Loading...
1995-11-21 --- ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEEIING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER, 21, 1995 ¡Ii INDEX site Plan No. 27-95 Tax Map No. 104-1-18 Subdivision No. 15-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE site Plan No. 63-95 Tax Map No. 8-2-6 Site Plan No. 70-95 Tax Map No. 124-2-7.2 Site Plan No. 65-95 Tax Map No. 14-1-7.2 Site Plan No. 66-95 Tax Map No. 61-1-34 subdivision No. 21-1989 MODIFICATION site Plan No. 67-95 Tax Map No. 48-3-34.1 site Plan No. 61-95 DISCUSSION ITEM G. Joseph Monsour Malcolm Batchelder Tax Map No. 27-3-1.1 Ronald Benjamin RD 2 Buildings & Parking Ltd. John & Deborah Skinner John Matthews Cross Roads Park Tax Map No. 46-2-9.4, 9.5 Richard P. Schermerhorn, Jr. John Brock Tax Map No. 13-2-19, 21,37 :¡ ..! ' 2. 5. 6. 13. 16. 19. 22. 29. 35. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. , " , I "- '- '-' -.../ (Queensbury Planni 1"Ig Board Meet'i ng 11/21/95) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN TIMOTHY BREWER ROGER RUEL JAMES OBERMAYER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. PALING-In case anyone has come about the Mooring Post hearing, tonight there will be a SEQRA discussion by the Planning Board which will involve only the Planning Board and Staff. There will be no comment allowed by the applicant, the applicant's representative, or anyone from the general public or anyone else for that matter. The sequence of events will be that we'll have a SEQRA discussion here on the Mooring Post tonight between Staff and Board. We will pass our comments on to the Zoning Board of Appeals, in advisory capacity, because they have been designated lead agent. They will conduct the SEQRA on November 29th, at which time there will be a public hearing. If and when the variances are granted, or the ZBA approval is granted, then that same application has got to come before the Planning Board for a site plan review. There will also be a public hearing held in conjunction with that, but the SEQRA public hearing will held by the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 29th. We have most of the information on the Mooring Post, except the Board received tonight copies of letters covering this, going back, I guess, to Day One, we're going to look at these during the week. There's too many for us to read tonight. We're going to look at them during the week, and we're going to have very brief comment at our meeting a week from tonight. So there'll be no input of any kind from other than staff and the Planning Board tonight. I may have to repeat that speech later on this evening. So we'll proceed with the rest of the meeting now. CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 19, 1995: NONE September 21, 1995: NONE September 26, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MEETINGS DATED SEPTEMBER 19TH, 21ST. AND 26TH, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meetl ngj', 1'1/21/95)" "..1 ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 27-95 TYPE: UNLISTED G. JOSEPH MONSOUR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: NEXT to JÖ~O'S REST., 676 UPPER GLEN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONDUCT, SALE OF FLOWERS, PRODUCE AND CHRISTMAS TREES FROM A PORTABLE STAND ON HIS PROPgRTY ALONG UPPER GLEN STREET. SECTION 179-22 Ö(l) STATES THAT ALL LAND USES IN PLAZA COMMERCIAL ZONING WILL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 104-1-18 LOT SIZE: .86 ACRES SECTION: 179~22 MICHAEL Ó'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESE~T MR. PALING-Okay. John, do you have any comments on this? MR. GORALSKI-The application was tabled because the question of the residentially zoned parcel that juts out into the commercially zoned parcel arose. The Town Board has since then re-zoned that parcel, so that the entire parcel is zoned Highway Commercial, I believe it's Highway Commerçial, or Plaza Commercial. I'm sorry, Plaza Comm'ercial, and this is now an allowable use. So you can just finish µP your site plan review. MR. PALING-Okay. Is Okay. Warren County John? someone from the applicant here Planning approved this previously I please? think, MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Warren County Planning approve9 it, and as Mark just r~fuinded ~e, the Town Board did the $EORA review. MR. PALING-Okay. The SEORA review is done. Okay, then I guess the questions oh my mind are having to do with the use that this is going to be put to, the setbacks and the þarking. Are there any questions by the Board before we start? Okay. Would you introduce yourselves please. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. I'm here representing th~ applicant. Wit,h me is the applicant. With me is the applicant~ Mr. Monsour. I am probably going to play less of an açtive role in this application than I have in others. I was not on board at the public hearing when Mr. Monsour was here. I became i.nvolved more for the re-zoning than the site plan. So I think we'll' pläy a team as far as trying to answel" your questions. My understanding of what is proposed here is no change from really what has gone on for some number of years there, particularly since Mr. Monsour has owned the property. He basically is trying to make a living, and perhaps from time to time the use of the property changes in some fashion, but from Day One, and even before Mr. Monsour owned the property, when I'm familiar with the property, when it used to be a Gulf gas station many years ago, that total piece of property has been utilized for business ventures of this nature. I think he has a sketch plan. I think it's to scale. It's prett~ much as is. I think the only thing that is proposed to cha, nge is that he is goi ng to put in a dr aina,ge ditch, if you will, at the end,of what is shown a~ po~sible parking area, to improve a low area there, and that's the only'change that he proposes at all. Maybe you'd want to talk about the timetable. Typically, what he's doing, I don't think we're in question here as to the restaurant oper~tion. We're talking about external use that's seasonal. I don't think thefê is any, and hasn't been much external use. None is planned in January, February, March or April. In May and June you have flowers. In July, you have very little use. In August you have vegetables. September you have no use, and October you're going to have some fall flowers and maybe pumpkins, and in December, or from now until December, - 2 - ',--, --' ~ (Queensbury Planning,Boar<;i Meet~ng 11/21/95) you're going to have Christmas Trees. None of the activities are very extensive activities, as far as what is on site itself. Christmas Trees you're probably talking about 400 Christ~as Trees in total sales, hopeful sales, during that period of time. I ,think ,you've seen the flowers that ,are there. You've seen the !1~~~et~ble~ ihai are there,', T~efe'sno~hingpermanent put up by way QT s~í,µcture" '¡ don't' even k,now ,if' it qualifies as a s-tructure. Some 'of the covering they have is not, I don't think much o~" ú: fs '~n e~cess of '~OO square feet ~ which is your ~ccessoí,Y ~tructure type operation. ,So that bá~ically is what he's proposing. MR. PALING-Well, again, I think setbacks and parking are our only concern. We're not, as you say, we're not concerned with the major business within the building, but rather the seasonal business, and again, it's setbacks and parking that we were thinking of. The objection at the public hearing had to do with the business that doesn't exist anymore, if I understand that correctly. MR. OBERMAYER-The business doesn't exist? MR. PALING-Well, the flower business. MR. BREWER-Mike and Joe, the parking, it just seems like it could be a hazard. I don't know if it will be or not, but the first parking space, I ~uess yo~ would call it the south end of the parking lot, is right where the entrance to the parking lot is. I can just see somebody backing out and somebody coming in. I don't know if that's ever been a problem, or maybe we can shift some of the parking over further, or eliminate maybe one or two spots in the beginning, and just create them in the back, and also on the north part of the parking lot, I know it's existing, but that doesn't mean you can't fix something that's broke. You've got the handicapped parking right in direct line where the traffic comes in and out of the driveway. So for you to maybe move that over to the right, where it's maybe a little bit safer. MR. MACEWAN-Is there a ramp right there at that parking spot? JOE MONSOUR MR. MONSOUR-No, there's no ramp. MR. MACEWAN-It goes of the curb right wheelchair could go? up to a curb, but is there going into there a little portion the building where a MR. MONSOUR-That's open there, where you go into the building, there. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think there's any step. MR. MONSOUR-No, there's no step where you go into the doorway. MR. O'CONNOR-Would it satisfy your question if you moved the handicapped space to the other end of the building, and took up the required width on the south end of the building, and that you eliminate the parking for the first 30 feet offset from the property line on Route 9? I think one inch equals thirty on that map. So you'd eliminate at least the first two parking spots. MR. BREWER-You're talking on the south end? MR. O'CONNOR-On the south end of the parking. MR. BREWER-All right. So eliminate the first two parking spaces? - 3 - (Queensbury Planni ng Board Meèti ng '11/21J9'5)' MR. O'CONNOR-Eliminate the first t~o spaces. MR. BREWER-Yes, and just create them further down. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. H· ~ i " MR'IßREWER-E~st? ~ ;. : 'r ¡ 'OJ! ~"!r "! ~ , !;-: ,," MR, O'ÇONNOR-X~~_ !:i I, ; i,.i :" ; { i.h1'· ! f1 MR:OßERMAY~'R-'R~a~istically~iào yqu gUY$ there? ~, " , , , 'J " h'a\{i I i'ri~~ "àhd, stuff :1 ' Á' " , , " MR. MONSOUR-No, there's not. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. '.tl-! " I MR. O'CONNOR-I think this is more to show that parking. I think the people pretty much come on where they feel comfortable and they feel safe. MR. OBERMAYER-So we could talk all about eliminating parking spaces. There's no lines. there's ample site and park MR. BREWER-Well, if there's no lines, then it's moot. MR. O'CONNOR-We can maybe do something, no parki~g in that area. MR. BREWER-Ma.ybe we can prevent people from parking in there. Potentially. they could back fight out onto Route 9. ' MR. O'CONNOR-The handicapped I know we have to sign. So we can sign those spaces, and we can put no parking out that end, if that's a concern. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. BREWER-That's fine. That's the only thing 1 can see wrong with it. MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing was closed? MR. GORALSKI-I'm not sure that the public hearing was closed. MR. PALING-All right, lets be sure. Is there anyone that wishes to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-The SEQRA has been completed, so I think we can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-95 G. JOSEPH MONSOUR, Introduced by George Star k who moved for i1:r$i" aQ,qp,t.iQ,n, sec.o,nded , ' by: Roger Ruel: '1/- " -\ To move the handicapped parking space on the north edge to the other end of the building, and to eliminate ,t.l1e (ir$it,i:;.wo,par:king spaces enter i ng on the south edge of the par ki ng" ldt 'ffomRoute 9. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the following vote: - 4 - - .- -- (Queensbury PlanninQ Boar9 Meeting 11/21/95) AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MALCOLM BATCHELDER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE CLEMENTS ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR A SUBDIVISION OF A 4.39 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.53 ACRES AND 2.86 ACRES. APA TAX MAP NO. 27-3-1.1 LOT SIZE: 4.39 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 15-1995, Malcolm Batchelder, Meeting Date: November 21, 1995 "The applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.39 acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.53 acres and 2.86 acres. These lots will conform to all of the dimensional requirements in the SR-1A zone. The 2.86 acre lot is improved by a single family house, barn and swimming pool. The 1.53 acre lot is presently unimproved, however, a portion of the lot is within the 100 foot buffer zone of an APA jurisdictional wetland. The APA has issued a permit for this project. A conceptual layout of the lot indicates that a single family residence with the associated on site sewage disposal system can be accommodated on the site. Furthermore, the APA permit indicates that the soil conditions are well suited for the proposed development. I would recommend approval of this application." MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments from anyone yet? Preliminary Stage. This is MR. STEVES-For the record, my name is Leon Steves from VanDusen and Steves~ This is something we saw last year, if you'll recall. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-The only outstanding issue was the wetland permit. MR. STEVES-The APA permit. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. STEVES-That's correct, yes. MR. PALING-Any questions? All right. Leon? , Did you have any comments, MR. STEVES-No. MR. PALING-All right, then we'll open the public hearing on this matter.;, D¡oe,§ .an,>,;one care. to comm~nt? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLÚSED MR. BREWER-Did we do a SEQRA on this? MR. GORALSKI-Back the first time? I don't know, to tell you the truth. - 5 - (Queensbury Planni n~" Bòârd Meeti ngl: 11/21/95') I . , '.! . 1,<~ f", ._ , :: ,/' 'j . . I, , i ..-.,¡ , ,1 " . ,i MR. ÓSE'RM,AYE'R-.T.he $~IQRlf? ThefE1 lS ,~,SEORA ~t.t<:lch~'~I~ , MR. GORAL'srÓ:-'~i~S¡. :~ql+';¡ho,41~,R! ,d9,'aneH 'q,rte,!p6'W. ,R~~Ö4UTION WHÊ~, D~TERM~XNATtpN I bF:NO: $jGh~~~:ê:4b¿guilš:M!ÄdE REsÖi.UTION NO. i~-19~5, :i~troåuced by James' 'oh~,rmayer wro moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: .(., WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the MALCOLM BATCHELDER, and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proppsed project and Plpnning Board action is subject to review under the State Environme~tal Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federa~, agency appears to be iTJvolved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Boprd is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Re0iew Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the. criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State o¥ New York, this Board finds that the action about ,to be und~rtakeTJ by this èoard 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 thatm?y be required by law. