Loading...
1996-06-18 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 1996 INDEX MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 148-1-2.1 Hudson Pointe PUD 5. Subdivision No. 5-1993 MODIFICATION John Polk, Jr. Tax Map No. 6-3-1.1, 1.2 10. Site Plan No. 23-96 Tax Map No. 7-1-8 Ian Hurst 11. Site Plan No. 24-96 Tax Map No. 3-1-14 Mark Handelman 13. Site Plan No. 27-96 Tax Map No. 6-3-21 Michael Grasso 15. Site Plan No. 26-96 Tax Map No. 16-1-28 Louie & Christie Lecce 17. ---- SUBDIVISION REQUEST DISCUSSION ITEM Curtis Lumber Retail Store 40. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. "-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK DAVID WEST TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT ROGER RUEL PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI --- CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 19, 1996: NONE March 26, 1996: NONE April 16, 1996: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 1996, MARCH 26, 1996, AND APRIL 16, 1996 AS WRITTEN, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MRS. LABOMBARD-There are a couple of resolutions here that George will give us more information on. RESOLUTIONS: SUB. # 3-1996 BERKSHIRE - QUEENS BURY L.L.C. RESOLUTION TO WAIVE SKETCH PLAN SP # 8-96 BERKSHIRE - QUEENS BURY L.L.C RESOLUTION TO REVISE SQ. FT. OF DOCTOR'S OFFICE BLDG. MR. HILTON-Okay. First of all, the agent for the applicant for an item we had, I think last month, Berkshire L.L.C., they're proposing a CVS Pharmacy out on Western and Main Street. They had contacted us and asked us, first of all, to revise the resolution approving the Preliminary Subdivision. They felt that the Board did not properly waive the need for Sketch Plan, but in reviewing the resolution, which I believe you have in front of you, it appears to me that the Board properly took care of that, in that the Sketch Plan requirement was waived. So, as far as I'm concerned, that's really nothing that we have to concern ourselves with this evening. However, the second one has also been requested by the applicant's agent. In the motion to approve the Site Plan - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) for the CVS and Doctor's office. The Board stated two figures, 8700 square foot CVS and adjacent 6,000 square foot Doctor's office building. However, the site plan that was filed and reviewed by the Planning Board actually had a total of 8775 square feet for the cvs and a total of 6634 square feet for the Doctor's office and future tenant space, within this shopping center. So, where we're at right now is the applicant is requesting that the Board revise their motion, modify it to include the figures that I just gave you. MR. PALING-Okay. I don't see any objection to that. Does anyone on the Board have an objection to that? MR. STARK-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. PALING-All right. Then I'll entertain a motion to modify the previous motion. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Can we modify it, or should we rescind it and do ~new one? MR. HILTON-No. I think you can modify, because you did that with the Sketch Plan phase. So you can just modify this. MR. STARK-And whoever makes the motion has got to include about the no significant environmental, you know, SEQRA. MR. PALING-That's already done, isn't it? MR. STARK-No, no. I know, but we've got to include that wording. Mark can tell you. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. George's point is exactly correct. Any time there's a modification, you should state, if this is how you feel, that it is not a material modification and therefore it does not require any additional SEQRA review. Thank you, George. MR. PALING-All right. MOTION TO MODIFY SITE PLAN NO. 8-96 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION PLAN FROM 8700 SQUARE FOOT FOR THE CVS TO 8,775, AND THE ORIGINAL OF 6,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE TO THE NOW 6,634 SQUARE FEET, AND THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS A RESULT OF THIS, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. That takes care of those two. Now, George? MR. HILTON-Also, before we begin our Old Business, you have before you, I believe, a letter that I've handed out from a Mr. Frank A. Adamo. MR. PALING-Adamo. That's just what we were going to do. - 2 - - ',-, - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. HILTON-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you want me to read it? MR. PALING-Sure. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. This is to Mr. Paling. "Dear Mr. Paling: On July 18, 1995 I received approval from your Board for a site plan review for my camp on Assembly Point. I believe the matter was number 30-95. Due to some unforeseen circumstances, I have been unable to begin my project. I, therefore, would appreciate if you could give me a one year extension to complete my plans and acquire the necessary permits, etc. Thank you for your and the Boa;rd's consideration of my request. Very truly yours, Frank A. Adamo, Jr." MR. PALING-Anybody have any comment or question about that? I remember. I don't have any problem with it myself, unless someone else would. Okay. Do we have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE THE ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 38-95 FRANK ADAMO, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: / To June 30, 1997. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MRS. LABOMBARD-Wait a second. I want to take my vote back. Is that possible? I was thinking it was some other one, the site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Which one, the one you just extended? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I wish I hadn't even made the approval for the extension. I was thinking it was something else. I didn't read the second paragraph here. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you could make a motion to rescind your previous motion. You made the motion, right? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I had another vision of another project in my mind. Now I know exactly which one it is, and I was so adamantly opposed to this. MR. BREWER-What one is it, Cathy? Because I also voted no. MRS. LABOMBARD-That was the one with the addition. MR. MACEWAN-With the view to the north. MR. STARK-The garage was underneath the house, Tim. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. It was very nonconforming. MR. STARK-They were 10 feet from the road. MR. BREWER-Is that the one where the Carte brothers? MRS. LABOMBARD-And there was no way to get in for a septic field if there should be any trouble. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. STARK-He had to use a Bobcat to get in, and all that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, first off, Cathy, if you're the person who made the motion to approve and you wish to re-think that, then I think it would be appropriate for somebody to make a motion to rescind the resolution just adopted, if somebody feels inclined to do that. You don't have to. MRS. LABOMBARD-I can't make the motion. MR. SCHACHNER-You could make the motion to rescind. MOTION TO RESCIND THE MOTION THAT I JUST MADE A RESOLUTION FOR, SITE PLAN NO. 38-95 FRANK ADAMO, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Paling ~ ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-It's rescinded. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now, I am not going to make a motion to approve that site plan extension. MR. BREWER-I feel nuts about this, too, because now that I recall the same thing, I feel the same way Cathy does. MR. PALING-All right. Let me ask a question. If his request is turned down, then at the end of the year, his permission expires. That's all there is to it. MR. MACEWAN-Not at the end of the year. MR. PALING-Excuse me. period, that he has. I'm sorry. Yes, at the end of the year Now, what alternatives does he have? MR. BREWER-He can re-apply. MR. PALING-He can re-apply and ask for reconsideration. MR. MACEWAN-He'd have to go through the whole site plan approval. MR. HILTON-He'd have to go through another site plan application before the Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Once the year has expired, correct. MR. STARK-George, if he applies for building permit before July 25th and gets it, then he doesn't need the extension, correct? MR. HILTON-Assuming, yes, he'd be okay. deadline. He would have met the MR. PALING-Well, if I voted okay for it then, I'm not going to vote against an extension. I know that. That doesn't seem logical. MR. BREWER-I'm confused a little bit. We gave him an extension on this once? MR. PALING-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. - 4 - '-- ',,-- >~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. BREWER-All right. MR. PALING-He's asking for one for the first time. MRS. LABOMBARD-All the neighbors were there. nonconforming. It was very MR. PALING-Well, I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN NO. 38-95 FRANK ADAMO, JR., Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Extending it to June 30, 1997. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Ruel - MR. PALING-What did we have? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the total was three, three. MR. STARK-It didn't pass. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. PALING-So that's no action. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. No action means that as we sit here at this time, the site plan review, under Section 179-36 of the Zoning Ordinance, a site plan review decision will expire at the end of the year since it was granted. MR. PALING-All right. Then that's finished. All right. OLD BUSINESS: MODIFICATION HUDSON POINT PUD PROPOSAL IS TO MODIFY THE EXISTING P.U.D. TO INCLUDE THE PARCEL (TAX MAP # 148-1-2.1) AS PART OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA. ALAN OPPENHEIM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. Is someone here to represent? Okay. forward, please, and identify yourself for the record. Come MR. OPPENHEIM-Okay. I am Alan Oppenheim. The Company name is ACO Property Advisors. I'm here on behalf of the Niagara Mohawk Real Estate Subsidiary that is submitting the application. MR. PALING-I'm confused on this whole thing, and George has tried to straighten me out, but hasn't been successful. How much commercial property was approved prior to tonight for this P.U.D.? MR. OPPENHEIM-Well, let me start by asking, was the correspondence that was sent to Mr. Champagne? Do you all have a copy of that? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. OPPENHEIM-Okay. attachment? So you have a copy of the letter and the MR. MACEWAN-I do, anyway. - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. PALING-Yes, I do. MR. OPPENHEIM-Basically, if you look at the attached map, and I don't know if the copy that you have, the lots that are identified as Lots 97 and 98. MR. PALING-Yes, in Parcel A. MR. OPPENHEIM-Well, let me just start by saying that Lots 97 and 98 that you see on your maps have been approved as part of the original Hudson Pointe project, for future commercial use. MR. PALING- I'm having a difficult time remembering them l:>eing approved as separate lots. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I remember that. MR. MACEWAN-That's where the proposed convenient store was talking about being, in that area. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. PALING-But not on two lots, on one lot. --- MR. MACEWAN-One lot. MR. PALING-Okay. Now there's a third guy that remembers like I do. George, Craig and myself remember one lot. Now, why have we got this mental block, if the records say we approve two lots? MR. MACEWAN-The two commercial lots that we approved with the P.U.D. was for the proposed convenient store area and the Day Care Center area, within the P.U.D. MR. PALING-On one lot? MR. MACEWAN-No, they were two separate lots. MRS. LABOMBARD-The Day Care Center was in a different location. MR. OPPENHEIM-A different location. MR. HILTON-I'm not sure what happened at the Planning Board at the time of the Hudson pointe P.U.D. being reviewed by this Board. However, after talking to Jim this afternoon, Jim Martin informed me that the Town Board, at least, approved the overall P.U.D. plan with these two commercial lots as shown. MR. PALING-Okay. I think I see what my problem has been. We did approve this. One was for a Day Care Center, and the other lot was to have a convenience, grocery or whatever on it. MR. OPPENHEIM-Okay. The area, and I don't have with me the full Hudson Pointe project plan, but if you see here, this is the Day Care Center location. I don't know how many of you have been out to the site. That's in the core part of the site. MRS. LABOMBARD-That one, at least, was on the plan that we approved last time. That was on the recreation center. MR. OPPENHEIM-Right. I know that, and I'm sure that Jim Miller. Now, this here, okay, this is the area, and, I mean, these are, if you look at the file and recorded plat, these two lots, and if you even read through the P.U.D. legislation, it's very clear that these two lots were approved for future commercial use. MR. PALING-Where I am straightened out now, but was confused, is that the Day Care Center is a separate piece of property from the - 6 - ~~ -.,..'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) rest. MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes, that is correct. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Was that road in there when we approved it originally? MR. OPPENHEIM-No. This road is just a paper street. MRS. LABOMBARD-A future road. MR. OPPENHEIM-Exactly. MR. PALING-I see. I understand now. Okay. MR. OPPENHEIM-Now, I think it would be helpful, and I was before this Board, back in August of '95, I'll try and give you a quick evolution of what ~ went through with the Town Board, which could explain why I'm back here today. I was back here with the same proposal, which was specifically ,to the lot that's identified on this plan in front of you, Parcel A, we were seeking a re-zoning of that lot to, for lack of a better term, neighborhood business use, commercial use, subject to the same restrictions as lots 97 and 98, but we were attempting to seek approval of Parcel A as a stand alone. At that point in time, we didn't want to connect that directly to the Hudson pointe approval, and probably the reason for that was we spent a lot of time procuring the Hudson pointe approval process. We just wanted to keep it separate, okay. We were before the Board, before the Town, or the Planning Board gave us a positive recommendation, favorable recommendation to move on to the Town Board. During the Town Board approval process, we had fairly lengthy discussions with members of the Town Board as well as some concerned neighbors. One of the critical issues, the reason that we are back here is that certain members of the Town Board felt strongly, given the location of this parcel, Parcel A, and given the type of approval that we were seeking, that that particular parcel, or the approval for anything there, should be directly tied to the approval for lots 97 and 98. So what they said to us is, instead of seeking a zone change specific to Parcel A, we would like you to seek a minor amendment to the Hudson Pointe project approvals, specific to these lots, and that is essentially why we are back here before the Planning Board. We went through the Planning Board. We went back to, you know, to the County and everything, received favorable approvals on all of those, but basically we're here seeking the same type of favorable endorsement, I think only we're looking to package ita bit differently, based upon the judgements of the Town Board. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we realize, this is a recommendation only that we'll be making tonight, and it's my fault, but we're getting a little bit out of order. George, you want to give Staff Comments on this. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Hudson Pointe PUD (Modification), Alan Oppenheim/ACO Property Advisors, Meeting Date: June 18, 1996 "The applicants are proposing to incorporate two lots located at the corner of Corinth Road and a future unnamed public street within the Hudson Pointe PUD. The first lot located on the north side of the public street will be incorporated into an adjacent planned commercial lot. The lot on the south side of the street will be incorporated into the PUD as an area of green space. Staff foresees no negative impacts associated with this modification to the overall Hudson pointe POD." - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. HILTON-The Town Board will be looking at this, presumably at a public hearing, to consider this addition modification into the POD. It seems that, with the possibility of some screening and some buffering to the property to the north, this doesn't appear to be a big problem, adding this lot into the POD. I foresee no negative impacts if screening or buffering takes place, and again, the Town Board will review this at a public hearing and discuss this issue. MR. PALING- Is there any limitation on the commercial property, percentage wise, within a POD? MR. HILTON-Within a POD, the limitations of the commercial property are all established within the POD agreement, and I believe that there's something in the agreement right now that dictates the development conditions for these two existing lots. It's likely that they will also be passed on to this third lot, if approved. MR. STARK-Do you want to make a motion, then, to recommend approval with appropriate screening and buffering. MR. MACEWAN - I recommendation. need to be clear on this. This is for a modification. This isn't for a ---- MR. HILTON-It's a modification, but from this Board this evening, it's only a recommendation. The Town Board will review it and make an official decision, at their meeting. TIM BREWER MR. BREWER-For the record, I'm Tim Brewer. I know exactly what he's trying to do, but if the agenda says it's a modification, and you can't get any legal advice on this right now, but how can they incorporate a separate parcel into a POD? This Board really can't do that. MR. STARK-We're not doing it. We're making a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. PALING-It's strictly a recommendation. The Town Board has to act on it. That's all this is. MR. OPPENHEIM-We have to go through the Town Board process. MR. BREWER-So it would be similar to the recommendation that you made for the POD, per se? MR. PALING-Yes, that's all it is. MR. OPPENHEIM-Absolutely. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then the agenda's just wrong. MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes. That's correct. MR. PALING-All right. Now, there's not a public hearing or meeting, but Tim spoke. Is there anyone else that wanted to speak to this subject. I'll let them just speak, although the real podium is with the Town Board, not here. Okay. We'll continue. All right. Is there any other comments or questions by the Board? MR. MACEWAN-I just want to be clear on this. This parcel is just going to be part of the Homeowners Association green space, but will be taken care of, caretaker wise, by whoever owns that parcel, Lot 98? ' MR. OPPENHEIM-Okay. Now, let me just step back and when we look at this map, what we're proposing to do is incorporate the parcel - 8 - ----- - (QueensburyPlanning Board Meeting 6/18/96) labeled as Parcel A into Lot 97. That will increase the size of the existing approved commercial lot, the 1.37 acres to 2.37 acres. That's one request. The other request is, you see another parcel labeled as HOA green space. MR. MACEWAN-The triangular piece. MR. OPPENHEIM-The triangular piece. What we're proposing there is not to change the use, because that's clearly been labeled as green space. What we're proposing there is strictly to change the ownership, because in terms of stewardship of that particular piece of land, it makes a lot more sense for the owner of Lot 97 to be responsible for that stewardship than the Hudson Pointe· HOA, because that piece is clearly segmented from those HOA lands of the Hudson Pointe proper. MR. MACEWAN-So there'd be language specifically saying that that parcel can never be developed as (lost word) green space? MR. OPPENHEIM-Absolutely. Our proposal is definitely not to change the new stuff. I mean, that's been approved for green space, and that's not the intent of that. ~ MR. PALING-And you're making the businesses in Lot 98 maintain that? MR. OPPENHEIM-Essentially, that would become part of their ownership. Okay. They would own that, but it would be dictated. MR. PALING-That they couldn't use it. MR. OPPENHEIM-Exactly. I mean, they can't use it from the standpoint of development. MR. PALING-Now it's my understanding that Mr. Paul has not been contacted at all about this matter yet? MR. OPPENHEIM-Mr. Paul, he actually, that particular piece, he no longer owns that. That is owned by the party that I represent. That is owned by Niagara Mohawk's Real Estate Subsidiary. MR. PALING-So that's NiMo now. MR. OPPENHEIM-That's correct. MR. PALING-So then they would sell it, or turn it over, which? MR. OPPENHEIM-Well, the intent here really is, at the time that users are identified for Lots 97 and 98, what's here identified as "Lands of Paul" will be incorporated into 97, and those lands will be sold to the specific user. MR. PALING-I think we have to recognize that if we recommend this, that we are approving less than a third more commercial space for this POD. In other words, you've got Lots 97 and 98 now that can go to commercial, and they total some 2.67 acres, and you're adding another acre or more than can be used for commercial business. MR. BREWER-Can I ask one more question, Bob? What's the zone of this Parcel A right now? MR. OPPENHEIM-It's an SFR-1A. MR. BREWER-So, you have to consider that that's residential, and essentially what you're doing, if you make a recommendation, you're going to change it from residential to commercial. MR. PALING-That's right. - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. HILTON-The zoning's going to be POD. MR. PALING-But within the POD, it's going to be a commercial land use. So you have to consider that, but, you know, in terms of actual zoning designation, it's going to be POD. MR. BREWER-The bottom line, when they did the PUD, that was a residential zone. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have any more? Okay. Is there any particular reason that this lagged everything? Why is it being brought up at this time, I guess. Why wasn't it brought in before and do the whole three lots at one time? MR. OPPENHEIM-There's a whole history to this. piece wasn't owned, up until about a year ago. That particular MR. PALING-It was owned by Mr. Paul or somebody? MR. OPPENHEIM-Exactly, and I think the history to this is, this whole idea in this area was commercial use, and the neighborhood commercial concept. That's part of the original Hudson pointe plan, which the Queensbury Planning Department, I mean, that~was really part of their recommendation, as part of the POD rules. So when we secured approvals for these two lots, to make it a more usable commercial area, it was felt that it was necessary to acquire this additional piece, "Lands of Paul", which wasn't done until approximately a year ago, and that's the reason why there's the lag. MR. PALING-We wrestled a bit with the amount of commercial land that would be part of this POD, as I recall. We had some question about how much it should be and the different types of stores or businesses that you could have there, and we finally ended up with this, and now I know the two lot thing, and now we're adding a little less than a third more to that, but I guess there's no limitation or percentage within a POD we have to go by, in so far as commercial property is concerned. MR. HILTON-No, there's no limitation, only what the Town Board decides upon. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I'm kind of lost. What are we getting hung up on here? I makes sense to do it. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. Well, if the discussion's done, we'll entertain a motion to make a recommendation. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY RE-ZONE IT AS OUTLINED ALAN'S LETTER OF MAY 8TH REQUEST FOR THE ADDITION OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OF PAUL TO GO WITH LOT 97, AS PART OF LOT 97 AND THE HUDSON POINTE GREEN SPACE BE JOINED TO LOT 98., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel ~lp b/~ SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1993 MODIFICATION JOHN POLK, JR. OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF ASSEMBLY PT. ON EAST SIDE OF CANAL BAY, HARRIS BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. SECTION A183-13F REQUIRES - 10 - ----.. - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 6-3-1.1, 1.2 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1993, John Polk, Jr., Meeting Date: June 18, 1996 "The applicant is proposing modification of a previously approved subdivision of land located at Canal Bay on Assembly Point Road. The subdivision would be modified so that the lake frontage of Lot 1 would be increased by 60 feet. The· lot areas that would result from this modification would comply with the requirements of the WR-1A zoning district. This modification will not effect the setbacks of existing buildings on either lot. Staff would recommend approval of the modification to Subdivision No. 5-1993." MR. HILTON-The previous subdivision was for two lots. This modification before you just changes the actual line dividing the two lots. .--- MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves, from VanDusen and Steves. George said it all. MR. PALING-I have one question. Would you please just draw a line, roughly, where the old border was. Okay. That was the only question I had. That looks fine. MR. WEST-Why are you making the change? Why are you changing the division? MR. STEVES-The owner told me he needed more room on Lot 1, more shorefront on Lot 1. He's got so much on Lot 2 that it didn't bother him one bit. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, lets see. associated with this. There's a public hearing MRS. LABOMBARD-There was one in 1993. MR. PAL ING- I'm sorry. There was one. SEQRA. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. No public hearing. No MOTION FOR MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1993 JOHN POLK, JR., Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Lot line adjustment, also that there's no significant environmental concerns related to this. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 23-96 TYPE II IAN HURST OWNER: CAROL S. HURST ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A., APA LOCATION: KNOX RD., OFF ASSEMBLY PT. RD., NINTH HOUSE ON LEFT AFTER TURN ONTO KNOX RD. APPLICANT - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SEASONAL CAMP. PER SECTION 179-79 SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 32-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-8 LOT SIZE: .23 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-96, Ian Hurst, Meeting Date: June 18, 1996 "The applicant is seeking approval of a site pla'Tl to construct a 476 sq. ft. addition to an existing home on Knox Road. The applicant has received the appropriate setback variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for this project. Staff anticipates no problems with this construction and would recommend approval of Site Plan No. 23-96 with the stipulation that some method of storm water retention be shown on any plan submitted for a building permit." MR. HURST-My name is Ian Hurst, and I'm the agent for the owner, Carol Hurst. ~ MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Are there any comments or questions for the moment? MR. HILTON-I have another comment.' I have some Warren County business. They acted on this action. On the June 12, 1996 meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, this item was reviewed, and the recommendation of No County Impact was put forth. Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. PALING-Okay. Were you aware of George's comments regarding the stormwater. Do you want to comment on that? MR. HURST-Basically, I've already re-drawn one of the plans. MR. PALING-It is on the plan. MR. HURST-I don't have a copy of it yet, but I have put it on the plan submitted to the Building Inspector. MRS. LABOMBARD-We thought we were going to see it tonight. MR. HURST-You can see the plan. I have it. I just don't have a whole copy of it. You can see the original. MRS. LABOMBARD-Could you put it up, because we didn't see it the other day we visited, because you said you were going to bring it in. I really would like to see it. MR. MACEWAN-While we're waiting for him to do this, George, when he, if he should get his approval tonight and it ends up going to the Building Department to get his permit, do they make notations of the restrictions that were put on from the ZBA Variance? MR. HILTON-The ZBA Variance, what happens is they will go for the building permit, and because the tax map number is looked up, I believe that triggers any Planning Board or Zoning Board action. They would review those files and review the stipulations that were attached to either approval. MR. MACEWAN-Then it's not necessary for us to be redundant, if we approve this thing and put any restrictions on it from what they did? MR. HILTON-I believe you don't have to put any Zoning Board - 12 - ''''-'"''''-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) restrictions on it. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. HURST-Basically all we did is, I just drew in the gravel drainage trench that will be put along the area to the east. rather not have to put gutters because we tend to get a lot of needles that will clog up almost instantaneously. silt We'd pine MR. PALING-Had you seen this, George? MR. HILTON-Yes. I've spoken to the applicant, and I'm comfortable with this plan. MR. PALING-Okay, and you're comfortable with it. Okay. to have been the only Staff question at least. Anyone any questions or comments? All right. Then, lets see. public hearing, which I will open now. Is there anyone would care to comment on this application? That seems else have This is a here that PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT -- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. This is a Type II. Good. Go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-96 IAN HURST, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To construct an addition to an existing camp. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Do you want to include New York State Guidelines for Erosion Control? MR. HILTON-You can if you'd like. MR. MACEWAN-It's going to kick in when he gets his building permit. MR. HILTON-Exactly. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-I just thought that if you put it in, just to show that we're a little concerned about that. Just so the record shows that, but that doesn't matter. MR. PALING-Well, if it's kicked in anyway. MR. BREWER-Is that a requirement, the guidelines for erosion? MR. HILTON-Well, our Building Department will check the plan against any guidelines, and we'll make sure that they're in place. MR. PALING-All right. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 24-96 TYPE II MARK HANDELMAN OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-3A, C.E.A., APA LOCATION: ROUTE 9L TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONS TO - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) EXISTING RESIDENCE. PER SECTION 179 -79 SITE PLAN APPROVAL SHALL BE REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING BOARD FOR ANY EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A C.E.A. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 3-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 3-1-14 LOT SIZE: 1.14 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-96, Mark Handelman, Meeting Date: June 18, 1996 liThe applicant is seeking approval of two additions to an existing single family home which will tota1 560 sq. ft. Variances for these additions have been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The plans submitted with this application indicate a system of infiltration trenches to be constructed around the addition closest to the lake. Stormwater runoff from the other addition will be collected in a system of gutters and discharged into a plant bed located to the south of the home. Staff is comfortable with the stormwater retention methods proposed by the applicant and would recommend approval of Site Plan No. 24-96." MR. HILTON-I also have some correspondence from Warren County.~At the June 12, 1996 meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, this item was reviewed. A recommendation of No County Impact was passed. It's signed C. powel South, Chairperson. MARK HANDELMAN MR. HANDELMAN-I'm Mark Handelman. MR. MILLER-And I'm Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. MR. PALING-Okay, and you're familiar with George's comments? Do you want to comment on the two items he's brought up? MR. HILTON-Basically, I'm comfortable with the plan as submitted. I've read through the stormwater management report that was submitted, and I've looked at how it works on the plan. I have no problems. I'm comfortable with what's proposed. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MILLER-Yes. I'm not sure what comments, because he's agreeing with me, I don't know what I should comment on. MR. PALING-liThe plans submitted with this application indicate a system of infiltration trenches to be constructed around the addition closest to the lake", and we're just asking, and now Staff is saying they say what you've done is good. They approve, and then the stormwater runoff from the other addition will be collected in a system of gutters, the same thing, and they're saying yes on this too. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions? Comments? All right. There's a public hearing on this matter. We'll open the public hearing now. Does anyone here care to talk about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. If no one wants to talk about it, we'll close the public hearing. This is a Type II. We can go directly - 14 - ---- --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-96 MARK HANDELMAN, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 27-96 MICHAEL GRASSO TYPE II OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: RAPAPORT RD. (BRAYTON LN.) PROPOSAL IS RENOVATION OF ROOF AND EXPANSION OF SECOND FLOOR TO EXTERIOR EXISTING 1ST FLOOR WALL. PER SECTION 179-79 SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 APA TAX MAP NO. 6-3-21 LOT SIZE: .955 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 MIKE GRASSO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 27-96, Michael Grasso, Meeting Date: June 18, 1996 "The applicant is proposing renovating an existing home on Brayton Lane. The renovation includes expansion of the second story living space, the roof and exterior wall of the home. Currently this home has a gambrel roof with limited second story living space. The applicant proposes to reconstruct this home to make a typical slanted style roof. By doing this the applicant will be expanding the second floor living space of the home. The applicant also proposes to increase the height of the building to 34 feet. This application appears to be for a relatively minor residential expansion. Additional comment may be provided at the public hearing." MR. HILTON-I have some written comment that I will read into the record. Right now, I just have Warren County Planning Board, at the June 12, 1996, this application was reviewed, and the County voted No County Impact. Signed C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. GRASSO-I'm Mike Grasso, owner of the property. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, I take it we have the current plans coming? MR. GRASSO-You have revised from (lost words) Northern Designs. The first look is just a look to give a rough idea of what it would look like, and these are more refined and more accurate, hopefully a little nicer view. MR. BREWER-I was going to ask you if you were going to get rid of that stonework. It's quite nice, actually. MR. GRASSO-No, no. We're keeping the stonework. MR. PALING-Okay. Now there are no dimensions on the elevation. Are you staying within, is this still 34 feet? MR. GRASSO-It's actually 32. MR. PALING-32. Okay. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. BREWER-It's a nice place, though. MR. GRASSO-Thank you. MR. PALING-Are there any comments or questions? MR. BREWER-Because on this other drawing, the old drawing, it doesn't look like you're going to keep the stonework. MR. GRASSO-No, we're keeping the stonework. That foundation is 18 inches wide. It's a good foundation. MR. STARK-How many bedrooms are in the house now? MR. GRASSO-Five, and we're taking it down to three. MR. STARK-Do you plan on doing anything to the septic system? MR. GRASSO-It's working right now. Eventually, we'll probably do something to it, but right now it's working. I had Bill Trombley come down and look at it, and they said it's functioning, it's fine. They didn't see any problem. It's a little bit closer to the well than we'd like, but we had the well tested. The we~l's 400 feet down. We had that tested. We're sort of waiting to see what the sewer system does, there's been so much talk about. MR. STARK-How many baths are in the house now, existing? MR. GRASSO-Right now, there's one bath. MR. STARK-And you're going to two? MR. GRASSO-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-But you're decreasing the number of bedrooms? MR. GRASSO-Correct. MR. PALING-All right. If there are no other questions or comments at the moment, there is a public hearing on this tonight. I'll open the public hearing. Does anyone care to talk on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM HARDING MR. HARDING-My name is Tom Harding. I'm the owner of the property that's immediately contiguous on the east side of the proposed plan on this property. MR. PALING-That's identified now as Louis and Adele Muefelder. MR. HARDING-Right. My name is Tom Harding. I bought it three years ago. I've had it three years, and the property next door, Mike's (lost word) property here, they kind of let it get run down a little. I never saw the people over there, and frankly I'm glad that Mike has come in and is doing some work on it, and Mike has showed me the proposed plan here, and I understand it's subject to some revisions and so forth, but I am in favor of what 1 have seen, and I think it would be an improvement. I like the Adirondack style, and if they can go in that direction more, that's great, but to see the property being cleaned up and improved is fine with me. So I would be in favor of the proposed plan. MR. PALING-Very good. MR. HARDING-Thank you. - 16 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. PALING-Thank you. speak? Is there anyone else that would care to MR. HILTON-I have a written comment, to be read into the record. It's a letter dated June 14, 1996, to James Martin, Department of Community Development, regarding Site Plan No. 27-96, it's from a Michael J. Cantanucci. "Dear Mr. Martin: As a neighboring property owner to the property of Michael Grasso, I would like to comment in favor of his current proposal before the Planning Board. Since purchasing the property, Mr. Grasso's actions on cleaning up and improving his land have had only a positive impact on our neighborhood. I am in support of his house renovation project, and confident that this improvement will only enhance the character of our Waterfront zone. Sincerely, Michael J. Cantanucci" MR. PALING-Okay. Good. Any others, George? MR. HILTON-That's the only letter we have in the file. MR. PALING-All right. If there are no other comments, we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ~ MR. PALING-And this is also still Type II. Any other comments, or we'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-96 MICHAEL GRASSO, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For renovation of roof and expansion of second floor to exterior existing first floor wall. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 26 - 9 6 TYPE II LOUIE & CHRISTINE LECCE OWNERS: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: RT. 9L TO CLEVERDALE RD., TAKE CLEVERDALE RD. TO ROCKHURST THEN FOLLOW SEELYE RD. TO HOUSE ON LEFT SIDE WITH LECCE SIGN IN FRONT. APPLICANT IS REMOVING AND REPLACING OLD STONE RETAINING WALL ALONG SHORELINE WITH NEW INTERLOCKING RETAINING CONCRETE WALL APPROXIMATELY 80' LONG AND 2 1/2 TO 3' HIGH. PER SECTION 179-60 15(3) ALTERATION TO SHORELINE, NO REPLACEMENT OF RETAINING WALLS ALONG THE SHORELINE SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT SITE PLAN REVIEW. ALSO PROPOSED IS CREATION OF A SANDY BEACH AND MODIFICATION TO EXISTING U DOCK TO RESULT IN 40' X 40' U-SHAPED DOCK WITH OPEN SIDED BOAT SHELTER. SECTION 179-16 REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR DOCKS AND BOATHOUSES. DEC, LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-28 LOT SIZE: .92 ACRES SECTION 179-60 15(3), 179-16 179-60 B(l) (a) [2] LOUIE LECCE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-96, Louie & Christine Leece, Meeting Date: June 18, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to replace an existing stone retaining wall on the shore of Lake George with a new concrete wall. As a part of this site plan, the applicant is also seeking approval to create a section of beach - 17 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) along the shore and modify an existing dock. The applicant has applied for and received a permit from NYS DEC to construct a new retaining wall. Conditions have been placed on this permit by DEC to ensure no negative environmental impacts will occur during and after construction. Any concerns from the Town's engineering consultant should be addressed prior to planning board action on this site plan. A sandy beach area is also proposed as a part of this site plan. This area meets Zoning Ordinance requirements for docks. Staff expects that the conditions placed on this project by DEC will be met during and after construction. Subject to review by Rist Frost, staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 26-96." MR. PALING-Subject to review by Rist-Frost. MR. HILTON-Yes, and I have a letter which I will read into the record. Right now, though, I have the Warren County Board resolution, and Warren County, at its June 12, 1996 meeting met, reviewed the application, found No County Impact. The resolution is signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. In a letter to Mr. James Martin, dated June 17, 1996, from Rist-Frost Associates, the letter states as follows. "We have reviewed the plans received June 10, 1996, and have the following engineering comments: Environmental Assessment Short Form EAF should be included. NYS DEC Permit~5- 5234-00339/00001 has been included with special conditions required to prevent shoreline erosion from occurring. Site runoff must be controlled." The first point I would make is that an EAF is not required of this. This is a Type II Action which is exempt from the SEQRA review. Secondly, the DEC permit is on file, and Staff is comfortable with the site runoff controls that the DEC permit, we're comfortable that the DEC permit, the conditions which are in place there properly address this condition. "This is an existing site, however, it is not noted on the application, the percentages of building area, paved area or green area for pre and post development. No changes are indicated. No existing or proposed contour lines are shown on the plan. Details of the new retaining wall and other proposed construction should be shown on the plans. Sediment and erosion control appear to be adequate as noted on the DEC permit. The 'NY Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control' should be referenced on the drawing for any soil areas disturbed." MR. MACEWAN-I have a question for Staff. Why wouldn't you want contour lines on this site plan, if you're going to be doing a new sea wall? MR. HILTON-He's replacing an existing wall that's out there. He's not altering the landscape in any way. The contours aren't really of any concern. He's not doing any grading of the site. MR. MACEWAN-He has to do some grading if he's putting up a concrete wall, isn't he? MR. HILTON-I think, and the applicant can clarify this, what's happening is they're going to be attacking it from the water. They're going to have silt fencing in the water. They're going to take the stones out and replace it with a concrete wall. To the best of our knowledge, I don't think they're going to be affecting the topography or the site grading at all. MR. LECCE-My name is Lou Lecce. I'm the applicant. I believe we are doing some back filling to the wall (lost word) the wall is set to the water. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with that, but I think that the details that Rist-Frost said should be on the plan, I agree with that, and I think they should be put on the plan, the size of the wall and whatnot. - 18 - - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. PALING-George, are you seeing those for the first time tonight? MR. HILTON-The plans? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HILTON-No. I've reviewed the plans. I, unfortunately, just received Rist-Frost's comments this morning. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-I think if the Planning Board would like to see the last two comments that Rist-Frost has mentioned, I think the techaical work has been, you know, we've reviewed the technical merits of this application, and those would just be notes to the side. MR. PALING-You're talking about wall detail and erosion control? MR. HILTON-Right. I think if the Planning Board would like to see those, if you're in a position to approve this plan, you could approve it with the idea that they would present a new plan to the Planning Staff. --- MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Any other questions, comments? MR. STARK-I'll have some comments after the public hearing. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I have a question. So, George, in other words, is it correct to say that the DEC is going to monitor this project from the onset, right until it's completed? MR. HILTON-Well, they have stipulations that are, you know, attached to their permit. The applicant is expected to adhere to those stipulations. MRS. LABOMBARD-But, I mean, applicant does adhere to them? Queensbury? who's going to make sure that the Is it the DEC or is it the Town of MR. HILTON-I'm not sure if they have an inspector. MR. MACEWAN-It would be a safe bet that DEC would issue the permit, give him the criteria for him to adhere to the permit, and the only way that they would make an inspection is if someone filed a complaint that he wasn't adhering to the plan. MR. HILTON-That's what I was going to say, and if someone is concerned, a concerned citizen contacts us, we will go out and enforce whatever conditions are in place. Staff's not in a position to duplicate the conditions that DEC has put on this application already. MR. PALING-We couldn't ask John Goralski to look at that? MR. HILTON-We could ask him, and I'm sure that he's up there enough. I think that he would periodically step in and look at the site and see what's going on. As far as pure enforcement, I don't think. MR. BREWER-Does he have to get a building permit? MR. HILTON-He has to get a building permit. MR. BREWER-So the building inspector inspects it. So if he looks at the conditions and sees that they're not being met, then. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. PALING-Would he check erosion control and stuff like that? MR. BREWER-Well, we just relied on them to do it on the last application that I should we should put the control measures in. Nobody had a problem with it. MR. PALING-Okay. That might be a little self-policing, too. I don't think you'd want to go to all that expense and not do it right. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm just saying that we're talking about tampering with the shoreline, you know. We're putting in a beach. We're doing some major, moving dirt, rock, to something that's completely natural right now. MR. LECCE-Have any of you read the DEC permit? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. LECCE-It requires filter fabric. the lake. MR. WEST-Silt screen. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I do know that. it. It requires a barrier from --- You're right. We did read MR. LECCE-So the requirements to install the shoreline permit and the block has been already, the requirements are set by DEC. The building inspector goes out there and sees that the silt screen is not there, we're in violation. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're right. I did know that. I'm sorry. MR. LECCE-So the DEC permit requires me to follow certain restrictions, requirements, in order to install this beach area. So, I think DEC is protected. I think the Town is protected as well, as long as I follow that criteria, and that's part of this approval process this evening, and that would be noted. That's fine. That's something that I have to follow from DEC. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-How far behind the existing rocks that are there is the new poured wall going to be? MR. LECCE-First of all, it's not poured. Okay. What we're doing is a stackable retaining wall. Interlocking (lost words) dry wall. No concrete, no footings, no foundation. We are, basically, we're moving the existing rock that's there now and installing the wall, according to the DEC permit, in the same location that the existing stone wall. I'm being allowed, by DEC, to backfill. That's why I need the DEC permit. So, it's not a concrete wall. There's cement concrete going into the water. MR. MACEWAN-Did they give you any kind of requirements as to what kind of fill you should be using? MR. LECCE-No. They just gave me a, I've got to install a filter fabric behind the wall, to stop any backfill from reaching the lake, and at the bottom of the sandy beach area, I'm required to put a six inch high screen to keep the sand up on the beach. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a good idea. MR. LECCE-That's also a part of the DEC permit. MRS. LABOMBARD-How are you going to do that? - 20 - -- -- --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. LECCE-It sits about six inches off the floor of the lake and it's got a screen that goes down to the bottom of the lake. MRS. LABOMBARD-How far out do you put that? MR. LECCE-Right at the bottom, where the water hits the beach. It's part of the DEC permit. I've got to keep it at all times. It stops the sand from going into the lake, and I have to take it back up and put it back. So I think DEC's review has been extensive of the project, and they've put several requirements. MRS. LABOMBARD-This is irrelevant, but may I ask, what are you going to do with all those rocks that you're going to take out? MR. LECCE-Backfill the wall, I was told by my contractor, okay, and two to install another crib, which is part of the application. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's right. MR. PALING-They're going to be used as backfill? MR. LECCE-I was told by the contractor that they would use them to back fill the retaining wall. ~ MRS. LABOMBARD-So where you're going to put in your interlocking stone, you'll have this behind it. MR. LECCE-Correct. MR. BREWER-It's going to get wet behind there, and if he just puts sand, well, I suppose you could put just dirt in there, but the stone will probably kind of help keep it there. MR. PALING-Yes. If it's installed at an angle, I would assume it would be against the bank, then it would aid the, yes. MR. LECCE-The lot where it is going to sit is a very wet area now. So we're trying to put the wall to keep it dry, basically. It seems like all the neighbors around me kind of pitch their land toward my land and it makes it very, very wet. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I know where you're coming from there. We walked down there. MR. LECCE-So, when you've got four small children, we're trying to make a beach here, trying to keep the spot dry. MR. BREWER-It's kind of crazy, keep it dry so you can swim. Right? MR. LECCE-They can't swim yet, so they have to play on the beach. MR. WEST-You said there'll be a six inch high barrier along the shoreline? MR. LECCE-No, in front of the beach area. Where the beach area intersects the lake, I'm required to put a six inch, do you have the permit here? MR. BREWER-I've got it. MR. WEST-How deep is the water there? How deep will the water be? MR. LECCE-A foot and a half, two feet, very, very shallow. The end of the dock, which is about 35 feet, is about four and a half feet deep. MR. WEST-So as you walk out, you would encounter this? - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. LECCE-You have to step over it. Well, right now there's rocks there. The permit shows the actual requirements. See all this right here, they've imposed a sand retention barrier. It's about a six inch barrier. MR. PALING-Okay, and this is what Dave is asking about. Yes. He's calling for the shoreline. I think that is the shoreline. Isn't it? MR. LECCE-Where the (lost word) retaining wall is, that's not beach area. That's just (lost word) water. MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I just wanted to talk a little bit more, later about the boathouse. Are you putting a roof up, right? MR. LECCE-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're going to put a gable roof on it? MR. LECCE-Yes. - MRS. LABOMBARD-But right now, there's a flat roof? MR. LECCE-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. Well, I just am concerned about views and obstruction and all that. MR. LECCE-But we have received the Lake George Park Commission permit. I don't know if that was mentioned. We got the Lake George Park Commission permit last Thursday. Molly Gallagher from the Lake George Park Commission came out and did a site inspection. She went upon other neighbor's lands to make sure there was not a slight problem, and in her opinion there's no site problem whatsoever where any of the neighbors couldn't see the lake. If you know this parcel, it sits in almost like a little cove area, and the shoreline goes back out to the lake to a point, and this boathouse or cover is being built closest to the curvature. So really it would be, if it obstructs anything, it obstructs the view of somebody else's frontage. It's not going to obstruct the lake, but, I mean, Molly came out based on McCollister's letter, which I reviewed, and she looked at it and did a site inspection, and she issued the permit on Thursday. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that would care to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK MCCOLLISTER MR. MCCOLLISTER-My name is Mark McCollister. My wife and I live on property immediately to the south of the applicant. We have raised an objection with the Lake George Park Commission, and filed the same letter with Jim Martin, immediately after which I found out the Park Commission had issued a permit. So I've learned a few things. A couple of questions that I have to ask, first if I may, the retaining wall is the new sea wall that's being installed, and it's replacing the stone sea wall that runs from Lecce's property through to ours. It's not an individual sea wall. It's basically a continuous rock wall, and I'm concerned, at this point, if he stops at the property line with the new sea wall, what happens at that interface? MR. PALING-Well, he can't disturb anything on your property. - 22 - - '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. MCCOLLISTER- I'm not obj ecting to the sea wall. What I'm saying is, if he puts in a new sea wall, goes up to our property line and stops, does that create a problem of erosions, not necessarily to his property, but on our property, and how do we prevent that from occurring? MR. PALING-All right, and you had another question? MR. MCCOLLISTER-The other question, again, we have no problem with adding the sand beach, but I think it should be noted that there's a fair amount of frontage there that's going to be actually removed from the lakeshore. Right now, you can see the stone wall comes across to the dock, and you see the new sea wall is about three feet back from the shoreline. MR. MACEWAN-Which brings me back to my question of contour lines. MR. MCCOLLISTER-I think it's a fair question. MR. HILTON-Well, in a situation like this, the Ordinance allows for 20% of the shore front to be excavated and used as a beach. The applicant may want to discuss this, but we see this plan as being in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and felt that any kind of contours or grading weren't necessary in this situation. MR. PALING-Okay. So they are in compliance with that new contour line. MR. HILTON-Yes. Well, the amount of area of the lot that's going to be used for a sand beach is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. They're allowed 20% of their frontage on the lake, and they're within that 20%. MR. PALING-And that can be done with something that didn't exist before? They're making that new. MR. HILTON-Yes, with the site plan which is what they're here for. MR. PALING-Okay. I think that may answer 2n§ of your questions, but not the first question, yet at least. Did you have any others or comments? MR. MCCOLLISTER-Our major objection is to the boathouse, or the wharf, whatever is going to be constructed. In our view, and in deference to Molly and her one day visit to the property, we see it as a significant change to the view. I mean, the dock is going to be 15 feet longer than the current dock, 14 wider than the current dock, probably 50% higher than the current roof line, and it will be many more boats than they currently have. Currently, there are three boats at the dock. To my knowledge, none of the boats are owned by the applicant, and putting a double wide slip in and enclosing it only opens the door for more boats at that particular dock. To us, it's basically being operated as a commercial marina, and we see the expansion of this wharf being an expansion of that operation. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MR. MACEWAN-Where there any drawings submitted to Staff for the new proposed dock and boathouse? MR. HIL'rON-Yes. We have drawing which are attached to the Lake George Park Commission approval. We have reviewed them and found all dimensions and heights of the proposed wharf and dock to be in compliance with our Zoning Ordinance. MR. BREWER-How come we don't get copies of that stuff? - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. HILTON-I'm sorry you didn't get a copy of the Lake George Park Commission. I can pass it around, if you'd like to see it. MR. MACEWAN-I'm more interested in the drawings on the proposed dock and boathouse. MRS. LABOMBARD-I am, too. Mr. McCollister, are you implying that there are a lot of boats, there are extra boats that are docking there now that are renting the space? MR. MCCOLLISTER-To the best of my knowledge, the three boats that are currently at the dock have been at the dock so far this year, and were at the dock all of last year, are not registered or owned by Mr. Lecce. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a good question, because, you know, what's the point where, you know, you just can't keep building docks on your property and letting other people dock there? MR. MCCOLLISTER-We don't have a problem with the modification or even the slight expansion of a single slip dock similar to what's there. We'd prefer not to have a peaked roof. If it's kept within the limits, I guess we'd have no objection, but it appears to-us that doubling, and increasing the length by an additional 15 feet, despite the application that says it's 40 feet. It's 40 feet from what's considered the mean low water line, which according to the drawing that I received from the Park Commission starts seven feet out from the shoreline. It's basically a 47 foot long wharf, and I've tied up to docks allover the lake, and I know what's usable dock space and what starts at an imaginary line seven feet out in the water. There's ample room to provide much more dockage at that particular lot. MR. BREWER-What's the frontage you have there, as far as his property goes? Lets find out how much dock he's allowed. MR. HILTON-Seven hundred square feet, I believe, forty'feet long, eight feet wide, at anyone spot on the dock. MR. BREWER-He's allowed 700 feet? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. BREWER-Craig, does it show the square footage of the dock there, on that? Did you get to it yet? MR. MACEWAN-I haven't gotten to it. MR. HILTON-I'm sorry that that's the only copy we have. MR. PALING-George, while we're looking at this, do you want to comment about this seven foot from the shoreline, and then the dock begins. You're looking at a 47 foot dock? MR. HILTON-What you have on the plan is a wood deck, which I think is different from the dock itself. The dock itself begins at the shoreline, extends out 40 feet. The deck is what's on land. I don't think it's attached to the dock, or is considered the same structure as the dock. MR. MCCOLLISTER-I have to disagree. The plan I'm looking at from the Park Commission, in my view, clearly shows the dock is going to be, the wharf itself is going to be to the shoreline. MR. PALING-Okay. I think I have the same that you have, and I see a six foot dimension, and I see a seven foot dimension to an MLW. All right. We're going to have to have this clarified. - 24 - - -- '--" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. MCCOLLISTER-It's my understanding from the Park Commission the MLW is they consider the mean low water line, an arbitrary elevation established some earlier time in history. MR. MACEWAN-The Army Corps of Engineers, some time around the Revolutionary War. MR. MCCOLLISTER-It never actually reaches that level. In the 20 years that I've been there, I've never seen it approach that level. MR. PALING-Well, that shows the dock seven foot on one side and forty foot on the other side of this mean low water mark. All right. We're going to have to have that clarified. I think we've made note of all your questions. Do you have any others? Don't go away, because you may want to come back or something like that, but I'd like to get to the questions that you've raised. Okay. Would you come back please. MR. MACEWAN-Bob, is there anyone else that wants to speak? MR. PALING-All right. Is there anyone else who cares to talk on this matter? Okay. The public hearing is still open, because we may want to discuss this more. We've got quite a number of p~ints to cover here, and I'd like to cover all of them. Would you care to comment first, Mr. Lecce, about the number of boats that you're going to dock. Did you rent space out? MR. LECCE-I think we must go back to when I purchased the property in 1993. I bought the property from the estate of which Mrs. McCollister was an Executrix of the estate. When I purchased this property in '93, I was informed at the time of contract that the boat slips were rented to parties that lived behind me. So those tenants were there when I bought the property. They were not something that I went out and got tenants to rent. One tenant's been there since 1985, a friend of the McCollister's because he lets him keep his boat covered because he bought it new in 1985. Mr. Amora, who also lives behind me, Fred McCollister has also been there since 1980 something. These are not my tenants. They will not be there if this is approved. The other tenant, who's not a tenant, is my cousin. He doesn't rent. He leaves the boat there because I don't have a boat. The two tenants there, again, are not my tenants. They were there when I bought the property from the McCollisters, and I didn't even know them until I bought it in 1993. MRS. LABOMBARD-They've been renting since 1993. MR. LECCE-But when I bought the dock, it's a commercial dock. There was a commercial permit when I bought the property. It was not my commercial permit. That's what was there since 1985. MR. WEST-Who do they pay rent to? MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a good selling point. MR. LECCE-Exactly. MR. WEST-Who do they pay rent to? MR. LECCE-They pay rent to me. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. LECCE-It's very difficult for me to be a new kid on the block and say (lost words) you're cut off. I did not find those tenants. They came with the property when I bought the house from the McCollisters. - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. MACEWAN-What would be the need for a larger dock than before? MR. LECCE-First of all, I meet the zoning laws, in all respects. The reason why I'm going to need a bigger dock is because I am in the process of buying a 15 beam boat, and another 22 foot boat bow rider that I want covered, okay. The length of the dock meets the zoning code. It meets the Lake George Park Commission Code. MR. MACEWAN-But the usage doesn't. MR. LECCE-The usage does. requirements. The use does. I meet all the MR. MACEWAN-You're renting out slips now. MR. LECCE-I've just gone on record that I'm not going to rent slips. That is not the intent of this dock, but understand, I think there are other people that live next door to me who do rent currently. MR. MACEWAN-They're not an application in front of us. MR. LECCE-But they shouldn't come to the hearing with dirty hands, is what I'm saying. MR. STARK-Some questions that were raised. The length of the dock, you're going from, it's 35 feet now, and you're going to 47 feet? MR. LECCE-Correct. MR. STARK-Okay. I would look at that as saying, instead of putting one boat on a side, you could put two boats on the side, then, to rent out. MR. LECCE-I am not putting boats on the one side where my kids are going to swim up the sand beach. MR. STARK-Okay. Let me say this, if this was to be approved, would you have any problem with a stipulation stating that you can't have any boat rentals there, or maybe one boat rental? MR. LECCE-No boat rentals or one boat rental? MR. STARK-I don't know. We've got to hash it out. MR. LECCE-Well, see, my point is, that is fine, but you must look at the entire neighborhood. I mean, you just approved someone that lives next door to me for 47 or 50 foot application of a dock, my next door neighbor. If the McCollister's rent, that's okay. If somebody next to them rents, that's okay, but now you're using me. MR. PALING-No, no, no. Lets stick to the case in front of us. MR. LECCE-I understand, but you've got to look at precedent. MR. PALING-Well, I think we're on your situation, lets stick to it. MR. LECCE-Yes. MR. PALING-Now George said a 47 foot dock, and you said yes. MR. LECCE-The dock is 47 foot, correct, from the shoreline, but under the regulations, you measure the wharf from the low water mark. So Molly came out herself, the Lake George Park Commission, and she measured the wharf from where it would start to where it would end, under Lake George Park Commission Regulations. I did not set the length of the dock. - 26 - '-' --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. BREWER-Why does it have to be 47 feet? Why can't we keep it at 40? MRS. LABOMBARD-It does say 40, but in actuality it's 47. MR. BREWER-I understand exactly what you're saying. MR. WEST-So the low water mark starts seven feet out into the lake? MR. LECCE-Correct, on one side. On the other side it starts at 10 feet into the lake, and I've taken the seven foot and made it shorter. On the other side, you could go 50 feet, if I wanted to. MR. STARK-Tim, I was going to try to clarify it for you, that the existing wall, go out seven feet, and then measure forty feet from there. Why does it have to be 47 feet? Why can't it stay 35 feet, just the length it is now? MR. LECCE-Because I would like it to be the 47 feet. My kids like to fish, one. I don't believe it effects the public safety law by being 40 feet or 47 feet. MR. STARK-I wasn't thinking public safety. why the increase in the length of the dock. I was just wondering That's all. MR. LECCE-I've already stipulated to the fact that I wouldn't rent the docks. So why is that an issue? MR. BREWER-That's such a tough thing for us to say that, I mean, how do we enforce that? How do we go up there every day. MR. LECCE-To me, that's pretty arbitrary and capricious by saying 47 versus 40. MR. STARK-I just had a question. MR. LECCE-No, I understand. MR. STARK-The Board is entitled to ask all the questions we want. Also, on our approvals, we can put stipulations. MR. LECCE-I'm not debating the stipulations. MR. PALING-Okay. Mark, do you want to comment on this dock length, 40 and 47? Do you have any comments? MR. SCHACHNER-No, other than to say that the Lake George Park Commission law and regulations do, in fact, allow for up to 40 feet beyond mean low water, and it's actually not unlimited beyond mean high. It's up to 100 feet beyond mean high. I haven't seen the Lake George Park Commission permit. I would like to see the Lake George Park Commission permit, but from the way this is being described, it sounds like it's complying with the Lake George Park Commission Regulations. If that's a Lake George Park Commission permit and if it didn't require a variance, then it is in compliance. MR. STARK-Mark, before the meeting, we had talked about this, about what constitutes a Class B Marina. MR. SCHACHNER-That's under the Lake George Park Commission law. Okay. The Class A and Class B Marina, those terms are references to the Lake George Park Commission Law, not to our Zoning Ordinance. Under our Zoning Ordinance, there is no definitions for Class A and Class B. There is a definition for Marina. There are three parts to that definition, and from what I'm hearing here, well, never mind from what I'm hearing here. The third part of that definition is if you rent out boat slips, that under the Town - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, you are considered a Marina. MR. MACEWAN-Which Ordinance are you looking at? MR. SCHACHNER-Which Ordinance? Ordinance. The Town of Queensbury Zoning MR. BREWER-Yes, but what Section? MR. MACEWAN-What's the Section? MR. SCHACHNER-I'm looking at the Definition section, and specifically I'm looking at Page 17930 of your Code book. You know the Definition Section is 179-7, but it goes on for many pages. The definition of Marina starts on 17929 and continues over onto 17930, and it's the third part that would be relevant to the question you've asked me, which says liThe sale, lease, rental or any other provision of storage, wharf space or mooring for vessels not registered to the owner of said facility, a member of the owner's immediate family, the owner or lessee of the immediately adjoining upland property, members of their immediate families or an overnight guest on said property. II And we have a lot of different things going on here. One thing is that, if I understand him correctly, the applicant has acknowledged that he currently is renting dock space, although I think he also said something about some of the renters being somewhere nearby, in terms of upland property. I don't know if they're on what's called the immediately adj oining upland property. The immediately adj oining upland property means literally the property which is connected to the docks. I don't think that's what we have here. On the other hand, I think we have an applicant's representation on the record that if what's proposed is approved, all rental activity to third parties will cease. MR. PALING-That's what I understand. Yes. MR. WEST-So, currently it classifies as a Marina right now. MR. MACEWAN-If you aren't approved, will the rentals cease? MR. LECCE-That's correct. I will stipulate to that. MR. MACEWAN-If you aren't approved, will the rentals cease? MR. LECCE-Well, first of all, I have a commercial permit, which grandfathered when I bought the property, which allows me to lease those spaces to the people that currently are there. If I modify the existing wharf, I lose the commercial permit by law, and I have to abide by a residential permit, which means, they'd have to cease. MR. SCHACHNER-From whom do you have a commercial permit? MR. LECCE-The Lake George Park Commission. When I bought the property, it was given a commercial permit, when I bought it. MR. SCHACHNER-Meaning you have some type of Marina permit from the Park Commission? MR. LECCE-Exactly. MR. SCHACHNER-Class A or Class B? MR. LECCE-I don't know which Class it is. When I pay my permit each year, I pay a commercial permit fee. MR. WEST-So that expires with the approval of construction. - 28 - -- --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. LECCE-That expires when this is completed. MR. WEST-Right, but you could re-apply for another one afterward, if you so desired? MR. LECCE-Do you think I would get it? I could if I wanted to, but I have no intention to do that. There's no intent here to make this a Marina. MR. WEST-No, I know. MR. LECCE-The way the property currently is, is the way I bought it in 1993. Now, I've already told the tenants that rent that they're going to stop renting from me because, if get this approval. They're aware of it. MR. BREWER-Probably meaning the end of the year they'll be done? MR. LECCE-Correct. This is not going to be done until probably Labor Day anyway, but I told Mr. White, who rents the covered slip, that his lease is going to be terminated, that he's got to find a slip some place else. So I don't know how much more I can do. This is not the intent to rent these dock spaces. ~ MR. PALING-All right. For the specific questions that have been raised, I think the sandy area has been explained adequately and is okay. MR. WEST-I've got some more questions on the erosion on the wall. MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead. MR. BREWER-No, the one the neighbor asked about, I think, is what he's referring to. MR. WEST-Yes. The question came up of erosion taking place on the adjoining property, and I guess I don't understand how that is going to happen. I would like some clarification on that. MR. LECCE-I'm not sure what he's saying. I think what he's saying, the wall is going to end at the property line, how's that going to impact his parcel. His parcel currently sits higher than my parcel, but if you want me to turn the parcel inward, so he sees the wall. I don't know exactly what he means. MR. PALING-Does his property have the same rock formation on the shore that yours does? Does that just continue? MR. LECCE-The rock wall continues from the point all the way back along the hill. MR. PALING-To his, on his property? MR. LECCE-I think it even goes past his property. Correct. MR. PALING-My thought was that you could do that without disturbing his rocks. MR. LECCE-I wasn't going to disturb his rocks. I was going to dead end the wall at my property line. MRS. LABOMBARD-He was concerned what would happen at the interface, where you have his wall with what was there now, the stone with what is there now. Maybe the DEC could address that. MR. LECCE-That's the same issue if somebody was going to put a lumber or pressure treated lumber wall. It's going to dead end no matter what. - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-If Mr. Lecce were to disturb something, move something, remove something of his neighbor's, then there would be a problem, but if he's not going to disturb anything. MR. BREWER-He's just got to make sure it's stabilized. MR. LECCE-I'll be happy to stop the wall three or four feet short of the property line. MR. WEST-You will be removing the wall, the existing wall, all the way up to the property line? MR. LECCE-Correct. MR. WEST-Putting the new wall in. MR. LECCE-Correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a comment. All this time I'm thinking, we're dealing with docks here, and I have no problem with docks for single family residences, but then when that paper got passed around, it's got wharfs on it, wharf, and I'm like, my impression of a wharf is, you know, it's like the ocean, where lots of boats come in. I mean, that's what it says on there. It says wharf. Do you have that wharf thing in front of you there? MR. SCHACHNER-We have the Lake George Park Commission permit. I have to tell you, you should not get hung up on the use of that term. The Lake George Park Commission definitions use the term "Wharf" the way all the rest of the people in the world would use the term "dock". MRS. LABOMBARD-Thank you. That's why you're here. MR. SCHACHNER-Whenever anybody in the rest of the world is thinking dock, what that is labeled by the Lake George Park Commission is a Wharf. Don't attach any special meaning to their use of that word. MRS. LABOMBARD-A Wharf doesn't mean a conglomeration of lots of docks? MR. SCHACHNER-A straight pier out from shore that's two feet wide and eight feet long, according to the Lake George Park Commission, is called a Wharf. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I think it's good that we have that straight. Thanks, Mark. MR. STARK-I have a question for Mr. McCollister. Are you happy with these explanations of your questions or the answers, or what? Do you have any more concerns? MR. PALING-Why don't we wait until we get to the end, though? We've got a ways to go here, I think. MR. STARK-I thought we had them all? MR. PALING-No, no. I don't think so. Okay. Now we've covered the wall problem on the adjacent property. We've talked about space rental. We've talked about the shoreline problem. That's been cleared up. Now we have yet to do the view, dock boat ownership, we've cleared that up. The view, sand areas we've cleared up. I've got view. The question 1 have is, what's the height of your roof going to be? MR. LECCE-The peak of the roof is going to meet, well, I think the - 30 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) Lake George Park Commission requires that they can't exceed 16 feet from the water level. MR. STARK-Queensbury is 14 feet. MR. PALING-Fourteen feet. MR. HILTON-Queensbury's Ordinance says 14 feet for a flat roof, 18 for a peaked roof. MR. BREWER-What does it show on the application? MR. HILTON-We have a peaked roof of 16 feet. MR. BREWER-And ours is 14? MR. HILTON-Yes. It's 14 for a flat roof, 18 for a peaked roof. MR. LECCE-So, I meet the Lake George Park Commission, but I'm less than the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. So I meet the Ordinance as well. MRS. LABOMBARD-How wide is the slip where the roof is going be be over? MR. LECCE-Twenty-eight feet, twenty-six feet. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is that why you need a gable roof instead of a flat roof? MR. LECCE-The span is too big for a flat roof. MRS. LABOMBARD-And what's the pitch on that, the slope? MR. LECCE-What has happened is that C.T. Male hasn't designed the trusses for it yet, but they're going to design it so that it's below 16 feet in height to the peak. If it cannot be done with a peaked roof, then we're going to make the slip smaller. MRS. LABOMBARD-What do you mean, if it cannot be? MR. LECCE-If the span is so large that a truss would be designed would exceed the 16 foot height requirement, then we'll have to make the covered slip smaller, so that you can make a truss which will span the whole span, which will be below the 16 foot requirement. MR. MACEWAN-Would he then have to come back for modification if it didn't meet what he proposes tonight? MR. LECCE-The Lake George Park Commission says I do not. As long as I make this dock smaller. MR. MACEWAN-We're not the Lake George Park Commission. MR. LECCE-I understand that. MRS. LABOMBARD-As long as it's smaller. MR. MACEWAN-If you're looking to get an approval of a covered boathouse, or whatever, that's 20 by 30, for instance, and you can't meet that with your design, and you need to make that 15 by 25, then you need to come back here for a modification. MR. LECCE-Then I'll come back here to this Board. MR. BREWER-I think what mY intention would be that if we receive a plan, and it shows something, then that's what we would expect to - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) be built. Not something more or less. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. LECCE-That's fine. I mean, they're telling me that I can make it and keep it below the 16 foot. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments by the Board? Questions? Okay. Would you let Mr. McCollister come back up, please. I think we've been down, pretty much through the list of your questions, and do you have any further questions? MR. MCCOLLISTER-A couple of comments if I may. First of all, I want to correct the record. This property was not purchased from us. It was purchased from the Estate of William Sherman, who is our neighbor. My wife was the Executor of that property. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MCCOLLISTER-I did not sell that property with any specific condition to the applicant. Number Two, obviously, this meets the so called criteria. The Park Commission letter I received from Molly Gallagher, she says, general condition number eight of the regulations limits the use of the dock to residential use, unless a Marina registration or permit is obtained. So, obviously, he has a clear right to obtain a permit after the dock is built. MR. PALING-But he's talked about no space rentals, I think it's going to be part of our resolution. MR. MCCOLLISTER-My only point is that the Lake George Park Commission has implied to me anyway that even though he doesn't have one now and won't have one, necessarily, with this permit, there's nothing that prevents him from getting one at a later date. MR. MACEWAN-Would his proposed addition, the pitched roof over the boathouse obstruct any views that you have currently? MR. MCCOLLISTER-Sure. MR. MACEWAN-Adversely? MR. MCCOLLISTER-I don't know. How do you tell? I mean, I can envision what I think 16 feet. That's one question I did have. We're talking about the 16 feet. Can you define 16 feet above what? MR. STARK-The mean high water. MR. PALING-The mean high water mark. MR. MCCOLLISTER-Mean high or mean low? MR. PALING-Mean high. MR. MCCOLLISTER-Do you have any idea where that is? MRS. LABOMBARD-It's so many feet above sea level, isn't it? MR. HILTON-The regulation reads that boathouses and covered docks shall not exceed 18 feet in height, measured from the water level to the highest point of the structure for peaked roofs, and 14 feet for flat roofs. MR. MACEWAN-That question came up with a project that we were doing over on 9L about two years ago, and the question came up, what is the water level that you're referencing, and the referencing is with the Army Corps of Engineers mean high water level. - 32 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. PALING-It's a number taken near Roger's Rock, I believe, but you say that that doesn't apply anymore, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-No. I didn't say anything about anymore. I think we're confusing, again, some apples and oranges, in that there are regulations governing how far into Lake George docks can go, and those are tied to mean high and mean low, but as George just stated, our Zoning Ordinance provision regarding the height of boat houses and covered docks makes reference to water level, not mean high or mean low. Now, having said that, let me just make sure that's not defined in our Zoning Ordinance, and I don't believe it is. MR. BREWER-How do you know what, doesn't the water level change? MR. PALING-Yes. I don't think you do. MR. BREWER-So how do you determine that? The day you build it? MR. MCCOLLISTER-I presume it's, I'm speculating here, but what I found out with the Lake George Park Commission, mean low water is, in fact, an elevation. ..-- MR. SCHACHNER-So is mean high. Under Lake George Park Commission, mean high and mean low are defined on specific levels. I mean, they're actual numbers of feet above elevation, above sea level. I can tell you them if you're interested, but I'm a little concerned that our Zoning Ordinance doesn't seem to be that precise. I do remember the case that we're talking about. MR. BREWER-It was on the other side of the lake. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not sure, but I think it was the Freihofer place. MR. BREWER-No, I don't think so. It was on the other side. I can remember it. MR. STARK-Craig has some questions here, and I just concurred with them. He'd like to voice them. MR. SCHACHNER-I think I can figure out, back tracking, what we did previously. The Zoning Ordinance, the only definition of water level in our Zoning Ordinance is the mean high water mark, and it's defined at the same elevation in our Zoning Ordinance as in the Lake George Park Commission Regulations, which by pure coincidence, I happen to have with me, and that is that 320.2 feet above mean sea level, that's mean high water mark, and I think that's why, going back a couple of years, that's why we decided to measure from mean high. MR. BREWER-320.2? MRS. LABOMBARD-320.2. I just read it in there, when we were doing that other thing. MR. PALING-But you also get a, you can get a daily reading on Roger's Rock that varies that. MR. SCHACHNER-Somebody just said something about the Roger's Rock water level, and the answer is, yes. There's a daily reading, at least daily and maybe more than once a day. As I understand it, as I recall, there's a daily reading, based on the Roger's Rock gauge, as to what that day's level of Lake George is. MR. STARK-Craig's got some concerns. I think the rest of the Board will concur. - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. MACEWAN-I guess my first concern is I'd like to see a more definitive plan of your proposed boathouse and the roof heights, what you propose to do. I haven't seen anything in illY packet. I want to get clarification, if we can, from Staff on this, and get a hold of the Lake George Park Commission. I'm curious to know a little bit more about this grandfathered Marina use permit thing, and I guess I'm really hung up on this thing, but if you're talking about wanting to go out 47 feet off the shoreline, are you talking about putting the roof complex 47 feet out over that whole section as well? MR. LECCE-Correct. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to see a drawing of that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I'd like to see some elevations. MR. MACEWAN-To know how properties. For Staff, I grandfathered. it's want going to affect to find out more neighboring about this MR. PALING-All right. That's two points. You want a definitive plan, that is drawings and all the dimensions that go with~it. Now, Craig, on the second question, however, if Mr. Lecce is saying that he will never rent space again ever in his life, what do we care, whether there's a Marina use permitted or not, if he's willing to meet that stipulation? He's already said, I believe, that he would. MR. MACEWAN-Some of the other people are saying he could apply, or anyone else could apply for a permit for Marina usage, and I'd like to know a little bit more about that. MRS. LABOMBARD-So would I. MR. BREWER-I'm a little bit hung up on the opposite of that. How can we tell a person he can't apply for a permit? MR. PALING-Yes. I don't think you can. MR. MACEWAN-Our Zoning Ordinance doesn't say it. I mean, sometimes our Zoning Ordinances don't coincide with what Lake George Park Commission. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it's not a prohibited use. It just would mean that it would be a Marina, and as Tim is saying, somebody would have to apply. MR. PALING-But he would have the same right as anyone else on the lake to do it. MR. MACEWAN-I'd just like'more information on that. heard of it before. I've never MR. HILTON-If I may, one thing here. There are some concerns about whether or not he has a grandfathered marina for this location. I think it's important, and I appreciate you pointing that out, and Staff will look into it because, first of all, if, for some reason, he does not receive approval for this, can he, or does he actually have a legal right to be operating a marina on what he is left with? Do you see what I'm saying? Like if he doesn't receive approval for this site plan, does he, in effect, really have the right to be operating a marina or commercial dock space out there? MR. BREWER-Does he have a right to be operating for the last two years anyway? MR. HILTON-Well, that's one thing we're going to be looking into. - 34 - -- ----- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) Secondly, if approved, and he states that he's going to remove the rental of the dock space, but, you know, maybe down the line has some thoughts about re-introducing the use to this property. He would need to apply for a Use Variance. Marinas, commercial docks, are not allowed in this zoning district, and in order to resume that use, he would, as I said, have to apply for a Use Variance and go before the Zoning Board. MR. PALING-Would that apply whether we had that specific stipulation or not? MR. HILTON-It would apply if he stated that he was going to remove, lets assume that he does not have a legal right to have a commercial dock space out there, and that he says that he's going to remove any commercial dock space. He is then left with just residential dock space, and if he wants to further, if he wants to create further commercial dock space, yes, he will have to go for a Use Variance. MR. PALING-And that's what I think we're looking at. MR. HILTON-Right. - MR. STARK-Bob, I would like to possibly, with the applicant's permission, table this until next month. We could find out from C.T. Male whether that could be designed, the trusses. They would know by then, because he says now they don't know if they can do it. Then he would have to cut down the size of it. Nothing's going to get done until the fall anyway. He I s not going to undertake this until the fall. So, if it was put off a month. MR. PALING-All right. Lets make sure Mr. McCollister's questions are answered. Lets make this clear to the applicant where we're coming from. Okay. Do you have any other? MR. MCCOLLISTER-My only other I'd come back to is my first point. I've dealt with that stone wall for a number of years, trying to keep it in place. You don't just remove ª rock, and not bother the one next to it. It's interlaced, and when he comes up to the property line, and it doesn't matter whether he stops three feet before he gets to our property line. Wherever that stops, if there's not sufficient provision made to ensure that there's transition, next spring when the runoff starts, there's going to be a trench about three feet deep running down somewhere between our properties, and I just would like to see that that, Number One, doesn't happen to begin with, and, Number Two, doesn't end up taking out three foot of illY property line, because they put in a new sea wall. I'm not objecting to the sea wall. I just want to see that proper measures. MR. MACEWAN-Proper measures are taken. MR. BREWER-Bob, maybe if the applicant has plans drawn up, we could have our engineer look at them. MR. PALING-Okay. Now we're not closing the public hearing on this. If we table it, we're going to leave the public hearing open, and then we can come back to this. Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-If he's going to go out 47 feet out into the lake, with a covered boathouse or whatever, man, you could put a lot of boats in there. I'm hesitant about that. I'd like something to look at, is what I'm saying. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I think, first of all, that we all would like a more detailed, definitive plan of what the buildings and dock are going to be, dimensions and the whole thing. Okay. - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-Some elevations. MR. PALING-An elevation if you will. MR. LECCE-Right, the dock, the wharf itself, the dimensions on the plan, our submission. MR. PALING-The plan view of that, if that's your final, yes. MR. MACEWAN-What plan are you referring to? MR. LECCE-The plan that was sent in to the Lake George Park Commission. MR. MACEWAN-I never got it. MR. PALING-Okay. Then, George. We don't have what the Lake George Park Commission got. So, you'll have to be sure that we get that. Okay. MR. LECCE-What the Lake George Park Commission has is, you have the exact plan. ,..-- MR. PALING-We don't, but we will. MR. LECCE-I submitted them. MR. BREWER-Yes. He's talking about that little drawing, Bob. MR. HILTON-I believe that the Planning Board only has this one sheet from C.T. Male. MR. BREWER-This drawing right here. referring to? Is that the drawing you're MR. LECCE-That's the C.T. Male drawing that you have in front of you. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. HILTON-That's the only thing the Planning Board has. I think what the Planning Board's looking for is you have some drawings included in your Lake George Park Commission approval that they would like to see, and have time to review. MR. LECCE-I didn't submit those drawings to the Lake George Park Commission. They added that as an exhibit. What the Lake George Park Commission attached to their permit is theirs. MR. MACEWAN-I want to see a drawing that shows what you have existing versus what you have shown proposed. MR. LECCE-The survey print has the existing. This survey print by C.T. Male shows existing, where the line is existing, and that's the existing dock. MR. MACEWAN-I want something more definitive than that. I want to know these widths, the distance between here. MR. LECCE-Five feet here, five feet here. MR. PALING-That's what's got to be on the print. MR. BREWER-If this is going to go out 47 feet, are you going to put piers out into the? MR. LECCE-No. - 36 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. BREWER-How is it going to stay up? MR. LECCE-It can be designed that way. MR. BREWER-Can we see that design? MR. LECCE-Sure. MR. MACEWAN-On your beach area, how much of that are you cutting in from the shoreline back here to make that beach area? It's not really clear on your map. MR. PALING-I think Craig's question is more not to show us now; but when you come back in with your plans, that that be shown. MRS. LABOMBARD-It looks to me like if this is to scale, it's about 12 feet. MR. LECCE-About 12 feet. It's under the 20% that we're allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. We're not requesting any variances. We've met the Code in every respect, with the beach area, retaining wall, the dock, the roof, the wharf, the whole thing. ~ MR. PALING-Okay. We're asking for all the dimensions that are involved, whether it's for the beach or the dock or the roof line, that would involve a pictorial, an elevation I should say, and then a plan view, perhaps, that would show the dimensions that we might not have now, and bear in mind, there are some that we haven't seen, and, George, that'll be coordinated through him, we get a complete set on that. MR. LECCE-What you want is you want a dimension or a cross section of the trusses that are going to be used. MR. MACEWAN-And an elevation of the existing dock, the proposed dock, and the new covered area. MR. PALING-I don't think we need an engineering of the trusses. MR. LECCE-You want a ressertation from C.T. Male that the truss (lost word) can be reached without any piers? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, that we'd like. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. LECCE-You want a picture that it's designable and engineerable. MR. PALING-Yes. It would have to be. MR. MACEWAN-They stamp it. They're putting their blessing on it. MR. LECCE-That's not a problem. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LECCE-As'long as we're sure what you want for this meeting. You also want to know the dimensions of the sandy beach area? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. LECCE-Okay. You want actual dimensions put on the size of the dock, the wharf, the length, the width. MR. MACEWAN-Which will be on your drawing that you submit. MR. LECCE-Correct. You also want me to submit dock designs, or crib designs for the Lake George Park Commission's approval permit - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) for the crib itself. You want the crib designs as well? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. LECCE-Do you want a location of where the existing rock's going to go after we move the rock? MR. PALING-Well, I think we have to get more detail on that in engineering comment, to answer Mr. McCollister's question about any damage that could result to his property when this new wall is put in. MR. BREWER-When the old wall is removed. MR. PALING-Yes, and the new one put in, and some kind of assurance that it isn't going to affect either adjacent property. MR. LECCE-I guess the question I have is, you want to make sure that the rock wall's not going to affect the existing drainage patterns? Is that what we're trying to figure out? MR. PALING-Drainage, erosion. It shouldn't have any affect on his property, in terms of drainage or erosion. ~ MR. LECCE-So would that be the engineering report by C.T. Male that says that it does not affect Mr. McCollister's frontage or drainage patterns? MR. PALING-And we'd want to see a drawing of the wall. MR. LECCE-(Lost words) C.T. Male drainage report that says that it does not affect the frontage or his drainage, would that be sufficient? MR. PALING-Submitted to Planning, right, to Staff. MR. LECCE-Okay. MR. PALING-All right. Where are we now? MR. STARK-Make a motion to table. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, we need your consent to table this, and we should table it to a date. MR. MACEWAN-You don't need to do that. MR. BREWER-No. Well, lets say that we're going to do it the first meeting next month, predicated on him having the information submitted to us, or if he can do it, I mean, how much time do you need to do it? MR. LECCE-I can have it done tomorrow. MR. BREWER-Then why don't we give him a break and do it the last meeting of the month? MR. HILTON-There isn't enough time to adequately review this within the month of June. If we get this information in a week before the first meeting in July, we can review it at the first July meeting, and I would like to, for the record, maybe state when it will be heard next, so that anyone, should they want to come back for the public hearing, they'll have a definite date. MR. PALING-Yes. That's what I want to accomplish is have a date, and I'm saying that the date of this would be July 16th. That's a Tuesday, at 7 o'clock. - 38 - .- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. BREWER-That's our meeting, the 16th? MR. PALING-Yes. That's the third Tuesday. MR. BREWER-Then lets have this stuff submitted by the submission date for July, which is. MR. HILTON-July 9th. Well, no, in this situation, if we have a week of information. That's normally what we've done with other applications. If we have a week to review the information, get it to you and get it to Rist-Frost, we can see this at the first meeting in July. MR. BREWER-But he's saying he can have it done tomorrow. Why not say? MR. HILTON-Sure. If he wants to bring it in, fine. I'm just saying that in past situations, what we've done is if an applicant is required, or, you know, there's been a request made to submit further information, we've given them up to a week before the date. MR. LECCE-I don't need that much time. Planning Board meeting? I mean, when's the next ..-- MR. HILTON-July 16th. MR. PALING-The next Planning Board meeting is, there's one the 20th and the 25th. MR. HILTON-Again, we don't have time, and if we need Rist-Frost's review of this, there's not enough time to get a review and a letter back to the Board members. MR. MACEWAN-And after all, we got Rist-Frost comments today, for tonight's meeting. It can't be done. You're putting an undue burden on us. MR. LECCE-Okay. MR. PALING-All right. Then we're going to table this, and then this will not require re-advertising the public hearing, because we're announcing that it's tabled to July 16th. Okay. All right. We need a motion for that. MR. BREWER-Yes. Just so we get the stuff in our packets, I guess is my point, for July. MR. HILTON-Okay. That's fine. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 26-96 LOUIE & CHRISTINE LECCE, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Tabled until July 23, 1996. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. We'll see you next month. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, before he leaves, shouldn't someone tell the applicant that the submission deadline for that July meeting is - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) Wednesday, June 26? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. LECCE-That won't be a problem. I understand. MR. STARK-Didn't you make the comment that as long as you had it the week before? MR. HILTON-Yes, I made that comment. The normal submission deadline is the last Wednesday in June, but like I said, in situations in the past, we've given applicants up until a week before the meeting to re-submit information. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't care. Whatever you guys want to do. MR. HILTON-But that's fine. MR. MACEWAN-John & Laura Flower is off tonight? MR. HILTON-Yes. In case there is anyone here for this item, khis is a situation where we gave them until one week before tonight's meeting to submit something. They haven't. The item will be heard a week from today. We received some information today that will be distributed to you in the next couple of days. MR. PALING-Now there's no one for the Flower application here, right? Okay. All right. So June 25th we'll take that up. DISCUSSION ITEM: DISCUSSION REGARDING A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR A NEW CURTIS LUMBER RETAIL CENTER. JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-Okay. This evening, we have representatives from Curtis Lumber here. They would like to discuss a proposed site plan for a new store out on Corinth Road, off of Exit 18 of the Northway. So tonight we're here as a discussion item, and I assume, and I was under the impression it was going to be rather informal. So I will come up and show you the plans that we have, and if the applicant has anything to say, or would like to discuss something, we can just. MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. My name is John Richards. I'm the attorney for Jay Curtis, who's actually the applicant. I guess this is a proposed Curtis Lumber store. We have one of the Curtis representatives with us tonight. Jon Hallgren is the Vice President of Retail Operations for Curtis Lumber. Just to get you organized. This is the property. It's bounded by Big Bay Road on the west and the Northway on the east. Big Bay Road is right here. Big Bay road is on the west. Big Bay Road is here, with the indent, and then the Northway runs like this, and we have the Corinth Road here. The (lost word) Hotel would be over in this area, actually over in this area. This property is presently owned by Frank Parillo. Frank Parillo owns the remaining portion of this parcel that fronts on Corinth Road. You've got Light Industrial zoning the entire area west of Big Bay Road and adjoining this parcel to the south, and what is planned for this, you can see there's several structures that would go on this site, but it would be a Curtis Lumber Retail sales center, and consolidate all the operations that are now kind of a hodge podge over on Western Avenue. You've got the kitchen center across the way, in the Shop N' Save Plaza, and you've got the lumber yard and the retail center there right across on Western, and this would be a far more - 40 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) attractive and far more efficient operation for Curtis, and something that would set them up for a long term future in the Town. MR. STARK-Tim, remember when we looked at this for Parillo before? What was our objection then? I don't remember. MR. BREWER-It was a different type of zone, I think, George. I think it, as I recall, it was some sort of Plaza Commercial. MR. RICHARDS-I was involved in that. I can speak to that. MR. BREWER-Was it Plaza Commercial? MR. RICHARDS-This parcel is zoned Commercial Residential, and several years ago, I appeared on behalf of Frank Parillo, applied for a re-zoning to Highway Commercial at that time. That's what we applied for. The Planning Department had some comments, and recommended another commercial zone. In any event, although this Board recommended approval, we did not proceed with that. MR. BREWER-I thought we recommended denial? ~ MR. RICHARDS-No. You recommended approval, but you didn't want any, there was some access questions. MR. BREWER-It's irrelevant. MR. PALING-Wéll, is the zoning now, is this a permitted usage for the present zoning? MR. HILTON-Presently, the zoning is CR-15, and the use has been deemed a Light Industrial use, which requires a Use Variance, and tomorrow night before the Zoning Board. MR. PALING-They're going to do that with Zoning. Okay. MR. STARK-I have another question. John, what's the distance from Corinth Road to your northern boundary? How much land is there? MR. RICHARDS-Acreage or distance? MR. STARK-No, just distance. MR. RICHARDS-Approximately 550, 600 feet, something like that, over 500, I know that. MR. STARK-You're going to be 600 feet away from Corinth Road, then. MR. RICHARDS-Approximately, not exact figures. MR. STARK-They're going to have to go down Big Bay Road to get to you, then? There's no way they're going to be able to cut through that other property? MR. RICHARDS-Actually, as a matter of fact, this is strictly a preliminary site plan. I want to emphasize that, but it is the result of several discussions with Jim Martin, and that was what he recommended, was the access off Big Bay. MR. PALING-Do you have two accesses? Is that what I'm seeing? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. In fact, one primary one for the auto traffic, to the north part, and then this other one is for the delivery trucks. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you plan a sign on Corinth Road, so people will know? - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) JON HALLGREN MR. HALLGREN-At this time, on that drawing, well, no, there's no signs planned on Corinth Road. MR. PALING-Would you have one on Big Bay? MR. HALLGREN-We're looking to see if, a freestanding on Big Bay. There's a little one drawn just below the driveway there, the upper driveway. MR. BREWER-If they build it, people will know it's there. I mean, if they find it on Western Avenue, they're certainly going to find it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you have any proposed use for the store now that will be vacant? Over on Western Avenue? MR. RICHARDS-Bob Curtis owns that we lease that property from purchasing this property, and he or he's got some possibilities don't have any plans for it. property, Jay Curtis' father, and him now, and we discussed our feels he's got some leads on that, (lost words) changing that. We --- MRS. LABOMBARD-No, but I mean, I just hate to have another warehouse and buildings vacant. MR. RICHARDS-You don't have any control over that. leases. They have MRS. LABOMBARD-No, I understand. I was just wondering. MR. PALING-100 by 200 is your retail store, plus warehouse. MR. MACEWAN-Can you get into some specifics about what the building on there represent, and structures and so on and so forth? MR. RICHARDS-I'm going to turn that over to Jon Hallgren, for Jay. He can explain that in more detail. MR. HALLGREN-Can everybody see this fairly well? MR. PALING-Pretty good. MR. HALLGREN-This is Big Bay Road here, and our proposal here is, this is a, we had a store planner who's been designing stores throughout the U.S., as far as California and up in Maine and some of the southern states. Bellevue Building Supply in Schenectady has just put in a similar facility, an enlarged building, which I'll explain in a minute, and what he's done is he's tried to give us a very tight yard here, keeping the buildings very close together, and keeping most of the material under roof. The customers could drive in, the retail customers could drive in, park in the 16 lots that we have here, and that's what was prescribed. We went over that with George, as far as the number of parking spaces required. Most of those customers will be parking in this area here would enter the retail store. Go in the retail store. Buy hardware, look at the displays. We'll have a large display center in the retail store, and then when they want their yard items, two by fours, plywood, sheet rock, cement, they can place the order here, whereas sometime in the future they'll be able to place the order in this building here, where we'd write the order. They would leave this, get in their car, and then drive in this drive through warehouse, and I think many of you will recall the old Grossman's yard in Glens Falls had a drive through. The significant difference between this building and their yard is this has three lanes going through it. - 42 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. BREWER-Similar, does anybody remember Warner PruYn? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, Warner PruYn. MR. WEST-I wouldn't call theirs a drive through. I'd call it a drive in and get bottlenecked, stuck, wait in line. MR. HALLGREN....This design in itself has solved that issue. Too many of the drive throughs had two lanes going through them, where only one (lost word) spots, and people would stop on either side, and that's what clogs the whole drive through lots, and you paint lines right at the building, and we've been down to Bellevue to take a look at it. We haven't seen it in action, yet, but we do follow the lines. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is it going to be a metal building, a wood frame building? MR. HALLGREN-Yes. These would be, it would be building. It may be the metal frame or wood frame. that would make any difference. Construction wise, shape a little bit, the roof lines, but either one or wood buildings. It would be a light grey metal with white trim and a white roof. a metal sided I don't think it changes the could be metal sided building MR. STARK-What storage building's down in the bottom there? What' s that down there? MR. HALLGREN-What we're going to do, we're not sure if these two buildings can store all the materials for future use, so we thought we'd show you that at some time in the future, in the next five, ten, fifteen years, we may need some additional space, and that's where we tried to incorporate it. We wanted to make sure that it was known that this would not be the final space needed, but we might need a little bit of warehousing, and I believe George checked the figures, and we're still within the permitted building space on the lot. MR. HILTON-Yes. It appears that the site density would be appropriate, would be okay with this addition. MR. PALING-Do you have any curbing on your accesses? Do you have curbing there? MR. HALLGREN-When you say curbing, an actual curb cut? We would have, we've enlisted Dennis MacElroy to do our site plan design for us, but that's part of the final specs. MR. PALING-Well, let me get to what I'm getting at. We sure would like to see either granite or concrete, if you're going to put curbs in, and we want you to go by the new, what would be part of the master plan for the dimensions of the parking spaces. We don' t want a duplication of a couple of the parking lots we have now, where the spaces are too narrow, and we've gone on record with the Town Board, having requested this, and we think it'll be part of the master plan when it comes out. MR. HILTON-At the present time, we have dimensions that are listed in our Zoning Ordinance of 9 by 20, and if they're developing to that standard, then they're in compliance. MR. PALING-Is 9 by 20 what Blockbuster is? MR. HILTON-Nine by twenty is what's required in the Zoning Ordinance. I don't know what Blockbuster's dimensions are. MR. PALING-The Board, this Board has gone on record as saying we're against that, and we've asked for a new dimension in parking - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) spaces, and we've asked that granite or concrete be used in all curbing, no more wood, no more asphalt, because that stuff deteriorates, and we're making a strong request of any applicant that they abide by what we think will be law later on. MR. HILTON-Okay. Yes. I understand what you're saying about the curbing and about the lining of the parking spaces, but actual dimensions is what I'm really getting at, but, okay. I understand what you're saying, though. MR. MACEWAN-Bob, at that point, you can only request that to happen. They're required to put no more than what the Ordinance calls for and the Zoning calls for. MR. PALING-Absolutely. We'll still ask for it. MR. BREWER-Well, it's better to let them know up front. MR. PALING-And we've had no dissent, and I think that's the way it's going to be, plus the fact the public will like you much better if you do it that way. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question. You might have addressed i~ I might have been daydreaming. When the tractor trailers come in, is there enough turn around and everything through there? MR. HALLGREN-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, and like the southwestern corner of the big building? MR. HALLGREN-Yes. There's quite a bit of space in here they can back up to doors here, and if they come in, they're stuck at that turn around area here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, and so fire trucks and vehicles and all that, emergency, I mean, there's no problem going around. MR. HALLGREN-We'll make sure of that when we review the site plan. This is a conceptual drawing. MR. STARK-How many acres is the whole parcel? MR. HALLGREN-I think it's 6.724. MR. LABOMBARD-When do you plan to start construction, should this go through? MR. HALLGREN-We would like to progress as quickly as possible. As you know, with Grossman's closing down, it's boosted our traffic at the store, and our current facility is very poor. The best time for us to start up a store is in April, okay, and to have a store constructed by April, we'd have to have a roof on the building late November, early December before we would start to get snowfall. So we'd like to proceed as fast as possible. We're ready to move as fast as we can. MR. BREWER-Have you or Staff looked at this, as far as traffic problem on Big Bay, the corner, I mean, access with the trucks and cars parked there? MR. HILTON-Right. We haven't started to look at the, you know, traffic considerations for this site plan. Right now we're in preliminary discussions. MR. BREWER-That's something we have to consider, because of the narrowness of that road. I mean, I think it's a great idea. It would be easier for me to get to. - 44 - - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. RICHARDS-We did discuss the traffic, preliminarily, with Jim, and as Jon pointed out, traffic on this thing is not as much as you might expect, Probably less than Stewarts, as far as car traffic, but the timing really is important, and Jim had also indicated, I want to make sure that this Board (lost words) the way we'd like to have it done. We'd like to move, obviously, currently with the site plan approval to a final subdivision approval. Is there any problem in solving? MR. BREWER-We'd have to do subdivision before we do site plan, don't we? MR. RICHARDS-You can't do that the same meeting? MR. STARK-We could do the subdivision in the Preliminary. MR. PALING-As two separate subjects we could yes. MR. MACEWAN-I think it's been this Board's history not to do them all in one step, only because something unforeseen may come up. We're able to skip Sketch plan some times and do Preliminary, but to do Preliminary and Final and a Site Plan all in one night. ..-- MR. PALING-Not for three. MR. RICHARDS-Do you foresee we could do it in one month? MR. BREWER-We could do it in a month. MR. MACEWAN-Provided everything goes along well. MR. RICHARDS-Again, assuming that there's no hitches, we could come back two weeks later, whenever, the next week, and finish it up. I'm trying to get a feel for what's the quickest way we can get this through without trying to short cut the time for review or anything like that. MR. BREWER-The quickest thing for you to do is get your variance tomorrow night and then put an application in. MR. HILTON-I think a schedule, also, of Preliminary subdivision at one meeting, and then the following week a Final subdivision and final plan is something realistic, and I think that's something the Board's done in the past. MR. PALING-And Site Plan, yes. MR. MACEWAN-We just did that with the CVS. MR. PALING-So you're saying it could take place in a two week span. MR. HILTON-Take place in a two week span. MR. BREWER-I didn't mean traffic from the cars. I'm thinking more like up on the corner of Big Bay and Corinth. Cars stop there to get out, trucks coming in. I guess that's illY concern, not necessarily the amount of cars you're going to generate going up and down that road. Because I know I can get a feel for what the cars are. Do you understand what I'm saying? I guess the turn radius and whatnot on Big Bay. MR. RICHARDS-That way. We did take some measurements, some quick measurements. MR. MACEWAN-Wait a minute. Encore's got a warehouse down there. If a tractor trailer from Encore could turn that corner, I'm sure one for these guys could. - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. BREWER-I'm not saying that they can't, Craig. I'm asking them to look at it. I think you're going to have more traffic during the day time and what not from Curtis than you would from Encore going down there at night and just storing paper I think, is what I'm saying, materials in and out with trucks and deliveries. I'm not saying it's going to be a problem. I'm just saying take a look at it. MR. STARK-Well, you've got to deduct the traffic that goes off the Northway now to Curtis Lumber where they are now, which is horrendous, and then instead of taking a right, they'd be taking a left, then, that's all, or going west instead of east. Right? MR. BREWER-Whatever. MR. PALING-Now there's got to be time for an engineering review of this, for permeation and all that sort of stuff on this. Yes, because that's a lot of roof space that they're putting in there, but I'm sure they're going to consider that anyway. MR. MACEWAN-Tell us about landscaping. What do you propose? MR. HALLGREN-We went by George's suggestions, and the suggest~ons we had were to plant trees, either hardwoods or evergreens, along Big Bay Road here, and then do shrubbery around this portion of the building. MR. MACEWAN-The (lost word) will be fenced? MR. HALLGREN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-And the trees that are currently along the back side of the property, against the entrance ramp, southbound of the Northway, they would all remain, or would you cut right to the property line? MR. HALLGREN-I don't believe there are any trees on the property line. I think the trees are off the property line. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Not on your property then. MR. HALLGREN-And this is just under 30% green space here, when we laid this out. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe an idea to keep in mind, is maybe put like an island type area between your parking areas, so you can pick up some additional green space, kind of like the Shop N' Save idea with their islands. MR. HALLGREN-We talked to George and Jim about that, and one of the problems with a small lot like this, with snow removal with the islands, they would find another way to compromise with some other trees around the parking lot, versus an island, because that curb cut doesn't really help with the traffic pattern, necessarily. It does hinder to snow plowing. That would make that clear run. MR. MACEWAN-How is that going to affect your whole site with snow removal? MR. HALLGREN-We've got this area here, in the winter time, a lot less traffic through the yard. This buffer space that we'd gain in this area, we can get our snow removal over here. MR. BREWER-Just one other question. Why is that lot line cut at an angle? Why wouldn' t that be straight? That would pick up tremendous amount, the lot line, why is it cut at an angle? MR. HALLGREN-This here? - 46 - - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. BREWER-Is that existing line? MR. RICHARDS-The Northway. MR. HALLGREN-Yes. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. STARK-Okay. Next month you're coming in, John? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. MR. STARK-The first meeting for, and then you want to be on for the second meeting. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll need all kinds of detail, but I'm sure you're familiar with that, what we'll need. So, it looks good. Hopefully you can proceed with haste. MR. RICHARDS-I think it would be a great asset to the Town. MR. MACEWAN-Does Parillo plan on retaining the other parcel, as part of the subdivision, the parcel that's on the corner of Big~Bay and Corinth Road? MR. RICHARDS-Jay Curtis is only buying the 6.7 acre parcel. So, as far as he knows, Parillo's going to keep the other part. MR. WEST-I'm just curious. Did you consider Grossman's at all? MR. HALLGREN-Yes, we did, but it presented too many problems with the congestion. We had discussions about it when we looked. I think it's about 2.2 acres or 2.3, and we looked at the exiting, crossing those lanes. MR. BREWER-I think that's an excellent site for what you want. MR. PALING-Okay. I guess we're all set then. We'll see you next month. MR. RICHARDS-Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Thank you. The meetings this coming month are Thursday, July 11th site visits at 4 o'clock, and then the 16th and the 23rd are the regular meetings. The third and fourth Tuesday, normally. Are we going to have three meetings next month, George? MR. HILTON-It's hard to say right now. We're a long ways before our deadline. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-I think we have one application already. subject to change. So, that's MR. STARK-I have a question for Staff. George, when the applicant comes in, would you please tell them to put up the pink signs? I haven't seen one pink sign in the last two months. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. They've been bad about it. MR. STARK-Well, you've got to take into account, George, they've got to give them to them. MR. STARK-Do you give them the signs? MR. HILTON-Me personally? No. Our Department does, and I believe, I'll look into that, but I think we've been giving them the signs - 47 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) all along. MR. STARK-It really helps to locate the project, and I haven't seen any. MR. BREWER-I looked for a half an hour for that one up by MacElroy's place today on Knox Road, couldn't find it. MRS. LABOMBARD-We couldn't find the one on Ridge Road. What's that one? The one on Ridge Road, the one down by Sunnyside. MR. STARK-Just past TLC. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, past TLC, we could not find it. MR. HILTON-Like a barn they're putting in. MR. STARK-The barn, the 30 by 60 barn. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Before we take off here, Mark, can you elaborate, if you can, a little bit on the Lake George Park Commission permits for marinas for residents? MR. SCHACHNER-What do you want to know about it? MR. MACEWAN-How does that tie in to our Ordinances where you say you can't do that? MR. SCHACHNER-Extremely poorly. MR. MACEWAN-Poorly from whose standpoint? MR. SCHACHNER-From Town's standpoint, in my opinion. The Lake George Park Commission has very strict provisions of law and regulation that say, in essence, and if anybody wants to see them, George, I did go fetch them from the car, that say, in essence, that if you are renting, or not even renting, but allowing people to use your docks that are not the owners of, you know, you're property. They're not you. They're not your immediate family members, then you are a marina. You are either a Class A Marina, if you have a sufficient number of them, or you are a Class B Marina, but you're a Marina. That's similar to our definition of Marina, but it's not identical. There's a lot of apples and oranges. There are some situations that are considered in one, meaning in the Town, but not in the Park Commission, and the opposite can be true also, but in the context of this applicant tonight, if that's where you're coming from in asking, it sounds to me like he's renting boat slips out, and although he says he's grandfathered by the Park Commission by some sort of commercial permit, somebody read something from the existing Park Commission permit that didn't make it sound like that, to me, and if you're renting those slips, then, in theory, you're supposed to have a Lake George Park Commission Marina permit. At the Town level, and I don't know, maybe others here know more than me about this, but at the 'rown level, technically, if you're renting these slips, you're a Marina, and if you're a Marina, that's a commercial use, and you're not allowed to have a commercial use unless the Zoning allows for a commercial use, but my sense is that there's a ton of people on Lake George that rent out their docks, and it's not commercial, in the sense they don't have a store. They don't have things for sale. They don't have a parking lot. It's just, you know, I rent to my cousin from Albany type stuff, and my sense is that it's pretty hard to enforce. Am I talking about what you want me to be talking about? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. - 48 - ',- '-' - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/18/96) MR. SCHACHNER-I think that, as a practical matter, enforcing this stuff is very, very difficult. MR. MACEWAN-It's one of those things, I mean, he was like one of the first people I've ever heard admit that I rent out space. It was always kind of like that well kept secret up there, you know the guys got a house. He's got four slips up there. You know he doesn't own four boats. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the vast majority of people that have large docks with multiple slips are renting them out to people from the Capital District or whatever at a decent clip. How is John Goralski or George Hilton or Mark Schachner or whomever, or you guys, how do you know that? And it's not a Marina in the typical sense of the term, when people think Marina they think of a store where you go buy something, nor is it really commercial, in the sense that you might ordinarily think of commercial. There's no product for sale. It's a rental activity. It's a real nightmare, I think, enforcement wise, and it's also difficult to administer both the Park Commission and the Town's laws. On motion meeting was adjourned. ..-- RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 49 -