The URL can be used to link to this page

1991-02-28 "-- -.,,/ CJ,IEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28TH, 1991 INDEX Subdivision No. 14-1988 FINAL STAGE Hickory Acres Owner: Sidney H. Timms 3. Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 2-90 Sidney H. Timms 3. Subdivision No. 16-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Daniel & George Drellos 3. Site Plan No. 49-89 Anthony Russo Ottavio Estates 9. Subdivision No. 2-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Keith & Kathleen Pfeiffer 10. Site Plan No. 9-91 James M. Weller, P.E. Owner: West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc. 14. 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. II ,) JiG""'- U}~ '~ '-"'" CJ,IEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES MARTIN EDWARD LAPOINT NICHOLAS CAIMANO MEMBERS ABSENT JAMES HAGAN TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-What I'd like to do, if the Board doesn't object, is to take care of one piece of old Old Business here, having to do with the Aviation Mall. In our January Special Meeting we had stipulated that the Aviation Mall project submit some information on or before the February 28th meeting. That information is in hand. You have that in front of you. Let me read the letter from Rist-Frost. dated February 26, 1991 "Dear Mr. Cartier: In accordance with stipulations made a part of the Board's 1/22/91 site plan approval. we have reviewed various revised project information from the applicant. We find that the previous engineering concerns relating to relocation of the Town of Queensbury 24 inch water main and site stormwater management infiltration galleries have been satisfactorily addressed. The project revisions apparently have not changed the layout of the approved site plan surface features." We also have a letter from the Town of Queensbury Water Department, dated February 27. 1991, from Tom Flaherty "Dear Lee: I have reviewed the latest revised plans for the above projected dated 2/14/91 which were received in my office on 2/26/91 in reference to the proposed Aviation Mall expansion. Insofar as the water and wastewater infrastructures are concerned, the applicant has addressed all of the concerns of this office and I find the plans submitted acceptable. I have had conversations with Mr. Gagliano and he is aware that their site water main relocation is to take place prior to the summer months. The 24 inch water main must be restored to full service no later than May 15th. If the relocation of the 24 inch water main can not be accomplished in accordance with the above. then work on the water main will not be allowed until after Labor Day. As stated in my letter to Anthony Lester of John Meyer Engineering dated 2/22/91, Aviation Mall will be required to furnish as built plans for water and wastewater installations and final acceptance of these installations will be based upon complete satisfaction of this office upon completion." MR. CAIMANO-What does that last sentence mean, in English? MR. CARTIER-I read it. Do you want me to translate it for you? MR. CAIMANO-I don't understand what it means. MR. CARTIER-He's going to have to submit plans, as built, for water and wastewater. Is this field changes? MR. YARMOWICH-Those are record drawings that they'll use. MRS. YORK-At the end of the project, when the project is completed, they submit drawings that attest to the fact the project was built as to these drawings. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-Because it's underground construction, things will likely have to be modified slightly. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-So the question before us very simply is, is the Board satisfied that the stipulations of that motion to approve have been met? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I would say so. 1 '--.-- --../ MR. CARTIER-Okay. Then let the record show that the stipulations as spelled out in the motion for approval have been met and they will become part of the public record. Two short sets of minutes. MR. CAIMANO-Wait a minute. You have more on the Aviation Mall, here. MR. CARTIER-That is addressed to, you are referring to what, may I ask? MR. CAIMANO-I'm referring to the back of Yarmowich's letter which talks about the new entrance way. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you want to read those? Do these need to be read into the record? MR. CAIMANO-I haven't even read them. MR. CARTIER-Well, in essence, if I might sum them up, they refer to our request that they make an effort to provide another entrance and they are copies of letters that he mailed to Niagara Mohawk. to Mr. John Nigro, owner of the Nigro Center. MRS. YORK-Those were just dropped off at our office yesterday. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Well. I think it's great that Lou is pursuing this with what you'd call your basic great vigor. It looks like the NiMo has been not interested at first. but now \tIe're getting back more interested. Is that the idea? MR. CARTIER-Yes. It sounds like NiMo would consider crossing the right-of-way, but not going down the right-of-way. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. There's also one other letter here from Flaherty regarding the Aviation Mall expansion. MR. CARTIER-That's to us. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-We can talk about that later, if you want. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody have any questions on those letters? MR. CAIMANO-Well, I think since we made an issue of it, you, as the Chairman, might want to send a brief note to Lou indicating our pleasure with his continuing attempts to follow through with this road and wish him luck or whatever, but certainly he doesn't have to do this and he's doing it on his own hook and I think it deserves a continuing push. Don't you? MR. CARTIER-Okay. You want a letter from me encouraging him to continue his efforts. Is that basically it? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 22nd, 1991 Regular Meeting: Page 12, under Motion to Approve Site Plan No. 17-90 J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider Restaurant, the vote and the discussion below the vote are out of sequence, the discussion was held prior to the vote January 22nd, 1991 Special Meeting: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 28th day of February. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan 2 .- MR. CARTIER-One other item before we get into the regular agenda. here. Subdivision No. 14-1988 Hickory Acres Owner: Sidney Timms and Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-90 Sidney Tillllls and we have a letter from them. I want to just take care of this in case anybody's here waiting for that issue. This is a letter from VanDusen and Steves. dated February 26, 1991 "Dear Board Members: As yet we have not received· a Wetlands Permit from DEC. We feel we must have this in hand before asking you to review either the Wetlands Permit application or the Final Subdivision application. Therefore. we are asking that this review be tabled indefinitely until we receive the necessary permits." And I think that's appropriate. Rather than table this thing from month to month. it seems to me it would be appropriate to table this until they have their Wetlands Permit. MR. CAIMANO-That's 14-1988 and the 2-90, right? MR. CARTIER-Correct. So, if you are so inclined, we could entertain a motion to accept that tabling. tllTION 10 TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 OWNER: SIDlEY TIMMS AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 2-90 SIDlEY H. TIMMS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 28th day of February. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. YORK-Mr. Chairman, there is also a letter from Howard Krantz who's representing Anthony Russo. Mr. Krantz is requesting that this be tabled also because of the fact that he has to go back and reestablish his variances. MRS. PULVER-This is Site Plan No. 49-89? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Is there anybody here for that? I was going to leave that until the regular slot on the agenda because nobody's here. MRS. YORK-Okay. All right. Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA MOBILE HOME OVERLAY DANIEL I GEORGE DRELLOS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE fl)RTH SIDE OF LUZERNE ROAD, 3/4 MILE WEST OF NORTIIWAY FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 93-2-6, 9, 22.1 LOT SIZE: 33.52 ACRES MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:07 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 16-1990, Daniel and George Drellos, dated February 22, 1991, Meeting Date: February 28, 1991 "The request is to subdivide 33.52 acres into 3 lots. Lot A is an existing mobile home court, Lot C contains an existing light industrial use and. Lot B is vacant land. The property is on Luzerne Road and has Town water. Lot B, which is the undeveloped site, was once used for sand and gravel extraction and the former pit contains standing ground water. The applicant desires to subdivide Lot B from Lots C and A for future development. At this time there is no specific use identified for that property. The applicant is requesting waivers from the 2 foot contours and the Drainage Report. The rational stated is that prior approvals were granted for the uses on Lot A and Lot C and that Lot B is 9.52 acres in size. Any development on Lot B will require site plan review at which time drainage calculations, taking into account the proposed development, will be required. 1. The Board should be aware that we cannot be sure if Lot B is an integral part of drainage for the Mobile Home Park. 2. The application does require topographic features for the entire parcel. 3. I got the Northwinds Mobile Home Park approval (Mobile Home Park Site Plan No. 1-86) out of the vault. The contours on that site. which are not portrayed on the subdi vi si on map are from 392 to 382. Lot B reaches a depth of 370. Furthermore, a memorandum from Nick Scartelli (engineer) to Dick Roberts (attached) states that the natural drainage is towards the borrow pit. I would suggest that the Board require that the applicant prove that Lot B is not integral to proper drainage in the Mobile Home Park prior to preliminary subdivision approval. I reviewed this submission with regard to the resource maps available in the Planning Department. The pit itself was identified as unsuitable for development. The following refers to the land around the pit. The Soil Analysis Depth to Bedrock showed a depth to bedrock of greater than 60 inches which is a high development suitability. The Soil Analysis - Percolation Rate Map indicated a 6 - 20 inches per hour which is limited to unsuitable for development. The Water Resources Map indicates that this is an aquifer recharge area. The agent 3 ~ for the applicant indicated to me that the test pit done at the site showed ground water at a depth of 10 feet. However, he also stated that the standing body of water which was ground water was at a very shallow depth. This is a curiosity which the Board may want to explore with the applicant. In reviewing the SEQRA form I found some items which the Board may want to review with the applicant. Site Plan No. 61-89 was for the construction of a Light Industrial use - so the present use of the site should have both commercial and industrial checked (page 2 A). On site description (page 2) the site does have water surface area and that acreage should be identified. The depth to bedrock on page 2 is about 60 inches plus. The EAF appears to be addressing an intended use on Lot B in the questions on Part B - Project Description. although the applicant states that the desire is to have the ability to market the lot. The Board may want to address the intended use for Lot B with the applicant. If there currently is an intended use. then it would be considered part of the project and would have to be addressed by the Boa rd in Pa rt II of the EAF." MRS. YORK-(Referring to Staff Notes) The application does not contain topographic features for the entire parcel. I see that there was something that happened in the typing, here. At any rate, the map does not contain the topographic features for the entire parcel. What it does say is. on lots A and C, refer to these other plans (former approvals), which we did have in our vault and I did check. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Tom. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost. Town Engineer, dated February 15. 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The drawings need to be sealed by an appropriately licensed professional. 