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBqmbard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. M~cEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1995 MALCOLM BATCHELQER, Introduced by James Obermaysr who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the vote: foll'owing AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Óbermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 63-95 TYPE I RONALD BENJAMIN OWNER: SAME AS - 6 - '--- '-" -.... -../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) . . I !-. ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD AT SHARP BEND. PROPOSAL IS FOR AN ADDITION OF NEW 580 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR TO EXISTING SINGLE STORY 1,175 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE. SECTION 179-79 REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING__STRUCTURE WITHIN. A, CRITICA~ ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. ' ''CRO$S · 'RI::FE~ENCE: AV 78-1995', . WARREN! CO. 'PLANNING: 11/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 8-2-6 LOT SIZE: 10,411 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 ' ," CHARLES JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 63-95, Ronald Benjamin, Meeting Date: November 21, 1995 "The applicant requires a site plan review because they are proposing an expansion of a nonconforming structure. The expansion will take place within the existing footprint and will be less than a 50% expansion of the original structure, a variance for the modification of the decks within the shoreline setback was received in October. The proposed elevation indicates a design that mitigates the visual impact from the lake by using the roof area to accommodate the second floor. It does not appear that this project will have any visual impact from the upland side, however, I could not determine if there would be any impact on the property to the north. It appears that this addition has been designed with sensitivity to the lakeshore issues. If no issues arise as a result of the public hearing, I would recommend approval of this application." MR. GORALSKI-And the Warren County Planning Board said, No County Impact. MR. PALING-No impact from Warren County. Okay. from the Boa,-d? Any comments MR. JOHNSON-My name is Charles Johnson. I'm an architect with Paradox Design Architects. MR. RUEL-Staff has indicated that all the work will within the original footprint, and I see that a deck removed and some new deck area will be built. be done will be MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. RUEL-Is that to be considered the same footprint? MR. GORALSKI-The addition to the house, actually, is what I was talking about, that will be done within the footprint. As I said, the deck, the portion of the deck that's modified received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, but that is part of your site plan review. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-You're saying the deck will be removed and the ?uildiq;r w,ill b~ put in where the deckwqs? MR. GORALSKI-No. There's a portion of the deck to the north, a portion of that deck is going to be removed. It says, dotted line indicates existing wood deck to, be removed, and then there's a hatched mark to the south of that, says, cross hatched area indicates proposed new wood deck. That received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, but that is part of your site plan review. MR. OBERMAYER-It did receive a variance? MijA GORALSKI-YesA - 7 - -- (Queensbury Planninè Boardl Meeting 11/21/95)' ! MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, because you're only, like, 20 feet from the lake? MR. JOHNSON-Right, and actually the expansion received as part of the variance as well because it' was a nonconforming. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. , MR. PALING-Any other questions at the moment? I thlnk what we should do, then, is go right to a public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that would care to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEA~ING OPENED ENOCH ZYLOWSKI MR. ZYLOWSKI-Enoch Zylowski. I live in a property on the north side of the proposed addition, and when I spoke to the architect at the last meeting, he said he would call me and have an elevation showing the north side, as ~o what they intend to do. I haven't heard from him, and I was just wondering what it was going to look like, the north side elevation of their property. MR. PALING-What side are we showing on the print? MRS. LABOMBARD-There isn't a north side elevation. MR. JOHNSON-There isn't. busy. I only drew the lakeside. !'ve been MR. OBERMAYER-You sit right next. to the applicant? MR. ZYLOWSKI-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-But you look out straight onto the lake, right? MR. ZYLOWSKI-Right, but we have windows on that side of the house. It's an existing house. It's been there since 1890, and the last people that were there, we didn't come to the hea~ing because we didn't want to have any fuss. Well, they closed the porch in, and they cut some of our view off. Now this porch is enclosed with the deck on that wasn't there before. It waß an open porch, and a portion that is now enc10sed, and when I spoke to the architect, he said he would have an elevat'ion on the north side of that building, so that I could see what they were going to do, because this doesn't really show it, and on a hatched mark here, when I spoke to him, it shows approximately four feet to the edge. He told me it would be right to the edge of the roof. So what's shown here doesn't d~p¡ct what they intend to. do. " MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Your property's right here, right, right to the north? This is north? This is north. Your property's right here? I'm just trying to get.a griþ on where you are. MR. ZYLOWSKI-I'm right here. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. You're right here, and you're right on the lake, too? MR. ZYLOWSKI-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-So you look out at the lake this way? MR. ZYLOWSKI-And then we have a window downstairs, in our rooms, facing toward that area, ,and from what he told me, this now would be moved right over to the edge, to the edge of the roof, which would bring it closer to our property, which is okay, but he said he was going to have an elevation showing just what it would look - 8 - '"- '-" --" '"-, (Queensbury Planning BQard Meeting 11/21/95) like. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. STARK-Is that your only concern? MR. ZYLOWSKI-Yes, that's all. MR. PALING-Do you still want that elevation? MR. ZYLOWSKI-Well, !'d like to have it. MR. PALING-I think if it's something that 'y04 reque~ted, and they consented to do it, that it really should be done. MR. ZYLOWSKI-Well, he said he was going to do it, and then call me, but I haven't heard anything, so we're here just to see what it's going to be like. MR. PALING-Well, then we could postpone this until next week. MR. STARK-Ask him what the elevation is. Maybe he knows. MR. PALING-All right. MR. JOHNSON-I can sketch it tonight. MR. PALING-You mean just sketch it for them and show it to them? All right. We can just hold this, and he's going to sketch it out for you, and as soon as you're ready. MR. JOHNSON-Hear the next applicant, and then we'll jump in after that? MR. PALING-Yes. Is that okay with you? MR. ZYLOWSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Is that all right with the Board? MRS. LABOMBARD-Fine. MR. OBERMAYËR-That's fine if the applicant is willing to do that, but I don't See what. MR. ZYLOWSKI-Well, it's just that when the last party bought the house, there was an open porch there, and all of a sudden it was closed in, and then there was a deck added, and he added decks allover the place. I mean, it looked like Tarzan was moving into the place, and they eventually made them take some of the decks down, but that's past history. MR. PALING-All right. Well, if he can make a satisfactory sketch for you, and you're satisfied, then we can continue. MR. ZYLOWSKI-Just to find out where we sit on this. MR. PALING-All right. Lets do it that way. MR. MACEWAN-Let me ask a question. From the Board's standpoint, to approve or deny this project, what bearing does the sketch have on us? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. PALING-I think that in a public hearing, if someone makes a request of the architect and the architect says he'll do it, then it should be done. - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) MR. MACEWAN-But if he objects to the architect's rendering of the elevation, are you in a position you're willing to deny the project? MR. PALING-No, no, ,no. He has a right to object to it, then we've got to take it under advisement, but he does have the right to object to it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I thi nk that what Bob means is' that we should do a conclusive publichea1-ing, and by not granting this gentleman's request, that he was already told that the architect would do it, I think we would be not turning over all the stones for him. MR. PALING-Right. We wouldn't have finished the public hearing. So, if you can get together now, and then come back and tell us what your concerns with, if you're satisfied. MR. ZYLOWSKI-It's just that he said he was going to do it, and then I didn't hear anything. MR. BREWER-Another thing is, if he makes the sketch, a~d it satisfies the neighbor, and then what happens if he doesn't build to the sketch? MR. PALING-We can make the sket¿h part of the record, I would think. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I have a real hang up with this ~hole ideª of even bringing this into þlay. Nothing against yo~r right~ of your own property, but the applicant is proposing to build ~ two story house that really, I mean, you guys look out on the lake. Is your house a two story house? MR. ZYLOWSKi-It's a three story. MR. OBERMAYER-A three story hou~e. PATRICIA ZYLOWSKI MRS. ZYLOW$KI-Excu.se me. I'm Mrs. Zylowski. I had a very nice view of the lake from my house before, from my bedroom and my kitchen, and we didn't want to make a fuss. So we didh't say anything. It's done, and it can't be undone. We just want to make sure that when this is done, it's not out more~ covering more. That's all. We just ask to see what was being done, b€~cause what's here, I'm loo ki ng at, I don't thi n k is even what he said last time he was doing. This,is supposed to b, bigger up on top, and we just don't want to have somethi ng appro\/ed, and then put up and then they say, well, it's done. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I know, but, I mean, I can argue with you all night as far as a person's property rights. MRS. ZYLOWSKI-We don't want to stop anybody from doing anything. We just don't want. MR. OBËRMAYER-~0re, and this is only my opinion, too. six other Board members, too. We have MR. RUEL--I'm quite concerned about the statement that both of you made a moment ago, looking at the plan. You indicßted that it doesn't look like what he's going to do. MR. ZYLOWSKI-Well, the way it's on here, i;.,his litt,le is abou.t four feet from the end. When I spoke to :the he sa id it would probab.l y be 1- ight to the end of the this doesn't really depict what they have in mind. d01-mer here architèct, house. So "- 10 - '-' ---..r -....../ --- (Queensbury Plannin~ Board, Meetins 11/21/95) , MR. RUEL-But he would have to build in accordance with the plan. MR. ZYLOWSKI-Well, that's not what he told me. He said this was just a preliminary, the hatch space there was just a preliminary. MRS. ZYLOWSKI-At the last meeting he said that. MR. JOHNSON-See, the hatched area on the site plan that indicates the area where the second floor, where the expansion would be, is a pictorial. It's not an exact dimension thing of where the actual second floor perimeters would be. MR. MACEWAN-Based on that information, I would ask you to go back and re-do it so it comes back exactly as we plan on approving it. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. RUEL-You can't give us a plan that's not accurate. MR. MACEWAN-No. I mean, if this is what you're submitting to this Board and looking for approval tonight, and if we approve that, that's the way ~ expect it will be built. If you have other ideas or other plans to something that's different from this, I would ask that you submit those, for me to review, I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I agree. MR. MACEWAN-That sets off a bell in me. I don't feel comfortable in this at all. MR. JOHNSON-It's not really a substantial change, but I can understand your concerns. The problem from the applicant's standpoint is to try and get a variance that could be denied, where you'd have to get your project completely designed is a little bit cumbersome, you're kind of putting the cart before the horse. So this was a, the sketch was done as a spirit or intent. It's not an exact. It's going to be modified or refined. I don't know what the word is. MR. MACEWAN-Then you'd only have to come back to the Board again for another approval. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Why would you make yourself a two step process? MR. PALING-Could you bring this back next week? MR. JOHNSON-Sure. MR. RUEL-If you do that, you might as well bring the north elevation. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. JOHNSON-I can do that, too. All right. That's fair enough. MR. RUEL-Do it right, and bring the north elevation, and we'll look at it next week. MR. OBERMAYER-You're saying this is not the way it's going to look from the north. MR. JOHNSON-Well, what's happened is the, see where that little octagonal dormer is on the front? MRS. LABOMBARD-The turret? - 11 - .',' ¡ '" '¡' !' ,.. (Queensbury Plannlng Board Meetlng 11/21/95) /, n _' , -' i, 1, <.' : i '¡: ' ) That'~'gr~W~ tò the I" _ ,I: ,>¡ ,,', ¡ r i,ght sÒ:n\e ;:" :,.1 t ' s' 410ved I ¡I--, .I' , t ' MR. JOHN$6',.:¡;;.;y'és. .. ! over. ;.. J -¡¡ , MR. OßERMAYER:-::~hQ!