The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-06-23 '--- ~-" QUEENSBURY PLANJlING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 2310, 1992 INDEX Site PIan No. 55-91 OSCAP, lTD 1. Subdivision No. 5-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE Sherman Pines 2. Subdivision No. 11-1991 FINAL STAGE Sunset HiTl Farm 8. Subdivision No. 8-1992 SKETCH PLAN James Girard 25. Subdivision No. 9-1992 SKETCH PLAN Site PIan No. 29-92 Site PIan No. 30-92 Site PIan No. 31-92 Site PIan No. 32- 92 Site PIan No. 33-92 Site PIan No. 35- 92 Edward & Mary Cardinale 25. Carol A. Ducey 25. Dunham's Bay Fish & Game Club, Inc. 29. Edward & Roberta Barili 40. Dr. Michael Finkowski 41. WiTHam Brown 43. Howard Carr The Howard Group Mgmt. Co., Inc. 46. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAllY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WIll APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WIll STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '--- ....../ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23RD. 1992 7:04 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY CORINNE TARANA TIMOTHY BREWER EDWARD LAPOINT SENIOR PLANNER-lEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI TOlIN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, TOM YARMOWICH OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-91 TYPE I HC-lA OSCAP, lTD (lINER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST OF INTERSECTION OF NYS RT. 9 AND 149 ESTABLISH DO BUILDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF A RETAIL OOTlET CENTER, INCWDING RElOCATION AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING DEMR SHOE ooTlET STORE. TOTAL GROSS WILDING AREA TO BE 68,000 SQ. FT. WITH TOTAL GROSS lEASABLE AREA TO BE 62.000 SQ. FT. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-1-10 lOT SIZE: 7.8 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:04 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-lee caUed me about this and wanted to know if we wanted to receive any copies of the appHcation or the site plan, and I didn't think it was necessary. We have aU the information, and it's my understanding that nothing has changed. So that's why we reaUy don't have our typical information. We do have the Warren County Planning Board notes for your review, of the meeting of June 10th. It was approved at that time, the comments being, liThe Warren County Planning Board rescinds its previous denial of January 8th, 1992. Note: The WCPB wiU be sending a more detaiIed letter regarding the Task Force recommendations and the Town's enforcement." Did we get a copy of that Jetter, lee? MRS. YORK-Yes. I did. I just attached some of the old information anyway, just in case anybody was unfamiliar with it, but I think everybody's up to speed. MR. MARTIN-Is that something worth whiIe reading into the minutes, do you think, the Warren County letter? Is it very long? MRS. YORK-They have not, at this point, sent us a letter. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. YORK-They are meeting us tomorrow night, I believe. No, it's next week. Excuse me, and they should be drafting something and sending it out. MR. MARTIN-Okay. WeU, I think aU we need to know, in terms of this tonight, is that they have approved it and rescinded their denial. MRS. YORK-I think their letter will be more in line with what the Town Board is 100king for. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and also, I think we received, everyone should have received a resolution of commitment to traffic policy. Okay. That's relevant to this application. So, that's the relevant correspondence we've gotten on this. Would the applicant like to make a short presentation of any kind? Okay. You're aU set. AU right. So, we're sort of reconsidering this. So, I don't know that we have anything else to say here. We do have the approvals. So, we don't need the majority plus one vote. So, would someone like to make a resolution? MR. LAPOINT-I have a quick question, first. With respect to our Town Board's commitment on the traffic stuff, there wouId be no reason to include that into the motion? It's a separate issue? MR. MARTIN-I think it is, in that a lot of the items caUed for in that resolution are already part of this site plan. in terms of pedestrian walkways and interconnection of properties and so on. I think that's for our use, in terms of future reviews along that strip of Route 9, when we go to review site plans. So, I don't think it's relevant here. AIl right. I'll entertain a motion. 1 ---- -/' MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-91 adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: OSCAP, lTD, Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its To establish two buildings for the purpose of a retail outlet center including relocation and expansion of the existing Dexter Shoe Outlet store. TotaJ gross buUding area to be 68,000 sq. ft. with total gross leasable area to be 62,000 sq. ft., with the foUowing notes: That the appHcant has provided for interna1ization of traffic with two adjacent property owners. That the appHcant wUI instaU the only State allowed crosswalk on the Half Mile. That the applicant will instaJI a right hand turning lane coming from lake George towards Queensbury into the Dexter 10t. That the app1icant wiU re-work and enhance the left hand turning lane heading north towards the VUlage from Queensbury into their 10t. That the applicant re-time and re-position the traffic lights at Route 9 and 149 intersection. That the applicant has reconfigured their entrance-way in accordance with the New York State Department of Transportation approval, and that the New York State Department of Transportation has stated that no increase in service level win occur at the Route 9 and 149 intersection, and that the DOT is proceeding with the study to assess the traffic flow through the entire area, and where we previously fned a declaration of non-significance with regard to SEQRA, and the applicant has addressed an on-site engineering concerns, and, again, has provided for internalization of traffic through adjacent property owners. DUlY adopted this 23rd day of June, 1992, by the fOllowing vote: MRS. TARANA-I have a question, are we going to include that, Mark brought this up at the meeting, compliance with whatever the traffic study comes up with? MR. SCHACHNER-Can I address that? MR. MARTIN-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-The applicant would request that the Board hopefuny would be wining to consider the motion as made by Mr. laPoint, subsequent to the meeting that Mrs. Tarana is referring to. The applicant had an opportunity consult with its corporation headquarters, and, franklY that was too ambiguous or ambivalent, too much of a carte blanche and the applicant is not reany comfortable, although the applicant itself made that recommendation, the applicant is not reallY comfortable, does not feel that that's necessary as part of the motion. The onlY two bits of information for you are the ones you referenced and the Town Board resolution in support of the Task Force report recommendations and the County Planning Board recommendation to approve, and that's our position. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, basicallY, you're saying then, that offer is off the table, in terms of? MR. SCHACHNER-That's essentiallY correct, Mr. Chairman. Our feeling is that the applicant has already made numerous mitigation measures as part of the project, and intends to complY with any stipulations put on it by this Board in that motion, in hopes that that's enough. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. AYES: Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. PUlver, Mr. Martin NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. lauricella MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you very much for your patience in reviewing this application. MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much. ,. 0. fJ, ~ SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I SR-20 SHERMN PINES (liNER: CHARlES DIEHL SOUTHSIDE OF SHERMAN AVE., +1,490 FT. EAST OF WEST MOONTAIN ROAD SUBDIVISION OF 83 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 3 BEDROOM HOMES WITH COIIIlN SEPTIC SYSTEMS ON +48.275 ACRES OF LAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AFFORIMBLE HOUSING RE-ZONING. TAX MAP NO. 121-2-22.1 LOT SIZE: +48.275 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DICK MORSE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; WILSON MATHIAS, PRESENT (7:12 p.m. MR. MARTIN-Okay. lee has supplied us with a lOt of background information on this. Do you have anything you want to add? MRS. YORK-My last comments were, "A special meeting was held on May 26 between the Planning Board and the Town Board regarding this project. The issues which were discussed were supposed to be dealt with through reporting mechanisms bunt into the homeowners association. The verbal agreements involved contracting to have the septic systems pumped out on a regular basis. Also assurances were made that moderate income home buyers would be served through the sale of the units. The Board needs to complete a SEQRA on the project changes. Please refer to the attached staff notes." And I have no other comnents regarding planning. I think the planning issues have been addressed. 2 -- MR. MARTIN-Okay. Tom. do you have some updated notes? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. Town Engineer. June 22. 1992 "We have reviewed the revised project information dated June 18. 1992 and have the fo11owing engineering comments: 1. lots 65 and 28 are ìocated directìy opposite tee intersections. At tee intersections. ìot ìines opposite the intersection are desirabìe to minimize nuisances to residents from vehicìe headìamps. The appìicant shouìd address this. 2. It is recommended that the Pìanning Board favorabìy consider waivers from subdivision regulations concerning road profiìe scaìes and from road intersection geometry at Tayìor Drive/Sherman Avenue and Casey Court/Christopher Court. 3. The method of contro11ing runoff during construction at the Casey Court/Sherman Avenue intersection is not addressed. 4. Regarding drainage and stormwater management: a. Drainage and stormwater management systems are handìed in a combined approach utiìizing dryweììs. For the purposes of drainage systems drywe11s must acconmdate a11 runoff that ends up in the roads from storms in intensity up to the 10 year return interva1. Stormwater management criteria dictates that the drywe11s accommodate the increase between existing and post deveìopment runoff on a subdivision wide basis for a 50 year return intervaì storm. The drainage report needs to address both of these conditions. b. The drainage report is based upon a characterization that drywe11s have drainage areas that at a maximum consist of 350 feet of haìf the road right-of-way and roofs and driveways from 3 1/2 houses. An inspection of the drainage catchments in the subdivisions reveaìs that severaì drywe11s wiìì receive drainage from significantìy ìarger areas. Those drywe11s incìude: - Tayìor Drive Sta. 19+00 Oeft) - Tayìor Drive Sta. 25+80 Deft) - Christopher Court Sta. 12+50 (ìeft) - Casey Court Sta. 21+9 (ìeft) A drainage area map showing post deveìopment drainage catchments within the subdivision shouìd be provided with accompanying anaìysis that deveìops adequate dryweìì capacity to satisfy cornment a. above. 5. Drawing M-1 shouìd show Christopher Court deveìopment as Phase III. 6. The Casey Court right-of-way at Sherman Avenue that abuts the Adirondack Pìantation Subdivision shouìd have a 28 foot radius per subdivision reguìations. These comments supersede Rist-Frost comments dated June 17. 1992." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Aìì right. Do we have someone here from the appìicant? MR. MORSE-Dick Morse. Wiìson just went over to get our coìored up map. Why don't I address engineering comments. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's as good a pìace as any to start. MR. MORSE-We'ìì start there. and then we can go on. Comment Number One. with reference to. and I beìieve you have these in front of you. so I won't read the whoìe. what Tom just read. Tom and I had met earìier in the week to discuss these. Comment Number One is with reference to alignment and we prefer the alignment that is shown. just because of layout and our lot alignments in geometry. MR. LAPOINT-Couìd I stop you right there? Couìd you just point out 28 and 65 on the drawing for us? MR. MORSE-I think. right here and right here. I beìieve those are the two. They're the ones where ìights would shine in here for a brief period of time. If someone comes in. it wiìl ìine up to it. It was shown to retain the green area in front of those of the existing vegetation. We feeì that those ìots are. any ìot that's on the outside of a radius point ìike this wiìì get ìight shining into it if a car makes a movement one way or the other. MR. LAPOINT-So. I guess the answer to Number One is that the green in front of the ìot mitigates the impact. MR. MORSE-Right. The primary point is it's not a requirement. It's not a design requirement. It's a statement. We stated our opinion. Item Number Two. that was a request, your scale requirements. I beìieve. are 1 and 10 and 1 and 50. or 1 and 40, and we've done 1 and 50. which is the map scaling. It just. to us. makes more sense. and I think Tom. MR. YARMOWICH-I'd suggest that the Board grant a waiver. in this case. MR. MORSE-Item Number Three. the method of contro11ing runoff at Casey Court and Sherman Avenue. and I'll waìk over to that. That is at that intersection. and we're going to show, we've put on both intersection a rubble area where the trucks. during construction, wouìd runoff and basically. hopefuìly. ìose any mud that they've picked up in through here. but if you've been on the site. you'11 know it's not a very muddy site. It's mostìy sand. but they would drop that here. Because this geometry runs down to Sherman. we are proposing to put siìt fences up to this geometry to hold any siìtation back from going onto Sherman during construction. and Tom. I think. has agreed with that. That'll a modification shown at the next submission. MR. YARMOWICH-That's a suitabìe treatment. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. Can I quick. just to summarize it in. ìike. a couple of words. 'you've been adding grave 1. 3 --- ....../ MR. MORSE-That's already shown. during construction. The gravel is shown. We're adding a silt fence up to the gravel wing MR. YARMOWICH-Add silt fence up to gravel wings. I'm just trying to boil this down. MR. MORSE-Right. Item Number Four is rather a lengthy discussion on stormwater management. Since my meeting with Tom. I have attempted to allocate enough time to address that. I haven't. I've gone through and I've developed subcatchments that Tom has requested. and I will be pursuing that in the next. maybe. day. so that we can re-submit it. I'm not sure I'll get to it. though. in that time frame. but the soils are excellent out here. We've got very deep well drain, high percolation rate. As soon as I get to those issues. we will probably be adding a few drywells in these large catchment areas that Tom is referring to. Number One. it is a manageable condition and we've got to satisfy the numbers. Item Number Six is just a drafting error and that will be corrected. if it already hasn't. Just on one sheet it shows it's in Phase II. and on the other. it's really supposed to be Phase III. MR. MARTIN-You mean Item Five? MR. MORSE-I'm sorry. Item Five. correct, and Item Number Six is the 28 foot radius. Again. let me just show you. The pavement radius is fine. It's right in here on this property line. We either have to take or get a construction easement. We've got through to Paul Naylor this afternoon. and Tom and I had discussed. either ask you for a waiver or get a waiver from Naylor. and Paul has no problem with granting that in the geometry. MR. YARMOWICH-So. we'd actually waive that. rather than showing that on the drawing? MR. MORSE-That's correct. We don't own the property. and we're butted up to that. and to do that. we'd have to pull the load off. MR. YARMOWICH-You'd get that from the Highway Superintendent? MR. MORSE-Yes. All I have is a telethon right now. and I'll give that to you. You'll get something in writing at next submission. So. I think the only outstanding issue is the stormwater management. I don't consider it an issue because of the high permeability soils out there. but Nick Scartelli of our office. who does all of our stormwater had a stroke. He's not available, and I'm trying to work around that issue. and we'll be getting to that in the next day or so. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-I have a question for our engineer. Number Four A and B. essentially, they run through the calculations and it would be a matter of adding drywells if they are inadequate to handle the 10 year and 50 year storm? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. In one of the previous response letters. I did indicate that the type and the method of stormwater management here is well suited and adapted. I think. as Dick mentioned. it's a matter of juggling the numbers and finding out exactly how many drywells needed to be placed. and I really see it's just a technical item. They'll figure out how many need to be there. and we'll take a look. MR. MARTIN-It just requires some further calculation. or whatever? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. MARTIN-All right. Anything else. Ed? MR. LAPOINT-I've got tons of questions. I'm all done with the engineering part. Now. I just need to be refreshed on the septic part. MR. MORSE-We had our meeting. our joint meeting. and we discussed the issues. It is our preference to have a SPDES Permitted system, a community system. and it was my understanding. from that meeting. that we were going to stay with the design that was presented. which is individual septic tanks and the requirement was that we were going to have. in the homeowners. a requirement for pumping that septic. the septic tanks out, by the homeowners association. which is always a given. but we would note that. MR. MARTIN-At regular scheduled maintenance intervals. MR. MORSE-Right. regular scheduled. and we were debating between two and three years. something like that. We haven't fi rmed that up yet. because we really haven't gotten to the homeowners yet. that detail on that issue. but we will be. I would assume that would be presented before Final. MR. LAPOINT-Well, we're at Final. right? MR. MARTIN-We're still at Preliminary. 4 --- -- MR. LAPOINT-That's a typo. here? Mine says Finaì. MR. BREWER-You must have the oìd agenda. MR. LAPOINT-I must have the oìd agenda. I'm sorry. We're at Preìiminary. MR. BREWER-But that wouìd be a stipuìation for Finaì. MR. LAPOINT-Right. and you're going to stay with the common ìeach beds? MR. MORSE-That's correct. That was my understanding at that meeting, and if anybody heard something different than I did. ìet me know, but I mean. that's at ìeast our team's approach. We feel it's an exceììent system. From a technicaì standpoint. there seems to be no difference. Tom and I have discussed it. Your engineer doesn't have any probìem. We don't have any probìem. and we wouìd prefer to go that way. for various reasons that we've outìined many times. MR. LAPOINT-That's it. for me. MR. MARTIN-Okay. My onìy one was, that's how I recaìì the septic proposaì. and I think that we do require for that reguìar scheduìed maintenance on the tanks. that that'ìì substantiaììy ìengthen the ìife of the ìeachfieìds themseìves. So. does anybody have anything eìse? I think the pubìic hearing on this was ìeft open. wasn't it. lee? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So. I'ìì. again. accept any comments from the pubìic at this time. regarding this appìication. based on the information we've heard tonight. and I think there were some peopìe present at the joint meeting we had with the Town Board. So. is there anybody eìse who has any comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING ClOSED MR. MARTIN-And I think we can move to the point of a SEQRA Review. MR. BREWER-We've got to do a whoìe SEQRA over, right. or not? MR. MARTIN-Over? I don't know that we ever. MRS. PULVER-We did one for the re-zoning. That was our question. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. that was our technicaì question. lee. MRS. YORK-Okay. You just do the SEQRA on the difference in the impacts between what the Town Board approved. because they have previousìy approved the SEQRA. MR. BREWER-But can we do that. if they were the lead Agent? MRS. YORK-If there are any modifications that wouìd increase the impacts on the neighborhood or traffic. MR. MARTIN-It was aìways my understanding that their SEQRA Review was on the re-zoning. We're ìooking at the subdivision here. now. and that's a. MRS. YORK-Not according to our attorney. His understanding is that you do the difference in impacts. What previousìy had been approved was a common waìì construction. Wiìson, why don't you address the difference in submissions. MR. MATH IAS- The SEQRA form that we fiìed with you recognizes the Pìanning Board's jurisdiction to make a SEQRA Review. as to the difference between the originaì re-zoning and what we have now. and that's what our SEQRA form attempted to set forth the facts about. the difference between the fact that we were approved for 100 units. We're down to 83. We've got a ìarger area of road than we had before. We've attempted to mitigate that. not cutting requirements and so forth. but. I mean. we beìieve you have the authority to review this under SEQRA. and I think you have to make a decision in order for us to go forward. MR. MARTIN-I wouìd feeì more comfortabìe. MR. BREWER-So. we'd have to do a whoìe compìete SEQRA again. then. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't think we can. by any means. pick and choose. 5 --- ..-' MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MARTIN-I'd fee1 more comfortab1e going through the wh01e process again. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean. we can put it in 1ight of the changes. the impact difference between the 100 unit p1an and the 83 unit p1an. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think there are some things that are 1ess of an impact. as a resu1t of the change. and 1ike Wi1son said. the road's a 1itt1e 10nger now. So. there's a change the other way. So. I think it's worthwhi1e going through the wh01e thing. A11 right. lets give it a whir1. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. The SEQRA process with respect to Subdivision No. 5-1992. Sherman Pines. Subdivision of 83 sing1e fami1y three bedroom homes with common septic systems on 48.275 acres of 1and in accordance with affordab1e housing re-zoning. and the SEQRA with respect to the differences between the origina11y submitted 100 unit p1an. and the p1an that is before us for 83 units. per the recommendation of our attorney. RESOlUTION lIMEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 42-91. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Car01 Pu1ver: WHEREAS. there is present1y before the P1anning Board an app1ication for: SHERMnI PINES, owner, Charles Diehl, for subdivision of 83 residential single f.ny three bedroœ hoEs with c.-n septic s,ystell on 48.275 acres of land in accordance with affordable housing re-zoning., and WHEREAS. this P1anning Board has determined that the proposed project and P1anning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmenta1 Qua1ity Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federa1 agency appears to be invo1ved. 2. The f0110wing agencies are inv01ved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unHsted in the Department of Environmenta1 Conservation Regu1ations imp1ementing the State Environmental Qua1ity Review Act and the regu1ations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmenta1 Assessment Form has been comp1eted by the app1icant. 5. Having considered and thorough1y ana1yzed the re1evant areas of environmenta1 concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmenta1 impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Officia1 Compi1ation of Codes. Ru1es and Regu1ations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board wi11 have no significant environmenta1 effect and the Chairman of the P1anning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and fi1e as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative dec1aration that may be required by 1aw. Du1y adopted this 23rd day of June. 1992. by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pu1ver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. laPoint. Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laurice11a MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anybody have anything to add on the app1ication in genera1? Any further comment? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I wou1d just have a ton of stipu1ations on any motion. though. if anybody e1se wants to make it. I'd 1ike to add them in or do it myse1f. MRS. PULVER-This is on1y Pre1iminary. MR. LAPOINT-But I'd sti11 1ike to add them in. MR. BREWER-So that we have them in there for Fina1? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. 6 '-- '- MR. MATHIAS-Before you get to that. if I may. I'd 1ike to. because we're at the point where we have to get our. to be on the agenda for Ju1y. we need to fi1e this documentation by tomorrow. and a1though I think that most of the engineering on this has been addressed, we stiH don't have the mechanics. or the mathematics done. in terms of the stormwater management. I don't think anybody be1ieves that's reaHy a big engineering proMem at this site. because the reason we've got to put so much engineering into the septic proMem is because the quick soH makes it rea1 easy for the rain water. I'd ask that you extend our time to fHe. at 1east that portion of the appHcation. untH Monday. So that we just get some more time to be ab1e to do it and stiH stay within the time taMe. So, then we can be on 1ine to get Fina1 approva1 at the Ju1y meeting. MRS. YORK-Cou1d you have it by Friday at 2 p.m.? Is there a possib1e way to do that? MR. MORSE-I'11 make every effort. MRS. YORK-Thank you very much. MR. MARTIN-Is that a time frame you cou1d work under? MRS. YORK-That wou1d be fine. MR. MARTIN-Okay. WeH. I guess we cou1d work with that. then. WeH. we can try this motion. here. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE SHERMAN PINES. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Car01 Pu1ver: For the subdivision of 83 residentia1 sing1e fami1y 3 bedroom homes with common septic systems on +48.725 acres of 1and in accordance with affordab1e housing re-zoning. with the foHowing stipu1ations: With regard to the Rist-Frost 1etter dated 22 June 1992. that impact of Item Number One has been mitigated by green areas in front of the 1ots. That the P1anning Board grant a waiver for the one to ten and one to forty sca1es in 1ieu of the one to fifty sca1e shown on the submittaL That the method of contr01Hng runoff during construction at Casey and Sherman Avenue intersection be addressed by adding a si1t fence up to the grave1 wing swa1e shown on the drawings. With regard to Item Number Four. that the appHcant re-submit ca1cu1ations and add dryweHs to the acceptance of Rist-Frost. and that the app1icant correct the drafting error. reference Item Number Five. and that the app1icant obtain a waiver from the Highway Superintendent for the 28 foot radius per the Subdivision Regu1ations. and that the appHcant be extended a fHing date for the Ju1y agenda. with respect to these stipu1ations, to June 26th by 2 p.m. With regard to the septic. that the appHcant fHe for the necessary New York State SPDES Permit for individua1 septic tanks. with common 1each beds. with specifications in the Homeowners Association for routine maintenance of the septic tanks, and Rist-Frost review. per the size of the tank. they cou1d come up with a number for pumping out the septic tank. That the app1icant provide Rist-Frost with a copy of that specification in the Homeowners Association for their review, for acceptabHity. Du1y adopted this 23rd day of June. 1992. by the f0110wing vote: MR. YARMOWICH-Just to c1arify. it's your intention to have the app1icant make the offer. and we wiH determine its acceptabi1ity. on beha1f of the Town? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. YARMOWICH-Good. MR. MARTIN-Okay. In terms of any. the homeowners association. aH the 1ega1 work in regards to that. that'11 a11 be taken care of. Wi1son? MR. W\THIAS-We've submitted a draft to you. and you'H find how striking1y simHar they aH appear. MR. MARTIN-Yes. it's pretty standard stuff. MR. MATHIAS-The other one is Dixon Heights. which is another subdivision approved within the Town of Queensbury which uses the same type of septic with the comon septic 1eachfie1ds. and I don't think you hear a 10t of comp1aints about that. but as to the specific 1anguage that's going to appear in that portion of the. you know. the Dec1aration. the notice that we agreed to provide saying that for whatever reason peop1e have to be aware that the system as p1anned wasn't working and the Town had to take care of it. that the homeowners consented to such formation of a sewer district and the imposition of any sewer tax arising therefrom. So. that's the 1anguage that'11 be provided to Rist-Frost. MR. MARTIN-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Pu1ver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. laPoint. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Martin 7 - -- NOES: NONE w~A; ABSENT: Mr. laurice11a (7:39 p.m.) SUBDIVISION 10. 11-1991 FINAL STAGE TYPE I IfR-lA SUNSET HIll FARM (liNER: PAUL KNOX, III KNOX ROAD ON ASSEMBLY POINT TO SUBDIVIDE 25 ACRES INTO 10 LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED BY INDIYlOOAl LOT PURCHASERS. DRILLED WELlS AND ON-SITE WASTEIIATER WIll BE CONSTRUCTED FOR WATER AND SEIlER SERVICES. LOTS ifIll BE ACCESSED BY PRIVATELY (lØED AND MINTAINED DRIVEWAYS. lOT 1 C(JfTAIIS THE (liNER'S RESIDENCE AND ifIll BE RETAINED BY THE OWNER. TAX MP NO. 7-1-16.1 lOT SIZE: 25 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISIOI REGULATIONS MARK SCHACHNER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:39 p.m.) MRS. YORK-I had requested. at the Board's request. that Mr. Dusek review the 1etter from the lake George Association. MR. MARTIN-Yes. and we have a copy of his 1etter that he just wrote tOday. right? MRS. YORK-Right. Do you want to read it into the record? MR. MARTIN-WeH. has everybody read the lake George Association 1etter? WeH. I think it probab1y wou1d be best to read it into the record. MRS. YORK-I'11 read that into the record. You read Mr. Dusek's response. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. YORK-"Dear Mr. Martin: The lake George Association has recent1y 1earned that Pau1 Knox III has appHed to the lake George Park Commission for permission to operate a Class A Marina off his property on Assemb1y Point. In Hght of this new information. the lGA beHeves that the foHowing two issues need to be discussed immediate1y by the town p1anning board. 1) MARINA APPLICATION Enc10sed is a copy of the marina appHcation for your review. P1ease note that the marina app1ication is for three separate pieces of 1akeshore property. One of the 10ts Hsted is 10t 7-1-16.1. the Sunset HiH Farm subdivision property. The same property that the p1anning board just gave a conditiona1 approva1 to for a 10 10t subdivision. in addition to a negative dec1aration under S.E.Q.R.A. If you recaH. the possibiJity that there cou1d be a commercia1 use attached to the Sunset HiJ1 Farms subdivision project was brought out a number of times at pub1ic meetings and a1so brought to the p1anning board's attention via a 1etter from the lG Park Commission 1ast year. Commercia1 marina use was again discussed at the 1ast meeting and was the reaSon the lGA asked for a thorough and comp1ete S.E.Q.R.A. review. SpecificaHy. the lGA asked the board to 100k at a11 the impacts associated with a comercia1 marina use in a residentia1 zone. Unfortunate1y. neither the subdivision nor the S.E.Q.R.A. review took this suggestion into consideration. Based on the above change in the project. c1ear1y a substantia1 modification to the project. the lGA is asking the town p1anning board to rescind the positive dec1aration rendered at the 1ast meeting. Further we ask that the p1anning board put its conditiona1 subdivision approva1 given the project on h01d untiJ the proper review is conducted. It's c1ear with respect to the neW evidence that anything 1ess than a fu11 investigation into the matter inc1uding a re-review of the entire project. wou1d not on1y constitute segmentation under S.E.Q.R.A.. but 1ead the pubHc to beHeve that circumventing the ru1es and regu1ations of the town's zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations is an acceptab1e practice. USE VARIANCE A coup1e of other points. A marina is not an aHowed use in the Waterfront Residentia1 zone under the town's zoning ordinance. The appHcant is therefore required to app1y to the town for a use variance. According to the marina appHcation. the app1icant states that the renta1 of docks on the various 1akeshore 10ts has taken p1ace since 1970. If the town accepts this c1aim. it means that a use variance is not required. Prior to making that decision. the lGA asks that the town ask and have c1ear answers to. on the record. a11 of the fo110wing questions: If the renta1 of docks has occurred since 1970. why wasn't the town made aware of this by the appHcant and why wasn't it addressed in the subdivision review that just ended two weeks ago? The lGPC marina appHcation 1ists severa1 different pieces of property p1anned for the marina use. One is the Sunset Hi11 subdivision property. Another is 10t 7-1-16.7 and sti11 another is 10t 7-1-16.2. Where is the proof that renta1 of docks on these 10ts has been going on? And. again. if this has been going on for many years. why didn't the town know about it? If marina use is approved for these 10ts. what happens if they are s01d? Cou1d there be three separate marinas on the three separate 1akeshore 10ts? How come. when the app1icant or former owner registered the docks in 1982 with DEC. they were not registered as cornmercia1 docks? When the appHcant appHed 1ast summer to the lGPC for a permit to construct a dock on 10t 7-1-16.1. why was the proposed use of the dock Hsted on the appHcation as private and residentia1? To do anything other than a comp1ete investigation into the entire situation wou1d be contrary to the S.E.Q.R.A. 1aw. contrary to town regu1ations and to the interests of the pub1ic. who deserve the chance to voice its concerns about such a substantia1 change to their residentia1 neighborhood. Sincere1y, Kathy A. Vi1mar. Director land Use Management" MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have Pau1 Dusek's 1etter of today's date. June 23rd. 1992. in response. "Dear Mr. Martin: In accordance with the request of the P1anning Board. I have reviewed a 1etter dated May 20th. from the lake George Park Comission to the Queensbury P1anning Board. together with copies of 8 -' other documents which incJuded a Jetter to PauJ Knox from the lake George Park Commission. a notice of compJete appJication from the lake George Park Commission. a Jetter to the lake George Park Commission from PauJ Knox, an appJication for permit. and some drawings attached thereto. It is my understanding that the PJanning Board requested that I comment on the Jetter. specificaJJy the issue of whether the SEQRA Review performed in connection with this subdivision review shouJd be re-visited. as suggested by the Jetter from the lGPC. Based on a review of the documents mentioned, and conversations I've had with you and the appJicant's attorney. Mr. Mark Schachner. it is my opinion that the Board shouJd make a determination in the first instance as to whether the marina wiJJ impact the subdivision as a whole. as this appears to be the matter before the Board. I think a JogicaJ argument couJd be made that the site specific issue of the existence of or site specific concerns arising from the marina do not appear to be reJative to the Board's subdivision approvaJ process. If the Board feels that there is a significant impact to the marina on the subdivision. it may be possibJe for the Board to overturn or reverse its prior negative decJaration. but onJy if the Board can determine that there has been a project modification or there exists a change of circumstances that was not previousJy addressed. If the Board feeJs that sufficient grounds exist to re-open the SEQRA process. I wouJd recommend that we meet to discuss future proceedings. FinaJJy. from a review of the items mentioned above. as weJJ as my conversation with you and the appJicant's attorney. Mr. Mark Schachner, it wouJd seem that among the significant and reJevant facts that the Board wouJd want to consider are: 1) that the "marina" cJassification arises as a resuJt of the fact that there wiJJ be five (5) boats berthed at a dock which is Jocated off Jot #1 of the subdivision. 2) that because some or aJJ of the spaces are rented. the same is determined to be a "marina" under the lGPC reguJations. 3) that Jot #1 and the dock in question is accessibJe without passing through any other subdivision Jots or roads. if any. created as part of a new subdivision. 4) that the other Jots in the subdivision do not have a right-of-way or deeded access to the dock or "marina". 5) that the deveJoper has agreed that if the subdivision is approved. that the same wiJJ not be deeded in the future. 6) that the dock and renting of boat sJips off the dock is a use that may have been in existence for some time. and that the PJanning Board. or at Jeast members of the PJanning Board. knew of the existence of the same prior to the time that a negative decJaration was issued. 7) that the lGPC has determined that a SEQRA review is not necessary in connection with the appJication. I trust that you wiJJ find the foregoing opinion heJpfuJ in resoJving this matter. If you shouJd have any further questions. pJease do not hesitate to contact me. Very truJy yours, PauJ B. Dusek Town Attorney" MR. MARTIN-And the conversation he references that I had with him was today. I'd originaJJy asked him to be here at this meeting. and he couJdn't make it. due to a prior confJict. So. I said that the Board wouJd at Jeast like some written comment in that regard. So. that's why we have this Jetter. So. before we get into aJJ this. we have some engineering concerns from Tom. dated today's date. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. There's aJso a Jetter dated June 22nd. 1992. MR. MARTIN-Okay. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. Town Engineer. June 22. 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the foJJowing technicaJ comments: 1. With regard to the Subdivision map: a. Property corner markers need to be shown at aJJ Jot Jine corners and at curve tangents. b. Fire and schooJ districts need to be indicated. c. Zoning and a statement to the effect that the pJan is in compJiance with zoning needs to be added. d. The approvaJ signature note for the PJanning Board Chairman needs to be added. e. A surveyor's or engineer's statement stating the pJan is correct and made from an actuaJ survey need to be added. f. NYSDOH approvaJ needs to be indicated on the subdivision map. g. A note referring to the requirement for a Queensbury wetJand permit for lot 3 needs to be added because deveJopment of lot 3 necessitates activities within 100 feet of a wetJand (per Queensbury Code 94-5). 2. PreJiminary approvaJ by the PJanning Board stipuJated prohibition of Jandscape and fertiJizers. It is not cJear how this is addressed on the pJans or in the JegaJ documents submitted. 3. The pJans need to indicate the water suppJy for the existing improvement on lot 2 to verify that the sewage disposaJ system for lot 3 can be pJaced with at Jeast 100 feet separation distance. It is our opinion that the technicaJ pJan concepts and design detaiJs for this subdivision constitute appropriate best management strategies given the significant development and environmentaJ constraints derived from the Jocation. topography and aesthetics of the site. Subject to the appJicant satisfactoriJy addressing the minor cornments above. we advise that the technicaJ aspects of the project appear acceptabJe for finaJ stage subdivision approvaJ by the Board." MR. MARTIN-And to suppJement that. there was some other information brought to my attention tOday. and there was a foJJow up Jetter dated June 23rd. 1992. as foJJows: "This Jetter serves to suppJement engineering coments dated June 22. 1992. Our suppJementary comments are as foJJows: 1. Regarding stormwater management: a. Does the design appropriateJy consider the vehicJe Joading to infiJtrator units? The infiJtrator specified on Drawing S-4 is an H-10 Joading unit. b. The infiJtrator quantity specified at the bottom of the driveway serving Jots 6 and 7 is excessive and greatJy exceeds the instaJJation area indicated on the pJans. c. The infiJtrator/dryweJJ cross section on Drawing S-4 shouJd note the requirement for JeveJ instaJJation of infiJtrators. d. The upper infiJtrators for the driveway serving Jots 5. 8. 9, and 10 are arranged over a Jength of driveway having about 7 feet of eJevation change. The drawings shouJd cJarify how this instaJJation wiJJ occur and maintain a system that gives uniform Joading to JeveJ infiJtrators." 9 '--- ...-/ MR. YARMOWICH-And none of these comments modify the opinion stated on the previous Jetter, that basicaJJy best management strategies are appJied. and these are minor technicaJ issues that can be cJeaned up. MR. MARTIN-Okay. An right. I think that constitutes an the comments and correspondence. Do we have someone here from the appJicant to address the Board? MR. SCHACHNER-Mark Schachner. here representing the appHcant. I guess in my mind the comments or issues break down into two categories. one being what Mr. Yarmowich has characterized as his minor technicaJ comments. and the other one being the lake George Association Jetter. and I wouJd prefer. I wouJd propose to do it in whichever order you wouJd Jike. MR. MARTIN-Wen. why don't we get what might be the more difficuH one out of the way. is this lake George Association business. I think. as you indicated. the technicaJ issues are reJativeJy minor in nature. MR. SCHACHNER-let me say. in response to both categories. we can easiJy. we have aJready and can easiJy expJain to you how we have aJready deaH with both issues. no probJem. As far as the lake George Association issue. I just want to give you each a map which does not contain any new information whatsoever. It is just a composite of existing information aJready in your records. SimpJy and bJuntJy stated. the lake George Association Jetter and position that it's now espousing. in our opinion. are grossJy unfair. and frankJy I have to say are irresponsibJe. and the reason I say that is the foJJowing. The lake George Association Jetter attempts to create the inference. or actuaJJy says that the appJicant is trying to sJip something by this Town and this PJanning Board and has been disingenuous. or dishonest by not tening it. from the outset. what was intended. This is totany and compJeteJy incorrect. From Day I, and this is in the minutes from the October 15th 1991 meeting. It was brought to your attention by the lake George Association. by the appJicant. and by former member Mr. Cartier. that there was some history here about a possibJe marina situation at one dock with the lake George Park Commission. and just to put this in a perspective. we were up front in so indicating. Mr. Cartier said to me. on the record. on your minutes. on severaJ occasions, Jets dean this situation up. The lake George Association itseH requested that Mr. Knox make appJication to the lake George Park Commission for the "marina" on his one dock. and I say. quote unquote. just so we an understand each other. This is not a commerciaJ marina, in the sense of saJe of boats. renta1. repairs. and things Jike that. It is rentaJ of five boat sJips. MR. MARTIN-Just to refresh my memory. and you might have better knowJedge of this since you reviewed the minutes. I know that Mr. Knox was here before us for a dock appJication. construction of a dock. and I honestJy. because we've been at thi s for so Jong, can't remember if. or he mi ght have wi thdrawn it. or we tabJed it and then he subsequentJy withdrew it. MR. SCHACHNER-That was a way Jong time ago. a fuJJ year prior. MR. MARTIN-So, these October 15th comments that you're citing are in regards to this subdivision appJication. MR. SCHACHNER-That is preciseJy correct. Thank you. Mr. Martin. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Is that the same piece of property that we're taJking about. that was uHimateJy denied. or whatever? MR. SCHACHNER-My understanding was that was a different piece of property. I was not here. I did not represent it at that time. MR. LAPOINT-It was lot Number 9. They wanted a dock on that 50 foot portion. At the time there was no subdivision. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-It showed the entire thing as one parceJ. and the argument. and I don't think you were on the Board at that time. MR. BREWER-Yes. I was. I can remember whether that 50 foot was to be. MR. LAPOINT-Was to be additive into the other side of the Jake. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MARTIN-I think we just tabJed it and then it was withdrawn. subsequentJy withdrawn. 10 ------ --../ MR. SCHACHNER-I know it wasn't approved. I wasn't involved. and I appreciate that clarification. So. this was information that was in front of this Board during the review of this subdivision. and in fact. the lake George Association was instrumental in pointing this out to your attention and to our attention. and in asking the applicant to make application to the lake George Park Commission. Now. some eight. nine. ten months later. the applicant. with our advice. frankly. has gone and made application to the lake George Park Commission for licensing of that facility and the lake George Association is now coming back at us and suggesting that. as a result of that. that we should go back to Square One and seek a review. The position is grossly inaccurate for a number of reasons. First and foremost. I want to point out. so we're all clear. which dock we're talking about. On the diagrams I've handed out. it's the eastern most dock. okay. If you hold the diagram, what I call vertically. it's the one on top. MR. MARTIN-Along Assembly Point Road. on the east side of the point? MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely, and so first and foremost I want to point out that that is a portion of lot 1. That lot 1. you'll recall from Day One. we have described as the lot on which Mr. Knox's home is already situated. We said from Day One that that lot has several docks on it. The docks that are also on your diagram. that are further west. are personal residential docks that are not utilized for any rental activities whatsoever. and the only dock that an this fuss and bother is about is this dock way up on the eastern side. on the other side of Assembly Point Road. and all we're talking about is five rental slips. and this activity has occurred since at least 1970. As Mr. Dusek points out. if you wish to. you can consider whether there'll be any impact of this use on this subdivision. and if you'll look at the map I've given out. and if you place it in the context of the overall subdivision map. you can readily see that these five cars. or people that come and use these slips. come down Assembly Point Road. They never even get to Knox Road. They never even turn left onto Knox Road. They never go down Knox Road to make the right bend down to the rest of the lots. They simply never come anywhere near the subdivision lots. We've said from Day One. lot One is Mr. Knox's residential lot. He is retaining that lot. It is not being sold. MR. BREWER-How many docks can he have? It shows a boat-house. a dock. and then another dock all in the same piece of property, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Right. He's got lots of frontage. and I don't know the exact amounts. and. again. the Park Commission does have regulations about this, but keep in mind. MR. MARTIN-These are all in existence. MR. SCHACHNER-Exactly. I think that's the key. None of this is new. I have to strenuously emphasize that. Absolutely none of these docks or their uses are new. Zero. The lGA letter says, we have to look very hard at the possible impact of this brand new cornmercial marina use. It's nonsense. and we submit it's irresponsible. On SEQRA. the thrust of the lGA letter is that SEQRA has somehow not been properly adhered to. Okay. Number One. as a matter of law. that activity. not the subdivision. but that activity is excluded from SEQRA Review because it's been there since before there even was a SEQRA law. I'm not making that up. The lake George Park Comission has, itself. so determined. and I'm reading to you from the public notice. MR. MARTIN-Paul Dusek also makes that point in his letter. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. published in the Post Star. where it specifically says, "The action is not subject to review under SEQRA because the activity for which this permit is sought was undertaken prior to the effect date set forth in the SEQRA. By the way, just to add to your comfort level about this being an existing use. and nothing new being proposed. I'm again reading to you directly from the lake George Park Commission Notice. and it specifically says. liThe proposed action to be considered involves the continued operation of a Class A Marina on the waters of lake George whose services are limited to the rental of five vessel berthing s1ips. The facility. historically. has been used as a marina. No change in use at this site is proposed. II So. I don't really see the need to belabor this point further. There's three or four reasons that cannot be controverted. why the existence of what the lake George Park Commission classifies as a marina. and the fact that we. the applicant. have now gone back and made that application. at the request of this Board. Mr. Cartier in particular. at the request of the lGA. cannot possiblY fairlY require us to go back and do a SEQRA process. The way the subdivision is configured. obviously. the continuation of this use has no impact at all on this subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. Wen. I'd like to get this matter straightened away before we get into the engineering comments. Now. in fairness. and in 1ight of some criticism. in the past. of this Chairman of meeting or talking to app1icants or whatever, in private. and not notifying the Board. or just doing it period. I was contacted by the lake George Association. I was asked that they be anowed to speak. I said I have no authority to do such. and that I would put that question out to the Board. and so that's what I'm doing right now. That was the end of the conversation. So. I don't know if they are. in fact. in attendance here tonight. I imagine they might be. 1'm throwing that question out to the Board. I didn't feel comfortable making that sort of determine. certainly. over the phone by myself. So. I throw that question out to the Board. MRS. PULVER-The public hearing has been closed? 11 '-- -/ MR. MARTIN-Yes. that's re1evant to mention. The pubHc hearing has been dosed. re-opened and c10sed again. MR. SCHACHNER-May I just add that. obvious1y. we've a1ready considered. we11 after the pub1ic hearing. the lake George Association's 1etter. I have a prob1em with that. on behalf of the appHcant. that I didn't even bother objecting to. One of the things that I a1ways find ironic is that the appHcant is constrained to make submissions before a certain dead1ine. in order for those submissions to be reviewed and considered by the P1anning Board, and yet opponents seem to be ab1e to write 1etters in at the 1ast minute and have those 1etters considered by the Board and by the Staff. I didn't object to the 1etter. We hit it head on. but especia11y mindfu1 of what happened 1ast time we a110wed some comments. not from the lake George Association. but from some re1ated parties. I hope we don't get into that kind of situation again. and I'm going to request that we stay within the ru1es. We've dea1t with the issue. we be1ieve. It's up to the Board. obvious1y. MR. BREWER-Can I ask one question? Their 1etter references three 10ts. What three 10ts are they ta1king about? MR. LAPOINT-16.1. 16.2. and 16.7. MR. BREWER-Right. from the lake George Association. Page 2. MR. MARTIN-Second paragraph from the bottom. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. and I can te11 you. for sure. that there is an additiona1 dock on lot 16.7 which we purpose1y put on your diagram. Do you see that to the south? MR. MARTIN-The boat-house. where it says. boat-house and sma11. is that it? MR. SCHACHNER-No. That's on lot 1 of the subdivision. MR. BREWER-What number is that 10t. Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Tim. you're asking about lot 1. am I right? MR. BREWER-Right. The on1y reason I'm asking is because I reca11. from conversation that we had. that Mr. Knox was going to keep lot 1. because his residence was on it. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. BREWER-And fami1y was going to get. was it two other 10ts? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. BREWER-And I was just curious if these were the other 10ts? MR. MARTIN-We11. I remember. when we were ta1king about the dock appHcation. the question came up, Mr. Knox has a1ready got three docks. Why does he need a fourth. and that was a basic question. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think that was part of the prob1em. there. and keep in mind. we're not 100king for any new docks whatsoever. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I think if you read the regu1ations. and I don't reca11. There might have been a concern that he wou1dn't even qua1ify for a. MR. BREWER-No. The reason I ask that question is because if these are the 10ts that his chndren are going to keep. somewhere I remember conversation that his chi1dren. MR. SCHACHNER-Three and nine, by the way. are the 10ts I was referring to. MR. BREWER-Three and nine. Is that these numbers here. 16.7. 16.2. and 16.1? MR. LAPOINT-Those 10ts won't have those type numbers. MRS. PULVER-Those are Tax Map numbers. MR. MARTIN-These are Tax Map numbers of existing 10ts. MR. BREWER-Existing 10ts? 12 --' MR. MARTIN-Prior to any subdivision. that's what exists tOday. without any subdivision. MRS. PULVER-Those are just Tax Map numbers that they reference. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Exactly. Those are not lot numbers. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean. I might be able to address this easier, Mr. Brewer. just by saying that there are four docks. three of which are on lot Number One in the subdivision. They've existed for. literally. decades. Notice that lot Number One of the subdivision is rather unusual in that it fronts on lake George in two different places. but in any event. let me underscore again. because I still sense some confusion on this. Before. I understand the applicant did come before this Board seeking approval for some type of new dock. It's not on the table and not what we're talking about. No new docks whatsoever. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I understand. MR. SCHACHNER-Everything there preexists the new lake George Park Commission Regulations. MR. BREWER-No. Something sticks in my mind about when you talked about subdividing this land. lake frontage for the lots. MRS. PULVER-There is none. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. BREWER-No rights. and I guess I'm getting that confused with the lake fronts and dock usage. MR. MARTlN-1 remember the statement being made that there is going to be none granted to the owners of these lots. and you were even willing to concede that as a stipulation of any transfer of deed. MR. SCHACHNER-That's correct. MR. BREWER-All right. I'm straight now. I had these confused with these Tax Map numbers. MR. MARTIN-And I think that will probably be an ultimate stipulation of the Board is no conveyance of lake rights or anything like that. All right. Well. I want to get back to my original question. here. of, I wanted to do this with Board approval or disapproval of allowing the lake George Association to speak. MR. LAPOINT-I have an alternate suggestion. that we have Mr. Schachner go down through these questions and address each one of these with respect to the letter, and here what he has to say, and then make our determinations. if we have the need to hear further, because. again. there's one point I don't think our Attorney covers. and I'm just reading the letter for the first time tOday. because it was issued today. I don't think that the Attorney addresses the comment about the use variance. The lake George people make the comment. "A couple of other points. A marina is not an allowed use in the Waterfront Residential zone under the town's zoning ordinance." So. what I'd like to do is start right there. and go right through with the applicant and address. point by point, each one of these questions in this letter and then make a determination as to if we have to hear further. That's my suggestion. MR. SCHACHNER-And maybe what I would offer is that I think we've already addressed them all. except for that one. and I'll be glad to address that one. MR. LAPOINT-Well, see. I don't think you have. because I want to be explicit. and I will read the question right out of the letter. and I'm interested in your response to the question. MR. MARTIN-That's fine. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So. I'd like to march him right down through these. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Fine. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, could you address. under the Use Variance. a marina is not allowed in a Waterfront Residential? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the letter addresses that already. the lGA's own letter addresses that. at the very end of the next paragraph. The next paragraph says. "the applicant states that the rental of docks on the various lakeshore lots has taken place since 1970. If the town accepts this claim. it means that a use variance is not required." MR. LAPOINT-Okay. let me stop you there. lee. correct? 13 -- ---" MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Fine. MRS. YORK-The Board may want to get on record when the rentaJ of docks started. though. MR. SCHACHNER-The Board can't get that on record here tonight. because I don't know exactJy when it started. MR. LAPOINT-Prior to 1970. MR. SCHACHNER-That I know. MR. LAPOINT-Prior to 1970. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-So. both of those statements and the response is correct. MR. MARTIN-I knew that was correct. that much about it. It's a preexisting use. MR. LAPOINT-That's why I want to be expHcit with each one of these things. because the lake George Park Commission is very expJicit in their Jetter. and to me. there wouJd be. if that's correct. MR. MARTIN-The lake George Association. I want to make sure we get that correct. MR. LAPOINT-Whatever it is. So that if they do taJk. I mean. that's addressed. correct? MR. MARTIN-Right. 1 consider it to be. MR. LAPOINT-Because. again. I want to make sure if we hear them we know what we're hearing and everything's correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. laPoint. again. I'm sorry for interrupting. but before we even get into it. the Jast few questions. if we get that far. are just wiJdJy off the board specuJative questions and. frankJy. I don't even think it's appropriate to give this Jetter the credibiJity of requiring an answer. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. WeJJ. then. you can respond to that that way on each question. MR. SCHACHNER-Fine. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "If the rentaJ of docks has occurred since 1970. why wasn't the town made aware of this by the appJicant. and why wasn't it addressed in the subdivision review that just ended two weeks ago?" MR. SCHACHNER-Response? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER- It was brought to the Town I s attention. FrankJy. at Jeast parti a JJy by the lake George Association itself. back in October of 1991. SeveraJ sets of your monthJy minutes. I beHeve this is our ninth appearance before this PJanning Board on this project. and on severaJ occasions. at different monthJy meetings. the existence of this dock and the lake George Park Commission cJassification as a marina were discussed. In particuJar. Mr. Cartier focused on it and asked the appHcant severaJ times to "cJean up this situation. deaJ with the lake George Park Commission". As a resuH. we've done so. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's the way I reca11 that aJso. that Cartier did bring that up. and that more or Jess forced the issue with the marina use for that dock. and that's the way I recaJJ it. generaJJy. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It was something to the effect that a neighbor had spotted some boats there. recorded the registration numbers off the front, and fo11owed it through, and it was found to be that the boats were not owned by peopJe with any property in that area. and so they were obviousJy renting the spaces out. That's how it occurred. MR. LAPOINT-So, we. in sense I think. forced that issued. to a certain degree. during our review of the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Right. and I'd just Jike to add. in terms of a nonconforming use. not bringing it forward. there's many nonconforming uses in the Town that peopJe just don't. It's preexisting nonconforming. and that's just the way it is. 14 -- - MR. LAPOINT-Okay. 1'm ready for the next one. "The lGPC marina appìication ìists severaJ different pieces of property pJanned for the marina use. One is the Sunset HiH subdivision property. Another is Jot 7-1-16.7 and stiH another is Jot 7-1-16.2. Where is the proof that rentaJ of docks on these Jots has been on going?" Can you answer that one? MR. SCHACHNER-An I can answer is that the appHcant has so stated in his appJication that. any easy answer is that. as I recaJJ. the lake George Park Commission appJication requires you to sign a statement indicating that the facts that you've set forth in the appJication are materiaJJy correct. and I beJieve. I probabJy have it here. I can check if you want. but I beJieve it even finishes up by saying that if you knowingJy say a faJse statement. that it's a perjury, and that it's a misdemeanor under New York State law. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So. the answer to that question is that you put that information forth in the appJication itseJf? MR. SCHACHNER-That's one answer. I did not even make the appHcation on behaJf of Mr. Knox. He did it himseJf. MR. LAPOINT-He did it himseJf, but that's where the information came out? MR. SCHACHNER-That's when the information came out. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MRS. PUlVER-I have a question. 7-1-16.7. which is the Tax Map number. is this piece of property right here? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MRS. PULVER-Does Mr. Knox own that piece of property? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-You own this piece of property. too? MR. SCHACHNER-That's not Mr. Knox. but yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay. AH right. He owns that piece of property. too. Okay. That's what I wanted to know. It's quite a ways away. MR. BREWER-That's why I was curious where the other pieces of property were. MR. MARTIN-It's carefuHy worded because it says. "The lGPC marina appJication Jists severaJ different pieces of property pJanned for the marina use. One is the Sunset HiH subdivision property." That's that whoJe 25 acres that we've been Jooking at. or whatever. and then 7-1-16.7 is yet another 10t. and 7-1-16.2 is yet another Jot. MR. SCHACHNER-Not withstanding that the Jetter says this. I'm Jooking at the appJication. I beHeve. and it appears to me that it onJy indicates two parceJs of property. and that wouJd make sense to me. because one of them wouJd be what appears to be 16.2. nameJy the 25 acre parceJ that's now lot 1. MR. MARTIN-So. they're getting it confused there as weJJ. There are onJy. in fact. two Jots? MR. SCHACHNER-That's my understanding. and I'm Jooking at what I beJieve is the appJication that was submitted. MR. MARTIN-So. just to cJear this up. 7-1-16.2 is the Tax Map reference number for the 25 acres that's the point of the subdivision. right. that's being subdivided here? MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I am now. in fact. positive I'm Jooking at what was stamp received by the lake George Park Commission. This is. in fact. attached to the lake George Association Jetter. and that indicates two property section bJock numbers. not three. 16.2 and 16.7. MR. MARTIN-Okay. AJJ right. Yes. Okay then there are three Jots. MR. SCHACHNER-No. My point is there are two. 16.2 and 16.7. MR. MARTIN-And then 16.1 is the one that was before us for subdivision. No? MRS. PULVER-We have on here Tax Map number section 16.1 is the 20 some acres to be subdivided. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm going to have to take a minute and cJarify that myseJf. 15 · ...."---"" ----- MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's on your app1ication here. MR. SCHACHNER-We've got a Tax Map here which doesn't show any 16.2. You're we1come to 100k at Mr. MacE1roy's. It does not show anything of 16.2. So. my guess. keeping in mind that we did not submit the app1ication on beha1f of Mr. Knox. my guess is that shou1d be 16.1. It's my understand. as depicted on the diagram that I handed out. that the tota1 has four docks. Three of which are on lot 1 of the subdivision. and I be1ieve Mrs. Pu1ver is correct that that is 16.1. and one of which is on the 16.7. which is not part of the subdivision and not contiguous to this. MR. BREWER-But on your application to the Park Commission. you said two 1ots? