The URL can be used to link to this page

1994-01-27 SP - -......r QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 27, 1994 INDEX Site Plan No. 58-93 Florence Murphy 1. SEQRA REVIEW William Sullivan 1. SEQRA REVIEW C.B. Lesser. Jr. & M. Susan Lesser 2. Subdivision No. 13-1993 FINAL James Girard 3. Site Plan No. 52-93 Robert Tyrer 4. Subdivision No. 15-1993 FINAL STAGE William Potvin 4. Site Plan No. 22-93 Lucas Wilson 8. SEQRA REVIEW Site Plan No. 57-93 Site Plan No. 61-93 Anthony Malantino 24. Anthony Malantino 25. Richard Eggleston/Thomas Stimpson 29. 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 SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 27TH, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MARTIN-I have an update regarding the Florence Murphy application. I tried to get a hold of the applicant late this afternoon. I was not successful. I reconsidered my determination regarding the use of this site as a Group Camp, and I read through the Definitions, and I find that this is a, and I also reviewed the Definition for a Fraternal Organization, and, based on what I read, it would be my determination that this is a Fraternal Organization, as opposed to a Group Camp, and, there fore, would need a Use Variance, because that is not an unlisted use in the LC-42A. I don't see the applicant here. He was here a minute ago. There you are. I tried to get a hold of you today. It was late in the day. I've been reviewing the minutes, and so on, and came to this determination today. I apologize for the timeliness of this, but, nonetheless, I feel it's important to be accurate with these things. So that's how ~ would view this, and as Zoning Administrator, that's the conclusion I came to. MR. BREWER-So, without a variance, it won't be acceptable. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's not eligible for site plan until a variance is considered. I have a copy of my written determination, if you'd like it, and if you could get a use variance application to us tomorrow, we could get it considered for February, but otherwise, we'll have to put it off. I apologize for the lateness of it, but I want to be accurate about these things, and we're making that announcement now in the interest of the public. That won't be on the agenda tonight, now. If a use variance is, in fact, applied for, the same 500 foot notices will go out. MR. BREWER-We'll get into the first order of business. RESOLUTIONS: SEQRA REVIEW - RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF SITE PLAN FOR WILLIAM SULLIVAN RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Site Plan for Mr. & Mrs. William Sullivan RESOLUTION NO.: 1 of 1994 INTRODUCED BY: George Stark WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Craig MacEwan WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. William Sullivan have submitted an application for site plan review in connection with a project known as or described as a 153 square foot expansion of an existinq - 1 - -- ....,/'. ki tchen area - an expansion of a nonconforminq structure in a critical environmental area, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Mr. & Mrs. William Sullivan for site plan review; 2) a coordinated review is desired; 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with the copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1994, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SEQRA REVIEW - RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF SITE PLAN FOR C.B. LESSER, JR. & M. SUSAN LESSER RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Site Plan for C.B. Lesser. Jr. & M. Susan Lesser RESOLUTION NO.: 2 of 1994 INTRODUCED BY: Georqe Stark WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel WHEREAS, C.B. Lesser. Jr. & M. Susan Lesser have submitted an application for site plan review in connection with a project known as or described as - a 2 story expansion of a sinqle family house. The footprint will expand by 657 square feet and the livinq area will be expanded by 828 square feet., and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT - 2 - -... ..,-r, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by C.B. Lesser. Jr. & M. Susan Lesser for site plan review; 2) a coordinated SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1993 JAMES GIRARD EXTENSION OF TIME REGARDING FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. MARK BOMBARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-How long of an extension is he looking for, Jim? MR. HARTIN-Mark's here representing the applicant. We just have the issue of the land dedication to finalize with the Town Board. MR. BREWER-So, that'll be. MR. BOMBARD-Mark Bombard from the office of Coulter & McCormack. I guess between Jim and I, there was a misunderstanding. I didn't know where we were in it, and I talked to Jim today, and I guess all we'd like to do is draft a deed and get it to Mr. Champagne for review, and then over to Mr. Dusek. MR. BREWER-Would 30 days be enough? MR. BOMBARD-I would imagine so. Yes, depending on how quickly, it's already been to the Rec Committee. It's been to you guys. It's been to the Town Board. The only person left is. MR. BREWER-You're not going to do anything until spring anyway. MR. BOMBARD-No. We just would like to get it finalized. MR. MARTIN-I'd say 60 days, to be safe. MR. BREWER-That's what George suggested. somebody like to offer a 60 day extension? All right. Would MOTION TO GRANT EXTENSION OF SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1993 JAMES GIRARD, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: By 60 days, to April 1st, regarding Final Subdivision approval. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: - 3 - ---" AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 52-93 ROBERT TYRER EXTENSION OF TIME REGARDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL. MR. BREWER-And what kind of an extension is he looking for? MR. MARTIN-He's been having trouble getting financing. I understand he just secured financing to undertake the improvements, and we've been after him to pay his engineering fees, which I believe are now paid. I would say, again, another 60 days on that would be sufficient. MR. BREWER-They are for sure paid? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO GRANT EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN NO. 52-93 ROBERT TYRER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To April 1st, regarding site plan approval. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE: POTVIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A II LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF MARIGOLD DRIVE ACRES INTO 16 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. , 2-1993 TAX MAP NO. 121-1-53.1 LOT SIZE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS UNLISTED WILLIAM CLENDON BROOK, PHASE SUBDIVISION OF 15.07 CROSS REFERENCE: AV 15.07 ACRES SECTION: TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff , Subdivision No. 15-1993, Final Stage, Wi 11 iam Potvin, Meeting Date: January 27, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking final approval for a 16 lot subdivision. This subdivision is the second phase of the Clendon Brook subdivision. The project received variances for undersized lots for lots less than one acre. They are requesting a waiver to roadway intersection geometry to allow for less than 100 feet at right angles. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The subdivision appears to follow accepted planning practice. The applicant has addressed the issue of the future extension of the road. Provided all engineering concerns are addressed staff can recommend approval of this subdivision." MR. HARLICKER-There' s comments from Rist-Frost, Tom Yarmowich. "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project. Previous engineering comments have in general been satisfactorily addressed. Subject to the applicant verifying that all proposed lots can meet minimum 100 foot setbacks between proposed sewage disposal systems and existing wells, and the applicant obtaining NYSDOH approval, we can recommend Planning Board acceptance of this final stage subdivision." MR. MARTIN-I have one further note. I think Tim was at the Town Board workshop the other night. We're still trying to get final comments from the Recreation Commission and the Town Board on the offer for land dedication for recreation. It was the feeling of - 4 - the Town Board, and I think also the Recreation Commission, that they'd like to have until spring to walk the site and get back to you with their comments. That seemed to be a reasonable request, and they offered the idea that, if some sort of solution could be worked out for the final approval to be given, and have Tim sign the plat, but have some sort of commitment from the applicant to provide the land, or should the land be found not to be acceptable, pay the fee by a certain date, or building permits will be withheld on the building lots until it's paid, or something like that. MR. BREWER-When do you anticipate construction? MR. NACE-As soon as the weather permits, in the spring, and with this snow cover, the frost will not be bad this year. So as soon as the snow melts. MR. MARTIN-If you recall, they've already started the road. They were here to see you about the road. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm looking for is some kind of a date, so that we can say the Rec fees should be paid, or the land dedicated. AL CERRONE MR. CERRONE-AI Cerrone. I have a situation, I have contract coming in this week on Lot Number One, okay. can start construction on that one there. a possible I believe I MR. BREWER-How could you pave it now? MR. CERRONE-No. I can't pave it now. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-He doesn't need to dedicate the road to get one building permit. MR. BREWER-All right. Then could we somehow get the Rec fees for that one lot, and, I don't know if it's legal to do this. I don't know how we could do it. We'd have to ask Paul, but if he gave us the fee for that lot, and then we ended up taking the land in lieu of the fees, then return the money. Is that possible, or? MR. MARTIN-You might be able to set up an escrow account, or something like that. MR. BREWER-Is that possible, Betty? BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Do an escrow account for the whole thing. MR. O'CONNOR-Why don't you just condition your approval upon the applicant being able to work out with the Town Attorney a satisfactory arrangement for security or the Recreation fees if they aren't paid in full prior to signature. MR. BREWER-Because I think the Rec fees have to be paid before you can get a building permit, don't they, Jim? MR. MARTIN-They are typically paid before you even sign it. MR. BREWER-What I'm saying is if it's $500, if he gives the Town $500 and put it in an account and just return it to him. MR. O'CONNOR-I still would say leave it to Paul Dusek to work out, because we did, on Herald Square, we had one extra Rec fee paid, and there was $250. It went back and forth whether it would be refunded, and it was somehow couldn't be refunded. - 5 - ..-/ MR. MARTIN-The problem with that, though, is that the refund was a problem because the Rec fees were paid directly into that Recreation Account, and when it's paid into there, it's more difficult to get it out. MR. BREWER-And I think if we set up an Escrow Account, because we did it with. MR. O'CONNOR-Whatever he says is satisfactory to him is agreeable to us. If he tells us we've got to escrow the Rec fee for all 16 lots, then that's his condition. MR. BREWER-I don't think it's necessary for the 16 lots. MR. O'CONNOR-Whatever he wants. That's all I'm saying. MR. BREWER-How does everybody else feel about it? MR. MACEWAN-I'd prefer an Escrow Account. MR. BREWER-For the 16 lots, or for the one? MR. STARK-Leave it up to Dusek. MR. MACEWAN-He could get a break where he could start construction on more than one lot between now and the time the Town Board has an opportunity to walk on it. I'd prefer it on all 16. MR. BREWER-Is that a problem? MR. CERRONE-No. It's going into a Escrow Account anyway. MR. 0' CONNOR-Again, I'd say, how about leaving it up to Paul, though, to determine what's satisfactory? You have two potential clubs here. One, acceptance of the road by the Town Board, which has to make the decision for the Rec fees, and they can condition one against the other, and the other is that we've got 16 lots that we want to build on. We're going to be back here for building permits. We're not running away. So, whatever he finds satisfactory, I'm just saying, we'll abide by it. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but how do we handle it tonight? I mean, we're giving you an approval on this, conditional upon what? MR. O'CONNOR-Conditioned upon satisfying Paul Dusek, as to the Rec fees. MR. BREWER-Why don't we just have them set an Escrow Account up. If Al has no problem with it, we'll just do it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. CERRONE-I cannot build more than one home anyway, until the road dedication. MR. MARTIN-That's right. MR. CERRONE-So, if worse comes to worse, right now, with the $500 for that one lot, because I can't go any further than that anyway. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with that. MR. RUEL-Okay. That's fine. MR. BREWER-All right. We'll set it up, he sets the Escrow Account up for the one lot, and then, in the spring time, when the Town Board gets a chance to walk the land, if they decide they want it, we'll take the land, or we'll take the money. MR. MARTIN-I'd still, too, I'd set a date to have that done, by - 6 - '- -- June 1st. That should be plenty of time. MR. BREWER-Okay. June 1st should be fine. MR. O'CONNOR-Fine. We have no objection to that. MR. MARTIN-Mike, you'll, the way we've handled this in the past is you've generated an Escrow agreement for Paul to review. I know we've done this recently, and it was generated by the applicant, and Paul just reviewed it. MR. O'CONNOR-I think on Cedar Court we used his Escrow. it out. We would ask for the Board's conditional conditioned on the getting the other agencies to sign Health Department. I'll work approval. off, the MR. BREWER-And I want to know about, did we ever ask you for a letter from Paul Naylor about the 100 feet at right angles? MR. NACE-On December 14th, you passed a waiver on both of those issues, the 300 foot radius and the. MR. BREWER-The 300 foot radius I remember, but. MR. MARTIN-That was discussed with Paul, and he didn't have a problem. MR. O'CONNOR-I think there's a letter in the file from Paul. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. NACE-Yes, there is. MR. BREWER-As long as there's a letter in the file. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. NACE-And you've already passed a waiver on that. MR. MARTIN-And you are going to dedicate that extension to the Town right away, right? MR. NACE-That will be. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. So what we're telling them is that we want the one lot Rec fee in an Escrow Account, and somehow we've got to work words in there to the effect that. MR. MARTIN-And then to have the land formally dedicated, or the fee paid, by June 1st. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Would be my recommendation. MR. MACEWAN-What was the last thing, regarding the Department of Health and who? MR. NACE-Your approval is conditional upon our getting Department of Health approval for the subdivision. MR. BREWER-So that the lots can meet the minimum 100 foot setback between. MR. MARTIN-Could you send me a copy of that approval when you get it, Tom? MR. NACE-Yes. - 7 - '- -- MR. MARTIN-And also, Betty raises a good point. Only the Town Board can accept the Escrow Account. So it should be contingent upon their accepting of that. MR. BREWER-But that also means, now, if we give him a date by June 1. that means, if the Town Board doesn't get out there until the end of May, he can't get a building permit. MRS. MONAHAN-Jim, if you remember, during the informal discussion we had about this, I believe at the West Glens Falls Firehouse, we said that we would work out an arrangement so that you could sign the mylar, and they can start, and we were not sure, yet, what the arrangement was going to be, but we would work out an arrangement with the applicant so they would not be delayed, and we said, that night, we couldn't cross the T's and dot the I's. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, because in reality, we can only get one building permit without road dedication. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-In reality, we can't build the road until the frost is out, it's well warm. If we get this road ready for acceptance by the Town Board, before the end of May, early June. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you still can't build a house if the road's not built? MR. NACE-No. MR. O'CONNOR-You have to have 40 feet frontage. You can build only one principal building per lot. MR. BREWER-Okay. effect? Does somebody want to make a motion to that MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1993 POTVIN, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its seconded by Roger Ruel: WILLIAM adoption, With the stipulation that an escrow account be set up for Lot 1, for rec fees, with the approval of the Town Board, and also the approval of the Department of Health, and that either the dedication of land or the rec fees take place by June 1st, 1994. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1994, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 22-93 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 LUCAS WILSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: END OF WALKER LANE OFF BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 4-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-14.1 LOT SIZE: 1.467 ACRES SECTION 179-18D (1) PUBLIC HEARING: 5/20/93 (LEFT OPEN) BRUCE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-93, Lucas Wilson, January 27, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4 unit apartment building on a 1.47 acre lot located at the end of Walker Lane. The project will be connected to municipal water and will utilize an existing on-site septic system. A drive will be extended from the end of Walker Lane to provide access to the site. The applicant received a variance from Section 179-70B for less than 50 foot frontage on a public road. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The project was compared to the following standards found in - 8 - '- - Section 179-38 E. of the Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of building, lighting and signs¡ The property is currently vacant so compatibility is not a significant problem. The applicant has indicated that siding and shutters will be provided on all sides. Lighting includes gable and entrance lights on the building and a lamp post to illuminate the parking area; no signage is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls¡ The applicant is providing the required 8 spaces plus one handicapped space. 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 is adequate. 5. The adequacy of storm drainage facilities¡ Project is being reviewed by Rist-Frost regarding stormwater drainage. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities¡ The project will be serviced by municipal water and on-site septic system. The sewage disposal system is being reviewed by Rist-Frost for adequacy. 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 land, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including the replacement of dead plants¡ The site will be thoroughly landscaped. The building will be screened from adjacent properties with hemlocks and the parking area and dumpster will be screened with a hedge. A row of apple trees along the front of the building and the shrubs will enhance the appearance of the project. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants¡ The fire and emergency access are adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding andlor erosion. There does not appear to be areas that are prone to flooding, ponding or erosion. RECOMMENDATION: Approval should be conditioned on Rist-Frost approval of the drainage and stormwater management plan and sewage disposal system." MR. HARLICKER-And then there was two letters from Tom Yarmowich of Rist-Frost, the first one dated January 14th. "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments: 1. Drywell details should appear on the plan. 2. Parking spaces should be shown 20' long. 3. Handicapped parking should be designated with appropriate symbols and signs. 4. Grading to direct runoff to the drywells should, at a minimum, be indicated by flow arrows and spot elevations. 5. Relocation of the sewage disposal area to a spot behind the proposed apartment building may require extensive filling or excavation to suit flow into the sewage disposal absorption bed by gravity. A general grading design should be provided that properly relates parking, drainage, sidewalks, building entrances and exits, and sewage disposal." The follow-up letter dated January 24th reads, "Dear Mr. Martin: Rist- Frost has reviewed the applicant's revised drawings. The modifications made to address the engineering comments dated 1/14/94 are acceptable. All previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed." There's also a letter from the Fire Marshal. It states, "I have reviewed the plot plan (most recent revision 12/22/93) for the Lucas Wilson 4-unit apartment building on Walker Lane. Said plan provides an adequate road (town specifications) for emergency vehicle access and a public hydrant is within a reasonable distance. Be advised that future buildings, as I understand are possible at this site, may require the installation of an additional fire hydrant or hydrants. Please forward a copy of this letter to Mr. Wilson at his request." And it's dated December 29th, 1993. MR. BREWER-Okay. I have just one comment on your note, Scott. On Number Seven. It says, site will be thoroughly landscaped. The building will be screened from adjacent properties with hemlocks in the parking area and dumpsters. Isn't the dumpster supposed to be - 9 - ~. screened by a fence? MR. HARLICKER-A six foot high wood stockade fence will also be around the garbage area. MR. BREWER-Okay. So, can we change that? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-That's not a problem, is it? MR. HARLICKER-Well, no. It's indicated on the plan. MR. BREWER-It is? All right, but in your comment it says. MR. HARLICKER-Well, yes. MR. BREWER-All right. As 10n9 as it's in the plan. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would you care to address any of the comments? MR. CARR-Good evening. My name is Bruce Carr, for the record, Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth. Mr. Wilson sends his apologizes. He's been working nights this week and is unable to attend the meeting. With us tonight is Mr. Hughes who helped with the plans with Mr. Wilson. I believe all the comments have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. At this point, I guess we'd just answer questions. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions. MR. RUEL-On the plan, Note 14, exterior lighting, does that mean the lights will be on all night, until the morning? MR. CARR-Let me ask Gary. MR. RUEL-I just want to know whether you have timers or light sensitive devices. MR. BREWER-It says they have timers. GARY HUGHES MR. HUGHES-Yes. They'll have timers on all the lights. MR. RUEL-Yes, well, it just says light sensitive device. MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. RUEL-Which means the lights will be on all night? MR. HUGHES-Yes. They'll stay on all night, at this point. MR. RUEL-They'll stay on all night? MR. HUGHES-Yes. We're proposing that, right at this point. MR. RUEL-Okay. and that's completely around the building, right, the rear also? MR. HUGHES-No. There'll be one at the gable end of the building, and there'll be one out. MR. RUEL-Just at the front stoop and the back porch, right? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. RUEL-I see. Okay. Thank you. - 10 - MR. BREWER-Why don't we have you read that right into the record, George, just the letter, not the deed, and all that. MR. STARK-Okay. It's a letter to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, regarding Lucas Wilson Site Plan application. "Ladies and Gentlemen: Our law firm represents Valente Builders, Inc. in connection with their concerns about the Lucas S. Wilson site plan review application: 1. The deed dated March 5, 1993 from John P. Wright and Edward J. Cimmino to Lucas S. Wilson, a copy of which is enclosed, only conveyed to Mr. Wilson a right of way from the land to Walker Lane, and upon reaching Walker Lane a right of way over Walker Lane to the Bay Road. This right of way is nowhere defined in terms of its width; its use; its improvement; its maintenance; its use as a subdivision road; its use for utilities; and the relative liability issues. 2. Valente Builders, Inc. has submitted an opinion to Bruce G. Carr, Esq., the attorney for Lucas S. Wilson, to the effect that Lucas S. Wilson owns nothing more than an undefined right of way. A copy of the opinion letter is enclosed for your records. 