applicant.
As I understand it, at this point, we may have, still, one neighbor. some four to five places away
from the particular property. who has an objection to it. There may be two neighbors.
MR. HAGAN-There was a letter from Mr. Judge, too, who had several comments in opposition to this
application and I can't find, anywhere, where any of his complaints were addressed at all.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think there's any validity to any of the complaints he had, and I'd be willing
to address those, line by line. I think we all consider the source or the reason of that application
or that letter. I think it is misdirected to the application of Mr. Barton.
MR. HAGAN-He's using you as an example. In other words. he's saying, as I remember. I can't find
the letter right now, unfortunately, but if my memory serves me correctly. I think he's citing this
as a case. If we were to approve this application .!! submitted, that there's no end of the same type
of applications we would be forced to approve that would not necessarily be an asset to our community.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address those comments. if I might, paragraph by paragraph.
I think that's the only way to have a record of this.
MR. CAIMANO-Just a quick question, Mike, while you're looking that up. I have a date on my drawing
of December 13th and the date on that drawing December 14th. Is it still the same drawing?
MACK DEAN
MR. DEAN-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's a different set. I think that's the plat plan and this is the floor plan. Is that
what you're looking at?
9
-.-/
MR. CAIMANO-No. I'm looking at this.
MR. CARTIER-But this set has come through the Planning Department?
MR. DEAN-Absolutely.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, I have the copy of the letter.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you want to give it to Mr. Hagan. Jim, do you want that letter?
MR. HAGAN-No. I don't want it.
MR. CAIMANO-Let me have it. Thanks.
MR. CARTIER-Mack, just a quick question while he's looking for that. Mr. O'Connor said that two docks
were being eliminated.
MR. DEAN-Three.
MR. CARTIER-Three. Okay. That clears that up. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-I believe you're referring to a letter of November 2nd, 1990, Mr. Hagan?
MR. HAGAN-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The first question that he raised was pollution of Glen Lake. As I understand
it. the application has been thoroughly reviewed by Rist-Frost. We've answered any concern that they
have as to whether or not we will, in any manner, be polluting Glen Lake. From a practical point of
view, as I understand it. there are two great improvements which actually not only mitigate, but are
much in favor of this, from a planning concept.
MR. HAGAN-There are other pollutants besides liquids. Noise. I think that's part of the controversy.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if I may address the whole business then.
MR. HAGAN-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it. when you talk about pollution of the Lake, the two improvements that
I would think that would be general benefits to the Lake and to the immediate area of the property
is that, at present. the parking lot drains unfretted, if you will, directly into the Lake. We are
now proposing a positive drainage system that will filter the drainage from the parking lot and, in
fact, will pick up drainage from off-site. That will be a positive improvement. as opposed to what
is presently there. The septic system, secondly. which is being proposed and Mr. Yarmowich or Mr.
Dean can correct me on it, is roughly three to five times the size of the absorption, of the present
facility that is presently there. It's a state of the art design for a septic system. It should be
a great improvement, from a septic point of view. over what is there. The adjoining property on the
east presently, for some reason, has its well very close to the present septic system. This is going
to be remedied and there's going to be a betterment to that particular property because there will
be a proper separation. As to noise, we're not proposing any expansion of the deck area. We've had
no complaint of noise. We've had, and I apologize to the Board for fumbling a little bit. but I thought
we had one issue before the Board. This is a tax map of the area. This area over in here being the
Lake. This being the Glen Lake Road. That being the recreation area that's behind the restaurant.
This is our property that's here in crossed hatches. If your Board will review the application and
review all the minutes and all the documents before the Board, the people by the name of Sullivan,
immediately adjoining us to the east. the people by the name of Choppa. the people by the name of Griggs
have all indicated that they have no objection. They're not bothered by what is there. what preexists.
The Sullivan family themselves, I think, who own this house, here. This here. there and there. Four
immediate properties across the street, if you will. have written or I think Mrs. Sullivan spoke at
one of the meetings that noise is not a problem. There's never been a complaint, that Paul is aware
of, to anybody that his business is noisy or burdensome to the neighborhood and we're not proposing
an expansion of the outside areas. We've indicated to the Board and the Board got into a discussion
and I presume that it's part of the Board's approval, which I'm seeking, that the applicant is willing
to stipulate hours of operation on the deck. A further improvement over what is presently there.
So, I don't know where there's a thought that there's a noise pollution, other than somebody who lives
in this property down here, which is probably 400 and some odd feet down made a complaint of noise.
That's the only complaint on the record before this Board.
MR. HAGAN-I understand what you're saying. I happen to live on the Lake and I think the width of
Harris Bay is greater than the width of even on Glen Lake and if a neighbor over on Assembly Point
has a party, and we don't object to parties, but we can hear all the noise that comes from there.
So I think when you talk about noise, you have to talk about the total noise, people coming and going,
cars coming and going, and that noise is going to be prevalent over the entire Lake, not just on the
neighboring properties.
10
'---'
MR. MARTIN-And while we're or, that subject, I think another issue that contributes to that concern
is the existence of broom ball and I know, in the minutes from our Workshop Session, Page 20, the
applicant has indicated that he is probably willing to eliminate broom ball. I hope that certainly
is the case because upon going by the restaurant Sunday, I noticed that the broom ball hockey arena
is beginning to be constructed and is going up and in talking with some team members of people who
play in the league, they were planning on a full Sèason of broom ball on Glen Lake in front of the
establishment. So, I just would like to know how that's going to be addressed this year, immediately.
and in subsequent years.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the applicant has addressed that in part, in comments, and maybe they aren't fully
reflected in your minutes. It is his intention. he'd be willing to accept a requirement, if you wish,
that he dissociates himself with that and not continue it or allow it to be continued using his property
as a base. He would've discontinued it and dissociated himself with it for this season if he had gotten
an approval and was under construction. which he had planned when he had filed sometime in the early
part of last summer. This is a complicated application. There's been a lot of different submittals,
but everything has to go one to another. His idea here is to try and develop a year round restaurant
based upon a restaurant business and he is very willing to stipulate that. On the other issue, another
issue, too, of noise, Mr. Hagan. which I think is a great improvement to the Lake and to everybody
on the Lake is he has askèd this Board or suggested that this Board stipulate that any approval be
on the basis that he not be allowed to launch personal water craft from the launch ramp or from his
property and that's a question of annoyance that a lot of people have on the Lake that they really
don't have any control over, right now, just another example of how this application actually is going
to improve what takes place on the Lake. As far as your distances across there. I had a surveyor measure
it. because I like to swim.
MR. HAGAN-I would have no problem with what you're saying, if he had stuck to his original request
to change to accommodate better services for his establishment and not increase the capacity which
was a practical manner of looking at this thing and witnessing it. When he is filled to present
capacity, in spite of our determination of the number of spaces required. he still does not have enough
parking space to accommodate his present capacity. From a practical viewpoint, in actual observation,
and by increasing his capacity, he's going to make that situation even worse and as I stated before,
and I'll be repetitious, this could cause. in time. at some particular time, a severe calamity because
that parking space will be jammed so no cars can be moved in or out to accommodate an emergency and
that's my basic objection to the plan as presented, and I had hoped that he would have receded and
cut his capacity to what he has now, but he hasn't taken that suggestion.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have, if you will accept our provision that Section C will not be operated when the
deck is open. Then the total seating capacity of the restaurant is actually less, after your approval,
then your present seating capacity.
MR. HAGAN-That's not true. That's where we're deviating from the truth because his dining area is
going up to 66 people or 66 seats. He doesn't have that seating right now and I'm talking about winter
time. Ignore the deck. You're increasing the seating capacity, not only seasonally. but for the year
round, and that's my basic objection.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well. if I, and bear with me again. Again we're getting into more discussion than I thought
we were going to, but I welcome it and I think sometimes you've got to do this.
MR. HAGAN-Well, I thought I made this very clear during the Workshop Session.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I think the Board members have a right to raise questions and the applicant has a
right to answer those questions. So I think we're okay here.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. With thè deck closed. we're talking about a dining capacity of 66 seats, after
the approval. Right now, we're talking about, deck closed, a capacity of 56, but what you've told
us to look at is not the minimum area. I don't think there's any question, under the Zoning, that
when the deck is closed, the property will easily handle the traffic. and it has not been a problem
that I'm aware of.
MR. HAGAN-As I said. by actual observation, I have seen that not to be the case. With his present
capacity, that parking lot has been filled and in addition, cars parked out on the road and now he
can't park out on the road.
MRS. PULVER-Jim, that becomes an enforcement problem.
MR. HAGAN-Well, I know it.
MRS. PULVER-If he's spilling over than we need to...
MR. HAGAN-We're allowing a possibility, and that's what I don't want to do.
11
-.-/
MRS. PULVER-Well, we have to have some confidence in our Enforcement Officer.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right now, as I recall it, we have a seating capacity, inside, of 56. We have a deck
of 44 and we have a bar of 16. which I believe is 115 is it?
MR. HAGAN-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-With Section C closed, our total capacity is 105.
MR. HAGAN-No. it isn't. It's 129.
MR. CAIMANO-Mike, could you excuse me just for a moment? Could I get off of numbers, and you're right,
we thought we'd come in here for one problem. Ulterior motives notwithstanding, I would like to read
two things from Wayne Judge's letter, and I think, if I may, this is really the crux of matter as far
as this Planning Board is concerned. He says, and I quote. "Over the years, we have seen a total change
in the character of this project. What started out as a small neighborhood tavern with limited
utilization over a short number of hours on a seasonal basis. is now developing into a full time. year
round RESTAURANT AND NIGHT CLUB." He continues at the bottom. "Glen Lake Road is a narrow, winding,
country road. If the Town Planning Board permits this local tavern be converted into a large restaurant
and supper club, according to the application, how could it prohibit a similar application from being
granted along this country road. The application seeks to change the character of the area and if
the implications of this project were widely known, a huge outcry of public controversy would result."
My opinion is. numbers not withstanding, I agree with Mr. Hagan. I have been on that property and
there has been cars there. You just can't get anywhere, but that's not withstanding. The planning
Board is supposed to look ahead. We're supposed to look out for the Town and I think Mr. Judge. in
those two paragraphs, hits our problem right on the head.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the problem that I have with that is that he incorporates in there a lot of
assumptions that are not valid assumptions.
MR. HAGAN-Like you have done in your presentations.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is a preexisting use on Glen Lake Road. Zoning doesn't permit the establishment
of a restaurant or a night club along Glen Lake Road.
MR. HAGAN-Then why should we allow this to be expanded?
MR. O'CONNOR-If you follow the scenario of the seating that we've offered to you, and the stipulation
that the applicant is willing, we're willing to cut back from the present seating. but let me address
just that point. Is there any issue, from Staff? That zone would not permit another commercial
establishment.
MR. GORALSKI-Not without a Use Variance.
MR. O'CONNOR-Without a Use Variance.
MR. CAIMANO-But the point is, what Mr. Judge is trying to say is. once we open this Pandora's Box,
and all of us are always talking about precedent. once this Pandora's Box is open, then anyone anywhere
could come along and say, well, gee, I want a use variance and you gave it to him. Why didn't you
give it to me? All those kinds of things begin to open up. That's really our problem as the decision
making, I think.
MR. LAPOINT-Is this a use variance?
MS. CORPUS-Yes.
MR. GORALSKI-This did receive a use variance.
MR. CAIMANO-Forget the word variance. I'm sorry I ever said it.
MR. CARTIER-Let's be sure we understand something here. The only thing that preexisting use allows
is what's there now. That doesn't. somehow. subrosa, put this into a special category, in terms of
expansion. All preexisting use means is, okay, it was there before the Ordinance went in. so it can
stay there. That's all preexisting use says.
MS. CORPUS-This project received several variances, area and use variances.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-I'm not against improving the facility to better service his present customers, but I'm against
expanding the total capacity.
MR. O'CONNOR-What we're trying to do is expand the service to the customers on a year round basis.
okay, make it a level operation. We would prefer not to have solely an operation oriented just to
the summer months, which presently the building allows only.
17
'~
--"
MR. HAGAN-That's fine, but, again. I object to the increase in seating capacity.
to.
That's all I object
MR. O'CONNOR-Even, Mr. Hagan. with Section C being stipulated to be closed. which will, in fact. give
you less?
MR. HAGAN-My personal observations that I brought up as examples were at times when the deck was already
closed.
MR. CARTIER-Somebody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure this Board accepted the idea
of closing a section of the restaurant as a realistic stipulation.
MR. CAIMANO-Not unless somebody was going to sit over it with a gun, which nobody's going to do.
