Loading...
1996-11-19 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 1996 INDEX Site Plan No. 59-96 Angela Kladis Tax Map No. 13-1-16 1. Subdivision No. 13-86 Herald Square, Phase III Tax Map No. 125-9-999 3. Subdivision No. 8-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE L. Rae Gillis 9 . DISCUSSION ITEM Proposed Doyle's Plaza 12. Site Plan No. 28-90 DISCUSSION ITEM Dunhams Bay Boat Co. Tax Map No. 4-1-13, 10-1-19.2 24. 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 11/19/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN DAVID WEST GEORGE STARK TIMOTHY BREWER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES: August 20, 1996: NONE August 27, 1996: Page 12, indicated that Bob Paling was absent, he voted yes to a motion on 55-96 August 29, 1996: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 8/20, 8/27, AND 8/29, WITH ONE COMMENT, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 59-96 TYPE II ANGELA KLADIS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: 5050 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AT THE SHORELINE. SEE SECTION 179- 60B[5] (3) (e)3 - ALTERATION OF SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 83- 1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-16 LOT SIZE: .45 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 MRS. LABOMBARD-We're going to start out with a discussion of Site Plan No. 59-96 for Angela Kladis. MR. PALING-I'd like to just read a letter into the record. It's addressed to me, regarding Site Plan No. 59-96 "Please accept this letter as our request to table Site Plan No. 59-96, scheduled to be heard on November 19th, until the first available meeting in December. Please do not hesitate to call if there are any further questions. Sincerely, Todd B. Stewart, VP for Angela Kladis" We can take a vote on whether we'll accept this, and I guess we'll accept it, but I think that we ought to impose upon the Kladis' the expense that the Town goes to to notify the public, and I think the public should be notified, because of the many delays, and if they're going to have another meeting, that we should have a full mailing, and that the applicant should pay for it. MR. BREWER-Don' t they anyway? Isn't that part of their application - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) fee, or not? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, the first time, but they don't pay each successive time after that. The Town bears that burden. MR. BREWER-Yes. I don't have any problem with that. MR. RUEL-That's a good idea. MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-Do you want to make that part of a motion, or not? MR. PALING-Okay. I'll make a motion, in regard to Site Plan No. 59-96, that we will hear this at the next available meeting when the Kladis' apply, but that they be advised that they will bear the full burden of a mailing to the public and any other administrative expenses involved because of this extension. It's being done because it's about the third or fourth extension that's been requested, and normally we don't do it. MR. RUEL-I'll second that. MR. GORALSKI-Just before you vote, could I just clarify? You said when they apply. Do you want them on the next December meeting? MR. PALING-Yes. They're going to have to apply first, and then put them on the next meeting available. MR. GORALSKI-Is this going to be a new application? MR. MACEWAN-They didn't rescind their application. They just asked to table. MR. GORALSKI~They're just asking to be tabled. MR. PALING-Yes. I'm not asking them to start from scratch. MR. GORALSKI-Right. So you're just continuing it. Why don't we just say that we'll put them on the next, his request is that he be placed on the first available meeting in December. So my recommendation would be that you table it until the first available meeting in December, with the condition. MR. PALING-All right. I'll re-do the motion then. MR. BREWER-You've got to open the public hearing and everything though, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Now, I'm confused, because looking at the agenda, it says public hearing September 24th tabled. Does that mean that the public hearing was opened on September 24th? MR. PALING-It's still open, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-So, if we're continuing it, then we actually don't need to re-advertise. MR. PALING-Yes, we do. MR. GORALSKI-They would like to. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. You can if you wish to. MR. PALING-I believe we wish to. This isn't just one delay. This is the third or fourth delay on this. MR. SCHACHNER-If you wish to, that's fine. I just wanted to make - 2 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) sure I was understanding it, that you're not obligated to. MR. RUEL-The motion stands? MR. PALING-I can re-word it maybe, a little better than I did. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 59-95 ANGELA KLADIS, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: That the tabling of this motion be continued until the first available meeting in December. Further, that the applicant be charged for all mailing and oLl1or E'\oOOciatðd ðxpemH~16 with thifJ meeting, and the Staff is therefore directed to go through the re- notification process for the public hearing. Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD SQUARE, PHASE III OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: WEST OF HERALD DRIVE, SOUTH OF LUZERNE ROAD REQUEST IS FOR THE PROPOSED CONVEYANCE TO THE TOWN OF A 20.35 ACRE PARCEL FOR HERALD SQUARE, PHASE III IN LIEU OF PAYMENT OF RECREATION FEES. LOT SIZE: 20.35 ACRES LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. John, we have a letter from the Rec Commission. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Do we have a letter from the Town Board, or what do we have? MR. GORALSKI-No, but I believe the Town Board, the Town Board makes a recommendation to the Planning Board before they can accept it. MR. STEVES-The recommendation has to first come from the Planning Board to the Town Board. MR. PALING-No, well we asked for recommendation concerning this from the Town Board as well as from the Rec Commission. That was in a letter to them, three weeks ago, or whenever it was, October 9th, they were requested for recommendation. MR. BREWER-It's kind of backwards, Leon, but that's the way it's. MR. GORALSKI-That's the way it's done. MR. SCHACHNER-Although it's then ultimately up to the Town Board to accept it. MR. BREWER-To accept the land, yes. MR. STEVES-Based upon a recommendation from this Board. MR. PALING-Actually based upon a decision from this Board and a recommendations from the other one. MR. PALING-John, go ahead about the Town Board. MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you, as far as I can tell, the Town Board has not made a decision on this. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. PALING-Okay. Lets read the Rec Commission letter into the record. I can do that. It's to the Queensbury Town Planning Board, from the Recreation Commission, dated November 13th, regarding the G. Passarelli property - offer of land dedication. "At the Queensbury Recreation Commission's monthly meeting on November 5, 1996, it was the consensus that Guido Passarelli's offer to dedicate 20.35 acres of land, located to the west of Herald Drive, south of Luzerne Road, (a portion of the total parcel, tax map #125-9-999), to the Town of Queensbury for recreational purposes, be rejected due to the topography of the site and its value and potential use as a future recreational area. 11 John, do you have any other input on· this? That's it. That's the recommendation of the Rec Commission. MR. PALING-Okay, and there will be a public hearing on this tonight. All right. Any questions on this for the moment? Okay. Go ahead. MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves from Van Dusen and Steves, representing Guido Passarelli in this attempt to give land in lieu of Recreational Fees to the Town of Queensbury. As I read the Code, I thought the Code said that I should make an application to the Planning Board to consider this and make a recommendation then to the Town Board, either negative or positive, for acceptance of this. It seems that we're going backwards here, asking for the Recreation Department and the Town Board to make a consideration here, without looking at the facts. I know what the Planning Board wants to do, and I appreciate what you're doing. Gathering all the facts is importa:nt. Making a decision is important, but this is my third trip here, and I haven't gotten anywhere yet. MR. PALING-Okay. Is this the first you've heard the Rec Commission letter was tonight? MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. meeting. Yes, I wasn't even invited to their MR. PALING-That doesn't seem totally right to do that, and were also not sent the letters we sent, or the one that was the Board here, nor the reply to it from the Rec Commission. don't even know about it. they from They MR. GORALSKI-Who doesn't know about it? MR. PALING-The applicant. MR. GORALSKI-No. The letter is sent to the Rec Commission and to the Town Board for their input to this Board. MR. PALING-Yes. I know that's the procedure we use, and I think it is correct, but I'm a little surprised that that information wasn't passed on to the applicant, so that they would have time to come up with their own case for the thing. MR. GORALSKI-It's up to those Boards to invite the applicant, if they want input from the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-Or the applicant could track the process and show up. These are all public meetings. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. What kind of comments from the Board here? MR. STARK-I think it's fine. I think if you look at the map, this connects this and this. MR. WEST-Well, we had some issues with access to this property, did we not, the last time, and then there was some discussion that it - 4 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) was very narrow limited access to get on to this property? MR. STEVES-No. I don't think there was any discussion. I think that Roger brought this to your attention, and he was questioning whether or not it was adequate. MR. WEST-Right. MR. STEVES-We feel that it is adequate and that it services the pedestrian access to the property. We're not iutending 1.t to hn public access and vehicular access. The people within the subdivision should be able to use it as a back door, if you will, walking along the park, the brook and go fishing or picnicking. Whatever. Everyone can use it, but we aren't going to provide an area for parking to that. If the Town wishes to do that, that's their prerogative, not ours. MR. MACEWAN-Where would you propose they do it? MR. STEVES-We don't. We're only proposing to make the offer for dedication. We're not making any attempt to define this usage. MR. BREWER-There really is no place to put parking, really, even if the Town wanted to. MR. WEST-I think one of the other questions ~ had, was there any access from the other side to this property? MR. STEVES-The other side is privately owned. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. STEVES-Yes, both to the west and south. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. STEVES-The only access is as shown on the map, from Herald Drive and Wayne Court. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. PALING-Any others? MR. BREWER-My only comment is I don't see a purpose that it'll serve. MR. WEST-Yes. What value is it for the Town, in its present configuration with such limited access? I would say it has very limited value. MR. STEVES-It is predominantly a wetland. MR. WEST-Yes. MR. STEVES-But it's also a brook, Clendon Brook. Now north of Luzerne Road has been taken over by the Town, and exactly the same scenario, and if this were added to the Town ownership of property, eventually they'd probably own all the land along the brook. I MR. BREWER-How could that be, Leon, unless they actually went out and tried to obtain it? I mean, along the brook, where the brook goes through, and Ambershire, it's all on private property. I don't know how many individual properties that they would have to. MR. STEVES-I said eventual Iv they could own it all. I'm not saying they will, not at all, but it has to start somewhere. MR. BREWER-You're right. That's my opinion. I don't see any value - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) of it, as far as the land versus the recreation fees. I don't see a need for it or a use for it. MR. PALING-Are there any other comments at the moment? There's a public hearing on this. So if there are none, lets open the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone care to speak for or against? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, Division Road, Queensbury. This same piece of property was offered to the Town back in, I believe 1992, for Phase II of Herald Square, and at that time it was rejected for the same reasons that Tim has brought forth. It's a flagged wetland that cannot be used for anything, and when Mr. Passarelli bought this piece of property, he knew that he couldn't build on it, and I know you people are smart enough to know that if he could build houses on this thing, he wouldn't be here offering it to the Town. It has no recreation value whatsoever. If you read your Recreation Law, which I assume you have, this piece of property doesn't even begin to qualify for a piece of recreation land for the Town. My personal feeling is that it doesn't have any recreation value whatsoever as far as the Town is concerned. Now my other question is, what is the total amount of Recreation Fees this gentleman will have to pay? MR. PALING-Well, $500 a lot. MR. TUCKER-Yes, well, how many lots? MR. PALING-How many lots in this one? I forget. I'm not sure. MR. BREWER-John, do you know how many lots are in Phase III? MR. PALING-I'm sure if we dig far enough, we'll find it, but offhand I don't remember. MR. GORALSKI-Hold on, I'll tell you. MR. BREWER-Roughly 40, Pliney. MR. TUCKER-Somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000. I think we could better use the $20,000 to take care of land that we have acquired, that we can use for all phases of recreation. