Loading...
1993-10-19 ''--'' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19TH. 1993 INDEX Site Plan No. 30-93 AMG Industries 2. Subdivision No. 20-1993 FINAL STAGE Gertrude Young 5. Subdivision No. 13-1993 FINAL STAGE James Girard 7. Subdivision No. 4-1993 FINAL STAGE Guido Passarelli 9. Subdivision No. 19-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Hal Raven 12. Site Plan No. 42-93 Robert Jacobs 18. SEQRA Review Gary R. Cardinale 21. Site Plan No. 46-93 Douglas & Holly Coon 26. Site Plan No. 47-93 Leemilt's/Getty Petroleum 28. Subdivision No. 21-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Donald Kruger 35. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '-' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19TH. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN EDWARD LAPOINT ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK MEMBERS ABSENT CORINNE TARANA CAROL PULVER CRAIG MACEWAN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI RESOLUTIONS: SITE PLAN NO. 30-93 AMG INDUSTRIES MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO REFLECT CHANGES TO THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM. MIKE HUTSENPILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Scott, there's no notes on this? MR. HARLICKER-Not on this. MR. BREWER-Maybe you could just briefly identify the changes. MR. HUTSENPILLER-For the record, my name's Mike Hutsenpiller. My company's MRH Engineering, and I've been hired by AMG to perform their site stormwater calculations. Tonight. what we're trying to do is. the plan you have in front of you, the AIAR3 drawing. represents our plan that was submitted to the Town and approved for the stormwater drainage on the site. As you see, we have several catch basins surrounding the manufacturing building and the office itself to collect the stormwater, send it back to the south of the site, to a central catch basin, and then via pipe to a stormwater detention pond. Since the project has been started, what we've found is significant rock very close to the surface of the ground. and with this rock. it's presenting some costs that are quite prohibitive to install all the catch basins that we show on the plan, and what we're trying to do tonight is present you with a modified plan which is our drawing AIAR4. and as you can see, we've eliminated a lot of catch basins to the north and to the west, and some in the southwest corner, and maintained a few catch basins in the east, in the southeast corner. We still have the main. central collecting catch basin which will convey the stormwater drainage back to the detention pond. By doing this, we obviously eliminate the cost of blasting. which would be the method of removal of the rock. and in turn save AMG a significant quantity of money in doing that. but we also feel that the collection of the stormwater via the pavements and then subsequent grading of the pavements to the various catch basins and sheet draining around the building will provide us with an adequate solution. Between the buildings. what we're intending to do is to add a paved gutter. if you'll call it that. and convey the water from the two buildings where they're connected out to Catch Basin Number Three. The remaining stormwater will drain off of the buildings over to the south, and a little bit in the northwest corner here. It will drain off on the grades and be conveyed away by the slope of the pavements and the ground. MR. BREWER-Has Tom Yarmowich looked at this? - 1 - MR. HARLICKER-I believe he has. but I don't have a copy of his letter in here. We haven't got a response from him yet. This is from Mike Shaw. regarding sewer. MR. BREWER-So do we need a sign off from Tom on this? MR. HARLICKER-You probably should condition it on that. MR. BREWER-Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. LAPOINT-Does this change any of the grading plan? MR. HUTSENPILLER-Not really. It's just taking the existing grades and using them as we had originally intended to get the drainage into the catch basins that were originally proposed. It's just that they won't be there now. The water will drain over those areas and into the back of the site. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. but not off site? MR. HUTSENPILLER-No. The intent is to still convey all the drainage. we'll say. back to Catch Basin Number One, which is the central collection for the storm drainage that will go back to the detention pond. It's not our intent to alter from the original plan. It's just a modification. MR. LAPOINT-You have to blast to get to the elevations. the inverts. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Right. We have to blast for pipes and the catch basins. MR. LAPOINT-If I were to make a motion that you comply with whatever Rist-Frost comes up with. or work with them. work wi th their comments. whatever they may be, would that be acceptable to you? I mean. just to, you know. again. thi s cond i tiona I type approval? MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with that. as long as Tom signs off on it. MR. LAPOINT-And that'll save you from coming back here again. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Okay. if that's all right with you. MR. RUEL-The only question I had was. the detention pond or basin has an overflow? MR. HUTSENPILLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-And where does this overflow water go? MR. HUTSENPILLER-The overflow water will. on your prints. you can see that the overflow is in the northeast corner of the basin. here. The drainage. the whole site will drain back to the south. and to the south. there's really kind of swampy area back there. and the intent is to take all of the contained water. and convey it back to the same location. than just drain overland into the swampy area. and the same thing with the emergency spillway. You'll see that the drainage comes off the eastern side of the pond. and will be conveyed. via the grade lines. back to the same area. MR. RUEL-The normal flow of water is above that basin. above the detention. MR. HUTSENPILLER-The normal flow starts north and goes south. MR. RUEL-Yes. So how come the detention pond wasn't put up further north? - 2 - MR. HUTSENPILLER-Because the grades on the site lent itself for the placement of the detention pond here. By putting it in the far corner of the site. with the slope draining back to the south. and we have adequate volume from which to construct a pond. If we move farther north. you lose that volume capability. MR. RUEL-How deep is that detention basin? MR. HUTSENPILLER-The very bottom grade is 298. The. it looks like the top surface is 306. So it's eight feet. and you'll see. the bottom of the pond is sloped via the natural contours of the ground. and those natural contours start at roughly 305. and go back to 298. So it's a grade down to the pond. So the pond will never be full. It will contain water. a structure that will drain. and drain completely. MR. RUEL-But most of the time it will have water in it? MR. HUTSENPILLER-Not really. It's not designed for that. designed to drain completely. It's MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Ed. do you want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-93 AUG INDUSTRIES. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: To modify existing site plan to reflect changes to the stormwater drainage system with the following condi tions: One, that the applicant contact Rist-Frost for their engineer's review and comment of drawing number A1AR4. and work with Rist-Frost to resolve any engineering concerns with the new stormwater management plan. Duly adopted this 19th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan MR. HUTSENPILLER-Now all we really need is a letter of approval from Rist-Frost. and then the plans accepted? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-I put the impetus on you to contact them. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Okay. plan? Even though they already probably have a MR. HARLICK~R-It's my understanding that's been sent to them. I'll double check tomorrow to make sure. MR. LAPOINT-You're right. I want the applicant to contact them directly. and work this out. My intent here. Scott, is if they can't make agreement with the applicant. that they're back in front of us. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Stimpson. Okay. Next. Richard Eggleston/Thomas MR. HARLICKER-They requested to be withdrawn from tonight's agenda. - 3 - MR. BREWER-Put back on when? MR. HARLICKER-Next week. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-Tim. Mrs. Hart and Mrs. Hart keep on showing uP. and this guy keeps tabling. Is there a limit to the amount of tablings? MR. BREWER-I though last month. when we had this. the Harts were out of town. and Mr. Eggleston said he wanted to wait until they were in town. Now is Mr. Eggleston out of town? MR. HARLICKER-I'm not sure. Jim handed me a fax. and all it was requesting was that they be tabled until next week. There was no explanation. I don't believe there was an explanation. MR. STARK-That's the third time he tabled it. MR. BREWER-All right. Well. what does the Board want to do? Do you want to table it. or do you want to do whatever we're going to do. or? MR. LAPOINT-In a nutshell. what's the problem here? He needs to change something that exists? MR. BREWER-Well. the Body Shop down the street. Remember. we had the condition the 12 cars? MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. BREWER-He wants to put more parking here and more parking over here, and there was a question as to the paint fumes going into the restaurant. and he said he had an OSHA approved booth. and Mr. Hart said he didn't. and we were talking about permits and whether he needed them or he didn't need them. and they said they wanted to get back together and decide what we were going to do. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Can we send the Building Inspector over there to take a look at what he's got. to resolve that? MR. BREWER-I think it's not Queensbury standards. it is ECON's. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. and they contacted DEC. and DEC said that. yes, the permit is required. but based on his conversation with the applicant. it was. it seemed to. the guy from DEC. that their paint booth met their requirements. as far as paint booths go. and that issuing the permit would not be a problem. Has that permi t actually been issued yet? I don't know. MR. BREWER-All right. If we table this until next Thursday. whether anybody shows up or not. my opinion is. we'll do whatever the Board decides we're going to do. and I'm only one member, I can't decide for everybody else. MR. LAPOINT-Is there a problem with the paint odor at the restaurant? MRS. HART MRS. HART-Absolutely. MR. BREWER-The right-of-way. I guess he's had 35. 40 cars there at a time. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So he's not coming in on his own. MR. HARLICKER-He came in. he applied for modification to his previously approved site plan. to allow more parking of cars on the - 4 - --- property. That's what he's before the Planning Board for. MR. BREWER-And I think the reason for that is because the Planning Board requested him to. because there was in excess of 20 or 30 cars there. for the amount allowed. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-In excess of our motion? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Well. then lets send the enforcement officer over. MR. BREWER-They won't do anything. We tried that. Dave Hatin told me that he can't enforce it. MR. LAPOINT-Over and above what we put on our? MR. BREWER-We put a stipulation of 12 cars. and there was. I counted. at one time. 37. Other members of the Board have counted upwards of 40. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Then lets refer to our attorney and see what we can do then. right? MR. HARLICKER-It's my understanding. since he's before you right now with an application for a modification. nothing would really take place until a decision has been reached. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. but if he's not showing up. and the problem just continues to linger, there's no reason for him to show up. MR. HARLICKER-Well. he's showed up when the Harts weren't here. The Harts have showed up when they weren't here. It's just back and forth situation. MR. LAPOINT-All right. Lets give him another chance. but again. if he says he's coming and he doesn't show up and calls at the last minute. then we've got to talk to the attorney. because people have to live up to these. otherwise. what the public's got to realize. we won't give any more conditional approvals. and everybody gets the shaft. MRS. HART-Might I also add that on the front of the end of the building that faces the restaurant there's park no cars. and they have three inside the fenced area. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Well. we'll deal with it. MR. BREWER-Next Thursday night. be here. or we'll take action. Next Thursday. the 28th. It'll be the first item on the agenda. Thank you. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-93 RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: For modification to an existing site plan. to next Thursday's agenda. Duly adopted this 19th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE I WR-IA GERTRUDE YOUNG - 5 - OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE JOHN WALLACE TRUST LOCATION: BRAYTON LANE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE 3 LOTS TOTALING 2.30 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV # 79-1993 TAX MAP NO. 6-3-15.1. 32, 33 LOT SIZE: 2.30 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 20-1993, Gertrude Young, Meeting Date: October 19, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.3 acre parcel into two lots of 1.01 and 1.29 acres. The property is currentl y divided into three lots. The property is located at the end of Brayton Lane and is zoned WR- 1A. No new construction is proposed and there are three structures on the property: all of them seasonal. Two of the structures are located on the smaller lot. The applicant received variances for no frontage on a town road and lot width. PROJECT ANALYSIS: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this subdivision. The applicant revised the plat so that the second building on the smaller lot is properly labeled as a storage annex. Staff can recommend final approval of this subdivision." MR. HARLICKER-There's also an attached final resolution. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anybody on the Board that has any questions? Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Quick question, because I haven't been here in a while. are the resolutions now written for us? MR. HARLICKER-We try to get them done. It kind of speeds things up a little bit. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Do we read through them? MR. HARLICKER-If you have comments to make any changes, yes. Otherwise, we just. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1993 YOUNG, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its seconded by Roger Ruel: GERTRUDE adoption, The proposal is to subdivide 3 lots totaling 2.30 acres into 2 lots. Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve final subdivision plat for Gertrude Young file # 20-1993. Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you. Just one question, if I may. Scott, on the resolution. Point One, Let It Be Further Resolved, regarding any recreation fees, since this is a two lot subdivision, no development, etc., what's the Town's position on Recreation Fees for this? MR. HARLICKER-On that, there aren't any. because there's already structures on them, and because of the way that it's defined, assessable lots. MR. AUFFREDOU-So as far as appropriate fees go in this resolution, that's just standard, stock language that, in this instance, we've - 6 - complied with the filing fee, so we're all set? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-IA JAMES GIRARD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF CRONIN RD. 1.100' EAST OF BAY ROAD. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 5.81 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR (4) LOTS. DEC CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1 39- 1993 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-5.1. 5.8 LOT SIZE: 5.81 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JAMES GIRARD. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-1993. James Girard, Meeting Date: October 19, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.81 acre parcel into four lots. Three of the lots will be for single family homes, the fourth is proposed to be conveyed to the Town; it is adjacent to Halfway Brook and is mostly wetland. The buildable lots will all be approximately 1.1 acres in size and the parcel to be conveyed to the Town is to be 2.42 acres. The applicant received a variance to allow for lot 1 to have less than double the lot width. Lot two has an existing house on it: lots one and three are vacant. There will be a shared drive between lots two and three. The lots wi II have munic ipal sewer and water it's zoned SFR-IA. PROJECT ANALYSIS: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this subdivision. The applicant delineated the boundary as the Board requested. It has not been determined if the town will be willing to accept the land along Hal fway Brook. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends final approval of this subdivision." MR. HARLICKER-I don't know how the conversations have gone with the Recreation Commission regarding this issue. MR. BREWER-Did you have conversations with them, Jim? MR. GIRARD-About five weeks ago. I haven't heard the outcome yet. Mr. Hansen called me about it. MR. BREWER-I thought. didn't we make a resolution to ask the Town Board and the Recreation to accept it, and they were going to give comments back to us? It was a 30 day time period or something for them to give us comments? And ultimately it was our decision. but they had to do it, legally? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They've got recommendations they have to make. There's nothing in here regarding that issue. MR. BREWER-So we've heard nothing back from them? MR. HARLICKER-No. I haven't. I don't know if Jim has or not. MR. BREWER-All right. accept that land? What's our. what do we do if we want to MR. RUEL-Can we accept it for the Town Board? MR. BREWER-No. I think the decision, the way I understand it, was our decision, based on recommendations, and if there were no recommendations, we make our decision. and then ultimately the Town Board has to accept it because they're the only governing body. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. - 7 - -- MR. BREWER-I mean, legally. they have to take the land, but I mean, it's our decision, the way I understood it. MR. RUEL-It's more like a recommendation from us. final decision. They have the MR. BREWER-Right, recommendation. but they're supposed to go with our MR. RUEL-Unless we hear otherwise? MR. BREWER-Right. Well, maybe we can look into that. and lets not hold Jimmy up. We can find out, you'll find out from Jim about the land and stuff? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, the land rec, yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We're just going motion? If I'm going to do it, to leave anything about I want to be clear. the land out of the MR. BREWER-Well, I'd like make a recommendation to the subdivision at all. fees or not. to find out whether the Town is going to us. I mean, I don't think that effects That's just a matter of whether he pays MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So we can approve it, unconditionally, and then we'll let the land, the chips fall where they may. MR. BREWER-Yes. I think so. MR. GIRARD-Can I ask a question, before you go any further? What you're telling me, then, there's a possibility that the Town won't accept that fourth lot? Lets say. for instance, they don't want the land. Do I then have a four lot subdivision? MR. HARLICKER-Well, yes, right now it's a four lot subdivision. MR. GIRARD-Right. MR. BREWER-I think the easiest way out of that is if you just make a modification to adjust a lot line. It's pretty simple to do that, I think, isn't it? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-That would be the easy way out of it, rather than go back and make the three lot subdivision. Just open that back line up to that last lot. MR. GIRARD-Right. and Lot Three would actually encompass Lot Three and Four. MR. BREWER-Exactly, and I think you could do that in a matter of one meeting or whatever. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Still nothing about the land in the motion? MR. BREWER-No. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1993 JAMES GIRARD, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: The proposal is to divide 5.81 acre parcel into four lots. The - 8 - Town of Queensbury Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve final subdivision plat for James Girard. file # 13-1993. Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE I RC-15. WR-3A GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: NW CORNER OF ROUND POND & BIRDSALL ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A 18.9 ACRE PARCEL INTO 23 LOTS. LOTS WILL RANGE IN SIZE FROM 18.000 SQ. FT. TO 59.000 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 67-2-1 LOT SIZE: 18.9 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-1993 Final Stage, Guido Passarelli, Meeting Date: October 19, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 18.9 acre parcel into 23 lots. The 18.9 acre section is part of a total 82.57 acres controlled by the applicant. The property is located on Round Pond Road and Birdsall Road and is zoned RC-15. The subdi vi s ion includes the construction of a cuI de sac to service 15 lots, two lots will have access on Birdsall Road, six lots will have access on Round Pond Road. The lots will range in size from 18,665 square foot to approximately 1.3 acres. The property is not serviced by town water or sewer. However, the applicant is proposing to extend the water line to service the project and individual on site septic wi II be util ized. The pro j ect is ad j acent to the Round Lake Critical Environmental Area and, therefore, a Type I action for purposes of SEQRA. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The relocation of the bike path is the remaining issue to be resolved. As per Rist-Frost's letter of 9/21/93, the Board should make sure that all the required agency approvals have been given. Those agencies include Town Highway Department, Town Water Department, NYSDOT and Warren County DPW." MR. BREWER-Would you care to address Scott's notes? MR. STEVES-I think Scott misread something there. You don't mean DOT? MR. HARLICKER-No. I took those from, those were directly from Tom Yarmowich's letter. So, I'm not sure, I think he got those from, those were the, marked on the Preliminary plat as possible required. MR. BREWER-We can cross out DOT. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Leon. CLARK WILKINSON MR. WILKINSON-For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson from Haanen Engineering. As of last week. I attended the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, in an effort to see how open they were to using some Town fees for the bike path issue. They were an aff i rmati ve non committal. is how I'll say it. They seemed interested. said it's a viable alternative for Park Fees, however, they still have to determine costs related to such items. After that meeting. I spoke at length with Pat Beland, who's the County - 9 - DPW man in charge of the bike path itself. He indicated to me that, as far as funding, the only thing he was looking for from the town to help out is the possibility of some money to purchase a small sl ice of land from a Mr. Whe Ian. who owns a small short section of property in between the NiMo gas, which is actually the old trolley car tracks. that were abandon and turned over to him because he was an adjoining owner. and that's, the crossing that we would have to make would go across his property. At the current time, he's non committed. as far as working with the Town. He was approached a couple of times by Mr. Beland. He said, right now, he's not interested, but he's going to keep the talks open, and maybe something will happen in the future. In that light. I asked Mr. Beland, so how can we resolve this, and he asked me, resolve what. He felt that 17 cars being added to Birdsall Road, although does heavily increase the number of cars on Birdsall Road, he doesn't feel that that would make, that would be enough cars to have to comm i t an extra lane to it, because they're sti II only talking about 17 cars at peak times, and the peak times on the bike trail don't necessarily correspond to the peak times in the cars. He indicated that if the whole NiMo, with Mr. Whelan's property, we were able to do that, and go through the bike trail, he would commi t County forces to do it at County expense. to actually construct it, and the only thing he was looking at the Town to do is to kick in some money to purchase a little slice of land. Other than that, he said he can't hold our project up for it because it's not a big enough hazard to the bike trail itself. I asked him if he could put that in writing, or be here tonight to speak on our behalf. He indicated that he would see what he could do, but couldn't commit. MR. STEVES-We're also here tonight seeking conditional final approval. which is really a six month duration of time frame, due to the fact that we have other agencies we're dealing with, such as DOH and the Town Board, which should be included on your list. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, because of the water. MR. WILKINSON-Water District extension. dealing with Mr. Flaherty on that. We're in the process of MR. BREWER-Yes. I thought Tom Nace said he was going to get a letter from Tom Flaherty. MR. WILKINSON-We're in the process of submitting documents to actually start the process of a district extension. MR. BREWER-And the Highway Department, you do have a letter from Paul Naylor? I think you had a letter last time. MR. WILKINSON-I believe that was satisfied last month. If I'm not mistaken. your public hearing was left open, just for a note. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We can cross off the Town Highway Department. That was done in Preliminary. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Water needs, and Warren County DPW, what's that about? MR. STEVES-That would be for driveway permits. MR. WILKINSON-Along Round Pond Road. MR. STARK-If you can go that way with the bike path, fine. If you can't, fine. MR. BREWER-It would be a shame if you can't, really. - 10 - MR. WILKINSON-Again, at nothing to do with this Beland's hands to try to energetic to see if he can this point in time, it's really, project at all. It's merely in handle. He's very anxious and get that accomplished. has Pat very MR. BREWER-Is Mr. Lebowitz still working with you on that? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, he is, and he's working really for the Bicycling Coalition, and for, in Pat Beland's interest, and he indicated to me that they weren't going to put too much pressure on Mr. Whelan because they didn't want to turn sour, but they're just going to approach him in different manners, maybe have somebody from the Town approach him to see if it's a possibility at all. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then I guess I left the public hearing open. Is there anybody here that wishes to speak on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Do we want to make a motion to conditionally approve this? MR. LAPOINT-Okay, it would be Number One is conditional upon creation of a water district. MR. STEVES-If you wish, or just conditional approval, which means that we have six months in which to complete our efforts. MR. LAPOINT-Six months in which to complete the multi agency approval process. MR. BREWER-I would feel more comfortable, Ed, if you listed them individually. Then that way nothing gets lost. MR. LAPOINT-Process including. MR. STEVES-That will be done before we come back to you for your signature. MR. BREWER-Can I remember something from six months? Maybe. MR. STEVES-No, but the only, for instance, the driveway permit application isn't something that we would do before the subdivision approval. That would be something done after. It shouldn't be there, not for that particular, I mean. MR. BREWER-Then we'll have to put that down as a condition then. MR. STEVES-No. It should be there for our understanding that we have to go get a permit, but it's something, we don't want to ask for a permit until such time as we have a subdivision. MR. BREWER-If you have a subdivision, you can have a subdivision without a driveway permit, can't you? MR. STEVES-That's 'correct. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. BREWER-So we don't have to bother putting that down. MR. STEVES-That's good. Don't put it down. MR. WILKINSON-That's what we're saying. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. DPW is out. Okay. That would just leave it - 11 - conditional on creation of a water district. MR. RUEL-DOH approval. MR. LAPOINT-Wait. Do I need the water district or not? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Two, Department of Health approval for plans. subdi vi sion. DOH approval for subd i vi sion, implicit that it's all the septic stuff, right? the and septic that's MR. WILKINSON-That's correct. MR. STEVES-Septic and water both. MR. LAPOINT-Septic and water. So if I just say, DOH approval of subdivision, period. That's two. Three. MR. BREWER-The Town of Queensbury will issue the water district. MR. HARLICKER-The water. MR. STEVES-Yes. We'd have to get the extension from them, before the rest of it can be taking place anyway. MR. LAPOINT-So it's not a creation, it's an extension. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. WILKINSON-That's correct. MR. LAPOINT-That's only two now. MR. WILKINSON-Part of that water district is the Town Board, and that was stated separate I y, the Town Board, but that's all one action. MR. BREWER-Without one, you can't have the other. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I've got two. That's all? Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE_ SUBDIVISION NO. PASSARELLI, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: 4-1993 GUIDO moved for its The subdivision of 18.9 acre parcel lot into 23 lots. Lots will range in size from 18.000 square feet to 59,000 square feet, with the following six month conditional approval conditions: That the applicant complete the multi agency approval process, including, Number One, extension of the water district, and, Two, New York State Department of Health approval of the subdivision. Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR- 3A/SFR-3A HAL RAVEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE THE VISTAS ON WEST MT. RD. LOCATION: FROM AVIATION RD. GO SOUTH ON WEST MT. RD. TO 1ST ROAD RIGHT OPPOSITE PINEWOOD HOLLOW. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE EXISTING 2 LOTS INTO 3 LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 87-1-10.5. 10.6 LOT SIZE: 6.3 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - 12 - LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-This was tabled because of notification notices. MR. STEVES-That's right, and I've got them tonight. MR. BREWER-Okay. Very good. Scott, we have some notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 19-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE. Hal Raven, Meeting Date: October 19, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide two lots into three lots. The two lots that are to be subdivided are part of a previously approved subdivision: that subdivision was a seven lot subdivision known as the Berkeley Subdivision, approved on 2/6/80. The total acres that is proposed to be resubdivided is 6.334; lot 2 will be 2.93 acres, lot 3 will be 2.12 acres and the new lot. lot 8, will be 1.25 acres. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The property is split by two zones. Lot 3 is within the RR-3A zone; lot 2 is within the SFR-1A zone and lot 8 is split between the RR-3A and the SFR-1A zones. When the subdivision was originally approved the lots met the zoning requirements. However, the zoning has changed and lot three is now in the RR-3A zone and has become a preexisting nonconforming lot. Lot two is in compliance with the existing zoning requirements, and lot eight, which is the newly created lot, complies with the existing zoning. Even though part of lot eight is in the RR-3A zone, most of the lot is within the SFR-1A zone. Therefore, it was determined that it is within the SFR-1A zone. Therefore, it was determined that it should comply with the area requirements of the SFR-1A zone, which it does. This subdivision will not alter the approved street layout. However, the proposed location of houses for lots 2 and 3 will change. Access to the proposed house location on lot 3 and lot 2 will require traversing an intermittent stream. Any crossing of the stream should be done so that it does not interfere with it's flow. The proposed locations for the septic systems will also change. The original subdivision was subject to DEC and DOH approvals. These approvals were for a seven lot subdivision. Since it is now an 8 lot subdivision, the original permits may have to be amended to reflect the additional lot. The DOH and DEC are currently in receipt of the new plans. The Department of Health did not have any comment; staff is awaiting comment from DEC. RECOMMENDATION: There does not appear to be any significant issues related to this subdivision. Any decision regarding this subdivision should be conditioned on meeting any comments made by DEC." MR. BREWER-I guess I have a question. Scott. confused. This subdivision was approved when? You've got me MR. HARLICKER-1980. MR. BREWER-All right. I'm straightened out. MR. STEVES-For the record, my name is Leon Steves, and, Scott, I don't believe DEC is involved in the review at all. MR. HARLICKER-Well, they were on the original one. just mentioned that. That's why I MR. STEVES-Why were they involved in the original one? MR. HARLICKER-They've got a SPDES Permit. MR. STEVES-SPDES generally applies to anything over 1,00Ø gallons a day discharge. MR. HARLICKER-Well, they got one. MR. STEVES-Is that right? - 13 - MR. HARLICKER-We haven't heard anything back from them. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-So I'm not sure what their position is on this. MR. STEVES-We would certainly take care of that anyway. MR. BREWER-Any other comments, Leon? MR. STEVES-None. MR. BREWER-Anybody on the Board? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. As far as crossing the stream. you'll obviously install some type of highway grade, conduit. MR. STEVES-It's an intermittent stream. Yes. There's many ways of doing that. One would be put a half culvert over it. You'd have no disturbance whatsoever. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So if we put that in there that you do that, that's. because an intermittent stream is actually more problem than one that flows all the time. MR. STEVES-I suppose it is. That's true. The developer himself is also the builder, and he would be building his own homes up there. He would take care of it properly. It would only be detrimental to him. MR. LAPOINT-And you have no problem meeting any comments DOH or DEC comes up with? MR. HARLICKER-They replied back and said they didn't have any issues with it. MR. LAPOINT-So there's really no conditional conditions here at all, that I can see. MR. BREWER-Just the DEC, right? They haven't gotten back? MR. HARLICKER-We haven't heard from, they've had it for two months now, to comment. MR. BREWER-So, if they don't write back to you, then they have no comments? MR. HARLICKER-That's how ~ would take it. MR. LAPOINT-This can't possibly impact, the difference between two houses and three can't possibly have an impact. MR. HARLICKER-No. I just referred it to them as a courtesy, because they had issued a permit on it. MR. BREWER-Do we have to do a SEQRA on this? MR. STEVES-I think I made out a Short Form. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. wants to. I've got to let everybody speak that MR. LAPOINT-Why don't we open the public hearing. MR. BREWER-The public hearing was left open from last month. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN - 14 - ..,..-.-.