<'J it"th~ W~y it1s 9Ring 't'o b~'. , . , MR. JOHNSd~-bka9. :1"'1 " 'T I I " \1 ,t', MR. PALING-We'll leave the public hearing open, and we'll ask the applicant to allow us to table' this ànd we'll put it ' on next week's schedule, and then we can come back and go,~h~ougþ, this again, but I think it'll be pretty brief. t·, MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Included in our request, are we asking for ' a southern elevation? MR. JOHNSON-The elevation? elevation you're looking for, the north MR. BREWER-The north elevation. MR. PALING-The north elevatio~. MRS. LABOMBARD-Craig's just asking, are we going to ask for a southern one also? MR. PALING-In addition to? MR. GORALSKI-It's a north elevation. southern direction. It's looking in the MR. MACEWAN-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you think it would be a good idea to put an approximate location of t~e front of the neighbor's house? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Just in respect to where this is, so we could get more of a good comparison. MR. JOHNSON-Yes, I cafi do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think that would be helpful fof all paities. I just mean as far as how far their house goes to the lake, the setback to the lake of the footprint. MR. PALING-All right. Do we need a motion on this? MR. BREWER-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 63-95 by Roger Ruel who moved for its Obermayer: RONALD BENJAMIN, Introduced adoption, seconded by James Until the meeting of November 28th. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the vote: ' following AYES: Mr. MàcEwan, Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. You'll be on the agenda, next week. . ¡ don't know exactly where on the agenda, but you~ll be on the agenda; - 12 - '--' ''"--' ~ --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) SITE PLAN NO. 70-95 TYPE: UNLISTED RD 2 BUILDINGS & PARKING LTD. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: PUD - RECREATION COMMERCIAL LOCATION: WEST MT. SKI CENTER PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY & BASEMENT ADDITION OF 1,908 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING MAIN LODGE BUILDING AT WEST MT. SKI CËNTER. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 124-2-7.2 LOT SIZE: 125 ACRES SECTION: 179-21 ED EPPICH & MIKE BRANDT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 70-95, RD 2 Buildings & Parking Ltd., Meeting Date: November 21, 1995 "The applicant wishes to add a single story addition to the existing ski lodge to provide additional tables and a ski school area. The proposal has been changed to a slab on grade so there will be no basement. The addition will be on the mountain side of the lodge and will not change the character of the property. This location is also preferred because it will not interfere with vehicular circulation or parking. Given the large setbacks. large amount of impermeable area and existing drainage patterns, this proposal should not have any significant impact on stormwater drainage. In conclusion, this proposal should have no significant negative impact on the character of the neighborhood or on the natural resources of the community." MR. GORALSKI-And Warren County Planning Board said, No County Impact. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Any comments by the Board? MR. STARK-On the agenda it says a 1,908 squa,"e foot addition, and on the plans it's 3,520 square foot addition. MR. GORALSKI-Right. What happened, well, is that they eliminated the single story slab on grade, and you should have received the new plans. maybe I didn't explain it too basement and changed it to a received the new plans. You MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BRANDT-I'm Mike Brandt. I'm the owner of that Corporation. MR. EPPICH-I'm Ed Eppich. I'm the agent for the RD 2 Buildings and Parking, Ltd. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-The 3520 square feet, you're eliminated your basement, is that what it is? saying you've MR. BRANDT-'(e~. MR. GORALSKI-Well, they eliminated the basement and then put everything on one floor. MR. BRANDT-It was in two layers, essentially the same square footage, there about, done, only on one level, and that was to get around some Code problems. After discussion with the Building Department, we came to the conclusion that it would be much wiser to do this on a single floor, rather than on two floors. It really gets into New York Building Code. MR. PALING-What about utilities in this case? There's no effect? MR. GORALSKI-They're all going to be taken from the existing utilities in the lodge. - 13 - --../ (Queensbury Planning Bòard Me~ting 11/21)95) '¡' I MR. PALING-And the purpose of this addition is to what? MR. BRANDT-It's really seating capacity for people to sit down and eat, or to observe, it's in an area where they ~an obs~rve chi ldren taki ng lessons. It's a part of the Ski Center where, all our lessons are given. A lot of parents come there to watch that process and in the past, they r.ally haven't had v~ry good seating. So this is a proposal to give them ~ome kind of ring side seats for that purpose. MR. PALING-You're not adding anything that would impact on utilities, then, to any extent. MR. BRANDT-I don't think so. I mean,ther..'s electricity for lighting inside, and h¡~ting, it. Heating probably propane gas. a little bit of bGt that's really MR. RUEL-Separate heating for that area? MR. BRANDT-Yes, a separate furnace for it. MR. RUEL-Is this fire wall per Code, is that necessary? MR. BRANDT-Yes, it is. The Building Depa¡rt;.,IT),e¡nt,; r,eql¡ly t;.old us that we need to build a fire wall there b'éca'ùse' 6"f'the a'verall size of all the bui ldi ngs . There was a discussion, W¡,th ,someone from the State, or someone who was a specialist in fi~6~6de, and they recommended that, well, they told us we 'C;eq,¡ly had to ,put a fire wall in the~·e. )1" MRS. LABOMBARD-So then it won't be open, just the access to it would be from the annex right there with the swinging doors? MR. EPPICH-Yes. They're part of the fire separation system. These doors are automatically held open by a magnetic d~vice. MR. RUEL-Just like a motel. MR. EPPICH-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-The windows would kind of match the existing lodge? Is that the way it~s going to be, so yqu'd have windows all the way around? MR. EPPICH-Generally. It's existing lodge is. Because what we're featuring. pretty much all glass, like the the view is up the hill, and that's MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. MRS. LABOMBARD-I've been over there f6r the past few days, and the way this is, it's just kind of, for something of such a large floor area~ it's set in there as if it's not hardly making any impact, as far as the regular layout of the building that's already there. I mean, for 3500 square feet, it must be because it's indented there. So it really is a nice addition. MR. OBERMAYER-It is very low there, though. I mean, water does pond up right outside of that area, doesn't it? MR. BRANDT-It ponds up closer to the mountain from there. That area is up above it, but there is a drainage system that goes out by the rope tow, and drains to the south. ;.:. ': ' . ~ .: ' !,'.' ,; ,'I I,., , ¡ I ; MR. OBERMAYER-Ri'g'ht. 'I know when I b\" i ng my children ùP: there, it does seem like there's a little pondish effect ri,~,ht t;.here. , . I', MR. EPPICH-There can be on occasion, yes. - 14 - ~ -- '-'" "---' (Queensbury Planning Board MeetinQ 11/21/95) . !, MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. BRANDT-But it doesn't come near that building. have some distance. You'd still MRS. LABOMBARD-And is the floor all going to be concrete? MR. BRANDT-Concrete with some kind of a surface on it. debating that surface vividly right now. We're MR. OBERMAYER-The other area is concrete. MR. BRANDT-Yes, it is, and we are not totally in love with that floor, but we sure tried different things with it, and with ski boots, it presents some real problems. Most surfaces get very slippery when they're wet, and so we're looking at a whole new surface system. We're going to try it on another part of the lodge, and if that works, we'd put it in here. MR. PALING-Okay. Now there's no County impact on this. I think what we should do now is go to the public hearing portion of this. Is there anyone here from the public that would care to comment, questions or what not? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. OBERMAYER-Is it just gQing to be seating in both areas, or is this going to be a place where you refreshments and stuff like that? of these can get MR. BRANDT-Well, you can get refreshments, but it's really seating for those refreshments. The ref~eshments are served out of another part of the building. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Okay. MR. EPPICH-Yes. It's seating like the main lodge, tables, benches, and they get served at the cafeteria and bring their food to the tables. More capacity is what's needed. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mike, are you going to start building this winter, this season? MR. BRANDT-I think probably not, if I were to guess, watching the weather patterns. I think it's just getting too late, especially if we have to put that fire wall in, because then we have to really cut off part of the existing building, and that would really screw up things for our customers, so I think probably not. MR. PALING-Okay. This is an Unlisted Action, so we need a SEQRA on this. MR. GORALSKI-There should application. be a Short Form in with your MR. PALING-A Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 70-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: - 15 - ~ (Queensbury Planni ng Boa,d Mé:éti ng 11/2'1)95) WHEREAS, there application for: ,-- is presently before the Planning' B6á',;d RD 2 BUILDINGS AND PARKING, LTD., and an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Plan~ing Board action is subject to review under the state Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, B~ 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 Cueensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set fo,-th 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 Pla,nni ng Board is hereby author ized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 70-95 !...IIL..., Introduced by Roger Ruel who seconded by James Obermayer: RD 2 Bl.¿Il,-QINGS & PARKING moved for its adoption, As written. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 65-95 TYPE: II JOHN & DEBORAH SKINNER OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE = WR-1A LOCATION: WESTERN SIDE OF CLEVERDALE OPPOSITE tHE LAKE SIDE CHAPEL. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW DOCK WHICH WILL MEET PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS. DOCKS ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/8/95 LAKE GEORGE COMMISSION TAX MAP NO. 14-1-7.2 LOT SIZE: .5 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT - 16 - ,-" '-'" '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1~/21/95) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plari No. 65-95, John & Deborah Skinner, Meeting Date: November 21, 1995 "The proposed location of the dock and boathouse does not meet the setback requirements or the 40' maximum length requirement. If the applicant centers the dock and builds it perpendicular to the shoreline the Zoning Administrator has determined that it will meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. By constructing the new dock in the configuration desc,"ibed above, the dock will be further away from the northern property line and, therefore, will have less impact on the neighbor to the north without imposing any additional burden on the neighbor to the south. This is said based on the assumption that the new boathouse will not be any higher than the existing boathouse." MR. PALING-Okay. Warren County Planning says, No Impact in this case. Lake George Park Commission, what do we know? MR. GORALSKI-They have not issued a permit as of yet. MR. PALING-They have not issued a permit. What does that do to us? MR. GORALSKI-Nothing. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Any questions by the Board at the moment, or can we just put the question to the applicant that John has raised? Okay. Would you identify yourself please? MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, builder and agent for the applicant. MR. PALING-Okay. Did you see John's report or hear what he just said now? Would you care to comment on that? MR. MATTHEWS-No. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We discussed that today, and he's agreed that that would be a good way to go about it. MR. PALING-Okay. You've agreed to this. Okay. MR. MACEWAN-The drawings that are submitted with our packet or the drawing, with the 40 foot on one side and 30 foot on the other side, that's all tÞe informatioD you need to make sure that it ¡ meets~e'tt:)kê:: ks? . i ' MR. GORALSKI-No. See the way the drawing was proposed, it really doesn't meet the setback. What he's got to do is turn that dock so it's perpendicular to the shoreline, then center it on the lot, and then it will be conforming. MR. MACEWAN-Does he need to have a new drawing? MR. GORALSKI~What I would propose is that you that way, then when he submits his building sure that it conforms to your motion. pass your motion permit, we'll make MH. PALJ;NG-Okay. " MR. RUEL-In Other words, the new dock shoÜld, be. MR~)SR,EWER-Prettymuch . the way it is, only sh~fted over to the left. MR. RUEL-Configured the way the old one is. MR. GORALSKI-Except shifted over to the center of the lot. - 17 - (Queensbury Planni n'g Board Meet.ing 11/21/95) MR. RUEL-But it's dif~icult to put it in the center of that property, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-Well, as you can see by the dock is not as wide as the existing one. to do it with no problems. drawing, the proposed So you should be able MR. RUEL-And the setback then will be. MR. GORALSKI-Will be met. MR. RUEL-Will be met, but we have to put that into the motion. MR. GORALSKI-I would just include that in your motion. By doing it this way, what you're going to do is you're going to improve a nonconforming situation. MR. MACEWAN-But I had nothing in my packet that tells me'how long the doc k is 0)" how wide the doc k is. ,,' '1:; ',' MR. GORALSKI-Well, that dock there says it's 40 what your drawing shows. feet long"" is , . ~.' ¡ MR. RUEL-It says 40, and the old one was 30. t~é only thing that's missing is the width. MR. MACEWAN-How wide is the dock? MR. MATTHEWS-Twenty-four feet, total. ,fj ; ¡ MR. RUEL-At'the ba.se there, 24~" :-';, " MR. MATTHEWS-Six, twelve, and six. MR. GORALSKI-And as I said, I would recommend that the height of the boathouse or deck, whatever you want to call it, not exceed the existing boathouse. MR. BREWER-How tall is the existing boathouse? MR. MATTHEWS-It meets all the requirements. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know exactly what it is. MR. MACEWAN-How do we know? 12 feet, and he comes back are we going to know? I mean, if the existing boathouse is and he's got something 13 feet, how MR. GORALSKI-At this point, I don't know that. MR. PALING-Shouldn't we have a final sketch on this, at least submit to you a final sketch on this that would show the location of the dock aBd the width and the length of it, as well as specifying the height above the mean highwater mark? \ ¡ MR. GORALSKI-Well, I mean, the other thing you can do is give him a height right now, of how high. MR. BREWER-Fourteen feet. MR. GORALSKI-That's what the Code says, which I think what ¡~ ,is now, to be honest, to ~he top of the rai~i~g~ not positive. ", " ," J ;p J! 1 is about ql,..lt I'm I I '_j , , MR. 8Rg:,W~R-Â,S long as he's under, 14 '-teet. ir: ;:1 " ¡ , MR. PALING-Now does that l·f ,f¡e;et' iD~lude a rai 1 i ng'1 L - 18 - '"-' ~~ ~ (Queensbury Plannin$;,J Board Meeting 11/21/95) MR. GORALSKI-To the top of the railing. MR. PALING-To the top of the railing, specify that the railing should be open, rather than a solid piece. and I think we should that is to Say spoked, MR. MATTHEWS-Well, it's spoked now. what's there. We're going to duplicate MR. PALING-Okay. eventual motion, everybody. All right. I think that can be part of the to have that all done, if it's all right with MRS. LABOMBARD-That's fine. MR. PALING-Okay. Now there's a public hearing on thìs. We'll open the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone care to comment, question? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And this is a Type II Action. Okay. MR. BREWER-All we've got to do is make a motion, right? MR. PALING-Right. Lets go to a motion, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-95 Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who seconded by Roger Ruel: and include all of those. JOHN & DEBORAH SKINNER, moved for its adoption, With the following stipulations: that all setbacks will be met, and that the dimensions of the structure will be 40 by 24 feet, and the new height not to exceed 14 feet to the top of the railing, and that the new railing put on will be very similar to the existing railing, with spokes, and not solid, and that a new drawing be submitted with the application of the building permit. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-It's going to sit perpendicular to the shoreline? MRS. LABOMBARD-No, it's not perpendicular. MR. MACEWAN-That's what Staff recommended? MR. MATTHEWS-Perpendicular to the average shoreline. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. It should be, in order requirements of the Ordinance, he's going to have it's perpendicular to the average shoreline and lot. to meet the to turn it so centered on the AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 66-95 TYPE: UNLISTED AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXISTING BUILDING BY APPROXIMATELY 836 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO CO. PLANNING: 11/8/95 TAX MAP NO. JOHN MATTHEWS OWNER: SAME CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND INCREASE FLOOR SPACE OF SQ. FT. ALL LAND USES IN SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN 61-1-34 LOT SIZE: 1.76 - 19 - ',- ','" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JOHN MATTHEWS, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay, John, you're on. MR. GORALSKI-Unfortunately, I didn't have any written comments. All I can tell you is that it's a small addition on the rear of the parcel. The current drainage system is leaching catch basins, and the small amount of increased nonpermeable area should be handled by the existing drainage system. The parking is more than adequate. They used to have in excess of the required parking, and that's about it. MR. RUEL-I've got a question here. space of 3900 square foot building. building? It says, to in~re4$e floor Where's the 3900 square foot : ¡, ~ T " A! r ':, : MR. MATTHEWS-The multi angled building on the corner. MR. RUEL-4900, is that the same says 39. GOR'Ät;SKI-It ' , MR. should be 49. MR. PALING-What is the size of building? This says 4900. This . . . ., J' 'i I I, The pl~n så;s 49; j¿~n. '"" '>',. the existing b'ullding? MR. MATTHEWS-49. MR. PALING-Is it 49? Okay. MR. RUEL-Then it should be 49 instead of 39, right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-And then the rest of it's still the same. MR. RUEL-And you will increase it? MR. MATTHEWS-No. This is a reV1Slon to an existing site plan. I used the old plan, and I built that building five years ago. MR. RUEL-AII right, and the addition is 836 square feet? MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. RUEL-Where the arrow says proposed landscape area, existing parking relocated. Right? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-This must have been from the old plan, right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-This has nothing to do with it, proposed landscape area, existing parking, this should be out. MR. PALING-There should be a note that says what? MR. MATTHEWS-That this is a new addition. MR. PALING-Right, and the other doesn't apply right now. Right. MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's currently a landscaped area. MRS. LABOMBARD~The new addition, that will be the only thing that says 836? - 20 - ~ '--' '~, ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) MR. GORALSKI-Right. He used the old plan ,and never took that note off, that's all. MR. RUEL-All right. MR. PALING-Okay. this? Then can we go right to a public hearing on MR. OBERMAYER-I think so. MR. PALING-All right. I'll open the public hearing on this. Does anyone care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is Unlisted. So we'll need a SEQRA, Short Form. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 66-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before JOHN MATTHEWS, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the state Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, - 21 - --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-95 JOHN MATTHEWS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As written. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 MODIFICATION CROSS ROADS PARK OWNER: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: CROSS ROADS PARK, CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND BLIND ROCK ROAD. PROPOSAL IS FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS. SECTION A 183-13 F REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR ANY MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 46-2-9.4, 9.5 RICH SCHERMERHORN & LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from staff, Subdivision No. 21-1989, Cross Roads park, Meeting Date: November 21, 1995 "The applicant wishes to modify the existing subdivision approval so that 72 apartment units can be constructed in 10 buildings on 6 lots. It appears that these lots meet the requirements of the zonjng ordinance. There seems to be several engineering issues raised by Rist Frost Associates during their review of the site plan for lot 9 that actually relate to the subdivision as a whole. The letter from Haanen Engineering refers to the changes in the drainage plan for the subdivision. These changes must be shown on the plat that is signed by the Chairman and filed at the County. Finally, as is the case with any modification, the Board should consider whether the modification will result in a change to the previous SEQRA determination." MR. STEVES-I'm Leon Steves, from VanDusen and Steves. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, owner. MR. GORALSKI-Bill MacNamara is here, explain to you more what these issues entire subdivision. and he might be are, that relate able to to the BILL MACNAMARA MR. MACNAMARA-Greetings. I essentially started out with, the review was geared toward site plan review. We had been involved, to some degree in the summer, and earlier as it turns out, with subdivision modification, .and at the time we were looking at some drainage issues. So the actual concept site plan, in terms of department layouts, the first time we had seen it was last week. So we sort of started with a site plan and kind of brought us into a more general subdivision comments, but I understand our review was for the site plan, if that makes any sense to you, and I'll try to be as brief as I can, and T6m and I have gone over most, if not all, of these, as well as with Jim on some of the grading issues. MR. BREWER-Bill, are we going over the comments for the - 22 - --- --./ '-- ...- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) subdivision or the site plan, or is it a combination? MR. MACNAMARA-Well, that's kind of why I lead into that. MR. GORALSKI-What happened was, I,can take part qf the blame for it. We did not'sen'd the subdivisIon modificåtion to Rist-Frost because we thought it was simply a lot line adjustment. They previously reviewed the modification, when there was some changes to the road drainage, if you remember, I believe it was in August or September. While Rist-Frost was reviewing the site plan application, they realized that the lot lines were being adjusted. They called me and asked me about it. I sent them the proposed modification to the subdivision. At that time, a lot of issues regarding separation distances and leachfields and sewage disposal systems all came to the surface, and I know Bill and Tom have been working this week to try and iron those things out. So what happened was they were reviewing the site plan review and realized that there may be some complications with the rI;lqdi f iC(~tion to the subdivision. Is that any mor.e muddy? ¡.', MR. BREWER-Yes, becaUse We're going to do this modification, and thenwè're 90i\Î,9. to go rj.ght into the site plan~ ~; , MR. GO~ALSKI-Right~ Well~ you're only g6ing to do the site plan if you approve the modification for the subdivision. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, so that's the first thing. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. So that's what you're doing now. MR. BREWER-So it's just simply the lot line adjustments? MR. GORALSKI~Well, by doing these lot line adjustments, they're increasing the number of apartments, and thereby the amount of area for sewage disposal systems, the nonpermeable area that'll have to be accommodated with stormwater management, that type of thing. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. Generally speaking, our review is designed particularly in instances with a þroject of a similar scope, generally speaking to raise red flags, or our concerns, and not to say that they're insurmountable, or they may have already have been addressed, but what I'll generally talk about is items that ~ saw as potential issues that we're not yet comfortable with, and this may have been better to be done at the last go around, if you will, in terms of subdivision modification, but right, wrong or indifferent, we hadn't seen the plans. So at that point we believed it was simply kind of a drainage related change. In a nutshell, we had reviewed a subdivision for this project back in the 1990, '91 time frame for what I believe was called phase II. There was less density, if you will. In general, there was septic disposal on site that was about, somewhere around 25, 35 percent of what's being shown now in terms of total discharges, and again, I'm really addressing more of this toward all of the subdivision, versus the site plan. What it did is it tipped off a thought that, gee, there's quite a bit of septic here. I wonder if the Health Department needs to get involved. We pulled out the realty subdivision requirements, and it did tri~ a threshold, we believe, that the Health Department should have gotten into it and said, hey, is community sewer required? If not, lets issue a variance like they've done in plenty of instances before. Apparently, DOH has determined they don't need to do that with the sanitary. We still believe the threshold numbers are there for some kind of a purpose. I mean, they obviously, semantics aside, have some value or else they wouldn't be in there. So what I did today is ask, is that somethi ng ~ need to do in terms of address, or is that, I think Mark's probably looked at that. - 23 - -~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don't know how difficult, it is to follow through all this, but the issue that Bill's c0rrently referring to is whether we need to somehow, enforce what we perceive to be the Health Department requirements that should be imposed by that Department. I thi nk the answer is no. A couple of people spoke with Brian Fear, who is the Department of Health District Director, who as I understand it indicated that in his opinion the Department of Health did not have jurisdiction over this, and that being the case, then I don't think it's incumbent upon us to seek to enforce what we perceive to be a requirement., I did suggest, and I do suggest, that the Planning Staff simply write a letter to Brian Fear confirming that, so that some day, if this question ever arises, it'll be in somebody's records that Srian Fear was consulted and determined that there was no Health Department jurisdiction. MR. MACNAMARA-I agree, particularly because what Brian told me during my conversation with him, which was, for whatever reason, it's the way he explained it, he does want to look~t, I don't know if he told you this, Tom, or not, but he does want to look at the water supply, when I told him how many possible residents could be being served, and I said, have you seen it Brian, and he said, no, he hadn't seen it, and again, it's in the same Health Department SubSection where sewage and water supply, community systems, are reviewed, and he did say he needed to look at the water supply aspect, but it's apparently a commercial versus residential status on the sewage, and for whatever reason he doesn't need to get into it, and that's fine. I just didn't have the comfort level that maybe we need to do it as, because the numbers were there, and again, they're there for some purpose. MR. OBERMAYER-Doesn't the DOH need to grant an approval prior to a CO, though? MR. MACNAMARA-I don't know specifically. MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-What is the threshold number that kicks it into what your concerns are? MR. MACNAMARA-In this particular instance, it would be a possible total resident count of 200 or greater, and the one you may be familiar with is the number of subdivisions per lot. For instance, Hudson Pointe was g)"eater than 50 lots, and it had to go through this DOH variance procedure for on-site sewage. MR. MACEWAN-In this case it's just strictly potential number of residents? MR. MACNAMARA-Correct. MR. OBERMAYER-DOH has been consulted on this and they feel that there is. MR. MACNAMARA-That they don't need to get into it. MR. OBERMAYER-That there's no issue or don't want to get into it? MR. MACNAMARA-That they do not need to get into it. MR. MACEWAN-Is that something that would be more closely looked at, seeing as how they act as the local Board of Health? MR. SCHACHNER-Not to the exten~ that we're talking about a Health Department Regulation. I mean, I think the Town Board would - 24 - '-- ----' '''-"' -/ (Queensbury Plannin~ Board Meeting 11/21/95) likely take the same position that I'm suggesting, which is that it's up to the Department of Health to enforce their own regulation if they feel it's applicable. If that Department feels it's not applicable, I don't think it's incumbent upon any Board of the Town to enforce that. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. TOM NACE MR. NACE-Maybe to add, if I may, to add one little bit of clarification, for the record, my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. What the Department of Health normally looks at when they grant variances for the sewage requirement, the municipal or the community sewage system requirement of 50 lots, or 200 residents, they normally look to see, is there municipal water there. If there's municipal water, then, are the soils adequate to support septic systems. If that is the case, their history has been granting variances for the sewage. Their real concern is to make sure that you don't have small lots, high density of septic systems, and on-site water supplies that could be compromised by the septic. MR. MACEWAN-And you're saying that if the case had been served by a private well, it probably would have kicked it into, they would look harder at it. MR. NACE-At least if it had been a subdivision of 50 individual houses, they would take a very hard look at it if you had individual wells, and normally would not grant a variance. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, but you're not requesting anything from the DOH regarding a variance? MR. NACE-No. They have no jurisdiction in the matter on sewage. MR. MACEWAN-So for us, we just need to document that phone call, Mark, and have some sort of letter on file that says they have no problem with it? MR. GORALSKI-Right. I will write a letter to Brian Fear, stating that it's our understanding that our Consulting Engineer spoke with him on this date, and that we were told that he felt that he did not need to issue any type of permit or variance for this proposal. If he has a problem with that, please contact us. MR. OBERMAYER-How many of these are existing now? MR. NACE-These apartments? They're all proposed. MR. OBERMAYER-They're all new. Okay. MR. NACE-Actually, only Lot 9 is proposed in the site plan before you now, but the others are shown for later. MR. GORALSKI-Were there a couple of other issues? MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. Basically in terms of general drainage, a lot of this goes back to the fact that there is, to give you a magnitude of order, at least a kind of a general feeling for the septic for the lot we're talking about, essentially on nine acres. It's the parcel right across the street. I'm sure you guys have probably seen it. Somewhere around plus or minus the design flow of 18,000 gallons a day of sewage discharge, which in and of itself, depending on how much area is involved, is just another number of design flow, but the thing that has us thinking is that the change that we actually approved in the summer time changed the drainage concepts from retention basins, if you - 25 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) remember, albeit complicated, there were retention basins that were sort off and away, in many instances from the general area of where you'd have septic disposal, but what it's shaping up to be now is that all th~ stormwater disposal for the development is going to be brought right back into where the houses and septic systems are. So now you've got a pretty good density of septic going into the ground, and you've also got stormwater being put in the ground also. So we're trying to make sure that both work properly and one doesn't impact the other, if yOU will. So, anyway, we know that on a couple of previous occasions in previous years there's been some drainage issues across the street we've had to get into. So we know that it is possible for water not to quite run into the ground quite as quick as we might like it to over there. So we asked for some initial data for that, and I believe Tom has given, he just gave me something when I came in. So that's really what the second paragraph noted, but more importantly is that there needs to be a feeling of comfort, I guess, before everyone ki nd of buys into the layout as shoL'Jn. That all the septic fields that want to go over there can go over there, and so can all the on-site stormwater, with adequate separation between the two, so they'll function, so the stuff won't screw up. That's really what we're looking for, and that's some of the data that we had asked for. MR. MACEWAN-Have you run some numbers on that, to check it out yourself? MR. MACNAMARA-We've run some general numbers, but typically speaking, we don't get into the design aspects for projects that we review. MR. BREWER-Well, how will we know that it works or doesn't work if you don't review it? MR. MACNAMARA-I'm going to review it, but we've asked for some data from the applicant. Generally the applicants provide the data, the Town reviews it. MR. OBERMAYER-Have you reviewed the applicant's data? MR. MACNAMARA-No. He's given us some stuff this afternoon, that I have not had a chance to get into. I did look over it ,very briefly, and I think it's kind of a broad base. He applied some different volumes of waste and stormwater over the entire site. We may need to look at it more closely in terms of a drywell versus a septic field. The thing that's a little dicey here that you can show on one particular site that you have a septic and stormwater may be just great, but then when yoU put it all together, in point sources if you will on the lot, how's it going to work together. We're not saying it's not going to work, don't get me wrong. All I'm saying is we haven't quite got that comfort level yet. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. BREWER-So before we go on to the site plan, do you feel that we should get the data and 'maybe a model to show that it would work? If you remember a subdivision we talked about last month, we asked them to do that. MR. MACNAMARA-I guess I wish I were here for the subdivision. MR. GORALSKI-No. subdivision. That was two months ago, the Beeman MR. BREWER-Something similar to that. MR. OBERMAYER-To me it just seems like that Rist-Frost is not - 26 - ----- --" '- ...-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) comfortable, yet, with the information that you've provided, because you just provided it to them today. Maybe if you have a chance to digest it, it would make, I mean, it's very difficult for us to make any type of decision on the subdivision and the intensity of the use of this lot without you really reviewing the data. That's mz opinion. I could poll the Board, but that's the way 1 feel. MR. MACEWAN-I would rather, before I would lend an approval to this modification, I'd want to hear Rist-Frost's input regarding the data. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. That's mz feeling. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. NACE-Can we back up a second? MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. MR. NACE-Tim referred to requesting a model and Bill has been headed toward looking at ground water mounding as a concern under these septic systems and under the drywells. Groundwater mounding, if you really want to do an analysis that means anything, is a very, very complicated and very theoretical, very inexact science, and it's, foY either me to do it or for Bill to review it and understand it is something that, for the types of soils here and the densities we're talking about, it's the densities we're talking about here are what your Code permits in the MR-5 zone, okay. It's what the, when they re-zoned this area, what they thought was applicable for the existing conditions of the area. I have looked at it. I'm perfectly confident after looking at the numbers that because of the permeability and the depth of the soils, plus the fact that on the west end of the site we do have an outlet where groundwater can outlet to the stream, that the wetland, the little pond down there, that we're not in an area where there's lens of play or a bowl that retains groundwater, okay. We're in an area where there's an outlet available. As long as the permeability is adequate groundwater has somewhere to go. I took what I thought was a fairly conservative look at groundwater mottling today, or groundwater mounding, for the entire proposed subdivision, using the design flows for septic systems which are conservative, and the total amount of water put in this site over the period of a year, the whole year, for stormwater infiltration and the septics, amounts to about 28 inches of water, okay. With the permeability of that soil, 28 inches of water very easily moves through that I'm sure in a matter of a week, let alone a year. I looked at some other theoretical, very detailed groundwater mounding stuff that's available, and on similar sites, for actual tests done underneath infiltration basins and stormwater retention basins, with similar soils, 60 centimeters, which is I guess about two feet, a little more than two feet of water dissipated laterally within a period of five days, okay, to give you some general perspective. So I'm not sure that I'm convinced that we've got such a major problem here that warrants a very expensive, very detailed computer ßnalysis of groundwater. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't think anybody's asking for that. I think all we're asking for is Bill to review the data that you've submitted to him, because he hasn't had a chance to do that. MR. NACE-I no problem with that. MR. MACEWAN-If you feel comfortable with the data, your calculations, and Bill concurs with it, I don't think we have a problem. - 27 - '''-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) MR.OBERMAYER-Yes. I don't think so either. MR. MACEWAN-A couple of points that I'd like to bring up that concern me here, or questions I guess, is that even though you said that the density, or the Code allows that kind of density on that parcel of land doesn't necessarily mean that the soils would be able to handle that, that amount of discharge. As we've said, we've had some problems with ponding over there before, in that close vicinity. MR. NACE-I'm not familiar with your previous problems, but we have done, up in Lot 9 today, Leon's field crew did four percolation tests. They were all in the vicinity of one to one and three quarter minutes. MR. MACEWAN-Based on the fact that you gave this data to Bill late this afternoon, I would personally feel comfortable with him having the opportunity to review it. MR. NACE-I have no problem with that. I just don't want to get back into doing a very theoretical analysis. MR. MACEWAN-A question I think I would have of Staff is that I heard a comment, something about an option, correct me if I'm wrong, that potentially you could discharge water into the wetlands, stormwater into the wetlands? Did I pick up on that right, or did I miss it? MR. GORALSKI-I think we were getting into a very technical area there that, I'v,e ,got to,be honest with you, I didn't,und,erst,Qnd, and they can't discharge water into that p'ond . Tom was .tafki ng about groundwater movement. MR. NACE-I'm talking about groundwater movement. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I misunderstood you then. MR. MACNAMARA-To kind of clarify that, that brings up one of our concerns, is that if you look at the density of the leachfields behind the ~roperties on the west side, what Tom is saying is basically, when all else fails, if vertical isn't going to work, horizontal will work. It really goes to our concern about mounding and having water levels come up too close to where the leachfield bottoms are, and if the water levels there are too close, your pollutants do not get treated through the soil, they get in the groundwater and ¡,if it finds a gOOQ, gr ad,ient , and tlwre's a good gradient to that pond out back. that's ,really one of our ,cOnçe:r, n~""", Quite hooest,~ y, Tom, that's exact 1 y one of our ''': ·'i concerns. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Well, before we get into a each other, you submitted information to Bill. table this for a week, okay, and it'll give you the data that he just submitted. contest between Why don't v,¡e time to review MR. NACE-Before you table, why don't you go through the public hearing, since you've advertised it. MR. GORALSKI-There's no public hearing on the site plan modification. What you'd have to do is simply table the subdivision modification and go on to the site plan review. Personally, I don't think you can act on the site plan review, but since the public hearing was noticed, I would recommend that you open the public hearing, take any public hearing, and leave it open. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So for right now, until we'll table the subdivision modification next week, if that's okay with the - 28 - ~ '--' '-- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) applicant, give you guys time to work things out, and we'll move on to the site plan. We're just going to have the public hearing, because we advertised for it. MR. SCHACHNER-Just so the Board knows, you're not prohibited from having a public hearing on the modification. You generally don't because most modification proposals that face you are very, very minor. I'm not suggesting you should have a public hearing. I just want to make sure the Board recognizes that if you feel that a proposed modification is very significant or very material, you do have the right, under the Subdivision Regulations. to call for another public hearing. MR. OBERMAYER-But we didn't advertise for the public hearing on the subdivision, did we? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-When we open up the public meeting, we will listen to whatever anybody has to say. MR. SCHACHNER-And that's a good way to handle that. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. anything? Do we need to make a motion to table MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-AII right. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 21-19~9 CROSS ROADS PARK, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Until 11/28/95. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 67-95 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: LOT #9, CROSSROADS PARK PROPOSAL IS FOR AN 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON .98 ACRE SITE. ALL USES IN THE MR-5 ZONE ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 48-3- 34.1 LOT SIZE: .98 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 RICH SCHERMERHORN; LEON STEVES; TOM NACE PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 67-95, Richard P. Schermerhorn, Jr., Meeting Date: November 21. 1995 "The following comments are made in reference to the site plan review standards set forth in Section 179-38 E of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. The location, arrangement and size of the building appears to be compatible with the site. 2. The location, arrangement and number of parking spaces is appropriate for the use and for this specific site. 3. The adequacy of the proposed stoTmwater management system and the proposed sewage disposal will be reviewed by RFA. 4. The clearing along the north property line of this lot will virtually remove all of the vegetation on the lot. After the - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) slope is graded to accommodate the sewage disposal system, the slope should be revegetated so that a buffer of at least twenty feet is established along the property line. The buffer should be made up of conifers of sufficient size to provide an immediate screen." MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, owner. MR. STEVES-Leon Steves, VanDusen and Steves. MR. NACE-Tom Nace, Haanen Engineering. MR. GORALSKI-Warren County said open the public hearing, I have this afternoon. No County Impact, and when you a letter that was faxed to us MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Before we do that, maybe we could just talk about the vegetation along the north side. JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, Miller Associates. The second page shows the proposed site landscaping and in order to grade the rear of the lot to accommodate the leachfields, we have to grade back to approximately five feet from the Tear property line. Right now there's brush there, mostly grey stem dogwoods, and some mixed trees, and the other side of the property is Cedar Court. So there will be some vegetation there, not much, about five feet, plus there's some, Cedar Court is cleared from the other side up to also almost the property line. So there would be some hedgerow there. We had proposed screening along the east side, along the property line, where the existing vacant lot that's on the side facing the toward Bay Road, that would be screened with Pine trees and screen the area around the dumpster enclosure, to screen the parking lot frQ.m :t;.hat side, and I guess in reviewing Staff's comments 'about some additional conifers along the back, we would be willing to add some planting along that back slope there. MR. OBERMAYER-Any questions anybody? MR. MILLER-One thing I would suggest, one of the comments was made that a 20 foot buffer be provided. If you look at the grading there, we have a slope there that's about five feet high, and I would suggest that any of the evergreens that are planted along there be planted up at the top of the bank where they're going to do the most good. If we come down 20 feet, you're going to plant a Pine tree five feet high, and you've got a five foot bank behind it, it's going to have no impact. So I think it would be better to probably have the buffer on the top of that slope will have more impact for separating the two properties. MR. BREWER-What do you suggest that you would put for a width of a buffer? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I see what's Jim saying, and I that makes some sense. I think what we'd have to do is start at the top of that hill, and obviously stagger them. We're not going to put just a straight line of trees, but maybe if we stagger them, and I'm not sure, what he's saying is he's trying to get the most screening based on using the hill and the shrubs. So we have to, maybe Jim could propose some type of layout. MR. MILLER-But typically what we try to do in a site like that is use something native like white pines, and the other thing we try to do, rather than plant them in a row, like a hedge, to mix the sizes and plant them in groups, 'where you may have some that are five, six feet high, and then cluster several smaller ones around - 30 - ~ '- -~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21~95) it, so you have more of a natural effect, rather than it's a row of pi nes down the p)-operty Ii ne. So that would be ou)- recommendation. MR. BREWER-So essentially there's going to be a five foot buffer there? MR. MILLER-Well, what we've shown there on the grading plan is that we graded the site up to about five feet from the property line, so it's pretty dense brush there now. So anything that was within five feet of the property line would remain. So there would be some vegetation there, but you can see on Sheet One where the clearing on that bank would occur. MR. BREWER-What's on the other side of the property line, John? MR. GORALSKI-Probably about the same thing as on this side of the property line. MR. MILLER-It's about the same thing, and what's proposed, on the other side there's a clearing there. It's going to be the area where the tile field is going to be, the community sewage field, for Cedar Court is back there. So there's no buildings or anything proposed immediately behind this lot. MR. BREWER-So when you come back next week, can you show us what you might put there? MR. MILLER-Yes. We'll talk with John and work something out to his satisfaction. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Why don't we open up the public hearing then, and see if anybody has any comments. I'd like to open up the public hearing now, if anybody wishes to comment on this. PUBLIC HEA~ING OPENED JIM ROBERTS MR. ROBERTS-Good evening. My name is Jim Roberts. I'm a property owner at Cedar Court. In fact, my duplex is directly right behind the area in question. I think I have yet to see a site plan or whatever. Would it be possible to put one on the easel or whatever so we could take a look at that? MR. GORALSKI-I just want to show you, this is the lot they're talking about right now. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, that one lot right there. MR. GORALSKI-Although his proposal is to eventually develop the rest. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, and this is what he's proposing right now. MR. ROBERTS-Okay. One of my concerns is the buffer that is going to be between the two developments, and I don't know if anybody's been over by there on our side, in our development, but the central leachfield that was constructed for our development, I had a real problem with. They just raked every tree right off of there, and it's about the size of a football field, and from my back deck now, I have such noise from the cars going down Bay Road, I feel like I'm living on a median of the Northway, and when I heard that there was going to be a development of this size, I had some major concerns with how many units, and what I'm going to be looking at from the back of my property. When I moved in there, I've been there a year, it was very heavily vegetated. There was some huge white pine trees, and various - 31 - -----' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) other scrub pines and what have you, and I don't know who the gentleman is that was just talking about the landscape ~lans, and says that it was somewhat heavily buffered by trees or whatever. There's not many trees there, and I would appreciate, before you act and give approval on this entire project, that we do take a really good look to see just exactly how they're going to buffer this, because, personally, I'm very in tune with apartment complexes. I had one for 18 years. I had 111 apartments. I know how tough it is for people that own properties that abut and bound apartment complexes, and I was very concerned with what. I'm going to be looking at from the back of my deck, and that's probably all l.have to say. BILL BROWN MR. BROWN-I'm Bill Brown. I live on Cedar Court. I'm a new resident in Queensbury, just a few months. I didn't receive any written notification, but I can understand that. I, likewise, am very concerned about the buffer and the comments that we should have, or we may have, or we may have conifers, or we may have this. We're not sure what they're going to be, and how high is the bank, estimated numbers. Probably my biggest concern is the density and the overall plan, and the site disposal and storm runoff. That is all going to go into Halfway Brook, eventually, and that I would expect each one of you to really consider heavily what's going to happen there with that, because that's going to be the biggest impact on the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. Would anybody else like to comment? MR. GORALSKI-I have a letter. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. You might as well read it in now. MR. GORALSKI-This is to the Queensbury Planning Board from J. David Michaels, "Please take under consideration that we feel strongly that a mlnlmum 50 foot undisturbed buffer zone be required for the property immediately adjacent to Cedar Court community. This is very important to us to maintain reasonable privacy, and a true sense of community for both current and prospective Cedar Court homeowners. There cur~ently exists a very mature treed buffer which we hope will not be disturbed for the width of at least 50 feet. Sincerely, J. David Michaels" MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Would anybody else like to come up and comment? I'm going to leave the public hearing open until next week because we're going to be talking about this again after we have the subdivision. MR. GORALSKI-All right. I just want to clarify something. I'm not sure what body of water you were talking about, but Halfway Brook is significantly south of this. It runs through, down by Bay Meadows Golf Course and up through Hiland Park. I think you may be talking about the pond, and then the wetland that runs behind Cedar Court. Is that what you're talking about? Hunterbrook. Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Does that go into Glen Lake, Hunterbrook? MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe so. MR. BREWER-Can I ask the applicant a question? Is it possible, before next week, or maybe by Monday or something, you can flag where the end of the grade would be, in other words, up to where your property line is here? I have no idea where the property - 32 - ---- ----- '~- -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) line is. I just want to see where your going to end the vegetation. I'd like to go over there and just see where you're going to end the vegetation, see where it is. MR. GORALSKI-Stake out where the limit of clearing is. MR. NACE-And the property line. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-For the record, Rich Schermerhorn again. I appreciate the public's comments. I personally walked up there today for this reason. I knew all this was coming. I did have the property line flagged all through, all down through Cedar Court, where the new units that would be proposed. I'm as much concerned as you are about privacy and everything else in the back yards. Me being the owner of these apartments, I can control what goes on behind my apartments. As you know, there's a hom~owners association in Cedar Court. Each homeowner can choose to keep his own lines or whatever behind his house or whatever, but I think that, you know, the property line actually, we're not going to be clearing up to the property line. I'm going to, obviously, try and keep as much vegetation, and add more if we can, but I believe that Mr. Michaels, from the Michaels Group, may be someone that you may want to voice some of your concerns as well, because when I was up there today, they're putting a septic system in, and Mr. Roberts said it. They raked everything. I mean, it's a big wide open field, and their septic exposed, and there's no screening plan for them concerning !I!.:i.. property. MR. ROBERTS-Well, somebody had to have approved that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Well, it's all coming down on me now, but I'm just saying that if you walk and it's flagged, and you can go on my property if need be, they cleared right up to the property line. So it seems like the bulk of the responsibility is going to come back on me, but I'm willing to work with all the homeowners and stuff, because there are basically three buildings that I think that'll have immediate effect on the new buildings that will be going in behind me. I mean, I'm willing to work with the people, but I think you should voice some of your concerns to the Michaels Group as well, because they have cleared everything, I mean right up to the property line, and I'm not proposing to clear up to my property line. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Rich, if you can just prepare like your planting, like we had talked, to show what the buffer would be, that might address a lot of the neighbor's concerns. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-What the planting scheme is going to be. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Well, I can address Lot 9, which is what we're in here for site plan now. To say, to go and address the whole property line, Lot 9 is no problem at all. MR. BREWER-That is flagged right now? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The whole line is flagged. I had it flagged a couple of weeks ago. MR. BREWER-Can you flag where the end of the grade's going to be for the septic, just a few stakes, just so I can get an idea of what's going to be there and what is there. - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay, and just for the record, I have done no clearing, absolutely no clearing, and I don't intend to clear anymore, I mean, as little as possible. MR. OBERMAYER-When do you think that staking could be done, so that we could. MR. STARK-Make our plans to go look at it. We're not goIng to be able to look at it as a group, but we'd go up individually. MR. OBERMAYER-Could it be done by Friday? MR. MILLER-Yes. only to the back already. It's not going to be that much, property line, and property because, it's line's flagged MR. BREWER-The grade's going to be within five feet of the property line, is that what you're saying? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. BREWER-So then it's not necessary to stake it. property line's done, then. If the MR. MILLER-Whs.t we're doing, we came back to the what happens in our grading plan is the top of where our property ends, levels right off, and come about five feet in from the property line, down, grade the area for the septic. top of our bank, the bank, right we're going to and then grade MR. BREWER-So it's a couple of steps in from the property line flag, so I don't think it's necessary. MR. MILLER-And then when we grade, we'll put new plantings in. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So what to create a landscaping plan property lot, so that you can just for Lot 9. you're going to do is you're going for us for that lot, for the rear have it to us for the next meeting, MR. MACEWAN-Will it be delivered to us on Monday, so that we can have it to review it Monday? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. If they get it to me Monday morning, I can get i;t. to you dur i ng. t¡he, day Monday. MR. OBERMAYER-I think those are the real concerns of the neighbors, and of course the engineering concerns regarding subdivision, if you could address those. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a comment to make. I was a bit chagrined, here, because I'm sitting here thinking, what have I missed, how come I'm in the dark about the land being raked, and if Rich hadn't come back up here and said something, I mean, I was going to wait until everybody finished and finally say, who cleared all this land, and I just think that it was kind of fair in the beginning with the public comments to lead, I think I was mislead here to think that Mr. Schermerhorn cleared all the land, and he really didn't. Now when he comes back for his site plan, with the landscape plan here, obviously, it's only going to be on his property. So what's happened is, wouldn't it be yeTY nice to have double that amount on the Michaels' property. So j think, really, that YOU people, at Ced,ar COM,r,t have ô. l€f't~itimate ,reason to go to your bu.ilder and as,k hi~ to do his shaTe of i~, ,t90~ and then yoU-' 11 hav,e a nice buf,fer. I just, had to p,ut that in, because like I said, I felt some consternation about thii. MR. MACEWAN-But that's a different situation over there, isn't - 34 - '- ------ '--' --./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) it? I mean, those property, correct? you buy. duplexes are sold as individual parcels of That is not owned the Michaels Group, once MR. ROBERTS-That area is common area. MR. GORALSKI-There is an easement for a community sewage disposal system. That area was cleared, and it was built as it was approv.d by the Planning Board. MR. MACEWAN-Right. He didn't violate any zoning ordinances over there. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, but I know for a fact, I built four houses in this Town, well, three, and renovated one, and you don't need to clear out your entire lot to put up a septic system. MR. MILLER-That's a community system, though. So it's a large area. MR. OBERMAYER-But that's really not why we're here, to talk about that other subdivision. Lets talk about this site plan and keep it to that. I'd like to table it with the applicant's approval. MR. NACE-Sure. Are we sure we know, are there any other concerns we should be addressing? MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's the only concerns we have, as a Board. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I've just got one comment. I appreciate everybody's concerns, but the letter that the Michaels Group did write, really, I think is unfair, because they're leaving it up to me to leave the buffer 50 feet for everybody else, and they've already cleared up to your property line. MR. BREWER-We'll take that into consideration, Rich. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, and we're glad that you mentioned that, and that is for the record, and we'll take that into consideration. MR. MILLER-Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-Make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN JR., Introduced by Roger seconded by George Stark: NO. 67-95 RICHARD P. Ruel who moved for SCHERMERHORN. its adoption, Until 11/28/95. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling DISCUSSION ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 61-95 JOHN BROCK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: MOORING POST MARINA FOR SEQRA DISCUSSION ONLY. TAX MAP NO. 13-2-19, 21, 37 LOT SIZE: 3.386 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) MR. PALING-Just to repeat, we have a very important and sensitive issue before us. The decision has been made that the ZBA is the lead agency. There will be no comments, other than from the Board and from Staff, no comments, questions or anything from anyone except the Staff and the Board. I'm being brief now because I was at length before, and we are going to have a SEORA review and act as consultant or advisor to the Zoning Board of Appeals. They will do the SEQRA on November 29th. There will be a public hearing when they do the SEQRA. We will, if they pass this on to us in the form of having approved the variances, we will have a site plan review, at which time there will also be a public hearing, but tonight there is not. Now I'll ask, first, if there's any comments from the Board, and then gather them together, and then I think we should go over the SEORA form, and cover any questions and problems we may have. Now one other point. You were given a packet of letters tonight, which we haven't seen before and it's too big to read. So I'd ask everyone to review those during the week and we'll open it up for a very brief discussion again, Board and Staff, at the next meeting, but it should be limited to any comments or conclusions you've drawn afte)- having read these letters. I've got the same packet. I haven't seen them. MR. BREWER-Can I make a comment to that? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-I agree we maybe should go over the SEORA, and any personal comments that we have right now get out, but also I would think that we should have maybe a broader discussion next week after we have a chance to read the letters. I mean, how can we make comments on something that we haven't even read yet? MRS. LABOMBARD-I feel the same way Tim does. MR. BREWER-I don't see a lot of sense in discussing it tonight when we haven't read all the material that we have. MR. MACEWAN-I guess need to make comments review process? the question I would even have at all if we're not going to is why do we do the SEORA MR. BREWER-We're an involved agency. MR. MACEWAN-But we're not doing the SEQRA. MR. PALING-But you're still an involved agency, and we have made a commitment to pass on any, because the ZBA also feels a little bit clumsy in this situation, as we do, and we have consented, through me if you will, that we will pass on our comments and act as a consultant or an advisor. MR. MACEWAN-I think this particular application is a classic example as to why we shouldn't allow another Board to do a SEORA review process when they don't do the in-depth review that this Board does. MR. PALING-Craig, I don't think that's That's been decided, and we can discuss meeting, but lets stick to the subject. the subject that in a of this. separate MR. MACEWAN-The subject is, why should we even need to discuss the potential for a SEORA process, or review, when we're not going to do it? That's the crux of the thing right there. what's there for us to discuss? MR. STARK-I have a question, Bob. Why have any discussion tonight until we get a chance to review all the application, and - 36 - "'---' --- ~ '- (Queensbury Plannin~ Board Meeting 11/21/95) then we can do it next week. That's no problem next week. MR. GORALSKI-One thing I might caution you. You tabled three applications and asked them to come back next week. There's now at least 10 applications on your agenda for next week. What you may want to do is get through whatever information you have tonight and then add to that information next week. MR. RUEL-Also, if you do it next week, you won't really have any time to pass the information on to the ZBA, will you? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-The following day. MR. STARK-Well, Tim and Bob are going to that next Wednesday, and they'll be able to pass before that meeting starts. meeting the 29th, it on to the Z8A MR. OBERMAYER-Anybody can go. MR. PALING-Anybody can go. MR. RUEL-Well, do you want to talk about any of this paper work tonight? MR. BREWER-I don't. MR. PALING-Well, I think some of the Board feel that we should have the, well, the conversation is going to take place. The question is, should we do it partially tonight, and finish it next week, or should we put it all off and do it all next week, after having read these letters? MR. RUEL-Is there anything that we can really do tonight, that you know of? MR. PALING-Well, that depends. You can't answer that question until you go through the SEQRA and ask the questions and see what the comments are. MR. RUEL-Because this Project Information Part One, the part that was prepared by the project sponsor, I had a question on that, and on Page Three, Item 17. MR. STARK-Bob, do you want to Just go over the SEQRA and we'll try to answer some of it? MR. PALING-Yes. beginning. Jim, Lets try going through the SEQRA from if you would, would you just go through it? the MR. GORALSKI-I can. MR. PALING-Do you want to do it? MR. GORALSKI-If you'd like to. MR. PALING-All right. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't really know if that's our place to be going over, I mean, I don't want to disagree with the Chairman on this, but why are we going through the SEQRA? We're not the lead agent in this. MR. GORALSKI-Can I explain something to you? The Planning Board is an involved agency in the SEQRA review process. Just because you're not the lead agency does not mean you have no say in what goes on in the SEQRA review. You have a right, as an involved - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) agency, to make comments to the lead agency regarding the SECRA review. What we've tried to do here is give you an opportunity to go through each individual question on the Part Two of the EAF, so that you can give your input on each one of these issues. You certainly don't have to give input if you don't want to, but I think it would behoove you to give your input to the Zo,ning Board of Appeals, and I think they would appreciate your input. MR. MACEWAN-With every application that comes in front of this Board, that requires a SECRA review, we get, before, we even get to the SECRA, we get input from Staff. We get input from the applicant. We get input from the public. Therefore, when we go through our SECRA, we have all the information in front of us. We've heard it. We've seen it. We've had an opportunity to read it and review it. We've had engineering comments. We've also had legal comments. You're asking us to go through a SECRA form tonight, and we have not had an opportunity to for any of those comments. MR. PALING-I think you're missing the point. What you say, Craig, is right if we were doing the SEQRA, and we'd have to have a public hearing and all of that that's associated with it, but we've been given a set of plans~ We've talked about this,many times. We've all visited the Mooring Post many times, and I think you can comment on part of the SECRA. You'll come to a part you can't comment on without a public hearing. Skip it, and go to the part that vJe can comm~3nt on, but I thi nk you guys a1-e arguing against not doing the SECRA, but the fact that we're doing it at all, and that's a dead issue. MR. MACEWAN-That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is you can't give it a fair review to give an honest input to the ZBA because we haven't had an opportunity to review the materials or hear public input in order for us to give an answer to a reply to them on what we think may be a sticking point or may be a problem. MR. PALING-You're not what we're doing here. going to have a public hearing, not That's the way it's set up. for MR. MACEWAN-I'm talking engineering. I'm talking legal. I'm talking Staff comments, which is all a part of the infoTmation we take in when we do a SEORA review. MR. BREWER-The big comment or question to us is, do we have any comments pertaining to the SEQRA that we can give or pass on to the ZBA that might help them evaluate the SEORA? It's as simple as that. MR. STARK--Just read it. If we've got something we can't answer, we can't answer it. MR. BREWER-Your point is well taken, Craig. I don't know how we can thoroughly do that, as a Board, when we haven't read all the stuff, in !II.