2. The following plans and reports should be provided or a waiver request for these items should be considered. Because site plan review is required for any commercial development on this site, we recommend the Board grant waivers. a. Clearing Plan b. Grading and Erosion Control Plan c. Drainage and Stormwater Management Report d. Environmental Report 3. With regard to the sewage disposal system: a. The distribution box detail should show a minimum dimension of 2" between the invert of the box and invert of the outlet pipes. b. The dimension between laterals shown on the absorption trench plan view detail (6') needs to be coordinated with the trench cross section detail (7'). c. Five feet of suitable fill material, measured from the limit of trench gravel, is required around the periphery of the absorption field trenches. If you have any questions please call me." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant care to address the Board? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Daniel Drellos is with me, who is one of the applicants. Also with me is Davi d Bol ster from the fi rm of VanDusen and Steves who di d the actual survey work and both of us would attempt to answer the questions that have been raised. First, as to Staff Comments by Mrs. York, I've discussed them a little bit with her and I really don't have strong objection to maybe the intent of what she has here, bringing to the Board's attention the fact that this parcel does serve, in part. for drainage of the adjoining parcels. I think that that is probably no different than any other parcel that lies down land of any other parcel within the Town. Our comment to that is that we have no proposed development of Lot B and this time and we're not proposing any development. We're just for permission to separate ownership. If there is any development on that lot. of any nature. it will have to undergo site plan review because all uses in that particular zone require site plan review. At that time, I think that the Board, if it does as it has in the past. it would consider the drainage that comes onto the lot as well as the drainage that's created on the lot itself. At that time, proper provision would be made for any drainage from adjoining lands. We don't know what's going to happen to Parcel B, so we can't tell you how we would provi de for the drainage that goes on there now until we actually quantify the drainage that will be created by whatever development takes place on that lot. MR. CAIMANO-Might you sell it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. but the purchaser would be obligated at that time, if I understand how we've operated in the past, to include that in the watershed when he develops his drainage plan and brings his calculations to the Board and shows the Board how he's handling the drainage. I even have no problem with a note being put on the final subdivision map bringing that to someone's attention, as to any purchaser of Lot B, that it should be aware of the fact that on site plan review under this configuration the Planning Board would require consideration of drainage from Lot A, which is a mobile home park. The other lot that we have, when we did the site plan. that was under the present regulations and we showed a retention pond or area on that lot which made it completely self contained. So that lot doesn't drain into the borrow pit and that's how I would suggest handling, I guess. the whole first page of Mrs. York's notes. As to the second page, comments, bedrock of greater than 60 inches. we had an actual soil analysis made by Charles Main. They appear on the map and I think he went to nine feet or 108 inches. He did not run into bedrock up to that point. We're not sure how far below bedrock is. I think they're simply saying that it's greater than 60 inches by the overall map. On our site, we went down nine feet, and if you went out into the deepest part of that pond, which would probably be another two to three feet, it would be probably twelve feet below the area where we show that there is potential for a building site if that's a concern. 4 ',--, ---" MR. CARTIER-How deep is that pond? What's the water depth of that pond? MR. O'CONNOR-I've been told most of it is about a foot, but there are some areas which are a little bit deeper. Danny? DANIEL DRELLOS MR. DRELLOS-It's no more than a foot and a half. MR. O'CONNOR-And it varies and that's part of the problem with trying to give you a quantified measurement of the area. We did measure it, in part in response to the questions here, but as the water table goes up and down a little bit, it varies greatly because it is so shallow and so close to the surface. The second comment, I guess shows that there is a high percolation rate and the overall Soil Analysis Map that was made for the Town's Master Plan. we again have a percolation test with the test pit shown on the map for an area that we would propose. It would accommodate a sewage system in that particular area. It probably wouldn't on the whole site, but you've got a very expansive area here and, again, that's something that's going to come under your review when you do your actual site plan review. We've tried to comply by showing you that we have the potential for a building site on this parcel, but we're not telling you that that's where it's going to be built and we're presuming that in your review, you will do an actual site analysis per what is being submitted to you at that time. I truthfully don't know if this is over an aquifer recharge area. MR. CARTIER-It is. MR. O'CONNOR-And if we don't propose anything, I don't know how we would really respond to that. MR. CARTIER-Well, the next paragraph is why I bring up the depth of the water in this pond or whatever described in this thing is. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That's back, it's shown now, the actual water limits are shown in the area that has been hashed out on this map. We can show them with clearer definition on the Final Subdivision Map if that's the actual... MR. CARTIER-Wen, what I'm suggesting, there's a major discrepancy. here, when you have standing water on the surface to a depth of a foot or a foot and a half and we're being told that ground water is at a depth of 10 feet. There's a discrepancy, here, an inconsistency here that somehow has to get straightened out. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well, the discrepancy is that we're telling you that the ground water at the level of our proposed building. which I think is at elevation 380. is 9 to 10 feet. The surface water is at 370 and that is the ground water. There is a 10 foot difference between the front of this site and where the actual water occurs. MR. CARTIER-What's the horizontal difference from the building to the surface water? MR. O'CONNOR-David, why don't you help me. DAVID BOLSTER MR. BOLSTER-I'm Dave Bolster. I'm a surveyor with VanDusen and Steves. and it's about 120 feet. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, this is a high perc area. There's something very peculiar to have water at the surface 120 feet away from a place where the water depth is. or the depth to water table is 10 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-You have a change of elevation, though. Mr. Cartier. MR. LAPOINT-I think the point he's making is that it's the same water at 370 as it would be at 370 in the test pit because the top of the test pit is at 380. MR. BOLSTER-Higher elevation. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What's the difference in elevation, then. MR. BOLSTER-Ten feet. MR. CARTIER-Ten feet? MR. O'CONNOR-About ten feet. MR. MARTIN-That's consistent then. 5 --.-' MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-As to the comments as to the SEQRA form that was made up, I believe that Mrs. York is correct. We would have no objection, on page 2, checking the box industrial as well as commercial. I'm not sure, when we did that site plan. we went to the definitions of the use, part of it was storage of construction equipment which might be commercial or might be industrial. I don't know. So we would ask, if you would, to amend the SEQRA to just check industrial that's the permitted zone. As to Question 2, we have done a measurement of the area that presently is covered by surface water and there is five acres of surface water there. Now. I don't know, I guess that's what we would have to fill in under Paragraph 2, Surface Water, five acres before and five acres after, as opposed to what was included. We have not tried to indicate that there wasn't surface water there and if we did that, then the first item would be reduced from 20.15 to 15.15, and I guess the other cOlllllent that Mrs. York has is that the depth to bedrock on page 2 is about 60 inches plus. As I've indicated, we've had the test pit which is shown here is 9 feet and there was no bedrock found, that's Question 4. I think they could very easily be remedied. The last question that she had. and I'm not sure I can state categorically. is that we have no plans for development of Lot B. What we're trying to do is separate the ownershi p of the mobile home park, the commercial operation that's in the front, from the borrow pit, and that's basically what we're trying to do at this time, and have the potential that we can put that property on the market, but we ourselves have no present development plans. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lee. do you have any other questions on your comments? MRS. YORK-No. I don't. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would you care to address engineering comments? MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to anything and we would resolve each of those by amending the Final Subdivision Map that were raised. We note that the engineer has recommended the same as we have requested for this particular application and that was part of the reason that on the original application topographical was only shown on Lot B is that we requested a waiver for the topographical on Lots A and C because we planned no new development on that. So we would ask for that as part of the approval, that waiver as necessary. MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any questions or comments? MR. CAIMANO-What kind of a SEQRA is done on this? MR. CARTIER-Long. MRS. PULVER-Long. MR. CAIMANO-Long? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-When we do the SEQRA, are we doing the SEQRA for A. B, and C as a subdivision. or are we doing it, what are we doing it for? MR. CARTIER-Well, you're doing it for a subdivision. MR. CAIMANO-That's what I thought. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CAIMANO-If we don't know how we're going to control the drainage from one lot to another, one of which may wind up not in the hands of the current owner, how do we pass the SEQRA? How do we do that? When we get into drainage, when we get into those areas, since we don't know what the control is and since we will lose control, how do we do that. I'm confused, here. MRS. YORK-Well. Mr. O'Connor's comments are basically that Lot B will have to deal with the drainage that it currently has at site plan review. It will have to accommodate all the drainage that now comes to it during site plan review. In the past, the Planning Board has had a policy, in certain cases. Perhaps I shouldn't use the word "policy". The Planning Board has made decisions that would indicate that they did not feel comfortable separating out pieces of property that, because of their relationship to each other, had to be considered one in some form. Mr. O'Connor and I have had a discussion on this and we tend to disagree. It's really a decision for this Board. At site plan review, the applicant does have to provide drainage facilities for the water that is on the lot and comes to that particular lot, but since Lot A drains onto the proposed Lot B and there is a relationship there is a relationship there. This is obvious from the engineer of record's letter when the trailer park was set up. Perhaps there should be some understanding with whoever buys that lot that they have to maintain a drainage. MR. CAIMANO-Who's "they"? 6 '- ~ MRS. YORK-Anyone who would take on that lot, and I think that's what Mike was getting to earlier in some of his comments. Whoever buys that lot has to be prepared to have that drainage from the trailer park be acceptable to him and I believe you stated that you would have no problem putting some statement to that effect on the mylar? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that's what I've done. in the past, where there's something that's an unknown quantity. but it is something that should be considered by any purchaser of the lot. We would put a note on the mylar, in effect, kind of creating an easement by the note on the mylar saying that purchaser of Lot B should be aware that on any site plan review, they will have to account for the drainage as it exists from the mobile home park and from Lot C, if you want to include that also. We have no reservation to that. MR. CARTIER-I think what I'd like to see. in that case, is when you come in for final. that statement in writing as part of your final submission. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My suggestion, Mr. Cartier, is that we put it right on the mylar. MR. CARTIER-I agree, but what I'm saying to you is, at final, when you come in for final, we would like to see that statement in writing and make it part of the record that you are going to add to the mylar. MR. O'CONNOR-I will have it on the mylar at that time if this is the way that the Board is satisfied with handling it and I have no objection to doing it. MR. CAIMANO-Before we get that far. let me ask in a backhanded, hypothetical way. to you, Paul. Let's presume that B is currently owned by someone other than the Drellos'. We would not allow the Drellos' to do anything on A or C which would encroach, drainage wise, on B. It's not allowable. Is that correct? MR. DUSEK-Right, unless they've gotten the appropriate easements. They wouldn't want to do it either. MR. CAIMANO-No, but my point is. if you owned B, they couldn't do anything on A and C which would change the drainage. hurt the drainage so it would effect your lot. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CAIMANO-We'd have to maintain it on A and C. MR. DUSEK-I think that's a safe statement. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, but aren't we, then. creating a situation here that. we're kind of going backwards into this thing. it seems to me. We are allowing a situation we know to be wrong so that some future purchaser of B will have to, and it's their responsibility if they choose to buy it that way. I understand that, will have to accommodate problems which, under other circumstances we wouldn't allow. MR. DUSEK-Well. I think the distinction. here. In the first instance, you gave, you have somebody who, without choice, is having water dumped on them. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. DUSEK-In the second instance you're giving they have a choice because it's going to be marked on the mylar and it's going to be noted. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. DUSEK-So in that particular instance, it's almost the same as if they had accomplished the drainage objectives by getting easements that ran off the land and you found that satisfactory. So I think there's a difference here because in one instance, there's a plan here, whereas in the first, you know. there wouldn't have been. MR. CAIMANO-You're right. That answers the question for me. MR. CARTIER-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-I'll open the public hearing on this and I'd like to do that by reading a letter that's just been handed to me dated, received February 26, 1991, I believe. from Shirley M. Rivers, Vermont Avenue, RD4, Box 299, Queensbury, New York "Dear Sirs: I cannot attend this meeting, for all the good it would do me anyways, but I would like to give you my opinion anyway. I cannot afford to have my taxes rai sed again because of another trailer park. Everyone goes broke except for the Drellos'. 7 ~ -./ As far as affordable housing is concerned, the people in his trailer park complain about the lot rent now. How far are you people going to let him go? Senior Citizens in the Homestead Park pay $198 a month for lot rent now. As far as the newest park, you have let him create his own little dictatorship in a democracy country. I went to a tupperware party at a friend's house in the Park. She informed all the ladies she invited that their cars could not come into the Park. We had to leave them on the side of Luzerne Road and walk in. More than two cars per trailer is not allowed, even for a couple of hours. The Luzerne Road traffic is bad now. I have had to wait five minutes to get out of the corner myself. I realize the die has already been cast and that this overlay is already an established fact. It sure seems to me that as part of the Town Board, should listen to what the residents want, not what one or two individuals want, but it's the same old story, money walks, the rest of us get blown off like we don't exist. If you know anyone interested in buying two houses". please understand. 1'm just delivering the message, here, "If you know anyone interested in buying two houses on adjoining property, have them come see me. The end of our street is partially blocked, at times. now, with all of Fred Smith's trucks, when he was granted permission to have this business in a so called Residential District. Thank you for taking the time to read this, then remember it's recyclable." MR. CAIMANO-Who is this? MR. CARTIER-From Shirley Rivers, Vermont Avenue. RD4. Box 299. If I have the impression from reading that. and I'm not sure that she's expecting that this is going to be another trailer park and that has not been represented to us at this point. Is there anyone else who would care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-What is the Board's pleasure? Do you want to conduct a SEQRA at this point? MR. CAIMANO-Why not. If we can't get through that. we can't past the next stage, right? MRS. PULVER-Right. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF (I) SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION (I). 16-1990, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DANIEL I GEORGE DRELLOS, for a 3 lot subdivision in a Mobile Home Overlay, 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 28th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan 8 '-- -- MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion as to disposition of this. We do have a waiver request associated with this. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Cartier, can I make this part of the record first, before you do the motion? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. O'CONNOR-I would submit proof of mailings of 46 notices as required per Statute. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. tlJTlON TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION III. 16-1990 DANIEL I GEORGE DRELLOS. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Martin: Mobile Home Overlay Zone. for a 3 lot subdivision, with the following stipulations: Referring to Rist-Frost's letter of February 15th, Request Number One is to be complied with. Request Number Three is to be complied with and we are granting request for 2 A, B, C, and D. In addition, the applicant is to indicate on the mylar a statement to the effect that the purchaser of Lot B will receive notification that they will be required to deal with drainage from Lot A onto Lot B. Finally, a waiver is granted for the topographical contours. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan (7:30 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 49-89 TYPE: UNLISTED He-lA ANTHONY RUSSO OTTAVIO ESTATE ROUTE 9, ~ OF A MILE NORTH OF ROUTE 149 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BILLIARD PARLOR (10,000 SQ. FT.) FORMERLY A VACANT EXISTING TAVERN. (THE BUILDING BURNED IN IIIV. 1989.) (WARREN COUNTY PLAflNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-2-1.2 LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES SECTION 4.020-K SEE PARTIAL APPROVAL FROM THE AUGUST 15, 1989 PLAflNING BOARD MEETING. THE ABOVE APPLICANT IS RECJ,IESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPROVAL (7:30 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-Site Plan 49-89. we have before us a request, this is simply a request for an extension of the application. We have a letter dated January 29, 1991, from Howard Krantz, attorney "Dear Mr. Turner and Mr. Cartier:" The letter's addressed to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board Chairman. "I represent Anthony Russo and Linda Russo, husband and wi fe, who received the fo 11 owi ng va ri ances and site plan approvals: 1. On May 24. 1989. area variance #51-1989, allowing a 20 foot rear setback for their proposed building; 2. On August 15, 1989. site plan approval #49-89, approving the parking plan for the project; 3. On September 20. 1989, area variance #102-1989, allowing a 50 foot front setback for the proposed building; and 4. On June 26. 1990, site plan approval #49-89, approving the project. Due to the recession and other economic circumstances beyond my clients' control, the overwhelming probability is that construction will not commence until the spring of 1992. Therefore. my clients hereby respectfully request that the above area variances and site plan approvals be extended unti 1 Apri 1 30, 1992. Assuming my clients' request to be agreeable to your respective boards, please confirm in writing so that I may complete and close my file." Does anybody on the Board have a question or a comment? I did. I have one. MR. CAIMANO-Well, can we do it? MR. CARTIER-Yes. Sure. MR. CAIMANO-Time wise? MR. CARTIER-We can do it if we desire. MRS. YORK-I'd like to address the Board on this. What has occurred is, if you will notice the dates on some of the earlier variances for Mr. Russo, they have expired. So Mr. Russo is in a position. now, he has to go back and re-apply for those variance which he plans to do. The site plan still is in force. Now, you can approach this two ways. You can either table this until Mr. Russo gets his variances one more time or you can. if you choose, extend his site plan, because this site plan cannot change. It's an extension of an existing site plan. MR. CARTIER-Is that why that says, "partial approval" on the agenda? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-You can do it either way. I told Mr. Krantz. when we discussed that that it might be your pleasure to wait until the variances were granted one more time or you might feel comfortable extending the site plan approval. 9 ----' MR. CARTIER-When would his site plan approval run out? MRS. YORK-June 26th. MR. CARTIER-Okay. It would run out June 26th? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-So he's got between now and June 26th to re-apply for variances. does he not? MR. MARTIN-Why don't we deal with this in the meeting in May? MR. CARTIER-Yes. Do you want to do that? We can table this until May. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, because then maybe, do you happen to know if his variances are coming up before then? MRS. YORK-They win be up next month. this coming month. If you would choose to wait, I explained to him that we would do our best to get him on your Board, also, next month. MR. CAIMANO-Next month? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-Since it's just an extension and it wouldn't be a real problem for you. MR. CARTIER-The month following his re-submission and re-approval of his variances? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board have any problems with that? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CAIMANO-It's the safest way to do it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. It just seems to keep the process a little cleaner, or neater. If the Board has no objection to that suggestion, I guess we can entertain a motion to table this until he receives his variances or his re-approvals. JlJTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN (1). 49-89 ANTHONY RUSSO, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Tabled until the next meeting so that the proper variances can be re-applied and re-dated. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan (7:40 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION (1). 2-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA S. KEITH & KATHLEEN PFEIFFER OWNER: MARGARET TITUS, ESTHER M. TITUS EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, OPPOSITE COUNTRY COLONY SUBDIVISION AND APPROX. ISO FT. SOUTH OF INTERSECTION WITH TEE HILL ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MP (1). 48-3-48 LOT SIZE: 8.40 ACRES MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:40 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Subdivision No. 2-1991, S. Keith & Kathleen Pfeiffer, dated February 21, 1991, Meeting Date: February 28, 1991 "This application is for a two lot subdivision on an 8.4 acre site. Both of the resultant lots win be wen in excess of the minimum lot area requirement of 1 acre. I have three minor cOlllllents regarding this project: 1) The strip of land leading to the back lot should be 50 feet wide. This would reserve the potential for construction of a roadway and allow for no further subdivision of the back lot, this should be indicated on the plan and incorporated into the deed. 2) The Bay Ridge Fire Chief has stated that he would recommend a ten foot wide driveway. I would add that trees should be cleared 5 feet on either side of the driveway. 