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but apparent1y an erroneous reference to one of the. but you wou1dn't know? MR. SCHACHNER-That wou1d be my guess. MR. MARTIN-A11 right. Now. picking up. Ed, go ahead. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "And again, if this has been going on for many years. why didn't the town know about it?" Did we answer that one ourse1ves? MR. MARTIN-We11. that's what 1 was trying to get at. MR. LAPOINT-I mean. these are preexisting uses of the docks. that an of a sudden 1aws come around that don't quite fit the use of the dock. Is that possib1y our answer? MR. MARTIN-How is the app1icant to know that the 1aw has changed? MR. LAPOINT-Is everybody on lake George ob1iged to come forward and te11 us what they're doing on their docks for a11 new 1aws and stuff 1ike that? MRS. YORK-No. It may have been reported to the Zoning Administrator. I'm sure appropriate action wou1d have been taken if it was so done. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. but I mean. the point I'm trying to make here is that I'm pretty sure throughout this entire nine process meetings we've been aware of this use. as a Board. MR. SCHACHNER-That's our intention. That's c1ear. It's ref1ected in the minutes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. next question. "If marina use is approved for these 10ts. what happens if they are s01d?" MR. SCHACHNER-That's a rea1 easy one. Nobody's proposing marina use for these 10ts. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Mark. that means if. there's no access. then. to lake George from this subdivision? MR. SCHACHNER-We11. lot 1. MRS. TARANA-Just lot 1. MR. SCHACHNER-No. One of the other ones. I be1ieve. Is it lot 9. a1so? MR. MARTIN-lot 9. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. lot 9. a1so. MRS. TARANA-Where is lot 9? That's way over on the end. way to the 1eft? MR. BREWER-Way over to the 1eft upper corner. MR. MARTIN-That 10ng strip. I think. has 50 feet, or 40 feet of access onto the 1ake. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. the northeastern most 10t. MRS. TARANA-And the other ones wi11 not have access? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MRS. TARANA-That means they won't be renting from that five berth dock either? 16 "---' -- MRS. PUlVER-We11. they might. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Who knows going to. They don't now. MRS. TARANA-Because I think that was the question that was asked before. The question was asked. wi11 these 10ts have access to lake George. and the answer was no. MR. SCHACHNER-No contractua1 access. no deeded access. correct. MRS. TARANA-But I think the point is now. what it sounds Hke to me is you're saying you've got a commercia1 dock there. and now these people wiìl buy these lots and have access to the lake. that they cou1d have. MR. SCHACHNER-They might have it. just as the five of us might have it. MRS. TARANA-This would be a selling point to them. that they cou1d have access to the. MR. SCHACHNER-They cannot have guaranteed contractua1 or deeded access. They're not penalized for buying those lots. by taking them out of the market that we're aìì in. as is everybody in the Capital District and everywhere else in the wor1d. of being potentiaììy renters of dock space at this or any other dock rental 1ocation. They're certainly not penalized for buying the lots. but what they cannot do. you say in terms of a potentia1 seììing point. the potential seììing point that you're getting at. that most developers want to have on lake George is. inc1uding many clients of my own. that you want to be able to say to a would be purchaser. when you buy this lot. along with it come deeded access. deed lake rights, or actual lake frontage. and that's what we're not proposing here. We're not going to have that. and we've made that clear from Day One. MRS. TARANA-I don't know that that was made so clear. MR. SCHACHNER-No. You weren't here on Day One. MRS. TARANA-No. but I raised the question. maybe. I don't know what day it was. MR. SCHACHNER-October 15th, 1991. I have minutes. MRS. TARANA-I wasn't here. but I asked the question. when I did come on. wil1 they have access to the lake. and you said. absolutely not. they would not. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Access means contractua1 or deeded access. and the answer is no. MRS. TARANA-I know. but I think what we're getting around to is now they reaììy cou1d have access to the lake. MRS. PUlVER-Wel1. not unless they rent space. MR. SCHACHNER-No. they can't. If you're asking. are they penaHzed for buying these lots and removed from the potential. MRS. TARANA-I don't want to argue. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-It's a definition of access. really. MRS. TARANA-Maybe access is a bad word. I mean. I think you know the point we were getting around to. MR. LAPOINT-They have an opportunity at renting that dock. MR. SCHACHNER-No better or worse than any of us or anyone else. MR. MARTIN-What you're saying is. I think to resolve this. is dock slips in these docks will not be reserved for potential buyers of these lots? MR. SCHACHNER-That's absolutely correct. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Next question. "How come. when the applicant or former owner registered the docks in 1982 with DEC. they were not registered as commercia1 docks?" 17 - --' MR. SCHACHNER-I believe the answer to that is. I know for sure that the lake George Park Commission ReguJations in 1982 were substantiaJJy different. I beJieve that that's true with the Town of Queensbury ReguJations as weJJ. and. again. I think we're trying to create a mountain out of a moJe hiJJ. in that we aJJ know that many. many peopJe up and down lake George have rented dock spaces for years and years. and as I understand it, it's onJy in about the 1987. 1988 type time frame that what some of us consider IresidentiaJ" rentaJs fen within the lake George Park Comission's revised definition. as commerciaJ marinas. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I think this Jast question. by referencing a Jot number. wi1J dear up the other discrepancies with the Tax numbers. Okay. "When the applicant appJied Jast summer to the lGPC for a permit to construct a dock on Jot 7-1-16.1.". which I assume now is the whoJe 25 acres? MR. SCHACHNER-I agree with that. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That cJears up that previous question. I think. It may actua11y have been a typo on the author of this Jetter part. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the opposite. I think that I have to credit Mr. MacEJroy for showing us the Tax Map again. 16.2 is not something that Mr. Knox owns or controJs, and I think the typo must have been on his part in submitting his application to the Park Commission. I think you have the right information and have aJJ aJong. 16.1 is the subdivision property. MR. LAPOINT-"why was the proposed use of the dock Jisted on the appJication as private and residentia1?" MR. SCHACHNER-And I think the answer is. I haven't the faintest idea. and I don't think it matters. I don't even know if it's true. but even if it's true. it's irreJevant. That's an appJication that you've denied. and that's not what's before you now. MR. BREWER-That was for a new dock. not an existing dock. MR. SCHACHNER-PreciseJy. MR. LAPOINT-And I guess the question is. why wasn't it 1isted on the appJication as a private and residentiaJ. which I think it was. It was going to be a private residentiaJ dock on that 50 foot strip. MR. BREWER-Right. and we had conversation that it was going to be commerciaJ. MR. MARTIN-Wel1. no. she's asking. why was it Jisted that way. It was listed as private. She acknowledges that. and she's asking why was it. and in any representation made to us. as I reca11. he stated that it was going to be for his own personaJ use. and not to be rented. I remember that. MR. BREWER-That's right. MR. MARTIN-And then it was brought forth, it was either then or Jater on. it was later on, that some of the existing docks were in fact being rented. and that was the concern that the new one was going to be. and he was saying to us that it was not. It waS going to be for his own personaJ use. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I think I've done the Jetter. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We've gone through this in. I think. very dose detai1. Again. I'll throw it out to the Board. Do you see any need to hear from the lake George Association. based on what we've heard tonight? MRS. PUlVER-I don't. I agree with the applicant. The pubHc hearing was cJosed. and I think they've satisfactoriJy addressed their Jetter. MR. MARTIN-Well. I'm going to informally poJJ here. Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I was in favor. Jast time. of hearing the doctor. I forget her name. speak. and we opened and closed the meeting and this and that. MR. MARTIN-CoJJins. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. and I do that in the interest that. if I vote yes on something or make a motion. I want to make sure it's justifiable in the strongest terms that I've heard everybody out that I can possibly hear out. including the appJicant. opposition. and what have you. So. I have no probJem hearing a response from the lGA tonight. because I think in fairness. it would strengthen my finaJ vote on the. MR. MARTIN-So. you're saying that you don't have a problem? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I would have no problem opening it again tonight. as Jong as it's brief and it doesn't get out of hand Jike it did Jast time. 18 --",' MR. BREWER-Those are my exact words. I don't have any prob1em hearing it as 10ng as it's not untn 11 o'c1ock tonight. I just don't want to get into a big debate. I don't see anything wrong with answering a coup1e of questions. but not an e10ngated. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I got duped the 1ast time. A11 of a sudden there was this three paged sing1e spaced 1etter. MR. LAPOINT-As 10ng as they stay to the topic of what's been presented. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-I have no prob1em. MRS. TARANA-I don't have any prob1em with it. MR. MARTIN-Again. in fairness to the pub1ic. who I think we serve. I don't have any prob1em with that. I think it strengthens our decisions, and it makes for a better a11 around app1ication. So. I guess we wn1. in fact. take any comment from the lake George Association. and again. with the proviso that new information. or any information be of a concise nature. here. and 1ets get on with it. So. is there anyone here from the lake George Association? If you cou1d just keep your comments to a minimum. MRS. PULVER-New information. MR. MARTIN-Yes. New information. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED KATHY V I lMAR MS. VIlMAR-My name is Kathy Vnmar. I'm the author of the 1etter. I think everybody's missing the intent. here. and everybody's missing it except Mrs. Tarana. The intent is that you gave Pre1iminary approva1 for a 10 10t subdivision that can have access to lake George through lot 1. if I'm not mistaken. yet that access was not addressed during the subdivision process. If it's not reviewed. it is an integra1 part of the wh01e process. You've missed the entire picture. You've taken it by bits and pieces. and Mr. Schachner has been very good at that. MR. LAPOINT-How do you define access? That's key. MS. VILMAR-I'm defining access to the fact that if there is a c1aimed existing marina down there. that they can have access, which nobody said they can't. It's just there. That's how I'm defining access. a way to get to the water. through part of this subdivision process. MR. MARTIN-But I don't see that being any di fferent than if someone buys lot 7 there and they have a boat and. wen, a11 the dock spaces that are avanab1e. that exist at Dock 1 which are being rented are taken up. so that person goes down to C1everda1e Marina or whatever and there's an avanab1e dock s1ip there and they put their boat there. What's the difference? MS. VllMAR-Your point is we11 taken. There is not much difference. other than the fact that it wasn't addressed in this process. That's the difference. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. and your point is that we shou1d re-open SEQRA on that 1itt1e trivia1? MS. VllMAR-We11. regard1ess of whether you do that. my wh01e point is. it wasn't addressed. and that's wrong. It shou1d have been addressed. The pub1ic shou1d have had an opportunity to ta1k about that. MR. BREWER-They had severa1 opportunities. MS. VllMAR-Right. We11, okay. 1et me continue. MR. MARTIN-We11. no. I want to address that. We have the appJicant on record here tonight saying that those dock s1ips are not going to be reserved. this is on the record. are not going to be reserved for peop1e who buy these 10ts or entertain the idea of buying these 10ts. With that being said. I don't see where that makes this 1ike guaranteed access to this 10t. MS. VllMAR-lt's not. I'm not saying it is. I didn't say that. let me take it from a different ang1e. The appJicant's c1aiming that this is a preexisting marina app1ication. and the Board has said. right here, that they knew that something was going on down there that I never heard. in an those years that I was here. saying that there was actua11y a C1ass A Marina. commercia1 operation going on down there on the record. I can't find that on the record. Now. Mr. Schachner's on1y c1aim to prove that that marina has been going on since the 70's is a signed statement by the appJicant. which he has to take. The Town. to be ab1e to go back into the 70's ordinance and find out whether or not a marina 19 -.- was an al1owab1e use in that zone. because there's a difference between il1ega1 uses, because if it wasn't al10wed back then, then it's an il1ega1 use and it's not grandfathered. and if it was al10wed back then. then it's obvious1y grandfathered. The point that I'm getting at is that the SEQRA 1aw was enacted in the ear1y 70's. and if they can determine when this marina use came into effect. it wou1d determine whether or not the SEQRA part. it wou1d need a SEQRA Review, which wou1d bring it under the wh01e subdivision. Do you f0110w me? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MS. VllMAR-Because Mr. Schachner pointed out that it's not subject to SEQRA. yet in fact it cou1d be. because nObody knows exactb when they each started. In fact. nobody knows whether or not it's a bonafide preexisting use. There's no record on the Town. as far as the person paying taxes for a commercia1 marina operation. It was taxed al1 those years for private residentia1 use. There's no record at DEC or lake George Park Comission the 1ast 12 years. There's a difference between one or two renta1s and somebody expanding to five sHps. So. if it actual1y was a bonafide preexisting use. there's a difference between an i11ega1 use as a preexisting use. MRS. PUlVER-I suppose we cou1d ask the app1icant for his income tax to see whether he's reported income or something before 1970. MR. MARTIN-First of al1. I'm not going to venture into 1970 and previous ordinances and al1 that. This Board is charged with 100king at this appHcation for subdivision. So. therefore. I'm going to 100k at that. 1 personal1y, anyhow. am going to 100k at this in the context of. how does this effect the SEQRA Review for this app1ication of subdivision. okay. Now. there are five dock s1ips in existence there. or however many. I guess five. and if this subdivision gets denied. those are going to be fi11ed this surnmer. MS. VllMAR-Okay. The app1icant has the appHcation. I'll just say one more thing. The app1icant has a marina appHcation for the Park Commission. as you know. There are certain facHities that have to be provided as part of a C1ass A Marina facHity. and some of those are rest-rooms. pump out facHities. and there's a coup1e of other things that Mr. Knox may not put on that parce1. Again. as part of the subdivision process. the Board may have wanted to look at that. The public may have wanted to comment on that. MR. LAPOINT-If you turn him down. doesn't that res01ve everything? MS. VllMAR-I'm not saying turn him down. I'm not saying the lake George Association is objecting to those docks. the renting of those docks. What I'm objecting to is the intent here. The intent here was not dear. I don't remember anybody standing up and saying. there are five docks down there. They've been rented for 21 years. maybe. and. gee. those peop1e up there might use them. MR. LAPOINT-I think Mr. Cartier did exact1y that. if I remember. and Pete's fair1y exp1icit in his objections to these things. and we went over about who's renting what and a11 that. MR. MARTIN-Wel1. I think that. that might be the impetus for this coming to Hght, now. through the context of a marina operation. MR. LAPOINT-It's possib1e. I mean. it's possib1e he may not even have app1ied if Pete hadn't raised those issues. I mean. it's conceivab1e. I mean. everybody tried to run through this vast bureaucracy we have out here for al1 of this stuff. It seems Hke the appHcant is trying to do the right thing now. to me. MR. MARTIN-And in terms of the qua1ifications for meeting the standards for a C1ass A Marina. that. again. I want to keep it in the context of a subdivision review. here. That seems to me to be a Park Commission function. and they have the responsibi1ity there. MS. VllMAR-I hear exact1y what you're saying. but I stil1 don't agree on the fact that. under SEQRA. al1 the activities on this piece of property. al1 the activities associated with this project. al1 the activities associated with adjoining projects owned by this 1and owner shou1d have been thorough1y examined and reviewed, and I think the Lake George Association asked for that prior to the P1anning Board's SEQRA determination. a coup1e of months ago. and I be1ieve there was a comment made about commercia1 use, and Mr. Schachner said, our view commercia1 can be different than what the Lake George Association's view of commercia1 use is. So. I sti11 think that there's a point there under the SEQRA 1aw that hasn't been addressed. MR. LAPOINT-Wel1. if it he1ps, I remember doing the SEQRA. and I'm pretty sure I knew these docks were permitted. When I did the SEQRA. I had know1edge that there was some kind of renting on a, what I think is a 100 year 01d dock. MR. MARTIN-So did I. MR. LAPOINT-And what statues cover what was done before. and this guy rented canoes or whatever. To me. when I did the SEQRA, I had that in mind. I can't speak for anybody e1se. 20 ',--- -- MR. MARTIN-I can speak for myself. I remember that the existence of those docks, and they were rented, I knew about that going into the SEQRA Review, because it came out in the previous discussions with this application. MS. VIlMAR-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. How does the Board feel? MR. LAPOINT-Engineering stuff. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that we have to do a formal resolution. I don't think that's necessary. lee. do you think? MRS. YORK-No. Proceed onward. MR. MARTIN-For me. personally. I will say that Paul's cornments of his 23rd letter. specifically three through seven. are what I would use as a basis for not opening the SEQRA process. in terms of this. I think that pretty much covers it. but I appreciate the lake George Association's concerns. If you could. next time. make those in a more timely manner. it would be greatly appreciated. All right. Can we move on to engineering comments? MR. SCHACHNER-Gladly. Engineering cornments. I think. come in two letters from Rist-Frost. from Mr. Yarmowich. The first letter. the comments principally refer to things that should be added on the plan. He characterized them. I believe. as very minor. We agree with that. In fact. they're so minor that we added them onto the plan just yesterday. and I don't know if Mr. Yarmowich has looked at that or not. but we can just show it to you right now on the plan. if you want. We'll just tick them right off. We've already added them all. The second set of comments relates to. I believe. the last refinement on the stormwater management system, and again. the comments were very minor. The consultants. the LA Group. have already addressed them. We can do it right now. just a couple of seconds for comment. and I believe Mr. Yarmowich already knows what the responses are, and I believe he's comfortable with them. but obviously he'll speak for himself. We think we can tick those right off. right down the line. MR. MARTIN-Tom. do you mind being in that position? MR. YARMOWICH-Well. to clarify. I have discussed my comments with the applicant and the applicant has conveyed their intended response. There has been no new information provided to me. or specifically reviewed by me. So, 1'm not in a position to say. yes. they have done all of these things. I think it's correctly summarized that these are relatively minor things of a corrective nature. I think a couple of them I'd like to hear him talk about. in particular is the status of the New York State Department of Health approval. because this Planning Board Chairman needs to be aware that he can't sign until that appears. Right now. we have no evidence that anything has been accomplished to that end. and you need to know that if there's other outstanding things. you don't have to necessarily rush into final, because unless they reach New York State Department of Health approval. there's no point in Jim Martin getting worried about anything that's sticky at this point. and I don't think there is. but I wanted you to know that. MR. MARTIN-All right. Is there any response? MR. SCHACHNER-No. We think that's fine. We didn't mean to put Mr. Yarmowich on the hot seat. to the extent that any of these. as he says. very minor points can't be satisfactorily addressed just in a few seconds right now. We would request that you agree to his condition. to put it in a final approval. MR. YARMOWICH-What is the status of DOH review? JE FF ANTHONY MR. ANTHONY-Jeff Anthony for the applicant. We are going to make the application following this meeting, and we'll have a DOH approval prior to your signing it. MR. MARTIN-So. application has been made. Okay. MR. YARMOWICH- The issue of landscape fertil izers. Is there some mechanism that, is that a correct recollection on my part? MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. YARMOWICH-And how will that be dealt with and will it be satisfactory to the Board, I guess. is the concern I have. because I don't want to be in the position of determining that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. 