Loading...
1989-10-17 / ---' / ~ --/ -~" QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17TH, 1989 INDEX Site Plan No. 50-88 APPLICANT Dix A venue Industrial Park Claude Charlebois PAGE 1. Site Plan No. 32-89 Debbie &. Steve Scheibel 2. Subdivision No. 14-1989 Partridge Run Preliminary Stage 5. Resolution Adopting Determination of NonSignificance of Amendment To Rule &. Regulations of Planning Board 10. Resolution Adopting Amendment to Rule &. Regulations of Planning Board 10. Resolution Regarding Queensbury Master Plan 11. Resolution Adopting Findings Statement 11. Resolution to Adopt &. Authorize Filing of Master Plan 12. Site Plan No. 56-89 Thomas &. Carolyn Clary 12. Subdivision No. 5-65 Rolling Ridge Section 3 &. 4 13. Site Plan No. 66-89 Imperial Motel Wayne Pelak 15. 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 FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17TH, 1989 7:30 P.M. ,/ ---'~ ,-.-/ MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN PETER CARTIER JOSEPH DYBAS KEITH JABLONSKI TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT STUARTBAKER,ASffiSTANTPLANNER CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 19th, 1989: Public Hearing, Mark Bombard 3rd line, our main concern about this is the overall plan of the property sib overall plan of the building. APPROVAL OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19TH, 1989 AS CORRECTED OLD BUSINESS DIX AVENUE INDUSTRIAL PARK CLAUDE CHARLEBOIS INTERSECTION OF QUAKER ROAD AND DIX AVENUE EXTENDING SOUTHERLY TO WARREN STREET APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR A SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR SUBMISSION OF illS APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THIS SUBDMSION. SKETCH PLAN WAS APPROVED OCTOBER 18th, 1988 FOR A SUBDMSION OF 35.46± ACRES INTO 13 LOTS. MAJOR COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION NO. 88-1 SKETCH PLAN PC-lA ill-3A HC-15 CROSS REFERENCE: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 50-88 A TTORNEY GEORGE ZURLO REPRESENTING CLAUDE CHARLEBOIS MR. CHARLEBOIS-Stated what happened is when they initially received sketch plan approval before we could submit preliminary application we were asked to demonstrate where the water and sewage would be. Asked for input from the Town Board in regard to a new sewer district in this area. Since this time we have not been able to receive any clear cut answer and have not received any answer at all until the end of September, in regard to sewer district availability for this particular project. This left us without sufficient time to complete the technical details involved in a preliminary application. We had received a letter that we had to submit by September 27th, this was impossible to do at this time we now have some input in relation to the sewer availability. Asked the Planning Board to grant a 6 month extension in relation to this. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. DUSEK-Stated Attorney Zurlo, was correct in that the matter has taken much longer. A feasibility study was done. It doesn't actually take into consideration your parcel, but it would show a method by which this parcel could be addressed. The problem has been as to how do deal with this situation. We've had conversation on going with the councilman with regard to this matter. It would be unfortunate at Mr. Zurlo's time if there was some why of being prejudice because time is to slow. MR. CARTIER-Asked if six months would be long enough? MR. ZURLO-Stated he would prefer to have the extension a year if it is acceptable. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDMSlON NO. 88-1, DIX AVENUE INDUSTRIAL P ARK,Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: To grant extension for one year. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: 1 " \ \ ''"--' , "-----' ---->' '----' A YES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one SITE PLAN NO. 32-89 DEBBŒ AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL TYPE: N/A RECOMMENDATION d1 ONLY WR-3A DARK BAY ASSOCIATION DRIVE, APPROX. 0.80 OF A MILE WEST OF BAY ,(Y' ROAD ON ROUTE 9L, DRIVE IS ACROSS THE ROAD FROM BOAT COVER BUSINESS. FOR r CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY YEAR-ROUND RESIDENCE. AT PRESENT, IT IS ~.. VACANT WITH AN EXISTING DOCK AND STORAGE SHED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 2-1-6.8 SECTION N/A CROSS REFERENCE: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1442; SEE THE OCTOBER 18, 1989 ZONING BOARD AGENDA. ATTORNEY BOB STEWART REPRESENTING THE SCHEIBEL'S MR. ROBERTS-Stated this was tabled at a previous meeting. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Wants to know where the review process is heading. MR. STEWART-Stated he was not involved in the application. They did not have an Attorney. The ZBA had before it an application for a variance thought they could benefit from the advise of this Board and asked that this Board review it and give you your comments on how you felt the situation could be improved or made better. Understands that the applicant appeared before this Board back in April, and comments were made by Mrs. York, Rist Frost. It was tabled by the applicant and at this point I became involved. MR. CARTIER-Stated he thinks they first looked at it from a site plan review because of the 15% restriction. Coming out of the site plan review was a variance for the setback. MR. STEWART-Stated Mrs. York's letter of April 24th, doesn't mention any problems with 15% grades and site plan review. MR. SCHEIBEL-Stated the first he heard of this was with the letter. Made application originally to the ZBA back in April. MR. STEWART-Asked if he has ever been before this Board other than in April at the request of the Zoning Board. MR. SCHEIBEL-Stated only in April. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. STEWART-Stated if he understands the situation the ZBA tomorrow night will decide whether or not to give a variance. This was a subdivision that was originally approved back in the late 60's and it was re-approved somewhere around 1976. It is an approved subdivision and this is an approved lot in that subdivision. The present owners do not own any adjacent land to make the lot any larger so you have a preexisting nonconforming lot. The owner does have the right to build on a a preexisting nonconforming lot. Senses what the Zoning Board is asking from you is if we are going to grant these people a variance would like your advise as to how to make it the best out of what is an awkward situation. MR. ROBERTS-Asked council if he agrees with Mr. Stewart's assessment that the applicant has right to the reasonable use of the land? MR. STEWART-Stated what he is saying, in his opinion the ZBA cannot say no they have to grant it, but they can impose reasonable conditions to make it better. Doesn't think this Board could say yes or no because it's not in front of you. Stated the Board's question to Paul would be, what authority does the ZBA have. Stated this is a residential lot in a residential subdivision. MR. DUSEK-Stated one thing to keep in mind is that the applicant has to prepare the burden of proof before the ZBA. Thinks it's important to keep in mind the ZBA will hear the proof 2 ',,- \ '---' /' ---' ' ---,' and determine whether they feel there is sufficient proof and whether they're convinced by the proof whether they can grant a variance. This will be the question that has to be decided. MR. ROBERTS-Stated their not seeing it as a site plan themselves. MR. DUSEK-Stated it did come up for site plan once before and was tabled for this reason because you felt that the Zoning Board should take a look at it. MR. ROBERTS-Stated there is a site plan before us tonight, but this is probably not the case either. MR. DUSEK-Stated if there is a likelihood that it will come back to you as a site plan at some point in your evaluation process you might want to consider this. Whatever recommendations you decide to make that you develop your site plan approach now. Concerned with whatever you say tonight it will be part of the record. MR. ROBERTS-Asked where SEQRA stood on this? MR. DUSEK-Stated there are two ways one handling this, one would be a coordinated review between both agencies. The other would be each agency doing their own individual review. MR. STEWART-Stated if he understood correctly if the ZBA is awarded the jurisdiction and if they asked this Board for advise only then the only agency the applicant needs formal approval from in the ZBA. If on the other hand this Board does have some original jurisdiction such as site plan review then you have the right to request lead agency status. Asked if you they could clarify the position of the Board? Stated this is a residential lot and doesn't need a site plan. MR. CARTIER-Stated there is greater than 15% slopes. MR. STEWART-Stated he is not sure that we have greater than 15% slope. MR. CARTIER-Asked how the application differs from what the Board looked at in April? Stated that nothing has changed, asked why there were seeing this? MR. STEWART-Stated he received from the file the comments made by Mrs. York, and the comments from Rist Frost. With every comment that was made neither of those comments suggested that we go with a holding tank. There was a question of a mound system and we have realigned that to meet the 200 foot setback. There was a question as to whether there was a water line in the ground that would cross the sewer main and therefore create a problem meeting codes, are answer to that is no. There was some clarification as to relocation of the house we've corrected that. We were asked to file plans of the house and we've done that. There were clarification as to whether or not there would be wells and if there was were they going to be close to any septic system we've resolved these issues. MR. SCHEIBEL-Stated the issue of the holding was brought up by a member of the Board as being a primary alternative that the Board wanted to pursue at that time. We met with Lee York, who brought in another town planner who was familiar with septic regulations and they were both very discouraging about use of a holding tank and thought this was not a environmentally sound way to go. They referred us to a staff assistant of the Lake George Park Commission who we met with. He told us that he felt the holding tank would be much more dangerous and unsuitable than a septic system 200 feet from the lake. I still remain open to this to have a holding tank or backup holding tank, but I'm not able to find a professional in the field that sanctions this. MR. DYBAS-Feels he is going to have difficulty with the Lake George Park Commission. Stated he has to many things against him with this lot. MR. STEWART-Stated he doesn't believe that the Lake George Park Commission has enacted any waste water standards of any type at this moment. One of the propose regulations is if you do have a lot that has a difficult situation is that there ultimate demand is that they may require that you go with a holding tank. MR. ROBERTS-Asked what were the soil conditions with the septic system 200 feet from the lake? MR. DICKINSON-Stated what they did was design a mound system when they originally started this process they contacted Queensbury, had a representative come out from the Queensbury Planning Department. Dug a test hole and discussed the alternatives and this is why it ended up as it did. Understood that the 200 feet for the mound system is measured from the point of application to the bed; the bed of the system is 200 feet. 3 -_/ -' "--- " -- --.-/ MR. CARTIER-Stated that they are looking at something that is declared an environmentally sensitive area anything done is this area has to minimize the impact. Thinks that there looking at too many things in this proposal that does not minimize the impact. MR. STEWART-Stated they have a small lot of some difficult terrain on the shores of Lake George. It is a lot in a subdivision and it's use is limited to private residential construction. It can be used for private residential construction under the zoning ordinance even though the lot is smaller than the new zoning ordinance required because it was approved at a time it was legal. Stated the question is what why can they build on this piece of property. MR. CARTIER-Feels when he looks at an application would like to see how the property is going to be used, how it is going to be supported by the particular site. Stated the site here cannot support the proposed use. MR. STEWART-Thinks the applicant has the right to have a residence. MR. CARTIER-Asked if the applicant could be a residence that includes the septic system on a slope of no more than 1O%? Asked if the applicant could build a residence where the leach field that is 200 feet more from the shore? MR. STEWART-Stated the applicant can put a septic system on an adjacent lot 200 feet from shore. The answer to the second question is yes. Stated there is no rule or regulation to this site that says that you have to have so much land that you have double the room needed for a septic system. MR. CARTIER-Stated this is a function of the Planning Board to decide this. MR. STEWART-Stated Lot #8, it is stated that there should be a deeded permanent right-of-way. I agrees with this. MR. GANNETT-Stated there was discussion about the slope requirements for the septic system. Clarified that the 10% limitation is the Town's standard not a Lake George Park