3) The plan should show the limits of clearing. This is an unlisted action under SEQRA. The Board should review the Long E.A.F. included in the application." 1n ''-.-/ '--' MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Tom. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated February 14, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: A waiver has been requested from stormwater management. A small increase in impermeable area will result in a minimal increase in runoff. It is recommended that the waiver be granted." MR. YARMOWICH-And by way of explanation. we had considered the 40 foot wide driveway area and viewed it as, that it wouldn't be able to be further subdivided with that provision and therefore we concluded that there wouldn't be a significant impact from stormwater management. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would the applicant care to comment? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Pfeiffer. Mr. Pfeiffer is here with us and also Matt Steves from the surveying firm of VanDusen and Steves who actually did the mapping for the project is here. With regard to Staff Comments, there are no plans for further subdivision of the second lot in its present configuration and present ownership. I have, perhaps, one reservation. I can tell the Board that it would be my understanding that it couldn't be subdivided unless another application were made to this Board, but I am a little hesitant to put that in, and that's by Statute, that's by the Zoning Law and that's by your Subdivision Law. You can't create a subdivision of that parcel without coming back before this Board. I have a little problem with putting that into a deed, as requested by Staff, because I don't know if maybe sometime in the future they may get adjoining lands which would give them better access or different access. I don't really think it's necessary to go in the deed because your Statute says you can't subdivide it without Board approval and as I understand it it wouldn't qualify for subdivision under its present configuration because you have to have 50 feet for a Town Road. MR. CARTIER-Yes. What is the width now? I've forgotten. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it's 40 feet. MR. CARTIER-Is it 40? MRS. PULVER-Yes, it says 40. MR. CARTIER-I'm trying to remember what the Ordinance is. This is lot we're talking about. Is it 40 or 50 feet? MRS. YORK-You have to have 40 feet on a Town Road MR. O'CONNOR-But you have to have 50 feet to create a Town Road. and we're showing 40 feet. MRS. YORK-Right. A Town road has to be 50 feet wide. MR. CARTIER-But we still have the potential for putting in a private road. do we not? MR. O'CONNOR-Not under our present Ordinance, that I'm aware of. MR. YARMOWICH-You don't allow that any more. MR. CARTIER-No. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no problem with showing a drive as requested in Comment 2. MR. CARTIER-Let me just finish that off. So, the way you are constructing this, you are eliminating the possibility of further subdivision on that back lot simply by virtue of the fact that you have that 40 foot strip only. Is that correct? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Without a lot line adjustment, which would be, you should be aware that you could do a lot line adjustment which doesn't require review, change the shape of your parcel and someone could come back, but it would have to comply with all the Town standards, even at that stage. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So there's a self limitation built into this. 11 .----' MR. O'CONNOR-My prob1em is the deed is something that goes on record and forever haunts you if you have something changed in the future. You're better avoiding that if it's not necessary. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-As to Paragraph 2. we have no prob1em. As to Paragraph 3, we have no prob1em. We win show those on the next submitta1 to the Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I have a question with regard to the proposed septic system 10cation and the right-of-way. We have. in the past. run into prob1ems with, correct me if I'm wrong. you cannot 10cate a septic system in a right-of-way, can you? We ran into that on Lake Sunnyside. By 1aw, you cannot 10cate a septic system in a right-of-way. MR. O'CONNOR-What are you speaking of for a right-of-way? MR. CARTIER-You have a right-of-way shown, somewhere, and you have a statement to the effect that you're not quite sure where the right-of-way is. The on1y reason I'm bringing the question up is I want to make sure, how do we make sure that that septic system does not get put in that right-of-way? MR. CAIMANO-We11. first 1et's identify it. I don't even see it. MR. O'CONNOR-This 1ine right through here. Okay. Is that a power p01e right-of-way? MRS. PULVER-We11, the septic isn't in the right-of-way. MR. CARTIER-We11, there's a comment on there to the effect that.... MR. O'CONNOR-If that bothers the Board, we can get a proper separation. MR. CARTIER-Yes. That's a11 I'm 100king for. MR. CAIMANO-Where's the comment, Pete? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. I read it. MRS. PULVER-It's right here. MR. LAPOINT-It's on the drawing. MRS. PULVER-See it says. right here, right-of-way, 13 feet wide, exact 10cation: Not Known. MR. CARTIER-Yes. That's it. It's no major prob1em. I just want to make sure that we don't 10cate a septic system in a right-of-way. KEITH PFEIFFER MR. PFEIFFER-I'm Keith Pfeiffer the owner of the property. There's te1ephone p01es coming in, but they're mine. I own them. They're not part of the e1ectric company. They're coming off the road and they're off the property. They be10ng to me. So, there is no right-of-way to NiMo. MR. LAPOINT-No, that's not what we're speaking of, though. MR. PFEIFFER-Okay. MRS. YORK-Yes, Mr. Pfeiffer, it's identified right here on your map. MR. O'CONNOR-That is a uti1ity 1ine, Mr. Steves te11s me. That is not an access right-of-way. MRS. YORK-Yes. It shows the utiJity 1ine, but it a1so shows what wou1d probab1y, at one time, have been a farm road. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Wen, whatever has to be done. I think Mr. Steves understands what I'm getting at. okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We can accommodate your concern and answer it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open the pubHc hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to comment on this appH cati on? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 12 '-' ~ MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any comments or questions? If not, I guess we can entertain a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-1991, Introduced by Nichoìas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Pìanning Board an application for: KEITH I KATHLEEN PFEIFFER, for a two 10t subdivision, east side of Bay Road, opposite Country C010ny Subdivision. and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Pìanning 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 Environmentaì Conservation Reguìations implementing the State Environmentaì Quaìity Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmentaì Assessment Form has been compìeted by the appìicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly anaìyzed the reìevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmentaì impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compiìation of Codes, Ruìes and Reguìations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board win have no significant environmentaì 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 decìaration that may be required by law. Duìy adopted this 28th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Puìver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion as to disposition. I would remind, we have a waiver request from stormwater management. IIJTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1991 S. KEITH I KATHLEEN PFEIFFER, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nichoìas Caimano: For a 2 ìot subdivision, with the fonowing stipulations: Number One. a 10 foot wide driveway be provided and shown on the pìat. Number Two, the plan shouìd show the limit of clearing. Number Three, the waiver for stormwater management report be granted. Duìy adopted this 28th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. O'CONNOR-I wouìd like to compliment the Board. Your first step toward simplifying things by getting comments available before the meeting does heìp. So, I thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. (8:00 p.m.) 13 '--' -../ SITE PLAN NO. 9-91 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 JAMES M. WELLER, P.E. OWNER: WEST GLENS FALLS EMERGENCY SCJ,IAD, INC. CORINTH ROAD, EAST OF 1-87 FOR THE ROOVAL OF THE EXISTING FACILITY AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FACILITY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 129-1-24 LOT SIZE: 0.74 ACRES SECTION 9.010 JIM WELLER. REPRESENTING EMERGENCY SQUAD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 9-91. James M. Wener, P.E., dated February 22, 1991, Meeting Date: February 28, 1991 "The West Glens Fans Emergency Squad requests to demolish their existing structure and build a new 3.900 square foot building. The current building is 1,500 square feet. The applicant has received a Use Variance, a side yard setback variance, and a variance to infringe on the setbacks from a cemetery. The project will appear before the Board of Health on February 25, 1991 to request a Septic Variance. As parking for an emergency squad/rescue facility is not listed in the parking schedule, the Planning Board will have to determine how much parking should be required. It would appear that 27 spaces provided at the site would be reasonable for the proposed use. If, however, the facility begins to be used for other functions, more parking might be necessary. MY understanding is that the facility will house a training center and 2 - 3 vehicles. The Board may want to ascertain the number of current squad members and the long term use of the facility to determine if 27 spaces will be adequate. On February 19. 1991. I was contacted by individuals representing the Shaaray Tefila Cemetery. They had some concerns about the development and the impact on their access way. The individuals were very firm in their support of the Rescue Squad and had no problems with the expansion. The problems centered around the dirt road (Town Road caned South Drive) which is adjacent to the squad property. Last week flooding and drainage problems had prohibited access to the cemetery. What appears to have happened is. the site was raised above the dirt road at some time. When the ground is frozen and we experience rain flooding occurs on the road and into the adjacent cemetery. The dirt road (South Drive) provides access to both the West Glens Fans Cemetery and the Sara Telfela Cemetery. If the proposal is approved it will also provide access to the rear parking lot of the emergency squad. The cemetery representatives are requesting that the Planning Board review this proposal with the drainage concerns in mind. A possible solution might be to slightly raise the grade of the eastern side of the site so any water which did not enter the ground would drain away from the earthen road. The Board may want to stipulate that their be no parking on South Drive. Signage may be appropriate. The Board may also want to discuss having any snow removal plowed to an area away from the road. I would recommend that as much screening as possible be left to protect the cemetery. The Board is in a position of trying to correct an existing situation. I spoke with Mr. Naylor about the situation, since he currently maintains the access way. His feeling is that any drainage improvements win have to be made on the Emergency Squad site. He does not believe that improvements to the road are a practical solution." MRS. YORK-And I believe tonight you did receive a letter from the Congregation who's in ownership of the cemetery. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK-I want you to be aware of that. MR. CARTIER-I was going to read that into the record at the public hearing. I have it. Thank you. Okay. Tom. please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated February 15, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. With regards to sewage disposal system design: a. Absorption trenches should be provided on the basis of NYSDEC Design Standards that recommends extensive pretreatment with seepage pits for cases where the percolation rate is faster than 5 min/inch. b. Leaching facilities are not allowed below pavement. The local Board of Health must grant a Variance to the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to construct leaching facilities under pavement. The site appears suitable for a properly located absorption trench system. c. The design flow of 300 gpd should be justified. 