3. Despite the clarity of the superior ownership produced by Valente Builders, Inc. -- "First in time, first in right" the Zoning Board of Appeals conditioned a variance to Mr. Wilson upon a 33-foot ownership (see Condition No. 4 of the variance). We believe that Mr. Wilson now has the burden of satisfying the condition of the variance; that is, proving his ownership of the 33 feet. It is our opinion that he cannot do this, and, therefore, on behalf of Valente Builders, Inc., we object to the continuation of the site plan review process until such time as Mr. Lucas proves his case. Indeed, the burden of proof is on the landowner to satisfy all conditions before he is entitled to the issuance of any permit by a government body. In addi tion to and independent of the legal issue of access, we believe that the Planning Board has the legal requirement to look at the proposed project of Mr. Wilson as possibly involving segmentation. We do not presume to give the Planning Board legal advice on the issue of segmentation, but we do enclose a page from the SEQR handbook that explains what it is. The reason we do this is that, upon information and belief, Mr. Lucas intends to build three four-plex buildings on the site, rather than one. That being the case, we believe that the Planning Board has to look at a master plan for this property as if three buildings were going to be constructed there. It may be that Mr. Wilson has said nothing about three buildings at this point in time, but under the segmentation approach the law requires a "hard look" at this. To that end, we have prepared in part a long form Environmental Assessment Form which, we believe. addresses some of the cumulative impact issues involving a potential three-building construction on the project site. Because of the many adverse impacts involved, we believe that the potential build-out of the project site requires the preparation of a environmental impact statement. We will be available at the meeting for any questions you would like to ask of us. S incerel y, McPhil1 ips, F i tzge raId & Meyer Dennis J. Phi II ips" MR. CARR-Addressing the two issues brought up in that letter, Mr. Stark. I believe Mr. Martin will back me up on this, as to the first issue, as to the legal ownership of the right-of-way. That's been in dispute. It was the subject of a great deal of discussion before the Zoning Board, and it was the Town Attorney's opinion that, our representation was that we owned the property. We had a deed that the Town Attorney said that that is a legal issue that must be resolved in a court of law, and that as long as we are representing to you that we own the property, that is the extent of the discussion that the Zoning Board needed to go into. It is a bone of contention between Mr. Valente and Mr. Wilson. or I should say Valente Builders. that it is not going to be resolved at these Boards. Even if what Valente Builders proclaims is true, we still have a right-of-way to the property of the exact same dimensions that have always been proposed. The entrance to this property will not change, and the entrance to the property was a discussion at the Zoning Board in three meetings. before they came to the resolution to grant us the right to use this property. We're - 11 - ," '---" ---- before this Board looking at the interior boundaries of this parcel and whether or not a four-plex (lost word) is a good use of this land wi thin this proper zone. As to the second issue, as to segmentation, I don't have the whole packet in front of me. The charts or the page that he gave from the handbook shows (lost word) is segmentation allowed. I think if you look at the second or third one, it says that the phases mayor may not be built. It's never been a secret. We have the right to build three units on this parcel if we use all the land available. Right now, Mr. Wilson doesn't want to do that. He may in the future, but it really is not a set in stone determination on his part that he will build those. The market is tough, and he wants to see, take it slowly and see how he does with the first building. This is not a segmentation problem, and any future building on this property would again be back before this Board. This is not something, and the Board is not bound by their determination tonight as to just one unit, as to any future units. MR. STARK-You own the land that you're saying is the right-of-way? MR. CARR-Correct. MR. STARK-So you can run utilities up through there, I mean, like, water lines? MR. CARR-Even if it's a right-of-way. There's a difference between a granted right-of-way and a retained right-of-way. Mr. Walker granted a right-of-way to our predecessors. Us having been granted a right-of-way, we have the right to put in utility lines any way across that property. If we had retained the right-of-way, meaning we had originally owned the property and retained the right-of-way for ourselves, that is an ingress and egress only right-of-way, but there is a difference in the law between a retained right-of-way and one given. You have more right under a given right-of-way, which is what we have. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that it, George? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Jim, did Paul Dusek review this at all? Did he look into this? MR. MARTIN-Yes. He reviewed the situation during the variance proceeding in terms of the land ownership issue, and it was his opinion that the Boards in their processes of review, both for the variance and site plan, land ownership is not a consideration. That is a matter between the owners and a civil matter, and he did not think that the Town had a say in this, and I've reviewed that thoroughly with him, because this has been, and continues to be, an issue, and that's been his opinion. MR. BREWER-Okay. got it today. I presume Paul did see this letter, if we just MR. MARTIN-No, I don't think he has. MR. CARR-If you look at one of the attachments that the letter to myself, detailing the history of the property, in the Valente Builders. I believe Paul Dusek, Paul got a copy of that letter, I believe. DENNIS PHILLIPS MR. PHILLIPS-Paul has a copy of our letter to you, yes. MR. CARR-So, I mean, he's been, he's aware of the issue. MR. BREWER-It doesn't say anything about carbon copying Paul. - 12 - - MR. PHILLIPS-Well, perhaps it went to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. BREWER-The Planning Board, I presume it's Jim Martin, Andrew McCormack, Michael O'Connor and Valente Builders. If this is the letter you're talking about. MR. PHILLIPS-The letter to Bruce Carr, yes. would have a copy of that letter. I believe that Paul MR. BREWER-Well, I'm going to ask Paul to look at it and make sure. MR. PHILLIPS-I would like to qualify something on that, in terms of Paul's opinion. MR. BREWER-All right. Just one second, sir, and I'm going to also ask Paul about tha t he has to or whatever. further? whether he said that he has to, in this letter here, prove ownership, so that he's able to put utilities That's what I'd I ike to know. and you have no MR. CARR-Mr. Brewer, if I determination that we have sufficient for the Board. may, Paul has already a deed into there, and made that the is MR. BREWER-But Mr. Carr, he wrote this letter today. Paul did not get this letter. I want Paul to look at it, and I think I have a right to do that. MR. CARR-Yes, you do, but I think Jim will back me up, he's already made a determination on that. MR. MARTIN-I think he has, but if the Board wants to arrive at a level of comfort, here, I would certainly recommend that you do that, and he is your attorney in this matter, and if you feel you should consult with him, that's your right. I've indicated what his opinion has been, but you're certainly entitled to get that directly. MR. BREWER-We have a special meeting the second. We can always add this to it, if, I mean, I don't have a problem with that, but I just would like to be comfortable with this, that's all. MR. RUEL-I agree with you one hundred percent. MR. CARR-When's your next meeting after the second? town until nine o'clock on the second. I'm out of MR. BREWER-You come at nine o'clock, and you'll be in time, and Paul will be at that meeting, well, I don't know, it may not be the second. MR. MARTIN-The 15th and the 22nd are your meetings in February. MR. BREWER-Lets find out exactly when because Paul, I don't think, can make it the second. We'll find out exactly, and we'll let you know. MR. MARTIN-In anticipation of this coming up, I asked him to be here tonight, and he couldn't make it. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. CARR-May I also request, though, in fairness, actually, Mr. O'Connor be at that meeting, and Mr. Phillips. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Not unless you're going to hold it in St. Croix. MR. CARR-You're going away? - 13 - ,,--. MR. BREWER-I don't know that it's going to be on the second, Bruce, because Paul may not be able to attend. It may be the third, it might be the first. I don't think it'll be the first. It'll probably be the third. You will be advised. All right. Is there anybody else on the Board that has any other questions? MR. MACEWAN-No, I think I'd like that clarified as well. MR. BREWER-All right, and you do not have any intentions, right away, of other buildings? MR. CARR-No. I would ask that you ask Paul to discuss that issue. MR. BREWER-We will. All right. The public hearing was left open. I will let people speak. There are some people here that I believe would like to speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DENNIS PHILLIPS MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. Thank you. My name is Dennis Phillips. I'm the author of that letter, and next to me is Dan Valente, who is the President of Valente Builders, the owner of the, adjoining property owner. Dan would like to show you one of the concerns we have relative to this project, and that relates to the Baybridge project, where the sewage disposal fields for the Baybridge project is right next to where this proposed road is proposed to go in. right next to this property. So I'd ask Dan to step forward and to show you the location of his sewage disposal field that services, about 64 units, and so this is a major disposal field and a major area of concern for us, in terms of maintaining the integrity of the efficiency of that sewage disposal field. So, Dan, why don't you show that to them, in terms of location next to this project. DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-This is Walker Lane, as it exists today. This is Phase I of Baybridge, Buildings Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten and Eleven and Twelve are Phase II. Phase III is down here, and is under construction at the present time, and there's a Phase IV and a Phase V. These leaching beds, all four of them, of which two are in existence today, are within fifteen feet of the southerly line of the disputed property that we're discussing here. Okay. According to your applicant, he says he owns 33 feet to the northerly line, which isn't shown here on this line, on this map, and the reason it isn't shown, and the reason for a lot of this discrepancy, is that we needed to show DEC a line of demarcation because we didn't want to be infringing on that right-of-way where people would have accessing. We didn't want it to impose on this leaching bed. Now, these four leaching beds are for this entire project, okay, and we're looking at another 110 units in the back that have not been built yet. So there is a significant impact from this project, if it ~ approved, if he even owned the land, which is in dispute. The only other thing I want to mention here is, when I come before this Board, and I've come before this Board many times, not you people personally, but the Board as a whole, every time I come with a project, I have to show the whole project, even though I'm breaking it down phase by phase, and I would like to know why this individual would be allowed to get a partial of his project approved without showing the whole proposed project up front. As a developer, and a concerned citizen about mY project. I'd like to know the whole story up front, even if he's just going to build one building, regardless of the land. MR. BREWER-And I think that's a good point, but if you own 100 acres of land, and you're going to build five houses on it, you're entitled to build 100, and you only come in with a plan for five, I mean, it doesn't necessarily you're going to build 100. - 14 - ~/ ./ - MR. VALENTE-No. When we came in for Baybridge, this is zoned eight units per acre. Under the law, we were, 560 units, we were, theoretically entitled to. We came in with a proposal of 3.5 units per acre, okay, but they wanted to know that up front. Now, if I wanted to go back and come to this Board and said. I want six units per acre. I need to make more, because everything's gone, I need to make more money to make this project fly. I can't do that. I've done this whole thing. I've done an EIS on the entire project. I got a negative declaration on the entire project, not just on Phase I, not just on Phase II, but on the entire thing. DEC approved all these septic fields, in 1985, even though we hadn't built the whole project out, in the thinking that we've got to protect the property on what we're going to do, how much septic we're allowed to have, and all this business, plus the stormwater runoff, the drainage, and all that other business. Don't you think, even though it's a much smaller scale, we should at least know, if there's going to be three buildings there, then we should have, at least, a general overview of what's going to be there. That's what we had to do for this, but anyway, that's basically what's there right now. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. MR. PHILLIPS-To add to that, when you take this to Mr. Dusek, I think I would like you to ask him another question. In terms of his opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals, he rendered his opinion, and I don't disagree with what Mr. Martin has said about that, but then when the Zoning Board of Appeals made its decision, it conditioned its decision upon Mr. Wilson having ownership of that 33 feet. I think that by virtue of the fact that they made that a condition of their variance, that in order for Mr. Wilson to proceed, he has to satisfy that condition, as if to say, that you have a condition here that you have to satisfy before you can proceed. So I'd ask that you specifically inquire of Mr. Dusek on that. Also, because Mr. Carr has raised another legal issue here, which is of interest to me, and probably to the Board as well, he distinguished between a reserved easement and a granted easement, and he rendered an opinion to this Board that there was a difference in treatment with respect to utilities on those two. I would ask that Mr. Carr produce some authority on that, for my edification and also for the edification of the Town Attorney, so we're all dealing with the same set of facts. in terms of looking at this application. MR. BREWER-A reserved easement and a granted easement. We'll ask Mr. Dusek that. MR. PHILLIPS-And perhaps it would be appropriate for Mr. Carr to support his statements on that by providing some authority. On the ownership itself, Valente Builders bought this property in 1985. They received a warranty deed, including a warranty deed to this disputed area of land. To my understanding, Mr. Wilson received a quick claim deed, just recently, in 1993, for that area. I would ask for Mr. Carr, also, to respond to my opinion letter on that, which was directed to him. I've heard no response to it so far, ei ther pro or con. Perhaps that would be helpful for this dialogue. Then when we get to these environmental issues, I went through the Long Form Environmental Assessment Form this afternoon, trying to apply those areas where I think there might be some adverse impacts effecting this property, and you have that in your packet, and I'd ask you to look that over. What's interesting about that is that although this is an MR-5 zone, the actual build- out in this MR-5 zone is not a 100 percent build-out, in the sense that when Valente Builders did its project, it did not take advantage of maximum density. So there is a lesser density than ordinarily you would have in this area now, as it's filled out. The other thing about that is, at that point in the Zoning Ordinance, an MR-5 zone adjoins an SFR-l zone. So not far from this proposed project site, you have basically single family residential dwellings. Those single family dwellings are on the - 15 - '-- -......''' Country Club Road. They're in Maple Row subdivision, which is behind this property. The adjoining property has a single family residential home. So, even though you would have a theoretical build-out on this property of 12 units, in fact, the surrounding MR-5 area is not fully built-out and the surrounding single family residential areas are really quite limited in their density. So I think that that's an environmental factor, and an aesthetic factor that I would ask you to look at. Our main concern, of course, is this septic field. This septic field is supporting major development now, and additional units over a period of time will come on line. We think that that issue, specifically, has to be addressed, from an engineering point of view, and we think that there are potential adverse impacts there that could have devastating circumstances. Finally, on the segmentation issue, I think this is a case where there is no denial that there may be an attempt to have a full build-out in that area at some point in time. I think that, from a planning point of view, it's almost the kind of thing where you have to say, well, lets look at a worst case scenario, or, in the al ternati ve, lets ask the developer whether he intends to do less than the maximum build-out. I think those kind of facts have to be before the Board, so that these environmental factors can be addressed. MR. BREWER-I think we have asked them that, that if he intends to build them, and he said, no, not right at this point. I mean, what more can we ask him? I mean, if he says, no, he's not going to build them now, I mean. MR. VALENTE-You have to ask the same questions you asked me in 1985. MR. BREWER-Mike, you came in with a plan with that number of units. You were entitled to more, and I think, maybe I'm wrong, if he came in and wanted to build more, could he build more? I mean, if the density is allowable. LIZ VALENTE MRS. VALENTE-Not without an going through it again. MR. BREWER-Right, and that's exactly what he'll have to do, if he wants to build more. He'll have to come back through it again. That's what the process is set up for, I believe. I agree with what you're saying. If he's going to build three, we should ask him to show us what and where he's going to put them. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. So I think that, basically, those are our areas of concern, and I wanted to make those a matter of record, and I think that what we would like to do, to complete the record, if we could, as part of this public hearing, we'd like to submit to you a copy of that map that I have up on the wall, so that it becomes a part of this record. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. 0' CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, for the purpose of your record, I'm Michael 0' Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor, and I'm here representing Steven Pinchuk who is here with me to my immediate right. Mr. Pinchuk, if you will, who owns the land that lies immediately to the east of this particular parcel. He has a single family home on that parcel, and I'll show you, just for identification purposes, a brief sketch of it. The Pinchuk home is shown here. The property of the applicant is shown on this map as being property of John Wright and Edward Cimmino. MR. BREWER-We were there at the property and saw that. - 16 - -- ---'/ MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. So you know where we're talking about. I have a couple of basic questions, and that's as to the completeness of the application. My understanding is that they're supposed to submit a survey, and I really don't see a survey that indicates what has been portrayed in oral testimony by the applicant. If this is the survey, then I wonder why Rist-Frost was the reviewing agency, if they were the people that did the survey? I would think that there would be a conflict, and that would be prohibited by the Town Board. MR. BREWER-I don't think I got a copy of that map. MR. STARK-It's right here. MR. O'CONNOR-This is a map that was just given to me by the applicant. MR. MACEWAN-I have one that's dated 12/23/93, with a note on it that Rist-Frost surveyed it. MR. BREWER-12/23/93. Mine's stamped by George Kurosaka. MR. RUEL-Survey map by Rist-Frost. MR. MACEWAN-I can tell you, we're not looking at the same maps. MR. RUEL-Dated September 1986. MR. CARR-In response to Mr. Yarmowich's letter of the 24th, we submitted new maps. MR. MARTIN-Yes. They were distributed to the Board. The revision date's 1/18/94, and there is a note, survey map by Rist-Frost Associates, project number 86-1899. dated September 1986. MR. BREWER-I beg your pardon. I do have it. MR. O'CONNOR-So, I don't think that they can review their own work, and if this is the only thing that's being submitted as survey, there's no showing of any ownership on here of a connection of this parcel to Walker Lane. If you will take a look at this mapping that I have it says, approximate end of public highway, and it does not connect to the parcel, and in fact, there's a map, I think in the, a map or a letter, in the ZBA file that says that that is even further west than the actual end of the public highway of Walker Lane. This thing talks about a new 24 foot driveway per town specs. I do think the burden of ownership of some type of connection to a town highway has now shifted, with the condition that the ZBA has put on its variance. I don't think the burden has been met by what has been submitted to the Board. I know, when we were before the ZBA, we spoke about whether or not they had title insurance for that, and at that time, they were working on whether or not they could obtain title insurance, or they had somebody looking at it for the purposes of title insurance, for this quick claim deed that they obtained, for a piece of frontage in front of their parcel. MR. BREWER-Can you explain to me what a quick claim deed is? MR. O'CONNOR-A quick claim deed is a form of a deed, and instead of a warranty deed, by which somebody says, I warrant that I have title that I'm conveying to you, it says, I'm conveying you this ti tIe to whatever extent I own it, without guarantee. It's something that somebody gives when they don't want to be on the hook for giving the deed. It's very seldom used as proof of title. In fact, if you're doing abstracting, you go back to a warranty deed. You bypass quick claim deeds. You bypass tax sale deeds. They aren't considered good evidence of title, but this map that has been submitted, I don't think is a survey that this Board can use, or can use in this particular instance, if it's going to be - 17 - -. reviewed by who it's been reviewed. MR. MACEWAN-And for what reason? MR. O'CONNOR-Because of the obvious conflict. MR. BREWER-It's a conflict. MR. MACEWAN-When was the date, though, that they surveyed it? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know. MR. HARLICKER-It was surveyed in '86. MR. MARTIN-It says September of '86. MR. MACEWAN-At that time, was Rist-Frost the Town Consultants? MR. BREWER-They're reviewing their work right now, though. MR. HARLICKER-No. What they reviewed was the septic system and drainage as proposed. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. MACEWAN-They didn't review the survey map. MR. 0' CONNOR-I think that they have always reviewed the full mapping that has been submitted on any application. I think that our application requirements indicate that we will submit a current survey. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that I see the conflict, Wilson is not a client of Rist-Frost, that I know there's no direct financial interest here. They parcel. That's true, but. though. Mr. of. I mean, surveyed the MR. O'CONNOR-I want to make my record tonight. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be here for your February meeting. MR. BREWER-We'll just ask Paul. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think you've even got a complete application. I agree with Mr. Phillips as to the issue of segmentation. If you go back and look at the ZBA minutes, you will see that they talked about the possibility of three buildings. That's not something that somebody dreamed up. Kip Grant, who is the Town Fire Marshal, also referred to that possibility in his report. I don't know where he got his information from. I presume that he probably talked to the applicant, or just some representative of the applicant. I know that, in the very beginning of this process, we saw this map, which had three lots on it, which indicated that they were going to build, or have three separate parcels in there. We, when we talked to the owner, or the owner has been talked to as to whether or not he would limit his building to either a two family, one family, or even to this building, and not have additional units, he has specifically said I would, if somebody wants to pay me for my development rights. I have 12 development rights, inferring he intended to use them. I think that's beyond the person who comes to the Board and simply says, I don't know what I'm going to do with my back land. If that, unless that's a new theory that you're going to adopt, everybody's going to come in here with Phase I, but they aren't going to call it Phase I. They're going to simply say, I own 100 acres, but I only intend to develop the front 10, and you're going to say, well, until you change your mind, you don't have to show us about the back 10. You don't have to show us about the drainage plans, you don't have to show us the drainage calculations. We're going to accept it on blind faith. You get your approval for the first 10 lots. Next week we come back with another application for another 10 lots. We - 18 - -- ...-r' don't intend you develop the back 80, and you're going to get piecemealed to death. I think if you read that on segmentation, you're going to see you're required, if you read the whole book on SEQRA, which you have, you're required to take a hard look. That means you simply, you've got to look at all the material before you, you've got to look at all the statements and the different applications that have been given to you. I'll give this to you, and you can take it. It's the map that ~ saw. MR. BREWER-Isn't this his map, Bruce's? MR. O'CONNOR-Where did you get this map? I think we went to Rist- Frost and got it. MR. BREWER-You just got that one there from him. MR. O'CONNOR-No, his map's over here. MR. BREWER-Right. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-These are two fellows that sold it to Bruce Wilson, and this is their map. MR. CARR-This is what they proposed? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. CARR-I mean, it's their map. It's not Qg£ map. MR. O'CONNOR-This is out of one of the files, either the variance or wherever. I'm not sure. MR. STARK-It's not part of the application. MR. O'CONNOR-It's not part of the application, but I think, as you. under SEQRA, have taken a hard look, you're required to look at the total density. The other point which I'll make, we obj ected strongly to the variance being granted, because you've got to take a look at a (lost word) granted so the applicant is not required by law to have 40 feet of frontage on a town highway. That's the only thing that the variance says. This Board still has the promise to determine whether or not, under the health, welfare and safety provisions of your site plan review, you think putting an apartment house on a private driveway, the length of this driveway, is a good idea for that particular property, for those people that might live in it. Because they have the variance, doesn't mean that they can build it as of right. You still have a full review process, and I don't mean to, I want to be sure that you understand, at least, my argument. You still have the full review process as to whether or not yOU think it's a good idea, and when you think of it being a good idea, I want you to think of it, thinking of maybe 12 units on this driveway, as opposed to the four units that are shown here. I also want you to look behind this parcel, for the precedent you're going to be setting, for the four acres that are there. As I understand it, you could build 40 units on that four acres. That's this parcel right here, 4.2 acres. MR. BREWER-Where would that be? MR. O'CONNOR-This is to the west. MR. BREWER-Can you show me on this map? MR. O'CONNOR-Right here, lands of Ruth DorIon. That's this piece right here, 14.2. MR. BREWER-How would she ever get to that? MR. CARR-No. She owns 15, too. - 19 - '-- -'- MR. O'CONNOR-The same right-of-way. way. Her deed has that right-of- MR. CARR-But she also owns the parcel fronting on Country Club. MR. O'CONNOR-But that's a separate tax parcel. It's a preexisting parcel. MR. BREWER-She owns this piece right here. Where would her right- of-way be on this? MR. O'CONNOR-The same right-of-way. MR. RUEL-This one here? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This is Bay Road out here, okay. This is Walker Lane. It's on the south side of the parcel. This is Bay Road out here. This is Walker Lane on the south side of the parcel. This is the Pinchuk parcel. This is the Wilson parcel. That is the DorIon parcel. That is also DorIon over here. MR. RUEL-So where's the right-of-way there? MR. O'CONNOR-Right here, right along Walker Lane. MR. RUEL-Where's the end of the road, right here? MR. O'CONNOR-Right up here, yes. MR. BREWER-Who owns that property? MR. O'CONNOR-I agree that Valente Builders owns it. MR. BREWER-That's what I want to know, if they have a right to put utilities and what not down there. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, another question. If you take a look at the utilities shown here, on this map that you've seen by Rist-Frost, that has been approved by Rist-Frost. I don't know who put the utilities on it. They show C, I don't know what that is, Cable? Power, electric, I'm not sure. They show those going across Mr. Pinchuk's land, clearly, by their own map. Mr. Pinchuk does not grant them an easement. Mr. Pinchuk doesn't intend to grant an easement. So I don't know how you're going to get utilities to this building, right here, and I listened with interest, as Mr. Phillips did, as to Mr. Carr's distinction between a right-of-way by reservation, or right-of-way by grant. I've not come across that in the past, as to one being more expansive than the other. As I understand the right-of-way reserved, it was a right-of-way for purpose of ingress and egress. MR. BREWER-They've got the cable, the phone, and the water tap right across there, then. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. BREWER-Do they have to grant it to the Town for the water? MR. O'CONNOR-We don't have to, unless the Town Board's going to exercise that right of eminent domain. MR. BREWER-I know they don't have to give it to NiMo or the phone company. MR. O'CONNOR-We don't have to give it to the Town either. MR. BREWER-Okay. So we'll give him some work to do before he comes back. MR. O'CONNOR-We basically think it's a violation against the rules - 20 - - -. of segmentation in the manner in which it's being presented. We think that you have to consider it for all 12 and see whether or not the site will accommodate it, and I have some real problems with access to the rear of the site, the way that this site is way out. There doesn't appear to be adequate room to get vehicles, particularly emergency vehicles to the rear of the site where potential buildings would go. It's a poor layout at best. I would also make a distinction as to satisfaction of the conditions of the ZSA, with what Mr. Carr has said. He said that, even if they didn't obtain anything by this quick claim deed, their right-of-way is the same width. They obtained. by quick claim deed, a 33 foot strip of land, or purported right of a 33 foot strip of land. The right-of-way is not 33 feet wide. There is no dimension given in the right-of-way, but if you go down and you take a look at the two old farm posts that are down there, they are significant in being that the gate, they serve the gate, they form the outside boundaries of that right-of-way. They're approximately 15 feet. They're only access is by right-of-way, and the most that they're going to be able to establish is 15 feet, and I think that's even born out by the 1986 survey that Rist-Frost did. If you'll notice, there's a jog between Pinchuk's property, here, and the outside of the property. This strip is not 33 feet. Here it's 24. If you take a look at that sketch, this other sketch, here are the two posts that are talked about, this distance right in here. MR. MACEWAN-Is this box here, presently there, that utility box? MR. BREWER-New box proposed, it says. MR. MACEWAN-The problem I see, here, in looking at this, it looks like someone made a note in reference that this was a survey map, but it's not a survey map. It's just a site plan map, and they made reference to it that it is a survey map. That's the problem I see on this. MR. O'CONNOR-My question before was, is there a survey. I think you're supposed to, by your rules and applications, have a survey. MR. MACEWAN-To me, yes, the survey would be a separate drawing anyway. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you're entitled to ask, were they able to get title insurance. and what proof of title do they have, other than simply a statement that they own a 33 foot connecting strip. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? I'm going to leave the public hearing open, because I'm sure we're going to be back, but I'm going to ask the applicant if we have his consent to table, to straighten some of these questions out with Mr. Dusek? MR. CARR-Yes. On just a couple of issues, also, just to notice on Mr. Valente's map there, we don't want to (lost words) and if I understood him correctly, he said that the DEC asked him to put in this quick line here to show, to have a demarcation between the right-of-way and your septic. So it seems to me that it's only if this is a right-of-way, although it is marked property line. If it is a right-of-way line, then the DEC would be satisfied that whatever was built to the north of that line would not impinge on the septic system, because that's what they asked them to do. So, I guess I would just like the Board to keep in mind that I think we've met the conditions of the DEC, or addressed their concerns. I mean, it's not our intention to ruin the septic system. MR. MARTIN-Tim, what I might suggest is that this issue be addressed by the Consulting Engineer, whoever that may be, in light of tonight, that they look into that, if there is any potential impact on that septic field. - 21 - ---- - MR. VALENTE-The reason it was done, is because this particular piece of property, we had to give to the Homeowners Association a temporary easement, which still means that Valente Builders owns it, okay, and they have the right to come on here and do anything repairs they have to the septic system. We did not want to give them the easement onto the right-of-way. That was the reason this line was put here, but when you read the abstractive title and the deed, it states that Valente Builders owns to the northerly section, even though it's not drawn here for DEC purposes, that we own from the northerly line, with an easement, with a right-of-way to the southerly line. This southerly line is basically to keep all these homeowners off this right-of-way. MR. CARR-I'm not arguing about the right-of-way. I'm just arguing that if the DEC asked you to put your septic per farm off this right-of-way to protect it, then whenever we use the right-of-way. or deeded right-of-way, whatever it turns out to be, should not effect your septic, because you've complied wi th what the DEC required you to do. You moved it to the south. That's all I'm saying. is that that's not an issue. MR. BREWER-All right. Lets not argue that. MR. O'CONNOR-Does Mr. Carr believe that Mr. Wilson owns that 33 foot strip, has secured title to Mr. Valente? MR. CARR-I've seen the survey map on Mr. Valente's deed. That does not put that 33 foot strip. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, we're going to find out. All right, what I would ask you, Bruce, is if you could ask your client, just for me, I'd like to see you plan where two more buildings could go, and their septics, and their driveways, and how you're going to get to them, and how you would service them. Survey. We've got to have a survey, right, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Got to have a survey, and if Mr. Pinchuk is not going to allow you to put the cable, the power, and the phone, whatever those three items are, the water, the phone, and electric, show me how you're going to get them on your land, if you could do that. That's all I have for~. I've got some other things for Paul. Has anybody else got anything for the applicant? Okay. MR. CARR-Could I suggest that we not set the new meeting up, I will get plans to Jim, and he can get in touch with the Board, as to when the information is assembled? MR. BREWER-How long do you think it will take? MR. CARR-If that's not a survey, then it would take a month anyway to get a survey. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You're not going to make the February meeting. I'll tell you that. MR. BREWER-Well, I don't mind having a special meeting, but I'd like to have the neighbors be able to know also. MR. MARTIN-I'm going to notify Mr. Valente, and I can notify Mr. Pinchuk as well, as a matter of courtesy. MR. BREWER-Okay. You give us a couple of weeks notice, then we can let everybody know. We'll have a special meeting. MR. MARTIN-Well, no, I'd like to have it in by the submission date for February, for consideration on the March meetings, because there's some complicated issues, here, that are not going to be breezed through in a couple of days. - 22 - -- MR. BREWER-Okay. All right. Then we'll table it. MR. MARTIN-Until the February submission date. MR. BREWER-The February submission date. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I would suggest, too, is that you have us forward a copy of all these minutes on to Paul Dusek. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. CARR-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. PHILLIPS-Could I ask that, before this comes on before this Board again, that both I be given notice of it, and also that Valente Builders be given notice of it? MR. BREWER-Yes. Jim said he would contact Mr. Valente. MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Also, Mr. Carr, I've got one other thing. I want to know for sure whether it's a guaranteed easement or reserved, granted or reserved, and some kind of written explanation as to what it is. MR. MARTIN-I'd put all these things in your motion, Tim, to table. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion to table? And also the condition of, whether or not it's 33 feet wide. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, would the Board consider the fact of conditioning any approval upon it's seeing a satisfactory policy of title insurance or the right to use that right-of-way and install utili ties on that right-of-way, because, in essence, what the applicant is trying to do is substitute that right-of-way for a Town road, and if you're going to dedicate a strip of land for a town road, now days, in the Town of Queensbury, you have to give proof of title, by title policy, to the Town Attorney, to prove that you have the right to give them that title. MR. BREWER-If he's going to build a Town Road, he has to build it to Town standards, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-That's a separate issue which we will get into if you get into the real merits of the site plan, but he is saying that he is substituting this 33 foot strip for his town road frontage, in essence, and there really is a serious question here. I think the burden should be upon the applicant to show this Board, the same as it would show the Town Attorney, that it's a qualified town road, that it's qualified ownership of that strip, is my point. MR. BREWER-And I asked him to show me what type of easement he has, whether it's a guaranteed or reserved, and some proof of what each of them mean. MR. CARR-We have a quick claim deed that we showed to the Zoning Board, and that was the whole issue with Paul Dusek, about whether that was acceptable. MR. BREWER-Well, Paul's going to get a copy of these minutes, and he's going to answer. MR. CARR-I would not want to say, we have to submit title insurance on it. I will submit whatever Paul Dusek feels is sufficient for the Board to make a determination. MR. MACEWAN-But the question was, when the Zoning Board approved your variance, there was question as to what the legal ownership - 23 - .