21 -- MR. LAPOINT-That was in one of our motions. wasn't it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. that was a condition of, I think. Preliminary approval. MR. SCHACHNER-And that's our understanding. We don't know if it's necessary on the drawing. but we'd be glad to add it on the drawing if you like? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. There's a couple of mechanisms. You put it on the drawing and it makes the potential buyer aware. You put it in the deed restrictions and it has certain other implications. Everybody knows you sit at the table and you sign for it. You're supposed to recognize everything you've read. Maybe they could address that. MR. MARTIN-Do you have a problem putting it in the deed restrictions. Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. ANTHONY-I can also add the point that. under Item One of the June 22 letter, which was yesterday's. there are probably one, A through G. and several of them require notes. and we have added a note column to the subdivision plat itself. and the notes that are requested here are on the subdivision plat. and they will remain as part of the subdivision plat. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Yes. those were things I characterize as very minor. MR. YARMOWICH-I'd like a response from the applicant's engineer regarding the stormwater. To be assured that they feel they can appropriately deal with these issues that predominantly have to do with installation details of that. MR. MARTIN-That's dealt with in your June 23rd letter. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. We've indicated. or I've indicated to the Board that the concept of infiltration. using infiltrators. has merit in this application. We want to be sure that the installation will put forth the effective operation of the system. and I guess if we can ask the LA Group to tell us more on how they're going to fix that. I could probably give you a clearer indication as to how I feel. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I guess we're looking primarily, Jeff. at the June 23rd letter. now. MR. ANTHONY-Okay. There's. basically. four comments on the June 23rd letter. COllll1ent 1a.. basically we've changed the cover over the infiltrators from 12 to 18 inches. and I believe that would accomplish the wheel loading. which has been requested to be verified in this comment. Secondly. the lb. comment, the number of infiltrators that was specified to be located within each area where the infiltrators occur was mislabeled. There actually was a less number of infiltrators. but the area is correct. So. we've corrected that number on the drawings. One c.. a cross section has been added. as requested here. for level installation of the infiltrators. and One d., we have shown that the infiltrators will remain level in terms of their orientation within the drive cross section. I believe that Jim talked with Tom today at length about it, and if you have some real technical issues on it. we can let the two engineers talk. MR. YARMOWICH-No. That'll be a satisfactory solution. then they can revise the details and have them submit it. I just wanted to make sure that their engineer was comfortable with. took the time to consider what we discussed and would make it a part of this plan. so that you could all proceed. MR. ANTHONY-Those have been already added to the drawings. and I believe that if I'm not mistaken. tomorrow is another one of your re-submission dates. and everything has been done. We can really give you these drawings immediately. unless you approve this with conditions tonight. MR. YARMOWICH-Well. because there's no DOH approval on the plan. at this point. the Chairman isn't going to do anything with it, until such time as that appears. I think that if the Board would allow them to submit the stuff and have me take a look at it. if that's the remaining concerns. I don't see any reason why it would conflict with DOH approval time frames. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I guess it's up to you all, obviously. but we're hopeful. I think this is in your ordinary course of how you do these things. we would propose. or we would anticipate a condition of Final approval being the DOH approval. so that you could at least I know enact a motion or resolution for Final approval with that as a condition. You wouldn't actually physically sign the mylar. and I think that's what Mr. Yarmowich is saying. MR. MARTIN-It's not even usual that it's a condition. It is. in fact. a practice. and it was brought out in this case, in the event that there were other critical issues that couldn't be dealt with. It would be a way in which you could measure up all the outstanding things against. It's routine that you get a mylar with a signature at some point in time after you approve it. 22 ---- MR. MARTIN-How does the Board feeJ. here. about. I know lee has made some indications that these conditioned approvaJs some times reek havoc with her. but is it something you can Jive with? MRS. YORK-Why don't you just. if you can give a time frame in which aH conditions have to be met. or at Jeast the engineering concerns. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think these are predominantJy engineering. So it takes some of the pressure off of your office. specificaJJy. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. MARTIN-Do you want to agree upon a date. here? Does that seem appropriate? MRS. YORK-It sounds good to me. MR. MARTIN-A week? Two weeks? Ten days? MR. SCHACHNER-Whatever's your pJeasure. MR. ANTHONY-We can deJiver the revised drawings immediateJy. tomorrow morning. MR. LAPOINT-Give yourseJf some room for the Department of HeaJth. MR. MARTIN-WeH. I'm just taJking about both Jetters. now. You're taUing about aJJ that. Okay. I'm impressed with you're saying tomorrow. but I don't want to. MR. LAPOINT-JuJy 8th. MR. MARTIN-WeJJ. that'JJ give you some time on your DOH business. too. MR. LAPOINT-And I have one question. You'd be wiJJing to add the stipuJations with respect to pesticide and fertiJizer use in the deed restrictions for individuaJ Jots? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-As weJJ as on the drawing. MR. SCHACHNER-If you'd Jike. sure. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I wouJd Jike to see them in both pJaces. That increases the chance of the buyer seeing them. MR. BREWER-We're not missing any other stipuJations that we had? MR. MARTIN-Yes, the fiJtered screening and aJJ that. MR. SCHACHNER-We submitted aJJ that. I think that was a condition. if I'm not mistaken, of approvaJ. MR. MARTIN-You're right. MR. YARMOWICH- The fntered screening document. from the technicaJ standpoint. is quite usefuJ to this Board now, and perhaps in the future. MR. BREWER-Sometimes I'd Jike to see the stipuJations and when we give them to them at PreJiminary and FinaJ we forget about them and then you never reaJJy recaJJ exactJy what we stipuJated. MR. YARMOWICH-I didn't forget about them. MR. BREWER-No. I'm not saying you did. but I'm saying. MRS. YORK-We can attach your previous resoJutions. As I recaH. there was aJso some concern about Jimits of cJearing that was going to be stipuJated on the myJar. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that's what we were addressing, if I'm not mistaken. MR. YARMOWICH-That is. MRS. YORK-It's on there? Okay. Thank you. MR. YARMOWICH- The Jimits of c1earing are 'stij:)UJated on the myJar. The fntered view situation. it does not appear. however. it is a part of the JegaJ documents. Whether or not the Board feeJs that's entireJy sufficient is up to you. 23 "-- MR. MARTIN-Yes. for my own use. Cou1d I request a copy of those persona11y? I'd just 1ike to see that type of thing. I' H even make my own copy. MR. SCHACHNER-We'11 be g1ad to send you one. for that matter. MR. W\RTIN-Okay. Yes. I'd Hke to see that. Does anybody have anything e1se kicking around. that they can recaH? Okay. We have a date of Ju1y 8th. The pubHc hearing has been c10sed. and we just heard from the lGA tonight. We did the SEQRA. We're fina11y at a point at which I think we can dispose of this. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 FINAL STAGE SUNSET HILL FARM. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Car01 Pu1ver: For the subdivision of 25 ± acres into 10 10ts. with the f0110wing stipu1ations: One. that the approva1 be consistent with aH previous Queensbury P1anning Board res01utions. Two. that the app1icant add to the drawing stipu1ations with respect to ferti1izer and pesticide use. and a1so inc1ude those stipu1ations in deed restrictions for the individua1 10ts. and that the appHcant address aH the engineering concerns to the satisfaction of the engineer. with respect to the Rist-Frost 1etters dated 22 June 1992 and 23 June 1992. and that he do so by Ju1y 8th, 1992 by 2 p.m.. and that the approva1 and signing by the Chairman be pending the New York State Department of Hea1th approva1 for the subdivision. Du1y adopted this 23rd day of June. 1992. by the f0110wing vote: MRS. TARANA-Can I just ask a question, Jim. just so I have this dear in my head? They have appHed for a commercia1 marina permit? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. TARANA-When they get that approva 1. do they have to come to the Town for a zoning ordinance. or is this just a forma1ity. or what are we ta1king about with that? MR. MARTIN-It's my understanding that that is a Park Commission function. It wou1d come before this Board if they were constructing a ]!! dock or expanding an existing. but the dock that they are making appHcation for. it's my understanding. is existing. and they're simp1y c1arifying an issue or a use that's present there today. MRS. TARANA-And because it specificaHy says five berths. if they want to expand that. then they have to come for a zoning variance? MRS. PULVER-They can't expand it. I don't think. MRS. TARANA-They can't expand it because it's a preexisting. nonconforming use? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't think they cou1d expand it without a variance. They'd have to have an area variance to expand the dock further, I wou1d suspect, a1though I haven't seen the 1ayout of the dock or anything, but I wou1d suspect that wou1d be the case. So. it's an existing use there and they're going to the Park COmff,ission who's the regu1atory agency. I don't if that answers your question. MRS. TARANA-I'm rea11y confused about that wh01e commercia1/noncommercia1. that wh01e bit. MR. MARTIN-WeH. I think the prob1em is. Hke Mark indicated, the definition of commercia1 change. in 1988. was previous1y viewed as not a comercia1 use because it was on1y the renta1 of residentia1 boat s1ips. That definition changed. and now even that is viewed as a commercia1 use. MRS. TARANA-But now if they get this permit. they've got to put in these bathroom faci1ities and other stuff. too. MR. MARTIN-We11. that's a11 through the Park Commission. MRS. TARANA-So. that a11 becomes a commercia1 venture. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's they're prob1em. They have to come up with that. MR. SCHACHNER-It a1so varies. Sometimes you don't. I mean. it varies. It's up to how the Park Comission. MR. MARTIN-Yes. They have their own regu1atory guide1ines for that that I have no know1edge of. but it's their ban game. Okay. AYES: Mrs. Pu1ver. Mr. laPoint. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Martin 24 - '....-' NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. laurice11a NEW IIISINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1992 SICETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA JAMES GIRARD (lINER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE CR«IHN ROAD FOR A 4 LOT SUBDIVISIOft. SEll lOTS 1, 2, a 3 AND CONVEY 2.1 PARCEL TO l1IßI OF QUEENSBURY TAX IMP NO. 59-2-5.1. 5.8 LOT SIZE: 5.81 ACRES SECTIOf{: SUBDIVISUII REGULATIONS JAMES GIRARD WAS ASKED TO RE-SUBMIT. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1992 SICETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA EDllARD a MARY CARDINALE ClßlER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF PEGGY ANN ROt\D TO SUBDIVIDE INTO 3 lOTS, SEll lOTS 1 a 2 (OWE ACRE LOTS), RETAIN LOT 3 (5.9 ACRE). TAX MP NO. 119-6-34 LOT SIZE: 7.9 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISIOf{ REGULATIONS MRS. YORK-At Sketch P1an. there's no fee required. We can just put it back on automatica11y. You don't have to tab1e it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-For the both of them? MRS. YORK-Yes. That wou1d be fine. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Then Subdivision No. 9-1992 Edward and Mary Cardina1e. we'11 just ask the app1icant to re-submit. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Pending Town Board review of Section of the Ordinance requiring doub1e the 10t width on arteria1 roads. Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 29-92 TYPE II WR-lA CAROL A. DUCEY OIßŒR: SAME AS ABOVE MAYFUlÆR LANE, ICArrSKIll BAY TO BUIUJ A 5' X 8' DORI£R ON PLAY ROOM ABOVE GARAGE (WARREN cœm PLANNING) TAX IMP NO,. 153-1-9 LOT SIZE: 20,000 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-79 CAROL DUCEY. PRESENT (9:07 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior P1anner. Site P1an No. 29-92, Car01 Ducey. June 22. 1992. Meeting Date: June 23. 1992 "The appHcant requests to p1ace a bathroom dormer on the second f100r of their garage. This is a WR-1A zone in a Critica1 Environmenta1 Area. The staff reviewed the records on this 10t. On 7/20/88 the app1icant received a variance to extend their garage (minutes attached). At that time the Zoning Board of Appea1s stipu1ated that the garage wou1d not be used for s1eeping. The intent seems c1ear that the ZBA was concerned about the addition of habitab1e space which cou1d become a renta1 unit or over stress the property and 1ake. The staff discussed this issue with Ted Turner. ZBA Chairman. and he attested to the fact that the Board was concerned with expansions a10ng the 1ake and had sought to assure that this wou1d not be the case with this variance. The Comprehensive land Use P1an discourages expansions of this nature. The staff a1so sought to get information on the existing septic system which is not described in detai1. The BuHding and Codes records indicate that if there were any modifications they were not 1isted under the app1icant's name. The Board shou1d ascertain what exact1y the septic size and capacity is and what date it was insta11ed. The house current1y contains 3 bedrooms. The site visit revea1ed that the garage is quite c10se to the house. The site p1an indicates it's about 10 feet. which wou1d seem to indicate that utHizing the bathroom facHities in the house wou1d not cause a hardship. The size of the garage in the assessment records is 1isted as 596 sq. ft. rather than the 330 sq. ft. stated on the app1ication. The Board shou1d c1arify this inconsistency. This app1ication was reviewed with regard to the criteria for site p1an review. 1. The 10cation of the bathroom addition is a concern because of the potentia1 expansion of the 1iving space in a critica1 environmenta1 area. 1. Vehicu1ar access is not a concern. 3. Parking and 10ading are not an issue. 4. Pedestrian access is not a concern. 5. Storm water drainage wH1 not be increased. 6. The sewage disposa1 facHities shou1d be discussed. 7. Buffering and screening is not an issue. 8. Emergency access is not the best but is existing. 9. No erosion wi11 be created by this addition." MRS. DUCEY-I am Car01 Ducey, the owner of the residence. and I have the man who wi11 be doing the work. Sean McDona1d. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there a bedroom up there now. on the second f100r of the garage? 25 '- MRS. DUCEY-No. It's a play room. It's used by my family. visit and I have a son that just graduated from college. We have a pool room up there. I have grown children that just come and So. it's a room that's used for television MR. MARTIN-like a recreation room. so to speak? MRS. DUCEY-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-The plan is to attach to the existing septic tank? MRS. DUCEY-Yes. and it was originally a boarding house, and it has an oversized septic system. which is very unusual for this size house. MR. MARTIN-By oversized. you mean. how many gallon tank? Do you have any information on that? MR. MCDONALD-The information we have is a telephone conversation with the man who services that part of the lake. plumbing wise. MRS. YORK-Would you please identify yourself? MR. MCDONALD-My name is Sean McDonald. and I'm the builder involved with this. MR. MARTIN-Did he have any information as to the size? MR. MCDONALD-He said the size of the tank was. like. 16 ft. by 16 ft. by 10 ft.. made in place and that's all the information he told us. He said it was in very good shape. and that it would accommodate anything that anyone would want to put into it. MR. LAPOINT-Is there a leachfield associated with this. or just the pump out tank? MR. MARTIN-A holding tank. MR. LAPOINT-It's a holding tank? MR. MCDONAlD-I don't have that information. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. What I'm asking, is this a leachfield associated? I mean. there is a leachfield? MR. MCDONALD-To my knowledge. there is a large type drywell. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. a large type drywell. MR. MARTIN-With your background. Ed. do you have any idea how many gallon we're talking about? That's fairly large. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. a 7, 800 gallon drywell. maybe. MRS. PULVER-It's got to be more than that. I have drywells. MR. MCDONALD-It's got to be about 5.000 gallons. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Because I was going to say. I picture my 1.000 gallon septic tank that was installed in ~ house. and I know. MR. MCDONALD-That's 5 by 5 by 8. MRS. PULVER-Yes. right. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And we're about how far from the lake. here. 200 feet. approximately? MR. MCDONALD-To the septic tank? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. MCDONALD-Approximately 200 feet. MR. MARTIN-Would you have any problems with stipulations of water saving devices in the bathroom. water saver toilets and? 26 -- -- MRS. DUCEY-No. I p1an to do that. MR. MARTIN-That wou1d probab1y be one thing, at 1east. we wou1d do. MRS. DUCEY-It did create a prob1em in the bad weather and winter and the kids were over there p1aying poo1 and drinking and back and forth from the house and it's just an inconvenience. and it's a nice property. and we have a 10t of money invested in it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I've been there. I saw the site. We11. the County had "No County Impact". MR. LAPOINT-It's about 3,000 ga110ns. better than 3.000 ga110ns. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Okay. How many bathrooms are existing now at the site. that are serviced by that system? MRS. DUCEY-Two and ha1f. MR. MARTIN-Two and a ha1f. and how many bedrooms in the house? MRS. DUCEY-Three. MR. MARTIN-Three. Okay. That's not bad. because the norma1 standard is 1.000 ga11ons. I think 250 ga110ns per bedroom and then 250 ga110ns per common area. MR. LAPOINT-Actua11y it's 18.000. MR. MARTIN-large enough. MR. LAPOINT-It's huge. MRS. TARANA-How about this inconsistency with the square footage of the garage itse1f? What is the square footage of the garage? MCDONALD-The p1ay room upstairs measures 21 feet by 15 and a ha1f feet. The garage itse1f is 21 by 21. but you have knee wa11s where there is no 1iving space. MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. MARTIN-Yes. some peop1e ca1cu1ate anything under a four foot knee wa11 is not 1ivab1e space. or some peop1e do five foot. The Bui1ding Office has a standard for that. I know, lee. don't they? Isn't it four feet or? MRS. YORK-Right. I rea11y don't get into that. MR. MARTIN-I can't reca11. but I know there's a number they use. So, that's what's the reason for the difference in the size. The 330 is off of the knee wa11 ca1cu1ation. and the 596 is right. the footprint of the bui1ding. MRS. PUlVER-We11, if the garage is 21 by 21. I get 451. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Which is kind of right in the midd1e. The Assessment records. 596. so they're paying taxes on 596 square feet. You might want to go and have your assessment corrected. if it is in fact 21 by 21. and you're right. Even if it's 21 by 21. 451. it wou1d be about 330 square feet. 15 by 21 upstairs. So. that wou1d be about right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Three fifteen is what I get for the upstairs. instead of 385. MR. MARTIN-Is this un1isted. lee. in terms of type? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And requiring SEQRA Review? Does anyone e1se have any questions? Otherwise. we'11 go through the SEQRA and see what that turns up. The Short Form. I be1ieve. MRS. YORK-No. actua11y it wou1d be a Type II. Excuse me. I'm sorry it's not on the agenda. MR. MARTIN-So. that doesn't require review? 27 - -' MRS. YORK-No. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We11. then. does anybody have any questions. here? MRS. PUlVER-I don't have any prob1em with this. 10ck at it as more of a convenience thing. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't have any prob1em with it. as 10ng as there's not a bedroom. MR. LAPOINT-There's going to be the same amount of sewage if the peop1e are running in the house now. correct? MR. MARTIN-Yes. See. you're not adding a bedroom. MRS. PULVER-It's going to be for convenience. MRS. YORK-I don't rea11y want to get into this. but I think the Board shou1d consider not a110wing a shower. because of the fact that the Zoning Board was quite firm in their understanding. they did not want this to turn into a renta1 unit down the Hne. Maybe not with this owner. but in the future. that's a very good possibi1ity. if there are fu11 bathroom faci1ities. and I ta1ked to Mr. Turner at 1ength about this. and he was very c1ear on that matter and said that you cou1d certain1y contact him if you had any questions about it. MRS. PULVER-But don't they have to have site p1an review? First of a11, they can't have a renta1 unit there. MRS. YORK-Mrs. Pu1ver. these things happen. I'm not saying that this owner wou1d. MRS. PUlVER-I have to beHeve that the system does work. even though I know that things do happen. MR. MARTIN-We11. what lee's saying is. if you don't a110w the shower. then. MR. BREWER-You're a1most forcing them not to be ab1e to rent it. MR. MARTIN-You diminish the temptation to covert it to a bedroom or a renta1 unit. or something 1ike that. which. if a11 the c1aims that have been made before us tonight are true. that they just simp1y want this for convenience. and a p1ace to wash or go to the bathroom whi1e they're up there using the po01 tab1e or something. then a bathroom with a toi1et and a sink shou1d be sufficient. MR. BREWER-Right. I agree. MRS. TARANA-I agree with you. too. MR. LAPOINT-I guess I'm going to have to amend my motion. and I guess the temptation wou1d be there to. if you add a shower. MR. MARTIN-If not by this owner, then a future owner. MRS. DUCEY-It's a shame to be going to the expense of putting it in. MR. LAPOINT-We 11, you' 11 save some money. I mean. in terms of tota 1 expense, it's got to be cheaper not to have a shower. and you wou1dn't even need a 5 by 8. It 100ks 1ike that's your on1y chance to get approva1 tonight. is if I subtract that. Okay. I'm going to strike what I had before. MOTIOff TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 10. 29-92 CAROL A. DUCEY. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: To bui1d a 5' by 8' bathroom dormer on a p1ay room above the garage. with the fo11owing stipu1ations: One. that we on1y have a sink and commode and no shower. and. Two. that water saving devices be insta11ed on both. Du1y adopted this 23rd day of June, 1992, the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer. Mr. Martin NOES: Mrs. Pu1ver ABSENT: Mr. laurice11a MRS. PULVER-And my reason for voting no was because I do be1ieve you shou1d be ab1e to have a shower. I have to be1ieve that we have a system here. and that's why we sit on this Board, and the system has to work. and that if someone. in the future. were going to turn it into a renta1 unit. maybe someone 28 '- wou1d squea1 on them or something. and say that is was not a110wed. I can't be thinking about what's going to happen in the future. I have to 100k at the issue right now. MR. MARTIN-It's not even so much the chance that it wou1d turn into a renta1 unit. It was c1ear1y stipu1ated that it shou1d not even be a bedroom. and I think the avai1abi1ity of a fuH bath 1eaves that temptation open. and I think this is reasonab1e. given what was presented to us tonight. MR. LAPOINT-I agree with Caro1 100 percent. and the reason why I changed my motion is to get you approved in some fashion here tonight. but I do agree with her. and it's important that we deve10p consensuses. I mean. I cou1d have kept it as it was. and you wou1dn't have gotten anything, but I do agree with Caro1. (9:21 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 30-92 TYPE: UNLISTED DUNHAM'S BAY FISH I GAlE CWB, INC. (MER: SAME AS ABOVE 2 3/4 MI. NORTH OF RT. 149 ON RT. 9l EAST SIDE OF HIGfIIAY - LC-I0 ZONE. TO CONSTRUCT A JIIlTI USE BUILDING FOR SPORTSMN'S ACTIVITIES. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 22-2-1.2, 2 LOT SIZE: 6.89 AC/13.22 AC SECTION 179-13 D(3)(B)(3) JONATHAN STEF. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (9:21 p.m.) MRS. YORK-I wou1d 1ike the Board to be aware my husband is a member of this C1ub. before I start. just so you're aware of it. STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York. Senior P1anner. Site P1an No. 30-92. Dunham's Bay Fish & Game C1ub. Inc.. June 15. 1992. Meeting Date: June 23rd, 1992 "The appJication is for an expansion of a Fish and Game C1ub on Route 9l in an lC-lO zone. The app1icant received a setback variance on June 17. The parcei is over 20 acres and has a smaH structure and a firing range on it current1y. The proposai is to add a 3.200 sq. ft. c1ub house to the property. This appiication was reviewed with regard to the criteria for site pian review. 1. The 10cation arrangement and size of the proposed structure appear compatib1e with the use and size of the site. 2. Vehicu1ar access is off of Route 9l and appears adequate for the use of the site. 3. Parking and 10ading is not an issue. 4. Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5. Given the size of the property and the substantiaHy undeve10ped area, storm drainage is not an issue. 6. There is a weH on the property and an on 10t septic system. The faci1ities are in the current dub house. The neW bui1ding wi11 not have toi1et faci1ities so water and sewer are not an issue. 7. The property is used as a shooting range for various sports activities. Screening and buffering is a1ready in p1ace. There shou1d not be any visua1 impacts. The ciub may want to consider more visib1e signage so that individua1s who are p1anning on bui1ding out in that area wiH be aware that there is a firing range in the area. 8. Fire and emergency access is provided. aHhough there is a gate across the entrance to 1imit unauthorized access. The structure is anticipated to be a meta1 frame poie barn which wou1d 1imit fire potentia1 to an extent. 9. FJooding. ponding and erosion are not a concern." MR. MARTIN-Okay. and the County returned. "The Board cou1d not take action on this project because after two members had abstained. a majority vote cou1d not be acquired." And we have the P1anning and Zoning Referra1 sheet there for your review. MR. STEF-My name is Jonathan Stef. I'm here to answer any questions that I might be ab1e to. MR. MARTIN-Okay. This seems to be pretty much straight forward. to me. MR. LAPOINT-Wou1d you mind putting out some signs? MR. STEF-No. In fact. if that shou1d be a concern. we cou1d do that. There is an existing sign that says Dunham's Bay Fish & Game C1ub. etc. and there's signs on the bui1ding for contact for information that's quite visib1e. MR. LAPOINT-No. I mean so that peop1e coming in from other parts of the property know there's shooting going on, to keep anybody from straying into. MR. BREWER-Doesn't that require a sign permit. though? MR. LAPOINT-We11. the C1ub may want to consider more visib1e signage so that individuais. MR. MARTIN-You're taiking about. Jike. a sign on the interna1 part of the property to say there's a shooting range there? MRS. YORK-Right. WeH. what I was actuaHy getting at was it was just a comment to the C1ub itseìf that in many areas of the County today, shooting sports are being iimited because of subdivision growth and deveiopment around them. It wou1d be in your own best interest to very c1ear1y. in the iargest sign you cou1d find. identify your property so that potentia1 buyers of property. I know there's property avai1ab1e around it, wou1d be aware that they were moving into an area where this was occurring. So 29 -- -- there wou1d not be a conf1ict in the future. I know, previous1y, this group has come before the Town Board and they asked to be re-zoned. I think. in 1988 from an RR-3 zone to an lC-lO zone. whic~ quite unheard of. to say the 1east. but they feU that this. then. made them conforming. in a zone. and the request was granted. At that time. they a1so requested the Town Board to indicate on the Tax Maps that they wou1d be a noise area of so many feet around where they were 10cated. The Town Board said they wou1d do this. on1y in the motion they passed. they on1y said it shou1d be done on the the Assessor's Tax Maps. So, unfortunate1y, in the Zoning Office and the P1anning Office that is not recorded. and maybe this Board wou1d Jike to say that that shou1d be done. a11 the Tax Maps shou1d be consistent, as far as this app1ication goes. I wou1d appreciate that if you wou1d do that. because I think it wou1d make it easier. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Can you summarize that in. 1ike. a sentence? MRS. YORK-Certain1y. To make the Tax Maps regarding this particu1ar piece of property. and you can cite the Tax Map Number. consistent in a11 the offices in the Town of Queensbury. So that it's indicated that there is a noise zone in this 10cation. MR. LAPOINT-To make Tax Maps. with respect to property use consistent in a11 the Queensbury departments? MRS. YORK-Right. on the Tax Maps. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. and indicate shooting range. MRS. YORK-Right. Thank you. MR. STEF-Just for my c1arification. does that require any action on our part? MRS. YORK-Not at a11. MR. STEF-Thank you very much. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So that's..!!! te11ing 1.QY. then? MRS. YORK-You're te11ing me. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. lets open a pubJic hearing. Is there anyone here from the pub1ic to address the Board on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERTA BARI LI MRS. BARlll-1 didn't rea1ize I was going to address the Board. but I happen to own a piece of property that's not to far from them. and I'm just curious. when they say mu1ti use buiJding. what sorts of uses are they ta1king about? MR. MARTIN-Cou1d you state your name. p1ease? MRS. BARIlI-Roberta Bari1i. I own a piece of property across the road. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. I'm sure the app1icant can te11 us what that'11 be. MR. STEF-A muUi purpose USe or a mu1ti use buiJding is not going to change the current use. It's not going to add any activity. It won't add any additiona1 noise. It'11 be used for meetings. 1t'11 be he1d for instruction we do. a number of pub1ic service type instruction. 1ike safety training. We do archery safety and certification for 1icensing. The bui1ding itseH wi11 be used for socia1 uses. It wi11 not add any further noise activity or any other outward1y visib1e activity. It's used to get in out of the rain for re10ading during matches and other kinds of things which are consistent with this. MRS. BARlll-And you said there'11 be no bathroom faci1ities or that sort of thing in the bui1ding itse1f? MR. STEF-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Anyone e1se? MAX COFFIN MR. COFFIN-My name is Max Coffin. I 1ive just down the road from it. I'm against any expansion of the C1ub. C1ub members have tried hard to p01ice the activity. but short of a fu11 time 1ive in guard 30 -- --- it can't be done. The activity has picked up tremendousìy in the ìast few years to a point where I'd ìike to see it cut back. not expanded. The Queensbury Noise Ordinance being considered. because of motorcycìes or in Argyìe it's because of stock cars is aìmost a joke compared to some weekends at the Cìub. It's become a commerciaì operation with many out of town and state peopìe camping on the grounds. and even used by the Nationaì Guard. I ask that the Board consider whether they wouìd ìike this kind of invasion into their homes on the weekends. If the Board feeìs it must aììow this expansion. I ask they consider ìimitations to be pìaced. such as, onìy Queensbury residents members, ìimit the number of weekends open to the pubìic. a ìimited number of shooters at one time or put certain hour restrictions that wiìì be enforced by the Warren County Sheriff's patroì on shooting. A ìast consideration wouìd be parking. A buiìding this size is using up the parking space and it's not compatibìe with the area. lee brought up an issue that. in my opinion, this is not a sociaì cìub. It's now a business. It has grown past the point of being a sociaì cìub. I've been around this area for years. My wife's uncìe started that Cìub in 1948. I'm not against the Cìub. per se. 1'm against the huge expansion that they're taìking about. 'At the Zoning meeting. they brought up that they were going to have a range inside. Archery. They kept pressing archery. but they wouìd not stipuìate that it wouìdn't be a pistoì range. and we don't need anymore shooting up there. I don't know if any of you have ever been up near that area on a weekend when they have a shoot. but it's getting ridicuìous. They have 140 members now. There's no reason that 140 members can't carryon the way they are now. with just the membership. A coupìe of shoots a year wouìd pay the taxes. If he wants to respond. I'd be gìad to answer any questions. MR. STEF-I don't know if I can respond to the neighbor's concern. other than we have tried to be a responsive neighbor. and if there is a way that we can continue to work out any difficuìty, we'd be happy to do that. One thing that was mentioned that I'd ì i ke to respond to the Board is that it was mentioned about the Nationaì Guard using the range. That's been used as a pubìic service. We have made it avaiìabìe when the Guard needs it to quaìify soìdiers to quaìify for their miìitary. That's not something that happens often. I've been a member of the Cìub for a number of years. I onìy remember it happening once when they came to us and asked us if they couìd use the range. The range is not a cornmerciaì operation. It is a not for profit organization that's run for the membership. We do hoìd some shoots that do attract foìks from outside of the immediate area. That's true of any gun cìub that hoìds a registered shoot. I don't know if there's any other way I can address that. MR. LAPOINT-I've got some questions. What hours do you operate right now? MR. STEF-We prohibit any shooting before nine o'cìock in the morning. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. nine a.m. MR. STEF-That's correct. MR. LAPOINT-Tiì when? MR. STEF-We don't have a cìose end at the other end. except for the fact that. obviousìy. there's not much point in shooting after dark. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So. in the summer time. you can go right through untiì nine o'cìock at night? MR. STEF-Right. That wouìd not be true in the case of a match. in which case most shooting. that 1'm aware of. in a match. particuìarìy on the weekends. which is where the ìarger matches are sometimes heìd. are usuaììy over by three or three thirty in the afternoon. MR. LAPOINT-You hear shooting ìong into the evening? MR. COFFIN-I have no probìem with the Cìub members shooting. I have no probìems with the Cìub. I tried to expìain that. That's why I wrote it out so that I wouìdn't get it mixed up. The Cìub isn't a probìem. The shoots are a probìem. and expansion is a probìem. One hundred and forty members is a ìarger number. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So the shoots. ìike. untiì three o'cìock. if there's a concentrated six hour shoot. MR. COFFIN-Weìì. I must be at ìeast 1500. 1600 feet away. My house is weìì insuìated. and when they go shooting on the weekends. you don't even hear the teìevision. It is terribìy noisy. It never used to be. I've been up there 14 years. and ìike I said, the Cìub was started in '48 by my wife's uncìe. I'm famiìiar with the Cìub. It's just that when you're taìking a buiìding this size. they're just puììing the wooì over somebody's eyes if they say this isn't an expansion. in my opinion. MR. LAPOINT-What's the maximum number of guys you can have shooting at once? How many ga 11eries do you have? MR. STEF-Aìì right. We currentìy have. in use. and I'll address the ìarge matches that are heìd on weekends. because I have to do statistics for the maps. so I can teìì you. There are 40 benches used at any match. There are currentìy. if memory serves me. 50 or 55 benches. aìthough the additionaì benches on the north end of the match are not used during. for instance. a bench rest match. which is a weekend match. It is the first 40 benches that are used. 31 '-- MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So. you have 40 going off at once? MR. STEF-That's correct. MR. LAPOINT-And that. you say, ends usua11y around three o'c10ck? MR. STEF-That's the usua1 time it wou1d end. MR. LAPOINT-And then after that it wou1d be 1ike sporadic C1ub members popping off after three o'c10ck? MR. STEF-That's correct. MRS. PULVER-But it cou1d be 140 C1ub members. MR. LAPOINT-It cou1d be another 40 of thema11 1ined. MR. COFFIN-There hasn't been any prob1em with just. I mean. there's somebody there shooting every day. I mean. that's not a prob1em. It's these huge shoots that they have. and the number of them. I mean. I'm not ta1king one or two weekends a year. I think the bench rest is 15 weekends. just the bench rest. and then they have pist01 shoots and b1ack powder. and I mean there's end1ess possibi1ities you cou1d have here. It cou1d be every weekend with up to 55 peop1e shooting outside at one time. MR. MARTIN-We11. what's the need for a11 the shoots? Is it just something 1ike these are regiona1 meets. so to speak. that are deve10ped by 10ca1 c1ubs? MR. STEF-The C1ub wi11 h01d a match for the benefit of its members and its guests. Now. the bench rest match. and I'll speak specifica11y about the ones that I'm most fami1iar with, a1though I'll try to address two. The 1argest concentration of shooting that occurs at anyone point in time wou1d be what's ca11ed a bench rest match. Now. a bench rest match cou1d have as few as 35 registered shooters to as many. I'm going to take a quick minute to see if I can remember. probab1y 60 registered shooters at any point in time. They wou1d shoot between nine a.m.. in summer matches. and about three o'c10ck in the afternoon. Our winter matches begin no ear1ier than 11 a.m. and are norma11y done around the same time as our one day matches. So. in the winter time. we h01d five or six matches which are norma11y he1d and that number may vary based on the match schedu1e. 1ets say five or six matches that are he1d during the winter. They wou1d start at 11 a.m. on Sunday and be finished by approximate1y 3:30 or 4. at the outside. of course in the winter it's starting to get dark. During the sunmer time. our schedule may inc1ude some two day matches. which are shot on both Saturday and Sunday. They begin no ear1ier than nine o'c1ock, because that's our standing C1ub ru1e. are norma11y done, rough1y 3. 3:30 in the afternoon. The 1argest match that I can remember running statistics for. and I've run most of them in the 1ast four years. has had 65 or 70 registered shooters. MR. MARTIN-And how many do you have in the summer months. if you had four to six in the winter? MR. STEF-Norma11y three to four in the summer. We have a memoria1 match which is done specifica11y to raise money for charities in the area. which is norma11y he1d. I beHeve. in August. 1ate August and September. but norma11y I be1ieve the current schedu1e is there is four matches. inc1ude the memoria1 match. MR. MARTIN-So. you have 10 shoots a year, on the outside. is what you're saying? MR. STEF-I'd say that's an average number. I can't quote exact1y the number of. now. I'm ta1king about bench rest matches. and I said I wanted to address that point. MR. COFFIN-At the Zoning Board. Char1ie Fontaine said that there was 15 bench rest matches a year. bench rests on1y. then there's pist01 and other matches. okay. MR. STEF-I've not worked that many. and I thought I had worked the winter and sunmer matches. We do a1so have pist01 matches. which are norma11y one day, in terms of si1houette matches. The numbers I can't quote at that point in time. Those are norma11y Saturday matches. The informa1 shooting can happen at any time between our opening hours at nine o'c10ck and reasonab1e dark. seven days a week. except when the range is occupied by an officia1 schedu1ed event. So. sporadic shooting cou1d occur seven days a week. technica11y between nine a.m. MR. MARTIN-These are the types of things where the shooters pay a fee. a registration fee. MR. STEF-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-And that goes to support of the C1ub's expenses? MR. STEF-It goes to some our activities. which inc1ude. we send a few kids to camp every summer. We do some training and education. both archers and hunter safety c1asses. It's been used for upgrading 32 -- ------- the property. which has been significant1y upgraded. in terms of appearance. and keeping the faci1ities from fa11ing down. Some of the faciJities are quite 01d. It keeps the C1ub seH sustained, in terms of bui1ding grounds property activities. MR. MARTIN-So. just a ba11park figure. How many weekends of the year are we ta1king about a shooting event going on here? MR. STEF-I don't know if I can answer that. I'm sorry that CharHe Fontaine or the C1ub president's not here today. I don't know the fu11 schedu1e off the top of my head. I assist with the bench rest matches. I'm a former pist01 shooter. so I can speak to both of those. If Char1ie Fontaine said that there were 15 bench rest matches a year outside. I wou1d guess that that wou1d be correct. MR. MARTIN-And then how many pist01 matches? MR. STEF-I'm afraid I don't know that off the top of my head. The point I wou1d Jike to make is this buiJding might be used to bring some f01ks in out of the rain during a match. but I don't beHeve it wou1d add. and it's not our intent to add more shooters at any point in time. Our existing 40 benches used for a bench rest match. Statistica11y. we can't hand1e scoring more than that in a match. at this point in time. We genera11y 1imit it to the 40 existing benches. during a 1arge match. MR. LAPOINT-So. what you're saying is this bui1ding shou1dn't faci1itate more use of more shooting? MR. STEF-That's correct. MR. LAPOINT-Wou1d that be your opinion? MR. COFFIN-No. That's not what they said at the Zoning meeting. EDITH COFFIN MRS. COFFIN-We11. the way I understood it was it was supposed to he1p increase membership. and go further into an additiona1 bui1ding for a c1ub house. If they got enough membership. they cou1d get the monies to put up an additiona1 buiJding for a c1ub house. which wou1d just keep increasing and increasing and increasing. MR. LAPOINT-And your name is? MRS. COFFIN-My name is Edith Coffin. MR. COFFIN-At the Zoning meeting they said they had p1ans of buiJding this buiJding and then another wing the same size off of it. MR. LAPOINT-Is that true? MR. STEF-The muHi purpose buiJding is our current p1an. Our current c1ub house requires a great dea1 of work. and our next step wou1d be to try to keep that from fa11ing into the ground. At some point our p1ans might be to connect the two buiJdings. I beHeve that wou1d make sense. not to have two buiJdings right next to each other and not have access. The expansion of activities that the C1ub envisions. there's very active archery 1eagues in the area. Dunham's Bay cannot participate because we have no faciJities. That's a fair1y sma11 number. It's abs01ute1y no noise. or minima1 noise use. Some socia1 activities are p1anned for the buiJding. It's a p1ace where peop1e cou1d get together. as far as C1ub members socia1 activity. There are no current p1ans to expand shooting activities. that I'm aware of. MRS. COFFIN-Now. I'm a1so under the impression. here. that 19 acres of this parce1 is used for the gun range. Is that correct? MR. STEF-I'm not sure I can answer that. MR. COFFIN-At the Zoning meeting. that's what was stated. MRS. COFFIN-It was stated at the Zoning meeting. 