}:: opinion, the stuff we got tonight pertains to the SEORA because it's public comment to that project. I'd have no comments until I read that stuff right there. You guys may. That's fine. I don't have any problem with that, but I have no comment until I read everything I've got. MR. STARK-That's a valid point. MRS. LABOMBARD-It is. MR. STARK-And until we all read through everything, maybe we.can put it off, and I know there's 10 or 11, we'll be here until 12 o'clock next week, fine. We're here until 12 then. - 38 - '- ~ --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) MR. PALING-Well, I didn't know about the letters until yesterday morning, and if that's the general feeling of the Board, I can go along with that, that we'll have this exact same set of circumstances, except we will have had an opportunity to read and look at the letters again, look at the site and what not. MR. BREWER-Once we that's in front of position. have a chance to read all us, then we can comment on the information it. That's !!!y MR. OBERMAYER-The only reason we're going through the SEQRA steps is just to offer comments. MR. GORALSKI-Let me just go back and explain to you one more time. We made the suggestion that you go through the EAF and answer the questions as if you were doing the review because we thought that was the most efficient way for you to have input to the ZBA. If you have a different way to do it, if you guys just want to sit here and list a bunch of concerns, you can certainly do it that way. MR. PALING-Yes. I think that the SEQRA form is the best way to go, to start with, and then if there's comments beyond that, we should address them, too, but I think the SEQRA form is the best discipline to get us going. MR. OBERMAYER-Let me just say this. This is the first time that we've ever done this this way. Okay. MR. STARK-And the ZBA's never given us comments, too, because nothing's been as sensitive as this. MR. OBERMAYER-We've made general comments before on projects, but we've never gone through, line by line, of a SEQRA, okay, to make comments. MR. PALING-However, it's not unprecedented, but it is allowed. MR. BREWER-Why don't we just have a special workshop Monday night or something and just go through it and do it. Then we'd have the stuff prepared. MR. OBERMAYER-I think we could do it Tuesday night. MR. BREWER-It doesn't make any difference to me. MR. GORALSKI-If you want to do it Tuesday, fine. MR. PALING-The advertising might get in the way of that. MR. BREWER-We could do that in just a day, a press release, Bob. You can press release that in two days. MR. PALING-We're going to have an awful busy night a week from tonight. MR. GORALSKI-We'll just stay here until it's done. MR. BREWER-! don't think it's mean, I don't think we've got we just read the stuff and go done. going to be that big of a deal. I that many comments, but I think if through it next Tuesday, it'll be MR. STARK-I agree. MR. OBERMAYER-I agree, too. MR. RUEL-I'm thoroughly confused with the whole thing. - 39 - -' " (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) MRS. LABOMBARD-I think that Craig's point is well feel that I'd like to take a look at that stuff. going to be long next week. taken, and I I know it's MR. RUEL-What is all this information we're looking at anyway? MR. PALING-Letters. MRS. LABOMBARD-The thing is, if we're going to give, if we would like to give good recommendations or a little bit of input, I think to make it have any substance, we ought to read what's in there, first. I mean, I just talked to Fred, and Fred's read it all. He's here tonight, but he's read it all, Mr. Carvin. He's the Chairman of the ZBA. MR. GORALSKI-I can answer both of your questions and clarify what Cathy's saying. Your question, Roger, is does anyone know what's in there? What we did was today I finished a list of comments based on the EAF. That's in there. The other thing that's in there is every letter we've received regarding this project, We didn't get that to you before hand because we were still receiving letters. As of today, we were still receiving letters. The ZBA received their letters today. So they didn't receive it any earlier than you did. We just gave it to you tonight because you were having a meeting. They received it this afternoon probably around 4:30. So, all the information that was gathered is the most up to date information. If you want to take a week to review it, that's certainly fine. MR. PALING-I think the Board consensus seems to be that it would be better if we take a week to review it. So lets, we'll do it, and are there any other questions that we can settle? I'm going to suggest that we use the SEORA form to initiate it, for our first discussion, and then ask for any other comments or input on it, and then let it be, and use the minutes of the meeting or letter or whatever to transmit our feelings to the ZBA. MR. OBERMAYER-If that's the way you want to do it, Mr. Chairman, that's fine with me. MRS. LABOMBARD-If you think next week will go really late, until midnight, do you think we could move the time to start the meeting up? MR. OBERMAYER-I don't think this is going to take that long. MR. GORALSKI-You can't. It's already advertised. MR. RUEL-I have some questions on the material prepared by the project sponsor. Is that appropo here? MR. PALING-Sure, go ahead. MR. RUEL-AII right. On Page Three, it indicates, is served by existing public utilities, and it says, no. know where the public utilities come from. the site I want to MR. GORALSKI-Well, see, what I would recommend, okay, I can answer that question for you, and all things like that that are on the form are things you should point out to the Zoning Board of Appeals as the lead agent. Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. BREWER-Say, gee, guys, find this out. MR. GORALSKI-You should say to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I don't feel the answer to this question is accurate, and I want you to ask the applicant why not. I can tell you that the answer to the question should be that there is public utilities serving - 40 - ~ ~ -/ "-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) the site, that public utilities being electric, but there's on site gewage disposal, and the water is taken from the lake. MR. RUEL-And other things like, is the project an expansion, and it says not applicable, but actually it's expanding up, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-That's right. There's a court case that says that this is an expansion of a nonconforming use. Right. MR. RUEL-Footprint, maybe not, but it's an expansion. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. MR. RUEL-Okay. So that's another one. MR. GORALSKI-That's another thing that should be pointed out to the Zoning Board. MR. PALING-This is what we were going to do tonight, but I think we better not get into it, because we've decided to do it next week. MR. MACEWAN-Just everything that's within this packet will answer any and all questions we have regarding engineering, public comment? MR. GORALSKI-I'm not saying it will answer it. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, is this plan that's in this packet the plan he plans on proceeding, should he get to the Planning Board? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. That's the plan that's been submitted for the site plan review for the variances, along with all the letters, and now you have my comments regarding the EAF. MR. BREWER-It's a memoir of the Mooring Post. MR. RUEL-So you don't want to discuss this. Is that it? MR. PALING-Not if we're going to do the whole thing, I think the Board has asked for an opportunity to read the letters and to get the comments, and then do what you're doing right now. All right. Now what do we have to do with this as an agenda item. MR. GORALSKI-Nothing. You can just consider it as any additional information. MR. PALING-All right. It'll be re-opened under the same conditions of communication between the Board and Staff only, next week, as the last item on the agenda. Okay. I've got three other miscellaneous items. In December, our normal meeting is the day after Christmas. We can, if you wish, change that. There is time to change that to Dece~ber 28th, if the Board would like. MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's all right. MR. MACEWAN-That sounds appropriate. MR. PALING-Okay. will be Saturday, visi ts. All right. and we'll Then the meetings tell you, Saturday during December the 16th, site MR. BREWER-Why don't we do that next week, Bob, after the last meeting, set site visits. MR. PALING-I'm just telling you, tentatively, right now, and then the meetings will be the 19th and the 28th, rather than the 26th. - 41 - '''~"1- -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/9~)' All right. The letter that we all signed in regard to materials in curbing, that's gone through, and I expect that we'll here something from that within a few weeks. lets say as written. MR. RUEL-Where did you send it, the Town Board? MR. PALING-Yes, well, Fred Champagne, and it's back Martin's hands, and I think we'll see something before Board, like in January. in Jim the Town MR. RUEL-Would they have to modify an existing Ordinance, Code? MR. PALING-Sure. MR. MACEWAN-Did you send that to the Town Board? MR. PALING-Well, no. It's the letter about curbing material and drive aisle space, and in a meeting we had yesterday morning, Jim says he's picking it up and he'll have something, as I understand, for the Town Board to look at in January. MR. RUEL-As a Planning Board representative on the Master Plan, CLUP, they will be discussing new modifications. MR. PALING-I hope you'll bring that letter to them. MR. RUEL-Yes. That should be included. MR. PALING-Bring it to them. It's been signed by everybody on this Board. Okay. Does everyone know about the renovation to Aviation Road, from Burke to West Mountain? Are you aware of that? John, do you want to comment on the renovation of Aviation Road from Burke to West Mountain? It's upon us. MR. GORALSKI-From Burke to West Mountain. There was an RFP. I believe it was sent out, requesting design firms who were interested to submit proposals. The state, as you know, is going to be widening the bridge over the Northway, and that widening will go UP to the school property. The Town, now, is getting proposals for feasibility studies for doing improvements to Aviation Road from Burke Drive, or the school property, all the way up to West Mountain Road. That's about all I can tell you. It's a feasibility study to do things like widening the road, providing the bike trails that you read about in the paper, possibly re-aligning the intersection with Dixon Road, all those things would be included. MR. MACEWAN-Will that meeting in December? Northway? be Will a topic of discussion at that DOT they be talking about that plus the MR. GORALSKI-The DOT meeting in December is specifically related to the bridge, but this is being done in conjunction with that. The Town feels that this is a good op~ortunity to look into improvements to Aviation Road, given the significant amount of residential development that's taking place on Aviation Road. MR. MACEWAN-That meeting is still on for, what is it, the fifth of December? MR. GORALSKI-The DOT meeting? Yes. Absolutely. MR. PALING-Okay. The only other item I have is in regard to the election of officers for 1996. It appears that the only way that we can get a full Board here is to have the election in December. We've asked Mark Schachner to look it up to see if we could do it if we want to. He'll come back with an answer for us, and then it's up to the Board to decide when we have the election, if we - 42 - '- '--'"' '--- ..,.../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) can change it. MR. BREWER~I think it says in our rules and regulations, or whatever, we do it the first organizational meeting in January. MR. PALING-Yes, but remember, it says that, but don't forget last year we didn't do it in January, regardless of what it says. It was Fèbruary. MR. BREWER-We started in January. MR. PALING-Yes. Well, personally, I think it should be changed. I don't think it should be in January anyway. Everything starts on January 1. All of our offices start, I mean, as members, start the first of the year. Why should it start in a weird time in February? Why shouldn't it be in the calendar year. MR. RUEL-It should be. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. It should be started off right, the first of January. MR. PALING-Any other comments? MR. MACEWAN-The only other comment that I have is, man, I didn't get any Staff notes, other than two projects, tonight. Could you please tell me why? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Because we are down one Staff person, and I am doing the best I can to keep up with it, but I'm not. MR. MACEWAN-I do know a service in Town you could call and probably get a temp. MR. GORALSKI-A temporary Planner? MR. MACEWAN-Sure. MR. PALING-John, what's the status of a new person coming aboard? MR. GORALSKI-The Town Board interviewed one person today. They will be interviewing another person tomorrow, and then the other person is coming in from, I believe, Kansas, and won't be here until the first or second week in December. MR. BREWER-I've got one other item that I'd like to mention. Signs that depict where our site visits are, people are not using them. I don't know if you're still giving them out. MR. MACEWAN-I haven't seen one of those signs in I'll bet you four months. MR. BREWER-Exactly. That's my point. Why don't people use them? If people don't use them, we ought to just tell them, hey, you can't put the sign up, we don't want to hear your application. MR. MACEWAN-I had a tough time finding one of them there for next week, up on Assembly Point, the guy that wants to replace the old dock. MR. OBERMAYER-I agree. I mean, it was tough to find places. MR. PALING-Especially in Lake George. MR. BREWER-Why don't we make some kind of a letter saying, gee, help us out a little bit, put them up. Can we do that? MR. GORALSKI-There's instructions that go out to the applicant - 43 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/95) telling them to post the sign. MR. MACEWAN-You very simply put in there, if your property cannot be located, it may delay your review process. It's as simple as that. MR. GORALSKI-Sure. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Are we going to talk about the election at all? MR. PALING-Next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 44 -