2. The layout plan indicates the back parking lot drywens are 8 feet deep. The detail drawings indicates the drywells are to be 4 feet deep. Clarification is requested. 3. The well should be abandoned by fining with concrete or cement grout and cutting casing off below grade." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. YORK-Mr. Chairman. I do want to mention that on Monday evening James M. Wener, as agent for the West Glens Fans Emergency Squad was granted a variance by the Board of Health anowing components of a leaching facility to be placed under a paved parking area on the property. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. CAIMANO-So B is notwithstanding? 14 ...- MR. CARTIER-Correct. We have a letter from Warren County Planning, No Action Taken. They did not have a quorum, is that correct? MRS. YORK-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-We have a letter from the Queensbury Committee for Beautification, with approval and the comment "Plans for plantings and removal of certain existing trees and shrubs were approved, as presented by Mr. Weller." That's taken care of. Mr. Weller, would you care to make comment please. MR. WELLER-I "m Jim Weller and I'm the applicant for the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad project. Relative to the Staff Comments and the first paragraph, on the parking spaces, there are 27 parking spaces provided. It is our understanding that when they have a general membership meeting, which is when they would have a maximum number of vehicles there and members there, that they have experience, up until now no more than 15 cars. So 27 cars, we feel like we've provided for substantial expansion and probably never using all the parking spaces. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think that question came up at the Zoning Board, too, with regard to how the building was going to be used for bingo and other sorts of things. MR. WELLER-There is no bingo planned. MR. CARTIER-Well, things of that sort, as I recall. MRS. PULVER-Wouldn't that have to have site plan. an added use? MR. CARTIER-No. The question came up with regard to parking and I'm just trying to establish what Mr. Weller is saying that according to, at the Zoning Board meeting that you represented that there would be no such public activities which would require significant amounts of parking. Is that right? MR. WELLER-I can't guarantee the usage for the life of the building. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we can. MR. CARTIER-True. MR. MARTIN-We've built several of these things in the Town lately. new ones. Has there been any standard? I know you did the one, for example. for Bay Ridge. MR. WELLER-Bay Ridge and for West Glens Falls. MR. MARTIN-On a smaller scale and then Queensbury Central's a fairly good sized facility. What was the parking at that? MRS. YORK-Those are fi re houses. Those are not emergency squad buil di ngs. So there is a di fference there. Plus a fire house is considered a municipal function, where an emergency squad building isn't. So the parking standard wouldn't be the same. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. WELLER-Are we all set on that issue? MR. CARTIER-I think so. MR. WELLER-In the second paragraph, we talk about the access way. It is a right-of-way. It was granted to the cemetery. as I understand it, at some point in time in history. It was since turned over to the Town of Queensbury. We believe it's a Queensbury Road or right-of-way anyway. We don't plan, necessarily, to do anything or to change it or to add any problems to it. I will say that we think we're solving one situation, in that there is parking, when there's a meeting now at the Rescue Squad. that occurs on that right-of-way and that's one of the reasons why we put the parking lot. So, if anything, we're going to minimize the parking situation on that road. There's no plan to park there in the future. I don't know anything about the site having been raised at some point in time or whatever. It's a preexisting condition that goes back as far as I know of. MR. MARTIN-So your access to the rear parking lot is through the Town right-of-way? MR. WELLER-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-Okay. 15 -.../ MR. CARTIER-But I guess what we need to hear is some way of dealing with this drainage problem so that people can get back into that Cemetery and it's not blocked with snow and so on and so forth. Something needs to be addressed there. MR. WELLER-Is that for us to address or for the Town to address? MR. CARTIER-Mr. Naylor, would you care to comment? PAUL NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-Paul H. Naylor. Highway Superintendent, Town of Queensbury. We've been taking care of that road since I've been Highway Superintendent for ten years. Normally, we plow it when there's a funeral or just after the storm. It's not a top priority. So, we take care of the road. There's not too many houses living on it and nobody wants to get out in the middle of the night. So, we don't rush too fast. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, I'm hearing that you are going to be responsible for the road. MR. NAYLOR-I always have. MR. CARTIER-Okay. An right. Thank you. For the benefit of anybody who's here, then I guess what we. if people are having difficulty getting back to the Cemetery, they need to can the Highway Department. Is that a fair statement? MR. NAYLOR-That's a fair statement. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Wen, the question is who's going to take care of the drainage problem and my assumption is that Mr. Naylor is going to take care of it and the Town is going to take care of it. MR. CARTIER-Yes. That's what I'm hearing. Okay. Thank you. Go on please. MR. WELLER-On the engineering comments, relative to the absorption trenchs and the DEC Design Standard, we did not fonow the DEC Design Standard to the fun letter of what it says. It says that we should be using trenches for such a facility with a percolation rate at the rate that we measured it. We felt that we were justified in taking exception to it for several reasons. One is, we're at 300 gallons a day in flow. The standards always have to be complied with, if you're at 1,000 gallons or better. We knew that we were going to be going before the Queensbury Board of Health for a variance for these seepage pits and we felt that if we could direct the flow of the sewage from the building towards the front of the building. towards the main street that potentially, at some point in time, we could connect them up to a public sewer that might be running down the main street, the Corinth Road. We did take the application, as such, to the Board of Health and were granted the approval of the Queensbury Board of Health. The second comment is that the facility is not being allowed below the pavement. I believe the Staff has said that we were granted a variance for that. I think it was this Monday evening. The design flow at 300 gallons a day being justified, the standards don't really tell us what we should design an emergency squad facility for. We made a comparison with a two bedroom home which would require 300 gallons per day. There are two bunk rooms and a small kitchen in here so that people can stay over. So a two bedroom home would have 300 gallons per day. A motel unit with a kitchen would have 150 gallons per day per unit in the standard, which would also give you 300 gallons per day. A small assembly group of 50 people, just to pick a number. you would have to provide for three gallons of flow per day, that would give you 150 gallons per day of flow. So we think that we have compared it to similar type operations and that 300 gallons per day is a reasonable flow to expect. There is an error on the detail of the drawings in the seepage pits in the back parking lot are intended to be four feet deep. I think the detail shows it four and the plan shows it eight. They are intended to be four feet deep and that's what our drainage calculations were based on was a four foot depth. As far as the abandoning the well, there is an existing well on the site and we did indicate on the drawings and on the application that we would cut off the casing of the wen below grade and cap it. The engineering comments indicate that they'd like to see it filled with concrete or cement grout. I'm not sure where that requirement comes from. If that becomes a requirement of the Board, I suppose we'll do it. We have capped wens. in the past, below grade, and maybe I shouldn't say that. Maybe we weren't supposed to. MR. CARTIER-Tom, do you care to comment? MR. YARMOWICH-Regarding the issue of the location of the leaching facility, it seems quite clear that the local Board of Health saw fit that, for reasons of hardship or other purposes or explanations that I wasn't party to grant a variance and I think that the installation as proposed is something that the local Board of Health has seen fit to anow, needn't discuss that aspect of it any further, and in view of the fact that this is not an area where wells are drawing water from the ground waters, I think the Board can pursue the environmental review of the project accordingly and indicate there 16 '-.-.' won't be any adverse impacts to public health as a result of what's being proposed. Regarding the design flow, I would concur that there isn't any specific criteria for it and that's the reason for making the comment myself. I think that the comparisons that Jim Weller has offered are fair and reasonable for the type of facility and the septic tank as well is quite over sized for what would be anticipated, so there shouldn't be any problems with that. The correction to the drywells aren't a problem. With regard to filling of the well, it's highly recommended that the well be abandoned by filling it with some impermeable material such as cement grout or concrete. That is a recommendation from the Department of Health on the abandonment of individual wells. So I would encourage the Board to make that a requirement of any approval they might consider tonight. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-So, what was the result of 1A? MR. CAIMANO-What's 1A? MR. YARMOWICH-I think the local Board of Health has already answered that for us, in that they've seen fit to approve the plan as presented. This was, in fact, the same plan presented to the local Board of Health, Jim? MR. WELLER-That's correct. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-All right, so everything's been taken care of on your comments. with the exception of Item 3, which we need to stipulate. Okay. I'll open the public hearing, if anybody would care to address the Board with regard to this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-I would like to start by reading a letter received, dated February 25, 1991 from Michael Girston, President, and Sanford Silverman, CoChairman of the Cemetery COlllllittee "I am writing to you regarding the expansion of the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad Building and the effect on the right-of- way belonging to the Hebrew Congregation Sara Telfela. We are concerned about additional runoff of water, silting, obstruction of our right-of-way and proper screening. We are also concerned about the land elevation problem of the project that could continue to decrease our right of unobstructed passage to our Cemetery on the right-of-way that we have had since 1928. On February 5. 1991, our passage to the Cemetery was obstructed by one foot of water deep by 10 by 50 feet caused by the melting of snow running from the higher to lower elevation. A funeral procession had to go through this obstruction and reach the Cemetery. This water created a hazardous condition for all of the cars because of wet brakes in entering and leaving the Cemetery. On February 14, 1991, the same problem existed for another funeral. It is not our intent to impede the expansion of the enlarged Emergency Squad facility in and of itself. but we would like the problems remedied. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Gi rston and Sanford Si 1 verman" MR. CAIMANO-I don't think we addressed the.... MR. CARTIER-The drainage issue. MR. CAIMANO-No. The drainage issue we started to address. The screening, we talked about it. Lee talked about it, but I don't think you addressed that. Did you, Jim? MR. WELLER-I think the screening that's being talked about is not on the property that we're representing. I think the screening that's being talked about is on the easterly side of the right-of-way. That is existing screening between the right-of-way and the Cemetery. Is that the screening that you're referring to? MR. CAIMANO-He said the easterly side. Here it is, right here. MRS. YORK-To the rear of your parking area, proposed parking area. MR. WELLER-Okay. Then that's the screening to the other cemetery. MRS. YORK-Yes. where you have some trees to remain and such, just leave as much as possible to provide for screening from that area. MR. WELLER-Okay. Do you want me to point to the drawing? That's indicated on the drawing. MR. LAPOINT-As revised tree line? MR. WELLER-Let me just point to it. 17 ~ -.