MR. HAGAN-If a capacity is there. sooner or later it will be used unless we could afford to put a full
time policeman on the site and I don't think we can. I don't think it's necessary. I just don't think
it should be allowed.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address the other issues that we're brought up in the letter,
simply for the purpose of the record.
MR. CARTIER-Certainly.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think I have addressed the issue on noise. There was a question. well, there was an
issue on parking. As I understand it. this has been deferred to Mr. Hatin. Mr. Hatin has given a
response. I believe that we are in compliance with his response. I would point out, again, as a manner
or as an offer to mitigate any question of what's taken place, in the past. on the property, is the
applicant did go forward and did carry petitions, and did go to the Town Board and asked the Town to
restrict parking along Glen Lake Road so that neighbors would not be burdened with any parking that
might come to this restaurant. That they would have the enforceability of removing any parking or
people that were parking in an improper manner. The Town Board adopted that resolution from Sullivan's
Bay, a good distance back to the west side of the restaurant. The question also was raised, in that
same paragraph. as to entrances and exits. Right now you have one grand exit across the full parking
lot. What is proposed is controlled access with an entrance and an exit with curbing, which certainly
has got to improve the traffic coming in and out of the parking lot, as opposed to traffic going in
and out of the parking lot from any particular position. The question of historic and archeological
investigation. We have answered that this is not a site subject to historic or archeological
preservation. in our SEQRA. That was something. I believe, that was accepted by this Board. I don't
think there's any information to the contrary. We do not know of being registered on any particular
list that would indicate otherwise. The boat launch that he raises here .li. in existence. What we're
talking about in no way modifies that boat launch. What we're talking about is, in fact. and we did
offer a stipulation, again. to limit the amount of day launches, by the number of trailers that would
be in the parking lot at anyone time. By the cutting back of docks, we certainly are going to decrease
the seasonal rentals that are on the property or utilize the property. Again, two things that will
be of actual benefit to the Lake and to the populous on the Lake. Aesthetics, we have been to the
Beautification Committee on two different occasions, with the earlier site plan and with the revised
site plan. We have shown them our plantings and everything else. so I'm not sure. He says, "Are only
some projects required to have landscaping plans?" We have them. We submitted them. We've gotten
their approval for it. Signage, "Will there be any lighted signs?" There will be no different signs
than what we have at the moment. Public Controversy, I guess that's going to be a matter of judgement.
I don't think we have public controversy. I think in favor of this, you have a lot of people who live
in the immediate neighborhood who have seen the improvement and who look upon this as being an actual
improvement. These four people that live right across the street from this, the Sullivan family. if
anybody's burdened. at all, by parking or traffic coming in and out or noise in the parking lot or
anything, it's those families. the families immediately to the east of the property by two and three
places. In fact, I believe the families to the west, I've got X's here if you want to take a look
at them, who have signed petitions saying that they're in favor of this application. There are people
who have spoke against it. There will be people who speak against it, but when you weight everything
from a planning concept, I think it actually is an improvement to the Lake.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I think what may be valuable. once we're done taking comments, here. if the Board
wishes, what governs here is Article V, and I know what we've done on occasion in the past, when we've
had situations like this is we have gone through the Ordinance. line by line, out loud, and decided
on that basis, and maybe I would toss that out as a suggestion at some point and that may address some
concerns we have. I'd like to open the public hearing. or it was left open. If there's anybody from
the public that would care to comment on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. PULVER-I guess I have a question. I'd like to know what problems the Board has. other than. Mr.
Hagan doesn't like the increased capacity? They've received variances which allow them to increase
the size of the building which allows them to increase the seating capacity.
13
~'
MR. HAGAN-Does it?
MRS. PULVER-Yes. They've complied with the square footage.
MR. HAGAN-I mean the seating capacity?
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. HAGAN-O kay .
MRS. PULVER-They have complied with Mr. Hatin's 46 parking spaces by removing three docks that is going
to create a little less havoc on Glen Lake itself and cut down on the noise. What are the other
problems? I'm kind of lost, here. In fact, I'm reading the minutes of the Special Meeting to see,
all right. what other things were we looking for. I'd like to know that.
MR. CARTIER-I think you've gotten, maybe, to the crux of the matter, here. There are things about
this application that we like and there are about this application that we dislike and that's where
we are at this point.
MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't see how we can make him have less capacity when he was given a variance to
be able to build the structure that he's going to be able to do and increase his dining space.
MR. HAGAN-Well. he has already voluntarily said he will...
MRS. PULVER-Right. I think that's great on his part.
MR. HAGAN-Yes. okay.
MRS. PULVER-Let's take him up on it.
MR. HAGAN-But it's still there. That's my point. The capacity is still there.
MR. CARTIER-Granting a variance doesn't necessarily mean that whatever we consider at site plan review
here is. it doesn't apply. We still have to go through the site plan review process.
MR. MARTIN-That's correct.
MR. CAIMANO-Thus having two Boards.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, I do, but I'm trying to find some other problems that we have here.
MR. CARTIER-Can we get into the public hearing, please. Thank you.
MARIANNE MCNEAL
MRS. MCNEAL-I'm Marianne McNeal. I live approximately four camps from the Docksider and Number One,
I've often wondered why, if thi s was so wonderful for the nei ghborhood, why we had to have so many
variances, and I spoke, also. to a Mr. Palmer who is directly across from the Docksider. and he hasn't
been there, all summer, he's been at Lake George. So, he really couldn't come to say anything. I
also spoke to a woman who lived on the other corner from him and she was unable to come or do anything
because she was leaving for Florida and she said that she really was very troubled by the noise and
also by the parking in that area. I understand Mr. Griggs who lives next to me was really not troubled
by the noise because I think he has an air conditioner and his windows are closed and he has not really
been feeling very well. So. I think he's really a poor judge. Now I don't know if there's an engineer
here or not, but where I'm located on the point, there, it's as if they're sitting on my front porch
and in my living room when the noise goes on the deck, if someone wants to talk or laugh, even when
they get in the boat, when they're leaving the Docksider, I don't know why it is. but that's really
how bad it is. When you get in bed at night. it just comes right through the window. I really can't
explain that. I know how noise travels, but I really don't know why it's so magnified where I live.
and I know that I've heard, like you've said, from other parts of the Lake. when people are having
a good time. I hear it, as loud as anything and I can't even see where they are. they're really so
far away. So, I think we have to consider the water as magnifying the sound.
MR. CARTIER-That's what I was going to say. are you across from water? Is there water between you
and this property?
MRS. MCNEAL-Yes, there is.
MR. CARTIER-I think that's the answer. Water does not absorb sound. It just bounces off.
MR. CAIMANO-Is there a compromise? I mean. the applicant has agreed to cut back hours of operation.
Is that a compromise for you that you would accept?
14
-.-"
MRS. MCNEAL-It would be helpful because noise is really one of the things 1'm very upset about. you
know. the added traffic late at night.
MRS. PULVER-Of course, even if he does not do this expansion, what you have you're going to have to
continue to live with because that's the way business is being run here.
MRS. MCNEAL-Well, if I had known anything about the deck out there, I would have been up. but I
understand there was nothing I could do because that was grandfathered into the business because that's
when it really started.
MR. CARTIER-What was grandfathered in?
MRS. MCNEAL-I understand that where the deck is there was already a structure there before, to the
old building, so when they built the deck, they automatically had permission to do that and then they
built, like. half of it and then they built the other half.
MR. CARTIER-On the outside deck?
MRS. MCNEAL-The outside deck.
MR. CARTIER-The new deck that's proposed?
MRS. MCNEAL-No.
MR. CAIMANO-No.
MR. MARTIN-No, there was a deck there.
MR. CARTIER-All right. Does anybody have an answer?
SUSAN POPOWSKI
MRS. POPOWSKI-There was a variance granted for that deck in 1987, I believe.
MRS. MCNEAL-So I really didn't know anything about that and that's something else that had to have
a variance. I mean, it isn't like it was wonderful for the neighborhood. It had to Qe looked into
and checked into and my biggest change is what you mentioned before, that if this is allowed to happen,
someone else is going to come along and say if the Docksider can do it, we can do it and somebody else
and somebody else and it will change the nature of the neighborhood. I think when people came there,
originally. I think they thought to themselves, well, this is only a summer business. It's fine.
We'll enjoy it ourselves. but then as it got to be a year round business, I think you're looking at
a different type of a business.
MR. CAIMANO-Let me just set your mind at ease a little bit so we don't scare you to death. Nobody
can take a camp and say. gee. I'm going to open a restaurant now. That's not going to happen. As
Mrs. Pulver said. this is already an existing business.
MRS. MCNEAL-Right.
MR. CAIMANO-Whether or not they expand, it's going to continue to operate as it is.
MRS. MCNEAL-Yes, but there's already, there was a business down the road across from the Fire House.
Now that is a store. but maybe if someone wanted to come in there and enlarge it, you'd be right back
to where you are now.
MR. CARTIER-Again, that would be subject to the variance process.
MRS. MCNEAL-Yes, I realize that, but I mean. we have laws so these things can't happen and then we
have variances so we can change the laws. So, that's a little scary.
MR. CAIMANO-But you have a club, too, and he's gone. Dave Hatin was sitting right there.
with your people, if he gets noisy or whoever. can go to the Town. You have a recourse also.
one sided.
You can.
It isn't
MRS. MCNEAL-Okay. Thank you.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else please.
MRS. POPOWSKI-I'm Susan Popowski. I've spoken to you before. I'll try not to be terribly repetitive.
You've stolen most of the things I was going to say, but I'm going to reiterate some things because
I assume that this is a site plan review. I would hope that this Board at this point is going to do
15
,-../
something about this. I have a file as thick as my business income tax file right now. I've invested
a tremendous amount of time and energy into this. I have been involved in this since February of 1990.
I hate to say this, but my consciousness raising came from a letter that I received in the Spring of
1989 from Mr. O'Connor to all the Glen Lake residents begging us to please be concerned about what
was happening to Glen Lake as a result of Charles Wood and the Great Escape and their planned expansion
in the roller coaster ride. We were asked to please be worried about whether we could swim or drink
the waters of Glen Lake, whether we could tolerate the noise on the west end. What about the lights?
What about the hours of operation? All these concerns came up. Apparently, there was an outcry.
I guess Mr. Wood was sent back to the drawing board, I assume. in order to do noise studies and things
of that nature. The last two summers, these issues have come a little closer to home. They are five
houses away from me. I am the resident, five houses away. I am not the only one objecting to this,
even though I have been the most vocal. I think this Board needs to understand that my neighbor to
my right and two neighbors to my left, Mrs. Doyle. who owns the Glenmore and is also very exposed because
of the water, and the neighbor to her left have all come before this Board. We have all come before
the Zoning Board. We have made it very clear how we feel and what our objections are. We do not take
this lightly. This is not a joke to us. We have to live with this day in and day out. At the October
meeting of the Glen Lake Association. the noise was. I could not be there because I had to be at home
with my business and my family. At this time, the noise issue was discussed and it was brought up
to these people. They are well aware that there are a lot of very unhappy people on that Lake, about
the noise. Now. I know it is much easier to stand up here and say I am for something than I am against
something, particularly when you live in a small community like the Lake and I'm sure a lot of people
know the applicant. They are not going to stand up here and say, I object to his restaurant and then
go and have lunch there. They're just not going to do that. You have to understand where these feelings
are coming from. I know that you are well aware that there were four major objections here. You've
discussed them. The parking is one of the biggest. The noise is one of my personal problems because
I have to listen to it. The change in the neighborhood is substantial. Now they have told us that
this is grandfathered in. It's always been this way. That is not true. This was never a 100 seat
restaurant. It was a small neighborhood tavern. You can say it's anything else. but it never was.
It was a little, quiet neighborhood tavern. If we wanted noise and activity. we went to Lake George.
We did not go down the street. I have no personal axe to grind. I hope you understand that. I am
merely concerned for the survival of my own property. I am concerned about Glen Lake itself. I went
back, at this time, and looked at the Ordinance, read the purpose and it is obviously, as you know,
to promote the health of the whole community, not for one commercial enterprise. I feel it's very
important that we limit the expansion, as you have said, and this is an expansion, and I beg to differ.
I have had great difficulty. I have argued these figures. Now we have just been told. once again,
that it's not an expansion because there were 44 seats on the deck. Now I have notes back eleven months,
and at one time, there were 28 seats on that deck and last summer there were. Now. in order to make
it look like it's not an expansion. once again, we have 44 seats on that deck. The difficulty here
is we are dealing with a Zoning Ordinance, and I have been to the Zoning Board myself, personally.
I filed an appeal on this deck, I was so upset about it. As they said. we have a difficulty because
these issues are not addressed. The deck isn't addressed. The launch isn't addressed. and the tavern
is not addressed. You all know, you've driven by, you know what it's like. If you'" pardon me, if
you were looking for a spot to stop and have a drink and you were to drive by there at night. would
you tell me that there is no tavern there?
