Loading...
1997-03-18 --- ~/ QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 1997 INDEX Site Plan No. 8-97 Lionel o. Barthold Tax Map No. 1-1-34, 1-1-35.1 1. Site Plan No. 9-97 Tri-County Auto Auction Tax Map No. 105-1-11 4. Site Plan No. 10-97 Top of the World Golf Resort, Inc. Tax Map No. 24-1-5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3/24-2-47.1 (Portion) 11. Site Plan No. 11-97 Richard P. Schermerhorn, Jr. Tax Map No. 48-3-34.1 14. Site Plan No. 14-97 Joseph Leuci Tax Map No. 67-2-1.3 22. 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 3/18/97) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL DAVID WEST TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 21, 1997: NONE January 28, 1997: NONE February 18, 1997: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 1997, JANUARY 28, 1997 AND FEBRUARY 18, 1997, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. If there is anyone here for the Indian Ridge application, that will not be on the agenda tonight. The applicant has temporarily postponed, or has postponed, I guess temporarily, his application to the Planning Board. It may be taken up later. So if you're waiting for Indian Ridge, it won't happen. MR. HILTON-Actually, Bob, in speaking with Jim Martin this afternoon, he had asked me to read the Rist-Frost letter into the record. Now there must be some miscommunication here. MR. PALING-All right. Then if it's going to be, why don't, no, lets leave it that way and do it in order, but everyone here knows that all that's going to happen, is there anyone here for Indian Ridge? Okay. Then if that's the case, why don't you read it into the record now. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. PALING-And make note of what it is that is. MR. HILTON-Okay. Sure. It's a letter dated March 17, 1997, from Rist-Frost Associates to Mr. James Martin. The letter reads as follows, "As the Town Planning Board considers our March 4, 1997 letter regarding the selection of a hydro-geologist sub-consultant we feel it appropriate to restate or make several comments regarding the project. 1. Rist-Frost considers itself professionally competent to have reviewed the technical aspects of this project to date including the groundwater issues and reaffirms - 1 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) its favorable comments regarding the adequacy of hydro-geological investigations and conclusions, as well as the storm drainage and sewage system design concepts of the project. In our opinion, a proper and adequate hard look was taken concerning this issue during the environmental assessment done by the Town Board. However, if the Planning Board wishes to be responsive to the hypothetical situations and technical analysis presented by Mr. Allan D. Randall on behalf of Citizens for Queensbury at the February 20, 1997 public hearing and/or participate in the approach requested by the Board in paragraph 2 of its February 24, 1997 letter to the applicant, we recommend that we be authorized to engage a hydro-geological sub-consultant. Our letters of March 4 and March 5, 1997 further discuss this option. 2. The issue of the beaver dam influence on the water level in the wetlands should be addressed by the applicant and reviewed, but it is our opinion that even if groundwater flow from a portion of the development could flow toward the wetland, sufficient horizontal and vertical separation exists so that the proposed sewage and storm drainage design would still meet current design standards. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William J. Levandowski, P.E." MR. PALING-Now that was Indian Ridge. Is there any other letters you wanted to read in or comments? MR. HILTON-I have one other letter attached that I will read in, and it's a letter from Little & O'Connor. It's signed by Michael J. O'Connor, who is counsel for the applicant. It's dated March 18, 1997, and it reads as follows, "Dear Jim: I wish to confirm my telephone conversation with you on March 17, 1997, with regard to the position of developer as to requested paYment of fees for hydrogeologist, subconsultant to Rist-Frost. We have received the material that you have forwarded in connection with same and are presently reviewing same. We do not have a position to pass to the Planning Board and will not have a position for the meeting of March 18, 1997. I'm not sure whether we will be in a position to have an answer for the Planning Board at its meeting of March 25th. As soon as I have the necessary information, I will pass same to you. Very truly yours, Michael J. O'Connor" MR. RUEL-Do you have extra copies of these letters? MR. PALING-It's in your packet. MR. RUEL-Okay. I'll keep it with the rest of Indian Ridge. MR. PALING-Okay. Then that's as much as we'll do with Indian Ridge tonight. The process will have to be re-started when the applicant is ready. Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 8-97 TYPE II LIONEL O. BARTHOLD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-3A, C.E.A., APA LOCATION: 10 WOODS POINT LANE PROPOSAL IS TO ADD A 550 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING HOUSE. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 34-1992/SP 18-92 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-34, 1-1-35.1 LOT SIZE: 3.46 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79F MR. PALING-Okay. George. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 8-97, Lionel O. Barthold, Meeting Date: March 18, 1997 "The applicant is proposing a 550 sq. ft. addition to an existing building located on Woods Point Lane. This expansion of a nonconforming structure requires site plan review - 2 - ./ "--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) per the zoning Ordinance. The expansion meets the setback requirements of the WR-3A zone. Lot permeability at this location will conform to the requirements of the WR-3A zone. Staff foresees no adverse impacts associated with this site plan and recommends approval of Site Plan 8-97." MR. HILTON-Now, another piece of information that we have on this is that the applicant, in a letter dated March 17th, has stated that he cannot be here this evening, but he would ask if you can proceed without him. He would be willing to have you do that, with the understanding that any discussion that you may have would be continued to the hearing of the 25th. However, if there are no concerns this evening, and you feel that you have enough to just vote on the application, you can certainly do that. MR. RUEL-So it would be left open until the following week, if necessary. MR. HILTON-Until next week, yes. MR. PALING-We' II give ita try, and see if we can do it. Why don' t we just go right, the applicant's not here, so we don't we go right to the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to talk about the Lionel Barthold application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Any comments, questions, on the part of the Board? MR. RUEL-He's adding a bedroom. MR. WEST-Five hundred and fifty square feet. MR. RUEL-Yes. This would have an effect on the septic system, but the existing septic system is adequate, even with the addition of the other bedroom. MR. HILTON-That will come under review when he applies for a building permit, and we will make sure that the system's adequate. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments or questions on this? It's a Type II. So we don't need a SEQRA. MR. HILTON-Correct. No SEQRA is needed. MR. PALING-Okay, and we do have a resolution on this. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-97 LIONEL BARTHOLD, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written on the resolution. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 8-97 LIONEL BARTHOLD to add a 550 sq. ft. addition to existing house. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, dated 2/14/97, consists of the following: 1. Application - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) 2. Drawings 1 - 4 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. Letter dated 3/10/97 from applicant with drawing. 3. Notice of Public Hearing dated 3/11/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/18/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury ( Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above hereby move to approve Site Plan No. 8-97 LIONEL BARTHOLD. 2 . The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Administrator and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 18th day of March 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NONE: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 9-97 TYPE II TRI-COUNTY AUTO AUCTION OWNER: F.T. & E.P. COLLINS ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD APPROX. 500 FT. SOUTH OF QUAKER ROAD. BUILDING IS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY BEHIND THE FORMER CUSHING FLORAL SHOP. NEW OCCUPANT. EXISTING BUILDING, NO PHYSICAL CHANGES. FORMER OCCUPANT WAS ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 3/10/97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 105-1-11 LOT SIZE: .48 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MICHAEL FISHER & ROLAND MORITO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. Meeting Date: March 18, 1997 9-97, Tri-County Auto Auction, "The applicant is proposing to - 4 - ~ A~ ~ .~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) operate an automobile repo and sales business at the former location of Enterprise Rent-A-Car on Bay Road. Tri-County Auto Auction will be a new occupant and no physical changes to the site are proposed. Setbacks, parking, and permeability will be the same as what currently exists at this location." MR. HILTON-At a March 12, 1997 meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, this item was heard, and the recommendation of No County Impact, with a resolution signed by Tracey Clothier, and here we also have Committee for Community Beautification resolution, signed by Mary Lee Gosline, approving as submitted. MR. PALING-I hate to be picky for the sake of being picky, but where is that approved? By the lack of negative comment? MR. HILTON-By the lack of negative comment. MR. PALING-Okay. tonight? Is someone representing the applicant here MR. MACEWAN-George, did you just say that they did approve that? They didn't approve that. After the line that says, "Applicant did not appear", the Planning Board wishes to go on record that it does not approve. Isn't their normal procedure that if someone doesn't show they don't, historically, approve something that they don't have a presentation for? They don't take any action at all. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I think this is no action by the Beautification Committee. The applicant did not appear, is what it is says. That's normally where it says whether it's approved or not. The language below that says, "wishes to go on record that it does not approve" that language appears on every single Beautification Committee resolution. MR. MACEWAN-Right, but what I'm driving at is they don't normally approve by default. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, they could but in any event, if they do, they write that out. I think that this is a non decision by the Beautification Committee. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. PALING-Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. FISHER-Michael Fisher. MR. MORITO-Roland Morito. MR. PALING-Is there any reason you didn't go to the Beautification Committee meeting? MR. MORITO-I can tell you the exact reason. John Goralski brought us the letter by hand, the day after the Beautification Committee board meeting. We had no knowledge that the meeting even existed at all. MR. PALING-That's a good reason. MR. MORITO-As a matter of fact, he came in and said, by the way, here's the letter we forgot to mail out. You missed the meeting last night. MR. RUEL-I have a question for you. sales, and repossession? You're in the sales, auto MR. MORITO-It's going to be a wholesale company. repossession company. We do have a - 5 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. RUEL-Is that a separate company? MR. MORITO-Yes, it is. MR. RUEL-And you go and repossess automobiles? MR. MORITO-Well, actually, I'm a locksmith up there. I've been a locksmith up here for about a year and a half. I'm partners in this business. He owns the repossession company. MR. RUEL-So it's actually two companies, an auto sales company and a repossession company? MR. MORITO-Right. The repossession takes place between him and the bank, but the car gets dropped off at the auction for sale. MR. RUEL-But you also take on assignments on repossession for other banks and organizations? MR. MORITO-Right. It's not a glamorous job, but it pays the bills. MR. BREWER-How many cars are you going to have there, at any given time? MR. MORITO-Well, we're planning on holding an auction every Wednesday, which means, chances are, when dealers come in, as fast as the cars show up is as fast as they'll be leaving. We're not planning on having any more than 30 cars here at anyone time. MR. BREWER-Okay. Are you going to do any repairs or any of that stuff there? MR. MORITO-No. MR. BREWER-Just strictly sell the cars? MR. MORITO-Strictly sell. They go out as is, the way we bring them in. MR. STARK-You know where you have the cars parked now, perpendicular to Bay Road? Now you're not going to park them there? You've got plans to put them alongside the building? MR. MORITO-Right, as soon as the snow goes away. MR. STARK-Where will the sale be held, inside the building or outside? MR. MORITO-Well, what we're planning on doing is tagging the windshield. Every dealer comes in, gets a number, okay. Dealers won't, it won't be a drive through type thing where they hold up signs and that. They'll write down what their bid is on. The bids will get turned in inside the office. All they'll be doing is walking around the lot and placing the bid on the vehicle inside the office. So it's not going to be a drive through type deal. MR. PALING-Okay. This is a Type II, public hearing. All right. Do you have any further