- -- JIM ROBINSON MR. ROBINSON-Hello. My name's Jim Robinson. I live directly across the street from the subdivision, right at the bottom of the hill, and my question is not really, I don't really have a problem with it at all. I think it's a great thing. I'm concerned because I live right across the street, and what's happening is, as they clear more and more trees out of their subdivision, the runoff off the Mountain, which was pretty substantial to begin with, and my particular lot is set up to handle that, so that I don't get any water in my house or anything like that, but it's, since they started clearing trees, the runoff has increased rather dramatically, because there's not enough up there any more to stop it and slow it down and soak it up. I just hope that it's not done yet, in terms of the drainage that's going to take care of the extra runoff. I don't know what's finished and what isn't finished, in terms of drainage on this site, but there's a lot of it. There's a lot of water off the Mountain that, right now, is coming into my yard, whenever there's a big rain, and I get a swamp in my yard. MR. LAPOINT-Mr. Robinson, I'm one of your neighbors. I live on Pinewood Hollow Road. Whereabouts do you live, on the map? MR. ROBINSON-Directly across, you know the footbridge in the front yard, the raised ranch? MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. MR. ROBINSON-That's my house. MR. LAPOINT-You're kitty corner adjacent to my back yard. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, and in the spring. MR. LAPOINT-Steve Zurlo's old house? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. You've got it. MR. RUEL-The water comes across the road? MR. ROBINSON-It comes, the intermittent stream goes down, and then underneath through a culvert, and then through my yard, through another cuI vert, and then back through Dan's yard, and out, but what's happening is, since they started clearing things out up there, a lot more water comes through than before. It's not always bad. I'm just worried that it could get worse when they start clearing more trees out, and I'm sure everything's not done yet anyway, in terms of drainage on the site. MR. LAPOINT-Well. my guess, because I keyed in on that when you said that, because I think everything is done. I go up there and all your drywells are in and all that. all the drainage. MR. ROBINSON-I know they did a lot of work real recently, in the last couple of weeks. MR. LAPOINT-You'll have to ask the applicant, but I mean, all of your culverts along the road are all in. MR. STEVES-Yes. they are. Do you want me to comment on that? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, please. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, because I know they just recently did a lot. MR. STEVES-All the infrastructure was put in, all the drainage was taken care of. That was last year. and then it was set, and then this year he went in, NiMo did, and put in their boxes, and tore it up again, if you will, not the drainage, but tore up the dirt, and - 15 - -- -- more dirt flowed down the road. After which, he had it stabilized, not only the banks, but he had to go back in and clean up the cuI verts, and clean up the catch basins, so that they cou Id be certified as adequate before the Town takes them over. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So things did change recently? HR. STEVES-Yes. They were up there the past month. MR. ROBINSON-The last few weeks, they've been over there a lot. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, see, I've always, being in that neighborhood, I built that house, my house, 10 years ago. I always wondered why in hell people would have a creek through their yard, like you do, and Dan. MR. STEVES-He's probably got it properly done, where his neighbor put a pool, one of his neighbors. MR. ROBINSON-Dan did, yes. MR. STEVES-Put a pool right in the middle of the creek bed. MR. LAPOINT-Well, there's another lot across the street from that that it runs right through the house there. MR. ROBINSON-My basement and everything stays, I've got a raised ranch, and there's no water there, but my concern was, that's the way it is now, and I can handle, like, three feet of water, and not get anything in my house, but I was just worried about. as they take more and more trees out of there, there's going to be more runoff off the Mountain. because it's not going to get stopped, and I'm just hoping that they have adequate. MR. LAPOINT-I don't want water in my yard either. MR. STEVES-The engineer left. I'm sorry, but last year, when you reviewed this plan on that basis, Tom Nace did the engineering on it to assure you that the amount of flow off that Mountain in the future won't be any more than it is before. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I remember we did that at the Preliminary, the real Vista subdivision. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, again, we approved that, so hoping that this was just a temporary disturbance. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. ROBINSON-Then I only have one other question. Does anybody know who dug up my front yard, and when they're going to fix it? MR. LAPOINT-That's Niagara Mohawk. They're putting gas through. MR. ROBINSON-All right. They made a mess of it. MR. LAPOINT-They've got to easement through your yard. yard. re-do it. It's actually, it's an It probably isn't really even your MR. ROBINSON-Well, the City of Glens Falls has an easement for a water main through my yard, but NiMo doesn't. MR. BREWER-N6. They would get a permit from the Highway Department, because the Highway Department has an easement probably 25 foot from the center of the road, each way. So they would give NiMo a permit to go down that easement and put the gas line in. - 16 - - MR. ROBINSON-Right. Yes. I know, road, I don't really own it 25 feet like, from the center of the in, or whatever it is. MR. BREWER-Right, whether it's a County highway. MR. ROBINSON-But I was hoping that out of the goodness of their hearts they would put it back the way it was. MR. BREWER-They will. They have to. MR. ROBINSON-They do? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. Good. They should. MR. BREWER-Is that it? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. That's all. Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-We'll go through the SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 19-1993, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the at Preliminary Stage, and Planning Board an 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 environment.al 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 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer - 17 - NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make motion? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. It doesn't look like it's going to be conditional on anything, does it? I mean, is that the way we left it, or do we want to leave it conditional on? MR. BREWER-I would say not, because DEC hasn't gotten back to them in two months. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1993 HAL RAVEN, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: The proposal is to subdivide an existing 2 lots into 3 lots. Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 42-93 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA ROBERT JACOBS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: BOX 356. SUNNYSIDE RD. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 18' X 22' FAMILY ROOM DOWNSTAIRS AND A 13'6" X 22' ART ROOM UPSTAIRS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 10-13-93 TAX MAP NO. 54- 6-18 LOT SIZE: 10.18 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 TODD DELSIGNORE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-The public hearing was left open. We have a letter, is this from Mr. Jacobs, that we just received? MR. DELSIGNORE-Yes, it is. That's from Robert Jacobs. MR. BREWER-Do you want to read that, Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Do you mind if we read this in, Mr. Jacobs? MR. DELSIGNORE-Sure. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "One of the most important reasons why we have planned the addition to the apartment was to provide a place for my brother Kenneth. He has had a series of strokes approximately three years ago and his condition has shown less progress than we would have hoped for. At present he requires assistance twenty four hours of the day, which involves assistance bathing, and with all other personal needs. For example, he cannot walk the one hundred or so feet from the apartment to the golf course without assistance. We are very much concerned that if he would fall he might break a leg or arm or worse. During the month of April this year in Florida he had another attack that left him unable to walk for almost two weeks, spending approximately four days in the hospital. When he was released, the doctor prescribed nursing care and physical therapy at home. With this extra new space, it would offer him more room both for exercise and for additional physical therapy if that becomes necessary. Also. he would have the opportunity to lie on the porch when he was unable to spend the hours he now spends sitting in a chair at the golf course. We plan to add air conditioning to the room because of the special problem he has breathing. When I cook at the apartment the fumes from the - 18 - -- cooking cause him to have difficulty breathing. My brother Ken is fairly severely handicapped. He has difficulty seeing due to the effects of the strokes. At the same time, because of diabetes his eye sight is beginning to suffer. He has had cataracts removed from both eyes, and has received special treatment for complications arising from diabetes. With all of these problems, I am concerned about the future when his condition might get much worse. For this reason I felt that the addition of a sun-room, away from the rest of the apartment would offer him a place to stay where I could keep a close eye on him if it becomes necessary for him to have to spend more time in the apartment that he now does. Robert D. Jacobs" MR. HARLICKER-We also got two letters from neighbors regarding the broom ball. "During the past two years, broom hockey has been played during winter months on the golf course property adjacent to where I live. I would like to know if that is permitted use within the current zoning for this area. And, if it is a permitted use, what are the Town requirements for parking for such an activity? I would appreciate an early reply. Thank you. Sincerely, Gertrude D. Van Dusen" "Dear Mr. Martin: We have recently been made aware that it is in violation of Town Zoning to have Broomball Games held at the Par 3 Golf Course on Sunnyside Road. We were extremely happy to have gained this knowledge as we live next to the Par 3 Golf Course and have had to endure the excessive noise. traffic and extremely hazardous parking conditions over the past few years. During these Broom Ball games, the parking conditions along both sides of the road make it very difficult for vehicles to pass through. not to mention if an Emergency Vehicle needed to access the road. Dwellings next to and across from the Golf Course have a very difficult time accessing their driveways. We would appreciate your attention to this matter to ensure that the proper individuals are made aware that they are in violation of Town Zoning, before they begin their "Broomball Season". Please correspond regarding the status of this matter. Respectfully yours, John and Mary Ellen Reese" MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that it? MR. HARLICKER-Just, Warren County reviewed it said that it had "No County Impact". MR. BREWER-Was Mr. Jacobs unable to attend? MR. DELSIGNORE-Yes, he is. He can't leave Ken alone. So he has to stay home, and he's catching a flight first thing in the morning for Florida. He has a winter residence in Florida. So, he'll be leaving tomorrow morning. MR. BREWER-I thought last month we discussed this, he was going to come back so we could address the issues of the Broomball and the use of the studio, and the parking. MR. DELSIGNORE-His brother, I believe, addressed. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, he spoke with Jim on this. MR. BREWER-But I thought we asked him to come back here? MR. HARLICKER-I was just saying that, it's my understanding that what they're going to do to alleviate this problem is when the Broomball season does come up, they do have ample room to provide parking. It's just that they weren't plowing off enough area to do it. So that's what they're going to do is make sure that there's enough room on site to deal with the excess parking that would go on when these activities occur at the Golf Course. MR. BREWER-Okay. What about the use of the studio? Did he speak to you on that issue? - 19 - MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. DELSIGNORE-The use of the studio is strictly for his drawing. He's a retired art teacher, and he's using that for strictly himself. He doesn't plan on having classes. It's not open to the public. MR. BREWER-Okay. The only reason I mention that is because it was as concern from the neighbors that he was going to run a business there, and there was going to be people on top of the people there, in and out, in and out, in and out. MR. DELSIGNORE-Like I stated before, I think maybe art room was a bad word to use for it. Actually all it is is an upstairs room where he's going to be drawing. MR. RUEL-Is the art room and the sun room the same? MR. DELSIGNORE-The art room is upstairs. It's two story. Twenty- two downstairs, I have the elevations there, if anybody would like to see them. MR. RUEL-The sun room is downstairs? MR. DELSIGNORE-The sun room is downstairs. MR. RUEL-I see. Okay. MR.-And you have 13'6" upstairs. MR. RUEL-You'd get a lot more sun upstairs. MR. DELSIGNORE-There's a lot of windows downstairs. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anybody here from the public who'd like to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-We have to do a SEQRA, Short Form on this? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 42-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT JACOBS. the proposal is to construct an 18' x 22' family room downstairs and a 13'6" x 22' art room upstairs, 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 - 20 - 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 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I think I've got one condition here, which is to plow to accommodate Broomball parking on site. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and, Two, that no art classes or assembly use be conducted in the studio. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-93 ROBERT JACOBS, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: The proposal is to construct an 18 foot by 22 foot family room downstairs and a 13 foot 6 inch by 22 foot art room upstairs, with the following conditions: One, that the applicant plow to accommodate broom ball parking on site, and, Two, that no art classes or commercial or business use be made of the art room upstairs. Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan SEQRA REVIEW: SEQRA REVIEW: GARY R. CARDINALE - RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF. MR. BREWER-Scott, do you want to read your notes? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 76-1993, Gary Cardinale, Meeting Date: October 19, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking variances to allow for the construction of a single family house on an undersized lot. The property is zoned RR-5A and is 2.21 acres in area. They also require relief from the section 179-30 C which requires double the lot width for lots on collector roads. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff reviewed - 21 - -- Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment submitted with this project and offers the following comments: 1. Will the proposed action resul t in a physical change to the project si te? The proposal will result in a physical change to the project site. The granting of the variances will allow for the construction of a single family house on a vacant piece of property. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designate as protected? The proposal will not affect any protected water body. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? The proposal will not affect any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The proposal will not affect surface or groundwater. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The proposal will have a slight affect on drainage flow or surface water runoff. It will be slightly altered as a result of the new house. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? The project should not affect any non-threatened or non- endangered species. 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The project should not affect any agricultural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not impact any aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any site of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open space or recreational opportunities? The action should not have an adverse affect on open space or recreational opportunities. 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation system? The pro j ect should not effect the transportation system. 15. Wi II proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel and energy? The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? There should not be objectionable noise, odors or vibrations as a result of this project. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The project should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. RECOMMENDATION: The pro j ect doe s not appear to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment; therefore, the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." MR. BREWER-You've got a Short Form attached here. Wait a minute. He's got a full. All right. Never mind. There's a letter from APA in here, also. MR. LAPOINT-What do they have to say? MR. BREWER-"When I visited your property described as being in the Town of Queensbury Tax Map 27-2-1.1 last year and delineated the edge of the wetland with blue flagging. At that time, it was evident the wetland bisected the property. The wetland formed a fringe along the intermittent stream and also bisects the property. My understanding is that you would have my flagged location placed on a survey map so it would be a record of the boundary at this point, and the time exists so that you could plan for the construction of your home. The wetlands is part of a larger wetland that extends off your property and is greater than one acre in size. Therefore, the wetland is jurisdictional to the Agency. Any activity in the wetland or close enough so as to pose a threat or adverse impact to the wetland will require a permit from the Agency. The outfall of the septic system must be at least 100 feet - 22 - -- from the edge of the wetland. not hesitate to contact me. Project Analyst" If you have any questions, please do Sincerely. Daniel M. Spada APA MR. LAPOINT-Did you show the flagged boundary on the map? MR. CARDINALE-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Good. MR. CARDINALE-Are you folks in receipt of one of those? I think, George, you've got one? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We've got them. and you're discharging at least 100 feet away? Your septic system is at least 100 feet away? MR. CARDINALE-My name is Gary Cardinale. Just to give you an overview, we originally wanted to build on the back of the land for pri vacy, but when we were informed of the APA impact, and the buffer zones created by their wetland setbacks, we realized the difficulties that we would incur. So we changed the location of the house, more forward. near the road, to eliminate any conflict with what we hope is any jurisdiction. MR. LAPOINT-And your septic goes out the side of the house, out towards the front? MR. CARDINALE-Correct. MR. LAPOINT-And is easily 100 feet away. MR. CARDINALE-More than. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Great. Now, Mr. Chairman. I've got a quick question. We have to acknowledge to who that we want to be lead agent? It says here, resolution acknowledging that we are lead agent. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And then we go through the Long Form. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And this is not a site plan, or does he have to come back later for site plan? MR. HARLICKER-No. It's just for variance. MR. LAPOINT-I understand. Good. MR. BREWER-Do we have an acknowledgement, Scott, typed, or not? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, there should be a resolution. MR. LAPOINT-No, not in my package. I just make it up, right? MOTION THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD IS INDEED THE LEAD AGENT FOR THE SEQRA REVIEW OF THE GARY R. CARDINALE PROPOSED HOME, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan NANCY LIEPER - 23 - -- MRS. LIEPER-Can I ask a question? MR. BREWER-Sure. MRS. LIEPER-My name is Nancy Lieper. said. is it 30 days from tonight, previous meetings? I'm a sponsor. What you just or 30 days from the last, MR. LAPOINT-People have 30 days to tell us. MRS. LIEPER-That already happened, though, right? MR. HARLICKER-That happened. MR. LAPOINT-We're just acknowledging it. MRS. LIEPER-Okay. I just wanted to make that clear. MR. BREWER-We're just acknowledging lead agency status. can go on and do the SEQRA. Now, we RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. AV76-1993, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: a home, and is presently before the Planning Board an SEQRA Review for Gary R. Cardinale. to construct 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: Adirondack Park Agency 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 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan - 24 - '---" NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 46-93 TYPE: UNLISTED DOUGLAS & HOLLY COON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: AT THE DEAD END OF BAYBERRY DR. & ON MEADOWBROOK RD. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 3.240 SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED. TAX MAP NO. 60-2-3.32 LOT SIZE: +16 ACRES SECTION 179-18 DOUGLAS COON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 46-93, Douglas & Holly Coon, Meeting Date: October 19, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,240 square foot storage building. The building will be on a 16 acre parcel located on Bayberry Drive. The property is zoned MR-5. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A., the project is in compliance with the other requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located. In accordance with Section 179-38 B.. the project was reviewed in order to determine if it is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, and it was found to be compatible with the zone in which it is to be located and should not be a burden on supporting public services. In accordance with Section 179-38 C., the proposal was reviewed regarding its impact on highways. The project will have no significant impact on the road system. In accordance with Section 179-38 D., the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arrangement. size. design and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and signs: The storage building will be located behind the existing building and will not have a negative impact on the site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls: This is not an issue. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading: This is not an issue. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: This is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities: The project will not impact or require additional stormwater drainage facilities. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities: This is not an issue. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other sui table plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands. including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants: This is not an issue. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: This is not an issue. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The building will be located on a flat relatively high part of the property so that ponding, flooding or erosion will not be a problem. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this site plan." MR. BREWER-Okay. comments at all? Is there anybody on the Board that has any MR. RUEL-I had a couple of questions. Why does the name "Hughes" appear on the map? MR. COON-He had the property that we purchased from him 13 years ago. MR. RUEL-It was never changed, never made the change on here? This is your property, right? - 25 - ----- MR. COON-Right. It's our property. MR. RUEL-But it's under somebody else's name. MR. COON-Well, no, it's under our name now. MR. RUEL-Not here. MR. COON-No, not on this particular parcel. I just grabbed this, and it seemed to be the easiest thing I had to reduce to show what I wanted to do. MR. RUEL-Okay. My second question, could you give some description of the building, the height, is it completely enclosed or partially open? MR. COON-No. I plan to completely enclose it. partial second level for hay storage. I plan to have a MR. RUEL-Not the whole building, just part of it? HR. COON-Right. MR. RUEL-So it'll be approximately how high then. 20 feet? MR. COON-Yes, somewhere around, a regular two story, 20 feet. MR. RUEL-And it will look a lot like the existing building that's next to it? MR. COON-It'll be a little bit higher than that, but it'll be probably. MR. RUEL-A little bit higher? It'll be attached to that building? HR. COON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here that would like to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-We've got to do a SEQRA. MR. HARLICKER-Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 46-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DOUGLAS & HOLLY COON. to construct a 3.240 sq. ft. storage shed, 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. - 26 - --', 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 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-93 DOUGLAS & HOLLY COON, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: To construct a 3,240 square foot storage shed. Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan SITE PLAN NO. 47-93 TYPE: UNLISTED LEEMILT'S/GETTY PETROLEUM OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: NC-10 LOCATION: INTERSECTION OF DIXON & AVIATION ROAD PROPOSAL TO USE EXISTING BAYS FOR CARPET BUSINESS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV #55-1993 TAX MAP NO. 91-1-1 LOT SIZE: .21 ACRES SECTION: 179-25 R.J. SCHNEIDER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 47-93, Leemilt's/Getty Petroleum, Meeting Date: October 19, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to utilize an existing structure for a gas station, carpet store, copy business an apartment. The property is located at the intersection of Dixon Road and Aviation Road and is zoned NC-10. The applicant received variances to allow the four uses on the site and to allow 10 parking spaces instead of the required 20. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A.. the project is in compliance with the other requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located. In accordance with Section 179-38 B., the project was reviewed in order to determine if it is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, and - 27 - '---' ~ --....--' it was found to be compatible with the zone in which it is to be located and should not be a burden on supporting public services. In accordance with Section 179-38 C.. the proposal was reviewed regarding its impact on highways. Because of the project's location at the intersection of Aviation Road and Dixon Road the project will have an impact on the road network. Visibility is a problem at this intersection. Because of the angle at which the roads intersect and the placement of objects that obstruct vision, sight distances from this property are less than desirable. Winter, when the snow piles up. visibility is hindered even more. There is also the problem of cut through traffic. Drivers use the rear parking area as a means to avoid going through the intersection of Dixon and Aviation. In accordance with Section 179-38 D., the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arrangement. size. design and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and signs: There is no new construction proposed. Applicant is utilizing the existing building. The applicant should apply for the necessary permits for the existing signs. The effectiveness of the directional signs could be improved by relocating them closer to the proposed entrance and exit of the parking area. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls: Vehicular traffic access is a concern. The Dixon and Aviation Road intersection, the limited sight distance, and cut through traffic all combine to make for a dangerous situation regarding traffic access. The applicant has to address how they plan on restricting cut through traffic and enforcing the one way traffic. The areas on the plat that are delineated as striped areas should be raised barriers or planters in order to control the through traffic and to encourage proper use of the parking lot. A Do Not Enter and No Through Traffic signs would also assist in appropriate uti I ization of the parking area. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The applicant received a variance to allow for ten parking spaces where 20 were required. The spaces are to be located at the rear of the building and angled so that they are accessed by entering Aviation Road and exiting onto Dixon Road. The parking area is in need of resurfacing and the delineation of the parking has to be explained. The existing free standing on the north side of the building appears to be where the handicapped parking space is propo sed. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: Pedestrian access should not be a problem. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities: There are no changes proposed to the exi sting drainage faci 1 i tie s. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; There are no changes proposed regarding water and sewage disposal. 7. The adequacy. type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other suitable plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands. including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants: No new landscaping is proposed. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants: This is not an issue. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. This is not an issue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board take a hard look at traffic access to and from the site. The accessibility and parking problems are compounded in the winter when snow piles up." MR. BREWER-Okay. Anybody on the Board? MR. RUEL-I have a question. I see parking spaces for 10 cars, but I don't see any indication of your marking these. striping the areas. It's not indicated anywhere that it'll be marked areas. as - 28 - --- handicapped, and where the other two cars are, and all the diagonal ones. It's shown on the map here, but there's no indication as they will be striped. MR. SCHNEIDER-For the record, my name is R.J. Schneider, of Dalton, Massachusetts. I'm here tonight as an agent for Getty Petroleum. It's true what you're saying. I just noticed that myse If. The intent is to do the marking on the new pavement. So we would include that on a site plan. Does that answer the question? MR. RUEL-The other question I had is that you intend to enlarge that dumpster by 10 feet in length? MR. SCHNEIDER-Yes. MR. RUEL-And that 10 feet will be right on the property line then? You're not going to widen it, you're just going to lengthen it? MR. SCHNEIDER-That's correct, and that was requested by the Zoning Board, to allow for a proper space for the long carpet rolls, some place to store them until they wer~ removed. MR. RUEL-I see. What are they, cardboard rolls? MR. SCHNEIDER-Yes. They're those long, you know, they're probably 15 feet long, and there was a question about what was going to be done about keeping them out of the yard, rolling around, I suppose. MR. RUEL-Now, where that gas station is shown there, there are three tank fills, and there's a dotted line area. Is that where the tank is? MR. SCHNEIDER-That's the location of the tank farm. MR. RUEL-Is that one large tank in there? MR. SCHNEIDER-No. There'll be, there's, I would imagine there's two. I would imagine there's two in there. MR. RUEL-You can't tell from this. I was just wondering is there's any stipulation, or any zoning requirement for the proximity of gas tanks, underground gas tanks, and businesses. MR. BREWER-I don't know that there is, Roger. The only thing I can think of is, like. Stewarts, Cumberland Farms, they all have them underneath the parking lot, right in front of the store. So I can't imagine that, any distance has to be. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. They're DEC permitted, underground storage tanks. So they've got to meet State requirements. MR. RUEL-The only new construction, then, would be internally, right. the walls and doors? MR. SCHNEIDER-That's right. MR. RUEL-The outside is essentially the same, then? MR. SCHNEIDER-Except for, we're required by the Zoning Board to repave the back of the lot. I don't know if you gentlemen are all aware of this property. MR. RUEL-Yes. What do you propose to do with the snow that accumulates in that parking area in the winter? MR. SCHNEIDER-Well, it's going to be removed. MR. RUEL-You're going to move it out of the area? MR. SCHNEIDER-Yes. They're going to allow us a small snow shelf up - 29 - It -'- "'-' -"..,.--~- in the point there, and as soon as it gets three feet high, it has to be removed, but in a large storm, it would be trucked right away. MR. RUEL-Do you think you'll have any success traffic from cutting through your parking lot, happening? in stopping the as presently is MR. SCHNEIDER-I visited the site quite a bit, and to tell you the truth, it's usually the little old ladies who are cutting through there. I've run into a few people cutting through there, and I really believe, it's my belief that if you put some signs up, at least it'll slow it down. Certain people are always going to cut through, but if they see that. MR. RUEL-Well. the signs will only help in one direction. Right now you have no signs, and you can cut through either way. MR. SCHNEIDER-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Now you propose to put signs up, which will limit the cutting through in one direction only. MR. SCHNEIDER-Right. Well, if you're familiar with the area, there would be no real reason to cut through coming down Aviation Road, because you could have just taken that right. I mean, if you were going to cut over to Dixon Road, you would take that right at the corner. MR. RUEL-Yes, you're right. MR. SCHNEIDER-But going this way, you would stop that traffic. This is the way I've always seen the traffic cutting through, is from Dixon to Aviation. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. Good luck. MR. LAPOINT-I'm there all the time, and the craters they have out in that parking lot certainly stop anybody, but little old ladies, from driving through. MR. RUEL-Yes, statement here? patched, right? but there's a statement here. Did you read this Pot holes and existing blacktop to be repaired and Clean up loose materials. etc., etc. MR. SCHNEIDER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-They've got some monsters in that parking lot. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. SCHNEIDER-I think one thing that should be noted is that the Zoning Board only gave us a one year conditional approval, to see if this parking arrangement would work. So it isn't like, if we get Planning Board approval. this is good for life. If this tenant moves, the carpet business tenant moves, we would also have to go again to the Zoning Board for a Use Variance. So we're really restricted to a one year at the most. and then if this tenant decides that, either business is going well, or not going well, he moves out. We'd have to ~o again before the Zoning Board. MR. RUEL-Is our approval predicated on the one year conditional? If we grant an approval, is it predicated on the one year conditional approval, and therefore, would limit our approval to one year also? Does it? MR. BREWER-Well, I think we're giving him approval for something different than the Zoning Board did. The Zoning Board allowed him 10 spaces rather than 20. - 30 - ~ <~ MR. SCHNEIDER-Yes. MR. BREWER-That's the variance that they got. and we have no right to give him a variance or not give him a variance. We're giving him a site plan approval for the carpet business only. MR. RUEL-Only. Not what's on this map here? MR. SCHNEIDER-Well, yes, no. He's correct. What we're here for is si te plan approval to allow the carpet business, because we're changing the business, we're here for site plan approval for that, but what Planning Board is probably concerned mostly about is the parking arrangement and the traffic arrangement, and I'm just trying to say that your concern seemed to be, good luck, and I agree. Who knows what will really work, but at least it'll give us a year to see if this works. If it doesn't, we'll have to come back with something else. MR. RUEL-Okay, then our resolution should be limited to just that. MR. LAPOINT-Well, it is, by effect, by the Area Variance. MR. BREWER-By the Variance. MR. LAPOINT-So I wouldn't compound it by doing anything on ours. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-I use the printing card business there. same owner? Is that the MR. RUEL-Yes, Jaime's the same owner. HR. LAPOINT-Yes. both. They look like they go back and forth between MR. SCHNEIDER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now, it's obviously retail, people come in and buy carpet, and it's somewhat of a showroom, but carpet showrooms are a little bit different than your typical retail outlet, where you may have, yes, you have three people there, they're extremely busy. I guess that's what I'm getting at, in terms of the parking and people driving in. I get my business cards there, and it's very easy in and out, other than the pot holes. MR. SCHNEIDER-These aren't really traffic generators. I mean, if there was an ice cream stand here, these people would be going in and out. in and out, and in and out, but I've been there quite a bi t, researching this pro j ect, and I can almost always walk in there and talk to the girl or Jaime himself. They might be on the phone, but very seldom is there two customers waiting there. MR. LAPOINT-I find the biggest hazard, actually, to be people driving along parallel to Aviation Road in Sokol's parking lot. So you are going to put up a highway guard rail to prevent that? MR. SCHNEIDER-That's correct. Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Because that seems to me to be what, in reality, internal to this parking, that people are doing. They're driving across parking spaces. blind to the left side, where the Coke machine is. MR. SCHNEIDER-That's right. MR. LAPOINT-And people going the other way. Now this railing will go, the guard rail will go your entire length of your property out, and that'll chop that off? - 31 - '-- -- MR. SCHNEIDER-Yes. I'll also stop. the supermarket has a trash removal truck come. and it usually parks on this property. I don't know if you've noticed that. and that causes a lot of parking problems. too. So that'll. they'll have to figure out their own end to that. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now I notice where you've got the handicapped parking now is where my guess is the attendant. because he's the only one there 6: 30 in the morning. parks his car now. The attendant will have to park some place else. MR. SCHNEIDER-That's correct. He knows that. MR. LAPOINT-And right now I see there's just a massive amount of carpet in there anyway. It's just not shown. Do you guys store carpet. or? MR. SCHNEIDER-Well. what it is is they have the like the pages of carpet out front that people come in. they select their carpet. and then they order it. they ship it there. They hold it there for maybe a couple of days until they can bring it to the house. and it's used maybe as a weigh station. It's not really a storage area. MR. LAPOINT-So actually the showroom is 10 leafs of books of carpet? MR. SCHNEIDER-That's correct. Right. MR. RUEL-The overhead garage doors will remain there? MR. SCHNEIDER-Yes. It makes it easier for delivery. MR. LAPOINT-And you'd have no problem. I see you've got entrance only. and I'm not saying I want this. but I mean. considering no through flow. what did the sign say? MR. BREWER-No through traffic. MR. LAPOINT-Do you other guys think they need that. or just the one way would be enough? No through traffic is a little white sign. correct? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-What might also help is one of those. do not enters. MR. SCHNEIDER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Again. I see they have an exit only sign on one side. actually two of them. MR. SCHNEIDER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-That ought to be enough. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And then entrance only sign. I mean. who cares. maybe that should be a no through. I mean. entrance only doesn't make sense. right? MR. SCHNEIDER-Well. I believe that's what the Zoning Board's requiring. So. if you'd like. we could add another one. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. No through traffic there. MR. SCHNEIDER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-That's it for me. - 32 - "',- -.-'...-' MR. BREWER-Okay. I've got a couple of questions. I guess maybe I'm confused a little bit. The carpet business is in the back of the building. call the back of the building. The handicapped. entrance to the or what I would MR. SCHNEIDER-That's right. MR. BREWER-Why is the handicapped parking space out on the road? Why wouldn't that be closer to the entrance to the carpet business. and give that parking space just a regular parking space? MR. SCHNEIDER-Well. because it's. the honest reason would be that because a handicapped is wider. if you would put it any other spot. you would have to remove another parking space. MR. RUEL-You couldn't get two of them? MR. SCHNEIDER-Right. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm getting at is. if there's a car parked where it says three cars. then there's a car parked where it says entrance only one way sign. how is this guy going to get to the carpet store? He's going to have to go out onto Aviation Road and come all the way around. or he's going to have to go out onto Dixon Road. It doesn't make sense. MR. LAPOINT-Well. there is a sidewalk there. if you get rid of the whiskey barrels. right? MR. SCHNEIDER-That's correct. MR. LAPOINT-Eliminate whiskey barrels. MR. BREWER-You could put it there. but I just want to make sure that they have access to the building. MR. SCHNEIDER-I understand. Yes. MR. RUEL-How about here? There's a little space here. What about that space? MR. BREWER-Where it says three cars? MR. RUEL-Right here. He's got that much right here. access, right? MR. STARK-Can't we just say put it in the back. and we can eliminate the parking spot? It eliminates the parking spot. MR. BREWER-Yes. but then he's got a variance. He's required to put 10 spaces. You can't make him change the variance. MR. SCHNEIDER-There would be alternative routes. He could go through the gas station. because there is a door there that goes into the bay area. I understand what you're saying. MR. BREWER-Why don't we eliminate the whiskey barrels. like Ed said. and let them come around the side of the building. MR. SCHNEIDER-Sure. You want to relocate them somewhere. or just eliminate them? MR. BREWER-Whatever you want to do. MR. LAPOINT-Just so long as they're not on the sidewalk. all. That's MR. BREWER-Just so they have a clear path to get through there. Okay. Scott. you mentioned raised planters. Where did you think you'd like to see them? - 33 - ---- ,----- ---./ MR. HARLICKER-Well. something to, I was thinking that if you put in. other than just striping, if you raise it up, somehow, where the striping area is, it would control through traffic through there. It would also make sure that people use the parking facility as it was designed, as opposed to just pulling in there randomly. MR. LAPOINT-You mean like in these triangular spots, have them raised? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. To me, people hit those. I mean, I'd rather, it's so tight, I'd rather be able to maneuver a little bit over a striped area, than have a six inch planter there. MR. SCHNEIDER-If I might say, the engineers at Getty were very concerned about putting these upraised because of that problem of people nicking them, especially older people pulling in, and they don't quite pull around long enough. and they jam their car, and then they go inside and they say, who's going to pay for this. MR. BREWER-Okay. public hearing. this project? I guess that's it for me. I guess I'll open the Is there anybody here that wishes to speak about PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-We've got a Short Form. MR. HARLICKER-Short, yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS FOUND RESOLUTION NO. 47-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LEEMILT'S/GETTY PETROLEUM. the proposal is to use existing bays for carpet business., 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 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 - 34 - ''"-- _/_~ 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 19th day of October. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-93 LEEMILT'S/GETTY PETROLEUM, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: The proposal is to use existing bays for carpet business, with the following conditions: One, that the applicant remove the whiskey barrel planters along the north side of the building, along the sidewalk. The purpose is to allow handicap access to the building via the sidewalk along the north side of the building. and that the entrance into the bay area of the building be handicap accessible, and, Two, that the applicant add an additional sign to the entrance only that says no through traffic. and. Three, that the applicant limit snow accumulation on site to the snow shelf area designated as no more than three feet high, on the corner of the site, at the point. Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DONALD KRUGER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: FROM WEST MT. RD. GO EAST ON BONNER DR. FIRST RIGHT ONTO SHALLOW CREEK ROAD. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE 2 EXISTING LOTS INTO 3 LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SHALLOW CREEK. PHASE I & 11 TAX MAP NO. 75-1-23.9. 23.10 LOT SIZE: 7.7 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 23-1993, Donald Kruger, Meeting Date: October 19, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.51 acre parcel into two lots and enlarge a third. The two lots will be 4.4 acres and 1.01 acres in size and the third lot will be widened by 20 feet. The property was part of the Shallow Creek subdivision which was approved in 1987. The property has municipal water available and on site septic systems will be utilized. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The proposed one acre lot has some severe developmental limitations: 1. There is a stream that cuts through the heart of the lot. When the required 75 foot setback is overlaid on the map, it is apparent that in order to build on the lot a variance from the stream setback regulations, Section 179-60 of the Zoning Code is required. 2. It would also be impossible to place a septic system on the lot and maintain the 100 foot separation from the absorption field and the stream. 3. The proposed location for the house and septic would not work. Both are within the setback of the stream and the septic would not - 35 - '--- -----'" work. Both are wi thin the setback of the stream and the septic system is on one side of the stream and the house on the other. 4. The odd shape of the lot also creates a situation that is undesirable. The usable or buildable area of the lot is limited because of the elongated triangular shape. RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot recommend approval of this application until the above issues have been satisfactorily addressed. It does not seem prudent to allow the creation of a lot that cannot be built on without the granting of variances." (DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH THE TAPE EVERYTHING REGARDING KRUGER BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS LOST.) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BARBARA CALVERT MRS. CALVERT-Barbara Calvert. Originally, when we were at these meetings in 1987. this \<lhole back triangle, all of this was supposed to be a green area which they gave him that variance so that he could build his homes on such small lots. These lots weren't even legal in 1987. They were supposed to be an acre back then. This green area is very important in helping balance things and breaking up the green area. which further destroys the character and the ecology of this neighborhood, plus this stream, this intermittent stream that he says is dry all the time, we can show you pictures of it flowing. and we also feel that to build on this site here it would be necessary to bring in fill, which could cause problems with the stream. There is not enough room, really, to build here without endangering the stream. The stream does not flow all year. It's an intermittent stream. It is controlled. We also question what will happen when Glens Falls joins in the Queensbury Water District, and therefore they will take the regulations off the stream, and it will be more free flowing. As it is now, part of the flow is controlled by Butler Pond Reservoir, or whatever that is, and this is also a pine barrens. and it is normal in a pine barrens for streams to be intermittent, and that is what keeps the pine barrens ecologically sound, and we think that as the Planning Board, we really feel that you should go out and check and inspect this proposed lot and see just exactly what you're talking about, what's happening, because a lot of these houses are backed up so close to here that people now that want to add decks on to the back of their house can't because it's too close to the property line. MR. STARK-Where do you live, ma'am? Point to where you live. MRS. CALVERT-Right here, 37. MR. STARK-Okay. MRS. CALVERT-And I also have another question. I don't know if this is the time or place, but Mr. Kruger has been storing a lot of vehicles out behind my property, and they seem to be coming and going real early in the morning, late at night, vans, I guess they're vans, trucks. It seems to be used as a parking area for bui lding stuff, and it's interfering with the character of the neighborhood I believe. MR. BREWER-Okay. there last week, at the site, and at the site. I can just assure you that three of us did go out three of the four here did go out there and look I presume Ed did also, but we did go out and look MRS. CALVERT-Originally, this was all supposed to be the green area that was giving him permission to build on those undersized lots. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I was looking through the minutes of the Zoning Board meetings today, and I couldn't find any reference to that being a designated green area. Maybe I missed something, but it - 36 - ,..../ wasn't in the minutes. MRS. CALVERT-Well, we all heard it. neighborhood. You can ask anybody in the DONALD KRUGER MR. KRUGER-Can I answer that? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. KRUGER-At that time, the Town proposal was that you could either dedicate land to a project, or pay a recreational fee. and I paid that recreational fee, the number $3,000 stands in my mind, in 1987, which the Town has had the enjoyment of that. They never required me to dedicate a green area. MR. STEVES-If I could expand further on that, although I didn't work on the project itself, I do have the concept plan of that project, and on it, Scott, you probably have it in the file as well, density computation, 9.7 acres gross area. 2.37 acres restricted development, which would go with what Don just said for park, density computed, then, on the 7.329 acre, divided by 43.560, equals, the bottom line is 16 dwelling units, it's an SR-20 zone. So 16 units was permitted. Only 10 were granted. That's all that is sought. So there's still really, under the old Code, there were still six units left. Under the new Code. it's one acre per lot. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else from the public? MRS. CALVERT-These are pictures of the non existent stream. They're different pictures, but there is a stream there. MR. RUEL-That looks familiar. MR. BREWER-We saw the bed of it when we went up there. MRS. CALVERT-There is water that flows in it. MR. RUEL-Yes. It was dry the other day. MRS. CALVERT-Yes. intermittent. In a pine barren, a stream would be, MR. BREWER-Thank you. speak? Is there anyone else that would care to PHILIP BUTTLING MR. BUTTLING-My name is Philip Buttling of 21 Bonner Drive. I'm just hearing something, I think. about construction trucks and what have you. Is that what the issue is at the moment? MR. BREWER-Well, she brought it up, yes. MR. BUTTLING-Okay. I would say, first of all, to Mr. Kruger, I think what he's built is much more than I had expected, and I'm very pleased with the houses that he has built. I'm only making a statement as far as trailers and trucks and what have you. There have been problems, when I say problems, where trucks have been parked there, and I've asked Mr. Kruger if he would not move a trailer from one position to make it not so obvious, and he's done so. So he's been very cooperative, as far as I'm concerned, from where I look out my back door. I'm only making the statement now that I don't know if the intention is that there are going to be trucks and trailers there forever, or is this a restriction where he shouldn't have them there? I don't know, but I'm making the statement from what I've seen when I've asked Mr. Kruger to move something, he's done it. - 37 - -_.-/ MR. STARK-What lot do you live on? MR. BUTTLING-21 Bonner. My back yard faces the circle, the cul-de- sac, and his house that he's living in now is slightly to my right. Now, I'm just listening to the lady mention something about trailers and trucks, and I'm sorry just getting here at this late moment. Naturally, I would agree with her that we wouldn't want to see trucks and trailers parked there on a permanent basis, and if that's the issue. I would have to say I agree with her, and what she's saying, but likewise I've seen Mr. Kruger move a trailer or truck when it's been requested. So I don't know where this all fits into the puzzle. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BUTTLING-Thank you. Is there anyone else? JOHN VANNIER MR. VANNIER-I'm John Vannier. I live at 27 Bonner Drive. My concern is the extension of the Lot 10 east. which I think would severely impact the stream that you gentlemen looked at in the picture. which runs very heavy in the spring time. I believe that would back the water up and cause a problem out on Mountain View Lane, which was nearly flooded over this spring, and in addition to that, Mr. Kruger's correct. The pines indicate that the soil is very sandy or gravelly. If the proper setback wasn't maintained on the septic system, I think you'd get leaching into the stream which leads into Rush Pond and would create some contamination. That's the only concern I have. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? IRENE WEAVER MRS. WEAVER-I'm Irene Weaver. and I live at 29 Bonner. Is there any variance or any stipulation as to how much room there should be from a property line to the driveway. which runs up the back? MR. STARK-Fifteen feet. MRS. WEAVER-Fifteen feet? MR. HARLICKER-For a driveway? I don't think there is for a driveway. There's a setback for the house, but I don't recall ever seeing anything for driveways. MR. STARK-They have a 15 foot buffer between the driveway and the back of your property line, and your south property line. MRS. WEAVER-Not that I have. MR. STARK-Well, I'm just looking at the plan that Mr. Steves gave me. and it shows a 15 foot buffer. MR. STEVES-No. What we have shown is a 20 foot side line setback. This was the plan, I'm showing you that on your approvals before showed the driveway going along that northerly line. 15 feet from the property line. MR. STARK-Okay. So that would be a 15 foot buffer. MR. STEVES-Yes, but now, we're planning on putting it right on the line. MR. LAPOINT-See. that's all the much more we want to see what's going on. MR. BREWER-Yes. That's why I said, if we had a map that showed everything, then we would know. - 38 - ...../. MR. LAPOINT-I know there's confusion from what George has said, there is confusion. MRS. WEAVER-Well. you can step off my lot, from my stake. and step on to the driveway. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Scott's looking that up for us, to make sure. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I don't see anything in here that restricts driveways within setbacks. MR. BREWER-That's something we can look into. We have until next week, right? MR. LAPOINT-Three more houses? HR. BRE~lER-Two. MR. LAPOINT-Two more. No house on Lot 9? MR. STEVES-We're only talking two lots. Lot 10, from 20 feet. We're talking enlarging MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. STEVES-And then building two lots, Lot 9 and Lot 10. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So house on Lot 9. MR. STEVES-A house on each lot. That plan that was approved earlier showed the house back here and the buildings back here. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. BREWER-How are you going to get access that back there? MR. STEVES-That will be the driveway we're talking about. MR. BREWER-And then this leg over here will give you the 40 foot? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. BREWER-So the easement's coming over here. I see what you're saying. All right. MR. STARK-How close is that to the rear of their property line? HR. STEVES-Here? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. STEVES-To the rear of this lot? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. STEVES-Right now we're showing it, it's about 23 feet. MR. STARK-And you're going to have a road between there and the property line? MR. STEVES-Yes. That's what we're talking about, moving the house, sliding it toward the road, creating more land between the house and the property line. We can't go this way. HR. BREWER-Because it would be too close to the Brook. MR. STEVES-We've got to maintain the 75 foot strip there. By sliding it toward the road, we can go south. MR. BREWER-Okay. - 39 - -.- '-- MRS. WEAVER-So how many houses altogether is going to be on there, then? MR. BREWER-Two. MRS. WEAVER-On the whole development. MR. STEVES-On the whole development, there will be only one more, eleven. MR. BREWER-There'll be eleven. MRS. WEAVER-But you weren't supposed to have that many, were you? MR. STEVES-We were permitted sixteen originally. MRS. WEAVER-I don't think so. MR. STEVES-Well, I can only go by the record, too. Here's the concept plan, and it shows 16 under 20.000 square foot unit. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. There's just mass confusion. Roger's way off on this. That's not the plan we're looking at. I can tell, because I can see what people are looking at up here. There's just mass confusion because we don't have a draw~ng we need in front of us, so lets table it, and we'll get on with our lives. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, is there anything else you'd like to add. ma'am? MRS. WEAVER-No, but I don't remember ever hearing about 16 dwellings on that. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. case. Be prepared. when you come back, to make that MR. BREWER-We can ask for, can you get the final approval out for us for next week, next Thursday? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-We'll have our staff get the final approval out of this subdivision, and we'll be back here next Thursday to decide what we're going to do on this. MR. LAPOINT-And we'll have drawings that are accurate. MR. STEVES-They're all accurate. They're just different. MR. BREWER-Accurate to what's going to happen now. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1993 DONALD KRUGER, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: The proposal is to subdivide two existing lots into three, for the applicant to revise his subdivision maps, and resubmit to the staff for comment, and we'll get him on the agenda for Thursday the 28th, and the applicant will have the plans here this Thursday, so that we can have them for Friday. Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 1993, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-The public hearing is left open. So you will get another chance to speak next week, okay, next Thursday. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer - 40 - ~ ----- NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan MR. STEVES-Let the record show that we are in agreement with that tabling. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 41 -