19 of these acres is the rif1e ranges where the benches are. p1us a11 the 1and in front of it where they shoot, p1us their back drop. So. the remaining acreage is where they p1an on putting this particu1ar buiJding. p1us they want to add on. and I'm not so sure they have enough room to cover the parking that's up there on these particu1ar weekends. on these rea11y heavy weekends. MR. COFFIN-There'11 be sometimes as many as 20 or 30 tents. p1us campers. MRS. COFFIN-Yes. they are tents or teepees or whatever. and there have been comp1aints from a neighbor to me. that I work wi th. she H ves next door to the Fi sh & Game C1 ub. She I s not so sure about the septic system being ab1e to contain this. because they have been on her property. 33 -- MR. STEF-Is she here this evening? MRS. COFFIN-No. MR. STEF-This buiJding will not put any impact on the septic system. obviously it's not going to have any plumbing in it. So that should not be a concern. as far as this Board is concerned. As far as fitting the building onto the property. I believe you an have the map. and it win be between the existing range and the existing building. It will not spillover onto an additional part of it. MRS. TARANA-You said there's no bathroom in the new building? MR. STEF-That's correct. MRS. TARANA-If you're having social activities? Having social activities with no bathroom in there? MR. STEF-Well, the building next door will be available. the building that says existing building. MRS. TARANA-Okay. If they're going to use the bathroom. they have to go next door to the other building? MR. STEF-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Why are you doing that? I mean. why aren't you putting a bathroom in? MR. STEF-Mostly cost. to be quite frank with you. We can't afford to do anything very extensive. and this will meet our current needs. It wiJl anow us to put the additional activities in place. such as the archery. we could use it for further things, in terms of training. in terms of education courses for young people. in terms of conservation activities. MRS. TARANA-And you have no plans to increase. I don't know anything about guns at an this stuff. where there doing this shooting? MR. STEF-The actual shooting range itself? None that I'm aware of. and I think I would be. MRS. TARANA-This is a really dumb question. Can guns be shot with no noise coming out of them? MR. STEF-Technicany no. Since 1934. silencers or noise suppression devices owned by private citizens has been federany regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1934. So. no. technicany. it's possible. The military has them. but if I were to own one. I could go to federal prison. MRS. TARANA-So. a Fish & Game Club. they can't have guns with silencers on them? MR. STEF-That's correct. It's illegal for a private citizen of the United States. since 1934. to own a suppressed weapon. which is a silenced weapon. MRS. TARANA-let me go on. What's the fish? Where are the fish? MR. STEF-We have participated, historically. in stocking activities for streams and ponds in the Greater North Country. That's part of our ongoing social. MRS. TARANA-So. you don't shoot fish? MR. STEF-No. It's not legal in New York. You can do that in Vermont. MRS. TARANA-I see your two ponds here. I thought maybe you were shooting fish. MR. STEF-No. MRS. TARANA-Can I ask the neighbors where they live? MR. COFFIN-Residency seems to be a big issue with me. I don't mind local people coming up and shooting and you have a shoot a couple of times a year to pay your taxes. but I think you're going to find that this membership and the people shooting are from an over. They're not from Queensbury. This is kind of Jike our trash plant down here. You know, we're taking New York City garbage. I mean this literally. I don't mind our people shooting. If they want to have one over in Washington County. let them go over there and shoot. let them bother somebody else other than me. MRS. TARANA-Can you just ten me where your property is located on this map? Are you right adjacent to the Fish & Game? MR. COFFIN-We're across the street and to the south. 34 '-- MRS. TARANA-Are there any properties directìy adjacent, with peopìe ìiving there? MR. COFFIN-Yes. MR. STEF-Yes. MRS. TARANA-And none of those peopìe are here? MR. STEF-That's correct. MR. LAPOINT-You're about a quarter of a miìe away? MR. COFFIN-My house is about a quarter of a miìe away. My property goes up to within 3. 400 feet. MR. MARTIN-And I take it you don't have any restrictions on membership in your Cìub byìaws or anything? You'ìì take a member from anywhere. is that correct? MR. STEF-There are restrictions. let me see if I can remember the byìaws off the top of my head. Someone using the Cìub has to be a member if they ìive within. I beìieve it's a 25 miìe radius. Peopìe who ìive outside of that, and short of that a member can bring a guest. up to a stipuìated number of times a year to introduce the person to the Cìub. In effect. one person can't bring in 50 peopìe in an unìimited fashion. We've done that. obviousìy. for seìf preservation. So. if you ìive within a certain area. you must be a member. Peopìe outside of that area can use the Cìub at matches. which are open to the pubìic. I don't want it misunderstood. They are guests of the Cìub, and they are invited to come to bench rest matches. in particuìar. that I can speak specificaììy to. We do have members. a few that I can think of, I know one that ìives in Vermont. and I know a coupìe who ìives down state. We don't have a restriction that says you can't join Dunham' 5 Bay Fi sh & Game Cìub if you ìive out of the Tri County area. That wouìd probabìy vioìate our not for profit ìaw. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-I guess the impasse is that the appìicant's saying that the shed. poìe barn. wiìì not increase the shooting. and the counter to that is that it wiìì increase the shooting. That's the matter at hand, right? MR. STEF-The intent of the buiìding. maybe this wiìì heìp cìarify it. The existing buiìding. I know from personaì experience. I stand six foot three and a haìf inches taìì. in my bare feet. and with shoes on. I go a ìittìe bit over that. and I duck in four pìaces in the existing buiìding. and when we have a match with peopìe coming and going through the buiìding. it gets quite inconvenient. both because it's a rickety oìd buiìding and the ceiìings are ìow. and the space is ìimited. It has one door out the back and one door out the front. and that causes some traffic difficuìty. By putting a muiti purpose buiìding near the ring. peopìe who are attending a shooting match wiìì have their convenience enhanced. in that there was a pìace to get out of the weather for reìoading and cìeaning. which takes pìace during a match. The weapons need to be. bench rest match rifìes in particuìar have to be kept very dean. Because of the nature of the sport. peopìe reìoad each case. They fire it once and reìoad it again. You don't go with a box of alllllO. because of the high precision nature of it. It increases their. the cìoseness of the reìoading area or cìeaning area to the match. It shortens the distance that they have to waìk. I don't foresee it increasing greatìy the number of peopìe who attend a match. because we do have a ìimited number of benches that we use. We don't pìan to expand the range any farther. MR. LAPOINT-And what the opposition is saying is that as things exist now. they're intoìerabìe even now? MR. COFFIN-Right. They've aìready expanded to a point that it's ridicuìous. MRS. COFFIN-And the statement ~ made that the purpose for the buiìding was to increase the membership. So that they couìd afford to increase their buiìding to add on another. an additionaì buiìding for their cìub house. That statement was made at the ìast. at the Zoning meeting. MR. BREWER-I aìmost think I'd ìike to see the minutes from that meeting. I mean. one person saying one thing. another person saying another thing. MR. STEF-I wasn't at the Zoning meeting. MR. BREWER-No. I understand that. MR. STEF-Mr. Fontaine was caììed out of the area on business. otherwise he wouìd have been here to answer those questions. I do know that from discussions in front of our Board. the kind of expansion we're ìooking for to go into new areas such as archery, which is very popuìar. We have no faciìity for it except outdoors archery, which makes it not competitive in being abìe to go in an archery, indoors under better conditions than you traditionaììy have outdoors. 35 '-- ---- MR. BREWER-What about an inside range at one time or another? MR. STEF-I wou1d not say. and I don't think anyone at Dunham's Bay wou1d say that that's not a possibi1ity at some point. There are no c1aims right now. A range is very. very expensive. MR. BREWER-That wou1d increase the traffic in the winter time. though. I wou1d think. MR. STEF-We11, potentia11y. it cou1d increase the traffic year round if the C1ub were to adopt a sma11 bore rif1e 1eague. 1ike a 22 1eague. or a pist01 1eague. There is no such anima1 at this point in time. There's no faci1ity for that at this time. If they shou1d want to bui1d it at some point. I imagine they'd have to go through approva1 process to do that. MRS. PUlVER-I kind of agree with Tim. I think I'd 1ike to see aH the minutes to that meeting. just to be sure I have aH the information in front of me. what was said. We have to. uHimate1y, come up with a decision. and I think since there is some opposition to it. we might be better if we read those minutes. too. and see what the actua1 intent was. MRS. COFFIN-There was a statement made that the reason why they gave them the variance on the zoning for the setback is because of the sewage being hooked on to. the possibi1ity of a c1ub house being bui1t at the other end of this bui1ding they're ta1king about here. MR. LAPOINT-And Mr. Fontaine cou1d address that better for us? MRS. COFFIN-Yes. He's the gent1eman who there. MR. STEF-let me see if I can he1p with that. The Zoning Board approved a variance to construct a bui1ding at 80 feet from the road instead of 100 feet as required. A few years ago. the sewage system. the 1eachfie1ds, whatever. were constructed to meet Town Code. If we were not aHowed to put the bui1ding where we've asked for it. on the site p1an that you've seen. and had to move it. say. for instance. 1eft of where it current1y is. if at some point in time we tore down our existing c1ub house. and that bui1ding was no 10nger there. the cost of moving the sewage system and/or hooking to it wou1d be prohibitive. MR. BREWER-I think if you tore that bui1ding down now. I don't think you'd be aMe to put another bui1ding up there. Again. you're going to be so c10se to that septic system. MR. LAPOINT-If we tab1ed this. I mean, to get the guy who can ta1k about the 10ng range p1an. I mean. what I'm hearing is that there's other possib1e expansions and that type of thing. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. STEF-I don't know of any other expansion. except to rep1ace the existing c1ub house and put a breeze-way at its existing site. MR. LAPOINT-Right on its footprint. MR. STEF-That's correct. MR. BREWER-I don't know that they cou1d, cou1d they? MRS. PULVER-Yes. using the same footprint. MR. MARTIN-On the same footprint. MR. STEF-The same foundation. just rep1ace. as I said. at six foot three and a ha1f. I have a prob1em with the bui1ding. So, there are p1ans. at some point in the future, when we get enough money raised. We've bare1y got enough to do the p01e barn that we're 100king to do. is to rep1ace the bui1ding with a more adequate bui1ding. MR. LAPOINT-It sounds 1ike we're going fu11 circ1e. MR. MARTIN-We11. this is land Conservation is it, lee. zoning? MRS. YORK-Yes. land Conservation 10 Acre. MR. MARTIN-lC-I0. MRS. PUlVER-WeH. I just think it wou1d be a good idea to read. Then we're not into. he said. she said, and they said. and we have a11 the information ourse1ves. 36 --' MR. MARTIN-I understand the neighbor's concern. and I have no problem with a tabling. but this is in conformance with zoning. and the allowed uses under an lC-10 zoning are recreation center and lodge. for one thing. and then it goes on to read. sportsman club and firing range. MR. BREWER-Yes. but can't we limit it to what it is, Jim? MRS. TARANA-How many acres do you have? MR. MARTIN-He's. what. 20 some acres. 19 acres? MR. STEF-You have a plan in front of you. MRS. TARANA-Here we go. 20 plus. Okay. MRS. PUlVER-I don't think anybody is thinking that this is not allowed. I realize that it's allowed. MR. MARTIN-Well. I'm just hearing. a lot of the concerns are from. that this expansion of the dub house will ultimately lead to an expansion of the Club. and I don't know what we can do. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. The answer to the question is. yes. this building will increase shooting, and the answer to that is yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. but can't we put some limitations on it? MR. MARTIN-On what basis. is what I'm saying? MR. COFFIN-On the difference between a commercial operation. this is where your. if you read your zoning. this is a nonconforming use. if it's commercial. okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but from what I'm hearing, we have. Well. I can agree with a tabling to see the Zoning Board minutes. but anything they're doing is in support of Club activities and it's non profit. MR. BREWER-Yes. but if they're going to have a multi use building. a multi use building. to me. is multi use. They could have dances there on the weekend. They could have a number of things there. and if that's not the intent of the building. I mean. they could do many things there, and I think that we should know what they're going to do, and I think if we look at the minutes of the Zoning Board meeting. we can hash out what was said. MR. STEF-If what we've defined is within the parameters of our zoning, and I believe it is. We are a not for profit organization. We are not a commercial operation. We don't run a commercial shooting range. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. STEF-I think our neighbor's concerned that it's growing to a point where. as he's said. in his opinion. it's become too big. and that's how it's commercial. MR. BREWER-What would stop you from going commercial? MR. STEF-Well. we currently have a 501C3. Not for Profit. tax status. MR. BREWER-I understand. Could that be changed? I'm just curious? MRS. PULVER-It would take a tremendous amount. MR. STEF-To become a commercial operation. I think we'd be here again. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. STEF-like Mrs. Pulver said before. the process would require a lot. MR. MARTIN-You'd need a use variance, then. MR. STEF-Right. We would have to change our use. We would have to change a lot of things which. obviously, would come before this and other Boards. MRS. PUlVER-5013C is not easy to get. MR. COFFIN-One last time. My whole point was it was kind of put over. the wool was pulled over our eyes when they changed from an RR-3 to an lC-lO. That put them into a conforming use as a not for profit organization. Now. any outfit that has 140 members at 35 bucks a hit. that's $5.000. That kind of pays for the taxes. and my taxes are high. but they're not that high. That pays for the upkeep. 37 "---- - Most of the upkeep they ta1k about the ! :c·ley :.:hey spent doing it. My son's a SeaBee. He spent. I don't know how many weekends up there doing this. I've seen the prisoners from Comstock over there repairing this buiJding. There isn't a 10t of money spent over there repairing. This is definite1y an expansion. and the on1y reason they wou1d want to expand is because it's nonconforming. This not for profit it just a f1ash. I guess. You're raising money 1ike this in a neighborhood where it shou1dn't be done. It's an RR-3. even though they did request and were changed to an lC-10. MRS. YORK-I wi11 be happy to get a11 the minutes of when they came for the re-zoning. their rationa1ization then. and the Zoning Board minutes for this Board. and I wiH get them to you very rapid1y so you can review them for next month. MR. MARTlN-I'11 read the definition of commercia1 use for everybody's benefit. any use inv01ving the sa1e or renta1 or distribution of goods. services. or commodities. either retai1 or wh01esa1e. or the provision of recreation faci1ities or activities for a fee. The term shaH inc1ude but not be Jimited to the f0110wing: Drive in restaurant. fast food operation. fi11ing station. pub1ic garage. restaurant. retai1 store. retai1 stand. and tavern. that's Page 17917. MRS. PULVER-So, they're a commercia1 business. because they receive a fee. You receive a fee when you have your shoots? MR. STEF-There is a shooter registration fee, I think. yes. MR. MARTIN-What's that go for? MR. STEF- That pays for targets. Some of the money goes to the buiJding fund. If there's any 1eft, it pays for the actua1 running of the shoot. MRS. PULVER-Yes. it goes into the pot. and they pay expenses. but that's what we'd a11 do if we wou1d charge a fee. MRS. TARANA-See commercia1 recreation use. MR. STEF-It a1so pays for trophies that shou1d be distributed in the match. and that's not a commercia1 operation. The money is poured direct1y back into the match. MRS. PUlVER-Commercia1 uses give prizes. You cou1d ca11 a trophy a prize. probab1y. MR. MARTIN-Where are you getting commercia1 recreation? MRS. TARANA-Right above comercia1 use. two up. comercia1 recreation. any use inv01ving the provision recreation faciJities or activities for a fee. I mean. that is. in effect. what they're doing. I think the prob1em is that it was re-zoned an lC-10. but now that they are. they're in comp1iance with what the zoning is. but it sounds 1ike it never shou1d have been an lC-10 if it's in residentia1. MRS. PUlVER-We11. if they were sti11 in RR-3. they wou1dn't be ab1e to do this? MRS. TARANA-No. If they were in RR-3. they wou1dn't be ab1e to. MR. BREWER-When did they change the zone? MRS. TARANA-'88. MRS. YORK-I be1ieve 1988. MR. MARTIN-With the re-zoning? MRS. YORK-I think they were conforming before the re-zoning. and don't quote me on this. I may not be abs01ute1y correct. that they were conforming. then after the zoning they were made nonconforming by that re-zoning. for some reason. and then they came and asked to be made conforming again. MR. MARTIN-We11. I think the wh01e crux of the matter. here. it's boi1ing down to, I don't think anybody has any prob1ems with the C1ub. and the C1ub itse1f is a conforming use. by what I can see. but I think the crux of the matter is these shooting matches. They are what introduce a potentia1 commercia1 use. I think it wou1d be worthwhiJe. maybe. to have the Zoning Administrator take a crack at this. and see what she. see if she views these shooting matches as a commercia1 use. because I think the sportsman's c1ub was essentia11y a c1ub of. MRS. PULVER-We can have a p1ay on words. because they cou1d say the $35 is a donation. If they change the word from fee to donation. then it becomes non commercia1. MRS. TARANA-And it's no different than, say. the Hyde Museum that has a g01f tournament. to make money. They charge a fee. If they charge $100 a person to p1ay. I don't know. but that's what not for profits do to make money. and they're a not for profit. 38 ~ -- AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. laPoint. Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Pu1ver. Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laurice11a (10:06 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 31-92 ON BAY RD. TO IlAllŒJP FOR PLEASURE RIDING. D(3)(B)(10) TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A EDllARD & ROBERTA BARILI OßŒR: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH RD., LEFT ON IlAllŒJP RD. - 1ST 2 HooSES ON RIGHT. TO ICEEP AND MINTA IN HORSES TAX ... 10. 48-1-17.2, 17.3, 18 lOT SIZE: +27.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-15 ROBERTA BARlll. PRESENT (10:06 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York. Senior P1anner. Site P1an No. 31-92. Edward & Roberta BariJi. June 22. 1992. Meeting Date: June 23. 1992 "The app1icant wishes to keep horses on their property on Wa1kup lane. The zoning is RR-3A and the property is +27 acres. Anima1 husbandry and farming are anowed in this zone with site p1an review. This wou1d be considered a farm for anima1 husbandry. Raising horses and ponies requires a minimum of 3 acres. where two or more are raised then a minimum of two acres per anima1 win be required (pg. 18031). A site visit revea1ed that the app1icant has the faciJities to provide for the anima 1s and the acreage to assure that this win not impact the neighbors. The use is a110wab1e and there are no p1anning concerns. The staff recommends approva1." MR. W\RTIN-Okay. I don't see this as a big dea1. let me open the pubHc hearing? Is there anyone here from the pub1ic wishing to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN CURRY MR. CURRY-My name is John Curry. and my wife lara and I own the property direct1y across Bay Road from the Bari1i property. We're not here to oppose it. We're in favor of it. We think it is a justifiab1e use of the 1and and a proper use of the 1and. and we'd rather see horses there than just see it subdivided. So. we're in favor of it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Anyone e1se? Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOWTION If HEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION NO. 31-92. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Car01 Pu1ver: WHEREAS. there is present1y before the P1anning Board an app1ication for: EDIIARD & ROBERTA BARILI, to keep and Eintain horses for pleasure riding.. and WHEREAS. this P1anning Board has determined that the proposed project and P1anning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmenta1 Qua1ity Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federa1 agency appears to be invo1ved. 2. The f0110wing agencies are inv01ved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is un1isted in the Department of Environmenta1 Conservation Regu1ations imp1ementing the State Environmenta1 Qua1ity Review Act and the regu1ations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmenta1 Assessment Form has been comp1eted by the app1icant. 5. Having considered and thorough1y ana1yzed the re1evant areas of environmenta1 concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmenta1 impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Officia1 CompiJation of Codes. Ru1es and Regu1ations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and fiJe as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative dec1aration that may be required by 1aw. 40 '- ..- MR. STEF-Thank you for c1arifying that. because my paying my $30 a year to the C1ub. I do receive some services in return for that. but that is fu11y within the not for profit. MR. MARTIN-No. I'm not saying your C1ub membership dues. that's a C1ub. but what I'm saying represents a commercia1 use is these weekend meets where they have peop1e come from outside even and pay this one time fee to participate in this shooting match. MRS. PULVER-Yes. but a commercia1 use and a not for profit use are sti11 pretty much the same. They're both providing a service. MR. BREWER-The organization itse1f doesn't profit from what they do. The monies that they take in they give to somebody e1se. or whatever. MRS. PULVER-Right. A commercia1 use is they're keeping the money themse1ves. MR. BREWER-Exact1y. MR. MARTIN-Wen. an I'm saying is. the commercia1 use definition doesn't say that. It just says a fee. not a fee that's represented as a profit or a donation or whatever. It just says a fee. and that's a11 they're doing. and an I'm saying is it appears to me that there's a 1egitimate concern. here. on the part of the neighbors. that this is resu1ting in 60 or 70 peop1e coming up there on weekends and setting up pop up traners and things 1ike that, in what is supposed to be a land Conservation area. MRS. TARANA-Yes. I agree. I have concerns for the neighbors. too. but I a1so fee1 if the C1ub is in. I don't see where they're not within the zoning. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I mean, te11 me if they're not. but the fee doesn't bother me. They're a not for profit. and the fee is nothing. MR. W\RTIN-I think the C1ub is in conformance with the zoning. but I don't think the weekend meets are. MR. STEF-The meets are he1d for the C1ub members and their guests. Peop1e can, if it's a registered shoot. peop1e can attend it. We don't exc1ude the pub1ic from it. It's one of our ways of attracting members to the C1ub. It's one of the ways of providing services to shooters in the area who may not be. and when I say the area. obvious1y we're in a wide area. We're not in an area 1ike New York City and New Jersey. We've got 10ts of peop1e concentrated in one area. If we were to pu11 enough peop1e to make a shoot worthwhi1e. they wou1d have to come from more than G1ens Fans and Queensbury. Obvious1y. there aren't that many shooters. We be1ieve our zone is appropriate. We be1ieve we're acting within the a110wed uses of that zoning. and within the site p1an and within the setback variance. MR. MARTIN-Wen. yes. I think your site p1an is fine and an that, and I'm not even sure if we can review these types of things under the context of this. wen, maybe we can in that it represents an expansion. but if you were having these weekend meets strict1y for the benefit of your membership. and 1imit it to that. the 140 members can come and shoot and have an inter c1ub competition. so to speak. that's one thing. but when you're caning in rif1emen from an over the northeast maybe even and having them come here to shoot, I think that. to me. is a commercia1 use. MR. BREWER-To get back to what I think. I'd just 1ike to see the minutes. MR. MARTIN~Okay. We11. we'11 tab1e it. if that's a11 right with you? We'd 1ike to have your consent. MRS. PUlVER-We11. commercia1 use is a110wed in land Conservation. isn't it? MR. W\RTIN-I don't see it anywhere. MR. COFFIN-I think Pat addressed that at the Zoning meeting. a1so. MR. MARTIN-Yes. 1ets get those minutes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-92 OONHAM'S BAY FISH I GAME CWB, INC.. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Car01 Pu1ver: With the app1icant's consent. and 1eave the pub1ic hearing open. and I request that the P1anner provide an the minutes we've discussed today for our review. as soon as possib1e. and the app1icant be given due consideration to getting on the next possib1e agenda. Du1y adopted this 23rd day of June. 1992. by the f0110wing vote: 39 - Duìy adopted this 23rd day of June. 1992. by the foììowing vote: AYES: Mr. laPoint. Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Puìver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. lauriceììa MR. MARTIN-Okay. There being no other comments. I'ìì ask for a motion. NOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-92 EfIfARD I ROBERTA BARILI. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Caroì Puìver: To keep and maintain horses for pìeasure riding, with the foììowing stipuìation: That the density of animaìs per acre not exceed those specified on Page 18031 of the Ordinance. Duìy adopted this 23rd day of June. 1992, by the foììowing vote: MRS. PULVER-How many horses do you pìan on having? MRS. BARIlI-I have two. MRS. PULVER-Do you board horses? MRS. BARIlI-I have boarding presentìy. but no. I have no pìans to board horses. AYES: Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Puìver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. laPoint. Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. lauriceììa (10:11 p.m.) SHE PLAN NO. 32-92 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A DR. MICHAEL FINICOIISKI OF ROCDEll RD., APPROX. 4,000 FT. NORTH OF ROClCIIEll/HAVILAND RD. AND LANDSCAPING ALONG A PORTION OF A TRIBUTARY TO HAlFIIAY CREEK. +5.53 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 MER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST SIDE INTERSECTION. TO COMPLETE GRADING TAX IMP NO. 54-2-17.1 lOT SIZE: JOSEPH LANARO. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (10:11 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York. Senior Pìanner, Site Pìan No. 32-92. Dr. Michaeì Finkowski. June 22. 1992. Meeting Date: June 23. 1992 "The appìicant is requesting to compìete some ìandscaping aìong a tributary which flows aìong the front of his property and through a cuìvert under the driveway. The staff discussed this project with DEC staff. They have reviewed the pìans previousìy and have submitted an approvaì ìetter. Since we recognize this agency as our experts for environmentaì review of stream corri dor impacts. the staff recommends approva ì. II MRS. YORK-Wouìd you ìike me to read the DEC? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Couìd you read that ìetter in quickìy? MRS. YORK-"I have reviewed the project pìans for the Michaeì Finkowski property on Rockweìì Road in the Town of Queensbury. The stream. CH-134-4-19-20. that fìows through the project area is cìassified M(T). An Articìe 15 (Protection of Waters) permit wouìd be required for any disturbance to the bed or banks of this stream. As ìong as any disturbance (excavation or fiìì) is kept severaì feet from the stream bank and protected with a siìt fence barrier as shown on the pìans. no Articìe 15 permit is required. The pìans ìook good. I have one suggestion. Item #1 under the heading Particuìar Measures taìks about the pìacement of hay baìes across existing cuìvert inìets. I suggest that no hay baìes be pìaced in front of the cuìvert under the driveway. In the event of a storm the hay baìes may pond water above the stream banks into the disturbed area. I think the properìy instaììed siìt fences paraììeì to the stream corridor wiìì be sufficient. Sincereìy. lesìie H. Saìtsman Principaì Fisheries Technician" MR. LANARO-My name is Joseph lanaro. I'm with C. T. Maìe Associates. We're representing Dr. Finkowski tonight. MICHAEL FINKOWSKI DR. FINKOWSKI-I'm Michaeì Finkowski. 41 -- - MR. MARTIN-Okay. I don't know that we need any information from you right away. Does the Board have any questions before we? Okay. I'll open a public hearing. Is there anybody from the public who'd like to address the Board on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-Why don't we move into the SEQRA and see what that turns up. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MDE RESOWTION NO. 32-92. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DR. MICHAEL FINICIIfSKI, to cOllplete grading and landscaping along a portion of a tributary to HalfWay Creek.. 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 23rd day of June. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. laPoint. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. lauricella MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anyone have anything else they'd like to add? MRS. PULVER-Only the hay bales. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. You can live with the DEC letter? MR. YARMOWICH-They can live with it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MOTION 10 APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-92 DR. MICHAEL FINICIIfSKI. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: To complete grading and landscaping along the portion of the tributary to HalfWay Brook. with the following stipulation: That the applicant. his agent. or construction crew comply with the Department of Environmental Conservation letter dated 28 May 1992. from leslie H. Saltsman to C.T. Male Associates. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June. 1992. by the following vote: 42 '~ .-' AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. laPoint. Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Pu1ver. Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laurice11a (10:15 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 33-92 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA IfIUIAM BRCIIN CllNER: ROIERT I SHIRLEY SANDERS SOOTHEAST CORNER OF VAN DUSEN AND SANDERS ROAD. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN EXISTING BUILDING CURRENTLY USED AS AN ANTIQUE SHOP. TAX MAP fIIO. 126-1-71.1 LOT SIZE: +2.3 ACRES SECTION 179-26 BIll BROWN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (10:15 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York. Senior P1anner. Site P1an No. 33-92. Wi11iam Brown. June 22, 1992. Meeting Date: June 23. 1992 "The app1icant is requesting a site p1an review for a change of use on Van Dusen Road in an LI-1A zone. The property current1y contains a residence - antique shop. three garages and a shed. The app1icant has stated to staff that his business wiH be primari1y an office as most of work is out of the imediate area. The appHcant wou1d pick up his equipment and supp1ies and not return unti1 the end of the day. The area which wi11 be uti1ized for the storage of f1ammab1e 1iquids is 20 feet from a fence which joins a junk yard. The Fire Marsha1' s office has indicated that they have no concerns about the 10cation of this. AH the structures are preexisting so setbacks are not an issue. The Board shou1d discuss how many emp10yees and vehic1es wiH be using the faci1ity to determine if there is sufficient parking. A1so. storage of goods shou1d be discussed. If there is to be outside storage of goods and materia1s the Board may want to consider fencing or visua1 buffering. This area is changing in character and visua1 character is important. This appHcation was reviewed with regard to the criteria for site p1an review: 1. The site is preexisting so 1ayout and design is not an issue. 2. Vehicu1ar access is existing and not an issue. 3. Off street parking adequacy shou1d be discussed. 4. Pedestrian circu1ation is not an issue. 5. Storm drainage is not a concern. 6. Water and sewer are on 10t and no expansion is p1anned. 7. The faci1ities are no c10ser to the property 1ines on the north and south. The house is 80 feet back from the road so there is a1ready an area buffering. Noise shou1d not be a prob1em from the site but the Board may wish to review hours of operation. etc.. because this is a significant change of use. 8. Emergency access is not an issue. 9. Ponding and f100ding are not an issue." MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have the Zoning Referra1 sheet there for you. Do we have anybody here from the appHcant? MR. BROWN-My name is Bi11 Brown. MRS. PULVER-Are you going to be renting the house? MR. BROWN-It'11 be an office. MRS. PULVER-The house? MR. BROWN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-So. the current residents of the house are moving out? MR. BROWN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Are you buying that property? MR. BROWN-Yes. I am. MR. MARTIN-Hours of operation. Do you anticipate 1eaving ear1y in the morning and coming back in the evening. or? MR. BROWN-I'm a conmercia1 roofing contractor. So. it isn't even going to be a dai1y thing. When I do jobs sometimes it won't even take day. Some times I work on the same jOb for two or three months. On a 10nger job, as far as anybody stopping there in the morning. probab1y nobody wou1d. maybe once a week. to pick up a to01 or something. MR. MARTIN-Is it predominant1y commercia1 roofing or residential? MR. BROWN-It's a11 conmercia1. MR. MARTIN-Yes. so it's the rubberized system and a11 that? 43 ......... -- MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. PULVER-So. when we're talking equipment. we're talking. what. ladders? MR. BROWN-Yes. ladders. MRS. PULVER-And how many trucks. vehicles? MR. BROWN-I have three trucks. MR. MARTIN-You have the so called. are they called honey pots. like, where they? MR. BROWN-No. I don't do tar and asphalt. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BROWN-I do. maybe. two percent. but for the most part. for that small amount. I rent my equipment and return it when I'm done with it. rather than storing it. MR. MARTIN-I see. So. you're equipment is predominantly just the ladders? MR. BROWN-Yes. I've got power wheel barrels. power root cutters. and things like that. small equipment. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that hours of operation with those is any great of a. MRS. PULVER-Well. he doesn't do it on site. MR. MARTIN-Well. I mean. coming and going, even. it's very sporadic. and like you say. sometimes you'll be on site for two months. and the equipment won't even be on your property. MR. BROWN-Yes. and at the most. normally. it's only picking up a truck. MRS. PULVER-So. you're living there. You don't have any staff living there? MR. MARTIN-Well. he's going to have an office there. MR. BROWN-I will not be living there. MR. MARTIN-It would be an office and equipment storage. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Most everything will be inside garages? MR. BROWN-Yes. There's, presently there's four out buildings, three separate garages. MR. LAPOINT-And approximately how much flammable liquid? MR. BROWN-Not that much. It's what comes back from a job until it goes to the next job. maybe 100 gallons. MR. LAPOINT-They're not 55 gallon drums? MR. BROWN-They're five gallons. MR. LAPOINT-They're five gallon pails. individual pails? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Have you got a Hazardous Materials Form. lee. on? MRS. YORK-Yes. we do. and the Fire Marshal's Office has reviewed it. for your information. and passed it on to the Fire Chief. MR. MARTIN-I don't even know. if he's got all the indoor storage and the type or equipment he's saying. that fencing or any vegetative buffering or anything like that. MR. BROWN-There is fencing on site. 44 -- -- SHIRLEY SANDERS MRS. SANDERS-There a1ready is fencing. MRS. PULVER-How many emp10yees do you have? MR. BROWN-It ranges. Throughout most of the year. about five. MR. MARTIN-And in the winter time that may fa11 off some? MR. BROWN-WeH. in the winter time I may have five. In the summer time. and it wou1d be. see. I do a 10t of scho01 work. and most of the summer emp10yees wou1d never stop there. They wou1d come from home. In the summer. I've had as many as 15. 16 emp10yees. MRS. PULVER-My question is. wou1d the emp10yees be coming there. 1eaving their vehic1es. and then going in other vehic1es? MR. BROWN-No. not for the most part. A few emp10yees may come and pick up~ truck or a coup1e of trucks and bring them to the job site and 1eave their vehic1es there. There's a pretty good sized area of crushed $tone. My own vehic1e has p1enty of room to store. MR. MARTIN-It's pretty weH screened there. now. from what I saw. AH right. WeH. I'H open the public hearing. Is there anyone from the pub1ic wishing to address? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SHIRLEY SANDERS MRS. SANDERS-As for the traffic. if you're concerned about the traffic. there's no concern about anybody being there. because there are junk yards right next. and there's traffic constant1y. MRS. PUlVER-We11. I'm very fami1iar with that site. I'm not concerned about the traffic. I'm concerned about vehic1es just being driven up to the site and 1eft in a haphazard way. MRS. SANDERS-We11. even when we owned the junk yard in the back. which we sold to Diane. we sold the back property. and they changed us from commercial to residentia1. and then I came up and got changed back. and so we went through that meeting and everything was changed, but there's no problem with anything. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-Ed. do you want to take us through the SEQRA? RESOWTION lIMEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 33-92. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Car01 Pu1ver: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: IfIllIAM BRCIIN, for a construction cOlpð~ in an existing building currently used as an antique shop.. and WHEREAS. this P1anning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmenta1 Quality Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federa1 agency appears to be involved. 2. The fo110wing agencies are inv01ved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is un1isted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations imp1ementing the State Environmental Qua1ity Review Act and the regu1ations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmenta1 Assessment Form has been completed by the app1icant. 5. Having considered and thorough1y ana1yzed the relevant areas of environmenta1 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 Officia1 CompHation of Codes. Ru1es and Regu1ations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmenta1 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 dec1aration that may be required by law. 45 '-- --- Duly adopted this 23rd day of June. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. laPoint. Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. lauricella MR. MARTIN-Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-92 IfIllIAM BRCIIN. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: For a construction company in existing buildings currently used as an antique shop. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. laPoint. Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. lauricella (10:28 p.m.) SITE PIAN NO. 35-92 TYPE I PC-lA HCIIARD CARR THE HCllARD GRoop JIìMT. CO., INC. OßŒR: QUEENSBURY FACTORY OOTLET CENTER SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF RT. 9 AND QUAIŒR DO. ADDITION OF 56.150 SQ. FT. RETAIL AREA TO THE EXISTING RETAIL USE. (WARREN coom PLANNING) (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) TAX MP NO. 103-1-1 LOT SIZE: +13.67 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 35-92 IICIIARD CARR THE HCIfARD GROOP 1IiMT. CO, INC.. Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Tabled with the applicant's consent. For the addition of 56.156 sq. ft. retail area to the existing retail use. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. laPoint. Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. lauricella MR. MARTIN-Okay. Next month we're looking at? MRS. YORK-The 21st and the 28th? MR. MARTIN-How does that set with everybody? MRS. PULVER-Well. that's our regular meetings. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-I will be on vacation for the entire second half of July. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well. hopefully we'll have a new member by then. That's the other thing. we've got to bring that up at the meeting on Monday. Okay. Now, site visits for next month. we would typically do them. then. on the 16th. a Thursday. at 4 p.m. We do have use of the Town van. MRS. YORK-You can't use the Town van. because you have to be a Town employee. MR. MARTIN-I asked the Supervisor. MRS. YORK-Okay. That was just something I was told under the last administration. MR. MARTIN- I'd just ca 11 everybody's attention to the Resolution of Non-acceptance of the proposed recreational property from Herald Square. Remember we started that process? Apparently the Town Board is not accepting it. So. they're going to have to pay the fee. That's just for your information. That's all I have. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFUllY SUBMITTED. James Martin. Chairman 46