comment that you wanted to make? MR. FISHER-Just about the only thing I can think of, most of the time, 30 cars will be stored there between the hours of nine and one on Wednesday, max 50 cars. That's it. MR. PALING-Okay. Otherwise, a lot fewer cars. That's the max for your auction? MR. FISHER-Right. - 6 - ..r - '- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. BREWER-Is it going to be a day, if you had a car there, say, on a Tuesday, if somebody wanted to come in and buy it, then they go in and buy it? MR. MORITO-From the public, if the public wishes to come in and put a bid on a car, we will submit it to the bank. We're probably the only auction in New York State that would do that, which appeals to the banks, because of course they do make more money from a public buyer than they do a dealer. A dealer wants to pay, you know, 15, 20% of book, where somebody from the public will be more than happy to give half of book for the car, which in turn pleases the bank, you know, they're not going in the hole that far, but it is a wholesale. MR. PALING-Okay. Then lets open the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone care to comment on the Tri-County auction application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-It's a Type II. So we can move right to a motion. MR. RUEL-I have a question about this resolution. On this first page, at the bottom, Item One. It says, "The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to". MR. HILTON-You would either approve or, that option is there for either approving or denying or tabling or whatever you may choose. MR. RUEL-That's only an option here, in this case? MR. HILTON-Well, I mean. MR. BREWER-Does anybody, do we think we should limit it just to 50 cars or 100 cars? Before we approve the motion. MR. MACEWAN-What is the maximum that parcel will allow? MR. HILTON-Well, based on this use, there is no listing for a repo business within our Zoning Ordinance. So the parking requirements would be something that you would have to determine. MR. MACEWAN-What would happen if you have your auction and you have 35 cars there on a Wednesday for the auction and you only get rid of 20 of them. Does the remainder of the stay there until next week's auction? MR. FISHER-It depends if some of the dealerships want to remove them. The dealership, the cars that we have, that we have repossessed, that are being stored there, that go into the auction line, those will stay there until Wednesday. One o'clock, whoever made the best bid, the car will be disposed of and gone by Wednesday evening. Occasionally a dealership might bring a car in to dispose of it there, because they're going to get rid of it wholesale compared to the dealer auction. They're going to get a little bit more money for it. So a dealer will bring it in for the hours of nine and one, and that's it. The car is out of there. MR. MACEWAN-There's no hold over to the following week? MR. FISHER-Occasionally you might get one that doesn't get a good enough bid and the bank's not happy with that, so it might get a hold over. MR. MACEWAN-How long would you hold it over for? - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. FISHER-A maximum of two weeks. Outside of that, the vehicle would be considered salvage and sent off to a junk yard. Thankfully we haven't had that problem yet. MR. RUEL-George, is there anything in the Ordinance indicating a maximum number of vehicles in a given area? MR. HILTON-Like I said, we have our parking requirements. With a business like this, there's no listing for apartment schedule. It's something you as a Board, if you felt comfortable with a certain number, could work into your motion, but to answer your question, no. There's not a maximum number of vehicles. MR. RUEL-Would the Board like to place a maximum on it? MR. BREWER-Well, I think he's showing 32 spaces. If we said somewhere near 50, I mean, I don't think that's unreasonable. MR. WEST-Where are you going to put them? MR. PALING-When you do go to 50, are you going to go back in to where the rent/storage space is? MR. FISHER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. You will go back in there. MR. FISHER-Yes. That's where the actual line up of the cars will be. MR. PALING-Now, whoever runs that or owns that, they approve of that? MR. MORITO-Yes. Mr. Collins said if we didn't wish to put them there and we wanted to put them, you know, further back, we could in fact park them behind the warehouse that he has, way back in. He says he's got seven acres of land. MR. PALING-Okay. If he should ever shut that down, I think it would be a different set of circumstances. For the number of cars you could have there, you wouldn't be able to fit 50 in if you didn't have that privilege. MR. MORITO-If he does happen to shut that down, we'll have to go rent another piece of property and come back right here in front of you tonight and see if it's okay. MR. MACEWAN-Where do you propose to park the cars of the people that are coming to the auction? MR. FISHER-Right now, you know where the cars are parked, obviously you've seen the site. Okay. Right there is where we could park the vehicles at. As far as we could see, from the snow, we can't really see what's on the ground. So that's about the best place that we could find to park the vehicles right now. We're not familiar with the property because since we've rented the property there's been nothing but at least two feet of snow on the ground. MR. MACEWAN-How many people would you anticipate on an average would come to the auction to bid on cars? I mean, is it just the immediate Glens Falls area car dealers that come? MR. WEST-Is it limited to dealers only? MR. FISHER-Only nine in the morning until one afternoon on Wednesday is limited to dealers only. regular office hours are nine a.m. to six p.m. 0' clock in the After that, our - 8 - ,/ ,--- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. RUEL-Probably no more than a dozen dealers there for the auction on one day? MR. FISHER-Depending. Basically, it's a very limited auction size. I mean, compared to Northway Auto Exchange, where the run just about a thousand cars a day through, okay, of course they have 100's of dealers coming through. We're talking maybe 40, 50 cars. Okay. There's not that many cars there. So there's not going to be that many dealers that are interested. Basically, your used car dealerships are who's going to be coming to this. MR. RUEL-Is it like a regular auction where you have a public address system or something like that? MR. FISHER-No. It's what's called a sealed bid auction. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. FISHER-Okay. The cars aren't driving. They're not moving through a line where people are screaming out, yelling, okay. You don't have an auctioneer standing up going, $2100, $2200. You don't have that. The dealer goes up. They look at the vehicle. They place their bid; what they feel it's worth to them, and they hand it to us. MR. RUEL-Yes. They don't drive the vehicle. MR. FISHER-No. They might move it forward five feet and back five feet, but that's the extent of it. They don't drive it all around the lot. MR. RUEL-And that whole area is boxed in with buildings off of Bay, right? They've got the cleaners. MR. FISHER-Between the landscape and buildings, yes, it's boxed in. MR. RUEL-Yes. It's all in the back, right? MR. FISHER-Yes. MR. WEST-It's a tight location. There's no question about that. MR. BREWER-Well, I just think if you get into that situation where you have 50 cars or whatever, they show 32 or whatever in there. They start coming out here, how far is it going to go? I don't know. MR. PALING-I think he's all right as long as he's got the use of that land where the storage area is and behind that. There's plenty of space, but if that would ever be lost to them, then that's when there would be a problem. MR. BREWER-Yes, but, Bob, we're doing a specific site, aren't we? We're not doing the whole seven acres for this one use. He's got other uses on the land. That's what my point is. He said 50 cars maximum. I don't think that's unreasonable, 50 cars with whatever customers come there. MR. PALING-Okay. It doesn't seem unreasonable. MR. FISHER-Maybe 51 occasionally, but I don't see much more than that going on. MR. PALING-All right. Tim, I guess I'm not reading you. Are you reading in favor of? MR. BREWER-I'm in favor of a 50 car maximum. - 9 - , .'---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. RUEL-As a condition of the motion? MR. PALING-Yes. That's reasonable. MR. RUEL-Plus the dealers that would be there for the sale. MR. FISHER-Now if this should ever take off a lot better than we're anticipating, do we have to come back in front of you to get this adjusted. MR. PALING-Yes, sir. MR. BREWER-For a modification. MR. PALING-If you go over that kind of a limit of cars there, which we hope you do, but then you'll have to come back in with a new proposition. MR. FISHER-That's fine. MR. STARK-Would that be just a modification if they came in? MR. SCHACHNER-If you approve this site plan, it would be a modification of the site plan, a request for modification of the previously issued site plan approval. MR. RUEL-If they come in again. MR. BREWER-Yes. So you want to insert that in there, Roger. MR. RUEL-I'll start over again. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-97 TRI-COUNTY AUTO AUCTION, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: As written in the resolution, with the condition that there be a maximum of SO cars per sale, not including any other cars. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is No. 9-97 TRI-COUNTY AUTO AUCTION - building, no physical changes. Enterprise Rent-A-Car. in receipt of Site Plan New Occupant. Existing Former occupancy was Whereas, the above mentioned application, dated 2/26/97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map 91-012 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. Beautification Committee resolution dated 3/10/97. 3. Warren Co. Planning Board resolution dated 3/12/97. Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/18/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury ( Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and - 10 - ./ "--' __J (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve Site Plan No. 9-97 TRI-COUNTY AUTO AUCTION. 2 . The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: Mrs. LaBombard MRS. LABOMBARD-That was for the motion to limit the thing to 50 cars. No, I'm not in favor of that. I think he ought to be able to put as many there as he wants, and he's not going to be able to put as many, he can only put so many anyhow, that will fit, and I don't think we should have to curtail his business, and play God about it. MR. PALING-I don't think we're curtailing anything. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I do. Okay. I voted no. MR. PALING-All right. Okay, gentlemen, thank you. MR. BREWER-That's why there's seven of us, Cathy. SITE PLAN NO. 10-97 TYPE II TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF RESORT, INC. OWNER: TOP OF THE WORLD VENTURES ZONE: PUD LOCATION: OFF LOCKHART MOUNTAIN RD. PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF SITE PLAN 36-86 AND 3-87 TO CREATE A SEPARATE LOT APPROXIMATELY 71 ACRES IN SIZE FOR THE GOLF RESORT SO THAT IT CAN BE OWNED AND OPERATED AS A SEPARATE ENTITY WITHIN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH COVERS A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 1300 ACRES. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NOS. 24- 1-5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3/24-2-47.1 (PORTION) LOT SIZE: 1300 ACRES SECTION: 179-5 MR. PALING-Okay, George, I think we should hear from you first on this one. MR. HILTON-Yes. Staff was presented with an application, before the deadline to appear this month, which indicated that the applicant, Top of the World Ventures, was seeking a slight modification of their PUD by splitting off the golf course and subdividing it into a separate parcel. That is normally done with a site plan review in PUD' s. We issued Staff notes for this evening based on what we felt was a simple modification, just a subdivision. Since that time, we have, and up through and - 11 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) including today, we have received information which has been to the contrary. This information has included the applicant's desire to renovate an existing building into an eight unit motel. This, in our opinion, was something that wasn't represented on the application that was filed earlier this month. In light of all this information and in light of the fact that you have attached in your packets letters concerning this, one of which is from the Adirondack Park Agency, which essentially states that they will require a permit, and that at this time the application is under review. It seems that the application that the Adirondack Park Agency is reviewing does include a proposal to renovate a building and use it as an eight unit motel. However, as I said, the initial application that we have, it was represented to us as only being an application to subdivide property. In our opinion, however, if it is, in fact, what the applicant is doing is, you know, seeking PUD modification as well as rehabilitating the structure, we have no comment on that application at this time and have not had adequate time to review it. It is our opinion that the information makes it a different application. We would have no comment and would suggest that it requires further review by Planning Staff and the appropriate boards within the Town of Queensbury. MR. RUEL-I thought the Planned Unit Development, PUD, was under the jurisdiction of the Town Board, not the Planning Board? MR. HILTON-It certainly is, but when you have a subdivision of property, as was proposed to us, they are reviewed per our Ordinance as a site plan review, and that review comes under the Planning Board. MR. RUEL-Except that some of the conditions that were placed on them by the Town Board, such as demolishing the motel, never happened, and it was supposed