Loading...
1994-03-15 .,-, --- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15TH. 1994 INDEX SEQRA Review Site Plan No. 6-94 Site Plan No. 9-94 John & Dorothy Hodgkins 1. Stuart Temkin 4. Mary K. Gray 14. Subdivision No. 16-86 MODIFICATION Daniel Valente 18. Site Plan No. 1-91 MODIFICATION Pyramid Company of Glens Falls 22. SEQRA Review Michael Barody 30. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEA~ ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. "--... ---" QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15TH, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN JAMES OBERMAYER CATHERINE LABOMBARD ROBERT PALING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SEQRA REVIEW: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF FOR: MR. & MRS. JACK HODGKINS MR. BREWER-Okay. Scott, you have some notes on it? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-And we can do Barody last. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-94 SEQRA Review, John & Dorothy Hodgkins, Meeting Date: March 15, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant's proposal involves variances from a 9reater than 50% expansion of a nonconforming house and from shorel1ne setback. The expansion will be 800 square feet in size and will allow for the expansion of living space." Providing the applicant gets the required variances, this will be back before you again next week for site plan review. "PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff reviewed Part II of the Long Environmental Assessment submitted with this project and offers the following comments: 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? The proposal will result in a slight physical change to the project site. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The proposal will not affect any protected water body provided proper erosion control measures are in place during construction and until the site is revegetated. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? The proposal will not affect any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The proposal will not affect surface or groundwater. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The proposal will affect drainage flow or surface water runoff. Any additional runoff generated from the new construction will have to be retained on site. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect non- threatened or non-endangered species? The pro j ect should not affect any non-threatened or non-endangered species. 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The project should not affect any agricultural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not impact any aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact - 1 - '-' --- any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any si te or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open space or recreational opportunities? The action should not have an adverse effect on open space or recreational opportunities. 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation system? The project should not effect the transportation system. 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel and energy? The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? There should not be objectionable noise, odors or vibrations as a result of this project. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The project should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. RECOMMENDATION: The project does not appear to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment ¡ therefore, the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." MR. BREWER-Okay. please. Craig, would you take us through the SEQRA, MR. MACEWAN-Is it a Full or a Short? MR. HARLICKER-It's the Long Form. RESOLUTION WHEH DETERMINATIOH OF HO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-1994, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: Hodgkins, and is presently before the Planning Board an Variances and Site Plan Review for John & Dorothy 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. - 2 - -- Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1994, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-We have to, we didn't introduce the Resolution Acknowledging Lead Agency Status. MR. MACEWAN-No. You skipped that. QUEENSBURY ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Variances and Site Plan Review for John & Dorothy Hodgkins RESOLUTION NO. ~ 10-1994 INTRODUCED BY: Craig MacEwan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Robert Palinq WHEREAS, in connection with the variances and site plan review application for John & Dorothy Hodgkins, and 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 the 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 of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. do Barody last? George, do you want to go right into Temkin and Lets do it last, so we won't keep people waiting. - 3 - '- NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 6-94 TYPE II MR. STUART TEMKIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: CLEVERDALE ROAD TO HILLMAN¡ LARGE GRAY CONTEMPORARY AT TEE INTERSECTION LAKE SIDE. REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT A BOATHOUSEISUNDECK ASSEMBLY OVER AN EXISTING U-SHAPED CRIB DOCK. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/94 APA LGPC TAX MAP NO. 12- 3-34.2 LOT SIZE: 24,853 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-60 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6-94, Stuart Temkin, Meeting Date: March 15, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a sundeck over an existing dock. The dock is located on Harris Bay and is a U-shaped crib dock extending 40 feet from shore. The deck will be 20 feet wide and will extend from the shore out to the end of the dock. The sides will be left open and the height will be approximately 10 1/2 feet above the dock. Access to the deck will be via a ramp from shore and stairs from the dock below. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The project was compared to Section 179-60 (b) Docks and Moorings. The proposal is in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations and staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-Warren County disapproved with this comment, "The Warren County Planning Board has historically not approved ramps to the shoreline. Also, the Board needed a complete drawing showing the location of the stairs and the ramp." You should have in your packet here more detailed drawings. They were submitted on 3/7, showing a detail of the stairway and the ramp. MR. OBERMAYER-Is this the detailed drawing? MR. HARLICKER-It's dated 3/7/94 up in the corner. Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay, George. We do have a letter, if you want to read that into the minutes, please. MR. STARK-Okay. "To Mr. Jim Martin, Executive Director, Scott Harlicker, Susan Cipperly Planning and Zoning Office, Town of Queensbury Office Building Dear Madam and Sirs: As owners and full time residents of the adjacent property south of Mr. Temkin, we are not in favor of a boathouse I sundeck assembly over the existing crib dock. With the added height of the structure, we feel as we would be afforded only a "tunnel-vision" view of Harris Bay. One of the greatest pleasures we have enjoyed in the past, both from the house and yard, is the ability to view not only Harris Bay, but on up the main lake to the west shore. Perhaps these photos will illustrate the hardship this site plan would impose. Yours truly, Joyce M. Buckley Arthur J. Buckley" And they included six photos taken from their property of the lake, of the crib dock. MR. BREWER-Scott, I've got a question. It says. the deck will be 20 feet wide? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-In our Ordinance it says that no dock shall exceed eight feet in width. MR. HARLICKER-That's the wood plank part. roof is. The deck up top, the MR. BREWER-Is that considered part of it? I mean, is the top? MR. HARLICKER-No. References to dock width addresses the planks that go out into the water that people walk on. - 4 - MR. BREWER-I see, the overall width of it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Also, it indicates 40 feet long in one place, and the other one it's 15 and 30, which is 45. Is it 40 or is it 45, the length? MR. ROULIER-I'm Joe Roulier. I'm representing Mr. Temkin. Because of the irregularity and the shoreline, the north side will be approximately 30 foot long, whereas the south side would be approximately 40 foot long. That would be the discrepancy in the distance, with the overall width being 20 feet. MR. RUEL-I see. the ramp. Of course, that doesn't take into consideration MR. ROULIER-That's correct. It does not. MR. RUEL-Okay, just the deck surface. MR. ROULIER-This is the, the deck surface. MR. RUEL-Or the dock surface. MR. ROULIER-No. The dock surface is different than the deck surface. What Mr. Brewer was addressing was the maximum width allowed for the individual docks. MR. BREWER-For this part of it, right here. MR. RUEL-Okay. Yes. MR. BREWER-What he's talking about is this here. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. ROULIER-Right. The maximum total square footage of the structure will not exceed 700 square feet. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Clarify a point for me. There's a letter here from the Warren County Planning Board regarding a ramp and the disapproval of same. MR. ROULIER-That's correct. MR. PALING-Is there a ramp there? There's not going to be one put in? MR. ROULIER-Let me clarify that for you. When I originally submitted the plans, I did not include the staircase or the ramp from the shore to access the top of the sundeck. They told me, at that time, that because I did not submit that portion of it, that it was not a complete application. They further said that regardless of, if I ~ make the submittal, that they do, it is their practice not to approve any ramps from the shore to the top of sundecks, and that was the basis of their approval, the fact that they carte blanche disapprove that type of entry to sundecks. One of my maj or concerns would be with the concerns regarding handicap, if people are elderly or have people, for some reason, that are in wheelchairs, I would think that they would, if the lay of the land were such that they could incorporate a ramp, that they would urge people to have ramps, and even at this juncture, I can't understand why they would take that position. MR. BREWER-Any other questions? MR. STARK-I, again, the deck on top, and the rail, you have to have - 5 - a three foot rail going around it, what's the height from the top of the rail to the water surface? MR. ROULIER-Okay. From the, depending on the time of the year, okay, understand that, approximately ten and a half feet from the surface of the dock to the top of the rail, all right. The water from the top of the dock can be anywhere from six inches to as much as twenty-four inches, as it could be right now. MR. STARK-So it could be two feet more on top of that? MR. ROULIER-It could be, in the winter months. I just want to point out that the actual structure, from the top of the dock to the top of the sundeck itself, will be approximately eight foot. Then there would be a railing anywhere from 32 inches to 36 inches, of an open type construction, on top of that. The structure that's proposed in front of you is not an enclosed type boathouse, and in actuality is designed to be as least offensive to adjoining neighbors as possible, and is open, so it does not impede any views. The posts would be pressure treated wood. The railings on it, at this juncture, are probably going to be cedar, only because pressure treated checks so. MR. RUEL-The railings are open? MR. ROULIER-The railings will be all open. Yes. MR. RUEL-So conceivably you could have thirteen foot height, right, from the top of the railing to the water? MR. MACEWAN-At a minimum. MR. ROULIER-At a maximum. MR. RUEL-At a maximum. You said 24 inches, right? MR. ROULIER-That's correct. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I thought you said 32 inches for a minimum height on the railing. MR. RUEL-Otherwise, it's 11 and a half feet. MR. ROULIER-There's a little confusion here. Excuse me. MR. MACEWAN-Take it from the top. MR. ROULIER-Okay. From the top of the rail to the top of the deck will be approximately 10 and a half feet. That's a standard size boathouse. MR. RUEL-You said 11 before. MR. ROULIER-Okay. Now, to the water level, all right, the water level fluctuates anywhere from six inches from the surface of the dock to approximately twenty-four inches from the surface of the dock. So from the water level, at any given time, it would be 11 feet to 13 feet from the water level. MR. RUEL-The deck surface above the dock, that's an open area? MR. ROULIER-Y~s, it is. The entire structure of the boathouse, as you see it there, will consist of approximately 12. six by six's, vertically, that will support the deck. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I'd like the letter from the Lake George Park - 6 - -" Commission addressed. I guess I'm kind of confused about that. I guess, specifically, the paragraph that says, "Please be advised that since the original permit is no longer in force, a permit from this agency is required for any wharflboathouse construction or modification on the referenced property." MR. ROULIER-That's correct. Originally, site plan review number 11-90 approved a similar structure on that set of docks for the previous owner. MR. MACEWAN-The operative word being "similar". MR. ROULIER-Similar. I don't have a copy of that in front of me, but, basically, most of these are built, with the exception of a different style railing, most of them are built identically. They're all up on stilts. MR. MACEWAN-Did the other design ask for a ramp? MR. ROULIER-I'm not familiar with that, if it asked for a ramp or not. The only reason I'm asking for the ramp is because of the elevation of the grade of where the house is to the elevation of the water. I just wanted to point out, though, that it was previously approved, but as I say, I don't have a copy of what that was before me at this juncture. MR. HARLICKER-Do you have an application pending with the Park Commission? MR. ROULIER-No. I have not submitted that application because, quite honestly, I was waiting to go in front of this Board. The fee, I understand, is $200, and I didn't want to submit it until such time as I had approval. MR. MACEWAN-Does Staff know what was approved before, in the previous site plan? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. MACEWAN-It could have been something totally different. MR. OBERMAYER-You could probably take away a lot of confusion if you would just provide a little bit more adequate looking drawings. I mean, you don't plan on building the structure by these drawings, do you? MR. ROULIER-Yes, I do. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, you don't see any member sizes. There's no detail whatsoever on these at all. Your dimensions are not really that consistent either. I mean, one sketch you show your walkway. The other sketch you don't. There's no real indication of what size columns you plan on using, how you plan on connecting to the cribbing. People are going to hire you to build this? MR. ROULIER-I've built many of them on the lake, and I've submitted to the Building Department plans very similar to these. All right. Generally, the construction of the vertical post is six by six's, and they're simply fastened to the surface of the existing U-shaped crib dock. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. You are going to use the existing? MR. ROULIER-Absolutely. There's no alteration of the dock. The only thing that I'm doing is building this boathouselsundeck combination up on top of that. MR. OBERMAYER-Looking at these pictures, it looks like, actually, the surface of the existing dock is probably around three feet above the existing water line. That would put you up around 13 and - 7 - ~ ~ a half feet, right? MR. ROULIER-No. The surface right now should be approximately 24 inches below the top of that. The lake generally fluctuates within a range of eighteen inches from the spring of the year to the fall of the year, and they refer to what's called the mean high/ low water mark, because of the fluctuation of the water, but on any given time, for example, thi s spring , it could be considerably higher, as we all know. MR. BREWER-Okay. Are you all set, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-For the time being, I guess. MR. BREWER-Bob? MR. PALING-Yes, I think so. MR. BREWER-Roger? MR. RUEL-Yes, no questions. MR. BREWER-Cathy, any questions? MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't have any. MR. BREWER-Okay. Jim, anymore questions? MR. OBERMAYER-No. MR. BREWER-George? MR. STARK-No. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. ROULIER-Mr. Brewer, may I just make one additional comment? What I'm proposing is not anything out of the ordinary. In fact, many homes in that particular area have similar structures. Some of them have substantially larger structures, but the fact that it has a ramp, I don't think, should be detrimental, because it's something that's consistent wi th the lay of the land in that neighborhood. In fact, many of the docks to the north of that particular dock have similar rampl staircase assemblies that I'm proposing for this particular one. MR. PALING-You're going to build the ramp for this, and maybe I'm not understanding what you told me before. You're going to build a ramp with this structure? MR. ROULIER-Yes. The ramp is actually the walkway, or access to the surface area of the structure. MR. PALING-Well, what about the letter we have from here that says that's disapproved? MR. BREWER-You can take that into consideration. Thev disapproved it. That means, that was Warren County. That means we have to have a five, at least five minimum, to approve it. MR. MACEWAN-It means we have to have a super majority. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. ROULIER-They told me that they, under no circumstances, approve ramps to sundecks, and that was the principal reason for not approving the particular request. MR. PALING-Could you put steps in place of the ramp? - 8 - ~ - MR. ROULIER-The ramp that I'm proposing to you is a combination walkwaylsteps from the top of it down to the surface of the dock. MR. PALING-Part of it's ramp. Part of it's steps. MR. ROULIER-That's correct. The additional submittal that I filed indicates that. MR. PALING-I don't think it's on here, but maybe, okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. Are you all set? All right. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody in the public that would like to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ARTHUR BUCKLEY MR. BUCKLEY-My name's Arthur Buckley. I'm the neighbor of Mr. Temkin's. I'm on the south side of his property, and I'm the one who's protesting now here. It goes back quite a while, when Mr. and Mrs. Smith built that home and put the dock up, had that dock put up out there. They originally planned on putting an upper deck on it, with a ramp to the property. Mr. Hagen, a predecessor here on the Board, protested. The fact is he said he would not, under any circumstances, countenance a ramp going to the upper deck. Now, I don't know what effect that has here, to you people, but I believe there is a signed protocol to that effect in your records here somewhere. Subsequent to this, Mr. and Mrs. Smith talked to my wife and I, and my wife felt very strongly not, that deck going up there, and well, through just friendship, they decided they wouldn't build the darn thing, and they didn't, and of course, when they sold their property, it leaves things wide open, but I do know that it would very seriously impede our view of the lake, and I would like to enjoy more of it than just looking straight across over to Assembly Point, and if the dock had been put up further on the property, there's 125 feet of property there. If it had been placed up further, there'd have been no question about it, but you talk about a deck that's going to be eight feet, seven or eight feet above the mean, the surface of the dock, and then you take and put a railing which is 34, 36 inches higher than that, you're talking 10 feet, at least, perhaps 11 feet, and then you put your tables on top of your deck, and your chairs on top of your deck, where are you? I mean, these things have to be taken into consideration. We pay good taxes up there, as you well know, and I think we're entitled to more than just looking at Assembly Point. I think we have a right to enjoy as much of that lake as we can see, and I don't feel that it's proper that our view of the lake, our enjoyment of the lake, should be impeded. MR. RUEL-I have a question. Your view would be impeded from your residence looking out the window? MR. BUCKLEY-Yes, sir. It would. MR. RUEL-And even worse if you're standing on the lawn? MR. BUCKLEY-Yes, sir. MR. RUEL-All right, and the other question I have is that you mentioned, you suggested moving it down closer to the other end. What about the neighbor at the other end? MR. BUCKLEY-Well, I don't know. I can't speak for him. MR. RUEL-I know, but they would have the same problem, right? MR. BREWER-Well, the neighbor at the other end, Roger, I'm just looking at these pictures, has the exact same things Mr. Roulier is proposing to build. - 9 - '- -" MR. RUEL-He does? MR. BREWER-Well, there's part of it right there. MR. RUEL-There's no deck there. MR. BREWER-Well, I don't know. MR. RUEL-Over there? Yes. MR. ROULIER-And that also has a ramp to it. MR. RUEL-Yes, because we had a letter here indicating that there would be tunnel vision. Actually, the vision would be impaired on one side only. MR. BUCKLEY-Well, our view to the lake, we can't see to the south. MR. OBERMAYER-Isn't there vegetation, though, on the right hand side there, that does impede your view during the summer months? MR. BUCKLEY-Absolutely. We can't even see the lake south of us, because of that large red dock that sits out there, 100 feet out from shore, or 75 feet out there from shore. MR. OBERMAYER-No, but isn't there vegetation on the north side of you, also, that does impede your view from your home during the summer? MR. BUCKLEY-Absolutely. MR. OBERMAYER-Is that your vegetation? MR. BUCKLEY-No, it's not. Now the brush work is at least six feet high or more, and I'm six feet tall, and I can't see over most of it. MR. OBERMAYER-So your vision is already obstructed? MR. BUCKLEY-Absolutely. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else, sir? MR. BUCKLEY-I've said what 1.. have to say. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. ROULIER-I would just like to address one thing. Obviously, on behalf of Mr. Temkin, it's something that's a permitted use and allowed for that particular area, and although I can understand Mr. Buckley's concern regarding the tunnel vision that it would create, I know that there's many open structures on the lake, and the reason that we have open structures today is because years ago you could build enclosed boathouses, and because they impeded the vision of so many people on the ~ake, that everyone, at least in Queensbury, is forced to go over to the open type of construction that I'm proposing. I would hope, having built many of these on the lake, that I can build it in a fashion so that it would certainly not close off his vision, or certainly not put him in a position that he would feel tunnel vision, and am capable of doing that by altering the sides of the boathouse and also the railing of the boathouse, so it doesn't box him in to that particular area. The structure that is to the north of Mr. Temkin is a very similar structure to what I'm proposing, in almost every detail, with the exception of that particular structure has a bench railing around the top of it which would even further impede the vision, and the railing that I've been instructed to build at this juncture is a very, very open type railing with no provisions for any seats or type of structures that are incorporated in the one to the north. Additionally, I'd like to say, it's not unreasonable for people, if they do have these structures, to have tables and to have chairs - 10 - out there, and to be able to utilize them to the extent that people use them. MR. BREWER-So you wouldn't have a problem if somebody was to ask for a stipulation, no seats be built into that deck? MR. ROULIER-I would have no problem with that, and I can tell you right now that there will, as far as I'm concerned, as the builder and contractor, there are no seats incorporated into the rail of that structure. MR. BREWER-All right. One other quick question. Why does it have to be the maximum length? Everybody always goes for the maximum, I know, but. MR. ROULIER-That' s the end of the dock. The structure that I'm proposing to build will not exceed the length of the docks that are currently in position in that place. Okay. I just want to point out that I did not build those docks. MR. BREWER-I understand, but, I mean, the Ordinance says 40 feet, and everybody comes in with 40 feet, maximum 40 feet, it says. MR. ROULIER-In this particular case, that's only because that's the end of the dock. Docks cannot be built right now on Lake George, without variances, that exceed 40 feet. That's probably why you're seeing that all the time. Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else in the public who'd like to comment on this? BILL GAZELEY MR. GAZELEY-My name is Bill Gazeley. I'm a neighbor of the Buckley's, and I'm only here to express a certain sympathy. I wouldn't like to see either side suffer. It would be nicer if it wasn't quite so high. Like ours is like eight feet, two, something like that. My dog fell off of it last summer, and we measured it, but yours is going to be something like ten. MR. ROULIER-But your, Bill, I'm familiar with Mr. Gazeley's boathouse also, and I believe that the number that he's saying to you is the number to the deck surface, not to the railing surface. MR. GAZELEY-Well, actually. it's Frank England's deck that the dog fell off of. MR. ROULIER-Okay. See, I don't want there to be a discrepancy between the deck surface, if you can picture this as the deck surface, and what the actual railing is. MR. GAZELEY-It's going to be 13 feet or so. MR. ROULIER-It will be less than that. It will be about 10 and a half feet, inclusive of the rail, but as I'm pointing out to the Board, the rail will be a very open type of rail, and whatever I can do to reduce, I can't reduce the visual effect because there is a structure there, but what I ~ do is make it certainly as open as possible, so that no neighbor, either to the north or to the south, feels as though it's encroaching on their property. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-You could reduce it one foot, though, instead of eight feet, have it seven, the space between the dock and the deck. MR. ROULIER-I could reduce it down. MR. RUEL-It doesn't have to be eight feet. - 11 - MR. ROULIER-That's right. I could reduce it to seven feet, to the bottom of the joist, I have to do the framing. MR. RUEL-Well, then you're going back to the same thing, yes, because your measurement is from the top of the dock to the top of the deck, correct? MR. ROULIER-Correct. MR. RUEL-Eight feet? MR. ROULIER-Yes. MR. RUEL-All right, and your timbers under that are. what, ten inches? MR. ROULIER-Approximately twelve inches. You have what's called a six by six support beam, and then twelve inch framing. MR. RUEL-So that leaves you seven feet? MR. ROULIER-It would leave you less than seven feet from the top of the deck to where the actual support framing begins. MR. RUEL-And people have to stand there, right? MR. ROULIER-That's correct. Yes. What I can do, though, and this could be incorporated into this, is a lot of the boathouses up around the lake have what's called mansers that are aprons that go around the side of it, and if we were to eliminate the aprons on the side of it, then that would also cut down on the visual effect and also keep it that much more open, if the Board feels as though that might be something that you might consider. MR. RUEL-But you'd have at least one foot that would obstruct the view. MR. ROULIER-Of framing, yes. In any event, to support it, you will have at least one foot of framing. MR. PALING-Would you or Mr. Temkin consider getting together with Mr. Buckley to see if there couldn't be some kind of a compromise worked out here where you might shift your dock a little or change dimensions or go to a slightly different design that might be acceptable to them? MR. ROULIER-I would certainly be happy to discuss that with Mr. Buckley. I am kind of, our hands are tied because of the docks right there. It's virtually impossible to move U-shaped, rock- filled crib docks. So I do have to work within the constraints of the dock already. MR. PALING-The other question I have, I can't get off the ramp, I'd like to see an accurate drawing of the ramp and steps you're talking about. I don't think I have it here. MR. OBERMAYER-If they'd do as nice a job on the drawings for the deck as they did on the site survey, then we'd be all set with these. MR. ROULIER-This is the water line, here. This is the shoreline, and then the house is back here. So it would be this ramp that goes out to the surface of the dock. MR. PALING-Are you saying that's a ramp? MR. ROULIER-Yes. That's the ramp right there, okay, and then there's the set of stairs that go down to this. MR. PALING-Okay. I have it. Okay. - 12 - MR. ROULIER-The picture of the house here, and this is the proposed deck here. So this is the assembly, see, this is a banking right here, okay. So there's a walkway here, and then with the stairs, that would be incorporated down to the dock surfaces. MR. MACEWAN-Is this acceptable to you? MR. MARTIN-In terms of. this stuff? it's fine. That's Dave's call. For us MR. MACEWAN-About putting a handrail up and the awnings and stuff on there. He doesn't have any of that stuff illustrated on there. How do YOU know? How would Dave know what was approved in the site plan when he goes and takes a look? MR. MARTIN-That doesn't substantively effect the construction. He just wants to know the framing. As long as he gets a good framing diagram on these things, that's all he's looking for. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-Mr. Buckley, would you be amenable to meet with Mr. Roulier this coming week and see if you could arrive at a compromise, and then come back next week with the compromise, and if you can't, you can't, you know. just as a way of arbitrating it, possibly. MR. BUCKLEY-Well, there's no reason why we can't talk to Joe. We've known one another for years and years. MR. STARK-And that would give you a chance to come back with a little more detailed drawings, you know, I'm going to use a six by six, or a six by four. MR. OBERMAYER-A little more elevation view. MR. ROULIER-We're all neighbors, and I have absolutely no problem getting together with the Buckleys and discussing this. MR. BREWER-So what you're suggesting is tabling until next week? MR. STARK-Well, I don't think one week is going to matter to you. You're not going to do anything anyway. MR. ROULIER-No. MR. BREWER-Is that acceptable to you? All right. As long as that's acceptable, then is there anybody else from the public who'd like to comment? MR. BUCKLEY-A couple of you gentleman have been up there, and you've seen our problem. MR. BREWER-Yes, we have. hearing. All right, then I'll close the public PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-And then we'll need a motion to table. MR. STARK-It's agreeable to you to table for a week, until the 22nd? MR. ROULIER-Absolutely. MR. STARK-Fine. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 6-94 MR. STUART TEMKIN, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: - 13 - Until next Tuesday. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1994, by the fOllowing vote: MR. RUEL-I wanted to add something to that motion. I don't know if it should be mentioned in the tabling, but you still need approval from the Warren County Planning Board. MR. BREWER-No, they don't. MR. RUEL-Lake George Park Commission permit? MR. BREWER-He's going to do that after he gets our approval, if he gets our approval. MR. RUEL-AII right. Okay. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. ROULIER-Okay. Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 9-94 TYPE II MARY K. GRAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF PILOT KNOB ROAD, NORTH CORNER OF PULVER ROAD. REQUEST IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN F-SHAPED DOCK. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/15/94 LGPC APA TAX HAP NO. 18-1-18.2 LOT SIZE: 1.48 ACRES SECTION 179-60 DICK GRAY, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 9-94, Mary K. Gray, Meeting Date: March 15, 1994, "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to remove part of an existing U-shaped dock and construct a new F- shaped dock. The remaining portion of the old dock will be incorporated into the design of the new dock. The resulting configuration will be an F-shaped dock and straight dock. The F- shaped dock will extend 31 feet from shore and the straight dock 29 feet. The dock has been approved by the Lake George Park Commission. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The proposal has been compared to the relevant portions of Section 179-60 (b) of the Zoning Code. It was found to be in conformance with all applicable portions of the above referenced section and staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-And Warren County approved, "With the condition that access to the sundeck is by the set of stairs from the dock, not from the land." That's getting back to that ramp thing, again. MR. BREWER-I stand corrected. come in for the maximum. Okay. questions about this? Here's an application that didn't Does anybody on the Board have any MR. GRAY-My name is Dick Gray. K. Gray. I'm here representing my wife, Mary MR. RUEL-Of the old dock, only five by twenty-nine is left? That's the only area? MR. GRAY-Yes. MR. RUEL-Everything else is removed? MR. GRAY-I've actually removed the whole thing. We did that last fall. MR. RUEL-And now you're going to build one, five by twenty-nine, - 14 - plus the F-shaped one? MR. GRAY-Well, we're shortening that one section. We've left the crib section there. We're shortening that to come. we're bringing it back twenty-six feet back. MR. RUEL-Yes. So you're going to have two docks. MR. GRAY-No. There's actually just one dock. comes around. It connects and MR. STARK-How far are you from the other shore, at its closest point on that dock? MR. GRAY-My existing dock is within 20 feet of my neighbor to the right. That's the one we're tearing out and setting back in there, and to my left, 40 foot, 50 foot. MR. BREWER-That one across, you mean? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. This dock right here, is that your neighbor's dock? MR. GRAY-Yes. That's Mr. Philo's dock, the long one. MR. OBERMAYER-Then this right here between these two is going to be how far? MR. GRAY-Well, we're pUlling it back into the Bay. distance is going to be further away from his existing dock is now. So what we're doing is bettering the situation for our neighbors. So the actual dock than the we're actually MR. STARK-Because when we were up there, we were commenting that it looked like it was going to be real close to his dock, the one on the left. MR. OBERMAYER-It looked like you were going to be very close, parking boats. Does he park his boat on this side of the dock? MR. GRAY-At the far end. I have a letter. Mr. Philo wanted to be here this evening, and he was called out of town, so he asked me to read a letter on his behalf. MR. STARK-Is that in approval of your application? MR. GRAY-Yes, it is. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to read it, or do you want George to read it? MR. GRAY-I'll give it to the Board, if they'd like to read it. MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. STARK-This is a letter from a Richard E. Philo to the Queensbury Planning Board, regarding the construction of the F- shaped dock by Mary Gray. "Gentlemen: I write to you in person to the public hearing to consider the above referred to application. I'm the owner of the property adjacent to Mary K. Gray on Pilot Knob Road to the south and also own property next to her on Lake George. Living here year round for 30 years has given me the pleasure of being able to raise a family of four, teach my grandchildren to fish and enjoy retirement here with my wife. Time has brought with it many changes. Some were a pleasure to watch, like having the Blue Heron return the past few years to nest, or a family of minx take up residence along the shore, but I have watched the results of less welcome changes, like seeing the swamp slowly fill in with silt and sand washed down from the housing development across the road from me. Some improvements do not - 15 - ..~/ always improve. I am sure the snapping turtles that were forced to leave would agree. The area of lake frontage where the Grays wish to construct their dock is separate from this runoff. Like others in the Bay, we are in close proximity to each other and share in our common concern for restoring, maintaining, and preserving the shores of the lake. I am encouraged to see the care with which the Grays began this project and feel that it is done with integrity. I would hope that in the future the Planning Board would continue support each of us as we strive to improve our property. Sincerely, Richard E. Philo" MR. BREWER-Mr. Gray, how wide is the F-shaped part of this deck or dock going to be? You don't have dimensions on here. MR. GRAY-I'm not a builder. So I have a plan. MR. RUEL-Five and four. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Yes. We found it. So, actually, there are two docks. You're only building one, though. MR. GRAY-I get a little confused here. As I said, I'm a homeowner, and I hired a contractor. I have a set of plans here. We're building an F dock. What we've got is a wharf. MR. RUEL-Right. You're modifying an existing one by reducing it in size, to an area five by twenty-nine. MR. GRAY-I'm not sure. MR. BREWER-All right. So then he's going to have two docks. MR. RUEL-Then you're going to have two docks. MR. BREWER-You're going to have an F-shaped dock, and he's going to have just a straight dock, right? MR. GRAY-Okay. In other words, the finger, the one finger that's going out on the diagram. MR. RUEL-Yes, one that goes straight out, five by twenty-nine. MR. GRAY-That is there today. Okay. In other words, that was part of it, when we tore it down. MR. BREWER-Right but, bottom line, you're going to end up with two docks. MR. GRAY-Well, it really forms one F. MR. BREWER-No. We're talking about this piece right here. MR. RUEL-I see two of them. MR. BREWER-This one he's talking about. you're going to leave, correct? MR. GRAY-Yes. MR. BREWER-Then you're going to build this. MR. GRAY-Okay, and this is the wharf here. So this presents the slip for the boat coming right through here. MR. BREWER-Yes, but this is an F, to me. MR. GRAY-Right, this is the F, correct. - 16 - -- MR. BREWER-And then this is another dock. MR. RUEL-If this is connected, then it's a different configuration. MR. GRAY-Okay. MR. BREWER-How does that work, Jim? Is that two docks? MR. HARLICKER-Is the new dock going to be connected by a walkway of some sort or anything to the existing dock? MR. BREWER-What is that going to be? MR. MARTIN-I would say that's one dock. MR. RUEL-That's not F anymore. MR. BREWER-That's not an F shaped dock, though. it? I mean, what is MR. RUEL-It's an E. MR. BREWER-Are E docks allowed? MR. HARLICKER-He's got enough frontage there. So he could have two docks. MR. BREWER-"No dock shall be constructed in any configuration other than straight F, L, T, or U shape. E shaped docks shall be allowed only where lots exceed 150 linear feet of shoreline frontage." How much shoreline frontage have you got? MR. GRAY-We've got over 400. MR. BREWER-You're all right. It says E shaped docks are allowed where there's over 150 feet of frontage. We've got to open the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. Is somebody prepared to make a motion? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's a resolution with your packet here for this. MR. MARTIN-You can move it as written, if you'd like, or modify it. MR. BREWER-I would like to see one stipulation. What's the type of lumber that's used so that it doesn't leach into the lake? MR. MARTIN-Non-Ieaching, pressure treated lumber. MR. BREWER-Okay. So we'd like to include that in there. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-94 MARY K. GRAY, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 9-94 for construction of an F-shaped dock; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application dated 2/18/94 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, survey of project site, undated 2. Sheet 2, detail of dock facility; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following - 17 - '-- documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 3/15/94 Park Commission permit, dated 10/1/94 and 2. Lake George Whereas. a public hearing was held on 3115/94 concerning the above project. and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-60 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). and 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 # 9-94. 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. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. That the material used shall be pressure treated, non- leaching timbers. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 16-86 MODIFICATION DANIEL VALENTE BAYBRIDGE, PHASE III OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW THE OPTION FOR VALENTE BUILDERS TO MAKE AVAILABLE IN PHASE III, DUPLEX AND SINGLE FAMILY VILLA HOMES. DANIEL VALENTE, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Mr. Valente. MR. VALENTE-My name's Dan Valente from Valente Builders. I think the letter is self-explanatory. The main thing we're trying to do is to be able to offer as many al ternati ves in response to the market, and that's the reason why we are asking, in this particular case, for a modification to make the buildings actually smaller on the existing lot size, to offer duplexes and single family villas, in the same setback requirements that originally were approved in 1987, on this particular subdivision. We're going to use the same existing septic system. the same lines are going to be in the same place. Each unit will have individual water lines, like it does today. The same thing with the gas, individual, individual driveways. Everything is actually the same. I went to the Warren County Real Property Tax Department to find that if there was going to be a problem, because we have tax map numbers for Phase III for the entire Phase III project, and we have 36 units left for - 18 - ~ buildout, and this, obviously, has happened before on other subdivisions, because they have a form, I think there's a copy, everyone of you has a copy of it, where you can consolidate lots like in this case, if we have a four plex, and we are only going to build a duplex and, say, one single family villa, we would actually be losing one lot, but with the form, we consolidate the two lots, and with the new lot description that goes along with the application, that is the only thing that's required by the Warren County Tax Department. If there are any questions that you have. MR. MARTIN-Dan, just so we get it on the record, what of these building numbers here are already built? There's a couple of these already built. MR. VALENTE-Okay. I'll get up here and I'll show you. Okay. At the present time, Building 14 is buil tout, and Building 17 is builtout. All the rest of these are not. Under this modification plan, at worst, we're probably going to lose in the neighborhood of eight building lots, but my wife and I feel that in the long term this may be the best way for the entire project to continue, since the market demand seems to be going in that direction, and obviously we'd be submitting new plans to the Town Building Department for the buildings that would be in the duplex form or in a single family villa form, and they would obviously also comply with the rest of the development and be contiguous. MR. BREWER-Would you be coming back to us for the modification and showing us what you're going to do? MR. VALENTE-No. That would be, we're still going to stay in the same plot that was approved in 1987. There should be a tax map, I don't know if they gave them to you or not, but. MR. BREWER-Why does he have to come to us for a modification, Jim, if he's just going to change the building size? MR. MARTIN-Well, this was an approved subdivision, and as a condominium. MR. VALENTE-Townhouse subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Townhouse subdivision, each one of these individual units were assigned a tax map number and have standing as a lot, and if he's going to reduce those from, maybe in some cases six down to two, or four down to one or whatever, then that's a modified subdivision. MR. VALENTE-We're going to consolidate the lots, exactly. In other words, for example, okay. MR. BREWER-You're going to change lot lines, then. MR. VALENTE-No, only up to, the setbacks are still the way they were approved. There are 50 feet between buildings here, and we have 45 feet here, like it shows on the print, and the same thing with the forward lot line, which is 45 feet, and I can't find, right now, where the setback is here. but all those, the buildings will stay in the original confines of the subdivision approval. We're not going to stay, the reason. MR. BREWER-I'm just confused. That isn't any different than if he has a 30 lot subdivision, he only sells 20 lot. He doesn't have to come back, does he? I mean, I don't understand. MR. VALENTE-Well, you know what it was, I came to Jim with this, because I wasn't sure. MR. MARTIN-These condominiums are strange. I mean, because actually all you buy when you buy one of these is the footprint of the unit that you buy, and that's what the lot consists of. So, I - 19 - -- felt it better that he come before the Board, because this was a Planning Board approved approach to this, and just make sure we had the blessing of the Board, so when these show up as duplexes or single families. MR. VALENTE-So we wanted to make sure. Now, obviously, if we get to Phase IV, and there's another Phase