MR. CARTIER-These are all the same photo?
MRS. POPOWSKI-This is all the same photo. I am at the point where my intelligence is being insulted.
It is easy to say that 44 seats don't exist. Taverns don't exist. boat launches. I beg of you.
particularly you who have no comprehension of what the problem is, to please go there next summer,
stand on Glen Lake Road. Don't take my word for it. Don't take my neighbors word for it. Go yourself
and look. You cannot make an informed decision until you have s~en what we are living with right now,
and that's without an expanded deck. Now, it's easy to say. if we move seats around, the problem is,
we've moved them all out onto the deck. That's where the noise is coming from. If we close Dining
Room C and throw the seats on the deck, the noise is even worse. Frankly, I would not be standing
here today if these people had come back, after eleven months, and done a couple of things. One, they
had the option to come back and if they want Dining Room C, it has a lovely view. it looks like. It
has a glass view of the Lake and if they want a winter restaurant, then take the restaurant seats off
of that deck. That is a huge parking problem and it is a huge part of the noise problem. and if they
really want to abide by your standards. Now. when you get into Article V, these aren't my standards,
these are Site Plan Review Standards and if you go through as I was going to go through, obviously,
I'll let the Board do that, one by one, this project cannot comply with your standards as it stands
right now. It can't even come close. It says in Part B of Section 506 that the Planning Board shall
not approve a use unless it determines that it can meet all these standards. Now. if you have questions
about this, as I said, I would certainly appreciate it if you would stand there in the summer. As
live said to Mr. Hagan and I've said to this Board before, I've counted 60 cars in that parking lot
on a Wednesday in the summer. We are now talking about a 46 car lot. The lot has 3,000 square feet
less. in that proposal, than it has right now. You need to stand there and see what it looks 1 i ke
when one of these cars comes in with a trailer and tries to park a boat. It is a very. very precarious
situation. I can't imagine a fire engine getting in there. I can't imagine an ambulance getting in
there. and I hope nobody, well, I won't be there when it happens anyway. At this point, we've come
a long way, and I think you have two choices. obviously, have two choices. You can vote yes, or you
16
'~
-'
can vote no. I implore you to look very, very carefully at what's going to happen if you vote yes.
If you vote no. there are still many options open. The Docksider can come back in. They can come
in without a deck. They can come in without that dining room. The variances have nothing to do with
stamping an approval. and I've been through the whole Zoning Board thing. It has nothing to do with
rushing that through the Planning Board. It is your option and it is your responsibility to live with
what decision you make here. You can walk away from it. Of course, I suppose I'm the one that has
to live with it, which is why I'm standing here, because I know what it's going to be like next summer
if it's worse than this summer. If you do vote no, they have a million options. They can come back
with different plans. They can do any number of things. If you vote yes. you are voting against your
own standards. You are voting for a more intensive use, which a commercial property in a residential
neighborhood that is in a Critical Environmental Area has no right to have an increased use, absolutely
no right, and it was not grandfathered in this way.
(END OF FIRST DISK)
17
-
'~
MRS. POPOWSKI-It's very precarious right now and my feeling is it is currently in violation of your
Ordinance because it was not this way five years ago. There isn't a lot I can do about that. probably.
right now without going to court and I'm not willing to do that, at this point. If you vote yes. you're
voting also for an increase in traffic. I don't think that road can take it. You're voting for more
problems with safety. You are voting for an increase in noise if you vote yes. Please do not do that
to the local residents in that neighborhood. I beg of you, please don't do that. Please also consider
that if you re-tally all those seats, even if you close Dining Room C and leave that deck open, you
still have an increase of five seats, if you use the 28 seat deck. If you use the newly manufactured
44 seat deck. it changes again, but I think you must rise above it and look at the overall impact of
thi s project on the nei ghborhood, not the number of seats, but your good sense has got to tell you.
we have a problem, now. It is your choice whether you're going to leave it as bad as it is or are
you going to make it worse. I beg you not to make it worse. Thank you.
MR. CAIMANO-Could I ask a couple of questions, first of all?
MRS. POPOWSKI-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-First of all, a comment. I don't know about the applicant. I certainly don't think we've
rushed this thing through the Planning Board.
MRS. POPOWSKI-No, certainly not.
MR. CAIMANO-The question is this. Let's assume we that we vote no. It doesn't go. The business is
still going to operate, just as it has been operating.
MRS. POPOWSKI-Yes, it is.
MR. CAIMANO-What are you going to do about that?
MRS. POPOWSKI-Well. I will probably spend a lot of time in these offices next summer. I operate a
small restaurant in Vermont. I don't have a lot of time. I work 60 hours a week. I have three teenage
children. As you can see, however, I have managed to find time for this because this has been in my
family for 70 years and my children will have it 50 years from now. I hope. I will probably become
very active. I will tell you right now. I intend to canvas Glen Lake. I intend to make people aware
of the problems. I hate to say I've become an activist, but this has sort of jolted me out of my middle
age.
MR. CAIMANO-My next question to you is this. Assuming we vote yes, and certainly since you are a
commercial person yourself, what compromise could you live with?
MRS. POPOWSKI-I have great trouble with the word compromise, simply because I feel we have an Ordinance
here that needs to be upheld. If they can fall within the borders of your Ordinance. then that to
me is legal and acceptable. Unfortunately, I should have been here three years ago because when the
deck went through. and I talked at length with the Zoning Board about this, the deck went through and
unfortunately they forgot to consider certain things. as they admit, and it was an overflow of the
restaurant and it just was something that was done at the time without realizing the ramifications.
It's hard to undo things like that. I'd love to be able to jump back three years, but I can't. I
have to live with what is there. However, with No Parking signs on the road, what's happening. the
only thing that does, in my view, is put the burden on the local residents. We become the people that
have to call the police. That shouldn't be my job. The jOb is of the Town of Queensbury to make sure
that these situations don't exist. It's within your power to plan properly so that that doesn't happen.
Now, as I say, Mr. O'Connor, unfortunately there are certain things that we are stuck with. I would
hope that this project would show ~ consideration, I know they don't even believe there is a noise
problem, so therein lies a great difficulty. So, what we need to do is establish the fact that there
.1.!. a noise problem and that may take a year or two. I don't know, but that's where we'll have to go.
because I can't go over there. I have a treasured few weekends here that I escape and I'm not going
to lie there at night at 11 o'clock and listen to that. I'm just not going to do that.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, the laws not withstanding. the great treasurer, if you will. of
governance is compromise and I think that your restaurant in Vermont. 25 years ago,
been allowed if someone or whenever did not decide to compromise on a piece of land.
be a middle ground here.
government and
mi ght not have
There's got to
MRS. POPOWSKI-Well, mine is in the middle of a commercial place. I'm not in a residential neighborhood.
So, it was always the center of town and if you could see the size of the town, you'd probably laugh.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I don't want to get into a defacto site plan review of it in Vermont. We have enough
problems right here.
MRS. PULVER-But let me ask you a couple of questions. 1'm sitting here thinking again, going back
to what I had said before. You said if they could comply with our Ordinance, you wouldn't have a problem
with it. Isn't that what you just said?
18
~
'~
MRS. POPOWSKI-I said that I would not probably stand here and object. I would have a problem with
it, but I would not probably still be here.
MRS. PULVER-Okay, and knowing that they have several variances, area variances and whatnot. I'm looking
through, my questions come up again. They are complying with the parking, and as far as the seating,
the capacity changes by 14 seats, the whole total operation.
MR. HAGAN-24.
MRS. PULVER-No. I have 129 total and I they have 115 right now.
MR. HAGAN-Right, 129 is the total.
MRS. PULVER-Right, and 115 is what they presently have, right?
MRS. POPOWSKI-It's supposed to be 100 right now. from all the figures I have, but the difficulty with
playing with these figures is we don't know what they are. So I think we just have to throw the figures
out and try to use some common sense.
MRS. PULVER-Well. as far as, again. the 28 seats versus the 44 seats in the deck, you mentioned that
the last time, too. and I went through the notes and kind of looked at it and I can only find that
they've always said that there was 44 seats on the deck.
MRS. POPOWSKI-Have you ever seen the deck?
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MRS. POPOWSKI-Had you been on the deck?
MRS. PULVER-No.
MRS. POPOWSKI-I've counted the seats on the deck. I can only go by what I see.
MRS. PULVER-As I have to go by our Building and Code Inspector who seems to think that 44 seats on
the deck is acceptable.
MRS. POPOWSKI-I hate to be sceptical, but I've watched this process for eleven months and I don't hold
a lot of stock in some of the things that I have seen people think are acceptable in the Town of
Queensbury. I hope you will forgi ve me and I don't mean to be rude, but I am appalled by some of the
things that are considered acceptable. Now if you want to talk about acceptable by the letter of the
law, but in the Ordinances, we keep talking about the intent and the purpose. Now, it is listed in
both the initial Article I, the Intent and the Purpose. I'm not talking about the letter of the law
and counting the spaces according to the Zoning Administrator. That is obviously a jOke. It has been
a joke for months. We all know it and again as I say, my intelligence is insulted by that. We are
talking about the purpose of this Ordinance which is to promote the general safety of the cOlllllunity
and the health and welfare of this community and in order to do that, I think the Planning Board, above
all, has to rise above the numbers and look at what is there. Look at the cOlllllunity. Look at what
you hope it to be and stand up for what it should be or what you would hope it would be and protect
the residents of that neighborhood. You can say, well they gave them this and they gave them this.
That is not the issue here, who's given who what. The issue here is does this project fit in with
a residential neighborhood in a Critical Environmental Area. How can you possibly say it fits. It
doesn't even fit what it was three years ago. It's already way out of line.
MR. LAPOINT-I mean, none of those camps fit, though. I mean, you don't want to put anything on these
Lakes, none of the camps are any good.
MRS. POPOWSKI-Well, the hard thing, Mr. LaPoint is, I suppose. and you aren't aware of this because
you're new. I'm coming from a position where I've put in 5,000 gallons of concrete septic tanks for
the benefit of that Lake this year because I was held for the Zoning standards. However, apparently,
if you know the right people, the standards are out the window. You get the variance and it's bye
bye. If I had known that. I wouldn't have bothered doing that. Maybe 1 would have gotten a variance.
I would assume they apply to everybody.
MR. CARTIER-I hope that's not true, but let's not get off the topic. here. Somehow we seem to be
wandering away from the specific topic. Do you have any other comments you'd care to make? I don't
mean to cut you off.
MRS. POPOWSKI-No, that's fine. I have no other comments, really, unless there's anything else you
want. Thank you.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much. Does anybody else care to make a comment? Mr. O'Connor. would you
be willing to consider this a short closing argument?
19
-..-/
MR. O'CONNOR-I would like it to be short, Mr. Cartier. but I think basically we've got to realize that
we have rules and regulations in the Town of Queensbury for the benefit of everybody, for the benefit
of people who want to have their business not become stagnant, who want to improve their business and
who want to have an economically feasible operation, and that's basically how we started this thing.
I thi n k Mrs. Pul ver poi nted out the fact tha t we're ta lki ng about, if you use all the numbers and you
use Mr. Hagan's conclusions. you're talking a total of 14 seats. Three of those seats are in a sitting
area. They are not even areas for service of food or for service of alcohol at a bar. They are areas
on the floor plan which will be shown by what is proposed as a fireplace, in this particular area here,
but I would like to have the record as clear as possible. I did, in 1987, write many letters with
regard to the Great Escape proposed expansion of a water slide. I am an activist. I wear many hats.
if you want to put labels on people, okay. I objected to that because that was a proposed new use
in a land Conservation 42 Acre Zone. That is completely different than what we're talking about here.
Here we're talking about a preexisting use that has a parking lot that drains directly into the Lake
that has a septic system that isn't as good as the proposed septic system. This septic system has
gone through review. after review. after review. There's no variance that's been asked for, like,
if the last speaker put in a 5.000 gallon holding tank, fine, probably because on her 50 foot lot,
she wouldn't meet any of the separation distances from here own water supply or she wouldn't meet the
separation distances of adjoining neighbors. We meet all separation distances. In fact. we're going
to improve the separation distance of the neighbor. So we have not asked this Board to vary the
Ordinance. We've gone round and round about whether or not we, in fact, comply with terms of this
Ordinance. We've had many different decisions. many different letters from the Zoning Administrator
with particular reference as to the parking. If you really look at the total parking and what we
propose, and if the neighbors took a moment and looked at it. that's even an improvement, because as
Mr. Hagan pointed out, we're showing a plan with 46 spots. We've gotten an Ordinance passed that says
you can't park on the road. That's what we're going to be limited to. I don't think that we're going
to be able to park up on top of the septic area. I don't think we're going to be able to drive around
the front of the restaurant. We may, in the future. be able to get a couple of more cars in there,
if the Town, Townwide, approves their nine foot wide parking stall, as opposed to their ten foot parking
stall, but basically that's an improvement. There's some controls. That's the idea of planning.