Commission standard. Scaled the map there is 15% slope on Lot #4 septic system so it is steeper than 10%. Doesn't know a place within this lot where a slope of 10% can be obtained. Asked if the applicant considered looking for another lot to place the septic system in the general area. MR. DICKINSON-Stated that there is not a flat piece of land there. The general slope is 12 -13% as shown on the cross section including the area of the septic system. This does not greatly exceed the 10% required by the Town of Queensbury. If you look at the area where the 15% slope is the difference between the 15% slope and 10% slope is an elevation less than i foot. MR. GANNETT-Stated it is still 15% or steeper and is not a good piece of property to put a septic system on. MR. DICKINSON-Stated this is the best location. MR. JABLONSKI-Asked if the size of the house has changed. MR. SCHEIBEL-Stated the initial footprint was 26 ft. by 52 ft. Our floor plan is 24 ft. by 40 ft. MR. CARTIER-Stated if the lot is considered an un buildable lot, asked if this denies the applicant use of the property? MR. DUSEK-Stated this a question for the Zoning Board of Appeals to decide. Stated by looking at the resolution the ZBA passed it looks like a site plan review is what their looking for. Stated if a site plan review is necessary and the Board determines this one way of handling this is have the applicant go through a site plan review process with this Board first before you give a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. STEWART-Concerned that the application has been filed in October 1988. It's been a year and we're still seeking guidance. It's the first time to my knowledge that I knew that site plan was required. Asked if they could agree on what they have to do? MR. ROBERTS-Stated that they need a site plan and SEQRA review. MR. STEWART-Asked who has jurisdiction over this application? MR. ROBERTS-Stated they have determined that they require a site plan and the ZBA a variance. 4 - ,----' -' "'------ ---- MR. DUSEK-Read the ordinance to the Board, stated they have to make a determination from this. MR. CARTIER-Stated to the applicant he should be looking at alternatives that have a less significant impact. MR. DUSEK-Asked if the applicant has a application in for site plan review? MR. ROBERTS-No. MR. DUSEK-Stated this would have to be in place before you notify the other agencies for the SEQRA review. MR. STEWART-Stated Mr. Dickinson handed him an application dated February 26, 1989, site plan review for Mr. and Mrs. Scheibel. MR. ROBERTS-Stated the site plan no 32-89, asked if this was the right number? MR. STEW ART-Stated it has no number. MR. DICKINSON-Stated they were sent an application with the short environmental form that was filled out and submitted. MR. STEWART-Asked when the 10% slope became part of the site plan review? MR. ROBERTS-Stated October 1988. MR. STEWART-Asked if this was before or after they filed their application, asked if they were grandfathered? MR. DICKINSON-Stated the original application predated the Ordinance we were here in October. MR. STEW ART-Asked staff to notify the ZBA that the hearing tomorrow night should be tabled. Will contact Paul Dusek, tomorrow will review everything in the file to see if we can reach an agreement as to what our rights and duties are. Asked to table application for one month. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 32-89,DEBBIE AND STEVEN SCHEIBEL FOR ONE MONTH WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE APPLICANT SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1989 PARTRIDGE RUN SFR-lA PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE UNLISTED POTTER ROAD APPROX. 320 FT. SOUTH OF AVIATION ROAD. TO SUBDIVIDE 9.39 ACRES INTO 8 SINGLE F AMIL Y LOTS OF APPROX. 1 ACRE EACH. TAX MAP NO. 90-2-2.4 LOT SIZE: 9.39 ACRES KEITH MANZ C. T. MALE PRESENT MAP SHOWN TO BOARD STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner DISCUSSION HELD MR. MANZ-Stated the first issue to address is the sight distance. The site distance is 450 feet to the curb and is in conformance with D.O.T. standards. Looked at trying to shift the entrance northwards towards Aviation Road. (Referred to map) If they shifted the lot lines around we would have lots less than one acre. Stated since they are in conformance with the D.O.T. standards feels the applicant is due the number of lots shown. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE LA YET-I own a parcel of land that is adjacent to Potter Road and Lot #8 about 90 feet onto Potter Road. (Referred to map to show the Board which parcel he owns). I built my house at that time knowing this was the watershed property. I have a house right here (refers to map) the way the map is set up this corner of Lot #8 would more or less be right in front of my house. There are some reasonable requests that I would like to make. I would like to see a boundary on the land that's not cut back not on this lot, but the whole lot. I think that's already mentioned in the 40% clearing. 5 -- ~_/ MR. ROBERTS-I think we will deal with that issue as we go along. ...-- --' MR. LA YET-Another request that I think is a reasonable one is that I would not want to see any kind of a building structure in the back of this Lot #8. I would assume that the 40% would be cleared off and in the front of the lot there would be plenty of room for a house, garage, whatever else. I do not want to see some kind of structure right here (refers to map) from the house. I'm saying these things and it seems like a selfish reason, of course, they are, but this house was built when all this was watershed property. MR. ROBERTS-I didn't realize this was watershed property. MR. LA YET-Yes it is. I have the old map of the land that states it. This is the initial concern that I have. My parents do own land back here (refers to map) and they have some concerns also. MR. DYBAS-Perhaps when you go along they may have some restrictions they won't be able to do that anyway. MR. ROBERTS-I don't think your problem is a difficult one to solve. MR. LA YET-When you mentioned moving the road down, again having a garage in front of your house is bad enough, but having a road there is worse. As it gets closer and closer to the property it is a concern of mine. LIDY A LA YET-Joers mother. My husband Joseph and I, own the property on the northwest corner and it's a sizeable lot. I have my original map and I can show you what I mean. It says on the map that you have that you tried to contact me you didn't try very hard because we were there most of the time. MR. CARTIER-How do you have access to this property here? MRS. LA YET-There is a 9 foot piece between. . . MR. ROBERTS-Can we look at your map so we can clarify