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else? ROBERT CHAPMAN MR. CHAPMAN-My name is Robert Chapman. I live at 34 Herald Drive, right smack in front of that piece that they're talking about here, and I understand your concerns of it having any recreational value. Other than the brook, there isn't any, because, I mean, I've been down over back, walked down along there. There was an old logging road that went down in there at one point, which they have basically closed off, and I think any of the residents in the Herald Square who want to go back there, there is an access. There's like a right-of-way right by the edge of illY property that goes back there where you can walk through, and I suppose if kids wanted to go fishing, they could do that right now without the Town having to accept it as recreation land, because without any parking, and I certainly wouldn't want them parking all in front of illY house, up and down the road for people to go fishing there. I think they can access it off of Luzerne Road already, if they park there and then walk down the brook. I mean, I don't see the value of it being as public recreation, and that's how X would think about it. - 6 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. JANET SEEBRICK MRS. SEEBRICK-Janet Seebrick, 38 Linette Lane. I live in Herald Square, and this property is attached to my property behind me, and I do feel it should be used as a recreation area. Anyone that has ever been back there would see how beautiful it is. There's all kinds of recreation that you can be back there. There's nature. There's animals. There's a million thinga for people to do i,f that's the type of recreation that they want, and I don't feel that people should be cut off f1'OIll lhat, and I think if it'ø not tl\k~n by the Town, eventually it will be. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak on this matter? BRENDA CHAPMAN MRS. CHAPMAN-Good evening. I'm Brenda Chapman, Robert's wife. Living in Herald Square is a very nice development, and as far as the walkway that's provided already, like my husband said, they are able to go back there any time and go down and go fishing or whatever. To have you have the expense, the Town have the expense, doesn't seem quite feasible or even necessary. So I don't think it has to be a "recreation park". Right now it could be, in fact, a little bit of a danger if children were not supervising, or parents were not supervising their children properly, because it is a bit of a bog down in there. So I don't know what expense it would take for the Town to even make that a little safer, but as it is right now, I would hope parents would supervise their children, but it is just a lovely area back in there, and kind of useless, as far as we can see, but any time you get back in the woods, it's beautiful, no doubt about it, but left like it is I think would be a more proper use for the land right now. Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? JAY MCADAM MR. MCADAM-Jay McAdam. I live at 9 Mabel Terrace, and my property is bordered right on this property. As I look~ at this map, a couple of concerns X see, the majority of the properties on the other side of the wetlands, I'm sure you've already seen, also the property right behind my house is a bank. It runs right down to the stream. I mean, I could throw a rock from the top of my property into the stream, and there wouldn't be any usable land there, as shown on this map, and I don't mind, you know, I like recreation areas, but I don't think this is a good place to have a recreation area. I think it should be left the way it is. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else? ROGER RUEL MR. RUEL-Roger Ruel, 10 Mabel. I concur with most of the statements that were made here this evening, but I would like to point out one thing. There's approximately 20 acres that Mr. Passarelli wants to dedicate, and of that only about 5 acres are usable, because most of it is either the brook, wetlands, or on the other side of the brook which is not accessible. Now we were talking about $20,000. Well, if it's $20,000 for only four or five acres, I think that's pretty darn expensive for the Town of Queensbury. So I would definitely recommend that this not be dedicated for park land. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else? John? MR. GORALSKI-We have a letter. - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting ll/19/96) MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-From Bill and Sue Robinson, 37 Herald Drive, "With regard to the pending proposal of a 20.35 acre parcel of land, it is our preference that said land remain as is (no recreation area) . Our preference is not for land to be conveyed to the Town of Queensbury. Respectfully, Bill Robinson Sue Robinson" Okay, any other inputs? That's it for the letters? Okay, and is there anyone else? ELMER BAULSER MR. BAULSER-My name is Elmer Baulser. I live on Wayne Court, which abuts the property in question. At the time that we signed our deed there, there was mention that that property was to be forever wild. We all know that it's wetlands, and we're wondering, even if the Town were to do something with it, I don't see how you could do much, because of the fact that it is wetlands. It would seem to me that the best use of it would be to leave it the way it is. That's my own personal opinion. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. If not, then I think we can close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All recommendation. anything? right. So we There's no SEQRA. This is can move, Leon, did you want just a to say MR. STEVES-Yes. I do. I believe most everyone here tonight had the same opinion, and that could easily have been answered prior to the meeting tonight, had I had an opportunity to go on to the Recreation meeting. Everyone is talking about recreational lands. We're only saying that this is in lieu of recreational fees. We aren't saying that this land is going to be used in the recreational sense of ball fields, anything like that at all, but in the passive sense of walking trails and fishing and picnicking. It's a nature, it's a forever wild. It should be left in this pristine state, not opened up to traffic, parking and nobody ever suggested that, but I believe that that is the misconception based upon hearing the word recreational fees. That's all I have to say. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Then I guess we can go right to a motion, unless there's any further discussion that anyone wants to make? I'll entertain a motion in this regard. MR. BREWER-I just want to make one comment, Bob. I agree with what Leon said. Recreation necessarily doesn't have to be ball fields and soccer fields and what not, and there is some value to this type of recreation that he speaks of. In illY opinion, someone said there really can' t be a lot done with it. Well, Mr. Passarelli can do some things with this property, but I think with the brook there, there's not really a lot that he could do to build or sell whatever. I think of the $20,000 versus leaving the land as it is or buying it, if the Town were to go out and buy it, I don't think this is the kind of land, or maybe it is the kind of land that they would be looking for. I just don't think the dollar amount we're giving up, versus taking the land, is of any value. Don't get me wrong to say that that type of recreation isn't needed and there's not a need for it, but I just don't feel this piece of property should be taken in lieu of the fees. MR. STEVES-I agree with what you're saying, but don't say that it - 8 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) isn't worth it. MR. BREWER-Well, maybe those are a bad choice of words. MR. STEVES-Because the Town has, on numerous occasions, picked up land of a similar nature, if they get fair market value for it. MR. BREWER-Maybe I shouldn't say "worth it", Leon. I think this isn't a piece of property they should aggressively try to get. MR. STEVES-That I can accept. MR. PALING-Okay. motion? We're done, I believe. Do you want to make a MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THIS LAND IN LIEU OF FEES, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Stark ABSENT: Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED L. RAE GILLIS OWNER: L. RAE GILLIS, LITO ABRAMS ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: LOCKHART MT. RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 82-1990 SUB. 3-1994 TAX MAP NO. 23-1-29.1, 29.21 LOT SIZE: +/- 21.65 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-1996 Preliminary Stage, L. Rae Gillis, Meeting Date: November 19, 1996 "The applicant is seeking to subdivide an approximately 13 acre piece of property into two lots. Both lots will conform to the standards of the RR-SA district. This preliminary subdivision application has not been preceded by a sketch plan application and the Planning Board must waive this requirement in order to hear this application at this time. The map which has been submitted for this application also shows an adjacent lot to the south. Staff would recommend that this lot be removed from the final subdivision map as it is not a part of this subdivision." MR. PALING-That's the 8.7 acre down there? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. So we've got two items from Staff to think about. Now would you identify yourself please. MR. RYAN-I'm Dan Ryan. I'm representing Rae Gillis and filling in for his usual attorney, Bill White. MR. PALING-Okay. Did you hear, or maybe you've heard before, what the comments from Staff were. Did you have any problem with those? MR. RYAN-No, I did not. - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. PALING-Okay, the removal of the lot from the print, and the waiving, well, the waiving of Preliminary is up to us, but you concur on the other one, just remove it from the print? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments on this? MR. PALING-Yes. The number of waivers that were requested, are they part of the motion or should that be taken care of? MR. GORALSKI-It should be part of the motion. MR. PALING-Yes, they can be part of the motion. MR. RUEL-Because there are about three or four of them at least, no sketch plan and then the scale requirement, topography requirement, drainage and grading requirement. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-Those were all requested as waivers at this time. MR. GORALSKI-Right, and certainly, Staff would recommend that you grant those waivers. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Okay. 'So we could just add that to our motion. MR. GORALSKI-Add that to your approving motion. MR. PALING-Okay. Did you want to add anything, at this point, to it? MR. RYAN-No. The only thing I would add is it's a continuing, conforming use of the property. Right now Mr. Gillis is renting the land to another individual, and that individual wishes to purchase it. So there's really no change in anything going on on the property right now. MR. PALING-All right. There's a public hearing on this. Lets open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that cares to talk about this, for or against? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Unlisted Action. If not, the public hearing is closed. So we need a SEQRA. This is an MR. BREWER-Bob, could I interrupt for just one second? We were talking about the boat storage earlier. MR. WEST-Yes. There's a lot of boats up there. MR. BREWER-Is that anything we should even be talking about or? MR. GORALSKI-I know Performance Trailers has a site plan to. MR. BREWER-Fit boats to trailers, but this is a little more than that. MR. WEST-No, there's boat storage going on there. - 10 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. BREWER-George, how many boats did you say you thought was there? MRS. LABOMBARD-Thirty. MR. BREWER-Thirty? MR. STARK-No, I didn't say how many boats, but on the first hen house, on Gillis' property as retaining, he's storing boats there. I mean, that doesn't have anything to do with the subdivision, but I was just mentioning to Tim before that. There's a lot of boats being stored there. I don't know how many. MR. GORALSKI-Not at the Trailer place? MR. STARK-No, not at the trailer place. There's two hen houses, one to the south and one to the north? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. STARK-Just south of Mr. Gillis' house, hen house one or whatever you want to call it, there's a lot of boats there. MR. GORALSKI-I can look into that. MR. PALING-Okay, as a separate item, yes. MR. BREWER-I just was wondering if the applicant/agent knew anything about the situation. MR. RYAN-No, I don't know anything about the 30 boats. MR. PALING-But it's turned over to the Enforcement Officer, I guess we can say then, and we'll find out about it. MR. GORALSKI-I will look into it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. RUEL-It's not part of subdivision. MR. BREWER-No. MR. GORALSKI-It's an allowable use with Site Plan Review. If they are operating a commercial boat storage facility, they would require a Site Plan Review. MR. PALING-And you would probably have an input on it for us before that happens. All right. We want to do a SEQRA, Cathy. We can go with the Short Form on this, can't we, John? MR. GORALSKI-The Short Form is fine. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-1996, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before L. RAE GILLIS, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel;Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. We can go to a motion on this. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1996 L. RAE GILLIS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the condition that the final plan should not show adjacent property to the south, and that part of this motion, the following waivers are granted: no Sketch Plan needed, no scale requirement, no topographic requirement, no drainage and grading requirement, period. Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. storage, will you? Pass on the hint about the boat MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-And we have a discussion item this evening. DISCUSSION ITEM: 1. AT THE REQUEST OF JONATHAN LAPPER (10/30/96), A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED PLAZA ON THE DOYLE'S PARCEL ON THE CORNER OF QUAKER ROAD AND BAY ROAD. - 12 - ,--,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) JON LAPPER & CHRIS PEZNOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. John, there's no input on this? MR. GORALSKI -No. Right now this is simply, Mr. Lapper sent a letter requesting that he be allowed to address the Board to discuss, preliminarily, their plans for this site, and John can explain how much detail they're going to go into and what he wants to talk about. MR. PALING-Okay, Jon, we'll turn it over to you. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. My name is Jon Lapper, and I'm here on behalf of Berkshire Acquisition Corp, out of Springfield, Massachusetts. With me tonight is Chris Peznola, sitting next to me, who's the partner in charge of the project, Tim Trainer, the gentleman on the right in the blue sweater, who is the Construction Manager for Berkshire, and Norbert Hausner, who's the proj ect architect from N.H. Architecture in Rochester, New York. As you will recall, we were all here in the spring seeking and receiving permission for a similar plaza on Main Street, what we all refer to as the Corinth Road, over near the Shop N' Save at the City Line, which is a project that's currently under construct. At the time, we were very warmly received by this Board, and what we have to discuss with you tonight is similar in design. We wanted to appear before you informally in this setting before we submit for next month to get your input. We know that this is a prominent corner in Queensbury and we've spoken with a lot of people in Town. We've met with Jim Martin and John Goralski to go over the preliminary plans, and we've made changes as a result of their comments, even as recently as tonight. We wanted to get your comments, conceptually, before Norbert goes through our proposed plan. There's one issue that I wanted to bring to your attention. It would be, we think, benef icial to the proj ect and to people traveling on Bay and Quaker, if we were able to get access to the signalized intersection that goes into Shop N' Save, and also that goes on the back by where Stan's used to be. There's a ring road that connections Shop N' Save that we all know. We've designed a Plan A and a Plan B, because the site works fine without that, just as Doyle's did, using the two existing accesses, one on Quaker and one on Bay, and that's what you have before you." -We would be very happy to share the signalized intersection and have an easement onto the Shop N' Save drive, but we don't know how they'll feel about that. Jim Martin has approached them. It was really Jim's suggestion to begin with. Jim has begun to approach Shop N' Save. We're hoping to have, to ultimately have this approved this way with you giving us the permission to do Plan B if we get Shop N' Save's permission. We've talked to Jim about the possibility of the Town taking that access road in dedication. So that would become a Town road, and the Town would maintain it, and Jim feels that he would be in favor of recommending that and that Paul Naylor would be interested in that as well, but we don't know if that's going to be a possibility. So we're going to show you tonight the plans both ways and hear what you have to say. Chris, do you have any comments before we start? MR. PEZNOLA-No. I think that the point of having this working session is to discuss, generally, the perception of what we're proposing here in our plan. We've already made a couple of changes today, in response to an issue that we identified a little bit late, but our goal would be to submit something, after this meeting, that meets all of the requirements and essentially satisfies all of the views of the members of the Board. The current proposed plan that we have up there on the board does not require any variances, and complies with all of the setback requirements and all the other requirements of the Town. It would be our objective, also, to try and, to the extent possible, create a look and feel somewhat similar to the Doyle's look and - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) potentially even continue on the Doyle's name, because it's considered, I understand, somewhat of a landmark. It's also our objective to do whatever is possible to improve or enhance the existing monument area and the monument itself, or whatever the Town might see fit, and we're sort of opening that up to you as well. I think that by setting it back the way we have, and we're also going to talk a little bit about whether we actually use that front row of parking or we keep it grassed to even create more landscaping area. I think the combination of that with the landscaping area that we've shown on Bay Road really helps to preserve and compliment that monument area, and also sort of makes the whole project less of a visual impact for that area of the street. MR. LAPPER-One point starting off, that parcel at the corner which has the wing family monument is a separate subdivided parcel which we are not purchasing. We are maintaining a setback and we're going to landscape near it, but that is under separate ownership. That's owned by the Town, that parcel, that corner piece. So there's a property line which is shown on the map. MR. PEZNOLA-And the actual monument is somewhat about the center, and right now it's just a grassy area that sort of looks like a grassy area just in front of Doyle's. MR. PALING-Okay. We have a question here for you. MR. STARK-Mr. Lapper, when will you know if you can use the ring road there? MR. GORALSKI-Maybe I can better address that, because Jim Martin and I have kind of taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, and have been attempting to make some headway with the Shop N' Save people, the Hanneford people, to get some type of agreement regarding that. They have been very, very unresponsive at this time. Obviously we feel that it would be in everyone's best interest to eliminate the road cut, especially the one that's so close to the signalized intersection with Shop N' Save, and utilize that signalized intersection. We are going to use all the pressure that we can to pursue this with Hanneford. However, the people at Berkshire are really, have no control over that. I don't see that being resolved very quickly. MR. LAPPER-We view it as, once we have gone through the process, made the changes that this Board wants and have a final project that's approved, that once our neighbor sees that this is going to happen that they then might be more receptive to looking at it because there are some benefits to them either having the Town maintain it or to have us contribute for maintenance, that there would be some benefits, but that we need to get through the process and get it approved, and that's why we'll seek approvals both ways, that you would say that we could do it with the existing curb cuts and also to eliminate the curb cuts if we're able to get that, but we have absolutely no control over the neighbor. We have no rights to that. MR. STARK-Are you going to show us the other plan? MR. IJAPPER-Norbert has that up there, and we'll go through that as well. That doesn't have some of the final changes, but it has the accesses shown, as we were talking about. MR. PALING-We'll get a DOT input on this, regardless of which way it goes, right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. First of all, we will notify the Warren County D.P.W. They're the ones who maintain both Bay Road and Quaker Road. We'd also notify Joanna Brunso, and we'd also ask Mark - 14 - --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) Kennedy if he had any comments, since Quaker Road is State Road 254. So we'd have that before the next meeting of the Planning Board involving this? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. We'd have to have that. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Although I will say that the road cuts they're showing, my understanding is that they'ro exi nt:"¡ ng rot1d cutF1. An I can tell you that those bodies will not, I would be shocked if they revoked those two road cuts. MR. MACEWAN-I have a question for Staff. Code 179-66, about internalizing, is that a suggested Code or not? Do they need to get a variance? MR. GORALSKI -No, absolutely not. The people here at Berkshire would have to provide that, and my belief is that they absolutely want to provide that. The problem is, Shop N' Save is not here requesting any approvals. So they do not have to grant that connection. MR. MACEWAN-Would they have to get a variance, then? MR. GORALSKI-Shop N' Save? MR. MACEWAN-No, Berkshire. MR. GORALSKI -They would probably have to show an easement, a proposed easement, if, in fact, they could connect to Shop N' Save property, and if at some time Shop N' Save, in the future, agreed to it, then the people at Berkshire would have to provide it. MR. PEZNOLA-I think it's worth mentioning that the prospects of them ever approving such a connection are only available, I believe, post plan approval. Because without the leverage of saying, this thing is qoinq to be built, I can't imagine they're even going to call us back. MR. PALING-Yes. I was going to ask that question, maybe in a different way, as to what your time schedule is. When are you looking to open it? MR. PEZNOLA-We'd like to be under construction in January, and what I would suggest, though, is that what is certainly the case is that all of the tenants that I'd planned to put in place here are in agreement with it being in either configuration, and of course all of us would like to see it in the Plan B configuration, or the configuration which has a connecting up. It's better, I believe, for both centers, but again, until this thing is either built or surely to be built, I can't imagine that we'd get cooperation from Hanneford. I think after it's built, or when it's about to be built, is the time when maybe they would consider it, and certainly I think the consideration the Town is offering up, in terms of making them. MR. MACEWAN-Have you made any contact with Hanneford yourself? MR. PEZNOLA-Yes. Jim has told us for us not to make contact. He wants to try and see what he can accomplish. MR. MACEWAN-They're not calling you back at all? MR. GORALSKI-They have returned one call, and Jim and I were both out of the office. We've called them back several times, and they haven't returned our call. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MARK REGAN MR. REGAN-I'm Mark Regan from Doyle's, and I just want to say, I've been in contact, briefly, in June, I think, with Hanneford. I think one of the concerns they had, they wanted to know who was going to be in the shopping center. A big part of it was they didn't want to see a competitor in there. I think they weren't interested in helping a competitor of someone that was going to come in and hurt their business. MR. STARK-My question was for John, as to what do you think will happen with Hanneford, you know, they're dragging their feet. I can understand their point, not wanting a competitor in there, but I can't see, in 6,000 or 10,000, you're not going to put a grocery store or convenient store or anything. MR. REGAN-We will have a competitive use. The pharmacy is a competitive use, and I would imagine that their view would be that that would take some business away. MR. LAPPER-But once they see that we're there, it doesn't really matter if people access by one curb cut or two, and that's why we feel we have to go through the process and then go approach them. MR. GORALSKI-I guess, at this point in time, in order to kind of move things along here, it's definitely Staff's recommendation that every effort be made to tie into the loop road Shop N' Save property. I believe that's what Berkshire is looking for. I guess what we' d like~to know is if that's what the Planning Board considers the best option? Should we continue our efforts to try and do that? Absent some type of agreement or some type of resolution with Shop N' Save, then it would be my recommendation that the Planning Board look at the Site Plan, or Site Plan A, I guess it's been called, and just be sure that the accesses are safe and that it's the most appropriate ingress/egress that we can get for the site. MR. PALING-Well, I think we all see what you're trying to do, and I'm sure I speak for the Board when we say that we hope it comes out that, where that ring road is used. We can proceed and doing everything else, as you say, with this plan, and discuss it and make recommendations, and then we'll have to wait on your activity with Hanneford Brothers. MR. RUEL-I have a comment in a different direction. I was very pleased to hear that, architecturally, you'll try to maintain some of the Doyle look. So I would strongly recommend that we have elevation drawings, renderings if possible, later, because the present building on South Western is far removed from the Doyle look. So I hope that there's going to be a major change here. I think there's quite an interest in trying to maintain something that looks the essentially like Doyle's in that area. It's been there so many years and so many people want it kept that way, so I would urge you to do whatever you can. MR. PEZNOLA-I think certainly for the space other than the Pharmacy, I can make it look as much like Doyle's is as possible. 'rhere'll be some level of compromilJe between the Pharmacy tenant' fJ desired look and the Doyle's look, but on balance, the plan is to make the entire center overall appealing in that way. MR. RUEL-Yes, I understand that, but, see, I'm familiar with the plans which you had submitted for South Western, which is sort of a modern look. It's far removed from the colonial look that Doyle's has, and so I hope that you do make some major changes. MR. PEZNOLA-We plan to, and with the Board's guidance. - 16 - - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but Roger, that plan on Western Avenue has, is really intricate. That's got beautiful dental molding and it's brick, and I think it's very elegant. MR. RUEL-I didn't say it wasn't any good. Doyle's look. It's contrary to the MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I don't think we have to, we're not building a Doyle's. We're not putting up another Doyle's. I don't think we should get bogged down on that. MR. BREWER-Have you talked to Paul about owning and maintaining? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We have spoken to Paul Naylor about this. He was receptive to the idea. Obviously, he wants to work out details as to whether or not they're going to completely dedicate the road to us, or exactly how it's going to work out. Paul said he would definitely consider accepting that as a Town road. MR. BREWER-Have you considered pulling the building forward at all, and leaving some of the grass in the front, and putting some of the parking in the back? MR. LAPPER-Norbert can address that. NORBERT HAUSNER MR. HAUSNER-Pulling the building more toward Quaker? MR. BREWER-And park in the back? MR. HAUSNER-Well, these buildings are predominantly entered from the front. So any parking spaces in the back would be totally remote from the entries of buildings. So, for that reason, we've kept the buffer area in the back of the buildings. MR. BREWER-Yes, but I guess my point is, who can see the buffer in the back? MR. HAUSNER-Well, the buffer in the back is done because a building of this nature, retail application, needs a service side and a public side. That's just the nature of the beast. Just like a grocery store down the way over here has a front and a rear, from a service perspective, and what we try to do our best at is to let the public see the good side of the building and to guard or shield the back side of the building, which by nature of the profession, tend to be less pretty. It will be a full brick building all the way around, but obviously there are no facades that would indicate entrance. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying is, all up and down Quaker Road and many of the main roads, you drive up and down and all you see is parking lot with cars. You don' t see the buildings or landscaping in the front. I'm not saying you won't have landscaping. MR. LAPPER-We'll have about 70 feet of landscaping, which is pretty significant, because there's about 20 feet from the edge of the pavement to the property line, and we've proposed 50 feet of very well landscaped, and if the Board chooses to ask us to remove the first lane of cars, that would be another 18 feet. So we might have up to 90 feet of grass, which is pretty significant. MR. MACEWAN-How far does the building set off Quaker Road now, the existing Doyle's building? MR. LAPPER-Yes, about 50 feet. - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. STARK-It would be illY recommendation to eliminate, you don't need it for parking, to eliminate the parking closest to Quaker Road, the most northern part, and wipe that whole, like you say, another 18, 20 feet out. MR. HAUSNER-We're trying to show it on the plan. We don't think it's really necessary. For the use here, you have a five per thousand coefficient. I don't think that's ever going to be used. We'd rather say, here's the spot where it could get used, kind of what we call land bank the parking spaces. In the event that the use is such that we all end up having seven cars a piece and there's a need for it in the future some time, the space is allocated, but for now, we can't do that without some input from you guys, obviously. Right now we're showing the spaces that are there and extensive landscaping along the front. MR. GORALSKI-There is a provision in the Code that would allow the Planning Board to designate those parking spaces as reserved and leave them as green space for now. MR. BREWER-We did it at the Mall. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PEZNOLA-Actually, if I could let Norbert go through his presentation, then we could come back to questions. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HAUSNER-Okay. I'm Norbert Hausner with N.H. Architecture. I had the pleasure of meeting you folks the last time we were here. The corner of Quaker Road and Bay, obviously, the shopping center/food market over in this corner here, the entrance drive here. What we're calling Plan A is actually A Prime. About an hour and a half ago it became A Prime. The reason for that, I'll just briefly tell you, is that we kind of misinterpreted the Code with respect to the side setback line, the Bay Road side. So what we're trying to do here is come up with a plan that works with the intent of the Ordinance Codes, your Staff, and your inputs, deal with some history implications, which obviously we have here with the cemetery, and the memorial location, and the historical implications of a previous user that had been there for some three quarters of a century, I guess. So, we're working, that's why this group, as you know from a previous presentation, takes a great deal of pride in trying to work with you folks in trying to find out what works best for all participants. We think the CVS use is, the brick building that we've come before you before, is a good looking building. I'll show you an elevation that we came up with. It does not look exactly like the previous landscaped nursery that's there. We're definitely proud of this Plaza, but it's not going to look exactly like what's there, and hopefully that won't make any of you drop in your chairs. We're trying to work extensively here to provide some green space along the roads, as I mentioned. These curb cut locations here on Quaker and here on Bay are the existing curb cut locations. This plan, as modified before you with the 75 foot setback, will be a non variance submission. There are no setback variances. There are no parking variances. There's no height restrictions, nothing. It's just per the letter of the law, so to speak. What ends up happening here is there's a 10,125 square foot building, 75 by 135 in configuration with the drive through over here. Five thousand square foot retail application, single tenant, and some multiple tenants configuring a 10,400 square foot building. What we're going to end up with there, well, let me show you briefly. I don't know if you can see this. It's kind of a little weak, it's also flipped around. I apologize. We fixed the easel, but I couldn't get them all on there together. We're going to put Quaker Road at the top, just to confuse you, and here's the loop road, coming around like this, and there's Bay. So - 18 - '- -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) there's the major intersection. Flipping that over 180 degrees, CVS being here, the buildings are in the exact same location, but we can take away this curb cut. You all know it's close to the current location, and keep the Bay Road intersection the way it is, and basically let the site feed itself off of the loop road, and it'll basically come; in through here, utilize the parking, and then exit onto a loop road back in here, at one point, and also in here. So that obviously greatly lessens the implications of this site dumping directly onto Quaker, as it does currently, I mean, if it was in operation, obviously. Good plan. Just obviously, as we all talked about previously, has some encumbrances with regard to adjacent land owners. Just quickly, as I think you might remember before, CVS has an image that they are very proud of, and we think effectively captures what they're trying to perform in the market place. This is the CVS building with the little hip roof on the front corner and kind of a wrapped around, shingled mansard that goes around the outside of the building, a great deal of dentals, as mentioned before, along the top of the building, and a lot of detailed coining and brick work along the building, some ornamental columns. Since we last met, their prototype has actually gotten more articulate with regard to detail. The columns have a great deal of undulation in them now. The color schemes are a little bit more refined. We've kind of taken this building right here and set a theme down the rest of the Plaza, with more articulation than we did with our last application. What happens along here is that 5,000 square foot tenant has a similar appendage on it to the CVS put over in this location. I have some extra copies here that I can leave you, but that 5,000 square foot tenant goes from about here to here in that building. Again, it'll have that same efface technique and dental across the top of it. It just doesn't have the prominence that the CVS piece has with the roof on top. When it goes past the CVS, we change from an asphalt shingle to kind of a slanted metal roof and a dark hunter green color that goes across here, and these pilasters that'll balance out the entrances are the same as the columns that are in front of the CVS. So then you'd have a strip store type of application, you know, multiple retail with a signage band, which basically is a smaller little brother, if you will, of the CVS band. So you have the dental and the entablature working its way down through and then there'll be some landscaping along that front plane. MR. PALING-Before you leave that, did you say there was going to be a drive through? MR. HAUSNER-There is a drive through. MR. PALING-Well, which is the, where are you going to come from? MR. HAUSNER-Right there. You can see it on your plan. basically parallel to the Shop N' Save. It's MR. PALING-This is drive through for CVS? MR. HAUSNER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-The Pharmacy. MR. HAUSNER-Yes, just like in the other application. The entrance to the CVS will be here, drive thrus are usually kind of kitty corner on the inside of the store. If I can answer any of your questions, I'd be happy to. MR. STARK-Plan B, when you're connecting with the ring road, right there on your northwest corner there, how far is that from the road, the intersection there, roughly? MR. HAUSNER-About 60 feet. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. GORALSKI-We had spoken, in a previous meeting, of actually moving that back, so it would be in line with actually the second row of parking there. MR. HAUSNER-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Further away from the intersection. MR. HAUSNER-I think there's a break in the median in there now, and that's one of the reasons why it was placed in there. So in order for this entry point to be down here, there has to be a little bit more participation. Obviously, this developer would pay for those modifications, you know, a loop would have to be brought up in here, and there'd be a break through probably down. MR. STARK-You don't care where? MR. HAUSNER-No, don't care at all. I think it's better to have it down here, but obviously it's the beginning of negotiations, and it's hard for us to get it to begin with, let alone tell them where they've got to put, where the openings are. MR. PALING-If you were to go to Plan B, I thought there would be access only to the ring road? MR. LAPPER-The Bay Road is still showing, and we were talking about taking that off. MR. HAUSNER-Tha~èan be removed as well. That would eliminate all penetrations as they exist. MR. PALING-Okay. So Plan B would, if you got the ring road access the way you want it, there would be no access to either Quaker or Bay? MR. HAUSNER-Clearly, yes, off the site. MR. PEZNOLA-If we did eliminate this row of parking, how much grassy area would we have there? MR. HAUSNER-About 65 feet, something like that. MR. PEZNOLA-Sixty-five, and then how much on the other side? MR. HAUSNER-Here? Seventy-five. MR. LAPPER-That 65 feet (lost words) to the road. MR. HAUSNER-That's from the property line, not from what you're perceiving out there, which is edge of asphalt, which is way out here. So you're looking at about 75 to 85 feet along the front. MR. BREWER-And what's the distance now from the road to the building that's there now? MR. GORALSKI-Probably about 50 feet. MR. HAUSNER-I'm thinking about 50 feet, yes. The current building sits way out, right about here where my finger is, and there's a lot of buildings on the site, it's the largest of the buildings. MR. LAPPER-It's not a significant setback difference. MR. HAUSNER-Are you familiar with the monument in the center of the site, right behind the monument's a rather big tree, and that tree sits farther back than the front facade of the building does. So if I had to place the front of the building, it would be right about here. - 20 - - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. PALING-John, do these parking spaces comply with what we're asking to go in the new long range plan? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-And how come the handicapped are a foot less than the others? MR. GORALSKI -Because handicapped parking spaces are eight foot space and an eight foot access aisle. MR. HAUSNER-Yes. Handicapped spaces are done in tandem with that striped spot in between. So the reality is two spaces take up 24 feet instead of 18. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-And then they're going with the 24 foot drive aisle and the 18 foot space, which is what you folks had recommended. MR. PALING-My last canned question is curbing. You're going to use concrete or granite? MR. HAUSNER-Concrete. MR. PALING-Concrete, good. As long as it's not wood or asphalt, we're happy. MR. HAUSNER-No wood curbs. MR. STARK-In the interest of moving it along, why don't we just poll the Board and see what each one would like, and then let it go at that? MR. GORALSKI-Can I just bring up one other issue that the Board may or may not be familiar with the section of the Ordinance that requires a 50 foot buffer zone be maintained around all cemeteries. Okay. This corner here is an existing cemetery property, and therefore a 50 foot buffer has to be maintained. However, there is an existing encroachment on that buffer at the current Doyle's site. As long as this development maintains tha~paving and that paving is not removed, then they can maintain that encroachment. MR. PALING-So the amount of grass we see there now will be what will stay there? MR. LAPPER-Well, we're going to add a lot more grass. MR. GORALSKI-There will actually be more. MR. HAUSNER-Let me walk you through it. This property line right here, this is the B Plan, obviously, that property line is obviously fixed. This asphalt line right here is exactly the current asphalt line. On this side, the building's right up tight, like right about in here somewhere, and we're actually almost tripling the dimension setback from that memorial area. So we're actually farther away from the existing cemetery. We're actually about 20 feet farther than the current setback, because we can't be over here, obviously there's a pre-existing nonconforming use right now. So where we have the opportunity, because of access and proximity to the front of the building, we're giving you a larger setback, and basically using the current asphalt lines. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we're getting to that point. John, you're taken care of. Tim, how about down there, you and Dave? MR. BREWER-I would prefer to see the loop road used, and to eliminate some of the parking in the front, if at all possible. - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. PALING-Yes, on the Quaker Road side. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-I'd like to see different renderings. MR. PALING-Yes. They're going to bring those. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it sounds fine. Just whatever Joanna Brunso and their crew recommends. MR. STARK-I concur with Tim. Use the loop road if possible. Eliminate that front parking with either plan, if we have to go to Plan A or Plan B, regardless, eliminate that front row of parking. MR. BREWER-Yes. Eliminate as much of the asphalt look in the front as we can. MR. LAPPER-If we take out that row, there'll only be three rows of parking in front. MR. BREWER-What is the parking requirement, Jon? MR. LAPPER-138 is what we. MR. GORALSKI-It's five per thousand, 138 is required, and that's what they're shdWing. MR. BREWER-I don't know exactly what the wording was we used at the Mall, just reserve it for parking. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. It's reserved for future use if necessary. MR. SCHACHNER-There's a specific provision in the Code that allows the Planning Board that flexibility. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to see that internal road used. I'd like to see that first row of parking be eliminated, like everyone else. I don' t know if I want to say I have reservations about the architectural look, but I think I'd want to see a little bit more details. MR. PENOZLA-We actually have a couple ideas, too, subsequent to it. MR. STARK-Are you going to be on the first or the second meeting? MR. LAPPER-We're hoping to be on the first meeting. We've talked to the Planning Board about that. We'll have everything in next week. MR. PEZNOLA-I just have two sort of polling questions here. What would be the choice that the Board would make, relative to red brick masonry treatment with the, as we say, the undulations and the soldier courses versus wood treatment on most of it and brick on some, or a mix of the two? The existing structure is wood. MR. PALING-What color would you make the wood? MR. PEZNOLA-Any color that you'd like. We could go with the dark. I think the Doyle's is sort of a dark brown. It's sort of a weathered look. MR. STARK-I think the brick is fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it's more elegant in brick. - 22 - ~ - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. GORALSKI-I'll just throw my two cents in here. Doyle's has got kind of a prominent roof line that that, combined with its shape and location on the lot, is what makes it stand out. So I think what you might want to do is possibly look at material such as wood and things like that, but also look at possibly roof lines, some gables, maybe something like that, instead of getting just that flat roof look in there, to have more of the architectural details that are on that Doyle's building. MR. PEZNOLA-We're going to take a look at doing some kind of a paneled look to the windows, as well, to try and recreate the French Window look on the majority of the space, in a way that I think tries to get the image across. MR. BREWER-No chance of utilizing some of the buildings that are there? MR. PEZNOLA-No. They're location doesn't work and they're also not buildings we could use. We would if we could. MR. STARK-This'll be Town water, of course, and you're hooked on to the sewers? MR. LAPPER-Yes, both. MR. PALING-The color of the present Doyle's buildings, to me, are earth tones, and I'd like to see that kind of thing maintained, even if you did it in combination with brick. If you do wood and brick, I'd like to see the same kind of. MR. PEZNOLA-There are a lot of different colors to brick, too, and we could take a look at what moves more toward the earth tones and bring in some samples for you the next meeting. MR. RUEL-You'll have a full blown landscaping plan? MR. PEZNOLA-Landscaped plan, lighting overlay. MR. BREWER-That's requirement. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments? All right.' -I think we're to that point, okay, unless you have any other questions of us? MR. PEZNOLA-The only question that I have of the Board is whether we can sort of agree to proceed with an approval based on Plan A, so that we have the ability to negotiate the plan B, because I think if we're set forth that you guys love Plan B, and you only love Plan B, we're probably going to get stuck in this no man's land of not being able to attain it. MR. PALING-I don't see where we can stand in the way of that. MR. SCHACHNER-In fact, I would suggest that I'm not sure it's appropriate to have an approval based on Plan B, if I'm understanding the A and B, because Plan B is based on a fundamental premise that is neither within the applicant's control nor within our Board's control. MR. PEZNOLA-Right. So I think we have to look at this as Plan A, with the agreement being that we would work diligently and knowing that we would well appreciate the Plan B put in place. MR. MACEWAN-Assuming that we would be following along with Plan A, would show in there some sort of ingress/egress to that connector road for future? MR. PEZNOLA-Absolutely. I'd like to draw it in dotted lines so that when we finally get it, it's pre-approved. - 23 - "- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. BREWER-How about we keep in contact with Jim and make sure that he, I mean, just push every day to see what we can come up with. I mean, I don't want to sit here tonight saying that I approve anything until we see a final print of what we're going to approve. MR. MACEWAN-My own frame of mind is that we're going to show this connector road for the future and also the two existing entrances would be eliminated, should that (lost words) . MR. PEZNOLA-We'll do the same dotted line treatment that shows them being eliminated. I mean, we'll have a separate plan that we would certainly provide to you, but there'd be a bit of an overlay that we could include on the plan, identifying it. I think that if we can get the plan, as it is, approved, we will be able to convince them to let us join up, because at that point, they can't stop the project. It does make sense for them to connect up. MR. PALING-Well, there's obviously anything, but I think you've got the looking for, and we're all hoping you ring road. no advanced approval of general idea of what we're can go for that, get on the MR. RUEL-As a general idea, I don't buy the elevation plan that you submitted, at this time. MR. PEZNOLA-We'll do a better job next time. I promise. . MR. PALING-And I think, Jon, that we've complied with the first sentence in the'last paragraph of your letter, more than complied with it. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. PALING-Okay. 2. RE: SITE PLAN NO. 28-90/DUNHAMS BAY BOAT CO. OWNER: ROGER & KAREN HOWARD SEE LETTER FROM JOHN SCHRINER REQUESTING CLARIFICATION OF RESOLUTION OF 11/27/90 REGARDING EMPLOYEE AND PATRON PARKING. TAX MAP NO. 4-1-13, 10-1-19.2 MR. PALING-Okay. Mark, you wanted to comment? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Only to point out and make sure that the Board is aware that, if I'm understanding what's going on here, we have a request from a citizen of the Town, who I don't believe is the applicant or owner of the premises involved, if I'm understanding this correctly. If I'm not, please clear me up. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And he has submitted a letter, a short, straightforward letter, in which he seeks clarification of a previous Planning Board resolution. I want to make sure that the Board realizes that you're under no legal obligation to respond to that sort of inquiry, and one of the reasons, I want it pointed out, is the same reason that you're not under any legal obligation. We have an obligation to field applications, field, review, process and decide on application8, and that'8 an obligation imposed on us by New York State law, as well as by the Town of Queensbury Town Code. We don't have any legal obligation to field requests from the general public at large, if you will, whether they relate to a specific application or not. I'm not saying that you cannot or are prohibited from clarifying or discussing a request from a citizen. I just want to make sure that this Board recognizes that you're not obligated to do that, and one of the reasons I point that out is because, obviously, there is no limit to the number of citizens who could make an unlimited number of requests about, asking questions about or seeking clarification of every single decision that this - 24 - -, ~- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) Board or any other Board makes. So I just want to make sure that the Board is aware that you're not under any legal obligation to field, process, decide on or even discuss requests that come from citizens way after decisions are made about those decisions. MR. STARK-Mark, if we listen to both sides in this story, are we under any obligation to, if some other person in the Town then requests a clarification of this or clarification of that, I mean, do we have to listen to them, or no? MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is no, because as I said, I'm certainly not sitting here stating that you're prohibited from having discussion about a previous decision, and as I understand it, that's what's listed on the agenda and that's what the request is, a discussion, but my concern is several fold. One, I think, George, to reflect your concern, that if we start a process where we field requests for discussion or clarification of previously issued decisions, we start having a situation where our agendas are bogged down or burdened with an infinite number of requests like that. The second concern I have is, I don't have any problem with the Board, as a discussion item, discussing some previous decision, but I think you have to be careful when somebody seeks clarification of something, which I think is how it's listed on the agenda, and I think that's right out of Mr. Schriner's letter dated October 22nd, I think we have to be careful, in that the Board can' t really go about modifying any previous decision without making sure that there's been public notice, notice certainly to the applicant and owner, which is critical. I believe that the applicant or owner is present tonight, but that doesn't waive the requirement of some kind of formal notification to the applicant or owner, because after all it's his or their property that's at issue, and I guess I would counsel the Board to say that discussion is fine, if you want to have discussion. You're not obligated to do that, but that if you're talking about any kind of formal decision making of any kind, then I think that you can't do that when something's just listed as a discussion item, just as, for example, on the previous discussion. MR. STARK-Well, I was going to say that I'd just as soon not have any discussion at all on it, and if somebody's got a complaint, let them see John, and let him get together with the owner and try to settle, it that way, and I don't even know why we're involved. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, as far as that goes, in seeing John, and I don't know anything about what Mr. Schriner's contention is, even if he has one. He may not even have a contention. He's asked a fairly simple, straightforward question, but I think that, if there is a complaint, and it's an enforcement type complaint, if that's what George is getting at, then I think I have to remind the Planning Board that we are not the enforcement arm of Town Planning and Zoning. John certainly is, in the first instance, the enforcement arm, as the Code Compliance Officer. If there's an enforcement problem, if there's a failure to comply, for example, with a decision rendered in 1990 by the Planning Board, or even an earlier decision rendered by some other Board, that's an enforcement issue for a Code Compliance person, and ultimately the Town Board and/or Town Counsel, if there really is an enforcement issue. Typically, again, the question seems fairly straightforward. My understanding is that the question has been asked of Staff. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And my understanding is that the question has been answered by Staff. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. SCHACHNER-And if that Staff determination is in the context of a determination of thé Zoning Administrator, then that determination is actually subject, I'm sorry, and if somebody disagrees with that determination, then that's actually subject to appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but I do want to point out that, as I understand it, they're talking about, Mr. Schriner is referring to a specific Planning Board decision, and to that extent, if the Planning Board wants to discuss what was decided by this Board, whenever it was decided, I don't have a problem with the discussion, but I also think we have to point out that unless I'm mistaken, trying to play mix and match with the names on the bottom of a 1990 decision, I don' t believe we have any overlap whatsoever of membership between our Board as currently constituted and our Board as it was constituted in 1990. MR. STARK-Why don't you poll the Board? MR. PALING-I've got a couple of things I want to say, too. One question of clarification. Mark, did you say that Mr. Schriner, does his property not abut the roadway going up to the boat storage area on the hill? MR. SCHACHNER-I haven't the faintest idea. It may. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it does. MR. PALING-Okay, because I thought you said that he wasn't directly associated with it, something? MR. SCHACHNER-No, no. All I said was as far as I know, this is a request relating to Dunhams Bay Boat Company, and all I said was that, as far as I know, but anybody should correct me if I'm wrong, the writer of the letter, Mr. Schriner, is neither the owner, the applicant, nor the agent of Dunhams Bay Boat Company, I assume. MR. PALING-Okay, but he is a property owner that abuts the drive that goes up to the top. MR. SCHACHNER-I haven't the faintest idea, but I think that's what I'm hearing. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I really need to point something out before you go any further. Mr. Schriner originally submitted an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the decision that said that employees can park at this facility. I believe it was Jim Martin who directed Mr. Schriner to seek a clarification of the Planning Board. MR. MACEWAN-Say that part again? MR. GORALSKI-I believe it was Mr. Martin, Jim Martin, who directed Mr. Schriner to seek a clarification. MR. PALING-From this Planning Board. MR. GORALSKI-From the Planning Board. MR. PALING-The present Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. There's no way, you can't convene the former members and seek clarification. MR. PALING-No. I thought Jim talked to them years ago. He talked to them recently? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. - 26 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. SCHACHNER-And I think Mr. Schriner's made this request fairly recently, and what I'm hearing from John Goralski is that, in fact, Jim Martin now, our Zoning Administrator and Director of Community Development, I guess, is one of the individuals, or the individual, who suggested possibly a discussion with the Planning Board seeking clarification. I wasn't aware of that, and I apologize for throwing a monkey wrench into this, if I am, and again, I'm not saying that you're prohibited from having a discussion along these lines, I just want to make sure that I'm pointing out to the Board that you're not legally obligated to do that. MR. PALING-Okay. Before Craig has the floor, John, did you say that you had reached a point of recommendation on this, if you would have an input in regard? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Absolutely. MR. PALING-Well, why don't we hear that first. MR. GORALSKI-We've had complaints about the periodic use of this facility for parking of employee vehicles, employees of Dunhams Bay Board Company. Mr. Schriner, I believe, is making the distinction between employees of Dunham's Bay Boat Company, the Marina facility, on the shore, the lake shore, and Dunham's Bay Boat Company, the boat storage facility that's on what I guess would be to the south side of 9L. I, as the Enforcement Officer, do not feel I can make that distinction. I can't go up there and say this person's working at Dunham's Bay Boat Company, the marina, this person's working at Dunham's Bay Boat Company, the boat storage facility. It's impossible for me to make that distinction. So it was based on reviewing the previous minutes, where the only discussion about parking was that patrons would not park up there. It was my determination that employees of Dunham's Bay Boat Company could park at the boat storage facility. MR. MACEWAN-Now that you've said that, and you gave that determination, if I'm understanding correctly, he didn't agree with that determination, went to the ZBA who upheld your determination? MR. GORALSKI-No. Mr. Schriner submitted an appeal. Jim felt that it really was not an appeal issue. It was an issue as to whether or not the Site Plan review allowed employee parking, and that's why Jim felt that it was more appropriate for this to come before the Planning Board. MR. MACEWAN-Based on that, I have two comments. One, it's your job to interpret, as Code Enforcement Officer, whether a Site Plan's in violation or a subdivision's in violation and you make the corrective action or if any action has to be taken. Number Two, I feel real uncomfortable going back, in one case, 20 years, to a previous Planning Board and trying to get in their head what they were thinking about when they approved a site plan. I just don't feel comfortable trying to make a determination or trying to interpret what they were thinking. MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. STARK-You mentioned three businesses at Dunham's Bay Boat Company, you know, the Marina, the Boat Storage, and the Boat Sales, I assume, you know, they're all the same. I mean, it's all one company, isn't it? I mean, they don't have three separate tax numbers? MR. GORALSKI-As far as I know, they're all the same. I can't make the distinction. MR. STARK-Fine. - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. GORALSKI- I employees are businesses. mean, I can't working for go out there and determine that different operations, different MR. RUEL-If you made a determination, why are we discussing this? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know how else to explain this. Mr. Schriner feels that the employees that are parking at the, and correct me if I'm wrong, he feels that the employees that are parking up at the boat storage facility should not be allowed to park there. MR. WEST-Even if they're employees of the boat storage facility? MR. GORALSKI-This is my understanding of what Mr. Schriner's opinion is. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-He has asked me to look into it. I have looked into it. In my opinion, I cannot make a distinction. As far as I'm concerned, there is a commercial facility up there that is part of Dunham's Bay Boat Company, and it's my opinion that the employees of Dunham's Bay Boat Company can park there. MR. RUEL-What else do we have to do to satisfy Mr. Schriner? MR. PALING-I think that might be jumping ahead. MR. GORALSKI-I ~an't tell you how you can satisfy Mr. Schriner. MR. BREWER-The bottom line, if we make a decision here tonight, either way, what does it do? It does nothing, does it, legally, does it do anything? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, legally, my advice is not to make any formal decision here tonight. If you've heard something, for example, that makes you think that there's a reason to consider modification or clarification of the Planning Board's decision in 1990, you might be able to start a process for doing that, but not tonight. I would not be counseling you to do that tonight. I do think, however, I do want to point out, for the record and for Mr. Schriner's benefit, that based on what I've learned tonight as far as why Mr. Schriner made this request of the Planning Board, I think having this discussion is appropriate, because if the Director of Community Development sent him to this Board, I don't think it would be fair for the Board to say, no, never mind, we're not discussing this. So I think the discussion you're having is fine. MR. PALING-All right. Let me come back to Cathy, here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. The road that goes into the boat storage facility, is that a private road or a public road? MR. GORALSKI-Private. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, and that's owned by Dunham's Bay? MR. GORALSKI-No. It's owned by the adjoining landowners, and the OWllers of the facility where the boat otorage facility is, which I believe is Dunham's Bay Boat Company. It may be under some different ownership. At any rate, Dunham's Bay Boat Company has the right to pass over that property. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, but the road itself is owned by Mr. Schriner on one side and somebody else on the other side? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, adjoining landowners. - 28 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, and just briefly going over this and visiting up there, it sounds to me like this whole issue is here because it's like one of those good neighbor type of deals. So probably if the employees had been good neighbors and drove at a very reasonably slow speed and didn't provoke Mr. Schriner, maybe we wouldn't even be here tonight talking about this. I mean, I'm just looking at this as a lay person, observing and reading a little bit. So, I don' t think you can tell somebody that his employee can't park on his land if they have legal access to get into that boat storage property, but maybe you could say to thoRO employees, could you drive slower and be kind. That's the end of that. MR. WEST-You made the point that, as far as you're concerned, there's no reason why employees can' t park up there, right? There's nothing, legal, that prevents them from parking up there. MR. SCHACHNER-Or, if I could add to that. It's my understanding of John's determination that there's nothing in the Site Plan approval that indicates that either, and coming back to Cathy's comment. In the context of Site Plan review, as you know, parking, traffic, ingress, egress and all those things are very legitimate areas of inquiry and concern, and you, it would be hard to imagine this in real life, but if there were a sufficient reason that you wanted to prohibit employee parking at a particularly sensitive site, that would probably be a condition that could be imposed on a Site Plan approval. Correct me if I'm wrong, John, but I think part of John's determination was that that was not part of the Site Plan approval for this particular application. MR. GORALSKI-There was no restriction on employee parking on that site. The only restrictions regarding parking was that patrons could not park up there. MR. WEST-And they're not parking up there. MR. GORALSKI-As far as I know, they're not. MR. WEST-Right. MR. RUEL-So if there were no restrictions, of what value would it be for us to re-open this thing, to look at something that you've already determined? MR. WEST-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Because Mr. Schriner disagrees with me. MR. PALING-All right. Let me make a suggestion. I think that we've all spoken our piece, but the one thing we don't have is the input from Mr. Schriner or from anyone else who would care to speak. With the approval of the Board, I'll ask for public comment, and see what else there is that we may not know about. I'm not saying we should do anything yet, but just lets get some input, see if there's something that would cause us to change our thinking or expand our thinking, and then decide what we're going to do, but lets have the input from the other people. MR. BREWER-I guess I would ask Mr. Schriner, the first thing, if he could tell us what is the problem with the employees parking there? MR. PALING-With the concurrence of the Board, I'll open it up to comment. Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Just for the record, I'm not in favor of it. MR. STARK-He's hear, lets hear everybody talk. - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. Lets hear him. MR. RUEL-I'm not in favor of it, but since he's here, we might as well. MR. PALING-Well, he or anyone that wants to speak will be allowed to speak. MR. WEST-Go ahead. MR. BREWER-I don't want to get into a long debate, but yes, lets do it. MR. PALING-All right. I think what we should ask, however, is that this is a very limited subject, and any comments that are made, we'd ask you to stick to the subject. If you're going to bring up other issues, I'm going to call you on it. So lets go to this, to what we're here for, to what's in Mr. Schriner's letter, and anyone who would care to speak, please come forward. MR. RUEL-Can we question him? MR. PALING-Yes, but lets be orderly. first. Lets hear the gentleman JOHN SCHRINER MR. SCHRINER-My name is John Schriner. I'd just like to get involved with what John just said here a minute ago. He said he made a decision that he sees reason why employees can't park up there. Well, I've got a statement from Jim Martin, and we all had a meeting, Fred Champagne, Jim Martin, John Salvador, myself and Roger Howard. John was on vacation. That's the only reason he wasn't there, at the meeting, and Jim and both Fred Champagne got a copy of the letter that John had sent to Dunham's Bay Boat Company, and the intent of the letter, according to them, was that while the employees were working at the boat storage facility it was all right for them to park there. John himself told me, personally, that he had no intention of allowing parking by the employees if they were going to leave their car up at the storage facility and then go down and work at the Marina. Now this is a different story, unless I'm hearing it wrong, and John is just saying now. This is an entirely different subj ect . You correct me if I'm wrong if you didn't tell me this, that the employees, you felt, if they were working at the storage facility, could park their cars up there. MR. GORALSKI-I cannot make a distinction as to whether or not people are working in the boat storage facility or at the marina or at the sales or whatever. That's my problem. MR. SCHRINER-Let me put it this way. If you went up there and you saw nine or ten automobiles and nobody working up there, would this convince you that they're not working up there? It wouldn' t convince you? I'm sorry. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. We would like your input to the Board, and then we'll, please. MR. SCHRINER-But there is no difference, unless Mr. Howard wants to intervene and say that there is a difference between the employees in his employee or either working for the boat storage facility or they're working for the marina or the boat sales. As far as I know, unless there's something different, which he can answer, this is all the same outfit. I don't think there's three separate outfits there. I don't believe there is, but maybe there is. I don't know, but the reason I asked for this letter, this was at Jim Martin's suggestion to me. He would enforce what we all - 30 - '_.