Take a project, see what effect it has, see what impact is has, control it so it doesn't have a negative
impact. I think part of the problem here is that this is a mixed use and it preexists the Ordinance.
I've been on Glen Lake since 1953. Sullivans has been there. It has grown. I don't argue against
that. At one time it was even different. At one time, out by the deck had a hall where you held church
on Sundays. That hall was out further toward the Lake than the existing deck, if you actually look
at the footprint of the hall. It used to be held for dances. We're not talking about modifying or
changing the deck in any manner. and I think if you really listen to the complaints. if you listen
to the controversy, it's because of the existence of the deck. We're not talking about that. If
anything, we're talking about it in a positive manner. We're willing to limit the hours of operation
on the deck. You talk about Mrs. McNeal's property and people getting in and out boats. I think Mrs.
McNeal, one night, spoke of that, okay. We're now talking about, and here is her property right here.
We're talking about eliminating the three docks that are on the front of the property. We're going
to take the activity from the front which is, she's over here. and we're going to move it over to the
Bay, with the building between us, to some degree. You've really got to look at this and look at it
from a positive point of view instead of simply negative, negative. I can argue each and every impact
and probably it's argumentative, but I think if you really step back and you take a look at him, there's
positive portions of each of those little things that this Board has sought, this Board has demanded
and this Board has asked the applicant if they would consider. I haven't heard the applicant really
say no to any actual request of this Board, except that it has said that it needs to be able to have
a year round restaurant with seats that will justify the building and the improvements that are going
to be made. This septic system that's going to go in here that's going to be an improvement to the
Lake and an improvement to the neighborhood is going to be an expensive septic system. It's not a
simple, dump it into the ground. So. I really don't know how we have not mitigated any question that
the Board has raised. I submit that. I think we comply with the Ordinance. We're not asking this
Board to give us a variance.
MR. CAIMANO-Which we can't do anyway.
MR. CARTIER-Well, okay. Is there anyone else from the public who would care to comment?
MRS. POPOWSKI-I didn't mean to leave the impression that there was nothing acceptable. There are a
lot of good points in that project. I do believe that the kitchen and storage facilities. that
improvement is excellent, and they have maintained that that is the reason they're doing this. So,
I have no problems with that, and the improved septic system, I have no problems with that either.
Anybody that improves septic systems on Glen Lake. I know that that's a goal and I understand that.
My only objection is to the increased use of the restaurant, increased restaurant, which aggravates
the parking problems and the noise from the deck. Those are my two main problems. I have no problems
with this kitchen, storage, septic, okay. Thank you.
MR. LAPOINT-Would you trade any of that for those problems? I mean, the impact of the sewage on the
Lake, as opposed to the parking?
MRS. POPOWSKI-Well. the problem is I can't lie in bed at night and say, well, the noise doesn't really
bother me because they have a good septic system. That's difficult to do.
20
--./
MR. CAIMANO-The opposite question, though. is also an active one and that's do you lie in bed at night
and worry about the sewage going in the Lake because it's a lousy septic system?
MRS. POPOWSKI-Probably not, at 11 o'clock at night. No, but my difficulty, what I would like to see,
and I don't see why, after eleven months, we couldn't come in and just say. okay, let's try to make
it reasonable so that we don't increase the use and we don't make the parking any worse. I don't see
why that couldn't have been done. That shouldn't have been that difficult, and I know it means not
increasing the size of the restaurant and supposedly we've been told that they don't want to increase
the size of the restaurant. So, I have difficulty with why we haven't come to this point. Why we
are still arguing about why we really want an these seats even though they're not an increase. when
in fact, they~. That's where one of my big difficulties is. because the increased size is a noise
problem. Those two things are very linked, and if they would be willing to present you with a plan
that left the kitchen and storage updated and the septic updated and they had come forth with some
sort of a plan that perhaps eliminated the restaurant on the Lake, that another whole restaurant.
44 seats, that's twice the size of mine.
MRS. PULVER-Are you talking about the increased capacity of the 14 people that they're going to be
allowed to increase, or are you just talking about the deck?
MRS. POPOWSKI-If you're adding 16 seats to the deck, okay.
MRS. PULVER-They're not. they've always had that. They were allowed that many seats. Now, what they
use, what they have out there. I don't know.
MRS. POPOWSKI-Who allowed, what do you mean, they were allowed that many? There was no specifications
in the Zoning or in the Variance.
MRS. PULVER-By the square footage.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, that's one of the arguments we have.
MRS. POPOWSKI-Anyway, I have a problem with the deck, and I have a problem with the noise because that's
what effects me. It's very difficult for me. I mean. I said I would love to saw off the deck. I'd
like to see it gone. Unfortunately, it went through three years ago.
MR. CARTIER-I think we're starting to go through this again and again and again. Is there anybody
else who would care to comment before I close the public hearing?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. O'CONNOR-Just a clarification. There is no increase to the seating on the deck proposed.
MR. CARTIER-Does the Board feel it would help at all to go through Article 5.070, item by item, and
just hear them out loud and consider this application from that perspective, or do we need to do that?
MR. CAIMANO-Do you want to know the truth? I think we need to do that. but I think we need to go away
and do that. Does that mean a delay until next meeting? Maybe. What I would recommend, this
applicant's been here time and time and time again, and I would not want to delay any further, but
we do have a relatively short meeting next time. My recommendation is that, I hate to use this word,
there's really a philosophical difference here and I think if we backed away, just went away and listened
to what everybody said, in our own way, came back and voted on this next time, we would have a more
learned vote. That's my feeling.
MR. CARTIER-How does the rest of the Board feel? I'm not tal king about all of Article V. I'm talking
about 5.070, which encompasses five paragraphs.
MR. CAIMANO-It can't pass, but it depends on the eye of the beholder. If Mrs. Pulver feels strongly
towards, and I'm not blaming you. Carol, but if she towards this project, then when she reads Article
V, she's going to interpret it one way. If I. on the other hand. look at it the other way. that's
what Article V's all about.
MR. CARTIER-Exactly, but we still have to do that at some point.
MR. CAIMANO-Right, but we've been at it for an hour and for days and months and years.
MR. CARTIER-Well, we have one suggestion to consider voting on this next week and give us this week
to consider this thing in terms of Article V. How does the rest of the Board feel?
MR. MARTIN-I'm prepared to vote now.
MRS. PULVER-Me, too.
21
--
MR. LAPOINT-I also.
MR. CARTIER-Mr. Hagan. would you care to comment?
MR. HAGAN-No.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think I'm prepared to vote now, too. If somebody's prepared to make a motion.
MR. CAIMANO-I want to make a point. though, real quick. You made a point about Great Escape and I
beg to differ with you. This really is kind of the same box we're in because the Great Escape started
out as a little kid's park for stories and it has evolved into something that no one had dreamed it
would evolve into. and that's what, from my point of view, that's what I'm afraid of here.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me be specific, okay. Where they had proposed a parking area...
MR. CARTIER-I really don't want to get into a review of another project.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. CARTIER-I really don't. Are we prepared to discuss this further or take it to a motion or what's
the Board's pleasure. here?
MR. MARTIN-I'm ready for a motion.
MRS. PULVER-Well, I certainly have sympathy for the neighbors for the noise. but I don't really believe.
going by what I have, that 14 people are going to make that much difference and with the parking kept
at 46, I know if 1 were the neighbor, whether they were bothering me or not, and I saw parking spilling
over allover, I'd be on the phone calling every law enforcement officer that I could get to get there.
So, I'll make a motion to approve this.
tlJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN III. 17-90 J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURAIIT. Introduced by Carol
Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Edward LaPoint:
With the following stipulations: That the parking be restricted to 46 vehicles. That three docks
be removed. All engineering concerns have been addressed and will be addressed. That the dining deck
would be closed after 11 o'clock and no service after 10 o'clock. That there be no sponsorship of
broom ball. That Dining Room C be left as is and that there be no launching of personal water craft
and well water supply is not to exceed 20 gallons per minute.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January. 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Hagan
NOES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. GORALSKI-Mrs. Pulver. I have a list of a couple of things that have been talked about.
MRS. PULVER-Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-You discussed limiting the broom ball activity. You discussed limiting personal water
craft. You discussed limiting the hours of the deck.
MRS. PULVER-Okay. the hours of the deck.
MR. MARTIN-Closing Dining Room C.
MRS. PULVER-No. I think that's too difficult to try to enforce.
MR. HAGAN-Well. he voluntarily agreed to that. Now you're allowing him to expand even further with
that motion.
MRS. PULVER-I'm giving him his 14 people and I'm going to limit his hours on the dining room deck,
which seems to be a problem with the neighbors. the noise. What I'd like to know is what would be
reasonable use of that deck. reasonable hours?
MR. 0 'CONNOR-Can we suggest that no orders be taken on the deck after 10 p.m. No service at all after
11 p.m.? Would that be satisfactory?
MR. HAGAN-Yes, that's reasonable.
22
---'
MRS. PULVER-Is the Board agreeable to nothing on the deck after 11 o'clock? Okay.
Then included in this motion would be that the dining deck would be closed after 11 o'clock and there
would be no service after 10 p.m.. and 11 o'clock means no service, no occupancy, no public use.
MRS. POPOWSKI-How about lights?
MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't know about lights. If they wal k the beach or something. they may want.
stumbling to their boats.
MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend you leave the lights on. as a safety factor. Be sure the lights are
not shining onto anyone else's property, but I would hate to see someone going out to a boat in the
middle of the night without any lights.
MRS. PULVER-Me. too. No, I don't want to do anything about the lights.
MR. CAIMANO-Except you could make them put lights in that are shaded in some way so that they only
shine down or back.
MRS. PULVER-Well. there's already current lighting there.
MR. O'CONNOR-There's no proposed change to the current lighting that's on the deck already. It's
lighting that's on the railing of the deck, small fixtures. 60 watt bulbs, and a yellow amber type
fixture.
MRS. PULVER-All right. Leave the lighting alone. What else John?
MR. GORALSKI-Well, the things I had were broom ball. personal water craft, the hours of the deck, the
Dining Room C. and the parking of 46 vehicles.
MRS. PULVER-Okay. I had to ask Peter broom ball. I do not know broom ball. I didn't know if it was
played in the parking lot or if it was played on the ice. I don't know if I'm up to restricting play
on the ice. I mean, as long as he keeps no more than 46 vehicles in his parking lot, if people want
to go on the ice, I mean. that's part of the recreation of living on Glen Lake.
MR. O'CONNOR-The applicant has no problem with a requirement that we not sponsor broom ball.
MRS. PULVER-How about. not encourage broom ball events in front of his establishment?
MR. CAIMANO-You can't do that.
MS. CORPUS-Mrs. Pulver, I think that the applicant's suggestion of not sponsoring broom ball would
tie it in specifically to this application and not get out into issues, the quasilegality of dealing
with something on the ice which the applicant doesn't own.
MR. CAIMANO-Let's do that, no sponsorship.
MRS. PULVER-All right, no sponsorship of broom ball. I think we're done.
MR. GORALSKI-The two other issues that I still have are the personal water craft and the Dining Room
C. That's the two things that I have on my list.
MRS. PULVER-Dining Room C, I'm leaving it as is. He can use it. I see there will be a 14 person
increase, which I'm assuming would be allowed, according to Mr. Hatin.
MR. LAPOINT-And no launching of personal water craft?
MRS. PULVER-All right, no launching of personal water craft.
MR. YARMOWICH-There was one comment that was outstanding from a previous letter that I don't know whether
or not the applicant's addressed. I have not seen additional plans. It's a very minor thing.
MRS. PULVER-What's that?
MR. YARMOWICH-The well water supply not to exceed 20 gallons a minute.
MRS. PULVER-Okay, and well water supply not to exceed 20 gallons per minute. That was on the November
16th. Tom?
MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct.
MRS. PUL VER-O kay.
MR. CAIMANO-I'm going to vote no because of Ordinance 5.070 B and that's the only reason I'm voting
no.
23
,---,'
MR. MARTIN-That goes for me also. and Item C.
MR. CARTIER-(Voted No) and add to my vote the comments in reference to 5.070 Band C.
count.
I lost the
MS. CORPUS-It's 3 to 3.
MR. CARTIER-The application is not approved.