to be done back in '88, '89, and now they're talking about the same motel, which is still there, and they want to expand it or refurbish it? MR. HILTON-Well, that's the information we're beginning to receive now, which wasn't available to us at first, and you're absolutely right. A change of that magnitude, in our opinion, would require further review, most likely by the Town Board. MR. STARK-Mark, shouldn't we wait for the APA to rule on this before we even look at it, or what? MR. SCHACHNER-I'm seeing all this for the first time tonight, as far as it relates to this particular application, but I think, just reading the Staff memo, it makes sense, as does your comment, George. I think we need to get more information from, not so much, let me clarify who the "we" is. As I understand what Staff is telling us, first, before this Board has jurisdiction over the, what I'll call the subdivision aspect. First the Town Board will have to look at this and decide what, if anything, to do relative to the proposal to re-use or utilize this other commercial building. So I think that, as ~ understand it, Staff is simply recommending that the Planning Board doesn't have anvthinq before it right now that's complete for consideration, and that this has to go to the Town Board for them to consider the amendments to the PUD. Part of that, George, would involve listening to what the APA has to say. So that's fine. MR. PALING-Yes. I think there are four items in there that are up for question. It's not just the motel. It's the clubhouse being demolished, and a new sports facility going up, and then the mountain store was to be demolished, but it's being relocated, and the chalet, which was vacant, was to be, they've changed that, then you've got the motel. So you've got four items in there that we differ with, and there's nothing we can do until those are resolved. - 12 - ~ "-' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. RUEL-If and when we get all the information, necessary information, will we be in a position to make a recommendation to the Town Board or not? Or does it go directly to the Town Board? MR. HILTON-Modifications to the PUD are normal held just through Town Board. MR. RUEL-So, we would, what, table this this evening? MR. PALING-No. this? Is there any need to open the public hearing on MR. HILTON-Well, that's entirely up to you. MR. MACEWAN-I would be in favor of just not taking any action at all. MR. PALING-We can't do anything with what's in front of us. MR. MACEWAN-There's no point in opening up a public hearing to make comment on something we aren't fully informed on. MR. BREWER-It's not only different issues. The Town to do whatever they can do with the subdivision. that, Craig, we're looking at two Board has to take action to allow them in the PUD before we can do anything MR. PALING-We don't know what the final form of this thing is going to be, and I don't think we should have any comme~t at this point, but I think that's the consensus. Now what do we do, vote to just, we're not tabling it. MR. BREWER-No. action. We're not doing anything. We're not taking any MR. PALING-We're just taking no action. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. No action's fine. I think what Staff is saying is you don't have a complete application before you. MR. HILTON-That's our opinion, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So if you want to affirm that with a vote saying, no action because application not complete you can do that if you want. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Not necessarily that it's not complete, Mark, that it's not in the right place. MR. SCHACHNER-I would say that it's not yet right for Planning Board review. I don't really care how that's word it. MR. PALING-All right. Based upon the fact that the applicant's application is incomplete, that is not complete enough for the Planning Board to review it, we're not going to hear it tonight, and won't until we have a complete application submitted. Do I just get a consensus on that? MR. BREWER-Second. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. STARK-I agree. MR. MACEWAN-Sounds good. - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. PALING-Okay. All right. That's it as far as Top of the World is concerned. SITE PLAN NO. 11-97 RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR. OWNER: SAME ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: HUNTER BROOK ROAD AT BLIND ROCK ROAD CONSTRUCT 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITEWORK. ALL LAND USES IN MR ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34.1 LOT SIZE: .96 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 11-97, Richard P. Schermerhorn, Jr., Meeting Date: March 18, 1997 "The applicant is proposing to construct 8 townhouse units on a .96 acre piece of property located on Hunter Brook Lane. The 8 proposed units meet the density requirements of the MR-5 zone. The applicant proposes 18 parking spaces which conforms to the parking requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The site plan conforms to the setback and permeability requirements of the MR-5 zone. The applicant is proposing to plant four groups of white pines on the southern property line along Blind Rock Road. The Planning Board may wish to stipulate that these white pines be replaced with Austrian Pines. The planting of Austrian Pines would match the landscaping along Blind Rock Road contained on the site plan for the Prudential property to the east. The proposed landscape plan should be updated so that plantings in and around the parking lot conform to the size requirements listed in Section 179-66, b, 3, c of the Zoning Ordinance. All comments from the Town Engineering consultant should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this site plan." MR. HILTON-And in the letter dated March 14th, Rist-Frost Associates stated that, "We have reviewed the documents submitted with the above referenced application and the previous subdivision, and have no comments." And in addition to this, I believe the applicant is prepared to discuss with you this evening the dedication of 15 acres of property in lieu of recreation fees, which we're going to, as I said, bring up with you and begin the discussion this evening. MR. STARK-Do you want to do that now, or at the end of the meeting? That doesn't have anything to do with the application. MR. HILTON-Well, it's something that evolved today, and that's entirely up to you. If you'd like to handle it now, with this application, that may be better. MR. STARK-Lets do the application now and talk about that later. Okay. There was no engineering comments to be addressed. Are there any questions? MR. MACEWAN-I've just got one. What's Staff's significance of wanting to have these trees the same as what's at the prudential? MR. HILTON-Aesthetics, just maybe maintain a continuance of the same vegetation. It's just an opinion. MR. MACEWAN-Wouldn't it make more sense to match what he's got in the rest of the development? MR. HILTON-We're trying to match what is along that road, Blind Rock Road already with the prudential building, seeing as that the trees that we're mentioning are also going to be along Blind Rock. MR. STARK-Could you have a combination of each? - 14 - / '-"', '-'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. HILTON-Well, you know, that's entirely up to you. It's just a suggestion. MR. RUEL-Are they shown on the landscape plan, the ones that you're talking about? MR. HILTON-The ones that I'm talking about replacing, or having the new species are shown on another site plan for the Prudential property. MR. MACEWAN-How many trees on this parcel are you referring to? Which ones are you referring to, replacing the White Pines you said? MR. HILTON-Yes, with Austrian Pines. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn for the record. Does everybody know what an Austrian Pine looks like? MR. RUEL-No. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Aesthetically, they're, to be honest with you, I discussed it with my wife before we came over here, and it's not a matter of cost. They cost about the same price. They're unaesthetically, unattractive. I prefer to keep the White Pines if we could, truthfully. That's what I have for the rest of the building so far. MR. STARK-It works for me. MR. BREWER-I mean, what's the difference in the Austrian or the White Pine? MR. SCHERMERHORN-It's more of a scrub pine type of look. As a matter of fact, you can see them right at the Prudential building. I mean, it's just my personal preference. I don't care for the look of them, and I was just hoping to keep the Eastern White Pines, because they do get bushy. They're soft looking, the Eastern White Pines. MRS. LABOMBARD-The Austrian are those scrubby things. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. They look like a scrub pine. MR. RUEL-What do you think of that, George? MR. HILTON-It's the Planning Board's call. MR. RUEL-It was your recommendation, wasn't it? MR. HILTON-I said that the Planning Board may wish to stipulate it. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. STARK-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Does anybody have any comments for or against this project for Rich Schermerhorn tonight? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHY SONNABEND MRS. SONNABEND-My name is Kathy Sonnabend, and I live on Cedar Court. So I really just am curious about the development and how that mayor may not effect the drainage at the west end. My concerns relate to the drainage situation on the west end, the trees. That's basically it. - 15 - -'- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. STARK-Drainage where? MRS. SONNABEND-In our development, we had to take down a lot of trees in order to prevent a lot of silt from going into the pond that's off of Blind Rock Road. So a lot of the woods are gone now that had been there, and I'm not sure how his development is going to effect, if there's going to be more of a drainage problem, if he has any part of that. MR. STARK-That's your question, drainage into the pond from Blind Rock Road? MRS. SONNABEND- Yes, whether more trees are going to have to go down, if any of them will be replaced. MR. STARK-Rich, are you going to take any more trees down? You know where the bank goes up over there? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. As you can see, we're taking that hill out gradually, and unfortunately the trees do have to go. We're doing everything to protect the pond. DEC has been up there several times, and I have silt fences. I do not have to clear as much as Cedar Court did in the back. So, I mean, as far as the concerns with the drainage issues, that's per site plan review, and we do that, and we've already done that on the previous two buildings, which I think are the most critical ones, which I already have up now. MR. STARK-You'd have to put haybales back there or anything? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, silt fences. As a matter of fact, I think we've got two silt fences up there now, and that was not a recommendation from DEC at the time, because I'm still quite a ways away, but I put them up anyway, just so we wouldn't have any problems. That's all. MR. STARK-Would you have any silt go into that pond at all, in any of the construction? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I have not had any silt. There's been several complaints of silt, and unfortunately the Michaels Group was fined, or I don't want to say the Michaels Group. The owners of Cedar Court that sold Cedar Court to the Michaels Group, they were fined. They had a retention pond give away from their project and it leached into, which happens to be my pond. So it leached into my pond, and it wasn't from me, it was determined, and at this point I've been there, well, two years since I bought it, and there's been nothing off my property. MR. STARK-Does that answer your question? MRS. SONNABEND-Mostly. I'm just wondering if any more of the trees have to go down that run between your property and Cedar Court's property. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. That's all done. As you can see the building I've got framed up right now, that's it. I split the cost of the fence with Michaels Group, the trees that are on the line now, that's it, we don't have to take any more. As a matter of fact, that is our property line, and we've already cleared close to it. MR. STARK-Anything else? MRS. SONNABEND-I wish there were more trees. MR. STARK-Take that up with him now. Do you have any more plans to put the trees back there at all or anything? - 16 - ~ / '''-"' -..r'tl ,I (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, the buildings are quite large, and when I put the next one in, you'll see that it fills the site up pretty much. There's not a lot. We don' t have plans to put more in there, because there are still quite a bit in there. I just will address that, I guess, at the next site plan. MR. BREWER-How many more are you going to put in there after these, Rich? MR. SCHERMERHORN - I've got room for five more eight -plexes . So that's 40 more units. MR. BREWER-Are there going to be any senior housing units? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The first building was advertised as an adult building, and I do have, currently, six, they don't like to be called seniors, but I've got adults, elderly adults that are retired, and I've got six out of the eight in there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Rich, do you have plans to put one opposite this proposed building on the west side of Hunter Brook? MR. SCHERMERHORN-On the west side, yes, that's where the hill is gradually being removed. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I thought that was the next one that was going in. It was easier to put this one in first. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I'm picking all the easy sites, first, before we get on the ones by the pond. MR. BREWER-So you're going to have a total of how many units when you get all done? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, depending how I space them, there could be 100, but right now I've got it proposed as, well, close to that, 72 to 80, depending on how I put them out. MR. BREWER-So 80 to 100. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's nine buildings. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you have anything else? MR. BREWER-Well, I guess, are we going to wait until after to talk about the recreation or are we going to do it now? MR. STARK-No. That doesn't have anything to do with this project. MR. HILTON-If I can just interrupt here, I think it may have something to do with this, in that the applicant is seeking to dedicate this land in lieu of recreation fees for this and future development within this subdivision. So you may want to take that up at this time as well. If you look at the letter that's attached in your file, dated today, March 18th, the applicant had some discussion today with Town Staff, and he's looking for the Board to give consideration to accepting 15 acres in lieu of recreation fees for future development in the Hunter Brook Lane apartment project. MR. STARK-What's that got to do with this project? MR. HILTON-This is a phase in the Hunter Brook apartment project which the applicant will be seeking, possibly, some (lost word) in lieu of recreation fee. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Because these are multi families, I have to pay $500 per unit cost, and to date I've paid $16,000 in recreation fees, and everybody says, gee, Rich, what are you doing for - 17 - '~-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) recreation? Are you going to put a pool in, tennis courts? I'd love to, but I'm looking at about $40,000 in rec fees before I'm done, and rec fees cannot, that has to go for, it has to be something for the general public. So what I'm trying to do, like other developers have done, is if I could give out, where it says 14.81 acres, in lieu of maybe the balance of what I've got left. It may be a fair solution for everybody, because Michaels Group, I think they're trying to buy the land next to Cedar Court now, in Sue Nolan's, which is beside my, right beside my 14.81 acres there. So the Town may want it, because we may need some recreation there. MR. STARK-What did the Recreation Committee say when you talked to Harry? MR. SCHERMERHORN-There's a letter that you have, that just said, as per discussion with Jim Martin and Harry Hansen today, I would like to have the Board's consideration accepting approximately 15 acres in lieu of the rec fees. They said type a letter up. I did it this morning, and submit it to you for recommendation. They think that it would be something, they don't know how the Board's going to feel, but they think it would be something to look into, only because Michaels Group is possibly considering buying the other land next to Cedar Court. MR. STARK-Maybe, I'm not familiar with where the land to be dedicated is, okay. So why don't we hold off on that until next week, and this week here we can go out and look at it to find out exactly where the 15 acres of land is, and then we can take it up next week. Is that okay with you, Mark, can we do that? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you can do that. I mean, as far as the proposed offer of dedicate of recreation land, I mean, the Town Board and the Town Recreation Commission ultimately get involved in that. It's a process, and as I understand it, this letter is the first request to start that process rolling. MR. STARK-Well, I would like to go out and see exactly where it is. Tim, is that okay with you? MR. BREWER-That's fine. I just wanted a couple of comments answered. Where exactly is it, Rich? Is it beyond the pond? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. It's part of the pond, but that big square that's outlined, it's this 14.81 acres, that is the parcel that could be donated, you know, almost 15 acres. MR. BREWER-That's fine. I agree with what you're saying, George, but if the Michaels Group bought the property behind it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-They're buying the one next to it, or trying to buy the one next to it. It's not for sure. MR. BREWER-That's fine. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It's RR-3 Acres, which still there's some density there. I could pullout almost five units out of that, and they could pullout, well, out of 30 acres, they could pullout six units next door, but I think because of some of the sloping hills, they may use the density, and it may just be a good area, it came recommended to me, it might be a good spot to do in lieu of the rec fees, because I do have plans of putting a pool, or tennis court or something in, but if I've got to put out $40,000 in rec fees, when I already paid $50,000 last year for Sherman Pines and Meadowbrook Road. MR. BREWER-You're getting it back. You're not giving that out of your pocket, out of the kindness of your heart. - 18 - / "--' '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I could give more to my, I don't know. I disapprove of the Hudson River Park, but. MR. BREWER-I do, too. MR. STARK-Okay. Any more comment from the public? BOB PALING MR. PALING-Bob Paling, on the other side of the mic. I just want to get something clarified. We had a new number drift out here, I believe it's new, of nearly 100, and my understanding was this was an eight building, with eight units each for 64, and, Rich, I think YOU said, maybe 100. Could we get that clarified? MR. STARK-Okay. Rich? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, it's zoned MR-5, and MR-5 is five thousand square feet per, well, it's 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit. I have the square footage to do that. The thing is, the project, I don't think, is going to be any larger than I proposed it. I'm just proposing that I might do some efficiency units or one bedroom unit, which are much smaller, that will increase the amount of units, but it's not going to make the project look larger, if you can understand what I'm trying to say. MRS. LABOMBARD-You'll still have the same number of buildings? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The same number of buildings, but those buildings, instead of having an eight plex, it has a bunch of two bedrooms in it. It could have 60 one bedrooms in it. That's the difference. So the size of the buildings may not increase, but I don't know if I can fit that with the septic requirements. I don't want to mislead anybody and tell them that there's only going to be 40 there. MR. PALING-Was this not approved for a specific number of units? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, it was. MR. BREWER-That's what I'm looking for. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It wasn't approved for any specific units. It was just re-zoned. It's MR-5. I didn't change the zone. It's zoned for multi families. It's just site plan review, per project. MR. BREWER-Yes. I think when we did it, Bob, we just did it as conceptual, and then every unit he comes in, we do as a site plan, right? MR. HILTON-Yes. There's been a subdivision application on this property, I believe, and he's filed that, and then with each lot he comes in with a site plan, with each different phase. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Bob, I may end up with just 64 units. It's just, if I have a request for a bunch of one bedrooms, right now, the two bedrooms are going well, but I mean, if people want one bedrooms. The building size won't increase, but the number, I think it's the number of units that's scaring everybody, but sure, it means another car and that type of thing, but I can't have it if it won't fit. So the site's only going to support so much anyway. That's why I think we're coming in for site plan per project, because we have more control this way, I think. MR. STARK-Okay. I'll close the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 19 - " (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. WEST-We were just reviewing the previous minutes. MR. STARK-From 7/25? MR. WEST- Yes, Page 58, and Mr. Schermerhorn's comment, specifically, Jim Obermayer asked a question, how many units do you plan on having there, and Mr. Schermerhorn replied, well, he'll handle a lot of units, but based on two bedroom apartments, the most that the soils will handle is 64 adequately. That's doing Haanen Engineering calculating everything. MR. SCHERMERHORN-So what did ~ say, 70 to 100? But if I make them one bedrooms, the soils still may handle one bedrooms. That's the difference. I'm not saying I'm doing that. I think we're all jumping the gun here. MR. BREWER-Well, I think we're just trying to get a feel for what you're going to do. MR. SCHERMERHORN-~ don't know what I'm going to do. MR. RUEL-He has to come back for every application. MR. STARK-Yes, he's going to have to come in for each one. MR. RUEL-So what? MR. STARK-So he goes to 64, and he wants to come in for another one. MR. RUEL-In this particular application, it's for eight units. He may come in later and he'll want 12 units. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Well, that particular site, Lot Six, all that will come in is eight. So I won't be back. MR. HILTON-Well, if I can just interject here, without the previous SEQRA review for the subdivision, or any approvals and any conditions attached to those approvals, I can't comment on what you're reading out of those minutes. That's something that we'll have to go back and take a look at, as far as the number of units that mayor may not be allowed at this location. MR. BREWER-That was the very first time we ever discussed this, at a sketch type meeting. MR. STARK-If there's no objection from the Board, we'll go right to the SEQRA. You need a SEQRA for this, right? MR. HILTON-With this, it's an Unlisted, yes. Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 11-97, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR., and Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. - 20 - - ,/ "--' '-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. STARK-Okay. A motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-97 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, INC., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 11-97 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN to construct an 8 unit apartment building with associated parking and sitework; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, dated 2/26/97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map SP 1, SP 2, SP 3 dated 2/25/97 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. Rist Frost comments dated 3/14/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/18/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board had determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury ( Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of - 21 - ., (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve Site Plan No. 11-97 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN. 2 . The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 18th day of March 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NOES ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MACEWAN-No conditions to that? Did we decide to do anything with the trees? MR. STARK-The trees (lost words) like he's got on the other ones. MR. MACEWAN-Very good. MR. STARK-Now, George, on the land, we're going to postpone it until next week, so we all have a chance to go out and look at it, and then could you, do you plan on going to a Recreation meeting, to see what their recommendation is? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I haven't done this before. I spoke to Jim and Harry Hansen this morning. They said to submit the letter tonight, and you guys will lead me from here. So I don't know what to do. MR. STARK-We'll put this on first for next week, because it'll be quick, and then that'll give us all a chance to go out this week to look at it, because none of us really are familiar, we haven't looked at this. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. It's going to be hard to see because there's two feet of snow out there. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 14-97 TYPE II JOSEPH LEUCI OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: ROUTE 9 AND ROUND POND ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 3/10/97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/97 TAX - 22 - -- ('"",-, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MAP NO. 67-2-1.3 LOT SIZE: 5.59 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE LEUCI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 14-97, Joseph Leuci, Meeting Date: March 18, 1997 "The applicant is seeking site plan approval to allow a used car sales business at the southeast corner of Route 9 and Round Pond Road. The property, zoned HC-1A, allows this type of use with a site plan review. The applicant proposes to place a 10 x 30 ft. sales office and 55 parking spaces on this property. The site plan indicates that the first 60 feet of the entry drive will be paved, while the parking lot will be a gravel lot. The applicant should indicate what removal and revegetation plans, if any, exist for this property. Plans for the tree lining of Route 9 should specifically be discussed. The site plan appears to indicate that only the row of evergreen trees along Route 9 will remain. Staff would recommend that all trees along Route 9 remain except for that area to be used as a driveway. Comment on stormwater retention and runoff will be provided by the Town's Engineering Consultant. All comments from the Town Engineering Consultant should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this site plan." MR. HILTON-And in a letter dated March 17, 1997, from Rist-Frost, it stated that "We have reviewed Nace Engineer's letter of March 16th, in response to our comment letter of March 14th. The responses satisfactorily address our comments. We recommend that plan approval, if granted, be conditioned upon an inspection by the Planning Department after snow melt, to assess the need for erosion protection on all previously disturbed surfaces." And we also have a resolution from the Beautification Committee, which there was a motion to recommend approval. There are some recommendations and some discussions, which I have in a plan that the applicant has handed to me. They've incorporated the Beautification Committee's comments into this plan. They've also incorporated our concerns about the trees along Route 9 into the landscaping plan, and we are satisfied with all the landscaping comments. MR. PALING-Are we going to get to see that? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-All right, and the other, George, the County? MR. HILTON-We have Warren County Planning Board, which the recommendation was to return, the comment "No Action could be taken since a majority decision could not be achieved." MR. PALING-Couldn't have a vote. Okay. Just one point of clarification before we proceed. When you're talking along Route 9, we're talking State road, State property. Are you referring the applicant to care for things on State property? MR. HILTON-My comments concerning the landscaping, I'm talking about what exists there right now, which are on the applicant's property, and we were concerned, at least my concern, was that there may be some removal of vegetation which exists out there today. The applicant, as I said, has indicated that they will just remove diseased vegetation and replace it along that stretch, which is on their property. MR. PALING-Well, why I make that comment is that last year we went through quite a thing to get it, you know, planted the way we want it and that kind of thing, and then it was let go. It was never maintained, and the State was supposedly responsible, but they claimed weather and other reasons, and I'd like to get into that - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) tonight, to see what the applicant, okay, you're going to cover that. MR. RUEL-Well, we asked that trees be planted along there, right? MR. PALING-No, we didn't ask for any maintenance. MR. RUEL-And the trees are there, right? MR. PALING-The trees are there. What we asked for is there, no question. MR. BREWER-We asked them to guarantee the trees for two years, if my memory serves me in that site plan. MR. PALING-All right. Lets have the applicant comment on that. George, you're okay, then? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Would you identify yourselves and maybe summarize what your proposal is. We can take it from there. MR. LEUCI-Yes. My name is Joe Leuci, and it's just more or less of what it says, you know, I'm trying to open a used car business on that property. As far as what you're saying, maintaining and keeping up with the trees, whatever's there, you know, it's only to my benefit to keep the place looking pretty, that I certainly will, you know, keeping it maintained, looking nice. (lost word) the whole proposal here, as far as vegetation. MR. RUEL-These are used cars, right? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. STARK-Would you be removing the car sales from Mt. Royal, and would you still sell them there? MR. LEUCI-No. I would still sell them there, also. MR. STARK-So you'd have two lots? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Could someone refresh my memory? When we approved the site plan for the dental office, was that driveway going to be used for access to both parcels? MR. PALING-No way. MR. BREWER-No. Remember the big debate on that, Craig? MR. PALING-They've got to put separate access in. No. This is a new print, here. MRS. LABOMBARD-That looks like there's a lot more trees than there really are. Believe me, there are not that many trees there. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you care to run us through this, then? MR. STEVES-Yes, certainly. My name is Matt Steves, with Van Dusen and Steves. The plan you're looking at now is the landscape plan that was drawn up by Jim Miller, Miller Associates, as per the request of the applicant. The trees along the front that you were concerned with, from previous approvals, if you look at the note that we will replace any dead or dying trees and maintain the ones that are there. They are in good health, but replace any ones that are not. Along the corridor of Route 9, that row of trees you see - 24 - '-" r' -...-' (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) that are existing. MR. PALING-I don't mean to nail you with something that's not your responsibility, but do you intend to mow that grass? MR. STEVES-I'll get into that, okay. The area I'm talking about is this row of trees here along Route 9, and it says existing tree row, remove dead trees and replace, and that's what we intend to do. There is an existing bank of woods all the way around to the north of the east side of the property. We don't intend to touch those at all. The existing disturbed area, that comes down to the corner of Route 9 and Round Pond Road is, will area to be received, topsoiled and seeded, and that'll be some kind of a ground cover, like a crown vetch that requires low maintenance, as far as mowing is concerned. It really doesn't get that high, but yet it will stabilize the slope, and we are also, we have on the original site plan you'll look at, we were going to create a berm, which would be on basically the northwest side of the parking lot that is to divert the run off, if any, from the parking lot around to the existing ditch line, and then that berm will be raised up to a height of 18 inches, as requested by the Beautification Committee, and that will be fully landscaped. We will also landscape the entrance way here just where you turn in to go both directions in the parking lot, as well as landscaping in front of the sales office. An area between the parking lot and the row of existing trees and the row of existing trees and the State right-of-way will also be some kind of a ground cover that will stabilize the slopes but will be a low maintenance type of ground cover, as well as the area that was disturbed in the back. MR. PALING-The north side of your topsoil and seed doesn't seem to be completely defined. MR. BREWER-It's probably right to the row of the trees. MR. STEVES-Yes, we'll continue it right on across. The existing ditch is here now. That wasn't really disturbed much, but we will continue it across right over to the existing tree line. MR. PALING-Just continue that dotted line right down? MR. STEVES-Yes, and we'd bring it right perpendicular right back to the tree line. Instead of extending it this way, it comes perpendicular to the tree line. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STEVES-And as far as the road side ditch, again, if you have any questions on that, on the original site plan, you will see that we are proposing to put in a ten foot wide stone lined trench. That'll be also topsoiled and seeded. It will clean up what is there now. The existing drYWells that were put in place will be cleaned up, and it has to be inspected by our engineer, Tom Nace, before he will approve it, and also by your Staff, and there'll be a new culvert in place. This DOT access point has been approved by DOT. We will still review the site plan with them after approval by your Board, and establish this ditch, basically re-establish the ditch, in a proper manner with stabilization material, with filter fabric, all the way around, and then on the corner here, where you'd be most concerned with here on the ditch, on the corner of it, will be a riprap swale, to avoid any kind of erosion, and then back into a stoned grass swale, back into the existing catch basins. When it first started off, this was going to be a closed system, if you will remember, the pipe that comes across now, is going to come into a series of perforated pipe and then into these drYWells, and that wasn't really favorable by DOT because part of that system would have been within DOT right-of-way, and they said, we are not going to accept any maintenance, so therefore the - 25 - ~ ------ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) drYWells were put in, but the ditch was put in, but not in the proper manner, and we are proposing to put it in the way it should be. MR. PALING-And you're going to mow it? MR. STEVES-It's a type of vegetation that will be put in that will not require maintenance in the spring. MR. BREWER-Matt, is the office, is it going to be a trailer? MR. STEVES-I'll have to let Joe answer that. MR. RUEL-There will be no vegetation in this corner, right, for safety reasons, Round Pond Road and Route 9 in the corner? MR. STEVES-It will be topsoiled and seeded, but we will not have any kind of vegetation, because that's DOT roadway. MR. RUEL-Right. So that the motorists can actually see down Route 9 . MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. RUEL-And the sign, you'll have a sign, where, on the building? MR. LEUCI-Yes. We're going to have a sign on the building right now. MR. RUEL-I'm just asking. I don't think it's part of this. MR. STARK-Is there going to be a sign on Route 9 also? MR. LEUCI-I'm not sure yet. MR. STEVES-Not with this application. MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. RUEL-The trees parallel to Route 9 are about how far apart? MR. STEVES-They average about six feet, I believe, separation. It's kind of hard to tell with some of the ones, the way they're leaning, but they were planted, to the best of my knowledge, at about a six foot separation. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Would the effect your sales of your area, and the fact that there's trees lined up along Route 9? MR. STEVES-I don't believe so, because you are up just a little high enough and they're not a substantial height at this point. MR. RUEL-So the parking area is elevated beyond the road, above this? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. RUEL-About, what, 20 feet, 15? I know that the dental building is way up. MR. STEVES-About six to eight feet. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question as far as lighting. Will you have lights? MR. STEVES-I believe, Joe might have to speak to that, but it's a - 26 - ',,-, -./. - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) day time operation. He'll have no on site lighting other than the building itself. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. In other words, you won't have it lit up at night for the people to go by and see it? MR. LEUCI-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-And no lights on the entrance way? Because there are some nice lampposts on the dentist's office, where the dentist's office is. MR. LÈUCI-No. Right now I'm just going to have lights throughout the office and my sign, but like you said, it's a day time operation. There'll be no need for night lights. MRS. LABOMBARD-So then you'll be closing like at eight o'clock in the evening in the summer time? MR. LEUCI-Probably not even, more like six, six thirty. MR. RUEL-And the whole area is gravel, right, except for the entrance? MR. LEUCI-Yes. MR. STARK- I'd rather wait for any comments until the public hearing. MR. BREWER-The building, is it going to be a trailer or is it going to be a permanent building? MR. LEUCI-It's going to be an office trailer, but, you know, well skirted underneath so it looks more like an office building. MR. MACEWAN-Back when this parcel was clear cut, there were some discussions as to whether it was in violation of the Subdivision Reg's for clear cutting. Whatever became of that discussion? Was it, was it not? MR. HILTON-I don't have any knowledge of that. MR. PALING-It was a violation, and we allowed it to go ahead, and I can't remember now. There was something, we got something for it. MR. RUEL-We asked for plantings, for one thing. trees. We asked for MR. BREWER-The thing of it was, was, if it was clear cut, it couldn't be subdivided within five years, and we waived that, with the stipulation that he put the 200 trees in the front, or 100, I can't remember the number, whatever the amount of trees were in the front. So that solved that problem. It was subdivided. Remember it came in for subdivision, and there's something in the subdivision regulations if a lot is clear cut, it can't be subdivided within five years. MR. STARK-They're not subdividing this. MR. BREWER-No, I understand. I'm just telling the history of it. We had the authority, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mark, to waive that, and we did waive it, let him subdivide it, and he built the dentist's office. MR. SCHACHNER-With certain conditions. MR. BREWER-Correct. - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Lets go to the public hearing. Does anyone care to speak on this matter, pro or con, for the Joseph Leuci application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVE MENTER MR. MENTER-My name is Dave Menter. I'm an adjacent property owner, and I'd like just to look at the plan, because I haven't seen it at all, before I speak. MR. PALING-Go ahead. MR. PALING-Is there anyone else who'd like to comment, while he's looking at the plans? MR. HILTON-I can read a letter in, in the mean time, I have a letter, a record of phone conversation between Jim Martin and Roger Gebo, with the County D.P.W., regarding drainage at the corner of Round Pond and Route 9, it says, "Mr. Gebo called to confirm that the Planning Board will require stormwater management and erosion controls in the approval of the proposed used car business. I indicated the Staff's position is to regrade the slope and trench, clean out the existing drywells, and stabilize and seed the slope and trench. He seemed pleased with that approach." Signed Jim Martin. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. MENTER-Again, Dave Menter, and I own the Wakita Motel, which is across Round Pond Road from this location. The first question I had was, I didn't quite understand, as far as the drainage went. It sounded like, and I may be wrong, the primary drainage was going to be to use the existing trenches, but is that all going to be self contained on the property? MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead. We'll get your questions answered. MR. MENTER-Okay, and I guess initially what I want to do is make a comment, that, in my view, this is extremely inappropriate for the property, which is a function of current zoning and the failing of the master plan and other things, and that's not the issue tonight, but given that, I would recommend to the Board, or I would ask that the Board, look at this in as critical a light as possible, given the nature of this business, as well as the nature of that section of Route 9. We have a fairly healthy and cohesive group of businesses there that are on somewhat the same, in somewhat the same market. We have a couple of new ones that have just come into the area. This business does not lend itself well to that. Given that, again, I would just ask you to look as critically as possible, within whatever parameters you need to look at it. As far as concrete issues, I'd say the biggest one that ~ have that needs to be addressed is the dirt parking area, or gravel, which is a pretty broad term. As it is, there's a lot of dust that kicks up from that piece of property. I mean, it's a big dirt pile, you know, and that's what we were left with with that thing, and, you know, I don't see how you can sell used cars on a dirt pile, but I think that there's a real likelihood of dust being kicked up, and I'd like that to be addressed, because that is something that would effect me quite a bit I think. The other thing would be, Robert, I think initially you said that there was a two year guarantee on the plantings. Someone mentioned that. MR. PALING-I think Tim did. MR. MENTER-Someone said that, and are we still in that time frame? - 28 - ~ t'- , '--" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. PALING-I think so. MR. MENTER-Yes, because that was a big concession. As you'll all recall, there were some big issues involved there. MR. PALING-If we can't answer that tonight, we'll get it answered. MR. MENTER-Depending on your perspective on this whole project, I guess, I think it's clear what mine is, but, you know, those things may be, you know, that may be an issue for you, but the concrete issues that I have, aside from the appropriateness, would be the dust issue, as well as the drainage, and that would be it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? DOUG IRISH MR. IRISH-Hi. My name's Doug Irish, and I'm not really sure what the zoning, does the zoning up there right now lend itself to a car dealership? MR. PALING-Yes, it does. MR. RUEL-Highway Commercial. MR. IRISH-And I guess my only concern is based on what the Town is going to become. Tonight we sat through and listened to Tri-County Auction come before you and I guess every Town needs a car dealership in it. My concern is that, do we really want to have car dealerships, gas stations and mini malls put in allover the Town, or should we designate a particular part of the Town, which I believe is kind of what the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was all about, trying to determine where those types of functions should go. I mean, it's a nice area up there, and it's really, I don't think it lends itself to that type of business, because of the traffic that's going to be in and out of there, especially in the summer time, and I don't think that it really, there's plenty of property for sale on Quaker Road, and I understand that they own the property, and they can develop it the way they see fit, but I really think that the Board ought to look at the type of use that's going to be going in there, and that area I really don't think should be taken and put into that type of situation. That's about the only comment that I have on it. MR. RUEL-Just to assure you, presently there's a committee on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and they've been reviewing this, and this is exactly the areas in which you're looking to place these commercial areas, properly, not right on top of residential areas, and they also are looking at what they call transition areas between commercial and residential. MR. IRISH-Are they also looking at the ~ of commercial venture that's going, I mean, you don't want to have a restaurant next to, you know, something that shouldn't be next to it. MR. RUEL-Exactly. MR. IRISH-I mean, that's my only, Quaker Road has become, basically, an auto mall like Central Ave., and that's fine. I mean, if you want to buy a car, then you've got your pick of where you want to buy them. MR. RUEL-Yes, well, see, this plan exists since, what, '88, '89, and the Town Fathers certainly know that it needs updating, for exactly the reason that you mentioned, the Town is changing, and this is why the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is also going to change. - 29 - "- (.- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. IRISH-I would just hate to see the Town start to spot zoning everything to the point where you basically have a mini community on every other block, and that really doesn't lend itself to the cohesiveness of the Town, as far as, you know, okay, you guys want to go buy a car, you can go to this area of Town. You can go over here to do your shopping. You can go over here if you want to buy a house. I mean, that would make a little more sense than letting somebody open a bar here and a restaurant here, and, you know, that sort of thing. MR. RUEL-It's a large Town, 63 square miles, and right now they have di vided up in about a dozen so called villages. That' s exactly, it's like having 12 villages within that area. So they're trying to plan it just that way. MR. IRISH-Right. Okay. Thanks. MR. PALING-Thank you. Does anyone else care to talk on this? MR. MENTER-Dave Menter again. I just had another quick question. Regarding the building, that's going to be a trailer, right? MR. PALING-A trailer type it was described as, yes. MR. MENTER-Is that going to have restrooms in it? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MENTER-All right. That is going to be plumbed, it's going to have on site septic? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes, it does. It shows it. MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. RUEL-But he did indicate it was that type of a trailer with a skirt to look like a building rather than just a freewheeling mobile home. MR. MENTER-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? If not, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is a Type II. MR. STARK-George, just a question for you. When we approved the auto sales up in Mount Royal Shopping Center, Mountainside Auto sales it was, there was a limit to the number of cars up there, 18 or 21, I forget which one it was. Tim, do YOU know which one it was? MR. BREWER-I don't remember, George. I wasn't here. MR. STARK-Okay. over that limit. Well, anyway, every time you go by there, they're Okay. Is John doing anything about that or what? MR. HILTON-To tell you the truth, I'm not sure if he is or isn't, but I can bring it to his attention. MR. STARK-I was just wondering. MR. PALING-Okay. Would the applicant come back up, please. - 30 - '''-'"''' -------' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. RUEL-What place are you talking about? MR. STARK-Mt. Royal. MR. PALING-Lets take these items one by one. Would you go back over the drainage and comment about it being self contained, please. MR. STEVES-Certainly. As far as anybody's concerns regarding the drainage, there will be no increased runoff from this site than what is currently there. The proposed ditch here is, if you pick up what is coming across from the DOT 30 inch culvert that comes across Route 9 at the present time, will be maintained what is there now, and also what is coming down the slope. Basically what happens now is that about 85% of this site does grade toward this corner. The ditch line will pick up what is there now, as well as what's coming across from the DOT culvert. This little berm that we're proposing up near the top, or to the northwest of our parking lot, is only to divert one minute amount would be created by the parking lot and diverted back into the soils on the top there, there's a little ditch that is there now, and we'd propose that during construction we will put in haybales and a silt fence, but Tom Nace, the engineer, has gone through the stormwater management and all the drainage calculation and there is no more going off than what is currently. As a matter of fact, it'll be a lot less toward the intersection of Route 9 and Round Pond. MR. PALING-Okay. The next comment was about the gravel, parking on gravel or the creation of dust. MR. STEVES-Okay. As far as what is there now, I think you have a lot worse condition of dust than you will have after construction. The gravel is kind of like a blue stone type of deal that, you know, that type of a gravel that doesn't create a lot of dust, but allows the water to penetrate down through and to the existing ground. The existing conditions that are there now are kind of a sandy type condition, as you well know, and that would be a lot worse, and then by topsoiling and seeding the other areas, would be a major cut down on any dust. MR. RUEL-How about the rear of the property, that dust bowl back there? MR. STEVES-Back in here? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STEVES-Well, as you can see, we have a limits of topsoil and seed to the back now. MR. RUEL-What do you intend to do with the back, anything? MR. STEVES-At this time, no. MR. RUEL-That's where you get a lot of dust. MR. PALING-George, can't we require that back part of that lot to be vegetated in some manner, to stop this dust? MR. HILTON-The portion behind the gravel? MR. PALING-Yes. The part they're not going to use. MR. RUEL-The open area. MR. PALING-That won't be yours, I don't think. Will it? Is that Passarelli's responsibility? - 31. - '- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. PALING-Then why can't we do, that's a. MR. HILTON-If you have some concerns over dust or anything of that nature, you could include, in your approval, some vegetation or planting requirements. MR. PALING-We can't, imposing it on a different party, but aren't they required to put something there to stop dust anyway? I'm not talking now this applicant. I'm talking the Passarelli part of it. MR. MACEWAN-How do you figure it's another party, as opposed to this application? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-It's right here. It's part of the application. MR. PALING-All right. Then I think we should include something in here, if it looks like this will be this way for quite a while. They've got the dentist's office. That looks good. This looks pretty good, and why don't we have the rest of that planted? MR. BREWER-Rye grass or whatever there. MR. RUEL-Put Rye down or something. It certainly would look a heck of a lot better than just a pile of dirt. MR. PALING-If we can make it part of this, it may revert to the owner of the property, which I hope it does, but I think we ought to do something to clear up that dust. MR. BREWER-Back in this area. MR. PALING-Yes, that's right. MR. BREWER-To the tree line? MR. PALING-Well, anything that's been cleared, that's now blowing. MR. BREWER-Yes. The owner of the property created the problem. Why shouldn't he have to solve it? MR. RUEL-Yes. He did it. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. I've got a question for Mark. I asked you quietly, but is that an allowed use, the trailer there, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-That's probably a question for Staff, not for counsel. I just guess that, not allowed residential, possibly. MR. HILTON-Right. The use, used car sales, is allowed with site plan review in this district, and building that is proposed, I don't see anything in the Building Code and Dave Hatin was in on Staff review with this application. There's nothing that says that a trailer of this type for a commercial purpose can't be used. MR. SCHACHNER-The distinction, typically, is that it's not residential. MR. STEVES-To the Board, in discussing this with my client, he has offered that he will seed, topsoil and seed the remaining disturbed area. MR. PALING-Okay. - 32 - "--" /~ --./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny, I own land, I'm a developer in the area. My question, I guess more to the Planning Department. This property is being developed now. I'm hearing they're not going to allow any increased runoff. I'm under the impression when you develop property, you're not allowed to have any runoff. So where, I mean, there some runoff now, a lot of runoff now. He's not going to increase it. He's developing the land now. I know when I went through site plan, I had a lot of runoff before I, I had to change my parking lot, put drainage in, so I eliminated the runoff problem. Is that part of Town Code or not? If he develops this and does something there, can he allow the existing runoff to continue? I didn't know that was allowed. I'm not sure. MR. HILTON-Well, the applicant's going to, as he stated, clean out the drYWells on his property and make sure that there is no runoff from the property. Everything's going to be collected on site and contained in the drywell. MR. KENNY-That's not what he stated. He said he wouldn't increase the runoff that's there now, is what he stated tonight. MR. PALING-But this has been addressed by Rist-Frost, too, and that's what I'm going by. They're saying this is okay. MR. RUEL-Engineers checked it. MR. KENNY-What they're saying is the water's going to run into that existing culvert, which is on State property. MR. STEVES-No. MR. KENNY-I just heard, the comment was, when he adjusts the runoff, he's not going to increase what's there now. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. KENNY-And I thought the law was you weren't allowed to have any. Until he develops it, he can't do anything about it, but at development point, they've got to put in a system that will maintain all the runoff on their property. They can't have anything leave the property, is what I thought. MR. PALING-All right. Do you want to address that, please? MR. STEVES-Yes. As far as any confusion, my point being is we will not have any runoff from our site continue off onto any other property or off of our property. It'll all be contained on property. The only thing we have is we have an existing 30 inch DOT culvert that comes from other properties onto our property, and that ditch line will be maintained, you know, it will be upgraded and maintained, and we will collect it into drYWells. MR. RUEL-Isn't there a pipe under Route 9? MR. STEVES-Under Route 9, that's correct. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STEVES-That flows from the west onto our property. MR. RUEL-And it's always clogged up, right? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. PALING-Okay. There was a letter written by Bill Levandowski in March, and then it was responded to March 14th by, I think, Tom - 33 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) Nace on the 16th, and that addressed the very question that's being brought up now. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. PALING-And then I'm going by their final approval letter that said it. So it appears that's okay. All right. The public hearing is re-closed, if I didn't close it before. MR. BREWER-Yes. I've got one other question for Staff. Did you happen to see what the original date was that we approved this? MR. HILTON-With the subdivision before, I know it's a 1994 date. I don't have that file in front of me, so I can't. MR. PALING-All right. That's the other question we hadn't faced is that two year planting guarantee. So you're saying that probably has expired. MR. MACEWAN-I would certainly make that a condition of this approval, should you approve it. MR. RUEL-It should start now, right? MR. BREWER-No. I mean, we can't make him responsible for something that somebody else did. MR. PALING-That somebody else did, no. MR. RUEL-How about being responsible for the trees that he removes and puts new ones in. MR. PALING-Well, they're stating, I think they're stating that though. MR. BREWER-Yes, they're saying it right on the plan. MR. PALING-Yes. They're telling you what they're going to do. MR. RUEL-It's on the landscape plan. MR. PALING-All right. We've had a public hearing. This is a Type II. Do we have any other comments on the Board for the moment? Okay. Anybody else? All right. Then do the applicants have any further comment? All right. Then we can go to a motion on this, then. Would anyone care to make a motion. MR. STARK-Are you going to make a motion? MR. RUEL-Do you want a motion? MR. STARK-I didn't say make it. I just asked a question. Do you plan on making a motion or not? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STARK-Well, why don't you let me go first, because I want to make a motion to deny, okay, and I have my reasons for that, too, and the reasons are, as stated on Page 17994. Do you want to look it up, Tim? MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's Section 179-38. MR. STARK-Particularly Part B. The use would not be in harmony with the general purpose or intent. - 34 - ~ '---" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. PALING-What page are you on, George? MR. STARK-17994. MR. PALING-Okay. Here we go. MR. STARK-Okay. Now look under Part B. MR. PALING-Yes, I've got it. Well, why don't you read it. MR. STARK-The use would not be in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this Chapter, okay, that's the main thing. Then you go over to the other page, under Part D. The project would have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic or aesthetic, not ecological wildlife, historic or other open spaces, but it would have an adverse impact in that area. That's my opinion. Okay. Now you can take it up with the rest of them, but that's my opinion. MR. RUEL-These are requirements for approval on Type II? MR. MACEWAN-Is that your motion? MR. STARK-No, no. I didn't make the motion yet. MRS. LABOMBARD-And I agree with George. I think there's a lot better use of that property than a used car lot. MR. STARK-Why don't you poll the Board on this, Bob. MRS. LABOMBARD-I just feel that that property is a beautiful piece of property, and if you go up there and stand and look at the view, it's just, there's got to be a better use for it than selling cars, used cars on it. MR. RUEL-Are you suggesting that we change the zone, or the use? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, just because it's Highway Commercial doesn't mean you have to sell used cars. You can do something else with it. MR. RUEL-Well, that's use, right? You want to change the use? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I mean, it's still zoned HC. MR. RUEL-This is a permitted use, right now. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. it is. MR. RUEL-AII right. You want to delete that and make it something else. MRS. LABOMBARD-I feel that according to this Section 179-38, that the use that's being proposed to us this evening does not comply with some of the facets of this. MR. RUEL-Then you make the motion. MR. PALING-No, hold it. George, is that a motion? MR. STARK-No, I didn't make it, Bob. I want you to poll the Board and see how the rest of them feel. MR. PALING-All right. Does anyone else on the Board care to comment about this? Tim? MR. BREWER-I feel two different ways. I mean, I feel that you probably shouldn't have used cars there, but it's an allowed use in - 35 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) the zone. He's made mitigation to the facts that have been brought up. I don't see how we can deny him. MR. WEST-How far is the Honda dealership from this? MR. STARK-Quite a distance. MR. STARK-Quite a ways. MR. WEST-Quite a ways? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. WEST-How about a half a mile? MR. RUEL-About three quarters. MR. WEST-Would you say that's not the best use of the land there? MR. BREWER-No. I think the intent of the Highway Commercial zone is for that use. I mean, suppose somebody came in with a motel and said they wanted to put a motel there? Maybe I don't like motels. MR. RUEL-Well, I agree with Tim. It is zoned for that, and it's a permitted use, and how can we change a zoning? How can we just look at it and say, this is a permitted use, but we don't like it and we don't allow the applicant to use it for that? To me, I don't know. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, a motel, though, if you're going to get into that, wouldn't be built on a dirt mound. It would b~ landscaped. It would be paved. It would have a structure with a cellar. It would have nice roof lines, etc. MR. RUEL-You read that a moment ago, and I can read the same thing, and I get a different interpretation, everyone does. I mean, this is not black and white. It says, the establishment, maintenance or operation. No, you didn't read didn't read that, proj ect would not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife. That's the area. That's the kind of area it is. MR. STARK-Roger, this is a temporary measure up there, probably until he gets a better use for the plan, and then, you know, put a bowling alley. MR. RUEL-Well, he talked about a bowling alley originally, right? He was going to have the dentistry place and then the bowling alley. MR. BREWER-Let me put it to you this way, George. I don't mean to interrupt you, Roger, but suppose we deny this project. Nothing goes there. Is that going to have an adverse impact on these other businesses? I guess what I'm saying is at least with this plan he's putting the gravel down. He's agreed to seed the rest of the property. He's agreed to put trees in. He's agreed to fix the drainage. You get none of that if we deny it. MR. PALING-Okay. We're polling the Board. So, Craig, how do you feel? MR. MACEWAN-I'm not in favor of it. MR. PALING-That Route 9 has got a variety of uses on it, and I'm sitting here trying to think of all the different things that are done there, there are cars sold along that road, in Queensbury and in Lake George, and there's a variety of other things on there, and for us to single out cars, I'm not comfortable with that. How do - 36 - '-' ',---,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) you single a certain thing out and let something in, especially when you have car sales nearby? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think it's a matter of say singling something out, is that I don't think this particular application is harmony with the area businesses that are up in that immediate corridor. You come back down, and you come back down to Jeckel, and you come south and you've got Jeckel, and two doors down you've got the Quick Lube. You come two doors down from Jeckel, you've got another quick lube place. Then you've got North Country Radiator. You've got the used car lot in Mt. Royal, all coming (lost words) that car lot, but if you're heading north, Jeckel's the last car lot you've got. There are none others. MR. STEVES-Then you have a large parking lot for the Great Escape, I guess. MR. MACEWAN-That's not a used car lot for sale. MR. STEVES-Okay, but can I make a statement here? In my opinion, this is a great improvement to the site, and if the current zoning is not to be adhered to by the Board, I think that's crazy. We're here. We're open to all your comments and suggestions. We've done anything you've asked for us to do. I think it's a substantial improvement to the site. Now whether or not something comes in later, down the road, fine, maybe something will, but at least a temporary fix is better than what's there now. And you're telling me that it's not? MR. MACEWAN-Don't put those words in my mouth. I did not say that. MR. STEVES-No, but give me a better reason than because of the fact that somebody doesn't like a used car dealership. MR. MACEWAN-I'll give you my reason. My reason is that I just don't feel it's in harmony with the businesses that are up in that corridor right now. MR. STEVES-I strongly disagree. MR. MACEWAN-Because there's a zone there that allows a variety of different uses doesn't mean all uses are in harmony with that zone. It's as simple as that. MRS. LABOMBARD-And we have the right to interpret the zoning, or the Code, just the way we see it, too, because it is subjective. MR. STEVES-Yes, you do. MRS. LABOMBARD-And I'm thinking, maybe all your improvements, I tried to have them outweigh my negative response, but they don't, at this point. MR. STEVES-Why? MRS. LABOMBARD-Because the aesthetics and maybe the stigma attached to a used car lot. I don't know, but I think when you head north, Jeckel is the last one. That business has been there. MR. STEVES-We will have a greener, more eye appealing parking lot than anything along that corridor. We're having about 75 foot of green area before our parking lot. MR. MACEWAN-You were supposed to have it three years ago. MR. STEVES-We are not here to talk about what happened three years ago. I'm here to talk about what we are doing to the site now. - 37 - "---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. MACEWAN-You're making suggestions on how you're going to improve the lot. When that whole parcel was clear cut, he was in here saying that he was going to put the trees up, maintain them, and he was also going to re-seed that entire parcel. MR. STEVES-I am here with a proposal to help this property. I can't talk to you about what happened three years ago. MR. BREWER-Where's the other car lot on Bay Street? Where do you draw the line there? We just approved a car lot on Bay Street, an auction. Where do you draw the line there? MR. PALING-And the applicant is selling cars right now on Route 9, and Honda is on Route 9. MR. MACEWAN-I mentioned that as well. people up here. That's why we have seven MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LEUCI-I'd just like to say something. It's true, okay, there is a stigma about used car lots and everything. I do not intend to open up a shabby, ugly, disgusting area, place, okay. I'm going to have a clean environment, clean greenery, clean grass, nice neatly parked cars. It's not going to be a junk yard, nor anything close to it. It's going to be a very neat and clean operation. It's certainly going to enhance the area, which is sitting right now, which is full of dirt, causing dust and everything else. I'm going to plant grass, clean up the whole area. It's not going to be an eyesore. It's going to be fine to look at. It's going to look a lot nicer than it looks right now. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I have a question. Across the street, where they're putting up the miniature golf course, and they put in nice little buildings with little, you know, nice gabled roofs and a couple of peaks here and there, and the buildings aren't very big. I don't know how many square feet they are, and there's a couple on the site, but they look like, the whole design has been cared about, and you know, the miniature golf is going to be kind of exclusive, and it's something that this area has never seen, but the little buildings, they didn't just stick in a shelter. They put a little design to kind of make it go with the ambience of what they're building. Now, what you've got there is just a big, gravel space with a trailer in the back. MR. LEUCI-It's going to be a clean, decorated trailer, plenty of greenery, plenty of grass around, okay, and like I said, a neat, clean operation. I don't know if you've ever seen my other operation, but if you did, you might feel differently. If you've ever walked into my showroom, you may feel differently. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is that the one on the? MR. LEUCI-The Mt. Royal Plaza. MRS. LABOMBARD-The Mt. Royal Plaza. MR. LEUCI-Yes. If you've ever come into my operation over there, you'd feel a lot differently, okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, all I see is the cars in the front, as I go by. MR. LEUCI - You've never walked into my showroom. You've never seen the displays I have within the walls on the inside. You would know what type of operation I run. It's not a dirty. It's not a dingy. They're not dirty cars, cars broken down with flat tires. It's a very clean, neat operation. If you'd ever seen my other operation, - 38 - '---' ---'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) you'd feel differently. You would remove the stigma of a used car lot, because that's not what it's going to be. MR. MACEWAN-Answer me a question if you could. Do you ever have intentions, in the future, of paving your parking lot? MR. LEUCI-I might possibly, yes. MR. MACEWAN-Do you have intentions in the future of putting a permanent building? MR. LEUCI-At this point, no. Possibly, maybe. I don't know. Lets see how business goes. I mean, the only reason I'm moving over to there is because business has increased. He was questioning how many cars are in the parking lot where I am now. The reason I wanted to go was to expand, because business has increased, and I need more room. I mean, I'm zoned for it in the area. I'm going to make a lot right there. A lot prettier than it sits now. It's going to be a clean operation, and that's it. MR. PALING-Okay. I think it's time to go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-97 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: As written in the resolution, with the following conditions. One, remove dead trees and replace trees along the existing tree row along Route 9 and maintain them for two years. Two, plant rye or similar grass in all open areas east of the parking area. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 14-97 JOSEPH LEUCI for Automobile Sales; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, dated 2/26/97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map C1 dated 2/25/97 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes 2. Rist Frost comments dated 3/14/97 3. Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution dated 3/12/97 4. Beautification Committee resolution dated 3/10/97 5. Record of Phone Conversation dated 3/12/97 between Jim Martin and Roger Gebo - Co. DPW 6. Nace Eng. letter dated 3/16/97 in response to Rist Frost comments Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/18/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) 1. The Town Planning Board, hereby move to LEUCI. after considering the above, Site Plan No. 14-97 JOSEPH 2. The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 18th day of March 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. Thanks. Could I have your attention, please. If there's anyone here for the Indian Ridge development, that was taken off the agenda for tonight, and so if you are here for that, there is going to be nothing done with now. The applicant's withdrawn their application to the Planning Board for the present. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, you may want to reiterate that those two letters were read at the beginning. MR. PALING-Okay, but there were two letters read into the record. There was one from the applicant and one from Rist-Frost were read in for the record. MRS. LABOMBARD-What about Mr. Randall, the Hydrogeologist report, and his recommendations? That is all just? MR. PALING-No. If there is a Geologist that's hired, Mr. Randall's report will be part of his examination, but right now there is no examination or anything, everything's on hold, but if it's revived, then that'll be part of it, sure. MRS. LABOMBARD-And when was this put on hold, as of when, today, yesterday? MR. PALING-Yesterday, I think. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yesterday by the applicant and his attorney. MR. PALING-By the applicant, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Did they say they would come back within a given time line? MR. PALING-You have a letter. packet. No. You have a letter in your MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I've read that. That's all it was, just that? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-Bob, do you want to take up Schermerhorn now? - 40 - " . '- ~ -...-/ (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. PALING-Go ahead, George. MR. STARK-Tim, I'd like to make a recommendation that we all go out, look at this parcel this week some time on our own, and then next week we'll be able to more intelligently talk about it, you know, whether to recommend it or not recommend it to the Town Board. MR. BREWER-Well, is that our first step, Mark, we recommend to the Town Board? MR. HILTON-Usually the process is, is that the Planning Board refers the application to the Rec Commission and the Town Board for their input, and then once the input is received, it comes back to you for a vote. It might be a good idea, like George said, to go out and look at the property this weekend, and then next Tuesday, you know, we can get the ball rolling from there. MR. STARK-Okay. Now, Bob just informed me there are some people out here that want to talk about this, but this isn't the time to talk about it. It has to be advertised for a public hearing. Can we take comment tonight? MR. HILTON-You can certainly take comment if you'd like, but, you know, the people in the audience should also be aware that there will be additional discussion on this item at a later date, specifically, as you said, next week. MR. STARK-Okay. If anybody wants to talk about this, that's fine, but it's not really official until we advertise for it, then we can take the public comment again, but all of us up here are planning on going this week to take a look at the 15 acres to see where it is, and so on. Then when it comes in we can make our recommendations to the Recreation Commission and then to the Town Board, then it comes back to us. MR. BREWER-We don't make a recommendation. We just send the letter to the Recreation Commission and the Town Board, don't we, for recommendation? MR. STARK-We make the recommendation to the Town Board whether we want it to be approved or not, and they make the final decision. MR. BREWER-Not yet we don't. MR. HILTON-I believe there's a recommendation to the Rec Commission and the Town Board for them to review it, and after the review, it comes back to you, and then you recommend whether or not to accept. MR. BREWER-It's recommendation. early in the process for us to make We just ask them for a recommendation to Y2. a MR. HILTON-Right. MR. BREWER-And then we recommend to the Town Board. MR. STARK-Does anybody want to make any comments about this at all, the 15 acres for Schermerhorn? MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought the Recreation Commission goes out and walks it. MR. HILTON-They do. MR. BREWER-They do, and they come back and give us a report whether we should recommend. MR. WEST-They haven't done that yet, right? - 41 - ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. BREWER-No. MR. STARK-Okay. Nobody wants to talk about this? Okay. Fine. That's it. We'll take it up next week the first thing. Okay, now, Tim. You've got this letter from the Lake George Campsite, from Gardner. MR. BREWER-No, I don't think I did. Maybe I did, but I didn't see it. MR. STARK-Where he wants 78,000 trees planted, seriously. George, can we take any action on this? MR. PALING-Well, that's mY option, I think, as to what we'll say. All I want to do, I know my own feeling in that regard, but I just want to get the consensus of the Board, and I'll answer the letter, but it's not going to be me talking. It's going to be the Board talking, when I do answer that letter. MR. STARK-I would like to see more trees, not 78,000 trees, but I'd like to see 60 to 100 trees back there maybe, or, you know, something put back there, because they did clear cut way the heck more than they were supposed to. MR. BREWER-Did we have a limit on the clear cutting? MR. STARK-Yes, we did have a limit on the cutting, and they went way beyond it. MR. BREWER-If they went beyond it, then lets get them back here and make them straight it out. MR. STARK-That's right. MR. MACEWAN-They went beyond the limits of the clear cut. When they were here for their modification the last time around, they addressed this issue of the re-plantation of trees out there. He had a representative of his campground sitting right out there. She said she was here to attend the meeting on his behalf. Although she wasn't supposed to speak, I guess, or make a recommendation on his behalf. She was here to listen on his behalf. Is that how it went? MR. PALING-Yes, I believe so. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you can check the minutes, but my recollection is that she said in a, sort of what I would describe as kind of a passive tone, she said that he had asked her to come and monitor the meeting, and that he had expressed his wish that he could review the planting plan before your decision. I think she said something to that effect. MR. RUEL-Yes, you're right. MR. SCHACHNER-That's my recollection. You can check your minutes to see specifically, but that's my recollection. MR. PALING-Well, the results of the meeting, however, were that they were given, come up with a specific planting plan, and that's what the Board voted on. MR. SCHACHNER-I believe you're correct. MR. PALING-And that's what I'd like to say, go along with. Now it's up to the Board if we answer the letter and roughly, basically what we say. MR. MACEWAN-Why do we need to answer the letter? He wrote the - 42 - .. " /'< '---- ''-"'' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) letter in response to the Board's decision. MR. RUEL-Yes, why do we have to reply? MR. PALING-Well, is the Board saying, is that what you're saying, you don't want to reply to it? MR. BREWER-No. I read the letter when I first got it, but I don't exactly remember the content of it. He wanted a lot more trees, but. MR. PALING-Well, yes. There were tens of thousands of trees that were requested. It was kind of an impossible. MR. BREWER-Like 10 every square foot or something, crazy number like that. MR. MACEWAN-It was a large amount, lets put it that way. MR. STARK-What did we agree on the modification, for him to put in 200 trees? MR. PALING-I can't remember the number, but we agreed on a planting plan. MR. BREWER-Well, why don't we do this. Why don't we ask George to get us a copy of what we agreed to the last time he was here, next week we'll review it, and if we don't think it's right, then we'll answer the letter. MR. STARK-Fine. That sounds good. MR. MACEWAN-That letter came in after we made the modification, it came in after the meeting was all done. There's been no violations since then. It was in reaction to the violation that he did, the clear cut. MR. PALING-Okay. You say don't answer it? MR. MACEWAN-Don't answer it. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets move along. George, what do you say? MR. STARK-I would still like to talk about this next week, after we find out what we agreed to for the plantings. We did ask for more plantings back there. MR. MACEWAN-And we got them. MR. PALING-And we got them. MR. STARK-Well, we haven't got anything yet. He hasn't put a tree in yet. MR. PALING-But he's got the plan to put them in. MR. STARK-Well, they're supposed to be in by a certain time, I guess. MR. MACEWAN-They have to be in before he gets a co. MR. STARK-That's going to be a problem, because I'll bet you he doesn't put the trees in before. MR. PALING-Then we've got a compliance thing, then. MR. BREWER-Well, he doesn't get a CO or a temporary co. Is that what you put in the motion? - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-But if that was the condition, why wouldn't they adhere to it? MR. STARK-Yes, well then how come this guy's only supposed to have 18 or 21 cars and he's up there with 25, 30 every day of the week? MR. BREWER-Well, George, if there's a violation you see, bring it to his attention. If he doesn't know about it, he certainly isn't going to do anything about it. MR. PALING-But I don't think that the applicant is involved in this unless he violates something. He's agreed to a planting plan, and I hope we hold him to it. MR. HILTON-In a situation like this, the only thing ~ can say as Staff is that we had a revegetation plan that went before you. You approved it, and that's where it stands right now. There's been no further violation. MRS. LABOMBARD-And that's the end of it. MR. BREWER-Did we say in the motion he gets no CO before this is done? MR. STARK-Did we say that? MR. PALING-Actually, we're getting off the subject. The subject is should we answer the letter. MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-All right. We won't answer the letter. MR. STARK-One other question. Mark, do you have any idea why, did he put Indian Ridge off, pending the outcome of the trial or the case down there, or what's going on with that? MR. SCHACHNER-I haven't the faintest idea. MRS. LABOMBARD-What's coming up in April? MR. PALING-In April, there are some workshops, and unfortunately, I wish I could go to some of them, but I can't. MRS. LABOMBARD-You mean the things that we got in the mail? MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know. I can't go. MR. BREWER-If anybody's interested, tomorrow night at seven o'clock, there's a presentation on the Hudson River Almanac from Tom Lake. MR. PALING-Can we go back to evening site visits, rather than Saturday morning? MR. STARK-That's fine. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. So we're saying that, tentatively, the first, we went Thursdays, didn't we? MR. BREWER-Wednesdays we used to, didn't we? MR. WEST-No. We went Thursdays. MR. PALING-You've probably forgotten. - 44 - '>It' "--' - '--'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/18/97) MR. STARK-Thursdays. MR. PALING-It looks like four o'clock, Thursday the 15th is the next group site visit. MR. RUEL-The 15th? MR. PALING-Yes, but we'll cover that the next meeting in detail so we'll know, but, yes, we'll switch for daylight savings. MRS. LABOMBARD-Thursday's the 17th, Bob. You're on May. MR. PALING-April. Okay. April, yes. I won't be there that day. Okay. Four o'clock. I'll be down in Massachusetts. MRS. LABOMBARD-On the 17th? MR. PALING-On the 10th. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 45 -