-/ MR. MARTIN-Yes, he has it indicated. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I still believe that leaves us with the drainage. SANFORD SILVERMAN MR. SILVERMAN-My name is Sanford Silverman. I am one of the writers of the letter. As the letter states, it is not our intent to impede the expansion of the enlarged Emergency Squad facility in and of itself, but we would like the problems remedied and the problem that I can see is, according to this map that I believe Mr. Weller made, the elevation of the road is 321 and all elevations surrounding it are 382, 383, and on the parking lot it's also 382 running into 381. Now, the elevations are such that the runoff is running onto this right-of-way. Now, as you read in the letter. this month, on February the 5th, our passage to the Cemetery was obstructed by one foot of water and that's how deep it was and it was 10 feet wide and approximately 40 feet long. I went into the Emergency Squad and borrowed a shovel, attempting to cause a passage so that the water would run off of the right-of-way into the field on the left of the right-of-way. MR. CARTIER-That's the west side, correct? MR. SILVERMAN-That's the west side. Now, we've had that right-of-way since, well, I was at the Cemetery today and we have a person that was buried there since 1903. Therefore, we've had the right-of-way since that period of time. Now, it was approximately four years ago that the Town of Queensbury received an easement for some reason or other, but the elevation on the parking pad at the present time is such that when the snow is pushed toward our right-of-way and it melts, it runs down to 321 and we have a large puddle or a little pond in our right-of-way. MR. CARTIER-I'm a little confused, here. The 321. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, where is that? MR. SILVERMAN-The 321 is the lower part of the right-of-way. Are you talking about an elevation number? MR. SILVERMAN-An elevation number. MR. CARTIER-There's something wrong. there because we're talking about a 60 foot difference here. MR. YARMOWICH-381. MR. MARTIN-It ~ lower. I don't doubt that, but I don't think it's... MR. CARTIER-Yes, right. MR. CAIMANO-It can't be 60 feet. MR. LAPOINT-It's a foot. You've got 381 versus 382, 383. MR. SILVERMAN-Right, it's one foot. 383 from 381 is two feet. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. SILVERMAN-Right. This is the problem. I was unable to do anything about the water. We called the Town office. the Town Highway Department, and they said that there was nothing they could do about it. There was no where for the water to go. This is where our problem is. Where does the water go? Now, the Emergency Squad. according to this plan and I believe it says it's 20 feet to the inch and it's approximately two and a half feet from the present structure to the parking lot. they're going to have the same problem unless this water problem is fixed. in order to get to the entrance and the furthest part of the entrance of their parking lot. They're going to have the same problem. MR. LAPOINT-Well, they've installed drywells. MR. SILVERMAN-Yes, but they installed drywells on their new parking lot and not where it's running off into our right-of-way. MR. CARTIER-Are those drywells, is the parking lot graded in such a way that it flows toward the drywells you're installing? MR. MARTIN-It would have to be. MR. WELLER-It is. 18 ~ MR. CARTIER-It is. Okay. MR. SILVERMAN-But the drywells are on the back part of the parking lot which is graded at 381. There's one portion of the parking lot which is 382. MR. LAPOINT-It's shown on thé drawing as 381, am I correct, where the drywells will be? MR. SILVERMAN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Which would be the same elevation as the road? MR. SILVERMAN-As the road. MR. YARMOWICH-Those drywells won't accept any drainage from the road. There shouldn't be any misunderstanding about that. MR. CARTIER-No. MR. YARMOWICH-What was revealed when we reviewed the stormwater management was that, in fact, there will be no increase in flow coming off of this site onto the back of that property. As a matter of fact, because of the controls that are being installed. there will be less. The conclusion that's appropriate from that is that there will be no increase in flooding back there as a result of this project. Also, don't think that this project as they're proposing it is necessarily going to decrease it. You're in a situation here where it's a natural low spot and it's going to continue to collect and you're dealing with a spring time condition. Lee's comment that was made previously. that this is not, the issue of flooding back there I don't think can be attached to the proposal directly. How it gets solved is something, I think. that might be worthy of considering, though. MR. CARTIER-Do I understand, Mr. Silverman, that it's mainly a problem with snow melt, when we get rapid snow melt or there's an accumulation of snow? MR. SILVERMAN-Or a heavy rain. MR. CARTIER-Or a heavy rain. MR. SILVERMAN-Or spring of the year becomes a mud bog down in there. MR. MARTIN-Could you point out to me, specifically, where you're encountering the problems along the drive. What specific areas are flooding? MR. SILVERMAN-Okay, this is the building here, all right, and there's a drop off here and that drop off is approximately a foot or a foot and a half and that water runs right to here, into this area here. MR. CAIMANO-And this is where it puddles? MR. SILVERMAN-This whole area is where it puddles. I mean, the last two funerals we had a problem with that. MR. LAPOINT-Is there anything you can do about that? There.i!. something you can do about that? No. MR. WELLER-The right-of-way ·is currently paved part of the way back and I beliéve that's no problem, where it's paved. MR. SILVERMAN-Except for where the snow melts and the water runs down the grade onto the ri ght-of-way. We have a right-of-way from Main Street all the way back to the Cemetery. MR. WELLER-But as you start down the right-of-way, it's paved. MR. SILVERMAN-At the end of the existing structure. MR. WELLER-And then the paving stops and it turns to an unpaved area, but there's no problem where it's paved. MR. SILVERMAN-No. MR. WELLER-Okay. MR. SILVERMAN-Except for the water runs off of there and runs down into the dirt road. MR. CARTIER-Is the paving sloped in such a way that it runs down. 19 '-- --- MR. WELLER-I thought the paving was sloped so that it ran towards Corinth Road? MR. SILVERMAN-Not to my knowledge. I was up there. The snow that's piled up, according to where the shrubbery is, that melts and that runs down into the dirt road. MR. WELLER-Well, the survey indicates that the grade along there is fairly flat for the last 50 feet or so. It's about 100 feet back through there, is it not, to where the pavement stops? MR. SILVERMAN-Approximately. MR. WELLER-So it's fairly flat for the last 50 feet. The first 50 feet by Corinth Road drains toward Corinth Road, currently. The runoff from the developed site, there will not be any increase to the runoff that goes to the paved area of the ri ght-of-way. The runoff beyond where the ri ght-of-way is paved is all being controlled and brought into the rear parking lot and into the drywells. There's no runoff from this development onto the right-of-way. MR. CARTI ER- There wi 11 be no runoff. MR. WELLER-There will be no runoff. MR. MARTIN-Is this a flat roofed building. Jim, this new building? MR. WELLER-It's a low profile roof. MR. MARTIN-A flat roof? MR. WELLER-Well. we say no roof is flat. It drains at the eaves. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. SILVERMAN-Well, the elevation on the new structure is 383, and that's going to run down to 381. MR. MARTIN-Is there any way that the runoff off the roof could be gutted into your drywells? Is that what's being proposed? MR. WELLER-Well, the bulk of it is being controlled. It is not being controlled through roof drains, but it is running off the roof and along the side it's being caught in a swale, here. There's a swale coming half way up the building and draining it to the back parking lot. MR. LAPOINT-If he were to cut just a drainage swale back into that, behind the parking lot, a twelve foot by four foot cut at maybe 380. just below the road, and back where you show the grassy area, you know, one push with a dozer, would that direct water that way? MR. WELLER-And drain the road into this area? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, I mean, put a low, grassy spot in back of your parking lot. MR. CARTIER-I suspect conditions out here are. given the soil types out here, occur in the winter and spring when frost is still on the ground. Is that a fair statement? MR. SILVERMAN-True. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So we have relatively temporary conditions here. Part of it may be solved by the way snow is pushed around in this area. I don't know where the Emergency Squad stacks their snow. MR. CAIMANO-Naylor's saying no. MR. WELLER-I don't believe the snow that the Emergency Squad is now plowing contributes to this. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm just looking for solutions, here. MR. MARTIN-That's what I was thinking. if we could, and he says this is being done to an extent, if we could gutter the runoff from the roof into the drywells or into the back part of the lot and just try and keep anything from this property from going onto this road, try and direct it away from the road as much as we can. MR. WELLER-It doesn't now, Jim. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. WELLER-If you guttered it you would not reduce the amount of water going onto that road. 20 ---/ MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. WELLER-That's not where the water's coming from. MR. CARTIER-So, where is the water coming from, then, where you're proposed parking is going to be? MR. WELLER-It's a low spot in the road going back through there and it could come from further back on the property. It could come from the easterly part. I'm not sure. We didn't survey over into the Cemetery. MR. SILVERMAN-The back end of that road. the elevation is 381. MR. CAIMANO-This is all dirt from the middle back, right? MR. SILVERMAN-All dirt, all the way back. MR. CAIMANO-Can't you just blade that. so it's at an angle? MR. WELLER-There's a low spot in the road. MR. MARTIN-Can't we fill it in, then? MR. CARTIER-Yes, can we raise the grade? Do I see a solution walking toward the microphone? MR. NAYLOR-Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent, Town of Queensbury. When I was a little boy, about four years old, that road used to go all the way to Central Avenue and then along came the Northway and cut it in half. The Town still maintained the Cemetery and plowed it for all parts and that's been a belly ever since I was a little kid. My grandmother used to live across the street, and in the spring of the year we used to go over there and float boats. Now, being a Cemetery on one side, it's very hard to dig a whole and look for a drainage system and the Town never owned the far side. so you couldn't go over there and dig a whole and it's not proper to dig a whole in the middle of the road for drainage. So. it's been there for years. It drains from their Cemetery. It drains from our Cemetery and lays there, sometimes it's a day, sometimes it's a week. I'm sure you drove up Aviation Road the same day this gentleman had six inches to a foot in that road and saw the River Quio up by the Queensbury High School. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. NAYLOR-It happens quick. It goes away quick. If we're lucky and get snow before the ground freezes, we don't have a problem anywhere. If the ground freezes before the snow, you may have it in your back door yard. It's part of living in the North Country. MR. MARTIN-So, the quick interpretation of what you're saying is. it's a problem not worth dealing with. MR. NAYLOR-That's nothing to do with the project that's here. Now, if there's something Mr. Weller or the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad could do to help it, we'd probably give them a big pat on the back, but it's something that's been there. I. as Highway Superintendent, can't go over there and just dig in the Cemetery or dig on their property and say, well, we'll let the water flow that way. So, we're between that well known place, a rock and a hard place. MR. CAIMANO-Let me get back, though, going from front to back, you can't blade it so that there is? MR. NAYLOR-No. It all comes. Nick. when you come off Corinth Road, okay, before I became Highway Superintendent, the road used to be low. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. NAYLOR-All right. They built a gas station there and they filled it right up and they leveled it ri ght to the property of the cemetery and they fi 11 ed thei r ri ght-of-way in and our ri ght-of-way in, which I wasn't Highway Superintendent at the time or they would have never done it. I'd have stopped it, but that's here and not there. When I took over, it became another ball game. Nobody ever filled anymore and the gentl eman before you, you remember, wanted to turn it into somethi ng else and we ki nd of fought against it and it's been a long drawn out battle. What's in there is the perfect thing to be in there. MR. CAIMANO-I have a compromise here. You're a long time resident. You're the person here who can tell us the history of this thing and apparently there really isn't anything we can do. What if, and it only happens every once and a while, what if during those times that it happened, those folks, or somebody from the Town helped by pumping or somehow keeping that low during the time of a service or a funera 1. 21 -- MR. NAYLOR-See. that's what happens quick, like if somebody dies and they need to be buried right away, normally, it's like Aviation Road. I'm up to here in water and State Police are calling, hurry, hurry, hurry. I've only got so many bodies and we can go to only so many places. So it makes it very difficult for us to pull over there, set up a pump, where are we going to pump it on, him or are we going to pump it on to the Corinth Road? MR. CAIMANO-From what I hear you saying, if you pump it out of that low spot and just spread it, it's going to go anyway. MR. NAYLOR-It's still coming from their area. It's coming from our Cemetery. If you go over there, the whole land drops right to that one spot. If you raised it up four feet above everybody else. like the Northway, that's what you'd get. MR. CARTIER-In other words, the right-of-way is a natural drainage swale. MR. SILVERMAN-If you don't mind, I would like to disagree with the engineer. I am not an engineer. I am not an attorney. MR. NAYLOR-That's all I've got to say. MR. CARTIER-Thanks, Paul. MR. SILVERMAN-I am not an engineer. I am not an attorney. Mr. Naylor may be an engineer, but I use common sense. Mr. Naylor did not say that the cemetery on the right hand side of the right-of-way, the West Glens Falls Cemetery, also becomes flooded at certain times of the year. This is what he is speaking of. I'm concerned about that water also, but that portion of their Cemetery, West Glens Falls Cemetery, is lower than the road. I went up there today and we still have the same problem. It just doesn't go away. We went into water, my car went into water, and it went through mud. Now, all we want is easy access to our Cemetery on our right-of-way that we have had for 50. 60, 70 years. That's all we're asking for. We are not complaining about the Emergency Squad. It's a necessity in the area, but the water problem should not be our problem. The Town of Queensbury received a five foot easement four years ago. They received an easement four years ago from the people who previously owned the land. Now, the Town, it's very simple for them to do. Al' they have to do is come in there and raise the elevation on that and fill it in, fill in that area, but as Mr. Naylor just said, he does not want water on his grandmother's grave, his mother's grave. I don't want water on his mother's grave either. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I think the crux of the matter is, what I'm hearing anyway and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, that it's not the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad that's creating the drainage, the collection of water. That what they do is not going to add to it. It sounds to me like your problem is not with this application or with this Board. Perhaps the problem needs to be brought to the Town Board. It sounds like I'm passing the buck, here, and I don't mean to do that, but if I hear what's happening here. it's not this applicant that's creating the problem. It sounds like that right-of-way is a natural drainage swale and the only way that's going to get solved is. and again I'm not an engineer either, that's going to have to get filled. and as Paul is pointing out, you've solved one problem and maybe create another one. MRS. PULVER-But wait. that water's already there. So, with or without this application. MR. SILVERMAN-We realize this is a preexisting condition. We realize that. I realize it. We all realize this. The only thing, we do not want this new building. this new parking lot to aggravate the preexisting condition. That's all we're looking for. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Well, that's what I'm going to ask the engineer. As far as you're concerned, it's not going to aggravate it? MR. YARMOWICH-No. We would think that the opposite would be true. If anything, what's being proposed for this parking lot ought to minimize the amount of runoff that's actually coming from this part. It may not ever relieve the problem, but it's not going to exaggerate it in anyway. MR. CARTIER-So our engineer is telling this Board it's not going to get worse and it may get better. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, there are going to be some consequences, though. This is an earthen drive back to this point and there may be more traffic, as a result, and the road conditions may not always be the same. Those who use the road will find it in their interest to take care of it. MR. SILVERMAN-Well, that new parking lot is going to be 40 feet beyond the existing structure. the new parking lot, closer to our Cemetery. They're going to have to run through the same water. MR. CAIMANO-Right. 22 ~ MR. SILVERMAN-And the same mud. MR. CARTIER-Well. therein may lie the solution to the problem. If Emergency Squad members can't get in there properly. then there may be more pressure on the Town Board to do something about it. MR. MARTIN-I think what Pete said earlier is true. in the context of a site plan review for this applicant is not the way to deal with this issue. I think your time is better spent before the Town Board because, and you're right, the intensity of this use on this road is going to increase now with this new building and this parking lot in the back. So it's a problem that's going to have to be dealt with. I know it's not going to be easy. Mr. Naylor. MR. SILVERMAN-I'd like to thank you all very much for listening to my complaint. MR. CARTIER-Thank you, sir. We hope you find a solution to it. Is there anybody else who would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a Short Form SEQRA Review. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMIIATION OF II) SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION (1). 9-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 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 28th day of February. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion, at this point. There was a comment regarding no parking along the right-of-way, maintenance of screening, and filling of the well. tOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN (1). 9-91 JAMES M. WELLER, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the removal of the existing facility and the construction of a new facility for the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad with the following stipulations: One, that there be no parking allowed in the right-of-way along the easterly side of the building. Two, that screening be provided as depicted on the plan. Number Three, the well shown on the plan not only be capped, but filled as suggested in the Rist-Frost letter. The Board has reviewed Section 5.070. Site Plan Review, specifically Section A, B, C. and D and found the project to be in compliance. 23 -' Du1y adopted this 28th day of February, 1991, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-Okay. Odds and ends, some short, some 10ng. We have a proposed advertisement for the Post Star? Have you got this in front of you? Be10w is the proposed advertising for the Post Star. MRS. PULVER-Yes. We a1ready read it, or 1 read it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YORK-Excuse me. I fe1t that we shou1d get some advertising out on your change in p01icy. I f0110wed the usua1 in-house procedures in pursuing that and sending it up to the Supervisor's Office. There was some discussion as to how it shou1d more appropriate1y be done and it was decided that the P1anning Board shou1d decide what they wanted to have sent out for pub1ication. MR. CARTIER-In other words. is this coming from the P1anning Board or is this coming from the Town Board, that's the question, correct? MRS. YORK-Yes. My understanding from that meeting you had with the Town Board was that you peop1e do your own advertising. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, this can come from the P1anning Board, as far as I'm concerned. MRS. YORK-Right. MRS. PULVER-The on1y thing is this one sentence, "po1icy of the P1anning Board regarding no acceptance of new information after the submission dead1ine date is not effected by the ear1ier re1ease of the comments", po1icy of the P1anning Board is sti11 in effect, I a1most 1i ke better than the way it was worded. MR. CARTIER-In other words, he can't get those comments ear1y and, as a resu1t of getting those comments ear1y, make a change in his app1ication. MRS. PULVER-I know what it says. I'm thinking about the person reading it. MRS. YORK-Yes, Car01 you can remove or change anything. You're not going to offend me. MRS. PULVER-No, it's just I think the person reading it in the newspaper. MR. CARTIER-Okay. You cou1d say something to the effect, it win remain the po1icy of the P1anning Board not to accept new information? MRS. PULVER-Right, after the submission dead1ine. MR. CARTIER-Wi11 that do it? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-It wi11 continue to be, right? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MRS. PUL VER- Yes, that's sounds better because tha t 's the way it's a 1ways been and now they know tha t ' s the way it's a1ways been. MR. CARTIER-To not accept.. MRS. PULVER-Any new information. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So now it wi11 read, it wi11 continue to be the po1icy of the P1anning Board to not accept new information, okay. MRS. PULVER-Right. 24 -../ MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do we need a motion, here. to release this, or what? We're plowing new ground here. The first time we've ever issued a press release. MRS. YORK-No. I guess you just say do it. MR. MARTIN-The amended version is fine to me. MRS. PULVER-Yes, we do it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Really, the Board can only act by resolution. So, if it's a Board thing. I mean, if you want to get technical, I just thought I'd mention it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would anyone care to make a resolution to the effect that we're going to submit this? tDTION FOR THE PROPOSED PRESS RELEASE FOR ADVERTISING III THE POST STAR REGARDIIIG ENGINEERIIIi COIIDTS AS REVISED, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-Second quicky thing, then we're going to get into some of this longer stuff. here. Last Tuesday we talked about an informal policy regarding non acceptance or acceptance of gifts. however you want to describe it, and I said I'd draft a generic letter that could be sent out. You have it in front of you. Does anybody care to comment? Basically, the way this would work is if somebody came in to the Planning Department bearing gifts that we decided we did not want, it has been the determination of some or possibly all the members of the Board that we did not wish to accept gifts as part of their position on the Planning Board. This letter would go out to the sender of such gifts. Does anybody have any problems with this letter? MR. MARTIN-I think that's a fine letter. MR. CAIMANO-I do, too. Okay, by resolution. tDTION TO ACCEPT THE FORM LmER REGARDING GIFTS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-We're considering a format for reviewing re-zoning petitions and we had roughed out, framed out some rough questions. That list of questions I've kicked around with John and Lee. It's been revised somewhat. Lee has also given you a copy of some information along the same lines that might be appropriate to steal from and incorporate into that questionnaire and what I'd like to do is put that on hold until we can find that revised version. MRS. PULVER-I have this. MR. CARTIER-Yes. You didn't get it, that's the problem. MRS. PULVER-I didn't get the revised version. MR. CARTIER-No. We haven't gotten them out yet. Sue was going to work on a format with the questions. So it's just a matter of getting back to Staff. So. what I'd like to suggest is, take some time to read this material and we'll get back to that again when we have it. MR. CAIMANO- There's a letter from Tom Flaherty to Lee York. He. "After reading the minutes of 1/22/91 relating to the above project, I feel that I must respond with the following comments:" The above project meaning the proposed Aviation Mall expansion and he references our minutes of 1/22/91, which 25 I don't have with me. Number One is. "In response to comments of Mr. Caimano and Mrs. Pulver at the bottom of Page 6", he says, he meaning Mr. Flaherty, "it is the position of this Office that it is not our responsibility to tell the applicant or his engineer where to place the main in the design phase. The engineer and/or applicant will submit a plan which we will review and either approve or disapprove. This is what we did." My understanding of that. and using Mr. Cartier's qualifier, Carol, correct me if I'm wrong. is that the applicant, in this case. said that he was told by Mr. Flaherty two different things. He was told to put it over here. which he did in this design phase and then when he did that, he was told by Mr. Flaherty it shouldn't be over here. It should be over here, or something to that effect, as I recall it. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CAIMANO-That's Number One. Number Two, if it's not the Water Superintendent's responsibility to tell the applicant where to put something in a design phase. who's responsibility is it? MR. YARMOWICH-I happened to be present at one of those meetings and maybe I can clarify something for you. The applicant was responsible for dealing with the conditions that he was creating by his proposal. He came forward with an application and it was reflected in concert by both the Town Engineer and the Water Department Superintendent that only when it was designed would there be any ability to pass judgement on its acceptability. That's really the basis for the remarks which you're hearing. MR. CAIMANO-Don't you put the applicant. though, in a bind when you say, when an applicant comes in and says, gee guys, should I put the lights above or below and you say, I don't care, and he says, well, gee, what would you like. MR. YARMOWICH-No one said, I don't care. That's the distinction that we make, here, as I've had to assert to this Board on a couple of occasions. I don't make design recommendations to applicants. The Water Department does the same thing when an applicant is faced with sort of a problem. MR. CAIMANO-I understand. I think this is where we get into trouble, though. with people like the Queensbury Business Development Corporation because this is where the applicant. in his or her innocence, if you will, is just asking, look. I'll do it anyway you want, just tell me what you'd like me to do. I'll do it any way you want. I don't want you to design if for me. Just tell me what's the proper way to do it. and we say, we don't care, then we do it and you say, I don't like it that way. MR. YARMOWICH-Nick, we don't say we don't care. We always say. we care. It's up to you to prove to us that there's an acceptable way to do it. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-The point is, is that we don't want to dictate what they can do with their site, but we don't want to encumber the Town with a system that's not acceptable and not beneficial to the Town. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. YARI>I)WICH-So, we leave it to the applicant to find a solution that satisfies him and the Town. We don't encumber the applicant with requirements that he can't live with. If he can't resolve it, then he has no project. MR. CAIMANO-But he says here, and I don't want to belabor this, "it is the position of this office that it is not our responsibility to tell the applicant or his engineer where to place the main in the design phase." MR. MARTIN-Well, I think the impression that the letter is trying to give, that it doesn't do very well, is that initially he will not do that. Upon receiving a design, then he will give them guidance. but he will not just tell the guy initiallY this is where it's got to be. He win wait to see the man's design and see where the applicant's positioned it and then he will say whether that is acceptable or not. MR. YARI>I)WICH-Yes. If that were the case, there would have been no project. He would have said, the main's where it is and that's where it's staying. That's the only place that we have it because it's best where it is. MR. CAIMANO-Well, since you were there. the applicant had stated that he put the main in a given place. He was told, no. you can't do it there. You've got to do it this way. When he turned around and changed it to that way, he was told again, no, you can't do it that way. You've got to do it this way. Is that true or not? MR. YARI>I)WICH-The applicant was told that the water main should not cross underneath parking areas, okay. MR. CAIMANO-Right. It makes life a little difficult for him. 26 --- MR. YARMOWICH-And the decision of the applicant was then to place the water main on the inner loop road which became unacceptable to the Water Department because of the potential for a structural related problem if the water main were to fail. MR. CAIMANO-Excuse me. and I don't mean to be smart because I'm not an engineer either. How do you get water under that project without putting a water main underneath the parking lot? MR. YARMOWICH-You go around the road, and that's the solution which they ended up with. MRS. PULVER-Go around the road? MR. YARMOWICH-The loop road. MR. CAIMANO-But how do you get the building without going across the parking lot? MR. YARMOWICH-That's a private water system. Mr. Flaherty doesn't give a lot of concern about that. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. I yield to Mr. Flaherty. I understand what you're saying, I really do. MR. YARK>WICH-It was a reasoned response to what the Mall was trying to do and they ended up working out a mutually agreeable solution. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody have anything else? MR. DUSEK-You know how I, every once and a while, here, have been butting in and saying, don't forget 5.070. Well, I have to confess to you that I was here one night and I forgot to tell you to do that and you forgot to do it and it happens to be on the Pyramid project. So. I think it might be appropriate just to amend that resolution to add those provisions. You obviously found them, otherwise you wouldn't have approved the project. My recommendation would be to correct it. I have a proposal here, if I can run by you? MR. CAIMANO-Sure. MR. CARTIER-Certainly. tlJTION TO AMEND A PREVIOUS RESOLUTION OF THE PLAIIIIG BOARD DATED JArIIARY 22110, 1991 AND CONCERNING SITE PLAN NO. 1-91 PYRAMID COMPAJlY OF GLENS FALLS AVIATION MALL IT IS RESOLVED THAT THE SAID tllTION BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE STATEMENT THAT THE PLANNIIG BOARD CONSIDERED AND CONCLUDED THAT THE APPLICATION OF PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS COMPLIED WITH SECTION 5.070 A, 8, C, AID 0 AND THAT THE PLAflNIIG BOARD SO FINDS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-I have one final thing, I think, I'm trying to get out. Mr. Stewart. the attorney for the Aviation Mall is here. Would you care to address your comments regarding continued diligence in ì getting. . , . MR. CAIMANO-We had a letter from Lou Gagliano in which he showed us the letters that he had written to John Nigro, Niagara Mohawk. etc. and I simply stated that you are under no obligation to continue that, truly and it was nice that you have. I think it's the right thing to do and I'm glad that he did it and I hope he continues. BOB STEWART MR. STEWART-Well, we made a commitment to this Board saying that would pursue that and we will continue to pursue it. With John Fonham's death, there's been a little bit of a change in management because John was very powerful in that organization and we're having a hard time getting a response back from NiMo what they're reaction is going to be. They tell us it's on study and they're analyzing it and they will get back to us, but no, we're not going to walk away from that. We told you we'd study it and we will study it. Could I just make a comment on this little thing, tonight. Under the rules of your Ordinance, you must find these four findings. It's my personal opinion that that was ill advised to put that in the Ordinance. I don't think you should find that the that the project is in compliance with the character of the neighborhood, for example. The Zoning Ordinance says that. The man's trying to put a residence in a Residential Zone or a factory in a Factory Zone. So, you're finding that it fits the zone is meaningless. If it didn't fit the zone, he's got to go back and get a variance from the Zoning Board. I mean, when it is in front of you, you assume it complies. Those four findings really make no sense and I think it puts you in an awkward position where you're being asked to find things that are not your responsibility. 27 ---- ---' MR. CARTIER-Well, I don't know that I would agree with that. MR. STEWART-Okay, but having said that, it's in the Ordinance and unless the Town Board changes it, you've got to do it. but each, you've got to find that on every single site plan that you do, every single one you have to. and the thing is that long and, apparently, you recite into the record. I'm just going to suggest, as a matter of expediency, that you have printed up a form for approvals and a form for disapprovals. If you have a form for disapprovals, you might have a box, it's disapproved for the following reasons and then you have some findings as to why you disapproved the applicant, but if it's going to be the form that's going to approve the project, you have a printed form and say, and in approving this project, the Board finds as follows and all that verbiage is just printed in. Otherwise. if you have 12 applications here before you on a busy night, you have to recite all of that garbage over and over. MR. CARTIER-Well, I disagree. That's not garbage. It's more than just a formality. Article V is what gives this Board the authority to do what it does or to issue disapprovals and I'm not about to wash that out of there. MR. STEWART-For example. 5D says that you don't find a negative environmental impact. Well, that's the SEQRA Resolution. If you're the Board that has lead agency, you've done that separately. If another Board has it, they've done it. MR. CAIMANO-I certainly agree with you. I think it is the leeway for us. However, Mr. Stewart has some good points. There isn't any reason why we couldn't have that already done, just as we are now reciting the fact that if there's no other agencies involved, we waive the reading of this crazy SEQRA Resolution. Anything to speed it up. MR. STEWART-Well, I don't care whether you do it or not. It just seems to me a more convenient way for you to function. MR. CAIMANO-I don't think we should drop it. I don't agree with that either, but I think it wouldn't be bad to print that up. MR. DUSEK-Well, let me say this. I'm the one who drafted that crazy SEQRA Resolution and I don't see any reason why we couldn't also do some sort of a resolution format similar to that that perhaps you could use in this. if you find it helpful. MR. CAIMANO-Well, if Mr. Stewart is correct in saying that we really need to do that, just as it is an out on our side. it is also right for us to say it on approval. If we have to do that for every one, then I think we ought to do something other than read that crazy thing every time. MR. CARTIER-Yes. but as long as we don't become automatons in terms of going through that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. The appearance of rubber stamping things is. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. but we're going to forget it. MRS. YORK-I usually attempt to write my notes using that Section, statement by statement. So that you do get into that. MR. CAIMANO-But we don't do it every time. MRS. YORK-No, and I'll tell you, this time, with the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, I didn't write my notes that way, but that would cover you usually. MR. CARTIER-Do I still have to write a letter to Mr. Gagliano, or are you satisfied in having spoken to Mr. Stewart? MR. CAIMANO-Will you pass our comments on? MR. STEWART-Yes, I certainly will. MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-There being no other business before the Board, I'll call for a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 28