MS. CORPUS-Mr. Cartier. if the application is not approved within the time frame set up by the amendment
to the Rules and Procedures, or actually it's our Zoning Ordinance, if the Board does not re-vote or
if it is not disapproved or re-voted upon, it will be approved within the matter of the statutory time
period.
MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. In other words,...
MR. GORALSKI-You have to decide one way or another.
MR. CAIMANO-Within how many days?
MR. CARTIER-It's got to be four votes? You've got to have four votes?
MS. CORPUS-A tie vote. if not re-voted upon as a disapproval. would be automatically approved after
the expiration of the time period in the Ordinance.
MR. CARTIER-I understand.
MR. CAIMANO-What's the time frame?
MR. CARTIER-Thirty days.
MS. CORPUS-Forty five days.
MR. CARTIER-Forty five. thank you.
because of a three to three tie vote.
So. in other words, we have a motion that hasn't gone anywhere
One way to try this is to consider a motion for disapproval.
MR. GORALSKI-Or to amend the motion that was voted on.
MS. CORPUS-And that could be done at this meeting or at a subsequent meeting.
MRS. PULVER-Yes. So is there something to this motion that you could amend that would make these three
happy?
MR. HAGAN-For instance, I didn't get everything I wanted on this, but the fact that they would restrict
the number of vehicles restricts. really, the number of people that are going to be in there, as far
as I'm concerned. Now, what points could we change on this motion to get your approval or what can
you tell me in addition to the objections I gave. how I would change my vote, one way or another.
I'm asking you, because I don't think we should let this sit as a deadlock.
MR. CAIMANO-I agree.
MR. CARTIER-I guess for me the problem is, I get dinged on this, but so be it. I guess the problem
for me is based on Article 5.070, but it's also somewhat philosophical. We have a Critical Environmental
Area, that means we take a very close look at things, a much tighter look at things than we normally
do, and we have a considerable number of uses on this site already. I've outlined them in the past.
We have a restaurant. We have a private quarters. We have a boat launch.
MR. MARTIN-A tavern.
MR. CARTIER-We have a tavern. We have dock space and so on and that is a considerable number of things
on a piece of property in a WR-1A Zone already and I have significant problems with the expansion of
that property, the use on that property.
MR. MARTIN-I have a problem with this from a planning standpoint and I know. I take Mike's comments
into consideration when I say this. I have a problem with this from a planning standpoint. I cannot
knowingly approve this present site plan for a 3600 square foot restaurant and say that the parking
issue is going to be just automatically solved by the fact that we have a No Parking Ordinance for
Glen Lake Road. It says right in 5.070 C. "the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed
use would not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion. or the parking of vehicles.
Now. we say we are knowingly going to create a use of this size and we know that there's a good chance
for congestion to be created, but we're just going to write it off because the sheriff will come by
and put tickets on every window. You can't knowingly make that decision.
24
~
MR. LAPOINT-She counted 60 vehicles last summer and we're limiting it, in this motion, to 46.
MR. MARTIN-I know that. but what the problem is, is that you have a capacity, like I've said time and
time again, with this. you have several components to this structure which have a seating capacity
and the parking that you're allowing for this is only going to, if you employ that into the restaurant,
is only going to allow for maybe a 60 percent or 75 percent use of the structure. You're always going
to have that temptation there, that pressure.
MRS. PULVER-But the temptation to over expand or do that is there with any business.
MR. MARTIN-And that's the reason why we're here. to analyze that before the bricks and the mortar are
laid and to say that, no, this is not a good situation. Let's now sit down and mitigate and come to
a compromi se.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay, if this doesn't pass and he gets refused and next summer there's 60 cars there. as
opposed to 46, what have you solved?
MR. CAIMANO-Nothing. Let me just say this. Mr. Chairman, because of the situation we're in, it is
going to pass anyway and it is going to pass without a positive vote from this Board and that's
unfortunate because we have only six members. I think that one of the things that I wanted to do was
to back up what has been said by the public and that is, I also feel, having nothing to do with Mr.
Barton personally, that there is certainly a little bit of abuse. here, on this Lake with this property.
from an ecological standpoint, traffic, everything we want to talk about.
MR. LAPOINT-Well, I disagree.
MR. CAIMANO-Either way, that's why we're here, but rather than belabor this thing and have it pass
by the wayside, 45 days from now, I will change my vote. I will vote yes.
MR. GORALSKI-I think you would have to make another motion and re-vote.
MR. CARTIER-Don't we have to rescind the previous motion?
MR. GORALSKI-No.
MS. CORPUS-No. It was a nullity.
MR. GORALSKI-What I would recommend is that Mrs. Pulver just say that she is making the same motion
that she just stated.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. GORALSKI-If Mr. LaPoint wishes to second, then he may second and then you may re-vote.
MR. LAPOINT-Seconded.
MR. CARTIER-Any further discussions? If there's none. Maria, would you call the roll again please?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN (1). 17-90 J. PAUL BARTOl( D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT, Introduced by Carol
Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint:
With the following stipulations: That the parking be restricted to 46 vehicles. That three docks
be removed. All engineering concerns have been addressed and will be addressed. That the dining deck
would be closed after 11 o'clock and no service after 10 o'clock. That there be no sponsorship of
broom ball. That Dining Room C be left as is and that there be no launching of personal water craft
and well water supply is not to exceed 20 gallons per minute.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano
NOES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-We're back to three to three. are we not?
MR. GORALSKI-Correct.
MR. CARTIER-Does the Board wish to dwell on this for a week and consider a re-vote next week?
MR. CAIMANO-I would.
25
-.-/
MR. CARTIER-Is that an appropriate option open to us?
MR. GORALSKI-I think that the Board should understand that it behooves you to take some action on this
project. If this project is approved because the time frames lapse. there will be no conditions on
the approval.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. which we're trying to do is make an improvement here.
MR. CAIMANO-That's why I changed my vote.
MRS. PULVER-Mr. Hagan. would you like to reconsider one more time?
MR. HAGAN-No, because that's why I asked their final opinions and they had just enough to add to sway
my mind against it, because there's been no attempt to step back and reconsider the amount of expanded
facilities.
MR. CAIMANO-But it's going to pass with no stipulations on it.
MR. HAGAN-Okay. I've made my objections.
MR. CARTIER-Let me toss a suggestion out. Do with it what you will. Would this Board consider a motion
to approve with the stipulation that the deck be removed?
MR. HAGAN-Absolutely.
MR. CARTIER-In other words, we accept the stormwater management systems. We accept the septic system.
We accept the removal of the docks. We accept the kitchen expansion and we accept the storage expansion,
but we eliminate the deck.
MR. HAGAN-I think if the deck was eliminated, there would be no grounds for any objections.
MRS. PULVER-No. I think that creates a real hardship on the applicant. I mean, what does he need
the expansion for if you're taking half his seating?
MR. HAGAN-No. but the applicant has said repeatedly. his intent is to create a year round restaurant.
Now, when the deck isn't usable, in the winter months. he's still going to have a going business.
MS. CORPUS-If the Board chooses to take that path, I would recommend that the applicant be asked whether
that would be acceptable or not, because that is not the plan presented to this Board by the applicant.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, definitely.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MS. CORPUS-If the applicant chooses not to present that option to the Board, I would not recommend
the Board vote as such.
MR. CARTIER-Does the Board wish to address that question to the applicant?
MR. CAIMANO-Ask the applicant.
MR. O'CONNOR-The applicant would not agree to such a stipulation.
MR. HAGAN-Then the applicant really isn't serious about being intent on a year round business.
MR. O'CONNOR-I beg to differ with that.
MR. HAGAN-Because in the winter time, he isn't going to have the deck.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. HAGAN-And we're talking about year round.
MR. O'CONNOR-That is when we will have the 14 seats that are additional, 11 of which are actually seating
capacity for the restaurant. Three of which are in the waiting area. If you want us to eliminate
the waiting area, maybe that's a possibility. I just throw that out, but we need to have that in the
summer, or else we will not attract people as Paul's business has grown. won't attract people to this
property during the summer. I think also from the point of view of the residents on the Lake, you've
heard probably 20 to 30 people come and speak before this Board and say that they enjoy going there
when they're at their vacation home to have a meal outside. It's part of the character of the operation.
26
"--'
-../
MR. CARTIER-Well. let's not re-hash this whole application again.
resolution to this issue.
What I'm trying to do is find some
MR. HAGAN-You asked the question if we'd be willing to re-vote.
MR. CARTIER-Right.
MR. HAGAN-Okay, and you're comment was we could.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-And we had to ask the Board if he was willing to.
MS. CORPUS-Right, and I would not recommend voting on that issue because that is not the application
before the Board. The Board does not have the power to change the applicant's project.
MRS. PULVER-However, we can re-vote on the previous motion.
MR. GORALSKI-Can I just jump in for a second?
MR. CARTIER-Certainly.
MR. GORALSKI-Really, there are a lot of other applications to discuss tonight. I have two suggestions.
One is the only other stipulation that the applicant has agreed to that has not been included in the
motion is the motion to close Dining Room C when the deck was in use and close the deck when Dining
Room C was in use. If the Board doesn't wish to include that or if the Board tries to include that
and that doesn't move the issue. I would recommend that the Board postpone their vote to a later date
so that other people who are here for other issues can be heard tonight without staying up past dawn.
MR. CARTIER-I think that's a appropriate suggestion.
MR. GORALSKI-So, those are my two suggestions for tonight.
MR. CARTIER-We have 45 days from tonight, correct?
MR. GORALSKI-Correct.
MR. CARTIER-Would this Board be willing to reconsider this next week?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Who knows what's going to transpire in the next week.
MR. HAGAN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. So the first item of business on the agenda next week will be a re-vote, with or
without discussion? Well, let's decide that next week, okay. So, are we done with that issue for
the evening? Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 87-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-IA JAMES M. WELLER, P.E. OWNER: JOE ROUUER, MARSHALL B.
AND EVELYN J. SEELYE BElWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND THE BOULEVARD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEIl BUILDING
WITH OUTSIDE STORAGE FOR OPERATION OF A WHOLESALE PLUMBING, HEATING AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS.
(F.W. WEBB) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 110-4-1.2 LOT SIZE: 2.53 ACRES SECTION 4.020
K
JAMES WELLER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Site Plan Review No. 87-90 James M. Weller (F.W. Webb), date
January 9, 1991, Meeting Date: January 15, 1991 "All planning concerns have been addressed previously."
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated January 15. 1991 "We have reviewed the
project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The splash pad length beneath the stormwater
control outlet slot is recommended to extend a minimum of 5 feet out from the retaining wall. 2.
A note should be added to the Provisions for Stormwater Management on drawing L-1 stipulating continual
turf maintenance and regular sediment removal at the grass retention area. 3. The stormwater management
approach requires the Owner's commitment to active maintenance of relatively unique controls. as
recognized by Mr. Weller's 12/26/90 letter to the Planning Department. The stormwater management design
is acceptable from an engineering standpoint. We recommend approval of the project subject to items
1 & 2 above. Previous engineering comments dated December 18, 1990 have been satisfactorily addressed."
27
'-
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do items 1 & 2 fall into this category that we discussed earlier this evening, Edward?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you, and, Tom, do you agree with that?
MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. I do.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Would the applicant care to comment please.
MR. WELLER-We would ask the Board to approve it on those two conditions.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. We'll open the public hearing and I think the public hearing remained open. Was
there anybody who cared to address this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-I believe. it's unlisted. We need to conduct a Short Form SEQRA Review on this project.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERIIINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 87-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Hagan:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a new building
with outside storage for operation of a Wholesale Plu.bing, Heating and Industrial Distribution Business
(F.W. WEBB), and
WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact
as the same is set forth in 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board
will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January. 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion for disposition of this.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 87-90 JAMES M. WELLER, P.E., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
28
-....../
For construction of a new building with outside storage for operation of a Wholesale Plumbing. Heating
and Industrial Distribution Business, F.W. Webb, subject to Items 1 & 2 of Tom Yarmowich's letter of
January 15th, 1991.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1991. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. WELLER-Can I take just a minute, as long as I'm here. As a applicant, a regular person who appears
as an applicant before this Board, I heard you speak earlier of access to the Town Engineer and as
such an applicant. I would strongly, from my standpoint, encourage you to look into a establishing
a procedure so that if a potential applicant could have access at any time he may want access to the
Town Engineer for review, at his cost. at the cost of the potential applicant. This could save
tremendous amounts of time not only for you and for Staff, but for us as applicants and as designers
so that we could set the direction and the pace of what it is that we're about to propose. I would
encourage you to strongly consider that.
MR. CARTIER-I think we're going in that direction.
MR. CAIMANO-We're headed in that direction. Thank you, Jim.
MR. HAGAN-Provided that the Planning Department is aware of this, that's all.