this to the Board. MRS. LA YET-SHOWED THE BOARD HER MAP OF THE LAND TO CLARIFY THIS TO THE BOARD MRS. LA YET-I bought the property in 1967. There was always a possibility that someone would buy that watershed property which they did. I thought when the property was purchased by somebody they would contact me and maybe we could make some arrangements. This wasn't done and I don't think this was very fair to me. MR. MANZ-A year ago in January of 1988, a letter was sent from Steven requesting that our client buy this piece and incorporate it into the subdivision. I spoke to my client today and Steven last week. My client stated that he did not have a interest in buying this to incorporate it into the subdivision since it technically wasn't landlock and that there is this 9 ft. strip for private access to create this as an individual lot. He didn't feel that that situation could be forced upon him because it's a private decision on my clients subdivision. MRS. LA YET-Don't you think we should have the right to talk to someone about this instead of having it forced on us? MR. MANZ-Apparently someone did talk to my client a year ago. MRS. LA YET-No one even contacted us and we are the owners of the property. MR. MANZ-Maybe my client didn't get back to you, but he stated to me today that they considered purchasing that option and decided they didn't want to do that in that subdivision. It was really a private decision based on the way he wanted to layout his subdivision. MRS. LA YET-I'm still under the impression that we should have been contacted this should have been talked out. It is not something you do without talking to the developer. MR. MANZ-If he was interested in purchasing it he would have contacted you. MR. DYBAS-That's the purchaser right if he wanted to buy that property he would, but if it doesn't make any sense to buy it, why would he want to buy it. How many year ago did you buy this property? MRS. LA YET-22 years. 6 ~ ~~ .;' '- ---- ---- MR. DYBAS-When you bought that property 22 years ago you bought it with a gamble. MRS. LA YET-True. MR. DYBAS-You bought it with a gamble that something would come through that way and it didn't come through that way. What should of been done is that should of went all the way through that would of solved the problem. MR. ROBERTS-As planners we don't like to go with landlocking. MR. DYBAS-Unfortunately in this case you have 9 feet here it's important that you have it you're not landlocked that's what were saying. MRS. LA YET-People from here dump on this land. MR. CARTIER-That's an enforcement issue. The Planning Board has no control over that. MR. LA YET-What is the time frame on this? MR. ROBERTS-As far as the review process this is the middle of the three stages. MR. MANZ-Our time frame is to go as quickly as we can. In otherwords if we got preliminary approval this evening we would probably submit for final within the next month. Construction wouldn't take place until spring time. MR. LA YET-How can we find out what decision you made concerning restriction upon Partridge Run? MR. ROBERTS-You can come to the meeting next month or you could ask the planning department. The records are public information or you could look at the minutes of the meetings. MR. CARTIER-What we intend to do with the agreement of the applicant is what I hope is presently being done with Pinewood Section 3. MR. DYBAS-You would be interested with not only what our restrictions would be, but the deed restrictions would be probably more what your interested in. MR. ROBERTS-Wayne, what is the perc rate? MR. MANZ-The perc rate in the subdivision 16 to 26. MR. GANNETT-We recommended a fill system for rapidly permeable soils and they have provided that. MR. ROBERTS-One of the requirements of a subdivision is that they have to have a planting plan. In this area the plan can be in agreement with the Planning Board. MR. CARTIER-Is your client just going to be selling lots to individual builder? What do you anticipate the size of the lots? MR. MANZ-I really couldn't say at this stage. I'm not quite sure that he knows. I think he is going to have other builders come buy lots and build as opposed to himself, but I canIs say for sure. MR. CARTIER-What we did in. . .is that they left a 10 foot strip on each side of the property line uncut. MR. ROBERTS-In that case they had a stream going through the property. In this case they probably would like to have a buffer more around the road to internalize the subdivision more. MR. CARTIER-Perhaps we might want to live with some clearing aiong that corner. MR. ROBERTS-What were doing here is reducing the amount of lawn and the chemicals going into the aquifer. MR. CARTIER-There was some allowance made for cutting dead trees. MR. MANZ-Would you like us to come up with a plan based on this general criteria at the final stage that has the percentages and it shows the area to remain existing vegetation? You're just giving us general criteria right now? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. 7 '-', ./ '-- -~ ..--....-' MR. MANZ-We can work with the Planning Department. MR. DYBAS-I think you should have the houses plotted along the whole thing to show where the houses will be on every lot. MR. MANZ-You don't want anything left in the right-of-way is that correct? MR. ROBERTS-This is what the highway superintendent wants. MR. CARTIER-The only other question I have is that there is a comment in here from Mr. Flaherty, about the hydrant in the cul-de-sac. Does the Fire Department have a problem with the snow being plowed in the winter time. MR. MANZ-This is a question, I was going to bring up because this problem had to do with cutting across the pavement to install the water tabs and the water tabs will be installed to the end of the right-of-way prior to any paving taking place. This is not a very good reason to put it in the center of the cul-de-sac as well as the fact that snow does pile up there. In addition to that if you put it in the center of the cul-de-sac then you have fairly long distances from your water to the houses. We've seen it done both ways it's really up to the Town. We can put it the he center if you like. It seems like he wants it in the center so there are benefits and disbenefits both ways. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe that deserves further discussion with the water department. MR. MANZ-Why don't I discuss it with Mr. Flaherty and we can come up with a mutually agreeable situation. MR. CARTIER-It sounds like the Fire Department kind of okays that too. All I'm doing is raising the question whether the Fire Department can live with a hydrant in the middle of the cul-de-sac. MR. ROBERTS-This ought to be run by the nearest fire company as well. TAPE TURNED MR. MANZ-We will check in with both parties. The other question I had is on Mr. Goralski's comments saying, that the Highway Superintendent has submitted a letter pertaining to the utility easement past practice is to maintain that easement outside of the Town's right-of-way. MR. ROBERTS-It doesn't sound right to me. In fact, the Town wants the water line within the Town's right-of-way, but I think he is referring to power. Power apparently is outside of the right-of-way, water and sewer are inside the right-of-way. Are you referring to just NIMO? MR. MANZ-He could be, but we don't show any NIMO on there so why would he bring that up? MR. ROBERTS-That ought to be clarified to because it's confusing to me. MR. MANZ-It's on the cross section as Wayne just pointed out. It shows partially 4 feet within the right-of-way 6 feet outside of it for a total of 10 foot wide NIMO easement. We can provide all of that outside the easement I think that's what he is saying which is fine. I thought that was a typical cross section apparently it's been revised or should be revised. The other item I'd like to bring up is the one of the subdivision regulations. We would like to ask for a wavier on the 100 foot tangent section prior getting into any horizontal curves. The reason being it's a gradual curve if we go 100 feet straight and then start to curve then were making these lots not conform. The sooner we start curving it the better off we are with respect to these lots. I feel it's a better layout as shown it's not like to have a very sharp curve coming in. MR. ROBERTS-Here again we would want the Highway Superintendent to agree with that. I'm not sure that's a wavier we would want to give without the highway department approval. MR. MANZ-It wasn't a comment by them. That's why I bought it up with the Planning Board, but if you feel it's better addressed to the highway department we can resolve that issue as well and correct it on the next submission. MR. ROBERTS-Either that or work with the planning department. We can suggest that John Goralski talk with the superintendent about that. MR. MANZ-One last item has to do with Mr. Gannett's comment #3 on the 1,250 gallon septic tank would you like a note added in case they do go with the 5? 8 '-' -" .,,- '---- ~ ~~ MR. GANNETT-You can change the note on your table of the tank sizes. MR. CARTIER-Just one question did you address Item BIG in Mr. Goralski's comment? MR. MANZ-Eight vehicles trips per hour is based on eight homes being in there and typically eight people going to work within an hour's time morning and evening. This is less than one trip every five minutes. I really don't see that as a significant impact on that intersection. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-1989 OF 1989,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: SUBDMSlON NO. 14-1989, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, PARTRIDGE RUN; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are 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. A full Environmental Workshop was held on the project with the entire Environmental Assessment Form reviewed and a Negative Declaration was recommended at that time. 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.ll 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 17th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1989, PRELIMINARY STAGE PARTRIDGE RUN,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: Approve with the provision that the areas addressed by Mr. Goralski, Planner and Mr. Gannett, Consulting Engineer be addressed as discussed along with the cutting restrictions, copy of the deed restrictions. The issues raised regarding the hydrant be cleared up. The wavier request be submitted in writing before the final submission. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one 9 "---" \-- '-......-~ ./ -----' NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD MR. ROBERTS-Stated they have made the suggestion that they limit the meeting to two meetings a months and no more than eight items occur per meeting. This is basically what the procedures says. MR. DUSEK-Stated the idea behind the agenda control to limit the number of items on the agenda to eight items with the categories divided. There is a Local Law in effect that will comply with what that law requires. The whole system basically will allow the Planning Board a little more time to react to a heavy work load. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENDMENT TO RULES AND REGULATIONS OF PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 3 OF 1989,Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering an Amendment to the Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency with respect to compliance with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has consented to the Planning Board being lead agent for review of this action, NOW, THEREFORE, BElT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board, after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.ll, and thoroughly analyzing the project with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed responses inserted in Part II of the said Environmental Assessment Form are satisfactory and approved, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED, that the Chairman of the Planning Board, Richard Roberts, is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and Lee York, Senior Planner , is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO RULES AND REGULATIONS OF PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO.4, OF 1989,Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded 10 '- -" \..... /' '~-- ---- by Keith Jablonski: WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has been authorized and directed, pursuant to Local No.3, 1989, to adopt an amendment to its rules and regulations entitled "Special Temporary Rules Applicable to Applications for Site Plan Approval or Preliminary or Final Plat Approval," and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 272 of the Town Law of the State of New York, and said Local Law No.3, 1989, the Planning Board may adopt said rules and regulations subject to Town Board approval, and WHEREAS, John Goralski, Town Planner, prepared an environmental assessment form with respect to the proposed amendment and the Planning Board has considered same and determined that the proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, on October 17, 1989, a public hearing with regard to the proposed amendment was conducted, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed amendment has been presented to this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BElT RESOL VED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the proposed amendment to its rules and regulations entitled, "Special Temporary Rules Applicable to Applications for Site Plan Approval or Preliminary or Final approval," the same being presented to this meeting, subject to Town Board approval. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one RESOLUTION REGARDING THE QUEENSBURY MASTER PLAN RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS STATEMENT RESOLUTION NO.5, OF 1989, Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to adopt a Master Plan pursuant to the authorization provided in Town Law, Section 272-a, and WHEREAS, said Master Plan was previously presented to the Planning Board and a public hearing was held by the Planning Board with respect to the said Master Plan, and WHEREAS, the Master Plan was developed from much of the same information used to develop the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury which was enacted and adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury in October of 1988 and in fact much of the work on the Master Plan was performed simultaneously in conjunction with work and studies done for implementation of the new Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations adopted in October of 1988, and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the aforesaid Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations for the Town of Queensbury, a generic impact statement was developed by the Planning Department and used by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury as lead agency under SEQRA in making a findings statement in accordance with the requirements of SEQRA, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board was involved in the approval process for the adoption of the aforesaid Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board deems it appropriate to use the same generic environmental impact statement used in the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations to conduct the necessary SEQRA review and make the required findings before the Planning Board approves the Master Plan presented at this meeting and as the official Master Plan for the Town of Queensbury and directs the filing of the same, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury finds that the generic impact statement previously referred to is adequate to address the environmental aspects that must be considered in connection with adoption of the Master Plan, but finds that it is necessary to adopt a supplemental 11 '--' - .,/ "- """,--,,-- -~ findings statement, and WHEREAS, a proposed findings statement has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BElT RESOL VED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Findings Statement presented to this meeting and hereby authorizes the Chairman of the Planning Board to complete and execute on behalf of the Planning Board the Certificate of Findings to approve the action and to arrange for such fillings of the Findings Statement and any other certificates that may be required by law with the following individuals or entities: With the Commissioner of DEC at 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 for publication in the ENB. With the appropriate regional office of DEC. With the Town Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury. With the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury. With the Chairman of the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury. With the Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury. With any other involved agency. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AND AUTHORIZE FILING OF MASTER PLAN RESOLUTION NO.6, OF 1989,Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury desires to adopt a Master Plan pursuant to the authorization provided in Town Law, Section 272-a, and WHEREAS, said Master Plan was previously presented to the Planning Board and a Public Hearing was held by the Planning Board with respect to said Master Plan, and WHEREAS, the Master Plan was developed from much of the same information used to develop the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury which was enacted in October of 1988, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made and completed the necessary Findings Statement required pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and more specifically by the rules and regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation, NOW,THEREFORE,BEIT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the Master Plan presented at this meeting and hereby directs that the Senior Planner for the Town of Queensbury file the Master Plan in the Office of the Planning Board which, in this case, is the Planning Department Office in the Town of Queensbury and file certified copies of the Master Plan with the Town Highway Superintendent and with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:None SITE PLAN NO. 56-89 THOMAS AND CAROLYN CLARY TYPE n WR-lA REARDON ROAD, 12 "---" ---- "- '--- ../ ---' TAKE LEFT AND CONTINUE TO TOP OF illLL APPLICANT PROPOSES A DOCK ADDmON TO THE PREEXISTING DOCK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) SECTION 4.02o-D LOT SIZE: 9,800 SQ. FT. CAROL YN CLARY PRESENT MAP SHOWN TO BOARD MRS. CLARY-Stated they want to put an L onto an existing dock to hoist their boat out of the water for winter storage. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MRS. CLARY-Referred to map to show the Board where the boundary lines are on her property. Stated there is more than 500 feet in every direction to get down to the water for emergency vehicles in the winter time. MR. CARTIER-Asked if they were going to be building a boathouse? MRS. CLARY-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-89 THOMAS AND CAROLYN CLARY,Introduced by Joseph Dybas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: To approve having no negative impact upon the area. Duly adopted this 17th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:N one SUBDIVISION NO. 515 ROLLING RIDGE, SEC110N 3 AND 4 LYNDON ROAD FINAL STAGE AMENDMENT FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SUBDMSION APPROVAL. REQUEST IS FOR A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT OF LOTS 43,44, AND 54. TAX MAP NO. 55-1-24.1,24.2 TAX MAP NO. 56-1-1 LOT SIZE N/A JOHN RICHARDS REPRESENTING DAVID AND VICKI VALIQUETTE MR. ROBERTS-Questions whether this is being reviewed properly. It seems that a 50 foot change in the property line when it's on a corner might be considered a little more than a lot line adjustment that's one issue. Thinks another issue that could be involved is whether or not this is primarily a civil matter than a Town matter. STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file) MR. RICHARDS-Stated this is a boundary line adjustment that took place last year of 1988, merely just resolving a site plan problem. Has the same question as Mr. Richards, here at the direction of the Planning Department. Referred to Article 537 of the Subdivision Ordinance, refers to subdivision plats that this is modification without the authority of this Board would require that plat be stricken from the county record. Two phases of this subdivision were approved one going back to the 60's and the other one in 1981, question whether they have to be here. The way the Ordinance reads when your talking about a physical alteration to a signed and approved map that this Board has approved and your altering it would be a violation of this Ordinance and would require under the ordinance direction that it be stricken from the county record. MR. ROBERTS-Stated you don't change a subdivision plat without Board approval. Stated 13 " / -.