Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1990-01-23
----- ,-"," QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23RD, 1990 INDEX Subdivision No. 17-1989 Preliminary Stage Robert Lent 1 Subdivision No. 23-1989 Final Stage Nancy S. Dingman; Marie S. Mason; Betty S. Duell 15 Site Plan No. 78-89 James Fregoe 16 Site Plan No. 1-90 Site Plan No. 6-90 Site Plan No. 8-90 Elizabeth Perkins 21 Margaret & Theodore Hans 25 James Davies 35 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '--' -/ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 23RD, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES HAGAN PETER CARTIER JOSEPH DYBAS NICHOLAS CAIMANO TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT JOHN GORALSKI-PLANNER MR. HAGAN-I will go to any extremes to avoid working under pressures or duress or unpleasantness. Unfortunately, a Mr. Mark Mahoney for the Post Star, reported on our election last week, and I feel, at least, he owes this Board an apology, but at the risk of embarrassment, IIm going to at least, try to clear the air. Mr. Mahoney claims there was an attempted coup. Now, I went to the trouble of looking up Webster's definition of a coup: Number one, he says, a brilliantly executed stratagem, a master stroke, it's also a coup-de-tate which is a sudden overthrow of a government by a group of persons in or previously in positions of authority in deliberate violation of constitutional forms. So I think his choice of words were, at least, exaggerated, or at least exaggerated his report. When Nick nominated Cartier, I had no idea that he was going to nominate him, but if he hadn't then I was going to nominate him because from experiences and conversations that I had with the present Chairman, it was my belief and the belief of others that he was tiring of the position and may have had reasons not to accept the nomination of Chairman. So if that be the case, I wanted to make sure that Cartier received that nomination because at the time I think he was the best qualified, but even my beliefs were wrong, but I wanted to make it perfectly clear to everyone that there was no discussion before hand about how we were going to run this nomination. There was no dissension within this Board when I came upon it. I don't believe there is any dissension now, but I think this report by the Post Star did everything in its power to create dissension. CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 28th, 1989: Top of Page 13, where Mr. Roberts is talking, in the second sentence, sib there would not be 35 percent permeability; farther down, next to last sentence in that paragraph, s/bequipment should not be parked. Page 14, below Engineering Report at the end of Mr. Steve's comment variance to continue on with curve sib waiver to continue on. Page 9, half way down the page, just above Resolution When Determination of No Significance is Mades Mr. Rozelll s last remarks, it says silt fronts on the first and third lines sib silt fence. STAND AS AMENDED DECEMBER 19th: Page 17, top line, Mr. Caimano refers to 156 bathrooms, this was meant as a sarcastic remark, but did not come off as such in the minutes. STAND AS AMENDED OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A ROBERT LENT IMPERIAL ACRES MOON HILL ROAD FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 44-1-3, 4.1 LOT SIZE: 27.56± ACRES KEITH MANZ, C.T. MALE, REPRESENTING ROBERT LENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) 1 ----/ MR. GORALSKI-Stat~d I'd just like to add one thing. Although we have not receiv~d the l~tter from the Highway D~partm~nt, Mr. Naylor agr~~d that, ~sp~cially from a maintenance standpoint, it would be v~ry difficult for them to except those seepage pits in th~ back of those lots. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Wayn~ Gann~tt, Town Engineer (attached) MR. MANZ-Stated I 'm K~ith Manz with C. T. Male in Gl~ns Falls pr~senting this subdivision for Rob~rt Lent. First, I I d like to address th~ drainag~ issue of the s~epag~ pits which don' t r~ally show up on this sh~~t right her~. These three show up on top, but I think you can s~~ on your maps the ones that Mr. Gannett was r~ferring to as well as th~ highway l~tter. It shows th~ 20 foot ~as~m~nt off of Moon Hill Road to gain access to those se~page pits for maintenance. The only reason w~ had to put thos~ in was simply b~caus~ of the r~quirem~nt of using a minimum C valu~ of .35. Th~re r~ally is a v~ry minimal increas~ in runoff heading westward. So what we would like to do, if we can get a waiver on that r~quirement, is to eliminate th~m. They I re huge. They' r~ 8 foot deep, 12 foot deep. The only reason we needed th~m was to limit th~ flows to what they were befor~ development, but the increase in flow is really negligible going that way. So that really th~ practical thing to do is just get a waiver on that and just show the nominal increase in flow, revis~ th~ drainage report and we can eliminate all those structures. I think there's 4 or 5 of them. I'm not quite sure. There's 3 in a row right there, maybe 1 or 2 oth~rs. This is what we I d like to do, they were just put in becaus~ of a requirement in regulations. MR. ROBERTS-Stated let I s address that for a minute. than it