~ -,-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) determined, except Mr. Howard of course, at that meeting, that there was to be no parking of automobiles up at this site. It started out as a boat storage facility. They got a permit for boat storage. They got a permit for boat trailer storage, period. It doesn't say anything that they were allowed to parking something else. This is what they've got a permit for, boat storage facility. That's what this is, and that's why I submitted this. I asked Jim, why are we going through this? Why do I have to submit a letter? And he told me because he didn't feel like he wanted to make the decision of whether or not it was allowed to park up there, and I asked him point blank, if I came in and got a permit to build a house, does that give me a permit also to build a garage? And he said, by no means, and I said, well, it's the same thing. They got a permit to store boats, not store automobiles, or park automobiles, and I don't know if this is legal in the 42 acres that we're in, for a parking lot. That's all. That's why I'm here. MR. PALING-All right. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Bob, what's the problem with cars parking there? That's my question. Could you answer that? MR. PALING-All right. Who else would like, come on up. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I'm a neighboring property owner, and I enjoy access across this same right-of-way. This problem has a long history, and with your indulgence, I'd like to give you a little bit of background. In 1972, the Dunham's Bay Boat Company came before the Zoning Board of Appeals and got a Special Use Permit to locate a boat storage facility in a residential zone, a non-permitted use in a residential zone. The conditions on that facility at that hearing were that boat storage would be indoors, and therefore no trailers would be stored outdoors. There was a 24 foot length limitation on the boats that would be stored there. No maintenance work would be performed, and of course no parking. MR. PALING-Excuse me. When you say, of course no~arking, is that part of what was passed, they said no parking? MR. SALVADOR-No. I'm saying, it's self evident that if these are the conditions of the permit, and parking is not mentioned, then parking is not allowed. That's my conclusion. MR. PALING-Well, where would employees park? If they work for a company and come to work, where would you have them park? MR. SALVADOR-I will tell you. The spirit and intent of this Special Use Permit was that the boat storage activity was of a seasonal nature. The boats would go up in October and they would come down in May, and Mr. Schriner could enjoy the privacy of his property during the summer when he uses it, and be undisturbed. This access, over the years, we have gravitated from the limitations of this Special Use Permit to a wide open affair, and this access road has become a public thoroughfare. That's why we're here today. May I continue? In 1989, the Town did a Comprehensive Plan. This boat storage facility, on this Comprehensive Plan, this is the plan that has been adopted by the Town and the County, and I hope it's registered with the Secretary of State, shows this boat storage facility to be in a moderate intensity zone. Moderate intensity is three acre. When the Zoning Ordinance came out, after the Dunham's Bay Boat Company went for the Site Plan review we're all talking about. MR. GORALSKI-That's not correct. The Zoning Ordinance was adopted - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) in October of 1988. The Site Plan review was in 1990. MR. SALVADOR-When was this done? MR. GORALSKI-1989. MR. SALVADOR-This was done after the Zoning Ordinance? MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. MR. SCHACHNER-But before the Site Plan approval. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. So the Site Plan review was not done in accordance with this plan. MR. GORALSKI-The Site Plan review was done after that plan was adopted and after the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted. MR. SALVADOR-So the Zoning Ordinance doesn't agree with the Comprehensive Plan. MR. GORALSKI-I can't make that determination right now. MR. SALVADOR-Well, you can see it on here as clear as day. As to why we have this problem with the parking, in our Zoning Ordinance, we talk about the. MR. PALING-What Section are you in, Mr. Salvador, what Page? MR. SALVADOR-179S4. According to the Zoning Ordinance we have before us at the present time, this parcel of land on which the storage is located is an LC-42 zone. Now, on Page 17955, at the top of the page, as an accessory use we have commercial boat storage. MR. MACEWAN-For Staff, what's the difference between item five and item eight, farther down the page, it just says, commercial boat storage? MR. GORALSKI-Because that's a principal use. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-And you're talking about the marina portion of this now, right, that's the LC? MR. GORALSKI-No, the marina portion is on the. MR. PALING-Yes. The marina is WR, Waterfront Residential. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, and you're talking the other. MR. SALVADOR-It's a split zone. MR. GORALSKI-No, there are two separate parcels. This is not an accessory use. The boat storage facility we're talking about is the principal use on the parcel in the Land Conservation zone. MR. SALVADOR-It's a principal use? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is. MR. SALVADOR-Well then where do we find that an accessory use is parking? Remember, just a minute, please. A boat storage facility is a place where you put boats. Under normal circumstances, an up until Mr. Schriner registered this complaint about employees - 32 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) parking there, the Boat Company, with one of its employees, on one of its vehicles, would take a boat there on the trailer, or some way, and put it into storage and return with that equipment. That's all they do. There's no power up there. There are no toilets up there. There's no water up there. You can't sustain a work force under those conditions. MR. RUEL-Where are these cars coming from? MR. SALVADOR-The parking? Well, I don't know, but I would think it's close to a quarter of a mile between this boat storage and the Boat Company on the water, and it's not an easy, I don't know. Do they park there cars there and then walk to work? MR. RUEL-John, what is your major objection to cars parked there? MR. SALVADOR-I have an objection because I believe they're going to impede my use of that right-of-way. MR. RUEL-Is the traffic that heavy? MR. SALVADOR-It could be. Look at it right now. MR. RUEL-How many cars are we talking about? MR. SALVADOR-I don't know. MR. STARK-Could we hear from Mr. Howard and hear what he has to say? MR. PALING-Well, yes. We'll give Mr. Salvador the privilege of the floor. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. The other point I'd like to make is that over the years, the way zoning has been treated in North Queensbury, and particularly marinas, we have a very, very narrow focus on boat storage. It has been singled out as a use unto itself. Look at your Ordinance. Look at your Ordinance, okay. It's not in the generic term of a marina operation, not at all. All facets of boat storage have been singled out and they have a narrow focus. Quick Launch, perfect example, okay, and so there is a difference between boat storage and marina today. The way we function, the way we operate. The other thing I'd just like to point out, in closing, is I don't know why Mr. Howard has to park his employees up there, as inconvenient as it appears to me to be. He has a permit from the Lake George Park Commission to operate a marina, and that permit was granted, based on him having 42 parking places on the north side of the road, and this is the plan. MR. GORALSKI-The Lake George Park Commission permit has nothing to do with this Board. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, just a point. He has 42 parking places. I believe the Town was aware of the granting of this permit and the conditions. You were sent a copy. So I really don't understand why the employee parking has to take place up there, and it' s extremely inconvenient, I would think, and I just don't know why they're pursuing it, but that's neither here nor there. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. All right. Does anyone else care to speak? ROGER HOWARD MR. HOWARD-My name is Roger Howard. I'm the owner of Dunham's Bay Boat Company. Mr. Salvador is very eloquent, but I think it needs to be pointed out that the employee parking, this season, and I think Mr. Schriner will attest to it, occurred on two occasions. - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) Once, I think it was the Fourth of July weekend, and the other during a boat show we had in September. Basically, what I do is use that facility to make room for customers when we have special occasions, special promotions, at the marina. It was twice this summer. I don't know the total number of cars, but I'd be willing to bet between the two occasions there weren't 15 cars. MR. PALING-Are you saying that you would let other than employees park up there? MR. HOWARD-No. MR. PALING-Just employees? MR. HOWARD-We put the employee cars to make room for the overflow of customer cars. Other than when we have special promotions, there really is no need for it, but certainly when we have a boat show, we want to make all the room we can for those extra customers. MR. STARK-Mr. Howard, so the rest of the time, the employees park down in those 42 parking spots and they go up there to deliver boats or store boats, but they don't park up there, just on these two occasions? MR. HOWARD-That's what it was this summer. MR. RUEL-You say about 15 cars in the summer for what period of time? MR. HOWARD-A weekend, Saturday and Sunday. MR. PALING-And it happened twice? MR. HOWARD-Yes, and that's 15 cars total, for the two weekends. I didn't count them, but certainly it didn't exceed 20. I don't have that many employees. It's a tough place up there. We don't have an excess of room, and I think it's unreasonable to deny me the access to use that 14 acres across the street to alleviate that condition. If there's a problem with employees speeding or whatever on the road, I can handle that, but I don' t think, overall, that's been a problem. MR. PALING-Do you ever oil that road, I better watch the term I use, or put something down to control dust? MR. HOWARD-We have a dust control stuff. MR. PALING-Do you do it once a year? MR. HOWARD-As needed. MR. RUEL-Mr. Salvador talked about the traffic conditions caused by these 15 cars, and how long is this access road he's talking about? MR. HOWARD-It's about 1500 feet, I think. Salvador on that road. I've never seen Mr. MR. RUEL-It's a wide enough road for a couple of cars? MR. HOWARD-It's a 20 foot right-of-way. MR. RUEL-Actual paved? MR. HOWARD-Part of it is paved. The part that's paved is about 12 feet wide. MR. RUEL-And it's heavy traffic there at times. - 34 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. HOWARD-No. If we had seven cars that went up at eight o'clock and then seven cars came back down at five, I wouldn't call that heavy. MR. RUEL-Do you have any idea why they're objecting to this? MR. HOWARD-I think there's an ulterior motive, but I don't know exactly what it is. MR. RUEL-Do you know what it is? MR. HOWARD-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. All right. I think, then, we can limit the discussion up here at the Board, if everyone. MR. SCHRINER-Could I just have one minute? MR. PALING-One minute. MR. SCHRINER-I cut mine short because you said you wanted this limited just to the thing, so I left out why I don't want employees parking up there. Because the more traffic that goes up and down this road, it devalues my property. When Mr. Shortsleeves passed away, the previous owner, we had that property appraised for the estate, all right. When the appraiser was there, the activity on the road was going up and down. He asked me, what is this going on? And I told him, it's a right-of-way road up through my property to get to the boat storage facility. Down come the big forktruck, and the woman said, what is this thing, and I said, they go down there and unload the boats, the new boats that come in, and then they bring them up to the boat storage. She said, do you realize that I have to write all this in. This devalues this property. I said, I understand that, but you have your job to do, you do it. So I feel that the more traffic that goes up and down that road, this just devalues my property. Beside the aggravation, Mr. Howard has said, for 20 years that I've known him, I can control that speed. I can control the dust. We've got the same dust that we had when Mr. Shortsleeves owned the property back in 1972, 25 years ago. We've got the same dust. The people were promised a blacktop road from Route 9L passed the camp to eliminate the dust. There is no blacktop road. We were promised not to deface the property. It started out as about a 12 foot road. There's a 20 foot right-of-way, I'll grant you. Now the entrance is about 40 feet wide, coming off of Route 9L. Mrs. Woodin, if she had lived one more summer, but they all passed away these people. If she had lived one more summer, Dunham's Bay Boat Company would have a big problem, because she had already contacted a contractor to put large boulders on the entrance to that road on her property, 20 foot space for them to get in. No way could they ever get the boats that they hauled up there through a 20 foot space without coming in from a northerly direction, which was originally promised to the people. They were supposed to do this, but they never did it. It's been an aggravation right from the start. I have to put up with the dust, and the reason I complained this year on July 4th was I didn't know the cars were up there. I had no idea. We were sitting down to a picnic supper, and then a stream of cars came down the road, one after the other, quarter after five, end of the work day, everybody wants to get home, and each one tried to catch the other one, until pretty soon the speed got real good, and I hollered at one of the drivers, and he let me know real fast that he wasn't going to listen to some old guy. He just tromped down on it, the dust flew, the rocks flew, and away he went. I complained to Roger about it the next day, and he said, I'll take care of it, but I've heard this for 20 years, I'll take care of it. I'll take care of it. I've only owned this property for two years, but I've been involved with Mr. Shortsleeves since 1963, 30 some years I've been up there. So I know what started and what takes place up - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) there, and this is why I don't want this to turn into like it did with the boats. We have two cars today, fifteen. That doesn't sound much to you people, 15 cars a year. What's that? It doesn' t mean nothing, but next year maybe there'll be 20 cars, and then the next year 30 cars, and this is why Jim Martin said to me, lets nip this in the bud now, get it before the Board and lets get it settled. That's why this is here. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. I think everyone has had their say in this. I think now is appropriate to poll the Board. In this situation, we can do nothing, but if we do something, we should be very careful about what we do, but let me just get a general opinion. MR. SCHACHNER-When you say, do something, I certainly do not think it's appropriate for this Board to enact any type of resolution or any type of motion. MR. PALING-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-Then what can we do? MR. BREWER-Nothing. There's nothing we can do. MR. SCHACHNER-My opinion is that if you feel that you've heard something that you think warrants "re-opening" of this case, we would have to look into whether we even have a legal basis to od that, and that would have to be done with some formal notification. I mean, I understand that Mr. Howard's here and he spoke, but that still, there was no formal notification of this as a new, either a pending application or a possible modification. I'm not suggesting you should do that. I'm just making sure the Board understands that as far as any formal action tonight, I don't think you can take any formal action tonight. MR. PALING-Well, let me just exercise my thought on this thing. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think the discussion is fine, and I think Mr. Schriner is entitled to that based on Jim Martin sending him here. MR. PALING-I think we've heard both sides of the situation here, and there evidentally are some problems there, but I truly feel that we have no jurisdiction or no need or I don't see anything we can try to modify or overturn. It's my opinion that they should be turned back to the enforcement officer, and if there's any violations, he'll proceed to take care of them as is the regular process. I don't see where this Board should be involved. MR. WEST-Can Mr. Schriner appeal or put whatever mechanism is to scrutinize the variance permit that was? MR. GORALSKI-There was a Site Plan that was, this boat storage facility has current Site Plan approval from the Planning Board that was passed in 1990. MR. RUEL-I think the only way we can resolve this, the hard way, is to actually re-open the application, review the whole thing and start it allover again. MR. STARK-That's absurd. Lets open everyone we ever passed on. MR. RUEL-Well, just saying, the enforcement officer will take care of it, it'll never happen. This thing will go on forever. MR. PALING-Well, if there is a violation, Roger, I think something will happen. MR. RUEL-But apparently there is no violation, okay. - 36 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. PALING-Well, then what are you re-opening? MR. RUEL-We're re-opening to see what we can do about parking, all right. That's not in there. The fact that it doesn't mention parking doesn't mean that you can't have parking, but in our site review, we could be specific about parking, and nobody was at the first application. MR. STARK-Let John do the job that he was hired to do. He did it. That's the end of it, as far as I'm concerned. He did his job. He made his determination. That's it. MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I think the fact that now I know that you've only been on the property for two years, kind of puts another outlook on it. I'm not so sure I'm that sYmpathetic because you knew that everything was there, according to what you said originally was I was under the impression that you've known that these cars allegedly have been going up and down there since 1972, and then, so now you say you've owned the land for two years, and now all of a sudden you wanted to do something about it. I don't think we have jurisdiction to make any decision on this. MR. GORALSKI-Just to clarify, Mr. Schriner inherited the property two years ago, okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, okay. That's what I was inclined to believe, but that's here nor there. Just, if they could just, the 15 cars that go up there 2 days a year, I have absolutely no problem with that. I wish people would be kinder and nicer and just tell them to drive slower and wish them a happy Fourth of July, instead of kicking dust up in your food. That's all I would like. MR. MACEWAN-I've said it already. MR. PALING-What did you say? MR. MACEWAN-That we shouldn't even be listening to it. It's done and taken care of. MR. PALING-Okay. Roger, I think you've spoken your piece, right? Dave? MR. WEST-I'm done. MR. BREWER-Just one question for Mark. Is there any method for Mr. Schriner to get this back here, that we have to look at it? MR. SCHACHNER-That's within Mr. Schriner's control, no. MR. BREWER-Okay. choose. Only we can resolve this problem, if we so MR. SCHACHNER-No. this. I'm not sure there's any way we can resolve MR. BREWER-Not resolve it, probably, maybe I should say re-open this case, so to speak. MR. SCHACHNER-Only if we have a legal basis for doing so. For example, some misrepresentation on behalf of the application, some dramatic new information, new and different than what was before the Planning Board at that time, that should have been there because somebody falsified something. I mean, there are legal criteria, because the applicant got an approval some six plus years ago, and the applicant therefore has what's called vested rights under law to exercise that approval. - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. BREWER-Okay. I'm not going to say anymore. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I think that the Board has been heard. Is this sufficient, or do we have to go to a motion on this? MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think you should go to any sort of motion. MR. PALING-Then I think we're done. Okay. Then we're finished. MR. GORALSKI-The County Planning Board. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-What do we do with that? MR. GORALSKI-Hopefully approve it. MR. BREWER-We didn't get a chance to read it. MR. GORALSKI-If you don't want to do it tonight, and you'd like to do it next week, that's fine, but let me just explain what it is, okay, and actually, maybe it would be better if Mark did, since he's the man who wrote it. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-The proposed agreement, which has been authorized now, as I understand it, by the Warren County Board of Supervisors, and I know by the Queensbury Town Board last night, is an agreement that relates to the referrals that we send to the County Planning Board under General Municipal Law Section 239M. You know that we often have roughly have of our applications, because they're within 500 feet of a County or State road, or Lake George, or some other County or State resource, you know that they get referred to the Warren County Planning Board, which meets every month and then reviews them and makes a recommendation, and you know that from time to time there's a recommendation of, to deny, and that imposes a super majority requirement on us. You know that often, most frequently, I would say, they come back saying No County Impact. There's a little known provision in New York State law that allows local governments to come to agreements with the County Planning Board, to say, lets try to limit the things that get referred, so that we can try to improve our efficiency and not have all these really small, minimal actions that don't have any County Impact, don't bother referring them to the County Planning Board. Don't make the County Planning Board and its Staff go through the effort of reviewing them. Don' t make the applicants go up to the Municipal Center on the second Wednesday night of every month and sit there for half an hour only to find there's No County Impact. Don't have our hands tied, remember one time the County Planning Board didn't meet, so we had to juggle our whole schedule for that month because we couldn't go forward without their input. So the law authorizes you to reach agreement, if the County Planning Board will agree, and the County has done so here, to classify certain actions as so minor that they don't need to be referred, and the proposed agreement, which would actually be an agreement between the County, the Town Board, the Town Planning Board and the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, because their things get referred as well, would actually eliminate a healthy portion of the things that we refer over, the ones that are really minor, that typically come back with No County Impact. I won't bore you with reading the agreement, but the gist of it is that site plan applications for residential projects of 10 or less units, if there's no access on a County or State road, would automatically be deemed to be of No County Impact, and therefore wouldn't even get referred to the Planning Board. So those applications that wouldn't get referred, the applicants wouldn't have to go to the County Planning Board meeting, and we wouldn't have to wait for the County Planning Board - 38 - ---. .-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) recommendation. MR. MACEWAN-Is that site plan or subdivision? MR. SCHACHNER-Site Plan. MR. GORALSKI-The County Planning Board does not see subdivisions. MR. SCHACHNER-We already don't send subdivisions. MR. MACEWAN-Why would we do a site plan for a residential unit? MR. GORALSKI-Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. MR. SCHACHNER-Multiple family dwellings. MR. GORALSKI-Multiple family dwellings. MR. MACEWAN-You're saying specifically things up to the lake, then? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, multiple family dwellings. MR. RUEL-So, Mark, you have a complete list, then, of the items that would not go? MR. SCHACHNER-No, only two things, and actually the other one relates to Area Variances. So that's not our Board. MR. RUEL-So we don't need a list of the ones that must go to the Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Everything else that has to go anyway, currently, would still go. MR. RUEL-So on the list, there aren't that many then. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but there are a fair number of these, and those would no longer have to go. I just read you the only one that relates to this Board. Site Plan applications for residential projects of 10 or fewer dwelling units, as long as the access is not directly on a County or State road, would nO-longer go to the County Planning Board. MR. RUEL-That doesn't happen too often. MR. SCHACHNER-Not terribly often. Actually the second category, which is for the ZBA, which is a bunch of Area Variance applications, is more significant, but the bottom line is, it's the first step toward stream lining this County referral process. MR. RUEL-When you started, you mentioned 40 or SO%? MR. PALING-No. MR. GORALSKI-Forty or fifty percent of the applications that you hear are also reviewed by the Warren County Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. This would not eliminate all those. This would only eliminate these. It's a proposed one year agreement, and it's viewed as a first step. MR. GORALSKI-Or, if you want to wait until next week and read it over, you can. It's up to you. MR. PALING-Do you need a motion on this? MR. SCHACHNER-At some point. - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) MR. GORALSKI-You need a motion authorizing the Chairman to sign the agreement. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, at some point. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE BOB TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1996, by the following vote: MR. RUEL-Is this on a trial basis for a year? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Dates. Indian Ridge is a possibility for December, and if it is, it will probably be a special meeting which will probably be held on Thursday, December 12th. The other meetings are as we discussed. The regular meetings will be the 17th and the 19th, Tuesday and Thursday. Remember now we've got Thursday in there because of Christmas Eve, and site visits as usually on the 14th at 9 a.m. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I just want to point out, if you go with Thursday, December 12th for Indian Ridge, you won't have counsel. MR. PALING-John or Maria, could you relay that to Pam, please, and ask her. MR. GORALSKI~We haven't received an application. They withdrew their application. We have not received an application. MR. PALING-No, but they're doing this just in case, and I think we ought to clear it for legal assistance, just in case. MR. GORALSKI-We will coordinate with Mark, if that becomes necessary. MR. PALING-Good. Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Why are we giving somebody consideration here, to a potential application that hasn't been submitted? MR. BREWER-I don't know. MR. PALING-What's wrong with advanced planning? We're trying to avoid, for one thing, we're trying to avoid the mess that Indian Ridge got into before, and the very bad public comment. MR. MACEWAN-What mess? If you can't accommodate them in the month o~ December and they hit, and we can' t accommodate a special meeting (lost words) . MR. PALING-Craig, I'm only trying to alert you to what's possible to give you as much notice as possible. MR. RUEL-It probably will not materialize. MR. PALING-The meeting's adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, - 40 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/19/96) Robert Paling, Chairman - 41 -