IV and a Phase V here, ultimately, and obviously if we go and stay with single family, we'd like that versatility. We will propose that in our next phases. MR. MARTIN-Yes. approval yet. The Phase IV has not been approved, had final MR. VALENTE-No. Right. That will be a whole new ballgame, but the point is, what we're trying to do here, actually, is utilize the lots that were approved without changing any of the septic design, the road design and the water and the gas and all that business that's already in place. MR. MARTIN-That's why, technically, this is not a real big deal. MR. VALENTE-Right. MR. MARTIN-Even stormwater is not going to be effected, because he's keeping the same roof lines and all that. MR. VALENTE-No. It's not going to be changed. MR. BREWER-Where, in conjunction, on that property, is, you know the road that's not used now, but they use it in the summer time to go out to Bay, the dirt road? MR. VALENTE-That road now, I believe a little history here, in 1985, when this project was approved, we had to show the conceptual for the entire project, which was originally a 248 unit townhouse development. That road in the front that is a construction road, Mr. Naylor knows about the road because it's going to be, someday, a completed road for that particular phase of the front of Bay Road, but at that time, we were using the road up Walker Lane and the trucks actually just destroyed the road totally. By the time we built these, well, they're not on this plan, but there's three buildings up on Walker Lane. So all the neighbors obviously wanted to have the road repaved. ~ wanted the road repaved. I think Mr. Naylor wanted the road repaved. So we entered into an agreement where Valente Builders would construct a dirt road which would ultimately be finished when that phase gets completed to allow ~ trucks entrance into Baybridge from the back side so that when Mr. Naylor paved Walker Lane the only traffic that ultimately would be there would be car traffic, and that was the agreement that we entered in 1986, the beginning of '86, and we both kept our word. MR. BREWER-But I guess I'm saying, where are these lots, in comparison to that road? MR. VALENTE-Okay. Right here, there's a big loop here. okay, it's called Baybridge Drive, and there's a turnaround here for the Town Highway Department, okay. This is Baybridge Drive. This is Gentry Lane. Now this year it's paved up to the first four buildings, okay. This is still a road owned by Valente Builders, not the Town. I plow this road every winter. This year we went up, put the top coat on it, and put a turnaround for the Town, but that dirt road starts from here, goes across the Brook, and goes out to Bay Road, but it's not a public road. It's a private road. It's mainly supposed to be used just for construction. MR. BREWER-So where's Bay Road on this map? MR. VALENTE-Bay Road is parallel to it, way over here. - 20 - -- MR. BREWER-I have no other questions. question? Craig, do you have any MR. MACEWAN-None. MR. BREWER-Bob? MR. PALING-No. MR. BREWER-Roger? MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-None. MR. BREWER-Jim? MR. OBERMAYER-Is there a fire system throughout this area? I notice there are fire hydrants. MR. VALENTE-Yes. There's fire hydrants. As a matter of fact, well, you don't have the water detail and the full set of prints. There's a hydrant right here, okay. There's another one r~ght over here, and there's another one here, and there's another one here. All right. All the water is in for Phase III. All the electric and gas is in for Phase III. All we have really left is to finish grading the rest of the road and paving that, when we continue on. MR. BREWER-George, any questions? MR. STARK-No. MR. BREWER-I guess you have our blessing. MR. VALENTE-Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-Are you ready, Tim? I'll make a motion. MR. BREWER-We don't need to make a motion, do we? MR. MARTIN-I would just have a motion saying you're approving of a concept for single family and duplex as well. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 16-86 DANIEL VALENTE, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To make available in Phase III, duplex and single family villa homes. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 1-91 TYPE: UNLISTED PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS ZONE: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION MALL, AVIATION ROAD AT I-87. MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THE MODIFICATION INCLUDES MOVING THE NEW J.C. PENNEY'S STORE 30' WEST, ELIMINATION OF THE 15,000 SQ. FT. SEAR'S EXPANSION, INTERNAL RECONFIGURATION OF PROPOSED DEPT. STORE D, AND RECONFIGURATION OF THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PARKING. TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.2 LOT SIZE: 56.31 ACRES JOHN MEYER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT: MIKE PIAZZOLA, PRESENT - 22 - ~ MR. BREWER-Okay. I just didn't know where I was on this map. MR. RUEL-Shouldn't these roads all have names? MR. VALENTE-They do. there. This is Gentry Lane. There's a sign up MR. MARTIN-That'll all be checked, Roger, when the roads are proposed for dedication. MR. VALENTE-I have a sign on this road. It isn't dedicated to the Town. The sign is already up. MR. PALING-This is Phase III that you'll be building, right? MR. VALENTE-We're in the process of it. It's already been started. MR. PALING-And will you include the swimming pool and tennis courts? MR. VALENTE-In our Prospectus, it says that we promise to construction at the sale of 80 units, at the end of 80 units. in the Prospectus at the Attorney General. start It's MR. PALING-Okay. I read something different then, I read that when you did Phase III, you do the tennis courts and swimming pool. MR. VALENTE-No, and that may be revised anyway, because it seems like a swimming pool may not be the ultimate goal of the homeowners association, and I'm not speaking for them, everyone of them, but we've been in discussion that a pool may not be the wisest thing to put there. Something else may be, because of the use of, two months out of the year for a pool, doesn't seem to be wise. MR. PALING-There must be two things written, because I see what you're saying is here. Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you tied to Queensbury Sewer? MR. VALENTE-No, we're not. It would be nice, wouldn't it? We were promised that by, in 1985 it was proposed, and by 1990 we were supposed to have it, and the whole project was built, and all the sewer lines are in for it. Everyone of these buildings, all these sewer lines, are all six inch mains, all ready for when the sewer's supposed to come up Bay Road. The way the system is designed, we have, between Building, I think this is 18 and 19, see there's a pump station there? Okay. That's a secondary pump station. Behind Phase I, which you don't see on this map, there's a primary pump station. These buildings right here are gravity fed to this one system. The rest of this phase will be gravity fed to this system. All the rest of it is gravity fed to the preliminary pump station, and what happens is we have a leaching system. We have our own leaching beds up at the top of the project. Right now we have 2,000 square feet of leaching beds installed and in place. MR. BREWER-That's up at the end of Walker Lane? MR. VALENTE-That's correct. You're familiar with that one. Okay, and we also have an approval from DEC for two more leaching beds in the future, if need be. The land's set aside for a total of 4,000 square feet of leaching system. MR. MARTIN-Just to let you know, Dan, the Town, this new Town Board now is, once again, looking at bringing the sewer up Bay Road. As a matter of fact, there was another discussion today about it. So, you'll be hearing shortly, I think. MR. VALENTE-Well, anyway, pretty much. that's what we're here for, just to find out if there's any questions you may have. If I can answer them, I'd be happy to. - 21 - -- STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-91 Modification, Pyramid Company of Glens Falls Aviation Mall. Meeting Date: March 15, 1994 "The following is a summary of the concerns expressed by staff and the Planning Board at the 3/8/94 meeting with mall representatives and how those concerns will be addressed. 1. The impact of the truck traffic generated by the removal of fill from the site was a concern. The applicant stated that they would look into developing a schedule that would minimize the impacts on the roads." In this packet of information that I gave you, you should have in front of you there, there's a letter to Mr. Naylor, detailing what their proposal is for dealing with the truck traffic. scheduling, and that sort of thing. "2. The impact of construction on interior traffic flow and emergency access. The loop road system around the perimeter of the mall will remain open to provide access to all sides of the mall. 3. The impact of the modifications on the sewer and water systems. The applicant indicated that they would get letters from the Wastewater and Water Departments stating that the modifications will not impact their systems and the proposed changes are properly designed. Mike Shaw reviewed the proposed plans and in a letter dated 3/7/94 there were 7 comments that required responses. 4. The impact on stormwater runoff and drainage. Rist-Frost reviewed the plans, and in a letter dated 8/8/93 there were comments relating to parking, permeable area and stormwater recharge that had to be addressed. 5. The previously approved landscaping should not be significantly impacted by the modifications. However, the applicant should include landscaping plans that reflect the parking lot modifications in the plans that are submitted for final approval. As condition of approval letters from Rist-Frost, the Town Water Department approving the site plans are needed as are up to date landscaping plans." MR. BREWER-I've just got one question for Mr. Naylor. The amount of trucks that are coming out of that mall and going around the corner and then up to the Northway, do you think that's going to bother the road, physically, I mean? PAUL NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-It's a State highway. Are you asking me to answer for the State of New York, or Big Bay Road? Which road are you talking about, my road? MR. BREWER-I would presume they're going to come out of the mall. MR. NAYLOR-Which is a State highway. MR. BREWER-Go left to the Northway and then up to your road. MR. NAYLOR-Right, and then they'll get on Corinth Road, which is a County highway, and then they'll get on Big Bay Road, which is a Town highway. MR. MACEWAN-So we know the answer to the first three. MR. NAYLOR-Right, the first three is none of my business. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NAYLOR-That's what the Smokey the Bear's and the Warren County Mountie take care of that stuff. MR. BREWER-You're happy with the schedule? MR. NAYLOR-Yes, as long as they're out of there by next November, so I can go back in there and make sand. That's the only time I'm in there, October. November, December. They can have it from April on. I'm gone, on to doing better things. - 23 - - ---' MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. MR. NAYLOR-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Has anybody else got any questions? MR. MACEWAN-I think they answered everything the first time, last week. MR. OBERMAYER-The only question I have is the grade, again, along the side. You indicated before that it was going to be two on one, in the last meeting. I went back and looked at the drawing, and actually two on one, it's going to be during the relocation of the 12 inch water main, and then it's going to go to three on one permanently. What do you plan on using for erosion control, to keep that slope from coming down? Three to one's a very steep incline. I didn't see any details as to what you're going to do for permanent erosion control. You show what you're going to do for temporary erosion control, but not permanent erosion control. MR. MEYER-My name is John Meyer, the engineer. We're going to top soil, seed, and mulch that slope, and it'll be grass, when we're all finished. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. How do you intend on keeping that, maintaining that lawn, if it's on a three to one ratio? You certainly can't cut it. It's going to be a hayfield. MR. MEYER-Well, it will be a hayfield, but it can certainly be cut. There's no problem doing the three on one. Two on one, you've got a problem mowing in mowing it, in that you have to have ropes on the mowers, but three on one can be mowed. MR. OBERMAYER-Why would it be easier on a 45 degree than a 60 degree? MR. MEYER-Okay. horizontal for one for one vertical. one slope. The degree of slope, two on one means two vertical. Three on one means three horizontal The three on one slope is flatter than a two on MR. OBERMAYER-Well, actually, then, I spoke wrong. It's one on three that's the slope, because if you look at your elevation view, then it's like, I don't remember the exact numbers. It's a lot greater than. MR. MEYER-I don't believe that's so. We would not design an earth retaining slope with one horizontal and three vertical, because you're quite right. It would never stand. I think if you scale the drawings, I think you'll find it to be the other. MR. STARK-Who owns the slope now? Does the Pyramid Mall own that slope? MR. MEYER-Pyramid Companys owns the slope now, and will, with the completion of the new slope. MR. STARK-Okay. You own the slope now. No mowing takes place now? MR. MEYER-That's correct. MR. BREWER-I don't mean to interrupt you, but, Jim, what was it that Charlie Wood put on that slope up by the roller coaster? MR. MARTIN-Crown Vetch. MR. BREWER-Is that what you would put on that? MR. OBERMAYER-You mentioned that at the last meeting. - 24 - "-- ~^ MR. MEYER-I was incorrect. I apologize. It is proposed as top soil and seed. MR. BREWER-Doesn't that hold much better than just top soil and grass seed? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Well, Crown Vetch is good because there's no maintenance to it. Once you plant it and it gets established. MR. BREWER-That would be better for you, I would think. MR. MARTIN-And it does flower, so aesthetically. MR. OBERMAYER-It looks a lot nicer. MRS. LABOMBARD-But it takes a while to catch, put in those little plants. MR. MEYER-It does take some time for it to catch. MR. MARTIN-It takes about two years for you to get a mature plant, but it'll begin to hold the soil within the first year. I planted them on the side of my driveway. MR. MEYER-The grass should germinate wi thin four to six weeks, depending on the time of year. MR. PALING-Clarify one point for me, would you? On SP-17, you talk about slope of temporary embankment. It sounds like there should be something said about a permanent embankment. That's not a temporary embankment. MR. MEYER-No. That's speaking about during construction, I believe. Is that the sequence of construction notes you're reading from? MR. PALING-No. Well, it's next to them, but it's not under that, no. MR. MEYER-What's the title of that? MR. PALING-Town of Queensbury 24 inch water main relocation notes. MR. MEYER-Those notes are the requirement of Tom Flaherty's Office, that during the reconstruction of the 24 inch main, that's what he has asked that we do. MR. PALING-Okay. Then somewhere you have stated, lets call it the perimeter embankment, will go by the right slope, will adhere to that. MR. MEYER-Yes. MR. PALING-But where is that? MR. MEYER-Where is what? MR. PALING-Where is that stated? MR. MEYER-First of all, if you look on the drawing EP-1, you'll see a symbol dotted in the embankments, on all of the embankments and sloped areas within the site. MR. PALING-What drawing is that? MR. MEYER-EP-1. That indicates all those areas that will be topsoiled, seeded and mulched, if they are not already top soiled, seeded and mulched. MR. MARTIN-Tim, that brings to mind, too. The other thing that's - 25 - -- - done, in the interim, because Crown Vetch does take time to establish, is I've seen cases where they'll plant an annual rye grass that comes up one season but establishes and grows very quickly, covers the ground while the Crown Vetch is established and then the rye grass dies off being annual, but the Crown Vetch will then grow into next year. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MARTIN-That's the other approach that can be taken. MR. MEYER-Also, if you look at drawing SP-3, along the slope, you'll see that same symbol, which signifies top soil. seeding, and mulching, and that's all along the Howard Johnson Motel, adjacent to Charlie Wood's property. MR. MARTIN-Are there going to be any interim measures taken, in terms of haying, or jute mesh or anything like that to hold the top soil, until the grass seed establishes? MR. MEYER-That's, the mulch will, it will be hydro seeded, and there'll be a mulch there, rather than hay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. MEYER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. All the items on this sheet right here, Scott, have been addressed? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. All I wanted to add here was, we received a letter from Mike Shaw today, regarding the sewer, and it states, "I've just reviewed the changes as a result of my comments from my memo March 7th, referring to the above mentioned. I find that all my comments have been addressed satisfactory." And I've got one from Rist-Frost, dated today. "We received today from the applicant's engineering firm the revised site plans described in their attached memo. We have reviewed the changes made to these plans in response to our earlier (3/8/94) comments regarding the applicant's Request for Modification. Our comments were adequately addressed by these most recent changes. We have no further engineering comments regarding their Request for Modification. If you have any additional questions, please call." And Tom Flaherty stopped by earlier this evening, and he stated that they don't have any problems with their modifications to the water and sewer hook ups, other than a change to the plans that will be done in the field, as they're doing the actual construction. His main concern was the time frame in which the hook up was going to be done. He said that's critical, and they're in the process of working that out with the engineering firm. That was his main concern. MR. BREWER-Okay. The only other question is Number Five. Has that been addressed? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, and we spoke with Mike earlier this evening, and they're going to be included along with their final submission plans. MR. MARTIN-Basically, they're going to supply the same landscaping plan that was previously approved. That remains unchanged. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. HARLICKER-I'd just like to, there's, included in the information that you were given here with the mall, there is a resolution that they would like you to look at, too. It's regarding SEQRA. We didn't prepare anything for SEQRA because we didn't feel that it was subject to SEQRA. MR. MARTIN-It's been explained to us by the applicant that they - 26 - - - sometimes run into concerns from their bank financers that, not unless a resolution states that SEQRA has been specifically addressed will the bank sign off. We know as a matter of course that with a modification, especially one of this type, it's not even worthy to mention for 2.!il:. process, but in terms of their financing requirements, the bank likes it specifically said in the approving resolution that SEQRA was looked at and is not an issue. MR. BREWER-Do you just want us to add that in there? MR. MARTIN-Yes, something to that effect should be added. Like I said, in terms of our process, it's not a substantive change, but. MR. RUEL-As written in the resolution. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, and I'd like to propose a couple of modifications to the resolution that was submitted to you. MR. BREWER-Not as written in their resolution. resolution, just to add it. We have a MR. MARTIN-Yes. I would say add it to ours that we've written, and Scott's got a couple of other comments. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-See, we had a hard time going back in the approval and pulling all the records together from the approval. So we want to make sure document thoroughly submitted and establish a good file here. original original what was MR. BREWER-We can just add it to the end of this and make it Number Seven. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, but I've got some, you'll notice here there's a long list of sheets. It consists of the following:, I'd like to revise the dates on the following sheets: SP-3 and 4, should be revised to read 3/11/94, Sheets SP-9 and SP-10 should be revised to read 3/11/94, Sheets SP-21, SP-22, SP-22A, and SP-23 should also be revised to read 3/11/94. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else? MR. HARLICKER-They'll also be submitting landscaping plans with this. I'm not sure what the dates. can you tell us what the dates will be on those landscaping plans, when they are submitted to us? MR. MEYER-I can tell you they'll be dated 1994, I don't know the exact dates. Maybe you can just handle it that way. MR. MARTIN-So you'll revise the date on them as well. Okay. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Does that go through the Beautification Committee? MR. MARTIN-It already has. MR. MEYER-They'll say March 1994, if that's okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The other thing I'll say, as a matter of course, is, so it's on the record. I said this to Mike, but I want to have it on the record. No CO will be issued until the landscaping plan is fully complied with in detail. I want you to know now, so when I go out there on the site, and you're all hot and heavy to open that store, and I see trees missing, that I'm not the bad guy. MR. PIAZZOLA-Jim, I just want to say that one of the reasons we - 27 - ~ -- didn't submit the landscaping plan is because we knew we were giving you a lot to look at, and the landscaping plan, as approved in '91, will be consistent with the one that we build in 1994. So that's the reason we didn't submit them with the package we submitted with the site plan application, but we do have the LA Group working on the landscaping plans now and they'll be included in the final site package that gets recorded with the Town. So that's where that's at. MR. MARTIN-As long as it's in compliance with what was approved by the Board. If it changes any, it'll be back to this Board, but if it's in compliance with the original approval, then there won't be a problem, but we'll be checking it against that. MR. MEYER-Yes, and it will be. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. HARLICKER-There's a couple of more additions I'd like to make to the proposed resolution, and this is regarding the documentation. I'd also like to add, Mike Shaw's memo from March 15th, regarding wastewater, the Rist-Frost memo dated March 15th, regarding engineering concerns, and the Aviation Mall's letter to Paul Naylor, regarding the scheduling for truck traffic, dated March 14th. MR. MEYER-Scott, excuse me. Frost? What date did you say on the Rist- MR. HARLICKER-It's dated March 15th. It was faxed to us today. MR. MEYER-I misunderstood. I thought you said ~/15. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-The other thing is, we would like two full sets of those plans, all the revised plans, one for the Building Department and one for the Planning Office. I'll use those as the ones I stamp as Zoning Administrator. MR. MEYER-We will see to it that you have those on Friday. MR. MARTIN-That's fine. with. Whatever is reasonable for you to work MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that it? Would somebody care to offer that, with the additions? I'd like to at least put, mention Seven, so it's on the record, about the SEQRA being looked at, and it's okay, for their records. MR. MACEWAN-Incorporate Shaw's comments, incorporate Naylor's letter, incorporate Rist-Frost's letter. MR. MARTIN-Right. I'll go back through them one more time. Okay. Starting at the top, Sheet SP-3 is now dated 3/11/94. SP-4 is now dated 3/11/94. SP-9 is now dated 3/11/94. SP-10, 3/11/94. SP-21, 22, 22A, and 23 are 3/11/94. Adding at the bottom, in terms of documentation, would be five, six, and seven, as follows: Number Five, would be Wastewater, a letter from Mike Shaw, dated 3/15/94. Number Six would be a Rist-Frost letter dated 3/15/94, and Number Seven would be an Aviation Mall letter 3/14/94, and then, under the Resolved clause is Number Seven, on the second page, would be a reference to the SEQRA having been looked at and not needed. MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we can do it as Jim just stated, George. MR. STARK-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-91 FALLS, Introduced by George Stark who PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS moved for its adoption, - 28 - seconded by Roger Ruel: Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 1-91 (modification) for modification of an existing site plan approval. The modification includes moving the new J.C. Penney's store 30' west, elimination of the 15,000 square foot Sear's expansion, internal reconfiguration of proposed Department Store D and reconfiguration of proposed additional parking; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan modification dated 2/23/94 consists of the following: 1. Sheet EP1 siteplan, revised 2/22/94 2. Sheet SP 1 layout and striping, revised 2/22/94 3. Sheet SP 2 layout and striping, revised 2/22/94 4. Sheet SP 3 layout and striping, revised 3/11/94 5. Sheet SP 4 layout and striping, revised 3/11/94 6 . Sheet SP 5 Grading, revised 2/22/94 7. Sheet SP 6 Grading, revised 2/22/94 8. Sheet SP 7 Grading, revised 2/22/94 9. Sheet SP 8 Grading, revised 2/22/94 10. Sheet SP 9 Utilities, revised 3/11/94 11. Sheet SP 10 Utilities, revised 3/11/94 12. Sheet SP 11 Utilities, revised 2/22/94 13. Sheet SP 12 Utilities, revised 2/22/94 14. Sheet SP 17 Sediment & Erosion Control, revised 2/22/94 15. Sheet SP 18 Sediment & Erosion Control, revised 2/22/94 16. Sheet SP 19 Sediment & Erosion Control, revised 2/22/94 17. Sheet SP 20 Sediment & Erosion Control, revised 2/22/94 18. Sheet SP 21 Details, revised 3/11/94 19. Sheet SP 22 Details, revised 3/11/94 20. Sheet SP 22A Details, revised 3/11/94 21. Sheet SP 23 Profiles, revised 3/11/94 22. Sheet SP 24 Profiles, revised 2/22/94 23. Sheet SP 25 Profiles, revised 2/22/94 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Letter from Michael Piazzola to Jim Martin, dated 2/23/94 2. Engineering comments, dated 3/8194 3. Wastewater Department comments dated 3/7/94 4. Staff notes, 3/15/94 5. Wastewater letter from Mike Shaw, dated 3/15/94 6. Rist-Frost letter, dated 3/15/94 7. Aviation Mall letter dated 3/14/94 Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve modifications to site plan # 1-91 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 Z.A. for his signature within 30 days of the date of this resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. Potential environmental impacts in terms of a SEQRA assessment has been considered and it was found that further or additional assessment is not needed. Duly adopted this 15th day of March. 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, - 29 - -...-' Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MEYER-Thank you very much, and we'd like to thank staff and your consultants. They're very professional and helped us a lot, and we thank you, Board. MR. BREWER-Thank you. We've still got a couple of things to do. MR. RUEL-Barody? MR. BREWER-Barody. SEORA REVIEW: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF FOR MICHAEL BARODY MR. BREWER-And we have to acknowledge lead agency status, also. So why don't we do that, acknowledge lead agency status, and then we'll do the SEQRA. MR. STARK-Okay. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Variances and Site Plan Review for Michael Barody RESOLUTION NO.. 11-1994 INTRODUCED BY: Georqe Stark WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS, in connection with the variances and site plan review applications for Michael Barody, 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 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 of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1994, by the following vote: - 30 - AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we can go over your notes, Scott. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 8-94 SEQRA Review, Michael Barody, Meeting Date: March 15, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is for a 836 square foot expansion of an existing house and involves a request for a variance for greater than 50% expansion of a non-conforming structure, a variance for side yard setbacks, and site plan review of the expansion. The expansion adds 308 feet of living space and a 528 square foot garage. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment submitted with this project and offers the following comments: 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? The proposal will result in a slight physical change to the project site. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The proposal will not affect any protected water body. 4. Will proposed action affect any non- protected existing or new body of water? The proposal will not affect any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The proposal will not affect surface or groundwater. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The additional runoff generated by the addition will have to be retained on site. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? The project should not affect any non-threatened or non-endangered species. 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The project should not affect any agricultural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not impact any aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any site of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open space or recreational opportunities? The action should not have an adverse affect on open space or recreational opportuni tie s. 14. Will there be an affect to existing transportation system? The project should not effect the transportation system. 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel and energy? The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? There should not be objectionable noise, odors or vibrations as a result of this project. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The pro j ect should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. RECOMMENDATION: The project does not appear to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment ¡ therefore, the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." MR. BREWER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE - 31 - -- RESOLUTION NO. 11-1994, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: Barody, and is presently variances before and site the plan Planning Board an review for Michael 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 concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan MR. MACEWAN-While we're on the subject of SEQRA's, may I just offer a thought, maybe speed the system a Ii ttle bit, Scott's notes, going through all the SEQRA stuff, maybe if we could persuade to Scott not to respond to anything in the SEQRA unless it has some sort of effect on it. It would say you a lot of answering questions. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. That's fine for me. MR. MARTIN-It sounds good to me. MR. RUEL-Only the positive ones? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I mean, what do we care if it's a negative, because it's not going to bother us. MR. RUEL-I agree with you 100 percent. I thought it was mandatory to go through them. It isn't? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think, in the past Staff never did this type of review, and we're sort of finding our way here. We're looking to - 32 - "-- -- make the system better, and we started doing a separate sort of Staff notes for SEQRA, as a courtesy to the Board, but, yes, we can stream line it further that way. MR. RUEL-See, in other words, the one we just had, we say. MR. HARLICKER-No significant impacts. MR. MACEWAN-No significant impacts. MR. HARLICKER-The criteria have been reviewed, and there was found to be no significant impacts on it. MR. STARK-What do we need? Suppose you have six small to moderate on a Long EAF, does that through it into a? MR. MARTIN-No. It's only when you have and it cannot be mitigated by a project and that can kick in the need for Statement. a Potential Large Impact, change, even if it's one, an Environmental Impact MR. STARK-Okay. So everyone of the things that you read, we could have a small to moderate, but it still would necessarily mean an Impact Statement? MR. RUEL-No. It has to be large. MR. MARTIN-Right, but you have discretion. If the cumulative effect of those, in your capacity as lead agency, if you feel that's, cumulatively, a large impact, then you can call for an EIS, but in most cases, the small to moderate impacts can be mitigated. MR. STARK-Well, you know, every time somebody builds something or an addition, it's going to have a small to moderate impact on your stormwater runoff and so on. That's a given. I mean, you add something on, you've got more stormwater drainage, or runoff. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think there should be things, we can become a little bit more attune to the impact of stormwater by requiring simple things like gutters and downspouts and drywells, berming along the shoreline, no impact within that 35 foot buffer area back from the shoreline. Things like that are practical, yet relatively inexpensive things that can be worked into a site plan. I'd like to see them, quite frankly, even into a building permit that doesn't necessarily come before you, as measures to be taken to reduce stormwater. because you're right. The cumulative impact of every small addition up and down the shoreline, over time, will have an impact. MR. STARK-One other thing, when's the next Teleconference? MR. MARTIN-I think it's May 9th or 11th. MRS. LABOMBARD-Eleventh, I think. MR. STARK-And we're supposed to go to that? MR. MARTIN-That's one on site plan review. relevance. It seemed to have MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Just a couple of updates for the Board on a couple of projects. Hugh Sinclair appeared before the Judge, finally. He was found, and he's going to be submitting a new site plan for your April meeting, that's the condition of the Court. MR. BREWER-But is he going to be here? MR. MARTIN-April. He'll be here in April. Stewart's submitted for - 33 - -- this month. The application was incomplete and re j ected and returned, stating the things that were incomplete, and we should see that in April. So there's a couple of things that are in the works that you might not necessarily know about. MR. BREWER-Okay. What about DiPalma? MR. MARTIN-DiPalma? I'm still waiting for word from the Attorney's Office on that. I've been bugging them just about every day. I have not gotten, a building permit has been applied for, but I'm holding it until I get that. MR. BREWER-He can't get that permit until there's a decision made. MR. MARTIN-Right. I'm waiting for the Attorney's decision. MR. BREWER-Okay. What about our dilemma with the minutes? MR. MARTIN-He said to go ahead and not take any action on it at all. He said that's a very rare instance. It's not necessary that you adopt them anyhow. It's always preferred that you do, and when you can, you should, but, in this instance, where you're physically unable to, due to your membership, the way it went, then they're just left as they are. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-What was DiPalma? MR. BREWER-DiPalma was the bed and breakfast and the variance for the addition on his house. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, what's the problem that we're waiting for the Attorney? MR. BREWER-Well, there was a problem with the ZBA. MR. MARTIN-What happened was that was a site plan that was subject to a variance, the variance was given. However, the night that the variance was given, it was a scheduled item on the agenda. The Board heard it and they denied it. Mike O'Connor was the attorney. He waited around until the end of the night. Asked the Board to reconsider it. A discussion was held. They reconsidered it. They voted again. It passed. Technically, we II, the thought is, technically, and the question was raised by one of the ZBA members, when they reconsider an application, they're supposed to hold a public hearing to do that, and then they have to vote unanimously to reconsider, and then, if it is voted unanimously to reconsider, it has to be approved in a unanimous fashion. That's the process that should occur in order for them to take up an application that they've heard once already. That was obviously not done, because they heard it in the same night, in a very informal fashion. So, Paul's looking into the legalities of both actions that were taken, and which one has standing. It's the feeling of a lot of people that the initial action that denied has standing, and until that proper procedure is followed, to reconsider it, the second action has no standing, but that's a legal question. MR. BREWER-All right. Now, suppose Paul comes back and says the first action has standing. Then he goes, just hypothetically, he doesn't have our approval. MR. MARTIN-Right. Now, Paul said, in terms of the si te plan approval, your site plan approval will only be valid if he goes back through a variance procedure and gets the exact same variance that he did before, then your site plan would still be in effect, but should that variance change at all, then it would affect your site plan, and he'd have to come back for site plan. MR. BREWER-I would almost rather have him, if his variance is - 34 - ~ -- denied, whether he goes back or not, he should come back to the Planning Board for approval again. Can we do that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. discretion. You can rescind your approval. That's at your MR. BREWER-So, in that case, would you let us know if? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'll let you know the outcome. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-What's the deal with our attorney, or getting one? MR. BREWER-That should be taken up, the reason that Mark has held off is because he's got a client coming before us next week. MR. MARTIN-Yes, Logger's Supply. MR. BREWER-And he would feel more comfortable if he was not hired. MR. MACEWAN-So, we've got the approval to get him? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Board. The resolution's waiting to go before the Town MR. BREWER-The resolution's waiting for him to give them his contract. MR. MARTIN-We're waiting for a proposal from him to fill in some blanks, in terms of hourly rates, and so on. We haven't gotten that. MR. BREWER-Once he gets hired, he won't be able to appear in front of us, and he's got a client next week. MR. MACEWAN-I guess the question, the answer I'm looking for, the Town Board, then, has conceptually approved getting him for an attorney, per se? MR. MARTIN-I think it looks good. There's been no official action, obviously, but it looks good, I would say. MR. MACEWAN-For one year? MR. MARTIN-I heard it was a three month trial period. MR. BREWER-There's a three month trial period to see if he likes us and we like him, and things work out, I guess. MR. STARK-Jim, are you going to instruct Schachner, when you ask him a question, to answer in one minute or less? MR. MARTIN-I've heard, he's done this before. I mean, you're not going to be the only Board that he's counseled to. I think he's counseled to the Board in Lake George, for sure, Greenfield Center, maybe, or something like that. I think you're going to find Mark very good, and very much to the point. MR. BREWER-I'm sure he's a lot different when he's representing us, rather than when he's representing a client. MRS. LABOMBARD-Will he be attending all of these meetings? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That was part of the reason for doing this. MR. LABOMBARD-Starting when? MR. BREWER-Presumably, hopefully, in April. - 35 - -" -- MR. MARTIN-Yes. He'll be here full time, and he'll be getting copies of the applications and all of that. He'll be a regular staff person, so to speak. MR. MACEWAN-I've not heard anything, either, regarding the resolution for appointment of officers for this year from the Town Board. Did they approve it? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I never heard anything. MR. BREWER-I've got one last thing. Everybody, a month ago, got the Agenda Control Law in their packet that Jim sent us. I just was curious if everybody, do they want to put it back into effect, or do they want to ignore it, or what do you want to do? The busy time of the year is coming. MR. STARK-I have another question. Mr. Roulier was appearing here tonight for Temkin. Do you have a statement or a letter from them signed, saying that it's okay for him to act as their agent? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. STARK-I didn't see it. Usually, sometimes it's in our packets, but I didn't see it. If you've got it, fine. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-What it does is limits the amount of applications we can have on an agenda. MR. MACEWAN-I'm all in favor of that. MR. BREWER-I mean, you don't have to. difference. It doesn't make any MR. MARTIN-It's limited to eight, four and four, Old Business and New Business. MR. BREWER-If there isn't four Old, then there could be eight New. It just limits the agenda to eight items, per meeting. MR. RUEL-Yes, it's fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's fine with me. MR. MARTIN-I have a Committee meeting with the Town Board members next Tuesday. MR. MACEWAN-For the new members, the building season is fast coming upon us. We could very well be here until 12, 1 0' clock in the morning if we don't enact this. That's happened in the past. MR. STARK-But then it gets run into two meetings a week for two weeks in a row, which is fine. MR. BREWER-Well, I think it's not good for us or the applicants to be here at midnight. MR. MARTIN-No. I think what that law does is it still restricts you to two meeting nights. It's eight items per meeting night, and if something comes in, and it's the ninth application through the door for that second meeting night, it gets put off until May, just as a matter of. MR. BREWER-We can't make it into another meeting? MR. MARTIN-Well, you have that discretion if you want to, but that's the way the law, I was on the Board when the law worked that - 36 - '- way, and that's what it did. It just knocked people off until the following month. MR. BREWER-I wouldn't want to do that. MR. HARLICKER-Well, it encourages people to get in on time, too. MR. MARTIN-Well, what we can do is when the applications come in, if we look like we've got, like 20 or 24 applications, and we're only able to take 16, then I can contact you at that time to see if you want to consider a third meeting, at some point in the month. MR. MACEWAN-That's acceptable. MR. BREWER-I think that would be best. anybody away. I wouldn't want to turn MR. MARTIN-That was the only, as a Board member before, that was the only down side of the law was it created a little ire in the community when they worked their but off to get something in, in time for the submission date, and then you just said, you're off for two months now. MR. BREWER-Well, I wouldn't want to do that. I would want to at least have the chance to make a third meeting for them. I mean, I want to limit it, so that we can only have eight items, so that we're not here until one o'clock in the morning. MR. MARTIN-Nobody enjoys being here until one 0' clock or two o'clock in the morning. MR. BREWER-Do we want to enact it then? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it's something the Town Board, that was a Local Law by the Town Board. I don't know that it's just. MR. MACEWAN-It seems to me it's already enacted, it's in effect, right, and we just need to adopt it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We do that now, informally, we've found that eight seems to be the limit, and that's what we've done. MR. BREWER-I thought there was a question as to whether this was? MR. MARTIN-I thought it was a Town law, the Town Board had to enact. That's what I recall it as being. MR. BREWER-It says it shall be effective immediately upon the approval of the Town Board, and shall expire be void. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Like I said, I have a meeting with the Planning Committee Tuesday, and I can tell them that it's the feeling of the Planning Board unanimously they want to enact this. So, I'm sure they'll take it up. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Jim. It has to do with the Planning Board Rules and Regulations. To participate in a SEQRA, and also to vote on a resolution, is it absolutely mandatory that you must have been at the site review for that particular application? MR. MARTIN-I don't know what's in the Rules and Regulations. I don't know if that's in there or not. MR. BREWER-I've got them right here. MR. RUEL-I can't seem to get an answer as to whether it is absolutely mandatory. I have voted on many items where I didn't actually go to the site, and other people have done it, too, but some people abstained because they haven't been there. They haven't been at the site. - 37 - ~ ..... MR. MARTIN-I don't know that it's in the Rules and Regulations. MR. OBERMAYER-I think it was just suqqested. MR. BREWER-No, it's not. "Powers and Duties, Pursuant to the resolution passed by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board shall, all members of the Planning Board are expected to review all submissions on the agenda and make a site visit prior to the meeting. MR. RUEL-Expected. It's not mandatory. MRS. LABOMBARD-It doesn't say they're required to. MR. BREWER-That's what I'm just saying. MR. STARK-No. You should, though. MR. RUEL-I know, but my question was, is it mandatory, and must you abstain from voting if you haven't been at the site. MR. BREWER-Why don't we wait until next month and ask our attorney. MR. MARTIN-Yes. attorney. I'd read that and say, no, but I'm not an On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 38 -