-/. .. "". was to the easement, and the proof was on you. MR. CARR-Yes, and we satisified that to Paul Dusek's satisfaction. MR. BREWER-But Paul Dusek is not approving this application. This Board is. MR. CARR-Right, but all I'm saying is, you're trying to impose a higher burden on this applicant than what is required under the law, and that's all I'm saying is, I think we've got to submit to Paul Dusek, your Town Attorney, what is required of the applicant to show the ownership of the property. I mean, it's a legal standard. MR. O'CONNOR-Paul Dusek, to date, has not approved ownership. He's taken the same position on this, and this is why you don't hear me arguing, that he took on Wal-Mart, with the dentist, and what we say, we have to live with. That's the legal issue that, in that case, was not a condition of any approval, and they had to battle it out. MR. BREWER-Well, if it's an easement, he doesn't own it, does he? It wouldn't be an easement if he owned it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My point is different than that. My point is that he is substituting this 33 foot strip, whatever his claim to it is, for what would normally be town road frontage. I think you're entitled, under public health, welfare and safety rules, to say, show me that you have the same rights to that as if it were a town road, and if it were a town road, and you were dedicating it to the Town, we'd have to get title insurance. MR. CARR-We aren't dedicating it to the Town. MR. O'CONNOR-You're using it like a Town road. MR. BREWER-He's using it as an easement. Show me proof of the land, that's all I want to see. Show me proof of the land and then I'll be happy, and I'll show it to the Attorney, and maybe he'll make me happy. All right. Somebody make a motion to table this, please. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-93 LUCAS WILSON, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Until the February submission date. The applicant is required to submit a survey map, and to clarify the easement by both definition and ownership, and show additional phases of construction, how the building is going to sit, and where the septic is going to sit, and how he's going to have access to it. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SEQRA REVIEW: SEQRA REVIEW: ANTHONY MALANTINO - RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Site Plan for Anthonv Malantino RESOLUTION NO.: 3-1994 INTRODUCED BY: Georqe Stark - 24 - '.~ --/ WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Rue! WHEREAS, in connection with the Site Plan No. 57-93. Anthony Malantino, the Town Of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review. and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows; 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action, as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant for the following reasons: and, BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 57-93 ABOVE ZONE: WR-3A, A 2 STALL GARAGE WITH WARREN CO. PLANNING: +1.69 ACRES SECTION: TYPE I ANTHONY MALANTINO OWNER: SAME AS C.E.A. LOCATION: ROUTE 9L PROPOSAL IS FOR ATTACHED BREEZEWAY. SEQRA REVIEW - 1/18/94 12/8/93 APA TAX MAP NO. 3-1-21 LOT SIZE: 179-79 F MICHAEL LYFORD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 57-93, Anthony Malantino, Meeting Date: January 27, 1993 "The applicant is proposing to construct an 840 square foot garage which will be attached to an existing single family house by an open breezeway. The property is off of Route 9L and has frontage on Lake George; it is zoned WR-3A, is located in the Adirondack Park and the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. 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 1879-38 C., the proposal was - 25 - reviewed regarding its impact on the highways. There was found to be 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 applicant should provide elevations to show what the proposed addition will look like. Lighting and signage are not relevant issues. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls¡ Traffic access is adequate. 3. The location. arrangement, appearance and sUfficiency of off-street parking and loading¡ Off-street parking is adequate. 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 applicant should explain how existing stormwater runoff is handled and how additional runoff from the garage will be managed. This does not appear to be a significant problem. 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 suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual andlor 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 andlor erosion. This is not an issue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-Warren County, "No County Impact", and that was it. MR. LYFORD-My name is Michael Lyford. Malantino. I'm representing Tony MR. BREWER-And this is 840 square feet? MR. LYFORD-That's right. It's a 28 by 30. MR. MARTIN-Do you know if he was planning on putting gutters on this? MR. LYFORD-Not to my knowledge, no. It's not a problem. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to see gutters put on it, with a downspout to at least an eave trench. MR. LYFORD-He does have. on the original house plans that were submitted, back in '87, he does have a runoff from the front of the house. MR. MARTIN-He has a drywell on site? MR. LYFORD-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. If we could have this connected into that drywell, then, through a guttering system. MR. BREWER-The docks he has, Jim, does he have enough lake frontage for those sized docks? I don't know how big they are. It doesn't say on the map. MR. MARTIN-What's he got, 201 feet along the shore? MR. BREWER-Yes. It doesn't say how big the docks are though, does - 26 - -" it? MR. LYFORD-Those docks really were probably, they were put up when he built the house, back in '87. MR. BREWER-They were? MR. LYFORD-They would have been on. MR. MARTIN-They preexist then. He's permitted two docks, with that frontage, and I think that would be two docks. One would be one U- shaped dock, and then a single dock. MR. BREWER-Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. RUEL-This is for the garage? MR. LYFORD-The garage, and breezeway. MR. RUEL-The breezeway existing or not? MR. LYFORD-No, it's not. MR. RUEL-That also will be built? MR. LYFORD-Yes. MR. RUEL-Now, what's the size of that? MR. LYFORD-Eight by twenty-four. MR. BREWER-That says on the application, also. MR. RUEL-And the exterior of the garage will be the same as the house? MR. LYFORD-The same as the house, cedar siding. MR. RUEL-And is the driveway there? MR. LYFORD-The driveway's there, crushed stone. MR. RUEL-There was no garage before? MR. LYFORD-No. It's just right on bedrock. MR. RUEL-Is that a paved driveway? MR. LYFORD-It will be paved, I think, in the spring. right now, it's crushed stone. As it is MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets do the SEQRA. MR. MACEWAN-We're doing the short or long? MR. BREWER-Long. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE RESOLUTION NO. 57-93, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the ANTHONY MALANTINO, 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 - 27 - ......./ 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 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 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 27th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. HARLICKER-Tim, did you open the public hearing? MR. BREWER-I didn't. I'm sorry. Do we have to go back through the SEQRA again? MR. MARTIN-Well, lets see if we have any comment first. MR. BREWER-I'll open the public hearing. comment on this? Does anybody wish to PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-So now we can just reiterate what we just did. somebody want to introduce that prepared resolution? Does MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-93 ANTHONY MALANTINO, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 57-93 to construct a two stall garage attached to an existing single family house by an open breezeway, and Whereas, consists 3/11/88 undated, the above mentioned site plan application dated 11/24/93 of the following: 1. Sheet 1, site plan survey, dated 2. Sheet 2, plot plan showing location of septic system, and Whereas, the above file is supported with the documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 1/18/94 Environmental Assessment Form, dated 12/10/93, and following 2. Long Whereas, a public hearing was held on 1/18/94 concerning the above - 28 - '-- "- project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has factors found in Section 179-39 Queensbury (Zoning). considered the of the Code of environmental the Town of Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan # 57-93. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature within 30 days of the date of this resolution, that the gutter system attach to the current gutter system for runoff on the house. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 61-93 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: FORMULA 1 AUTO BODY 299 BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONDUCT AUTO COLLISION REPAIR IN AN EXISTING 4,636 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY. CROSS REFERENCE: SP '11-93 BEAUTIFICATION COMM: 1/10/94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/8/93 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 33,550 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-23 D(l) MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 61-93, Richard Eggleston/Thomas Stimpson, Meeting Date: January 27, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to modify a previous site plan to allow for additional parking and storage of cars that are or have undergone work at the shop. The previous application allowed for the parking of 12 cars along the south property line; the modification would expand the parking north of the building to allow for 23 cars, the south side of the building would accommodate 7 cars and there would be spaces allocated for 6 cars in the front. The revised parking plan would allow for a total of 36 spaces. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff does not see any significant problems with the revised parking. However, in order to avoid the appearance of a used car lot it would be more aesthetically pleasing if the spaces out front faced to the north and were lined up perpendicular to Bay as opposed to facing Bay Road. The spaces in front should be reserved for employees and customers to prevent the parking of unsightly cars along the road. Since the unsurfaced area on the north side of the building is to be used as a storage area, it should be properly screened from the adjacent property as well as the street. The screening might include coniferous landscaping, to provide year round screening, in addition to a stockade fence. The trash container will be located to the rear of the building. The plan indicates that it will be enclosed but it is not clear how the area will be enclosed." MR. HARLICKER-Warren County, "No County Impact", and it received, it went to the Beautification Committee, and they approved of it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? - 29 - '--..- .- Okay. Would you care to address the comments? MR. MULLER-For the record, my name is Michael Muller. To my right is Mr. Eggleston, and as Mr. Martin has said, we're here for our monthly presentation. The plan is essentially as we had discussed, and you helped us draw, of course this is a more formal drawing. Scott's comments that he read, about parking to the north, I assume you're talking about. MR. HARLICKER-So they're facing north, as opposed to facing Bay. MR. MULLER-Right, so nose in, towards where it says, sign? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MULLER-I think, I don't know if that's okay, and I'll ask Mr. Eggleston in a moment, but the Board, we had that proposed the last time we were here, and this Board said, no way. Put them going the other way. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. MULLER-So, we're just going around in a circle on that one. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that's before we had the idea that we're shutting down that one curb cut. MR. BREWER-I think that was the employee parking over here, wasn't it? MR. MULLER-The employee parking. MR. BREWER-It was over here, where it says, sign. Correct? MR. RUEL-In the north end. MR. MULLER-See where it says, fence, six foot high, with gate? So, if you park your cars there, I would presume that in that 60 foot span from the fence to the boundary line, you're only going to be able to get five cars, maximum, but you have to leave a 20 foot ingress/egress. So we're down to three, and I think if we're going to put our handicapped parking in there, we're down to two. MR. BREWER-I thought your handicapped was going to be up by the door? MR. MULLER-Yes. We moved it. MR. RUEL-You've got Number Six as handicapped. MR. MULLER-Yes. You're right, but if I understand Scott's point, he's taking One through Six and swinging them. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MULLER-And if you do that, I can't have six there, and comply with your Code. MR. BREWER-If you go five here, facing north, put your handicapped up by the door, and that gives you the six spaces. You're not losing any spaces. MR. MULLER-I don't think I'm clearing for my 20 foot ingress and egress that the Code's going to require for my gate. MR. BREWER-No, if you put, isn't the door over to the south of the building? MR. MULLER-There's a gate here, Mr. Brewer. - 30 - -" MR. BREWER-I see. You're going to put a fence there. MR. MULLER-There is a fence there now. We're going to continue it. MR. RUEL-How do you get back there? MR. BREWER-There's a gate. MR. MULLER-The gate's there. MR. RUEL-That gate is for parking area, or for access to the building? MR. BREWER-The guy that previously had this building stored inventory in there. So he had a gate there so he could get the inventory in and out, rather than go all the way around the building. MR. MARTIN-Yes. He used to store snowmobiles in there and things like that. MR. MULLER-That's correct. The fence, if you will, will maintain a line that is even with the front of the building, and running from the corner of the building in a northerly direction, six foot high, with a gate in it, sufficient to allow an automobile in, and to be closed, and the fence, as required by the Beautification Commi ttee, would not be stockade. It would be chain link with slats. MR. BREWER-Going both directions. MR. RUEL-Plastic slats? MR. MULLER-Plastic slats. MR. BREWER-Going both directions, or one direction? MR. MULLER-They didn't say. MR. BREWER-The only reason I say that is because there's a junkyard in town, up on Van Dusen Road, and he has slats, and it's a nice fence, but they only go one way, and you can still see through it. MR. MULLER-If you'd like them both ways, we'll put them in both ways. I didn't honestly know you could do that. You can do that both ways? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MULLER-Okay. know. Then that's not a problem, but I wanted you to MR. BREWER-I would say at least in the front of it. I mean, it's probably very expensive, but. MR. MULLER-We're going to do that. If you recall, when we first came here, I said to you, do you want a stockade fence, there's a stockade fence. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We're the one's that said. I'll defer to the Beautification Committee, if that's what they want to see. MR. MULLER-Right, and the Beautification Committee fence. Okay. So we said fine, chain link fence? chain link with slats. You want double slats, double slats. said no stockade They said, yes, we'll give you MR. BREWER-Only because you're going to have unsightly cars there. MR. MULLER-True. - 31 - -" MR. BREWER-And I would prefer not to see them. MR. MULLER-True. Both sides of the building have this fence. If you look at the front of this building, both sides of that building have this type of fence we're discussing. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MULLER-Okay, and the fence approaches but does not tie to the northern boundary line, okay, there's trees in there, and our discussions, again, with the Beautification Committee, was one alternative discussed, and the plan suggested by us, not preferred by us, was to put a boundary fence, stockade. Their answer was, no, leave it wooded and plant honey suckle. Our answer was, fine, we'll do it. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MULLER-Now, I'd like to comment about, I'm still confused about what's out front. So let me see if I can at least comment about what I don't believe is going to be a problem, and that is that those spaces fourteen through twenty-five are (lost word), they are close to the building, and presumably, with that fence, you're not going to be able to see them. Those spaces that are twenty-six through thirty-one, they don't need to be as close to that boundary line as they are indicated, and our preference is not to clear cut it back to the property line, and if permitted, they are, basically, not going to hug that line, but they are going to be there, and that's the six that you folks suggested that you want to see, and we only, we had seven there at one time. You said, delete that, and you can put six cars there. MR. BREWER-I think you had twelve there, didn't you? MR. MULLER-Yes, we did. That's correct, and then our back up was seven, you said, how about six. Right. MR. MARTIN-In my view, it would be preferred if they could leave those six farther off the property line. MR. MULLER-Right. That's preferred. We don't want to cut. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MULLER-Spaces thirty-two through thirty-six are there. I don't believe that there's any trees. It's the vacant land. It buts up against Mrs. Hart's property. It's just parking cars there. Again, if you ask us if we're always going to be parking cars here, the answer is, it's actually the last logical place to park cars. You needed to know from us what are the maximum number of vehicles you can see on the premises, and there it is. Those are the last and least desirable spaces in our plan. Those spaces that were marked seven through thirteen were, what we considered to be, the automobiles, or the immovables, that they had been towed there, dropped there, and we prefer to have them on the south side so that they're close to the door opening, and you folks wanted it to be screened, and we have the 20 foot extension of fence, chain link, six foot high, double slatted. It will not go out into the 25 foot right-of-way. MR. BREWER-I guess I'm going to ask you a question that I never asked you before. Suppose you did away with twenty-six through thirty-one, thirty-two through thirty-six, and double decked fourteen through twenty-five? Would that be easier for you or worse? Then you wouldn't have to touch anything there. You're not losing anything. RICHARD EGGLESTON MR. EGGLESTON-I think you're going right back to that twenty foot - 32 - --~-----~._- - ( .,,-- -..-r. problem. MR. MULLER-Right. Garfield Raymond, if you recall, was here, for the record, and he said, we had this discussion about having ingress and egress for parking spaces, because our Ordinance did not distinguish between this place, where we all know customers are not going to be parking their cars, and a mall. MR. BREWER-Why does that have to be parking spaces, Jim? Why can't that be storage area? MR. MARTIN-I determination. don't know that I It wouldn't be mine. exactly concur with that MR. BREWER-It's not my determination. A parking space, to me, would be, like at our store, where a customer comes in and parks and comes in the store and makes a purchase and leaves. These cars are going to be there for a period of time, and I don't agree with them. MR. MULLER-Well, you put me in a difficult position, because I don't want to disagree with you, but if you read the Ordinance, the Ordinance is not all that terribly distinct about storage of vehicles and parking of vehicles. So, we're going to try to comply wi th our Ordinance without you asking us to go, now, and get a variance. MR. BREWER-I'm not asking you that. I'm just suggesting that that could be done. MR. MULLER-Okay, or setting us up with a plan that makes us get one. MR. BREWER-Do we have a right to waive that, Jim? MR. RUEL-Some clarification is required on that. MR. BREWER-Well, the Zoning Ordinance, I'm just trying to make it better. That's all I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to make it more complicated. If he can't do it, he can't do it. MR. MULLER-I honestly thought you people wanted us to comply with the 20 foot ingress and egress, and that's how you do it. The other thing is that I had parking spaces drawn on that line, and you took them away. MR. BREWER-I know I did. The only reason I took them away, and I'll tell you why, is because you had spaces here, here, and here, and I just tried to eliminate some. That's all I tried to do. Well, Jim, you can look through that, and we can open the public hearing, and let whomever wants to speak on this, and we can come back to that, unless you have more comments? MR. MULLER-We have two small comments, and then I will, certainly, let others speak, and that is that it has a 40 foot singular access, as opposed to what is now the two avenues of access that are open in a horseshoe shape, if you're familiar with, and I really think that we'd prefer one through six, six being the handicapped, at the, on an eastlwest access, for the space relationships, how we expect automobiles to move in and out of this thing, that's all. MR. BREWER-Okay. I don't have a problem with that. I almost wish you could move that up towards the building, that handicapped. I don't understand your 20 foot ingress and egress with the problem with moving the handicapped up by the building. MR. MULLER-I don't have a problem. You want to put the handicapped up by the building, that's okay. - 33 - MR. BREWER-It just makes it better. I mean, if somebody's handicapped, and they're on crutches or whatever. MR. MULLER-Well, they probably will be if they're car's coming in to this place, right? MR. BREWER-I just think the closer to the building the better. That's all. MR. RUEL-Yes, the door's right here, isn't it? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MULLER-Right. Only because I wanted it there, and I got it bounced from that place and you had me out here, okay. I'm looking for the drawing you people gave me, last time. MR. RUEL-You should have brought along a before and after. MR. BREWER-All right. I'll open the public hearing. Does anybody wish to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DR. ROBERT WESTCOTT DR. WESTCOTT-Good evening. My name is Dr. Robert Westcott. I have an office building at 306 Bay Road. It contains a dental office, a Certified Public Accountant office, and two appraisers office that are directly across the street from the project in question. I had two major concerns when I came here, one of which you have already addressed, which was the parking and the visual impact of having wrecked cars there and so on, and I'm satisfied that this Board is going to take whatever actions are required to have an acceptable result, and I'll be brief in my other comments, which really relate to noise. Can you tell me what noise we can expect from this enterprise? We've all been in body shops where there's been grinding and pounding on cars and so on and so forth, and I'd like to have some assurance that this is not going to be a factor in the neighborhood. You have a residence next door. You have professional offices across the street. MR. MULLER-That's a fair question, Dr. Westcott. I would say that, has there been a noise problem yet? DR. WESTCOTT-I've not noticed it. MR. MULLER-Okay. How long have you been in operation? MR. EGGLESTON-Eight months. MR. MULLER-Okay. We've been there eight months. All the work is done inside. Now, have you got anything going on outside, anything making noise? MR. EGGLESTON-No. MR. RUEL-The noise level would increase in the summer when the doors are open. MR. MULLER-Right. MR. RUEL-In the winter, everything is closed, so naturally. MR. BREWER-Yes, but he's been open eight months. months for winter yet. It hasn't been DR. WESTCOTT-I would say there's more highway noise from Bay Road than coming from the building. - 34 - MR. MULLER-We're not allowed to, nor do I believe we are doing, outdoor pounding, removing, things like that. DR. WESTCOTT-Well, I've been retired for three years, so I don't work there any more. So, I wouldn't be in the neighborhood all the time to notice whether they were. MR. MULLER-Well, it's no more noisy than the dentist's office. DR. WESTCOTT-So, are you saying that in the summer time, the work will be done with the doors up? MR. MULLER-No. I want to have Mr. Eggleston say so, okay, because it's his business of operation. MR. EGGLESTON-Whiteman Chevrolet and Queensbury Motors, most bOdy shops do their work with the doors down. It kind of keeps the noise muffled. They have air conditioning. DR. WESTCOTT-I don't think there's any, I haven't heard any noise that I would consider excruciating. Like I say, the road noise, there doesn't seem to be anything loud. I'm satisfied. Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. RUEL-Is your building air conditioned? MR. EGGLESTON-The front is. MR. RUEL-But not the work area? MR. EGGLESTON-No. MR. BREWER-It would be awful expensive to do that. Is there anyone else? LINDA HART MRS. HART-Linda Hart. Do we have to have a fence on this side, where the right-of-way is? MR. MULLER-Mr. MacEwan wanted that fence there. MR. STARK-That hides the immovables. MR. BREWER-What that does is just hides the cars that are damaged. MR. RUEL-Just a short fence. MRS. HART-I understand what that's for. neat on that side of the building. They're keeping it very MR. MACEWAN-It was my suggestion for your protection. If you don't feel it's necessary, and it's going to save them a few bucks, if it makes you happy that we don't have it there, we won't have it there. MRS. HART-Well, you can't see them now. They're under snow anyway. MR. BREWER-Yes, but it's not going to be snow their in June. MRS. HART-They only can have seven cars there. Is that correct? MR. MULLER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. HART-They're butting them up to the building nice and neat. Do they have to put the really, really wrecked ones there? Can't - 35 - '~ ___I you just put the fender benders there, without a fence? MR. BREWER-Well, that was the purpose of putting the spaces there, Mrs. Hart. MRS. HART-A fence is ugly, any kind of fence. MR. STARK-Yes, but then he'd have to put the immovables around the, back, and he's got to push them into. MR. BREWER-No, he doesn't have to put the around back. We told him he could put them there. MR. STARK-No, it's easier for him to put the immovables there, though. MR. BREWER-She doesn't want the fence there. You'd rather look at the cars. MR. MULLER-It's not a little fence. It's 20 feet long, and six feet high, and on account of what you folks just said tonight, it has double slats in it. MRS. HART-It's a big fence. MR. STARK-I've never seen a double slatted. MR. MULLER-I haven't, either. I'm just trusting that you know that that's possible, because when we go out to hire a contractor, and he starts saying, forget it. So there is a double slatted? MR. BREWER-There is double slats. MRS. HART-If you'd agree to just keep seven cars there in a neat, orderly fashion, I don't have a problem with that. MR. MULLER-Well, we'll do more than agree, if you folks are going to require it. MR. BREWER-You're the neighbor. I live a long ways from there. So it doesn't bother me from my house. MRS. HART-It's neat right now on that side. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. So then you would be satisfied that they wouldn't be required to have a fence, in that area? MRS. HART-Not on that side. MR. MULLER-The south side. MR. MACEWAN-So be it. MRS. HART-Did you say you're going to put trees there, too? MR. MACEWAN-No. The trees are on the other side. MRS. HART-I want it to be a wide open space. MR. MULLER-It's wide open. MR. RUEL-Why don't you like the fence? MRS. HART-They're ugly. MR. RUEL-How about the other fence? MRS. HART-Well, that's been there for years. MR. BREWER-They're going to leave it there. - 36 - - MRS. HART-I don't have a problem with the fence there. I certainly don't want a fence there, and I don't (lost words) parking right in the front instead of like you have it now, under the sign? MR. MULLER-Yes. Don't make a face, because you drew that plan. MRS. HART-Well, I don't have to agree with all that. MR. BREWER-You're right. You don't. MR. STARK-It's my own opinion, the way the U-shaped is now, with the shrubs and a little split rail fence, looks decent. The cars parked on the north side, facing north or south, looks better than this plan here, that we proposed, I think, just the way the driveway is right now. Don't touch it. Just let these guys park up there. MR. BREWER-Yes, but we're eliminating your curb cut, George, and that's what the intention of it was. MR. STARK-That would look worse than it looks now. looks decent right now. I think it MR. BREWER-I'm sure they'll do a nice job with what they do then also. MR. STARK-Okay. The idea was to eliminate the used car look. You put the cars right out front, it's going to look like a used car lot. MR. MULLER-Well, it'll be employee, visitor, and I guess not the handicapped. The handicapped's going to go up by the building. It is not vehicles stored for collision repair. It is not. MR. STARK-Myself, I think they look better on the north, facing north south access. That's mY opinion. I don't care about the curb cut or anything else. I think having a U- shaped there is fine. MR. BREWER-I think back, and we talked about another application, down by King's. MR. STARK-Behind King Fuels. MR. BREWER-When we tried to eliminate a curb cut there, and that was our intention, I think that's what our intention was here. MR. STARK-No. The intention was, here, that this wasn't paved over there, where the employees park their cars now, and it was muddy, and blah, blah, blah, and all that. MR. BREWER-Well, if that becomes a problem to them, then they'll pave it. MR. STARK-That's fine. So leave it on the north side. MRS. HART-There just won't be a U (lost word) is that right? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. STARK-Yes, but then all the cars sidewalk. You know where the sidewalk is. nose on the sidewalk. are parked out on the There'll be right out, MR. MULLER-They are. They're four feet from the sidewalk. In that island are the shrubs that the Beautification Committee wants, with the wood shed. MRS. HART-Now it looks like a used car lot, with them lined up, one, two, three, four, five. - 37 - - MR. STARK-Remember the guy that had a used car lot there before Mr. Eggleston bought the place? The noses of the cars were over the sidewalk. I was on that sidewalk plenty of times, and you have to walk out into the macadam, off the concrete sidewalk, to get around the cars. That's where he had them parked. I don't know why he parked them out that far, but he had them parked out there. Now, with the shrubs, and you've got a U-shaped thing, and nobody's on the sidewalk. MR. BREWER-Okay. guys want. I'm just one guy. I'll go along with what you MR. MACEWAN-It just seems like we're compounding everything. MR. BREWER-We're saying one thing one week, and then the next week we're coming back and we're saying something different. MR. MULLER-Yes. That would have been mY statement. MR. BREWER-We have to be consistent. MR. MARTIN-I think one of the clear intentions that comes out of the Master Plan and the Ordinance is elimination of curb cuts where possible, and reduction of curb cuts. MR. BREWER-And I think that's what we're accomplishing here. Bay Road is a very busy road. MR. STARK-The only thing is, it's going to look worse if you eliminate the curb cut than it does now. MR. BREWER-Why do you say it's going to look worse, George? MR. STARK-Because I've seen it before, before he improved it, and the guy that had it before him had all these cars parked right out in the front, and it looked like a used car lot because it ~ a used car lot. MR. BREWER-That guy before him, I knew him. MR. MARTIN-What made that look bad before is he had about 50 cars wedged in there every way out front, packed in there as best he could. MR. STARK-That's true. They're not going to be there all night. MR. BREWER-Right. He's going to have six cars there, and I'm sure they're going to do a nice job of landscaping it. That's the way I feel. I'm not changing my position. MRS. HART-As it is now, you park right next to the building. You're not going to do that, right? You're butting right up to that. MR. MULLER-This plan has no parking, well, because we're not parking here. We're going to park here. MRS. HART-You're parked everywhere right now, everywhere. MR. MULLER-Yes. Right. MR. BREWER-Is that all you want, Mrs. Hart, is just the fence not there? MRS. HART-I really like the way George says it. I think it looks nice. MR. MACEWAN-The object of doing that was trying to eliminate the extra curb cut onto Bay Road. - 38 - -- MRS. HART-I don't understand curb cuts. MR. MACEWAN-Well, an extra driveway, an extra access in and out. MRS. HART-Well, that was a condition when came the first time, that they had to go in and out and put a sign. That was said the first time you came. MR. MULLER-Yes. MRS. HART-And you agreed that it would be that way. MR. MACEWAN-Under the advice of our Planning Staff. MR. STARK-All he should do is just slat the north fence, double slat the north fence, and that's all. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. HART-You're just keeping the fence that's existing. MR. STARK-Right. MRS. HART-You're not putting a new one up, right? MR. STARK-Well, and he's not going to clear cut anything on the back or anything. MRS. HART-I never complained about this side of the building. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. HART-I only complained here. MR. MULLER-You wouldn't even want to see slats there? MRS. HART-Don't get carried away now. There are some ugly looking things. I would like the slats, double. MR. BREWER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-Jim is looking something up, isn't he? MR. BREWER-Yes. Did you come up with an answer, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think Mr. Raymond is right in his interpretation of the Ordinance. Unfortunately, this would have to be viewed as a parking lot. MR. BREWER-Okay. Now, could you come here just one second? I'm not changing anything. This is what I drew last week, or whenever it was. I eliminated them right next to the lot line, like you have them there. I put them here. You put them there. That's fine. MR. MULLER-Well, this here, you drew that. Okay. If you measure this, this is not to scale, your drawing, if you scale it, you just can't get your parking spaces in there, and have the 20 feet, after 20 feet. Okay. There is only 60 feet here. I've got to put a 20 foot parking space. MR. BREWER-Twenty foot parking space, then you've got a twenty foot right-of-way, that's forty. You've got twenty foot left. MR. MULLER-Yes, okay, I've got 20 feet left. I do. what are you doing here, one, two, three, four, five? you want to put here? Okay. Now, Is that what - 39 - -- MR. BREWER-Yes. close the gate. handicapped. That's what Scott suggested. It extends past, All right. Leave five here, put one here, for the MR. MULLER-I have no problem with handicapped here. MR. BREWER-I don't know what I was doing. Forget that. MR. RUEL-Parallel parking? MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is everybody happy with this now? He's going to move, whoever makes the motion, he's going to move twenty-six through thirty-one back away from the lot line, I don't know how far. We're just making the conditions of the motion. Spaces twenty-six through thirty-one. He's going to move them back. He's going to move the handicapped parking next to the entrance, and the fence on the south side of the building. MR. STARK-There is none now. So you don't have to stipulate that or anything. MR. BREWER-Well, it shows on the plan. So it's not going to be required. The fence on the north side of the building, he is going to put slats in it, going in both directions. MR. RUEL-Right, gray slats. MR. BREWER-Are we going to stipulate color, too? MR. MULLER-The Beautification Committee did. MR. RUEL-That's what they said, gray. MR. MARTIN-My other question is, just so that I have some sort of idea about, when I go to look at this thing, about the, there's a reference to honey suckles along the northern boundary, in the Beautification notes. Any frequency suggested or? MR. MULLER-They said intersperse it in amongst the Poplars, just so that it gives a bush effect, in addition to the trees that are there. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Honey suckles grow like weeds. MR. RUEL-Are they green all year? MR. MULLER-No. MR. BREWER-Yes, they are. Well, not in the winter, they're not. MR. MARTIN-Three quarters of the year, they are. MR. BREWER-Three quarters of the year, from early spring until~ MR. MULLER-It's a tough shrub, and it grows big. It smells good. MR. MARTIN-You can get them real cheap from the Soil Conservation Service. MR. MACEWAN-Why do we have to do a SEQRA again on this? MR. MARTIN-This is a new application, a Short Form. MR. MULLER-We're going to have this done in May. MR. MARTIN-Blacktop will open, at the earliest, mid-April. You - 40 - - want to be careful about committing to too early of a date. MR. BREWER-Say, June, July. If you want July, I don't care. MR. EGGLESTON-July 1st, because I'll have to do some excavating. MR. BREWER-Okay. July 1st. All right. Lets do the SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 61-93, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning Board RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON, and 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 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 27th day of January, 1994, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-93 RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: With the following stipulations: One, the front parking spaces, areas one through six, should be reserved for employees and walk-in customers, and that the handicapped parking spot be relocated closer to the door. Two, that screening of the facility be done through the Beautification Committee's recommendations of a chain link fence with the slating in it, and that the fence on the south side not be required. Three, that the trash containers be located to the rear of the building. Four, that the spaces twenty-six through thirty-one be moved back off the line by 10 feet in a southerly direction, and that all these conditions be met upon by July 1, 1994, and that the site plan be fully implemented by July - 41 - ..... ... 1, 1994. Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-All right. We've got to do the minutes. MR. MACEWAN-I'm going to have to abstain from 16th and 24th of November. MR. BREWER-We can't do them, because we've only got three people. MR. MACEWAN-Dunham's Bay is pending, until we find out whether Dusek can be with us or not? So we'll know a date. MR. STARK-Harris Bay Yacht Club. MR. MACEWAN-Harris Bay. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'll confirm that, hopefully, tomorrow with Tim. MR. BREWER-It's a workshop. MR. MACEWAN-Site visits are on the 9th. The 9th is on a Wednesday. The first meeting will be the 15th. The second meeting will be the 22nd. MR. BREWER-Are we going to have two meetings? MR. MARTIN-I don't know. We've got to go through them tomorrow. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 42 -