seems like we're used to dealing with. our engineer on this. It's a little more of a waiver I guess we'll have to defer to MR. GANNETT-Asked, Keith, are you referring to the C value of .35? MR. MANZ-Yes. MR. GANNETT-Stat~d that IS a requirement that can be waived if you can show, by means of perc tests or other documentation, that that I s not an absolute limit. In fact, I think there's been one subdivision earlier this year in fact that provided some documentation that that IS not an absolute value. If you can show, based on the perc test of the soil, that the C value can be less than that, the requirem~nt for providing retention to limit the p.eak runoff would. .apply, but that C of .35 is not absolutely caste in concrete if you can document something less. MR. MANZ-Stated Ok, that sounds good. I think we can do that b~cause it was .15 for a vegetated area or woodsy type area and we I re not really increasing the impermeable area that much only... on these four lots and you've got all this green area that stays the same. In fact, you're cutting down the slop~ of this steep slope back here so it's going to be a shallower slope so you'll have rainwater sitting on that shallower slop~, percolating mor~ than it did when it was steeper. So really w~' re making that situation a little better. So why don't we just go ahead and revise the drainage report accordingly in the next submission. MR. ROBERTS-Asked our legal staff would agree that we have the authority to waive that? Does that sound reasonable for the Planning Department? MR. GORALSKI-Stated you can waive any subdivision requirement. MR. CARTIER-Stated there ar~ some limitations on what we can waive. MR. DUSEK-Stated I think you want to find unique circumstances and, as long as you do, you can justify the waiver. You kind of have to size it up on a case by case basis and here, the engineers are indicating that, although the standard is set forth in the subdivision regulations, there are other things that could be considered by which this Board could reduce that standard because it I S not necessarily indicative of what is proper for that particular parcel and if the Board feels that those circumstances then are unique and qualify for special treatment, then I think you certainly can do this. The only thing is, of course, once you do this here, you I re going to be obligated to do this in the future as well for other subdivisions to give other people that consideration, if it IS, of course, warranted. 2 "--' -' MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess we're willing to leave this in the hands of the engineering staff, aren't we? The Board agreed. MR. MANZ-Stated just one more side. It's going from .15 to .20 and we're required to use .35 instead of the .20 that it is actually going to. So that's pretty much the order of magnitude we're talking about so it really doesn't make sense to do that. MR. ROBERTS-Stated talk to the engineers. MR. MANZ-Stated yes, we'll deal with that on the next submission. Let me go through Rist-Frost's letter item by item. Number one, we agree with. Just one house will be constructed on each lot. Number two, no problem with that. We can add additional erosion control measures around the catch basins and seepage pits. I agree with that. The third item, apparently there are some slopes that are steeper than three on one. Wayne, do you have any idea what they were? Were they just marginally over? MR. GANNETT-Stated some of those slopes scale at between two and a half to almost two to one and I think it just needs to be drafted more carefully. I think your intent was to have them no more than one on three, but when you lay a scale, some of them actually are steeper than one on three and we don't want to see that limit. MR. MANZ-Stated yes, I think the intent was just to maintain three on one. In fact, I think we have a note on there that slopes shall be graded no steeper than three on one. We 111 correct that. As well as adding a note that all slopes shall be reseeded and mulched. Item number four, perc test, again, we can make that a condition of the building permit on each lot. Once the whole subdivision is graded and the roads are in and if they want to build on lot one, a perc test has to be redone on the lots that will be filled. I don't see a problem there. We don I t anticipate the perc changing much. It's sandy soil. We're going to be moving around soil on site rather than bringing in soil that has a worse perc rate. So the perc rate should be maintained pretty much what it is right now which is a good perc. Number five, we can address that. The exfiltration rate of .005 was selected based on the type of soil, that sandy soil and we can document that. MR. GANNETT-Stated if you would do a perc test, that would be helpful. Then you can directly relate with absorption rate of the water through your design infiltration rate. MR. MANZ-Stated we did two perc tests, so we can provide the documentation, how we got to the .005. We have to revise the drainage report anyway so we'll do that along with the other items. MR. ROBERTS-Stated refresh my memory. What were the perc test. were good. I'm wondered if they might not be too good. You said they MR. CARTIER-Stated this is really high perced stuff over here. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that's what I was a little concerned about. MR. MANZ-Stated it's on sheet two, I believe. We've got 6 minutes and 1 minute 11 seconds and we Ire saved by the 11 seconds on the one ...below 1 minute. MR. ROBERTS-Asked what date were these done? MR. MANZ-Stated they were done October 23rd. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that doesn't sound too fast. MR. GANNETT-Stated those are reasonable rates. MR. MANZ-Stated I guess if you get less than a minute you get concerned like on another one that we did. MR. CARTIER-Asked, you did two locations? MR. MANZ-Stated we did perc tests one and two. Basically, that was Brian ... he was having just the two for the whole area because he knows the soils are sandy 3 '---' and that's the way we were instructed by the Health Department and we didn't go any further since the soils were all pretty sandy, pretty good perc in that area. We did four test pits, however. It was all sand in those four too. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess this could be done lot by lot and if we find it too fast we can make them bring in some additional soil and slow it down. MR. MANZ-Stated you I re going to do it lot by lot anyway. I think that's a requirement of the building permit before you get a building permit on almost every lot we're grading. So, you're going to want to make them do another one just prior to getting that building permit, which we can do. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that's manageable. MR. MANZ-Stated item number six, again, that's a revision to the drainage report, to the required one. The calculations for historic versus developed for watershed B. Apparently they're not in the report. I read it tonight. I didn't do it, so I can't tell you for sure, but we will make sure that that documentation is in the revised drainage report. Number seven has to do with grading to get on to that easement and I think we're going to eliminate that easement now just because of the fact that we don't really have to use that .35 minimum since it I S really .20 so we'll revise the drainage report, resubmit to Rist-Frost and I III review it. So we should be able to get rid of that easement that the Town doesn't want. In looking at the Planning comments, Planning Staff comments, lots one and three, we're combining lot one with this existing lot.. .lot three we're combining with Ronald Lent. Both of those are going to have drives onto Birchwood Court, the proposed cul-de-sac. You can see that on the grading plan. They're not shown on this map, but on the grading plan we show all the drives, how the drives will go in and how they'll be graded. So, we agree with that. That's what we've done. Then, again, he mentions the same comment that Rist-Frost did on the seepage pits being impractical, which we agree with. Then again, I think the same note in this last paragraph says "the seeding and mulching of the disturbed slopes", all disturbed slopes, not just the three on one slopes, which we agree with. We'll add a note to that effect if it's not there and if there's any other questions on drainage or septic or anything, go ahead because I don't have anything else really to present, per se. MR. CARTIER-Stated something that may not be new to you from this Board is I for one would like to see some cutting restrictions up there. That's a heavily wooded area and your diagram here shows a massive amount of clearing on three acre lots. I would certainly hope that a considerable amount of trees could be maintained here. I know we use, for one acre lots, we use 60/40. I can't remember anything we've done with three acre on cutting restrictions. Do you have any idea about the general size of the house you I re going to be building? Square footage or anything like that? MR. MANZ-Stated I can't really speak for the owner. He's not here. MR. ROBERTS-The owner is not here. MR. MANZ-Stated no, he's not here tonight. I could find out. I can only guess. I think they I re going to be decent size. They're not going to be small because they're such large lots and I think, originally could have got 29 on there...zoning change so we could keep the houses sizeable and we've designed for maximum five bedroom in the septic system area. MR. CARTIER-Stated according to your EAF we're going to lose nine acres of trees. MR. MANZ-Stated that I s probably correct then. If you look on the grading plan, in order to get those houses on each of the lots and provide enough area for the septic field, you really have to do the grading unless you want to grade greater than three on one slopes. By the time you put that pad up there we I re trying to put the house on the flattest area of each lot, by the time you grade out to existing slope or existing grade you're a set distance from that structure. If you want to grade out quicker and clear less, that's fine too, but then we need a waiver on the three on one slopes. So, it's really a question of do you want to have steeper slopes and more trees or less trees and flatter slopes and this map shows a fair amount of grading, but that's the way you I ve got to grade it to get the buildings on the flat part of the lot and the septic systems. MR. ROBERTS-Stated raises an interesting question that I'm not sure we I ve dealt with before, allowing less site work in favor of leaving more trees. 