Loading...
1995-10-17 ~/ QUEENSBIµRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBl:lR 17, 1995,: INDEX Site Plan No. 5-92 MODIFICATION Richard Schermerhorn Tax Map No. 46-2-9.4~ 9.5 Subdivision No. 4-76 MODIFICATION Heatherbrooke, Lot 17 and 18 Tax Map No. 149-2-17, 18 Subdivision No. 13-1995 FINAL STAGE Kenneth Ermiger Tax Map No. 73-1-4 Site Plan No. 52-95 Top of the World Auto Body Tax Map No. 109-3-4 Site Plan No. 51-95 Ray & Wendy Kraft Tax Map No. 62-1-8.31 " ,I Site Plan No. 53-95 Anthony Ricciardelli Tax Map No. Ql:-1-26 Site Plan No. 54-95 Gary Higley Tax Map No. 105-1-38 7. 8. 9. 11. 15. 21. i, 35. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY ):AND, WILLSWHE SUCH Þ,tPPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. I '; ¡J '-- --./ '-- Queensbury Plannin~ Bda d Meeting 10/17/95: QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOA D MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SEi RETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN TIMOTHY BREWER MEMBERS ABSENT JAMES OBERMAYER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES August 22, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE I INUTES OF AUGUST 22 1995, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved fdr its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Palin~ I NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. We have some resolutions to take care of this evening. RESOLUTIONS: 1. RESOWUTION REGARDING: LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF FOR THS ALFRED & MARY KRISTENSEN APPLICATIONS. MR. PALING-Okay. This ¡has to do with the Lead Agency Status, and we've been requested ~o pass this on to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but John, you can give us the detail on it, I believe. MR. GORALSKI-Right. What this is, is a residential addition on Glen Lake, because Glen Lake is a Critical Environmental Area, and SEORA Review ha$ to be treated as a Type I Action. Therefore, a coordinated review has to take place. Now the applicant has not submitted a Site Plan Review application, to date. However, if th~y receive their variances, they will have to come before this 'Board for expansion of a nonconformi ng structure in a Critic~l Environmental Area. So you will be an involved agency at some point. MR. PALING-But the Zoning Board of Appeals will conduct the SEORA? MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Board of Appeals has requested Lead Agency Status. MR. PALING-Okay. Thi has to do, I think, originally, and this - 1 - '.-- Queensbury P Ianni ng Board Meet;! n~ 10'/17/95 method of doing it is to correct that situation, so that we won't come to SEQRA and have to act 6n it without having had a public hearing. The public hearing will have been held by ZBA, if I understand it right. MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning 8'oard of Appeals will conduct the SEQRA Review completely, if you agree to have them be lead agent. You won't have to conduct a SEQRA review at all. You'll simply do YOUT site plan review. MR. PALING-Okay. I'd like comments from the Board. MR. BREWER-If they want to do the SEQRA, that's fine. I don't even know what it's about. I have no idea. I know it's a simple addition probably. MR. GORALSKI-Right. It's a residential addition. MR. PALING-But as long as they do the SEQRA, you're comfortable. Yes. MR. RUEL-The only comment I have is, are there any application numbers? MR. BREWER-No. We don't have to have an application. MR. GORALSKI-See, at this point, you don't have an application in front of you, but based on the Zoning Ordinance, the only way they can complete this project is to come before you eventually for a site plan review. MR. PALING-Which they'll have to do, yes. Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-It sounds fine. MR. STARK-No problem. MR. MACEWAN-No problem. MR. PALING-It's okay with me, too. Do we need a motion? MR. GORALSKI-What you should do is have a motion and a second, agreeing to allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to act as lead agent in the matter of Alfred & Mary Ellen Kristensén. MR. PALING-Well, I'll make a motion. MOTION THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING THE SEQRA BE PASSED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANTS BY THE NAME OF ALFRED & MARY ELLEN KRISTENSEN, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Obermayer RESOLUTION REGARDING LAND IN LIEU OF RECREATION FEES FOR THE JOSEPH GROSS SUBDIVISION. MR. GORALSKI-I can explain this one to you, if you'd like, also. MR. PALING-Okay. - 2 - '--'" '-....~ --" Queensbury Planning Board Meet.ing 10/17/95 MR. GORALSKI-We discussed, at I believe it was our last meet,ing, for the Joseph Gros~ subdivision, that he donate a certain portion of land in that subdivision to the Town, in lieu of the Recreation fee. In o~der to get that process formally underway, the Board needs to ~ass a resolution recommending that the Recreation Commission i and the Town Board consider this land dedication in lieu of ~he Recreation fee. MR. PALING-Does everybody understand that, or do you want a little more depth? MR. BREWER-I understanq, but is this our recommendation to accept that land? I MR. GORALSKI-Well, basically, what it from the Recreation final decision. you can pose it as a recommendation, but is, is you're looking for a recommendation Commission, and then it's the Town Board's MR. BREWER-Right, but I recommendation to them? MR. GORALSKI-You can. IRi9ht. think, don't we also give a You can make a recommendation. MR. BREWER-In that ca$e, it's just!Jl2::. opinion that I think if we're going to recomme~d to accept that land, I would like to see a map of the land. I mean, I recall the subdivision, and everything, just a piece of it outlined, and how much land is it. I just want the land identified, so I know what we're talking about. MR. STARK-It's a nice iece of land. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's not on that map. I don't think, John, it was on that original map. I MR. PALING-This is the lold map here. ! MR. GORALSKI-Right. map. They gave us a letter requesting this, an a MR. BREWER-Does this have to be done tonight? MR. GORALSKI-It doesn't have to be done tonight, no. MRS. LABOMBARD-Has the Recreation Commission seen this? MR. GORALSKI-The Recreation Department has seen it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean the Commission. MR. GORALSKI-Not officially. They have discussed it, but they haven't officially sen it, because you haven't officially sent it to them. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. RUEL-Why don't w just pass it on to the Town Board and Recreation Commission, Iwithout necessarily making an approval? MR. PALING-Well, let When we're all done 10 that the Town does or to recommend they look e ask a question in that regard, though. king at this, is it up to us to recommend oesnot accept the land, or is it up to us at it? MR. BREWER-No. We've ~lways recommendèd whether to accept or not to accept, in the past. - 3 - --- -' Queensbury P Ianni ngBoard Mee't'i ng '10/17'/95 ' MR. RUEL-We don't have to do that. We can just recommend that they make that decision. MR. BREWER-I think if you look at the Ordinance, we play more of a role than you think we do. MR. GORALSKI-Right. You certainly are in a position to make a recommendation to the Town Board as to whether or not you feel it's appropriate for them to accept this land for dedication. MR. PALING-Where is the land? MR. BREWER-That's what I'm saying, Bob. I would like to know what the land is, where it is. I don't have a pyoblem with it. I Just want to know what it is. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. If you look on the map that I've given you, there's a strip of land, 40 feet wide, along the Northway, from the bend in Big Bay Road all the way down to, there's one lot left at the end of, that's what they want to dedicate. MR. PALING-That was on their print before, too. MRS. LABOMBARD-And this is so we could bring it under, to go to the other part. MR. GORALSKI-Right. The purpose of that would be to put some type of a trail along there, so that pedestrians and bicycles would be able to go under the bridge to the Hudson River Park, as opposed to going through the Exit 18 intersection. That would be the purpose of that strip, yes. MR. RUEL-That would be the only purpose,actually. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-That's a long, narrow strip. MR. GORALSKI-Right. You wouldn't develop it as a park. It would simply be a bike trail for access to the Hudson River Park. MR. RUEL-Now, in lieu of this, the contractor would have to submit how much? MR. GORALSKI-I believe there's eight lots there, $4,000. MR. RUEL-This would be in lieu of $4,000 to the Rec Commission? MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's correct. MR. PALING-John, a chain link fence on the north side will be placed, who puts that up? MR. GORALSKI-Well, that is part of the request of the applicant. As far as the Town is concerned, the Town doesn't have to agree to any of those conditions. Let me explain. I believe you folks understand the Recreation Fee law, but let me explain it to you one more time. The way the law reads is, if you have a subdivision approved in the Town, you have to dedicate land for recreation to the Town. In lieu of dedicating land, if the Town deems there's no appropriate land within that subdivision for recreation, the Town can require you, instead, to pay a $500 a lot fee. So the Town's first choice is to say to you, we want the land. So, although they've requested these certain conditions, the Town has no obligation to accept those conditions. MR. BREWER-So, I guess what we have to weigh, is this piece of - 4 - '-- --/' '---' --' Queensbury Planning, Boa¡rd Meeting 10/17/95 land worth against the fees, or is it any value to us? MR. RUEL-Who would be responsible for the fence? MR. BREWER-That's between the Town Board and him. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. BREWER-I mean, if the Town Board says, we'll take the land, but we're not going to put a chain link fence up. MR. RUEL-Then he'll have to do that. MR. BREWER-No, not necessarily. If he says, no, you're going to put a fence up or not get the land, then he pays the $4,000 and the land stays with him, maybe. I don't know. MR. Town Town They GORALSKI-To be honest with you, the way that works is, the says, we want the land. If you read the Recreation Law, the can say, we want the land, or you don't get a subdivision. could do that. T e Town Board could do that. MR. PALING-Yes. I'm 'ot having any trouble with the land. I think that's okay, bu~ I am having trouble with specifying the traffic on there, are e within our legal bounds of doing that, and they chain link fence, which the applicant is telling that we've got to do. MR. GORALSKI-As I said, well, maybe Tim said it. That is a function of the Town B 'ard. If the Town Board decides to accept this land, it's up to them to determine if there's going to be any conditions on that. I mean, if you would like to recommend, you certainly could ma e the recommendation that yes, you should agree with those con itions or, no, you shouldn't agree with those conditions, or you should agree with one and three and not two, or whatever you ¡want, but it's up to the Town Board, ultimately, to make th decision. The Recreation Commission will be doing the same thin ~. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Where does this other strip, who does that belong to, John? MR. GORALSKI-He's goi to give that to the adjoining property owner, so that he will be guaranteed of a buffer between anything the Town does, and his property. MR. RUEL-How wide is t MR. GORALSKI-I believe it's about 15 feet. MR. MACEWAN-Twenty-two. MR. RUEL-Is there vege~ation in there now? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Wel~, in most parts there are. In a couple of spots it's pretty spar e. MR. RUEL-And I see this letter. Who recommended the chain link fence? MR. GORALSKI-The applicant is requesting it. Nobody recommended it. MR. PALING-Okay, but t at part does not, we can purposely exclude these conditions from our resolution and let the Town Board handle that. - 5 - '-- Queensbury Planning Boatd Meeting 10/17/95 MR. BREWER-We can say, yes, take the land and eliminate the conditions, or whatever we want to say. MR. PALING-I wouldn't accept them or reject them, either one. I'd just let them do it. MR. BREWER-But I guess we have to decide, do you think the land is worth it? i:l'-'fR" M'ACEWANi~I think 'we 'fe complicà.ti ng a very simple procédure. t.4e éiftltéY" 'say the land I is goòd for "t'he Town'ä 'benefit." and whate\}èr c'Ondîtió'Ms the Tow'n Board wor ks : out)1 wi:th the apÞI iêant, that" s up to them. I MR. STARK-Yes. I concur. MR. RUEL-Does anyone know how much Commission now has? money the Recreation MR. BREWER-Tons. MRS. LABOMBARD-Tons. MR. GORALSKI-It's approximately $450,000. MR. PALING-Okay, then could we have a motion on this? MOTION'TO ACCEPT THE LAND IN LIEU OF REC FEES FOR THE JOSEPH AND DEBRA GROSS SUBDIVISION. AS OUTLINED IN MAP 95073-2, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Star k: Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr.Obermayer MRS. LABOMBARD-The next agenda is concerning Dave 40-94. item for the resolution part Kenny and extension for Site of the Plan No. MR. PALING-Is Mr. Kenny here? No. He doesn't have to be here. MR. RUEL-He's looking for a one year extension from what? MR. PALING-November 29, 1994. MR. RUEL-To November 29, 1995? That doesn't make sense. MR. GORALSKI-It expires on November 29, 1995. MR. MACEWAN-So lets grant an extension to December 1, 1996. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. GORALSKI-That's what he's asking for. MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN NO. 40-94 DAVID KENNY TO DECEMBER 1. 1996, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: - 6 - "-' -- '- ~ Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. SAME AS ABOVE PROPOSAL IS FOR SITE PLAN. TAX SECTION: 179-19 5-92 MODIFICATION RICHARD SCHERMERHORN OWNER: ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: MEADOWBROOK ROAD MODIFICATION TO THE MEADOWBROOK ROAD APARTMENTS MAP NQ. 46-2-9.4, 9.5 LOT SIZE: + 19.54 ACRES RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. This is just a modification. John? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-92, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: October 17, 1995 "The applicant wishes to modify the existing site pl~n approval to accommodate two additional rental units. This ~odification would result in a total of twenty rental units. T1his is a 19.54 acre lot in a SR-1A zone. The applicant has indilcated to me that he is under contract to purchase an additional . .5 acre lot contiguous to the P,resent lot to accommodate the addi,tional densi ty. Because the two additional units will take the place of areas previously set aside as storage areas, there will be change in the footprint of the buildings. There ~re currently forty-eight parking spaces on the site. The Zoning ~rdinance requires two spaces per dwelling unit, therefore, no expansion of the parking facilities is necessary. This pro~osal appears to be in keeping with the previous approval. I ¡would, however, condition any approval of this modification on ~he filing of a deed at the Warren County Clerk's office that re~lects the addition of at least .46 acres of land to the existi g parcel. The Board should also determine whether this modifica~ion has any impact on its previous SEQRA determination." MR. GORALSKI-Now, with all that said, I've spoken to Rich today, and spoken to Jim Martin, as Zoning Administrator. Rich has determined that he has a need to have a rental office at that site, and instead of þurchasing the additional half acre lot, what he wants to do, ~orrect me if I'm wrong, Rich, is add one additional rental uni~, and the remaining space is going to be his rental office. iSo, that rental office, as part of the apartment complex, doesn't count toward his density, and so he has enough for 19 units. He has enough land, presently, for 19 units. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-So this modification would be area to a rental uni~, and changing one off ice. changing one storage storage area to an MR. PALING-To an office. Right. Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Richar Schermerhorn. MR. PALING-Thank you. I just have one question, which I guess I know the answer to. I the addition that you're purchasing the same zoning as the one that we have in front of us? MR. GORALSKI-Well, he' not going to purchase the property now. - 7 - Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 That's what I'm saying. Instead of purchasing the additional property, to get up to 20 acres, he's going to stick with the 19.54 acres, and only have 19 units plus a rental office. MR. PALING-So what are we being asked? MR. BREWER-If he can add one unit~ MR. GORALSKI-Basically to add one unit. Yes. MR. RUEL-The conditions are the storage area will be converted to one unit and one office. MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's it. That's the only modification. MR. PALING~Okay. Any questions? MR. BREWER-Just one. What was the original storage area for? MR. SCHERMERHORN-It was like individual eight by eight storage units for the tenants, but we ran into somewhat of a problem with having apart~ents, it was proposed for two 'apartments, where the storage area is, and having two apart~e~ts uþstairs in an unheated storage areas would create a problem with pipes freezing and everything else. So, that's the reason. ' MR. RUEL-The storage areas are not heated. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. BRËWER-No problem. MR. PALING-And bear in mind, we're saying we don't effect the SEORA, which it doesn't, I don't think. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 5-92 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Timothy Brewe1" who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With no effect to the present determination of the SEORA. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr'¿ P:al i'ng NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Obermayer SUBDIVISION NO. 4-76 MODIFICATION HEATHERBROOKE, LOT 17 AND 18 OWNERS: PETER & SHEILA CHARLSON & MR. & MRS. CHABOT LOCATION: CANDLEBERRY DRIVE PROPOSAL IS FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOTS 17 AND 18. SECTION A 183-13 F REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 149-2-17, 18 STAFF INPUT N<:>t,es f:¡"o~ Staff " sLibdi v islon No. 4-76,: Modi f ica'tion , Heatherbrooke, Lot 17 and':t8, 'Meetit)g D'áte: ÖC't'òber 17, 1995 "Äs the applicant~;s atto'rn'e'Y has indicated in his letter of September', 18, 1995- this prö'posaf concerns the adjus'tment of the common Þrö~erty lin~ bètweenlots 11 and 18 of the Heatherbrooke subdivision. The resultant lots will be 39,016.43 square feet and 36,923.15 square feet respectively~ At the time this subdivision was approved, in 1977, the minimum lot size required - 8 - -- ---' '--- '-" Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 in this zone was 12,000 square feet. This proposal does not appear to have any imp~ct on the neighborhood character or on the environment. I would recommend that the Board review the Short EAF since there was nd formal environmental review conducted at the time this subdivis~on was originally approved." MR. GORALSKI-And I have received a copy of a Short EAF from them. MR. PALING-You want us to do this, you're saying? MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend review. Yes. See, there was Review Act in 1977. So when this was no environmental review. that you do an environmental no State Environmental Quality subdivision was approved, there MR. PALING-All right. Lets do one, then. Do you want us to use what you've got in your hand? MR. GORALSKI-Right. If you'd like, I can read the pertinent items here. This is ~art I of the Short EAF. The applicant is Peter & Sheila Charls9n. This is a boundary line adjustment in the Town of Queensbury,' County of Warren, Lots 17 and 18 of the Heatherbrooke Subdivis~on, west side of Candleberry Drive. The proposed action is a mqdification. The project described is back yard boundary line a~justment, 4,003.99 square feet of land. Will the proposed act10n comply with the existing zoning and other existing land u~e restrictions? Yes. What is the present land use in the vicin~ty of the project? Residential. Does the action involve the permit approval or funding of any other governmental agency? No. Does any aspect of the action have current valid approval? Yes. The Heatherbrooke subdivision, filed in June of 1977. As a result of the proposed action, will existing permit or approval require modification? The answer to that should be yes. That's what we're doing right here, and it's signed Sheila Char lson.j i MR. RUEL-Do we still have to do the Short· Envi-rQnmental Assessment Form? MR. GORALSKI-Right. I ~ould recommend that you, if you'd like, I can go through Part I Ii of the Assessment Form for you, and you can answer the question . MR. PALING-That's MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDI ISION NO. 4-76 WITH THE MODIFICAT ON OF A NEGATIVE DEC FOR THE SE RA, Introduced by Catherine LaBomba)-d who moved for its adoption,1 seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: , AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. aBombard~ Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling Brewer NO,ES : NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwa ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer SUBDIVISION NO. ERMIGER OWNER: 9 (WEST SIDE) PARCEL INTO 2 4 LOT SIZE: 13-1995 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH SAME A ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NYS RT. PROPOSA IS TO SUBDIVIDE AN 8.4 ACRE COMMERCIAL LOTS OF 5.6 ACRES AND 2.8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 73-1- 8.4 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN RAY, REPRESENTING PPLICANT, PRESENT - 9 - Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-1995 Final Stage, Kenneth Ermiger, Meeting Date: October 17, 1995 "This subdivision received preliminary approval in September. The only stipulation on that approval was that the two lots share a common driveway. It appears that several property owners within 500' feet of the subject parcel were not informed of the September 21, 1995 public hearing. All of these property owners have since been notified and another public hearing has been advertised for tonight. I recommend that the Board hold another public hearing and that the SEQRA resolution be revised 'if the public hearing raises any issues that were not previously addressed." MR. PALING-Okay. Is the print that we have from before current, the print we can go by? MR. GORALSKI-The plan hasn't changed. MR. 'RAY-John' 'Ray, from Rehm and:Ray, on behalf' of the å'pplicant. What you 'received a't the' pr~l.iminary;Îii's:'exactly the'same as what you recèi ved. I.,· , " MR. PALING-Okay, and that shared drive 'is like t..:.,,;,shaped? ~. j - ¡ MR. GORALSKI-No. It's shown. MR. PALING-Straight in. MR. GORALSKI-Straddling the line. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Any questions or comments? MR. BREWER-Does this mean, John, that we have to, technically, do preliminary over again? MR. GORALSKI-No, it doesn't. I would just recommend that you hold another public hearing at final. MR. PALING-Okay, and if it has no effect on the SECRA, we're okay, but if it does,then we've got to re-do SECRA. MR. GORALSKI-Exactly. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. If there are no other comments, why don't we open the public hearing ón this matter. Is there anyone from the public that would care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. Then we'Ye back where we were. There is no comment from the public. Then we can proceed with a motion. We don't have to do anything else. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1995 KENNETH ERMIGER, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Only condition being that the two lots share a common driveway. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, - 10 - '- ---'" '--' Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Palin~, I promised Pam that I would mention that it was no fault of hers that the people were not notified. MR. PALING-No. We understand that. It was, I believe, the fault of the applicant that the notification wasn't correct, but the matter's corrected now, put to bed. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not pointing blame at anyone. I just promised Pam I'd let everyone know it wasn't her fault. MR. PALING-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 52-95 TYPE: UNLISTED TOP OF THE WORLD AUTO BODY OWNER: STANLEY F. GA NON, JR. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 619 QUAKER ROAD PROPOSAL ¡IS TO ADD THREE (3) ADDITIONAL REPAIR BAYS AND DOWNDRAFT SPRAY/BA~E REFINISHING BOOTH. ALL LAND USES IN THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL Z 'NE ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 10/9/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 109-3-4 L T SIZE: +1- 3,508 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 STAN GANNON, REPRESENTXNG APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sit Plan No. 52-95, Top of the World Auto Body, Meeting Date: ctober 17, 1995 "The proposed addition will have little affect: on the visual impact of the structure on the site. The additi n is on the rear of the existing building and the resultant structure is well below the allowable density for the lot. The addition should have no impact on stormwater runoff since the area ¡of construction is nonpermeable at this time. The current pafking facilities appear to be adequate to handle the additional uilding area. An issue related to parking is the storage of dama ed vehicles in the front of the building. Because the addition ill be occupying an area previously used for parking, the Boar should be sure that this will not mean more damaged vehicles being stored in the front of the building. If the storage of damaged vehicles in the front of the building is a necessity some ve etative screening should be provided." No County Impact, and MR. GORALSKI-Warren County said Beautification Committ e approved. MR. PALING-But they di n't seem to have any comments. MR. GORALSKI-"Motion m de to accept plan as is." MR. PALING-Because it' in the rear, that they didn't feel it would have any aesthetic affect, I would assume. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. Any qomme.nts from the Board right now? MR. GANNON-I'm Stan Ga non, owner of Top of the World Auto Body. MR. PALING-Okay. Tha k you. You have a nice looking facility there now. I'm sure n thing you're going to do in the future is going to change it. MR. GANNON-No. discussed at the Beautification Committee - 11 - -- Queensbury Planning Board Meet1nglO/17/95 was, in the spring we're going to have it already blacktopped, and then we were going to put a split rail fence and shrubs along the edge of the parking lot to at least hide the vehicles, but the reason we parked them out in the front is because our frame equipment on the front is kind of on the downhill. So we have to roll them into the garage, but I always keep the buses and trucks and anything really moveable out back. At one time, I tried parking all the cars out back, but people would come in and be like, are you going out of business? So, it really does have a big impact. MR. RUEL-This comment about damaged cars in the front, would you address that? MR. BREWER-He just did. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-I have no further questions. MRS. LABOMBARD-We were there, and you told us exactly what you were doing, and it sounds great. MR. RUEL-Does the permeability change? MR. GORALSKI-No. Actually, the permeability is staying the same, because I don't think it's actually blacktopped back there, but it's compacted gravel. It's basically non permeable. MR. RUEL-Well, gravel is not permeable. MR. GORALSKI-Not when it's compacted after cars are rolling over it fo)- years. MR. RUEL-Yes. Right. MR. PALING-Yes. I don't think we can consider it permeable anyway, even before compacting. Okay. Now this is an unlisted action. So we need a SEQRA. A public hearing first. All right. If there are no other comments, we'll open the public hea)-ing on the Top of the World Auto Body application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GORALSKI-I have a letter here, from Garden Time. "Please be advised that Garden Time, Inc. duly endorses a positive recommendation for the addition to the Top of the World Auto Body. We continue to look forward to quality commercial neighbors, such as Stan Gannon, in the future development of the Quaker Road corridor. Sincerely, Frederick D. Troelstra, Manager of Garden Time" MR. PALING-Okay. Any comment from anyone about this? Okay. If there is no comment from the public, then we're going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Tim, go ahead. MR. BREWER-You're going to have a, what kind of booth is it? It's going to bake the enamel finishes? MR. GANNON-Yes. What tougher on the VOC's in up here, but this is a the water's jetted, and through, it'll trap it it is is, basically, they're getting the State. It's kind of working it's way water filtrated filtration system, where as the isocyanides and all that stuff go all, and then it filters it all out - 12 - "--' ---- '-" -' Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 through the water, and emits less VOC's in the air. Plus they're starting to change paints, like everything's urethane now. We don't see much enamel. Now they're going to water borne. So I'll be painting cars with water. MR. BREWER-So it's jus~ a new and improved booth, is what it is, basically. MR. GANNON-Yes. MR. RUEL-That's what the downdraft means? MR. GANNON-Well, downdraft basically means that it sucks the air underneath the car, lets it come in. It's positive pressure. It takes the exact same amount out as goes in. So there's no really swirling air in the bodth to create dust. MR. RUEL-Where does this water go? MR. GANNON-It's in a self-contained tank. It's about 30 gallons, and it just keeps gettíng filtered. MR. RUEL-All the same water? MR. GANNON-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Stan, what are VOC's, and what about isocyanides? I MR. GANNON-Well, VOC's 'are volatile organic compounds, which a)"e basically stuff that's. MRS. LABOMBARD-Pretty ~oxic. MR. GANNON-Yes, and ki¡nd of floats around, and what we're trying to do is to minimize tHe stuff we're going to, it's hard, because it'll shoot out in the atmosphere and float around. We're trying to trap them. MRS. LABOMBARD-And ~he contami nates, poisons. I isocyanides. Obviously, they're MR. GANNON-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-And you just capture those and dispose of them somehow? MR. GANNON-Well, the w~ter traps them and it kind of washes them down a shoot, and th n it goes to a filtration system, and filters right now, sin~e we have the burn plant, you can either wash them out, becaus~ as long as it gets into like a dry form, then it's not really tqxic, but the filters can be thrown out, if they're in a bUTn plant. Otherwise, you can have a company come in and package them for, them and then throw them out. MR. RUEL-What government agencies are involved? OSHA? MR. PALING-In the permit process, you mean? MR. RUEL-Yes, as far as spray painting, toxic materials, etc. MR. GANNON-Well, right now, it seems like no one's really enforcing it out there. We're kind of getting ready for it, because down state you have to, we're getting a new computer in where we have to keep t-ack of how much paint we mix, how much is sprayed, how much is uoed, and keep that a record. Down state they have to do that no , and it's working its way up here. MR. RUEL-They come into your place periodically and check. - 13 - Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. GANNON-And audit, yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-It's not actually a permit. What it is, a police power, where they just keep track of what's They don't actually issue a permit. is more of going on. MR. RUEL-But there are certain requirements to be met, certain specifications. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. GANNON-The only permits in New York State, is stack get those. Now any time anything like that, we have . . ~ we have to get now, it's a new thing permits, where we used to not have to we have a new fan on the wall or to get a stack permit with the State. I, ' MR. BREWER-Pretty much it's putting the little guys in the garage out in back, putting them out of business. MR. RUEL-No, not really. They just don~t report. MR. BREWER-Well. MR. PALING-All right. Can we move to the SEQRA on this then? MR. RUEL-Short or Long? MR. PALING-This is, Unlisted. Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTIO~ NO. 52-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its ad'd'pt ion, seco'nd'ed by Georg.e' Star k: WHEREAS, there applicafIon; 'for: ~ . . , , IS presenfly before the I "Pl'anni n9 TOP or- THE WORLD AUTO BODY; a Í1d ' , , Soard an WHEREAS, this' P'.fànni ngBoa'rd has dètê'i"mine'd that the proposed piojectandPlan~~ngrgoard action ís subject to r~view under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following ag.encies 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 Ässessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered th.e crit.eria 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 - 14 - ',- "---' -.../' '-/ Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declar~tion that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Obermayer MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think the only thing we have left to do is to make a motion for this. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN O. BODY, Introduced by Roger Ruel ~nded by Timothy Brdwer: 52-95 TOP OF THE WORLD AUTO who moved for its adoption, To add three repair bays and downdraft spraylbake refinishing booth. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermaysr SITE PLAN NO. 51-95 TYPE: UNLISTED RAY & WENDY KRAFT OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE DBA/SHI I SHAPE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: FROM BAY RD. TURN INTO GLENWOD - 2ND BUILDING ON LEFT "SHIP SHAPE" APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ~DDITION TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING FOR STORAGE. ALL LAND THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN R WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 62-1-8.31 LOT 1,803.32 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-23 RAY & WENDY KRAFT, PRE STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 51-95, Ray & Wendy Kraft, Meeting Date: October 17, 1995 "Upon review of the development considerations set f rth in Section 179-38 of the Zoning Ordinance it appears that many of the considerations are not addressed on the site plan that was included with the application. There is no indication of the adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. The plan should show ingress and egress points as well as parking layout and pedestr ian Ici rculation. The plan does not indicate any type of landscapin on the site. According to the plan, the existing building is right on the front property line. The use of landscaping would minimize the visual impact of the structure. This is not a large a dition and it appears that all applicable requirements can be adequately accommodated. It is simply a matter of providing the information on the plan." MR. GORALSKI-It's not a big addition. It's just that the plan doesn't have a lot of information on it. MR. PALING-But you are raising questions regarding some pretty necessary information. - 15 - Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. GORALSKI-As I said, I don't really think that this addition is going to impact any of those items. It's just that they're not on the plan. MR. PALING-Yes. Ship Shape, that lot just kind of merges with the Tennis Club, doesn't it? MRS. KRAFT-No. It's separated by a fence. MR. PALING-Is there a fence in there? Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-It kind of merges with that building that faces Bay Road that's adjacent to it. MRS. KRAFT-Dr. Wasserman's Office. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please? MRS. KRAFT-My name is Wendy Kraft. property. I'm the owner of the MR. KRAFT-Ray Kraft. MR. RUEL-This elevation, what view is this? MRS. KRAFT-The back. MR. RUEL-Rear? apparently, is system? Okay. I had a question going to be built over the about, the pipe for addition, the septic MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. RUEL-And you have a foundation, what, about four feet down? MR. KRAFT-Now, no. MR. RUEL-Proposed. MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. RUEL-And how far down is this ~ipe in the ground? Would the foundation be over the pipe? MR. KRAFT-No, through it. MR. RUEL-Do you know how far down the pipe is? MR. KRAFT-Two or three feet. MR. RUEL-So it'll be going through that area? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. RUEL-Is that a crawl space, or is that open, no filled? MR. KRAFT-Filled. MR. RUEL-So the pipe, then, will be essentially the same as it was before? Two feet under ground, and it still will be two feet underground? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay, and the new structure will be 20 feet away from the property line? - 16 - ,--' --./ Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. RUEL-Which meets the side yard requirements. Although the other requirements a~parently are grandfathered, or ancient, right? One is 15, and you're right on the front line. That's all l. had. MR. PALING-Okay. What other questions do we have? MR. RUEL-And this plan will be modified to respond to the comments that this gentleman made? MRS. KRAFT-Whatever he requires that we didn't give him, we'd be more than happy to give him. MR. RUEL-Well, apparently some of these comments were made in the document, but they weren't included on the plan. Is that right? MR. GORALSKI-Well, you know, there's no parking plan. MRS. KRAFT-There never has been a parking plan. It's only crushed stone, and the lot, but the lot is quite large. People really don't stay for very long at Ship Shape. They stoP. They ship a package, they get in their car, and they drive away. Honestly, most people pull up to the front door. MR. RUEL-Is this a requirement for the application. MR. GORALSKI-Well, what I would like to see, I mean, obviously, they can fit the required parking spaces. I'd just like to have it on a plan somewher , so that somebody doesn't come in, later on, and say, well, lo k what they handed in, and why can't I do the same thing when it may be a significant issue. MRS. KRAFT-If you're familiar with the lot, there is an area of grass that's probably 10 foot in perimeter around the lot, which we are going to additionally stone, since it's very difficult to mow because the stone in it all the time anyway. We decided since we were going to lose a little bit of where the cars drive through that we would simply stone that area as well. MR. GORALSKI-Unfortuntely, the other issue is, I think the entire lot is stone, at this point. There is no permeability. I mean, I think it woul improve the site if there was a little landscaping there, or something to. MR. BREWER-I would agr had talked to the Beautification would be a good idea to plant a fence was, but we determined that the lot if we did. MR. PALING-Has the Bea tification Committee commented on this? MR. GORALSKI-I don't b lieve they did look at it. MR. PALING-There's nothing from them. MRS. KRAFT-At one ti e we Committee. They tho ght it couple of trees where ehe rail it would be impossible to plow MR. RUEL-Is there a curb along the front? There's no driveway or anything? MR. PALING'-No. MR. RUEL-It's just fl,t. There is a designated parking lot for this? MRS. KRAFT-There is no lawn. It is all lot. - 17 - Queensbury Planni ng Board Meeting ·'·10/17/95 MR. BREWER-Is there some way possible you can come out, how far away is that septic line from the building? I'm a little bit confused, because I don't see any doors or anything on the building. I mean, I've been there before. MR. KRAFT-Yes. I'll show you. Here it is right here. out, the septic line is right there. It comes M~. BREWER-Right. The door is going to remain here? MR. KRAFT-And they'll end up out here. MR. BREWER-Okay. So why couldn't we do something with, if everybody's with me on this sheet, if we could maybe put some kind of landscaping here to keep people off this area, or whatever. I mean, the door's going to be back here. Just to put something there, rather than just stone, and then if he plows, when he comes in, he doesn't necessarily have to get right to the building. MR. KRAFT-Right now, there's a planter box on this side of the building. MR. BREWER-He's on the east side, what he's pointing to. I'm talking about the west side. MR. MACEWAN-On the dentist's side of the building, there's a planter box with little evergreens in there. MR. BREWER-But if we did something on the west the line where the septic, that must be the right there, right? side, say out to distribution box MR. KRAFT-It's where the back water valve is located. MR. BREWER-Out to that line, you see where the outside line of that is, and made some kind of beds or something there. MR. RUEL-You don't want anyone to go over there? MR. BREWER-Exactly. MRS. KRAFT~It's a traffic box that the Town made me put in, because that's where my main flow of traffic is, for people to pull in, with boxes. They park there to unload. So they made me put in a commercial traffic box there on my septic. MR. BREWER-Right. You're putting the door beyond that point, is what I'm saying. Right? MRS. KRAFT-Right. MR. BREWER-The new door is going to be beyond that point. So if you put some kind of bed or row of shrubi or something right there, that would at least give you some vegetation that John's asking for. MR. RUEL-Also, it wouldn't be too difficult to show where cars would enter and exit and show the approximate area of where they would park. Could you do that? MRS. KRAFT-Well, I think the biggest problem we're going to run i nt,o is about six i nc:ihes down through that crushed stone is a layer of blacktop. MR. MACEWAN-What's the problem with putting in a planter like what's on the east side of the building? . - 18 - "-'" '- ......,/ Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MRS. KRAFT-He could build a planter box. MR. MACEWAN-Do that. MRS. KRAFT-If you're acceptable to that, I have no problem with that. MR. MACEWAN-What's wrong with that? It would balance off the building on top of that, have them build a planter on the west side of the building that like on the east side of the building. MR. PALING-Okay. That would help. MR. MACEWAN-It balances it off, because you're putting evergreens in there, and you don't have to worry about going more than six inches down. MR. STARK-I had a suggestion that maybe postpone it a week, come back next week with a more detailed plan of the plantings and parking, and the elimination of the green area in the back, the grass and so on, and then you'd have a plan on file, and I don't think a week would be an imposition. MR. PALING-And I don't think plan. You can even a d it to sheet up. George is asking for an elaborate this sheet, just by marking this MR. GORALSKI-It's up t you if you want them to come back, but if you put a condition th~t they put a planter on the west side, and that they show a parking layout on the plan, even if it's the existing parking, I assume it's going to be the existing parking layout anyway. I think those were the major items. MR. MACEWAN-I can't s e them having to come back, if we tie in our approval to that. , MRS. KRAFT-How about if we just tell you we'll get it to him? MR. GORALSKI-Right, be~ore we issue a building permit, we'll have a revised plan. MR. MACEWAN-How about if we just do it this way, prior to a building permit being issued, the plan has to be modified to meet the needs. MR. BREWER-But lets make it asking for, so they don't aski ng for. clear to the come without applicant what something that we're we're MR. PALING-All right. At this point, lets open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that would like to comment on this matter, for Ship Shape? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Now e should go to a SEQRA. This is Unlisted. Shor t Fo,·m. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMIN TION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE I MADE RESOLUTION NO. 51-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by eorge Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an - 19 - '- Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 application for: RAY & WENDY KRAFT, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are in0olved: NONE 3; The 'proposed' action considered by this Boa'fd 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 appl icant. 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. DJly adoþted this 17th'day \/ot.'e:' I of October, 1995, I ,.' .. b'/ the following , ': ¡ AYES: Mr. MàcE'wan~ Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBö'mbard, Mr'. Rue'1, Mr '. Brewer, Mr. Pali ng NOES: NONE "~I A'aSENT: Mr. Ùbei"mayer MR. PALING-Okay. We're done with the SEQRA, the public hearing. I guess we can go right to a motion, unless there's any further comments? MR. BREWER-I just have one question. On Warren County it says the site plan review for an addition to the rear of the building for dogs and storage. How many dogs? MRS. KRAFT-Two yellow labradors. MR. PALING-I missed that one. MR. GORALSKI-It"s on the application. MR. BREWER-Why would you put that if there's just two dogs? MR. MACEWAN-Think of it as a nu,"sery for two dogs, not a kennel. MRS: KRAFT-Thank you very much. It's not a kennel, but I bring my dogs to work with me, and at Christmas time, I need a place to get them out from underneath my feet when everybody's bringing in their packages. So when they wanted to know whatever use of that room was going to be, I said mostly for storage, but it's also - 20 - ',-" ',-' -' -../ Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 going to be a place for those dqgs tq go and play during Christmas time. MR. BREWER-Just two dogs. MRS. KRAFT-Exactly. MR. PALING-Okay, and you have no commercial idea in mind, now or in the future, concerning dogs or anything else? MRS. KRAFT-I'm not going to have a pet shop there. going to be a kennel. It's not MR. PALING-You look like you have a motion coming. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-95 RAY & WENDY KRAFT, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the following conqitions: The parking plan is provided on the plan, pedestrian dirculation provided on the plan, and one planter on the west side, equal to or greater than the planter on the east side, and it shall be noted on the plan prior to issuance of a building permit. Duly adopted this 17tH day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer SITE PLAN NO. 53-95 TYPE: UNLISTED ANTHONY RICCIARDELLI OWNER: ANTHONY & CAROL RICCIARDELLI ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: MR- 5 LOCATION: CORNER OF GLENWOOD AVE. AND WESTWOOD NEAR QUEENSBURY RACKET CLU, AND ACROSS FROM QUEENS BURY TOWN COURT. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 40' WIDE BY 68' LONG ONE STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING ONE STORY RES~DENCE. ENTIRE STRUCTURE TO BE USED AS A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. ALL USES IN THE MR-5 ZONE ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. ' BE UTIFICATION COMM.: 10/9/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/11/95 T X MAP NO. 61-1-26 LOT SIZE: .537 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 BYRON RIST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT TONY RICCIARDELLI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 53-95, Anthony Ricciardelli, Meeting Date: October 17, 1995 "This proposal is for a large addition and conversion of an existing single family dwelling to an office. Because this lot abuts a residential development it is important to screen the commercial use from the residential use. - The plan indicates that there will be lighting on the west and north side of the addition adjacent to the residential uses. These fi:<turesshould be specified so that they will not wash onto the adjoining property. - The plan shows a proposed 24' driveway that narrows to approximately 14' along the building. The zoning ordinance requires this access aisle to be a minimum of 20' wide. It appears that there is sufficient room on this side of the building to meet the requirement. - Although the applicant has shown the required 22 parking spaces, they may not need to construct all of these spaces at this time. I would recommend that the two spaces in front of the building and possibly spaces 11 & 12 be constructed only if they become - 21 - -. Queensbury Planning 'Board Meeting 10/17/95 necessary. - The access aisle in the parking lot is shown as 30' wide. This could be narrowed to 24' and a wider buffer could be provided along the perimeter of the lot. The adequacy of stormwater management facilities will be reviewed by Rist-Frost. As stated previously, the buffer zone between the residential and commercial uses is an important issue. I would recommend that a specific landscaping plan be submitted which will mitigate the impacts on the residential uses." MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to cover the Rist-Frost comments, John? MR. GORALSKI-Right. The Warren County Planning Board approved. Beautification Committee, there was a little confusion that night. Apparently, Mr. Ricciardelli, or his representative were there, and they couldn't get in the building. MR. RICCIARDELLI-I'm Tony Ricciardelli. That was Columbus Day, and the building was locked apparently. MR. GORALSKI-They did have the meeting, apparently. There was another applicant, I believe, on next week's agenda, who had the same problem, and I believe Mr. Ricciardelli's agreed that he would go back to the Beautification Committee. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MR. GORALSKI-The Rist-Frost letter. "We have reviewed the above site plans received October 11, 1995 and have the following engineering comments: Access aisle to rear parking area may be required to be 20' wide (Queensbury Standard Section 179-66 B), currently shown as 13' wide. Indication of proposed site elevations should be shown, for drainage purposes, and to show that site is not subject to nearby flood plain. Plan should indicate that steps to control construction related runoff are to be utilized, where necessary to protect adjoining property, and the nearby existing catch basins. The design basis for the placement and proposed sizing for the stormwater management devices was not included for our review. Installation details for the devices proposed should also be shown. This was reviewed with applicant's agent 10/16/95 and 10/17/95 via telephone and fax. These discussions also indicated that a county storm sewer is present on Glenwood, and Warren County apparently has indicated that some or all of the increased runoff may be discharged to it. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William E. McNamara, P.E., Project Engineer" MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have any other comments on this, John? MR. GORALSKI-Not at this point. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-I've got a couple of questions. What is the side yard requirement on this? MR. GORALSKI-Ten feet. MR. RUEL-Ten. Okay. Now it seems to me that with this additional proposed parking and building and everything, whatever happened to the permeable area percentage? MR. GORALSKI-They have the 30 percent permeable. MR. RUEL-It meets it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it does. - 22 - "--' -----' -- -- Oueensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. RUEL-With Just that small grassy area around the edge? MR. GORALSKI-And the gYassed area in the front. MR. RUEL-That covers it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. ThiYty percent isn't a lot, when you got down to it. MR. RUEL-AIl right. The only other comment I would have is that when the applicant, if it's exterior lighting, I think he shows about six area lights, that be sure that the lights don't shine on Westwood or on any of the adjacent properties in the neighborhood, because in many instances I've seen area lighting situated in such a way that it shines right on people's homes, or right in the road as ydu drive by, and to be very careful to make sure that it's Just t 'e area. If it's flood 1 ights that just shine in the area and not the whole neighborhood. MR. GORALSKI-Could I comment on that? I think you should really be specific on that. I'm having a major battle right now on lighting, in a project in Town. MR. RUEL-What kind of Code do we have on that? MR. GORALSKI-The only Code we have is basically your power in the site plan review t minimize the impact on neighboring properties. MR. RUEL-We can make that a condition? MR. PALING-Part of the motion. MR. GORALSKI-Right, bwt I guess what I'm saying is, I think you should be specific in how you word that in your motion, because I'm having a major battle right now. MR. RUEL-Because I see a lot of violations in that area throughout Queensbury. MR. GORALSKI-Right, It's Just your power said, there's no specific Code. site plan review. MR. RUEL-I see. It would be something to recommend to include some day, i a Code, to control this, so have to add this condition constantly, every exterior lighting. to Jim Martin that we don't time there's MR. BREWER-Is this an application that was here last year, or the year before? Wasn't there one? MR. GORALSKI-There was a previous application for Associates for their, actually a planning office. Yes. Avalon MR. RICCIARDELLI-It's the acquired this property. applications. same existing building, but I just I have no knowledge about any prior MR. BREWER-Well, previous to you, there was an applicant in here to do something similar. MR. MACEWAN-He had no addition. MR. BREWER-Not anything that big, but there was a professional office going to go in there, wasn't there? MR. STARK-No. He was going to use the existing structure. - 23 - Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. BREWER-Exactly. That's what I said. Nothing addition, but there was a professional office that was go in there two or three years ago. like this going to MR. MACEWAN-Three years ago. MR. GORALSKI-Right, '93. MR. RUEL-I understand that what you propose, architecturally, will be very similar to the buildings in the Westwood area. Is that it? MR. RICCIARDELLI-That's correct, yes. We were working with Harvest Homes, which is the Woodbury Group, which were the developers of Westwood, to supply the package to us, so that we will use exactly the same materials, siding, windows, color scheme, roof shingles, everything. MR. RUEL-Yes. It would be nice if we had an elevation plan, but it will be similar to the existing building, then, just an extension of it? MR. RICCIARDELLI-Similar to the existing building, ~ existing building? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. RICCIARDELLI-No. MR. RUEL-Will you be changing the existing building? MR. RICCIARDELLI-The existing building will be stripped. The siding will be stripped. The roof will be stripped, and it will all blend into the addition, and again, the intent is to have the whole structure, including the existing building. MR. PALING-Why don't you put that right up on the board. MR. RUEL-And also, John made the comment about buffer zone. I guess he's talking about area like parking spaces 11 and 12, and that area. A heavier, a denser, larger buffer zone between your property, parking lot, and Westwood. Do you have any intentions of doing that? MR. RICCIARDELLI-Well, two things. First of all, I would welcome the reduction in the number of parking spaces. We don't need them. I have 11 full time employees. It's not like a doctors office where you have a waiting room full of patients or clients. We get very few clients visiting our office, and actually the majority of our staff are working out of the office. So I don't need that much parking. MR. RUEL-Yes. areas? How did you arrive at this number of parking MR. RICCIARDELLI-That's what I was told the Code. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. The Code requires 22 Rist today, if you subtract storage areas I think you can eliminate two more. now. Speaking to Mr. and that type of thing, MR. RICCIARDELLI-Corridors, stairwells. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-What is the number of parking areas predicated on, in this case? - 24 - '- ---./ - '--'" Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. GORALSKI-I believe it's 150 per square foot of gross leasable floor area. MR. RUEL-It seems like an awful lot of parking spaces for that addition. MR. GORALSKI-That's why I'm saying, I think you could, you know, they're showing that they can provide that many, but the Board has the discretion to say, well, you know, 'just build 20 or just build 18 at this point, and if it becomes an issue, they can build the one, the other ones in the future. MR. RUEL-Yes. area way in going. I'd like to the back there, see it minimized, especially in the in order to get that buffer zone MR. BREWER-Why can't we do something similar like we did with Aviation Mall, and maybe eliminate, he's got 20 places. You've got 11 people, say maybe cut it back to where nine and fourteen meet, and he can still show that he can provide the parking if necessary, and just leave that as natural buffer. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-You have a tenant in mind? MR. RICCIARDELLI-Actually, it's sort of owner occupied. My accounting firm will be the tenant, although I have partners in the accounting firm, and it's my wife and I who own this property. So, technically, the accounting firm will be leasing from my wife and I. MR. STARK-How many par spots do you want? MR. RICCIARDELLI-How parking spots do L want? Probably 16. MR. RUEL-How many are there now, 20? MR. PALING-It shows 20 on the print. MR. GORALSKI-They're sowing 22, with two in the front of the building. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-That woul be 16, you'd eliminate the t 0 in the You'd be at 16. came to nine and fourteen, and front and the four in the rear. MR. PALING-At least four in the rear, yes. MR. RUEL-And this tra h/storage, could that be moved elsewhere, so it isn't that close to the rear of the property? MR. RICCIARDELLI-If in fact that, you know, eliminate four spaces on the back, 10, 11, 12 and 13. MR. RUEL-Then you coul move it. MR. BREWER-I would say even nine and fourteen, couldn't he? MR. RUEL-Yes. Are you eliminating 21 and 22 also? MR. GORALSKI-If I can ake a recommendation on 21 and 22, I think that because, like th property to the west of Westwood is a residential property, and I believe the property to the east of this property is still a residential property, I would recommend that you don't put parking spaces out in front of that building. - 25 - Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 Try to keep the residential character on that side of the street. So I would recommend that those not be built currently. MR. RUEL-But there's a long ramp there. too residential to me. That ramp doesn't look MR. GORALSKI-That's a concrete walk. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-So I would say that those, you know, he's showing that he can fit two spaces there, legally, but there's no reason to build them if he doesn't need them, and ruin the residential character of, I mean, that's what they're architecturally trying to. MR. RUEL-Yes, right, and currently you don't. MR. RICCIARDELLI-The intent could provide the required those two parking spaces out parking spots in the rear. of this plan was to show that we parking. I would rather not have front, and even two or four of the MR. RUEL-So you would like to eliminate seven parking spaces. MR. GORALSKI-Six. MR. BREWER-We have the authority to grant that, don't we, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-As long as the adequate space is shown so that the parking spaces could be there. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. RUEL-This porch, that's not going to remain there, is it? MR. RICCIARDELLI-Yes, it is. MR. RUEL-How do you leave a porch there and have a proposed office over it? MR. GORALSKI-He's talking about the one in the rear. MR. RICCIARDELLI-I'm sorry. be torn off. That one will be removed. That'll MR. RUEL-I wasn't indicated. MR. RICCIARDELLI-No. I see what you're saying. That'll be gone. MR. PALING'-And proposed is 24 wants a minimum requirement. Had before? lets talk a minute about the driveway, plan foot, narrows to 14 foot. The Zoning Ordinance of 20 on the side of the building to meet the you seen this, have you seen these comments MR. RIST-I just got them. MR. PALING-Okay. paragraph two? What's your comment to that paragraph, sub I think this existing plan, we were under the misunderstanding that the paving should stay 10 feet away from the east boundary of the property, and I think we've now determined that we don't have that setback requirement. MR. GORALSKI-Five feet. - 26 - ',--, -- -- Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. RICCIARDELLI-Five feet. So if we can pave within five feet of the boundary, we can expand the width of that drive. MR. PALING-Then the driveway becomes, what, 19 feet? MR. GORALSKI-We also have a gravel area between the driveway and the building, and once they work out the details of their stormwater management plan, that probably won't have to be that wide either. So they should be able to fit the 20 foot wide drive aisle there. MR. PALING-Okay. In the motion, when we get to that point, do you want to talk 20 feet wide? MR. GORALSKI-That's the Zoning Ordinance requirement. You can't approve it if he can't put that 20 foot drive aisle in there. MR. PALING-Okay. Required. have we got to talk ab ut? John, what in the Rist-Frost thing MR. GORALSKI-Well, basically, although this is not a large project, Bill hasn't ot the information he needs to properly review the plan at this time. He spoke with Mr. Rist about it today, and they've been working it out, but Bill, after talking to him, he can't give his blessing to the project at this time. One recommendation Bill had, and I concurred with, is that if the applicant could get t e stuff to him, say by Friday, it wouldn't take him long to revie it, and he would be glad to have it ready and reviewed by Tuesday night's meeting, if you got it, if he got the stuff by Friday afternoon. MR. PALING-Is the stormwater management his only problem, or is there other things? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. The other issues were, I believe, the same as I had, regarding the rive aisle, and then, I don't know if he mentioned the buffers or not. I'm not sure. MR. PALING-Yes, well, that's mentioned in your letter. The site elevations can be shown in the coming week, assume. Construction related runoff. Yes. Okay. addressed that in your letter, the buffer. Okay. I would You've MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I think because of the different uses, the residential use and th office use, that I would recommend that the Board have some tpe of landscaping or buffering plan around the perimeter, on file so that when we go out to issue a Certificate of Occupancy, everyone understands what we're looking for as far as a buffer is concerned. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-I just had a question. I see two lampposts on the west side of the property a~jacent to Westwood Drive. Are these Town lampposts, or yours? MR. RICCIARDELLI-No. That property is owned by the Westwood Homeowners Association, and most are their lampposts. MR. RUEL-They're not ycurs? MR. RICCIARDELLI-They're not mine. MR. RIST-Westwood Driv is a private drive. MR. RUEL-And maintaine by the Homeowners Association? MR. RIST-Correct. - 27 - '-- Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. RUEL-I see. MR. STARK-Why don't you ask the applicant if he can do all this by Friday, and then move on, and then come back next week. That'll give Bill a chance to review it. MR. PALING-Well, we have to do a public hea)-ing first. So, I think, so far, can everything we've talked about be put on paper and submitted by Friday? MR. RIST--Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Well, at this point, why don't we go into the public hearing, and see what else might come up before we make any final decisions. All right. We'll open the public hearing on this matter. Would anyone care to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HOWARD KRANTZ MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz. I represent the Westwood Homeowners Association, and the 48 homeowners that own properties adjacent to this parcel. My clients have several concerns, and I would like to preface my comments by saying that members of the Board of Directors of Westwood have met with Mr. Ricciardelli before tonight. He's been very accommodating in discussing his plans with the Association, as well as trying to address their concerns, and in general they are not opposed to the project. They think it's a reasonable use of the project, and as long as certain concerns are addressed, they're actually in favor of it. The first concern they have, and that's already been addressed tonight, is the design of the building, and we understand it's going to bè quite compatible with the design of their homes, and they're very pleased to hear that, and to see the elevation drawings tonight. The second is the screening, and there on the westerly and northerly sides of the project site, where the grassy area is shown, we were hoping to have something definite, as far as what type of screening material would be used, and the spacing and so on. I understand no plan is available tonight, and it's going to go before Beautification on that issue, or not? MR. GORALSKI-Right. Even if the Board acts on this, either tonight or next week, I would recommend that a condition of the approval be that the Beautification Committee review a landscaping plan and approve it. MR. PALING-They can't do that before we meet next Tuesday, I wouldn't think. MR. MACEWAN-We've done that before. We've approved site plans, contingent upon a Beautification Committee approval. We've done that quite often. MR. KRANTZ-And my clients have no desire to hold up the project at all, and they're confident, given the cooperation of Mr. Ricciardelli, that what will be approved by Queensbury Beautification will be a reasonable screening along the northerly and westerly boundaries of the parcel. We also asked Mr. Ricciardelli, and I believe he said he's not opposed to it, to the concept of, in those screened areas along the northerly and westerly boundaries of the parcel, to have some reasonably heightened berms, so that whatever screening is put on will screen it a little bit further. MR. BREWER-You want to berm the whole length of that? MR. RUEL-How high a berm are you talking about? - 28 - '-'" .-.-- ',- "~ Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. KRANTZ-I'm talking something very reasonable. I was leaving it up, maybe, Mr. Ricciardelli to make a recommendation, but the berm would serve a two fold purpose. Number One, provide some additional screening, given the height of the plantings would be higher, and, second, if the two catch basins, for any reason, should not function properly, should fail, to storm or what have you, that there would not be any flooding onto the Homeowners Association property. MR. MACEWAN-Correct me if I'm wrong, Howard. Isn't some of the landscaping along Westwood Road also done on berms? MR. KRANTZ-The northerly side is. and something could be done compatible to that. Mr. Ricciardelli is not opposed to this. WE didn't make any demand that it be three feet high or two feet high, but just some modest beym, perhaps that would be worked out with Beautification. I MR. RUEL-Would the Beautification Committèe be the ones to make that determination? MR. MACEWAN-As far as erms go, that would be us. MR. GORALSKI-I think that the best way to approach this is that if the applicant can submit a landscaping plan to us by next Tuesday, you folks have a chance to see it and approve it. I would still recommend that it go to the Beautification Committee, beyond that, but I think that it's important that, if possible. because this bufferi g is a significant issue, probably the biggest issue, in my opinion, regarding this project, the Planning Board should ee it before you approve it MR. RUEL-If we don't ßee a landscaping plan, and over to the Beautification Committee, we don't know going to do. and we are inte)-ested in having certain I agree wholeheartedly. just turn it what they're things done. MR. PALING-Is that pos· ible to do that? MR. RICCIARDELLI-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MR. KRANTZ-With regard to parking, we suggested to Mr. Ricciardelli the elimi ation, it's already been discussed, of the four northerly parking spaces, 10, 11,12, and 13. Our concern there was that all t is parking was required, and I think it's more than they need. The snow would end up being plowed up onto the northerly end of the property, which could damage whatever screening would be put there. MR. RUEL-Good point. MR. KRANTZ-This way the spaces are 20 feet by 9 feet, as I understand, and if you eliminated the four northerly, it ,would be another 18 feet of area where the snow could actually be deposited, without hurting the screening area. MR. BREWER-I think we went one step further than that and said eliminate more than th t, didn't we? MR. PALING-Well, we're going to eliminate six spaces, but two in the front and four on the north, and that would accomplish what you're asking for. MR. KRANTZ-Right. MR. RUEL-Ten. eleven, twelve, thirteen, twenty-one, twenty-two. - 29 - Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. PALING-Twenty-two, yes. 1'1R. RUEL-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-The next concern we had was lighting. There doesn't appear to be any lighting planned for the northerly half of the project site, and if there were, we would ask that it just be shielded from the Westwood side. I don't see any lighting proposed. MR. RUEL-Just what's on the building, right? MR. KRANTZ-Right. . shown. We have no concern with that. The1-e's none MR. PALING-But I think we're going to make, as part of the resolution anyway, the lighting, we want to not run a danger of glare to the Westwood occupants, or to anywhere else, either. MR. RUEL-Yes. I have a condition all written for that. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. KRANTZ-We discussed this with Tony. We're confident it won't be a problem. It's just that during the construction phase, no construction debris go over the property line, it be contained on site. MR. PALING-Yes, be contained, right. I can understand that. MR. RUEL-From an engineering standpoint, would the two catch basins still be necessary, with the elimination of four parking spaces? MR. GORALSKI-What Rist-Frost's doesn't have any information that adequacy of these catch basins. submit. letter indicates is that he he can use to determine the That's what we need them to MR. RUEL-That information you will provide? MR. RIST-Yes, we will. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Well, has there been any trouble with, the catch basins aren't going to change? MR. GORALSKI-They're not there. MR. PALING-Okay. I'm sorry. right. That's it? I thought they were existing. All MR. KRANTZ-Those were the items, yes. MR. PALING-Okay. insurmountable. I work things out hopefully, by next I don't see anything there that's think everything is going to be, that we can in this regard, and we can do our part, Tuesday. LARRY CORBETT MR. CORBETT-I'm Larry Corbett from Westwood. Your agenda tonight calls for a building 40 by 68 feet long. The public hearing says it's 40 by 60 feet. My simple question is, which is the correct dimensions of the building? MR. PALING-Good question. - 30 - '- --./ - ----~ Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/9.5 MR. RIST-Larry, the correct dimensions are 40 by 68 feet. MR. CORBETT-Your survey plans show 40 by 60 feet. MR. BREWER-Sixty-eight. MR. STARK-You've got a eight foot porch that you're eliminating. That's the extra eight feet. MR. KRANTZ-We assumed it was a typo. PETER ACCARDI MR. ACCARDI-My name is Peter Accardi, and I'm here representing my sister-in-law, Carolyn Accardi, who owns the property to the west of this property, the residence right across Westwood Drive, and she has some concerns. The primary concern she has is with the storm drain, request about the capacity of the storm drain. When the storm sewer extended, I think back when Westwood Development was done, the houses in that area, the house that Mr. Ricciardelli bought a d the house that my sister-in-law owns, were tied into that st rm drain, because they have a lot of water in the cellar, and they actually ran a pipe from the cellar into the storm drain, because of the high water table in that area, and they've had occasions where the water has actually backed up a little bit into the cellar from the storm, and they have done everything they can to raise the furnace up as high as they can, and they've put in a trench in the cellar to try and handle this water, and the concer is that, if there's a lot of runoff from the paved area in the new building, which is considerable square footage, that it might cause more problems for them. Apparently, that hasn't really bee addressed yet, and there was just concern that if there was goi g to be a problem, if something could be done to prevent a lot f water coming back into that cellar. MR. RUEL-Is this somet be addressed by Rist-Frost? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I would say, as part of their stormwater management plan, that's something that Rist-Frost should look at. MR. RUEL-Yes, but he has to be told this specifically. MR. GORALSKI-I will tell him. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Did you say t at the water's pumped out of the basement into the storm sewer? MR. ACCARDI-Well, it's not pumped, it's fed by gravity. MR. RUEL-Into the stor sewer? MR. ACCARDI-Yes. Th t was approved by the County when they extended that, they extended the storm sewer, and I think the plan shows the storm ewer right at the corner, the catch basin right at the corner of Westwood and Glenwood. MR. PALING-But you'll talk to Rist-Frost about this. MR. ACCARDI-Okay. A couple of other things, one was exterior lighting, which you've covered, and they were concerned about screening of the parking lot, particularly of the parking lot. The plan just shows grass. MR. PALING-Well, we'll hold the public hearing, and I think I'm saying this right, an see if the Board agrees, you'll have a chance to look at the landscaping plan when it's brought to us a - 31 - -- Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 week from tonight. Okay. MR. RUEL-Yes, but did we discuss landscaping on the west side of the property adjacent to the parking lot, as far as screening? MR. BREWER-Yes. He's going to bring a landscaping plan, with the suggestions of the audience and this Board. MR. PALING-We haven't finished yet. MR. RUEL-Good, I hope so. MR. ACCARDI-Okay. One other question that she had was about signage, what kind of signs would you have? MR. PALING-That's not our responsibility, really. MR. GORALSKI-Certainly you can consider signage, and the location of signage, and whether or not that's appropriate. There are specific regulations in the Sign Ordinance, particularly that it has to be 15 feet from any property line and any freestanding sign can't be more than 50 square feet, but certainly the location of the sign is within the purview of this Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. In fact, specifically, the first item under your Planning Board review criteria says, the location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting ~nd signs. So that is within your jurisdiction. MR. RUEL-Who passes on signs, normally? MR. GORALSKI-It's a permit, like a building permit. MR. RUEL-Yes. It's issued by your office? MR. GORALSKI-Yés. Either myself or Jim Martin review the permit for compliance with the Ordinance. MR. RUEL-And as long as they meet the requirements. MR. GORALSKI-They get the permit. MR. RUEL-And it varies from zone to zone? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. PALING-But we can look at the location and the size of the sign. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Certainly, as part of your site plan review, you can look the location and the size. MR. RUEL-And we have an opportunity to say yes or no or modify placement of the sign? MR. GORALSKI-Right. Obviously, they can't exceed the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, but certainly you could say that you think a smaller sign is appropriate, or it should be moved back from the road, or it should be on the other side of the lot. Those are all things you can address. MR. RUEL-And when do we have an opportunity to see what the sign looks like and where it be located? MR. GORALSKI-Right now. them. If you want to see that, you could ask - 32 - '--" ---- '--' ---- Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. RUEL-You have to ask for it. MR. PALING-All right. We'll address that to the applicant when this gentleman's finished. MR. RUEL-Because normally we don't get that information. Okay. MR. ACCARDI-That was it. MR. PALING-All right, and we'll call on the applicant to address those. There'll be other things I'm sure. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would care to speak? All right. I'm going to leave the public hearing open, and it will be resumed, I would assume, next Tuesday. We'll find out before this is over, but for now, I everyone that wants to has commented on this? Okay, but you'll have another chance next Tuesday. Would you want to comment, now, on, you said you wanted to comment on one of the things we said, and we want to hear what you have to say about the signage, too. MR. RICCIARDELLI-The question of the water in the basements, I was just going to address the existing structure. The existing structure has a pump, and what is called a B-drive system that handles whatever water problem did exist there. The basement in the existing structure is not flooded. It's basically dry, but that's always an option to the homeowner. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, we'll look for the Rist-Frost comments, and that, any opportunity there would be to help the situation like that, and how about the sign? Are you going to have a sign? MR. RICCIARDELLI-Yes. I'd like to have a sign. I hadn't really given much thought, at this point in time, (lost word) had to address the sign. I thought that the only process was that we get a permit for a sign that conformed with the Ordinances? MR. MACEWAN-May I offer a suggestion? When you do your landscaping plan, you put a small detail in there of what your proposed sign is going to be like, size wise. From where you have it now, you're going to have a planter area around it, but it's in front of those two parking spots we plan on eliminating, so I'm assuming you'll want to move it back closer to the building. MR. RICCIARDELLI-Yes. should be moved back. My initial reaction would be that it MR. MACEWAN-You can just show us something on that landscaping plan that might give us an idea of what that sign is going to be like, and where it's g ing to be. MR. RICCIARDELLI-Sure. MR. RUEL-I have a question for the applicant. The area lighting, what are the hours of operation that these lights will be on? MR. RICCIARDELLI-Well, I guess I haven't given that much thought, either. I mean, my existing building's right across the street, if you're familiar with it. MR. RUEL-It's predicated on the use of the parking lot, or the us of the building, who's around, your hours of operation? MR. RICCIARDELLI-Yes. The hours of our operation are normal office hours, except during what's our so called tax season, where some people may be in there later, eight, ten o'clock or so, but, generally, it's normal working hours, eight to five. The lighting, I presume, with our existing building, the lighting - 33 - Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 is on a timer, and we set them to come on and off when we want to, quite frankly. The existing building that I'm in right now, the lighting is on during all hours of darkness. MR. RUEL-Well, I was concerned that, you know, that they weren't going to be on until ten, eleven o'clock at night, or something like that. MR. PALING-Yes, but they could be. factor here. I'm not sure that that's a MR. RUEL-Well, I just wanted to know. MR. MACEWAN-Most places, Roger, have like a dusk to dawn kind of scenario with their parking lot lighting. MR. GORALSKI-I think the hours that the lights are on are importaDt, but I think even more important is the type of light fixtures that you're going to be using. MR. PALING-And the design of the system. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Is it going to be a simple residential style incandescent, wall mounted thing, or is it going to be a high pressure sodium wall pack? I think that's more of an issue as to whether or not that's going to be washing onto the residential properties. MR. RUEL-They'll probably use halogen, which is just white light, similar to incandescent. MR. GORALSKI-Well, right. I guess that's, I don't know. MR. RICCIARDELLI-I guess, I'm not prepared to answer that right now, but obviously, the concern has been expressed. It's a valid concern, and we'll address it, so that it doesn't create a nuisance. This is not going to be a two story building. The lighting doesn't have to be on the peaks of the roof, so that it doesn't, isn't visible from long distances. MR. RUEL-Yes. Well, the reason that we're so interested is because of its proximity to a residential area. MR. RICCIARDELLI-Exactly. Right. MR. RUEL-If it was on Quaker Road~ I don't think I'd even bother. , ' 'MR. PALING-o'kay. Any,dther çomments? L¿t me attempt to just randomly sUmMarize what we're asking you to do, and we need your permission. beforé the meeting's over, to ~abl¿ this, I think is l>Jhat we'll do, wi th the public hear ing left open. So far the concerns~h~t have,þeen expressed are the lighting, not only the type of lÍghti ng but the location and its effect' on the surrounding area in all directions. We've talked about parking spaces, but I think that's been resolved with the proposal to eliminate four on the north side of the lot and the two in front, and I'm satisfied, as long as Staff is satisfied, with the circulation, the setbacks, and the drive by the building. MR. GORALSKI-Well, that has to be changed to 20 feet wide. MR. PALING-To the requirement Qf 20 feet. MR. GORALSKI-And I would recommend, just simply so you don't have to pave as much, to now cut that rear parking lot down from a 30 foot drive aisle, to 24, just less paving to do. MR. PALING-Thirty to twenty-four. Okay, and that you will have a - 34 - "--' '--" '- "'-..-1/" Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 landscaping plan that we can review, we can hopefully put up on the Board and let everybody have a look at, and it will cover the berm as well as the actual plantings on, am I saying this right, three sides? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I think residential properties. So screening on all three sides. it's surrounded on three I would recommend some sides by type of MR. PALING-Okay. All right, and then the building design, I had a note on, but I think everything is fine. You're going to blend with the neighborhood, and I don't think there's any further comment there. The screening will come along with the landscaping plan, and this may not have been, but will go to the Beautification Committee, and, pending their approval for our final approval. If they do something slight, can just modify it, and then there is the very important coordination with Rist- Frost, regarding storwater management and catch basin overflow, possible catch basin verflow. They've also asked, which is one of our requirements, that the construction debris be contained, and that you will have a pretty good idea of the size and location of the sign that you're going to have. Have I missed anything? Now, I thi k, at this point, we should request the applicant's permission to table. Am I correct, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-It's c immaterial, Bob. The public hearing's not been clo So you couldn't make a decision tonight on this application, even if you wanted to, so, basically, this matt l' is continued until resumption of the public hearing, and if you want to table it, you can. If you want somebody's conse t, you can ask for it, but you certainly don't need to. MR. PALING-All right. Can we just until, and we'll meet on this again, next Tuesday night. say it's extended, then, it'll be on the agenda for MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine. MR. GORALSKI-If that's your wishes, yes. MR. PALING-All right. Any other questions from anyone? Okay. Thank you. MR. RICCIARDELLI-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 54-95 TYPE: UNLISTED GARY HIGLEY OWNER: EVERGREEN BANK ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER QUAKER & GLENWOOD AVENUE (OLD NORTHERN H MESISAWHORSE COMPLEX) PROPOSAL IS RE-USE OF COMMERCIALIOFFICE S ACE OF EXISTING STRUCTURES. ALL LAND USES IN THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 10/9/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-38 LOT SIZE: 2.88 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 GARY HIGLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 54-95, Gary Higley, I~eeting Date: October 17, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to reuse the former Sawhorse/Northern Homes building as a retail and office complex. The proposal calls for the construction of no new buildings and, in fact, the storage barn and the garage on the northwest corner will be removed. T e removal of the garage will increase the visibility at the corner by increasing the setback of the building from the Quaker Rd. - No new lighting is proposed so there should be little impact on the adjacent residential property. - The proposal calls for planters to define the access - 35 - Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 point on Glenwood Ave. Fred Austin, Warren County DPW Superintendent, has reviewed the access to Quaker Road and has given it conceptual approval. He indicated that they have not been able to issue a permit yet, but would recommend that a Planning Board approval include a condition that any requirements of the Warren County DPW be met. Because there is a traffic signal at the intersection of Glenwood and Quaker there should be sufficient gaps in traffic flow to facilitate safe turning movements in and out of the site. It is recommended that the exit onto Quaker Road be right turn out only. - The applicant is proposing an adequate number of parking spaces for the proposed use. I would suggest that some type of planting be provided between the new parking lot to the north of the building and Quaker Road to screen this area from the road. This can be accomplished by relocating existing plant material, as noted, or by providing new plant material. - The only new nonpermeable area on the site is the parking area to the north. Fred Austin also indicated that he does not have a problem with this draining into the existing ditch but, once again, he has not issued a permit and recommends the same condition. The proposed landscaping plan should have an overall positive impact on the character of the site ðnd the neighborhood. It should be noted that if this were new construction a 50' buffer zone would be required adjacent to the SFR-1A zone. I would recommend that no vegetation be removed in this area and that if possible vegetation be added along the property line. This may be difficult due to the steep slope along the property line." MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board returned with no action. They didn't have a majority for the vote, and Beautification Committee, Re-use of commercial office space and structures - remove garage on Glenwood and pole barn at rear of lot. Install small parking lot on front of building (Quaker Rd.). Landscape extensively on corner of Quaker Rd. & Glenwood. Two raised landscape beds at entrance on Glenwood. Mixes shrubs wlperennials and complemented with annuals. Motion made to accept as submitted by P. Carpenter, seconded by J. Wetherbee." MR. PALING-Okay. anyone? Any questions by the Board right now, of MR. HIGLEY-Gary Higley. DAVID LINEHAN MR. LINEHAN-I'm David Linehan, from Jim Girard Landscaping. MR. PALING-Do you have any comments? How about the Warren County D.P.W.? Is that any problem? MR. HIGLEY-None whatsoever. I've been in contact with Fred, on and off, in the last week. He just received this information the night before the Warren County Planning Board. So, he had no comment for the Warren County Planning Board, and he reviewed it this week and talked to John. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, right turn only onto Quaker Road. MR. GORALSKI-That's what they're proposing. MR. PALING-That's what this look~ like anyway. MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's what they're proposing. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI··I think that's a significant mitigation measure in minimizing traffic impacts. - 36 - ","-,> "'"- '''- ..- Queensbury Planning Board Meeting MR. PALING-Yes. 10/17/95 MR. GORALSKI-You don't want someone coming out and trying to make a left hand turn that close to the intersection. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Will you be able to exit onto Glenwood, go right, just drive right throu h? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, and you're taking down all those barns, or two of them. MR. HIGLEY-Everybody's familiar with the property. The two car garage. MR. GORALSKI-Garage, storage area, whatever you want to call it. MR. HIGLEY-Virtually sticks out of the building toward the light, and it's very much a r al eye sore to the property, and it has no value to me. My whole idea is to enhance the property. I want to make it very much, I use the Manchester, Vermont type of view or commons type of view. It's a beautiful structure in there, and we want to enhance it. So, by removing that garage and making it more of a linear frontage on that, tying in the same siding that was already there existing. It'll be much more eye appealing than what's there, and the biggest thing is, was when John and I walked the roperty, the first comment John made was, boy, I wish ~o.Je coul, get rid of this garage because of the cor ner . MRS. LABOMBARD-And yo 're putting all that landscaping in its place. MR. HIGLEY-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's be utiful. MR. RUEL-Since the recommendation for right turn only, exit on Quaker Road, is there any possibility of connecting the large parking lot, and a smaller one, so that people in the large lot could exit out onto Gl nwood Avenue? MR. HIGLEY-It is connected. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. right through here. It is. You can just drive right through, MR. RUEL-It doesn't shew it. Is that open for vehicles? MR. HIGLEY-The whole of the property, as was stated in front of Beautificati n, normally a complex, we're looking at more of a commons type of thing. This is going to be our store with professional offi es on the other end which are existing there now. Normally, it has all the parking out in the front. We're looking to have the building out in front, and have the parking and the traffic flow around the back of the building. MR. RUEL-Yes. It does look better. MR. HIGLEY-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. I agree. MR. BREWER-It's been the building up front uggested to many buildings on Quaker Road, nd the parking out back, so they don't. - 37 - ~- Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. RUEL-Yes, just the way Wal-Mart lS. MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments? Do you have any other comments? MR. BREWER-Are there professional offices in use, or do you have tenants for these offices? MR. HIGLEY-The only occupant right now is Susan Balfour, which is a Realtor. She will stay in that building. I do not have any signed businesses at this time. MR. BREWER-The only comment that I might make, is with the proposed parking area, is maybe put one handicapped parking spaces there. For whatever reason, if that's an entrance to the professional offices. MR. HIGLEY-There's a couple right adjacent to the building. MR. BREWER-In the back. I see them up front, but I was talking about proposed toward Quaker Road. MR. GORALSKI-I see. MRS. LABOMBARD-There are two over here, Tim. and there's two here. There's two here MR. GORALSKI-No. He's just saying move one, right? Move one. MR. BREWER-Yes. Just move it. In other words, if here on the back, what I would call the back, is south. It's ea~ier to show you. Put one here. you had one I guess the MR. PALING-Well, there's two on the east, and there's two on the southwest, and Tim is proposing to move one around to the north side. MR. BREWER-Just eliminate one in the back here, and put it over here. MR. PALING-Is that okay? MR. HIGLEY-That's fine. MR. BREWER-Other than that, I commend your efforts. MR. PALING-All right. Then I think at this point, we should open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that would care to talk about this matter? PUBLIC HEARING,OPFNEQ NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-We need a Short Form. MR. PALING-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 54-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before GARY HIGLEY, and the Planning Board an - 38 - '---' ,-"," -- -..... Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 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 appl icant. 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 teState of New Yo,- k, 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 n cessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1995, by the following vot,e: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Obermayer MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think we can go right to a motion, but we've got to consider the D.P.W. MR. BREWER-We can just make it contingent. MR. PALING-Contingent, okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-95 GARY HIGLEY, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who mcved fo,- its adoption, seconded by R~oger Ruel: With two conditions: COT approval from Warren County be obtained for the curb cut, ard the rearrangement of the handicapped parking place to the ncrth proposed parking lot. Duly adopted this 17t~ day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer - 39 - --- ~ Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 RESOLUTIONS: RESOLUTION APPROVALS. REGARDING: EXTENSION OF EXPIRED SUBDIVISION MR. PALING-Okay. This is a matter that we have discussed before, and I think I know what's going to be, but what I would suggest is that we could have discussion, but then I'd like to hear a motion and a second, and then I'd like to have an additional discussion about it before we actually take a vote. So is there any discussion prior to? MR. STARK-How can yoU grant an extension of something that doesn't exist? MR. BREWER-You can't. Agreed. MR. MACEWAN-It's simple. MR. PALING-I believe, and, Mark, we need you aboard on this one, because èverybody's gone both ways on this. MR. BREWER-No. You're saying that again, and we haven't. MR. PALING-Okay. The only thing I'm trying to say here is that if there is a way that we can eliminate a little bit of the bureaucracy, by considering the impact and the reasons that lead up to the missing the date. Lets say it's not the fault of the applicant that the date was missed. That, to me, would be an extenuating circumstance, and if you can consider that, and the impact, and the Board votes on it, then I don't see why we can't have a little leeway in that regard. Mark indicates that it is done that way by other Boards, and by some Boards no way. They're going to just go right down the line and cut it off and that's it. MR. STARK-I don't want to depend on John to notify me if my approval is running outr MR. PALING-Correct. MR. STARK-I'll worry about my approval myself. I don't want to depend on him or Martin. MR. PALING-No. I don't disagree with that. MR. STARK-Dave Kenny, he was aware of what's going on. He came in a month and a half ahead of time. That's the applicant's responsibility, and tough beans if it runs out. MRS. LABOMBARD-And also, because if we don't make a bottom line cutoff, we're going to end up treating some applicants different from others, and we're not going to be consistent, and that's where we could get into some trouble. MR. RUEL-Bob, could you give me an circumstances, as you mentioned a moment that possibly would allow? idea ago? of an extenuating The type of thing MR. PALING-All right. I'll give Iou an example, an extenuating circumstance, an impact that that has. Lets say that there's a subdivision or whatever, there's no objection by the public to anything that's gone on, and the submittal was made properly and the papers were lost in our office here, and the gate were missed, and the extension of this has no impact on anybody or anything, and I think under those conditions we should grant the extension. 40 - "--' '--./ "-, -- Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. RUEL-It's very remote, but I agree. MR. PALING-Just leavi g the Boa)-d, to G~orge 's poin.t, I am totally in agreement ith George, and we had one o'f th.ese here with the Great Escape. They blew it. They missed their date through their own fault. I have no sympathy with them whatsoever. I'm talking about the other end of the case, where you'd say, hey, there is no impact by this, and it's extenuating. MR. STARK-If there's no impact, public, let them resubmit, and that's all. and there's no outcry from the it would be approved again. MR. PALING-Through the whole process? Okay. MR. RUEL-Yes. You could do that. extenuating circumstance. That would take care of the MR. PALING-No, it wouldn't. He's process, is what George is saying. no, we do not grant the extension. through the process. got to go back through the In other words, he's saying, Therefore, you must go back MR. MACEWAN-If an applicant comes back in with an expired, lets say a subdivision, expired subdivision, and he's missed it, missed the deadline, e wants to come back through, and he goes through, and if he co es back to us, in front of us again, and says, look, the project is not changi ng from any of the information I previously had given you before, here it is, in it's entirety, I'm sure that the Board would see to it that we could step up the process, and may jump right into a preliminary from a sketch, and quickly move it into a two step process and get it done, but I don't think this Board should be put under the obligation to selective police what subdivisions we let go through and what ones e don't. MR. RUEL-I think Bob saying we would be consistent, and the consistency would be t at no one would be allowed an extension if it's their fault, but if it was an internal goof somewhere, that would be an extenuati g circumstance that would allow it. The consistency would be t ere. If anyone complained about it, all we'd have to say is that, look, you knew the date. Nobody goofed internally, and you missed it. MR. PALING-Yes, and, t erefore, we can't do anything about it. MR. MACEWAN-The point we're overlooking here is that we've been advised in the past that it's an expired subdivision or it's an expired site plan, or subdivision. There's nothing there to give an extension to. It no longer exists. MR. PALING-What you say is right, Craig, but I think it is also correct to say, and maybe not by this Board, but it has been done even in the face of those circumstances to grant the extension. MR. BREWER-But, Bob, don't you think, in all fairness, that if we said no to a particular applicant, then it should be no, and then another applicant comes in, no matter what the circumstances are, that applicant that we said no to has the same rights that the applicant we say yes to and, therefore, I think if you say it's expired, it's expired, you have to, I can't. MR. PALING-Well, Tim, it has to be in the Judgement of the Board. MR. BREWER-Yes, but in who's eyes, Bob? MR. PALING-But wait a minute, in the eyes of the Board, the impact and the ext)-aneous circumstance is enough to say, yes, to - 41 - - ~ Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 Mr. A and no to Mr. B. MR. BREWER-But if you say no to anybody, than there's an impact to them. I don't understand where you're coming from. MR. STARK-YQu're the only one, I think, that is extending this. We have never said, I just asked Craig to refresh my memory. I don't recall ever saying no, and he doesn't, to an applicant to come in for an extension if it was still enforced. If it's run out, it's run out. Tough beans. MR. MACEWAN-Tim, before you run through a motion on this, I'd like to hear a comment from John and Mark again on this, one more time, Reader's Digest version. MRS. LABOMBARD-Me, too. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. We'll try Reader's Digest version. Bob's recitation of a portion of what I said several months ago is factually correct, meaning these things do happen in other municipalities, and there are places where, after the fact, expired extensions are granted, but is it proper, is it legal? It's not challenged is what usually happens. In the cases I'm familiar with, or the situations I'm familiar with, it's been an example like where Bob said, nobody has any problem with it. So nobody objects to it. So nobody challenges it. So it happens. You can do a lot of things that are not necessarily technically complying with the law, that if nobody challenges or is offended or upset will be fine, but I think this is a big philosophical debate that probably is not worth the time and effort we're all spending on it. I think that you've received advice from me, many, many months ago, in the context of the first example Bob mentioned, about a deadline being a deadline, and once it's expired, somethirig doesn't exist, a phrase I think 1 started, that some of you have picked up on. You've received advice from Paul Dusek, much more recently, that essentially says the same thing. I think Bob came up with a superb hypothetical example, probably the most onerous example, where the applicant would be truly innodent, but I think in that case, perhaps the Board, if that situation were ever to occur, perhaps the Board would, like in many other instances, waive, bend, or fLex its own rule, and say, okay, in this case, when that horrible situation occurred that was truly nobody's fault but ours, meaning the Town, we'll allow an exception to the rule. I mean, again, remember, these are rules and regulations of the Planning Board and of no one else. This is not a Town Board matter. No one else has to approve or adopt these. So to that extent, it's like something else. If you want to waive something that you come up with, you can do it in a particular case, but I think the general rule that I hear the majority of the Board adopting makes all kinds of sense, is the correct legal result, and doesn't need to be done by a resolution or by amending the rules and regulations or anything else, because I think it's the state of the situation as we sit here. MR. BREWER-Can I ask one question? fault if somebody else's application our fault? How can, ever, it be our expires? How can that be MR. SCHACHNER-Well, no. thought, come up with a His example was that the their request for renewal. When you say~, I mean, Bob, did, I very good example, as a hypothetical. person or the applicant timely filed MR. BREWER-Okay. All right. MR. SCHACHNER-And then, literally, it got lost or something. I mean, we're all human. So I thought his example was a superb - 42 - ~ ,"-- '-----' --,' Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 example, because in his example, the applicant is totally innocent. I mean the applicant timely filed, am I right, in Bob's example, the applicant did everything an applicant should do and what I'm suggesting is that in a situation like that, perhaps the Board will end up saying, look, in that situation, we're going to make an exception to our rule, but I'm also going to tell you that if it's a contentious issue where there are opponents to a particular extension, I'm not too comfortable going to court defending our position because, as a matter of law, as I said many months ago and as Paul Dusek said more recently, and as Craig and others have reiterated, if something's over, it doesn't exist anymore. George said the same thing. MR. PALING-And I agree with what you're saying now, that if there is any impact, even if it is the fault of, lets say the Planning Off ice. MR. SCHACHNER-You may have to go back to the application. MR. PALING-We then have to turn them down. MR. SCHACHNER-The other thing to keep in mind is, if there is somebody that needs so ething, this type of relief, they don't have to be in a multiple month, multiple meeting scenario. You have the ability to wive a second public hearing, and to move things through the process. MR. PALING-I think we'd like to ask for John's comments. MR. GORALSKI-He stole all my thunder, but in an effort to not let the attorney have the last word, when somebody comes in and asks for an extension after it's expired, it takes them a month to go through that process. It's going to take them a month if they come back and just sub it all their same information again, and you start allover again. MR. MACEWAN-And the ot~ r side of the spectrum, comes in for a subdivision to be put on the given some sort of rec ipt as to what day, or application was taken? MR. GORALSKI-It's stamR if an applicant agenda, are they whatever they're on the file copy. MR. MACEWAN-Do they ha e something they walk out of the building with? So they have no roof of, I was here on the 15th, or I was here on the 9th. MR. GORALSKI-The . , lssue MR. MACEWAN-Okay. never come up. MR. GORALSKI-In the cas of a subdivision, as I think Mark just said, right in the Subdivision Regulations it says you're able to grant waivers. So you can waive sketch plan, waive preliminary and go to final, or say. MR. SCHACHNER-The botto line is you can do it in one month, at one meeting, if you feel it's appropriate to do that. MR. PALING-Okay. everybody, less motion. I than hink I'll Reader's have one Digest, and more comment we'll call from for a MR. MACEWAN-It's MR. STARK-Lets go to a otion. MRS. LABOMBARD-I horse. We've beat it too many times. same way they do. - 43 - Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 MR. RUEL-Ditto. MR. BREWER-Just say no. MR. PALING-All right. Then lets have a motion. MR. MACEWAN-Why? We don't need anything on this. business as usual. It's just MR. RUEL-You don't need a motion. That's the way it is now. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We're sitting here wondeTing what the motion would þe for. The gist of what we're saying is that this is the state of the situation now, and you don't need to do anything to change it. You don't have anything anywhere, in any of your rules, regulations, laws, or anything else that says that you should, would, could or have granted after the fact, expiration app,-ova Is. MR. PALING-Okay then. So the subject is dead and we'll have a fight anothe,- day. MR. STARK-All the applications that came in tonight, I didn't see one, two foot topography map. They're supposed to have a topography map. Granted, they didn't need one, really, but nobQdy includes these anymore? Is the site plan package incomplete then? MR. GORALSKI-We did all site plan reviews tonight. We didn't do any subdivisions. I can tell you that it says on the application, one of the parts of the check list is two foot contour intervals. Typically, if we don't think it's necessary, for whatever reason, we don't ask for it if it's not on there. subdivision it's required. It's part of the Regulations. You would have to waive that. Site Plan, it's just part of the application checklist. It's not actually in the Regulation. I can't think of any specific site plan tonight that would have required it, except that in Rist-Frost's letter regarding the Ricciardelli application, he asked for at least elevations to determine that it was out of the flood plain. MRS. LABOMBARD-Also, I have a comment about John Matthews getting here late, and the rest of the Board didn't hear his comment. He's concerned about Ship Shape, because he said during the high volume Christmas rush, mailing packages, they're parking on, their customers are parking over across the street in his office buildings. John Matthews came late. He kept thinking the Board meeting started at 7:30 be6ause the other ZBA starts then. I think the whole thing is we did bring up the issue of parking, to make sure that they designated their parking. So I just wanted to clue you in on that. MR. 8REWER-I think we kind of told them that they should have some kind of a parking plan, and they would submit that. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MACEWAN-I know that he's, over there on that parcel, they've even run into trouble from all the traffic from the Racquet Club during its busy season. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. A couple, or three quick items. John clarified the building that we saw on Lake George that was going up next to the one. John, do you want to tell them what you told me. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. That building meets all the setback - 44 - "---' '--' "'-' '-' Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 requirements. It's a brand new building. So expansion of a nonconforming structure. It Just got permit. It doesn't require a site plan review. it's not an a building MR. BREWER-I was going to say, up on the Corinth Road, next to Northern Distributing, did they turn that into an office? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they did. MR. BREWER-Don't they need site plan? MR. GORALSKI-Mr. MacEwan noticed that. MR. BREWER-I noticed it a long time ago when they were doing it. MR. GORALSKI-What happened was the owner of Northern Distributing apparently comes up here infrequently, a month here, a month there. He bought that house, renovated it. It currently has the facilities required to define it as a Single Family Dwelling. However, basically what it's used for is his office when he's here. We asked for, we have asked for a letter from them stating that that is a Single Family residence. I don't know if we've received that or not. MR. BREWER-But, in all reality, we know it's his office. MR. GORALSKI-Right. It's a technical question as to whether or not the fact that he comes up here and uses it and doesn't sleep there. The bottom line is, there are more important issues we've been pursuing then that, to be perfectly honest, and I'll go on the record as saying that. I would say that if we wanted to push it, yes, we could force him to come in for a site plan review. MR. BREWER-Just let it be noted, that's all. MR. GORALSKI-And they have been notified, in writing. MR. PALING-Okay. I've ot three very quick items. Dr. Orban, on Dixon Road that we approved his renovation of that office building has invited us to an open house on the 25th, from six to nine p.m. If anyone wants, they should let him know by the 18th if you're going to come, and there's another one by the Builder's Association of Northern New York. They have a seminar on low cost housing, if anyon wants. Now, I have something I'd Just like to bring up, which I think something ought to be done about, and I Just want to bring it up here to see if you want to do anything, or if I sh~ld refer it to the Town Board or these meetings we go to in-be_ween. I think that the wooden curbs, or the asphalt curbs tha we have in parking lots are terrible. They wear out too quick. They look like hell after a while, and we should try to go to either concrete or granite, rather than wood or asphalt. MR. MACEWAN-The next ti e they come in for a modification, that's going to be Oll::. recommen ation. I know exactly who you're talking about, and I agree with you 110 percent. MR. PALING-Okay. the new Red Lobster that's going in. They've got wooden cur! ing in there to outline the driveways and the entrances and the ;·~xits, and they're going to be hit, and they're going to disin egrate quickly, relative to that, and I think we should start alking either concrete or granite when it comes to curbing. Now the other thing is this, and I found out today that there are s me applicants that come in here and say, to hell with your layo t of parking recommendation. It's not good enough, and what r suIts from the people who go by it is the Red Lobster layout an, the Video store layout, which is too tight, and all kinds of complaints come from it, and I think it's - 45 - ....--~,c Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 about time that we got at least a change in the width of the driving aisle. MR. RUEL-I agree. MR. PALING-And you try to go, now they're calling the Red Lobster and that whole thing, they're calling it a maze now, and that's what it is. It's got both the bad curbs and the drive aisles are too narrow. Now, maybe the parking space can stay the same narrowness, but if you've got a wider aisle, you've got a better shot at bringing your car or truck in vertically. MR. MACEWAN-Whereabouts are you talking about, though? Are you talking about between the wooden separators? That had nothing to do with the Red Lobster site plan. That had to do with, when they came back in and asked for a modification, at the time they were going to be doing the Olive Garden, we were after them to de~ine the parking drive aisles and also the parking areas, and we asked them to put up some separations in there, and then he came back with the boulders, and he came back in with the six by six timbers. MR. BREWER-We asked him to define the islands where he had the dirt, because all he did was put piles of dirt in there. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. BREWER-We told him to put timbers around them. He put stones around them. We didn't tell him to design that entrance to Red Lobster. They came in on their own with that. MR. MACEWAN-I didn't say that. MR. PALING-I'm using Red Lobster and Blockbuster only as an example. I intend this as a generic statement. MR. MAC~WAN-The thing you need to understand is that the Red Lobster Restaurant was a separate site plan from the modification to the Queensbury Plaza. MR. RUEL-! think what Bob is trying to say is that parking in some areas is totally inadequate, in front of Staples and Rex. These places are almost impossible to get in and out and make the turns. Forget about the Red Lobster. That whole parking area is terrible. MR. BREWER-We can't change the Ordinance. MR. SCHACHNER-You have minimums in the Ordinance. . MR. GORALSKI-That's a minimum of 20 feet. You can require 24. MR. RUEL-Why can't we change the Ordinance? If it's inadequate, why can't we change it? MR. BREWER-Because we don't have the authority to change it. MR. PALING-But if we do feel similarly on this, could we not request the Town Board to review it? MR. RUEL-Absolutely. It should be done. MR. BREWER-Why don't you make a draft letter and bring it to us ne:oe:t week? MR. PALING-All right. I'll bring in a draft letter to the Town Board requesting a review of both of these items. John made a point today that Wal-Mart and K-Mart says, the hell with your - 46 - '-" -....-' "'-" ' -, Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/17/95 regulations. I'm going to do it my way, and they have nice, and they widen them, and they have very accessible, usable parking spaces. MR. BREWER-Right, but what you also have to consider, Bob, when you're talking Wal-Mart and K-Mart, they're putting up 160,000 square foot buildings, where a guy that has a plaza that's already established, you make him cut five feet out of his aisle, then he loses half a parking space here, and half a space there, then he doesn't have enough parking for the plaza. MR. PALING-But maybe we could, that's got to be addressed, too. I think we're in the ~orst condition now, the way that these things are being laid out. MR. RUEL --Bob, conside)-ed by lighting. If should be done also another thing that should the Town Board or someone is this it doesn't exist, it should exist, about it, exterior area lighting. be seriously Ordinance on and something MR. GORALSKI-We don't h ve an Ordinance on lighting. MR. RUEL-I say you should have one. MR. GORALSKI-The site plan review standards give you the authority to address Ii. hting as part of the site plan review. MR. RUEL-Right, and t e same with signs, and the same with everything else. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-But it would implify matters if there was an Ordinance that could be followed. MR. GORALSKI-Well, that's very difficult to do. MR. RUEL-It e~dsts in ther communities. I don't know why we can't have it. MR. GORALSKI-I know it in other communities. First of all, it's difficult to ,nforce. Second of all, it becomes very, very subjective as to were you're taking your measurements from, what exactly is the int_nsity of lighting. On motion meeti ng was al jour ned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 47 -