MR. WELLER-As far as the Planning Department being aware. I would have no problem.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay, thanks, Jim.
MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Weller, could I just ask that you provide three copies of your plan with the notes
as requested by Rist-Frost to our Department?
MR. WELLER-Would you give us the text of the notes?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. they're right here.
SITE PLAN NO. 88-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA MICHAEL KAIDAS OWWER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF CJ,IA1ŒR
ROAD, BETWEEN NORTHERN HOMES AID GROSSMAN LUMBER TO LEASE EXISTING KITCHEN STORE TO KEY BANK N.A.
AND CONSTRUCT SMALLER STORE BUILDING ON SAME 1.84 ACRES OF PROPERTY. INGRESS/EGRESS TO REMAIN AS IS.
ADDITIONAL PARKING TO BE PROVIDED TO MEETING ZONING RE~IREMENTS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP
NO. 105--1-1.3 SECTION 4.020 K
MACK DEAN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner, Site Plan Review No. 88-90, Michael Kaidas. dated January 7.
1991 Meeting Date: January 15, 1991 "At the previous Planning Board meeting there were conflicting
suggestions regarding ingress and egress to this site. In an effort to find a compromise, the applicant
is proposing that the westerly drive be entrance only and that the easterly drive be both entrance
and exit. This scenario will help to achieve proper on site circulation and has been approved by the
Warren County DPW."
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated January 11. 1991 "We have reviewed the
project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The 323 contour between storage building
and the ditch is incorrect. 2. The detention pond maintenance indicate that placement of snow in
the basin will not be allowed. 3. Engineering comments, except those above, have been satisfactorily
addressed. "
MR. CARTIER-All right. Are those two items, items that can come under the LaPoint Plan?
MR. YARMOWICH-If the applicant will reflect a correct understanding of Item 1 or be willing to discuss
it with me, I would think so.
MR. CARTIER-Would the applicant care to comment on those two remarks right now?
MR. DEAN-My name's Mack Dean from Morse Engineering. Very quickly, we have really no problem adding
the note which really should have been added, I think. previously. at the suggestion of Mr. Yarmowich
in agreement with us that no snow would be deposited in the retention area at the south end of the
property. As far as the contour shown at the southwesterly lot line near the storage building, the
contour in question, I believe, is one that connects at 323.
29
-../
~
MR. YARMOWICH-It's the one between the ditch and the building, Mack.
MR. DEAN-Correct.
MR. YARMOWICH-Okay.
MR. DEAN-And that can be somewhat confusing and I inquired of our engineers why that is there and that
this whole area is at a 323 elevation. It's basically to indicate that that level or that elevation
is to be maintained when this ditch is constructed. It's not necessary inasmuch as a critical elevation
to that part of the property. That's all it is. I can erase it and correct the problem.
MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. If you agree that that's what you need to do, that's what I suggest is needed.
If you just simply erase that proposed contour.
MR. DEAN-We will erase contour 323 nearest the existing storage building and add a note that no snow
will be deposited in the retention area near stormwater drainage.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you.
MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. We've met the conditions of Ed's recommendations at this point.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We have a letter from Michael O'Connor.
MR. GORALSKI-There's a letter from Warren County to Nick Scartelli, and a letter from Michael O'Connor.
I think they're addressing the ingress and egress and as I said, Warren County DPW has approved it.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we don't need to go through that.
MR. GORALSKI-A discussion between myself and a couple of the Enforcement people in the Town came up
and when you have specific conditions on a site such as different types of ingress and egress. if you
can, I'll try to remember to remind you, just indicate that all the notes on the site plan will be
undertaken or will be incorporated in the construction of the project, that might be helpful.
MR. CARTIER-All notes on site plan will be, adhered to or incorporated?
MR. GORALSKI-Incorporated into the construction of the project.
MR. CARTIER-Incorporated.
MR. YARMOWICH-Well, some of them are maintenance notes, Pete.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. YARMOWICH-In that case, I think maybe the term "adhered to" might have some advantage. if John
agrees.
MR. GORALSKI-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Incorporated and adhered to.
MR. CARTIER-There you go. Incorporated and adhered to. in construction.
MR. GORALSKI-In development of this project, or something like that.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Okay, we've heard from Warren County. Beautification Committee we've
heard from. The public hearing remained open on this. Does anybody care to comment on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-Unless the Board has any questions or comments, we need to conduct a SEQRA Review.
MR. GORALSKI-I have another suggestion for you. The Town Board very often when their doing motions
that they do repetitively, make the motion and waive the reading of the resolution. I don't see any
reason why the Planning Board couldn't do that also.
MR. CAIMANO-I agree.
30
or-
-..-/
MS. CORPUS-This being a standard one, I believe Maria would have it and would be able to incorporate
it into the minutes as a standard.
MR. CARTIER-So we waive the reading, but we still vote on it?
MR. GORALSKI-You make the motion. go through the SEQRA EAF, make the motion, you know, maybe you would
say, Resolution that there's no negative environmental impacts, waive the reading of the resolution.
MR. CAIMANO-So I don't have to read the whole thing?
MR. GORALSKI-Exactly.
MS. CORPUS-The only time you might have to make some additional comments is if there are other agencies
involved and then you would have to state there would be other agencies involved.
MR. CAIMANO-That's right. Okay. Let's do it.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF JIJ SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION JIJ. 88-90. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Martin:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: to lease the existing kitchen
store of KAIDAS KITCHEN on Quaker Road to lCey Bank N.A. and construct a SEller store building on sa_
1.84 acres of property. Ingress/egress to rellain as is. Additional parking to be provided to .eet
zoning requirements., and
MR. CAIMANO-I move that the reading of the entire resolution be waived.
MR. LAPOINT-I've got just some discussion about that now. For the people who've just come once, I
worry about rubber stamping, you know, the resolution to me should be read.
MR. GORALSKI-This only applies to SEQRA, not to the resolution for approval.
MR. LAPOINT-No, I know that. I mean, the SEQRA Resolution that we whip through every time could possibly
mean something to someone. I mean. are we doing this for all projects now?
MR. CAIMANO-I would assume so.
MR. GORALSKI-You would do it for a project that there was absolutely no change to that standard
resolution that you read.
MR. LAPOINT-All right.
MR. GORALSKI-If there was another involved agency, or if it was a conditional negative declaration,
you would not be able to do that.
MR. CAIMANO-Or, to me. if there was a public hearing where someone actually stood up and spoke about
it, but there is no, there was a public hearing and nobody spoke about it.
MR. LAPOINT-Right, but I just want to be careful that we're not slip sliding through this. because
it's a very serious responsibility, Number One.
MR. CAIMANO-That's a good point.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. I'm not telling you to waive the reading of that resolution as a matter of fact.
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is. if you feel that it's not necessary. It is
done by the Town Board.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay, because some jobs I would definitely want it.
MR. CAIMANO-That's correct. Let's take it case by case and you guys kind of look at me and say, go
or no go.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes, okay.
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
31
',,--,
---'
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5 Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact
as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board
will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1991. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion regarding disposition of this application.
JlJTlON TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 88-90 MICHAEL DIMS, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
To lease an existing kitchen store to Key Bank N.A. and construct a smaller store building on same
1.84 acres of property. Ingress/egress to remain as is. Additional parking to be provided to meet
zoning requirements, with the following stipulation: That Items Number 1 & 2 of Rist-Frost letter
of January 11th be incorporated into the Site Plan two weeks from tonight.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano. Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. GORALSKI-Submit three copies of the revised plan to the Planning Department.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-John, is that enough for you to submit on to Rist-Frost for them to check the comments?
MR. GORALSKI-Definitely, yes.
SITE PLAN NO. 84-90 TYPE II WR-3A CHARLES FREIHOFER, III OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L, WOODS
POINT AREA TO CONSTRUCT A U-SHAPED CRIB DOCK OF APPROX. 624 SQ. n. TO EXTEND AN EXISTING SUN DECK
OUT OVER THE PROPOSED DOCK SYSTEM. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 2-1-3 LOT SIZE: 1.2 ACRES
SECTION 4.020 0
JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 84-90, Charles Freihofer. III, dated
December 29, 1990, Meeting Date: December 27, 1990 "The agent for the applicant has submitted a new
plan which shows a 8~ by 14 by 36 ft. boat cover without a deck on top. He has also submitted a DEC
Permit with special conditions which the Board my want to reference."
MR. CARTIER-Thank you. There are no engineering comments on this project. DEC comments.
MR. GORALSKI-Would you like me to read that letter, Mr. Chairman?
32
--'
'~
MR. CARTIER-Yes. I'm trying to find the three comments you're referring to.
MRS. PULVER-Well. they need extra permits.
MR. GORALSKI-Well. I can, first of all, read the letter. Letter from New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, to Mr. Charles Freihofer, III. dated November 7, 1990 "Dear Mr. Freihofer:
Enclosed is your permit which was issued in accordance with Article 15, Title 5 (Protection of Water)
of Environmental Conservation Law. Please note the general and special permit conditions that are
intended to minimize the environmental disturbance associated with your project. It is the
responsibility of the permitee and his agents to comply with all of these permit conditions. Further,
the permit is valid only for the activity expressly authorized. Work beyond the scope of the permit
shall be considered as work without a permit. Any failure to comply with these terms may be treated
as a violation of Environmental Conservation Law. Questions regarding the terms of the permit should
be directed to Les Saltsman of our Regional Fisheries Office in Warrensburg, telephone #(518) 623-3671.
Work done under this permit is subject to inspection by Forest Rangers and Environmental Conservation
Officers. Should your plans change. please contact this office to determine if modifications of the
permit are requi red. THIS PERMIT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED TO OBTAIN APPROVALS FROM OTHER LOCAL
AGENCIES OR STATE AGENCIES SUCH AS THE ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY (APA) OR THE LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION
(LGPC). IF YOUR PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ADIRONDACK PARK OR LAKE GEORGE PARK, APPROVALS MAY BE
REQUIRED FROM THESE AGENCIES. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON "APA" REQUIREMENTS, CONTACT THE "APA"
AT (518) 891-4050. FOR "LGPC" REQUIREMENTS CALL (518) 668-9347. Thank you for your interest in
environmental conservation."
MR. GORALSKI-It's basically bookkeeping, as far as DEC is concerned.
MR. CARTIER-And are those permits in hand?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I can read the special conditions.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-"20. Any debris or excess materials from construction of this project shall be immediately
and completely removed from the bed and banks of all water areas to an appropriate upland area for
disposal. 21. The size of any individual crib shall not exceed 8 feet by 12 feet. 22. Spacing between
cribs shall not be less than 8 feet by 12 feet. 23. All necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent
contamination of any waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, solvents, lubricants, epoxy
coatings. paints. concrete, or any other deleterious materials associated with the project. 24. Stone
used for filling must be clean (not contain any material that can pass through a No.8 sieve). The
stone shall not be less than six (6) inches in diameter. Completed cribs shall be of the "open-sided"
type construction and provide for at least 40 % unboarded water contact area to the rock fill. 25.
No rock for use in construction is to come from the lake bed. 26. Heavy equipment, including bull
dozers, backhoes, payloaders, etc.. shall not be driven in the water. 27. A DEC Permit sign is to
be conspicuously posted at the work site, protected from the weather, for the duration of the project.
28. The permitee and any contractor, project engineer, or other person responsible for the overall
supervision of this project must read, understand and comply with this permit. including all special
conditions, to prevent environmental degradation. 29. If dredging or excavation is required for
placement of cribs. a silt screen curtain (maximum opening size of U.S. Sieve No. 20) weighted across
the bottom and suspended on floats shall be positioned to surround the work site before commencing
excavation. The curtain shall remain in place for at least 12 hours after termination of excavation.
30. The Ray Brook Fire Control Office (518) 891-3513, shall be contacted at least 48 hours prior to
commencement of activities authorized by this permit. Notification must be made on weekdays (excluding
holidays) between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m."
MR. CARTIER-Okay. So we're going to want to incorporate those into a motion, correct?
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. CARTIER-Does the applicant care to make any comments please?
MR. ROULlER-Yes.
was just read to
Commi ss i on and I
the press.
Good evening. I'm Joe Roul1er for Mr. Freihofer. In addition to the Permit that
you, I now have in hand the Permit that's been authori zed by the Lake George Park
received this this afternoon and I do have it for your review. This is right off
MR. GORALSKI-Thank you.
MR. CARTIER-Are there any special conditions in that?
MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe so.
MR. CARTIER-Or is this boiler plate?
33
'--'
--'
MR. GORALSKI-I think they're their basic conditions.
MR. CARTIER-These are general conditions.