4 ----' MR. MANZ-Stated it would be better for the developer too. He has to clear lots. He has to grade lots. He's got a fair amount of earthwork here. MR. CARTIER-Asked, Mr. Gannett, any comments on the trees versus the waiver on the slope issue? MR. GANNETT-Stated I would say that if you can get a more stable cut or fill slope with revegetation and mulch and erosion control, there I s no engineering reason why you can't have a more stable slope at steeper than one on three. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, wouldn't it be apt to be more stable by leaving what's there? MR. GANNETT-Stated certainly you're going to minimize clearing if you can have steeper slopes because it's going to take less distance to meet your grades, whether they're in cut or fill. I don't see any engineering reason why we can't entertain having steeper slopes that would allow less clearing and grading to be done. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I'm kind of talking out of both sides of my mouth here. I'm promoting steeper slopes, when I was the one who was concerned by some of the steep slopes that exist now under those gravel operation. MR. CARTIER-Stated what we're talking about here MR. ROBERTS-Stated is not the same thing. MR. CARTIER-Stated right. We're talking about naturally steep, they are at abnormal angle repose, held in there by some significant vegetation. (TAPE TURNED) ...waiver on the slopes, less work involved for the developer. MR. MANZ-Stated I think another reason you've got a lot of clearing is the houses are setback from the proposed cul-de-sac quite a bit because you're trying to get to the flat spot. Take, for example, here. You've got to walk all the way along this drive to get to the because you've got steep slopes immediately off the road. You can't put the house on the steep slopes. So you go in a ways, and you've got to grade that whole way to get the drive in and you get to that flat area where you can put the house and the septic and that's pretty much all you can do for that lot. MR. CARTIER-Stated in a three acre lot, sure you can save some vegetation that already exists. If you flip that back so that we can see what's underneath there, I know that's not chiseled in stone, but that shows massive clearing. MR. MANZ-Asked this plan right here? These trees are on there. MR. CARTIER-Stated I understand that, that's my point. MR. MANZ-Stated they're just on there for looks. This one here, you can see every dark line, dark contour, is where a tree has got to come down for more grading. The limits of clearing and grading is this heavy line with a one dash. That's as far as the contractor is going to go and clear, take trees out and either increase elevation by fill or cut. Everything beyond this line is going to be left in its natural state which is wooded in most cases. So really you do have a buffer of natural woods from the perimeter of all these lots. This lot, for example, has all these woods around it, you've just got to clear and grade to get that driveway in, this long driveway up to the house. So this is your true limits of clearing, this border here. MR. CARTIER-Stated I guess I could live with possibly stating some extent, that that stuff that's going to be left, be left, or purchaser not be allowed to clear cut any of that. So that maintain that and still allow you to do the clearing. I still saving more trees and cutting down on the amount of clearing. in the deed, to that the owner we can at least lean more toward MR. ROBERTS-Asked what kind of septic systems are we talking drain fields or leach pits? Isn't this soil good enough for leach pits, thereby also cutting down on the area needed? MR. GANNETT-Stated as I recall, there are some restrictions on soils in this perc range, for seepage pits. I'd have to check the regulations, but generally, the choice of seepage pits or absorption trenches is up to the applicant whichever system will suit the site and meet the Health Department requirements. The applicant has proposed conventional leachfields for this system. 5 '''"--' MR. ROBERTS-Stated which means cutting more trees. MR. GANNETT-Stated that's correct. A take up more room than seepage pits. be required for that system, but it's more room. leachfield in this area would generally I don't know how many seepage pits would probable that a leachfield would take up MR. ROBERTS-Stated just another thought to go along with yours. where you're going. I agree wi th MR. MANZ-Stated we would agree with that deed restriction, no more clearing beyond what's originally done, other than safety and dead stuff, like we did on Partridge Run. That I s reasonable. I guess what we wanted to show was that a tile field could be installed on each lot and this does show 50 percent expansion, so when it's actually built, I don't believe you have to build in the 50 percent expansion, you can just build what's needed. So your clearing limits may come in a bit and then if you had a problem with the tile field down the road.. .you have to expand it on out then you