--/ an amendment to the subdivision plat would require a public hearing. MR. RICHARDS-Stated from a planning standpoint moving from the north the adjustment of the lines creates two larger lots and retains a conforming lot in Section 4, and have more of a uniform area in conformance with general planning principals. MR. ROBERTS-Feels this should be reviewed in a different manner. Thinks they should go to the beginning on this. MR. DUSEK-Stated there is jurisdiction for the application before the Board to review the propose change being made in something that has already been approved by this Board. With regard to the second issue it's up to the Board how to handle it. You do have the power to wave any of the subdivision requirements. MR. ROBERT REED-developer of area of Rolling Ridge. Stated there was a house encroaching over the lot line. This house was built here deliberately because the land shows. . . two lots that set the house somewhere near the middle. I didn't want to sell the other one so they put it here so it couldn't be sold. The Valiquette's are suggesting that they adjust the line by 50 feet which is subdividing. There are suggesting taking a piece of Lot 54, which is also subdividing and putting these pieces and making a third lot. The reason is obvious it isn't that the lot lines disturb them they want to build a house here (refers to map) and here and sell that. This is in my restrictions and regulations a copy of which they received and the prior builder received that the said premises shall not be subdivided. In essence I have said Lot 43, 44, are one lot and are recorded as one lot they want to change them to three lots. Not sure, but if the Board was to do what they suggest will the new lot equal the acre that it is suppose to under the new zoning? MR. RICHARDS-Stated it doesn't. MR. REED-Stated what value do restrictions have in keeping developments of certain sizes to people who come along and want to change it. MR. ROBERTS-Stated they take a dim view of any alterations of a filed subdivision plat. MR. REED-Stated the deed restrictions have been in effect ever since this was area was developed in 1958. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the restrictions pertain to both phases? MR. REED-Stated 500 feet from anyone section. MR. RICHARDS-Stated when the deed was prepared and filed there was no intent to circumvent any Ordinance provision. It was our understanding and it remains my belief that there is no jurisdiction to have up here. Doesn't believe that private restrictions are controlled in the actions of the Board in reviewing planning principals. MR. ROBERTS-Stated this is why he suggested this was more of a civil matter than a Town matter. MR. RICHARDS-Stated it is the Town's position that we have to come. We tried dealing with this on a private basis. MR. JABLONSKI-Stated every subdivision he has looked at is subject to changes without looking at the subdivision is what I'm hearing. MR. RICHARDS-Stated he his saying, that as long as it does not constitute a subdivision from the term "subdivision" it does not require the review of this Board. Stated with the role of the private restrictions doesn't think it has any role in determining from a planning standpoint these three lots are a good or bad idea. There is no rule on for private restrictions on the planning basis. MR. ROBERTS-Stated he feels this issue should be thrown out and re-applied for as a change in an existing subdivision plat, thinks this should require a public hearing. MR. RICHARDS-Asked if the Board has handled similar matters like this in the past? BOARD-Yes. MR. RICHARDS-Asked if there were any particular issues that they would like address? MR. ROBERTS-Stated the application forms are specific as to what the Board would like to see. 14 " "- -- MR. RICHARDS-Asked if they are relying on what staff is suggesting? MR. CARTIER-Stated he can't find the size of lots 43, and 44 prior to the propose change doesn't see them on the original map, would like to see this. MR. ROBERTS-Asked council if he has any objection with what they are trying to do? MR. DUSEK-Suggested if the Board is going to go back and have public hearing on this project suggested to do two things; (1) get applicant's agreement to do this, (2) take the necessary actions to reject plan. Asked if they wanted to come back or reject the plan? MR. ROBERTS-Stated they feel it's an improper application. MR. DUSEK-Concerned if did reject this that they looked at all possible ways. MR. RICHARDS-Stated they are going to withdraw this application. WITHDRA W SUBDIVISION NO. 5-65, ROLLING RIDGE SECTION 3 & 4, WITH AGREEMENT OF APPLICANT IMPERIAL MOTEL SITE PLAN NO. 66-89 HC-lA WAYNE PELAK 29 AVIATION ROAD TYPE: UNLISTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 17 ADDmONAL MOTEL ROOMS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 72-5-13 SECTION 4.02D-K LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE WAYNE PELAK OWNER OF IMPERIAL MOTEL PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file) Letter from Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement, dated October 16, 1989. Letter regarding sprinkler systems. (on file) Letter from Michael O. Shaw, Wastewater Technician, to Lee A. York, Senior Planner dated October 5,1989. (on file) Warren County Planning approved, no comment. (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Wonders what Mr. Bodenwiser would think of the letter from Dave Hatin. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. ROBERTS-Stated Beautification Committee approved with reservations. Planting plans were approved, but the committee wants to go on record that they do not believe sufficient green space has been provided. (on file) Asked Wayne Gannett thought he comments are very significant? MR. GANNETT-Stated the most significant one would be the one that deals with the permeable area. The Town has consistently considered gravel parking areas as not permeable. Thinks that almost of the other areas can be addressed easily. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if he was saying they cannot conform to the Town's regulations? MR. GANNETT-Stated there is not enough land with the present layout to provide 30% green space. He has 20% counting the gravel parking area as impermeable. MR. CARTIER-Asked if the water drains off to the property to the south? MR. PELAK-Stated at the present time it does. MR. GANNETT-Stated this was a point of their last comment. The drywell to the south end of the property with some minor grading can be corrected. MR. ROBERTS-Asked what could be done with the permeable area? MR. GANNETT-Stated the applicant noted that there are a few chambermaids. MR. PELAK-Stated this occurs during the day when the motel is unoccupied. Did not feel it was necessary to provide a full time parking space for an employee who is going to be on a limited basis. 15 "--' --./ -,' ...... -- -..../ MR. ROBERTS-Asked if this is something they could waive? MR. GANNETT-Thinks this sounds reasonable. MR. CARTIER-Look in the zoning regulation to see if this could be waived. MR. ROBERTS-Stated what their saying, is the property doesn't have enough permeable area to cover this. MR. GANNETT-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Feels that they're stretching the use of this property to the point where it does not in it's present proposal meet the Ordinance. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the ZBA gave them a variance? MR. PELAK-Stated they received an area variance at that time the parking plan was included as park of that submission. MR. PELAK-Stated they look into converting into gravel feeling it was more permeable than a blacktop area. The other option was to convert this area into a lawn area to be used for driving not for parking. Asked the Board if they would consider this? MR. ROBERTS-Stated it the same as a having a gravel area. Asked if they should throw out the permeability area? MR. CARTIER-Stated this is in the Zoning Ordinance. Stated he is going to have to go back to the ZBA and get a variance. Asked if they applied for a variance on the basis of the area? MR. PELAK-Yes. 16 "---" --./ " '- --' --.-/ MR. CARTIER-Stated there is a hardship issue. MR. JABLONSKI-Asked what would it do to his plan if he didn't meet the 30% permeability? MR. PELAK-Stated the reason why he is going for the units he is going for is to be accepted by a franchise. Their requirements is 50 units to be accepted into their franchise. I showed I could use 48 units and they accepted me on this value of 48 units. It's becoming hard to compete as a "ma and pop" franchise. When the ZBA saw my parking plan we went on the assumption gravel parking is permeable as stated by the Town Board. Doesn't think they have a drainage problem because they are supplying a drywell for on site drainage. MR. CARTIER-Stated they haven't shown the increase of traffic. MR. PELAK-Stated the percentage of occupancy and the 17 cars maybe two months out of the years play an effect. MR. CARTIER-Stated this raised a question about the occupancy. Asked if the occupancy is 60%? MR. PELAK-Stated 30-40% occupancy. MR. CARTIER-Stated they are talking about expanding a motel that has at best 60% occupancy. MR. JABLONSKI-Asked if two months out of the year the motel is 100% full? MR. PELAK-Stated 80% in July and 90% in August. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the permeability could be met? MR. CARTIER-No. MR. ROBERTS-Stated it is up to the Zoning Board to grant them relief. They should have gotten a second variance from the ZBA. MR. DUSEK-Stated looking through the Zoning Ordinance on the permeability issue the 30% criteria set forth in Article 4; someone mentioned something about the gravel parking lot. MR. DYBAS-Stated they consider the gravel parking area in the past as permeable. This was our own definition not something in the book. MR. DUSEK-Stated there would probably be some leeway to that issue. The only issue, of course, it's up to the Board is the permeability issue which you could work on with the applicant. The only thing the ZBA would have to take a look at would be the parking issue which they can't meet. If they can't meet it then they have to go back to the ZBA. MR. PELAK-Stated they have enough parking. MR. JABLONSKI-Stated only if they can include the gravel area which they need 30%. MR. DUSEK-Referred to the definition of permeable in the zoning ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Stated the point is that they remain permeable. MR. ROBERTS-Stated he doesn't think the language refers to gravel parking area. MR. DUSEK-Stated the percent of permeable means the area of the lot which is not covered by buildings structures, and non-permeable surfaces. MR. CARTIER-Stated there is a time factor involved. It may start out as a permeable surface, but when you use it, it becomes impermeable. Stated they are talking about making permanent permeable areas. MR. DUSEK-Asked if there is anything in the ordinance that speaks to gravel being used as permeable parking? MR. JABLONSKI-Stated not in the ordinance. MR. DUSEK-Stated if the Board is under the opmIOn that a surface driven on becomes impermeable based upon the two definitions, and based upon what I see in Section 4, I think you could say that. If he can't meet the permeability requirement then he would have to try to do something with his plan or go before the ZBA assuming that gravel surfaces do not count. Asked if the Zoning Board has issued any decision on this issue that they've given a definition 17 ~- '-- ~ .,I \ "'-.--' - .......,,---' to permeable? BOARD-Not aware of this. MR. CARTIER-Stated they are focusing on just more than the permeability issue. Referred to staff comments. Encourage the sprinkler system. Thought that in the State of New York a motel is required to have sprinklers. UNKNOWN-Stated Wayne has talked to his insurance carrier in regard to this. He told him that motels are very low in hazards. The cost of putting in a sprinkler system and the payback would be minimal. We are in compliance with the State Construction Code which the Town of Queensbury has adopted. Thinks this is what they would be looking for. MR. JABLONSKI-Would like to see what Bill Bodenwiser has to say about this. TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 66-89 IMPERIAL MOTEL, WAYNEPELAK, WITH AGREEMENT OF THE APPLICANT. TO GO BACK,TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THE PERMEABILITY ISSUE. On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 18