MR. ROULIER-There are, I believe. three special conditions.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. Let me read those. "No commercial use of the permitted dock, wharf, or mooring is
authorized. No Marina use is authorized. No part of any dock or wharf shall extend more than 40 feet
from Mean Low Water. No part of the dock may extend more than 100 feet from the Mean High Water Mark.
Every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property
line, extended to the lake and the same axis as the property line runs on shore where it meets the
lake or at a right angle to the Mean High Water Mark, whichever results in the greater setback." Okay.
You need to submit a copy of that to the Planning Department.
MR. MARTIN-Could we have the date on that, Pete?
MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry. January 9, 1991.
MR. HAGAN-You're original plans, as I recall, showed that the deck from the present dock was going
to be extended continuously over to the new proposed dock. Is that still proposed? I mean, the way
it reads, it says, "to extend an existing sundeck out over the proposed dock system". To me, that
still means you're keeping the deck continuously from the beginning of one dock. over, continuously
to the end of the new proposed dock.
MR. ROULIER-My interpretation of the way that's written would also coincide with yours.
MR. HAGAN-But you're not doing that, now?
MR. ROULIER-That's correct. Although the dock remains the same, the sundeck area is significantly
modified to the area just over the proposed U-shaped crib dock.
MR. HAGAN-Okay. The other thing I don't see is what is the distance. open space. between the two dock
systems?
MR. ROULIER-Okay. It will be approximately 12 feet.
MR. HAGAN-Okay, and there will be nothing covering that open 12 feet?
MR. ROULIER-That's absolutely correct.
MR. HAGAN-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
the public hearing.
Does the Board have any other further comments or questions?
Is there anybody who wishes to comment?
If not. I'll open
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-This is Type II. so no SEQRA is required. We are able to entertain, pending no discussion,
a motion on this application.
II)TION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 84-90 CHARLES FREIHOFER, III. Introduced by James Martin who moved
for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano:
To construct a U-shaped crib dock of approximately 624 square feet and to construct a boat cover over
the proposed dock system, with the following stipulations: One, that the special conditions listed
in Page Two of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Permit dated November 5th,
1990, as listed on Page Two of the Permit, be adhered to during the construction of the dock system.
Two, that the special conditions of the Lake George Park Commission Permit dated January 9th, 1991
be adhered to during the construction of the proposed dock system.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January. 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
34
"'--'
--"
MR. MARTIN-I want to make specific note of how I read this, to construct a U-shaped crib dock of approx.
624 sq. ft. to extend a sun deck out over the proposed dock system, not existing. I've removed existing
from the wording of that.
MR. ROULIER-That's correct. First of all, I want to make a correction, here. It will just be a boat
cover on the sun deck area over the new U-shaped crib dock.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. A boat cover area, is that what you said?
MR. ROULIER-A boat cover over a U-shaped crib dock.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. I'll re-word that again. To construct a U-shaped crib dock of approx.
624 sq. ft. to extend a boat cover over the proposed dock system.
MR. ROULIER-Eliminate to extend.
MR. CARTIER-Well, it's not an extension.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. To construct a boat cover out over the proposed dock system.
MR. ROULIER-That's correct.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 2-91 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA BOB BAKER POOLS OWNER: ROBERT D.S. CONIIJIT 87 CJ,IAKER
ROAD TO LOCATE A RETAIL POOL SALES FACILITY IN AN EXISTING BUILDING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX
MAP NO. 107-1-1 LOT SIZE: 10,040 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 Ie
BOB BAKER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Site Plan No. 2-91, Bob Baker Pools, dated January 7, 1991, Meeting
Date: January 15, 1991 "This application is for a change of use only. The applicant has stated that
there will be no physical changes to the site. The applicant shows no exterior display. Because the
Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance addresses only "Private Swimming Pools" I would recommend the
following stipulations: 1) Any pools be set back a minimum of 40 feet from the Quaker Road and Everts
Avenue property lines. 2) Any pools be set back a minimum of 10 feet from any other property line.
3) Any pools meet the requirements of the N.Y.S. Building Code. Finally, the applicant should indicate
the intended use of the 8' by 12' building." Warren County Planning Board approved.
MR. CAIMANO-Wait a minute. They approved with a stipulation.
MR. CARTIER-Provided that there's no outside display. which addresses your comment.
MR. GORALSKI-I guess so.
MR. CARTIER-In other words, Warren County is saying no pools on site outside.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. and the Beautification Committee. with a couple of letters back and forth. have
decided not to review this project.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would the applicant care to address the Board or make comments?
MR. BAKER-I'm here if you have any questions.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, my first question. Bob is the fact that there seems to be a discrepancy here. Are
you not going to have a display pool outside?
MR. BAKER-I never said that.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. I assumed you were.
MR. CARTIER-Mr. Baker, would you state your name for the record? Thank you.
MR. BAKER-Yes. My name is Bob Baker. If we do a pool, it will not be an in-ground pool. It will
be an above ground pool and it will only be up for two months, which is about what we did at the other
location.
MR. CARTIER-Well, according to Warren County, they're saying you can't do that.
MR. BAKER-Can't do any pools?
35
-
MR. CARTIER-It says, approved provided that there is no outside display.
MR. HAGAN-Well, we aren't contained by that.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. You could, by a majority plus on, overrule that decision.
MR. HAGAN-Right.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. CAIMANO-My other question is, there is no hazardous chemicals attached here. Are you not going
to sell pool chemicals?
MR. BAKER-Yes. We submitted the amounts on the application.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. There was an MSDS submitted that the Fire Marshal's office has.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. There's nothing attached to this application to show anything like that happening.
MR. GORALSKI-Well, there was one submitted and the Fire Marshal's office does have that on record.
MR. CAIMANO-Fine.
MR. CARTIER-Is that what that 8' by 12' building is going to be used for?
MR. BAKER-Well. that was just there. We really haven't decided any use for that building. We' 11
probably store sand, filter sand. in there, if we store anything. We're not warehousing on the site.
We're just using that as a retail outlet. We have another warehouse off premises.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, but if you were to store chlorine or some of these other chemicals...
MR. BAKER-We'd have to put the placard on the door. We have to do that. We know that.
MR. CARTIER-And how secure is that 8' by 12' building? Can it be made secure so that somebody can't
break in easily?
MR. BAKER-If I'm going to put my material in it for sale, it's going to be secure.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-You're going to have a hard time getting in there.
MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any other comments or questions?
MR. HAGAN-What kind of a hardship does this stipulation by the County impose upon you?
MR. BAKER-Well. I don't know why it was brought up. Nothing was ever mentioned about it. We don't
intend to put an in-ground pool display there.
MR. HAGAN-I would find that almost less objectionable than the above ground pool.
MR. BAKER-Well, it probably would be, Jim, but the water table's so high there.
MR. HAGAN-Okay.
MR. BAKER-It's like about two feet down you've got water and that's why we elected not to put it.
MR. CARTIER-All you've got to do is dig a hole and you've got an in-ground pool.
MR. BAKER-That's right.
MR. MARTIN-Plus it's not as permanent in nature.
MR. BAKER-There's a pump in the basement of that building. It goes continuously. It's going right
now. The water's in the basement. There's only a crawl space under there.
MR. HAGAN-The next question I have is if you build an above ground pool, what kind of protection are
you going to give that against kids playing in it when you're not there?
MR. BAKER-Well. according to the Ordinance a four foot fence is constituted by the wall with a four
foot above ground pool and little kids shouldn't be out at night. The sheriff's department watches
pretty good because when we had the other pool over on Quaker Road, they caught some young ladies
swimming in there without any bathing suits. So they've been keeping an eye on that pool.
36
'--'
MR. CARTIER-Is there going to be outside lighting on that, at night?
MR. BAKER-No. Only the porch light on the porch of the building and the sign.
MR. CARTIER-Is any of that light directed toward wherever that pool's going to be, so people can spot
kids in there. or will there be some deterrent?
MR. BAKER-If we do put a pool up on the premises. we can put spot light, I suppose, in the peak of
the building and spot the pool.
MR. CARTIER-You'd be willing to do that?
MR. BAKER-Of course. It would be a good advertisement for me.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-I just wanted to mention, that's the reason I noted in my comments that any construction
should meet the New York State Building Codes and that's where you get your requirement for the four
foot fence.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-Okay, but if he decides to put an above ground pool, will he have to come before us again,
or do we have to tie this up now?
MR. GORALSKI-No. You have to condition it now.
MR. BAKER-Actually. in my business, an above ground pool is considered merchandise for sale and it
doesn't come under the Building Permit process.
MR. HAGAN-But I'm thinking of the County. We have to overrule the County, or else you can't put a
pool
MR. BAKER-I understand. What I'm saying is we're not looking to break any of the laws or bend or any
of the rules.
MR. HAGAN-What I'm saying, I think. Bob. is now you have to decide. you have to tell us if you're going
to have an above ground pool.
MR. BAKER-That's what I'm saying. The only thing we would do, we would not put an in-ground pool in
there, which I think was what the County was addressing. We would just put an above ground pool up,
just for display.
MR. CAIMANO-They didn't say anything about pools. They said no outside display. is what they said.
They didn't say, in-ground pool, above ground pool. It just says no outside display, which is kind
of funny. That's like asking an auto dealer not to put a car out front.
MR. CARTIER-I would have to assume they were referring to a pool, no outside display of pools.
MR. CAIMANO-I would too.
MR. HAGAN-Didn't you voice objection at that meeting?
MR. BAKER-I wasn't at that meeting. It was one of the meetings I didn't go to.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. BAKER-They usually just approve those old ones in a blanket.
MRS. PULVER-Possibly the County knew the water table was high. though, too, and we're thinking in-ground
poo 1.
MR. CAIMANO-What we could do is make the motion to indicate that we think that they're talking about
pools.
MR. HAGAN-We have to overrule that.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, we can word it in such a way that what our intention is is how we read it. and go
from there.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who cares to comment?
37
~
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COIIENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-We need to entertain a SEQRA Review.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMIIlATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 2-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Martin:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BOB BAKER POOLS, to locate
a retail pool sales facility in an existing building. and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact
as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance
or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-91 BOB BAKER POOLS. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for
its adoption, seconded by James Hagan:
To locate a retail pool sales facility in an existing building, subject to the following: One,
stipulations of Mr. Goralski's January 7th letter be adhered to. Two, it is understood by the Queensbury
Planning Board that the Warren County Planning Board in their comments were talking about either an
in-ground or above ground swillllling pool when they mentioned, approval provided there is no outside
display. It is our opinion that an above ground pool should be allowed as a display.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January. 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
SITE PLAN NO. 4-91 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-IA C.R. BARD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 266 BAY ROAD, SOUTH OF
CJ,IAKER AND BAY INTERSECTION TO ADD A 200 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING TO EXISTING TRAINING BUILDING.
(WARREN COUNTY) TAX MAP NO. 106-3-1 LOT SIZE: 7.99 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N
38
-'
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 4-91, C. R. Bard, dated, January 11, 1991,
Meeting Date: January 15, 1991 "The app1icant is requesting to add a 28~ ft. by 7 foot addition to
an existing storage shed which wiìl be ±4 feet from the D & H property line. The applicant received
an area variance for this expansion on 12/19/90. The expanded building at its closest point is 270
feet from the resi denti al nei ghborhood. The industri al complex surrounding the building wi 11 not be
negatively impacted by the addition. The D & H property currently has a portion of the building to
be expanded within 4 feet of the property boundary and, therefore, it does not appear that the expansion
will be of concern. I reviewed this plan with regard to Section 5.070: 1) The location is an
industrial site and the expansion is compatible with what is in existence on the site. 2) Traffic
and circulation are not a problem. 3) Parking and loading are not affected. 4) Pedestrian traffic
is not an issue. 5) Storm water drainage is not a concern. 6) Water and sewer facilities are not
impacted. 7) Plantings are not an issue. 8) Fire access is adequate. 9) Erosion control is not
a problem."
MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board said No County Impact.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated January 15, 1991 "We have reviewed the
project and have determined there are no engineering concerns. We note that the proposed roof area
addition will have an insignificant impact on run off generated. Therefore. we recommend that an
applicant's request for a stormwater management waiver be entertained by the Planning Board."
MR. YARMOWICH-It may be a formality in that the Planning Department has already determined there to
be no storm water drainage concerns as well.
MR. CARTIER-So we don't need a waiver?
MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend you include in your motion that you're waiving the requirements for
storm water management plan.
MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. in that it not come up again in the event there's other changes to the site. later,
under another site plan.
MR. CARTIER-Does the applicant care to make any comments? Okay.