have to clear more. MR. ROBERTS-Stated yes, we don't want that 50 percent expansion cleared now. MR. MANZ-Stated right. So this is showing, I guess, your worst case scenerio for clearing just to show that you can clear and grade within the limits of the site so that someday, if you do have to put in your renegade 50 percent, expansion for every lot, it won't be grading onto these guys up in this subdivision or on adjoining property. MR. CARTIER-Stated suppose you a 50/50, 50 percent clear cut. in question averaged out to a half on each lot. had an average, In other words, 50/50 clear cut. for the entire subdivision, of the average for all of the lots That leaves you an acre and a MR. ROBERTS-Stated I wouldn't think that could be a hardship. MR. CARTIER-Stated if we say average, what we're saying is, ok, in certain circumstances, on some lots, you've got to clear more than a 50, on others you can clear less than a 50. That gets a little weird though because an owner comes in, that has to be all established by lot, doesn't it? You can't do it by average. MR. GORALSKI-Stated because then the last guy gets stuck. MR. MANZ-Stated plus these lots 7, 8, 9 are really.. .deep and they've got no clearing going on for grading in the back so they're going to have minimal clearing. There's no clearing or grading going on back there so theyl re going to have 30 percent clear and the other..70. MR. CARTIER-Stated I could live with what's there as long as what's shown is not clear cut. It just seems like I wish we could work on this a little bit more if we have a situation where it's to the advantage of the developer to clear cut as little as possible. MR. MANZ-Stated we could certainly look into the seepage pit issue. MR. CARTIER-Stated maybe something will resolve itself in the direction I want to go. MR. MANZ-Stated we can look into the seepage pit issue and if that less, then we'll revise the grading plan at the next stage. reasonable request and I can't say whether it was looked into not since it was designed by someone else other than myself. makes the grading It's certainly a and dismissed or MR. ROBERTS-Stated arenlt we thinking willingness to fudge the steepness a little bit, too, if it makes sense on individual lots to waive some of that. MR. CARTIER-Stated I donlt have a problem with that at all. MR. CAIMANO-Stated but, youlre not concerned with a steeper slope that's a natural steeper slope. You don't want to write a carte blanche in here. You don't want to create anymore, just those that are natural. MR. ROBERTS-Stated yes, in order to maintain the existing vegetation. 6 ',,-, ~ MR. MANZ-Stated our normal rule of thumb is for a cut it's 2 on 1 and for a fill it's 3 on 1 because if you're cutting, you're leaving native material underneath that is theoretically more stable and maybe we can do that when we revise this plan. We can go 2 on 1 on cuts and 3 on 1 on fills, that's going to save you some. MR. ROBERTS-Asked have you heard of that one? MR. GANNETT-Stated that's one rule of thumb that is general. Certainly the main concern is, whatever new slope is created, whether it's a cut or a fill, be stable, revegetated, and reinforced if necessary so that it will revegetate and maintain a stable slope, that's the main concern. Within that general criteria, we would have no problem with a steeper slope. MR. MANZ-Stated yes, I know for a fact that we're following the strict guideline, 3 on 1, in the reg's, so if we give them more leeway than we do, we'll give them the type of soil, which is sand, find it can be stable at 2 on 1, which I think it can, as long as you revegetate it, that's the key thing because if you leave it it's going to...forever if it's got any storm water going down it, but if you revegetate properly, it's going to become stable. MR. ROBERTS-Stated we're not saying new cuts at 2 to 1, we're saying old cuts at 2 to 1. MR. MANZ-Asked what do you mean? MR. ROBERTS-Stated I mean existing slopes can stay at 2 to 1, but anything new, I think we better hold on to the 3 on 1. MR. MANZ-Stated you're not saving anything if you do that, really because this whole plan is based on what we're proposing for cuts, whether it's cut or fill, what we're proposing for slopes. So, unless you go to 2 on 1 from where you're cutting, you're not going to change your limits of clearing and grading at all, unless you do it by the seepage pits. The native stuff is going to stay the way it is, the native slopes, if they're 2 on 1, we're not going to touch them, so theylll stay 2 on 1. Why don't we just look into it with that general slope/stability issue that Mr. Gannett mentioned and go from there. This really is a worst case scenario, it's all 3 on 1, except for the ones we went over a little bit. MR. CARTIER-Stated if the considerable amount of time I think it would certainly be developer is aware that it's going and effort and money here to maintain to his advantage to look into that. to save him a wooded area. MR. MANZ-Stated yes, I agree. MR. CARTIER-Stated it's hard for me to look at this and come up with hard and fast numbers about 50/50 or 60/40, as long as he address the issue seriously, shows us some more wooded area beyond worst case scenario, that he can tie in with the