MR. CAIMANO-My understanding of this thing is that while in Lee's comments she said. existing storage
shed, my understanding is that we're adding storage to an existing training building, right? We're
not storing any product or chemicals or anything like that, chalk, blackboard, those kinds of things,
tables and chairs.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a SEQRA Review.
MR. CAIMANO-Is this our choice. to make a SEQRA Review?
MR. GORALSKI-On this? No. It's an unlisted action. You have to do one.
RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATIOI OF rI) SIGlIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOWTION rI). 4-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: C.R. BARD, to add a 200
sq. ft. storage building to existing training building.
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
39
--'
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5 Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact
as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board
will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1991. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-We can now entertain a motion for disposition of this application.
MOTION 10 APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-91 C.R. BARD, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption,
seconded by James Hagan:
To add a 200 sq. ft. storage building to existing training building, with the following note: That
the applicant's request for a waiver of a storm water management plan is granted.
Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1991. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Bits and pieces. Reminder, Paul Dusek will be here at the next meeting to talk
to us about. we had requested his presence to talk about legal representation and so on. So you may
want to think about that. You have in front of you, somewhere. a draft of a letter addressing the
Town Board, regarding a request for a traffic management plan, a draft copy.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Has anybody got any questions about that, or do you want to make any changes to that letter,
or can that letter go out to the Town Board as is?
MR. CAIMANO-I liked it.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, I think it can go out, and didn't Lee say that she called up at the County and they
were going to do the traffic study for nothing?
MR. CARTIER-They are?
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Wonderful.
MRS. PULVER-She talked with Steve Borgos and he liked that even better.
MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. There's money in the County. I'm not sure if it's the County DPW Budget
or the Glens Falls Transit Authority Budget. I'm not exactly sure who's budget, but between those
two agencies, they appeared to be willing to undertake the Study.
MR. MARTIN-Just as a point of information. Who's actually doing the work? Are they hiring out for
it or are they going to do it right out of their office?
40
--'
MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. I think Karen Ray is going to administer it.
MRS. PULVER-So. let's ask for an aquifer study. Let's ask for the County Board to do an aquifer study
throughout the Town.
MR. CARTIER-That you'd have to pay for and you don't have anybody in Town that could do that. You'd
have to go outside.
MR. CAIMANO-That's not a bad idea. an aquifer study.
MRS. PULVER-We're looking to put waste here. there, and everywhere and we don't really know how far
down the aquifer.
MR. CAIMANO-All those sewers are coming in.
MR. GORALSKI-I can add something to that.
MR. CARTIER-Time out. Let's hold the aquifer thing. Let's finish this traffic thing. How big an
area do you want to cover in this traffic study? Do you want it just in terms of the commercial
development or the whole Town or what?
MRS. PULVER-How about as big an area as their pocket book will stand?
MR. MARTIN-Well, a way to pair that down would be, the Town has classified the roads within the Town
as major collectors and so on and so forth. so you could have the study done along those corridors
which are identified as collectors or whatever.
MR. YARMOWICH-It's already in the Ordinance, which roads are which.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-And just draw the line.
MR. CARTIER-In other words, do a traffic management study that covers the arterial and collector roads?
Will that do it? Okay. So. do you want to change that?
MR. GORALSKI-There are regional arterials, local arterials. and collectors.
MR. CARTIER-If not for the entire Town. then for...
MR. CAIMANO-The three he just mentioned, Peter. regional and local.
MR. GORALSKI-Regional arterials, local arterials, and collector streets.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. John. I'm going to give you this in a couple of minutes. Next item, did everybody
get the Warren County Planning Board's approval of the Aviation Mall?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes. it just came.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Did you read the comments?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Does anybody have a problem with those comments?
MR. CAIMANO-No.
MR. LAPOINT-Just came in the mail?
MR. CAIMANO-Just came in the mail a couple of days ago.
MRS. PULVER-How come I didn't get it?
MR. CARTIER-It says two things. There's two ways to read this. It says, okay, this is the approval
of Warren County on the Aviation Mall. It says, approval with comment, with the condition that the
Pyramid Company find the means to alleviate the exclusive Aviation Road egress and ingress problem,
whether it be Foster Avenue or the Present Company shopping center. Now it also says. an effort must
be made to construct an ingress/egress point onto Glen Street. I've got a problem, we're having some
problems interpreting this. What does it mean?
41
--.-/
MR. HAGAN-They can't do it unless they procure new property.
MR. CARTIER-Well, it says you've got to do it and then the second part says you've got to ..ill. to do
it.
MR. CAIMANO-You've got to make an effort.
MR. MARTIN-You've got to make an effort, yes.
MR. CAIMANO-You're right. it's written wrong.
MR. CARTIER-Are we in the position of having to enforce Warren County Planning Board?
MR. GORALSKI-You may want to write a letter to the Warren County Planning Board requesting that clarify
their.. .
MR. CARTIER-Could I request Staff to write a letter to the Warren County Planning Board requesting
clarification of that. prior to next Tuesday?
MR. YARMOWICH-You could override it with a vote.
MR. GORALSKI-Or you could override it with a vote.
MR. CAIMANO-Or we could override it with a vote.
MR. YARMOWICH-Just clarify it that way.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I'd just as soon have it clarified. Nick. you said you had something.
MR. CAIMANO-I have a comment regarding a meeting next week and it is not a personal comment. It is,
personal for me. but it's not personal to anything else. I want, I guess when I hear from Paul next
week, here are my thoughts. just so Karla can tell him and so it can be on the record. I have heard
from him an opinion and I don't know if that's going to be what he's going to say next week, but the
opinion is that when it comes to a position where he has to defend either the Town Board, the Planning
Board, or the Zoning Board of Appeals, he will be defending the Town Board and when he defends the
Town Board, he cannot be defending us, which I certainly understand. and I also understand that you
work for him and therefore you are an extension of his office. That being the case, first of all,
I don't believe in that. I believe the Town Attorney works for the taxpayers of the Town, not for
the Town Board, but secondly, if in fact he chooses to make that determination, then I think we are
left uncovered, because every time I turn. or any member of this Board turns to you and asks for your
opinion, potentially we are putting ourselves at risk, down the road. We have no way of knowing what's
going to come to Article 78 before it happens. Therefore, an attorney should be there from moment
one, and I am going to want a clarification from him on that. and secondly, if what I am saying is
true, then I am going to request of the Chairman of this Board that we very quickly look for an outside
attorney who, from the moment we start a meeting, will be representing us and not be, potentially,
somebody else's lawyer.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, and the law is something about, we can re'quest services like that provided money
has been appropriated for it and Lee says there's money in the budget for that. So. that's a
possibility.
MR. CAIMANO-Fine.
MR. CARTIER-Does anybody have anything else? One final personal comment for me, please. First of
all, thanks for the vote. tonight. I'm glad Nick is Vice-Chairman. Some of you. apparently, have
some concerns about how I do things. Please feel free to share those concerns with me. I don't have
any lock on wisdom up here. I am a firm believer in the idea of the collective wisdom of this Board.
I think our function is to take the long view of issues, and now that we're going to have a lot less
time spent on engineering concerns, I think we're going to have time to be able to do that. I need
to have you guys let me know what you don't like about what I'm doing. I need some feedback from you.
So please don't hesitate. Since September. maybe it's shown, I've been pretty much winging it up here.
If you want me to do things differently, please don't hesitate to let me know.
MR. CAIMANO-I have one other thing you didn't mention. We got a letter from Dave Hatin which said,
Dear Planning Board Members: During the review of Site Plan Review No. 90-90 for a real estate office
on Bay Road, I stated this building was exempted, etc., etc. He made an error.
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Because of that error, we made a decision. What are we going to do about this?
MR. CARTIER-That's okay. He will take care of it on site plan, or at CO, the Permitting process.
42
,-,'
MR. CAIMANO-That's all I want to know.
MRS. PULVER-I will not be here the 19th of February.
MR. CARTIER-You won't be here February. You're not going to be here. February and March?
MR. HAGAN-February and March. I will be here next week.
MR. MARTIN-That's the other thing I want to impress. I want it in the minutes that we impress upon
the Town Board that we are in dire need of that seventh position being filled.
MR. CORPUS-Has Mr. Kupillas resigned his position?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-He told me on the phone he was going to submit a letter of resignation to the Town Board
and he has not done it. I talked to him again the 27th or 28th of December.
MS. CORPUS-Okay. The Town Board cannot really act unless he does that.
MR. CARTIER-Can somebody call him and remind him. please? Maybe it might help if somebody could bug
the Town Board about getting the seventh member.
MR. MARTIN-Well, he has to resign, first of all, that's the problem.
MRS. PULVER-I'll put a little note in my memo to Steve, as to our elections and stuff.
MR. CARTIER-Good idea.
MR. HAGAN-I have one thing that I'd like to formally get into the minutes and that is the concern in
our area on very large projects. There is one before us that we haven't voted on yet and I have, from
reliable sources, that that company is not enjoying a healthy financial condition and my fear is. if
that project gets half way through. and because of lack of funding it isn't completed, the Town of
Queensbury's looking at an eyesore. and I know it's not in our laws to request a performance bond from
an applicant on a very large project. I don't think we should start asking all applicants. but I think
where a project of several million dollars is involved, it wouldn't be out of order to get something
into our Ordinances where we could request such a performance bond. This is normal, good business
practice and I'm thinking of the same company that's been involved in the City of Syracuse where they
have run into such difficulties and also I think somebody cited a project in Pittsburg that went defunct
and the city is looking at a great big unfinished eyesore. This is a potential that I think we should
think about and get something into the Ordinance whereby we would be in order to request a performance
bond be posted. I don't think it's an unreasonable request on a very large project.
MR. CAIMANO-I agree with you, and I'm not going to ask you what the name of the project is. I'm going
to guess along with the rest of you. I win say this. It is also a fact of business life, in those
kinds of projects, that they come forward. first, and talk about what is going to be and. yet. they
don't have the approvals from the other people that are going along. It's really the reverse. The
other people involved in the project hang back until the major gets his approval. and then they will
say yes or no.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Financing can't be secured until local approvals are in place.
MR. YARMOWICH-You usually attach that with the Building Permit process in a lot of cases. You don't
give them a Building Permit until they post the bond. As a Town would entertain a contract. With
any publicly bid job, they have a performance bond and a payment bond and so forth from the contractor.
MR. HAGAN-It's common business practice.
MR. YARMOWICH-You can award a job, but you just can't have a contract until that exists and the same
thing would apply for a Building Permit.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-My comment is with regard to your request for maybe input from applicants as to how to
speed up the communication process between applicants and Staff and Engineering. I would suggest to
you and I suggested to Staff is that maybe applicants would submit an application. whatever it might
be, and Staff would assign it a number, but. even to be incomplete, not ready for agenda, but have
the people have the ability to request. at that point, that it be stin forwarded to Engineering for
review. at that point, with an understanding that they're responsible for the cost, because that, you've
got your control number, you've got your backcharge ability. but you don't have the backlog part of
it. and I'm not talking about asking the Consulting Engineer for the Town to design a particular project.
43
-...--'
I think you're going to have to have things pretty weB together before they're going to say. we're
in a position where we can make a comment on it.
MR. YI\Rt()WICH-We go by the Ordinances, which we can't change, and we foBow the regulations, unless
there's adequate justification on the applicant's part. So none of the Board members should feel
uncomfortable about us designing anybody's project. We've got enough liability for what we do.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't mean to give you a paper bag application. Tom.
MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. We1ï, we wouldn't go very far with it either. So, the Board should know that.
when they think of ways to do that.
MR. 0 'CONNOR-I think it would speed things up. I'm even coming to a point where I'm thinking that
maybe we've got to step back and have application and then have a month when you get your Staff. your
comment review.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Because it gets ridiculous to come up here, and I think you've recognized it. to get a
two page list of things and stand here and say, well, are we going to table or aren't we going to table.
and then start trying to, the natural tendency is to say, well. how can we get around tabling, and
in fact you can't get around tabling.
MR. CARTIER-Well, if I understand they way this process is going to work, we're going to reach a point,
theoretica1ïy, where we're not sitting here addressing engineering concerns. These things are not
going to be tabled because of engineering concerns. There might be one or two minor things that you
left come through that we can say, okay, we'll take care of that on a note, okay.
MR. YARMOWICH-If the Board has faith in us determining whether or not it's something that you understand
that we can bring forward. here. and just dispose of, we'd be happy to do it that way and make a
recommendation that we bring the thing to the agenda and have the Planning Staff consider it and go
that way.
MR. MARTIN-I think the new system we put into effect is going to do wonders.
MR. HAGAN-Hence, the time will come when the application will go through the first time. Mr. Chairman.
MR. CAIMANO-And we don't have to be here at all.
MR. CARTIER-I guess we can entertain a motion to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Peter Cartier, Chairman
44