deed restriction or something. I can live with that. MR. MANZ-Stated that sounds reasonable. MR. GORALSKI-Stated one other statement that was brought up at our staff review was whether or not the catch basins at the end of the cul-de-sac could somehow be tied in to the rest of the drainage system that's going out on to the County right-of-way instead of the water being channeled back and down the slope between lots 7 & 9. I know Rick Missita and Paul Naylor looked at it quickly and thought that it might be possible and I don't know if that's something that he could also look into. MR. MANZ-Stated I believe they looked into it. Again, I'll check, but you've got a shorter distance here than coming all the way down here to Moon Hill Road. Not only that, but you've only got about this much of the cul-de-sac draining to the west. The majority of this cul-de-sac all does drain down to an existing drainage along Moon Hill Road. In fact, you have seepage pits there, whatever flow you do generate from this small end of the cul-de-sac should really be going right in the ground and you'd probably never see a drop of water unless you I ve got a 25 or 50 year storm coming out of this end section. We've got to put kind of an elaborate drainage way down through there just because it's so steep. You really shouldn't see much there. So it really doesn't make sense to go through the effort of trying to go down this steep slope and disturbing it just to get maybe a dry catch basin or dry intersection going on out of Moon Hill. 7 "--' -....--' MR. GORALSKI-Stated I don't think they were talking about going down the slope, but tying in along the roadway. I know there's a crest in the road, but simply taking that catch basin, and going to, what would be the east, under the roadway, you know, tie it into the rest of the drainage system. MR. MANZ-Stated I think that's probably a grade problem. I don't know if you're low enough where you could tie it in to back grade it, but we could certainly look into that. I think it just made sense to go the other way with it because it is a shorter length pipe and there isn't much flow, but we can look into that. I've a feeling that might stay this way, but I understand what you're saying anyway. You're saying just go this way with it. MR. GORALSKI-Stated right. The Highway Department is always concerned, when they have to have an easement on to private property, as to how they're going to access it if they have a problem or what not. They just find it easier if the drainage system is contained within their right-of-way. MR. MANZ-Stated just looking at the grade, you're 486 right here, so by the time you're to the invert, you're 4 feet down and your 482, and your 482 right here, alright, we'll look into it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MIKE SPUN, ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER MR. SPUN-In the areas where the septic system is going to be, is that exact on the maps, where it's going to be located? MR. MANZ-Here's the house, here's the septic system. MR. SPUN-Is this where the property line is? MR. MANZ-Yes. MR. SPUN-Has a study been done where adjacent well's are located? MR. MANZ-Welve gone around, we've gone to every house where we could find somebody there and not only try to locate a well, but the septic system because we've got to have the separation distance. MR. SPUN-How close would be the nearest well? MR. MANZ-100 feet. We can't be anything less than that. It's a requirement. MR. SPUN-This would be the end of the property? MR. MANZ-That's the end of the property. MR. SPUN-I own adjacent property right about here and we have a well right about in here. I don't know how close, there is the well over here, I want to ensure that wouldnlt be any closer. MR. MANZ-It wouldn't be any closer than 40 feet to the line. You've got 100 feet between the two. They've each got to be 25 anyway, unless they put it in wrong. MR. ROBERTS-These could be some old wells. MR. SPUN-This area over here, is this real steep here? Oh, this is at the top of the hill? MR. MANZ-Yes. These are fairly steep slopes, existing slopes. MR. SPUN-So the septic system is more or less on top of it, the highest point, just about? MR. MANZ-The highest, flattest spot on that lot or any lot. MR. SPUN-I believe there's another house, the...that's there house over here? MR. MANZ-That's a structure. It doesn't say. 8 "-' --..../ MR. SPUN-The acreage on these lots, is that set,...subdivision already? MR. MANZ-Yes. three acres. Three acre minimum, you can see 3.07, 3.01, 3.03, pretty much all MR. ROBERTS-There going to be very large lots. MR. MANZ-Seven new lots, these two lots are going to be formed as part of the existing lots. So, were not creating 9 new lots, just 7. MR. SPUN-So there'll be two other homes in here. MR. MANZ-Yes. These are existing lots. MR. CARTIER-Are there homes on those two lots already, I don't remember? MR. MANZ-There I s no homes there. I I m not sure, on one of them, on one of them, if construction has started or not. It seems to me, there may be, on one of them, some construction under way. MR. ROBERTS-Well, therels a home there. MR. MANZ-Well, there's one down here. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's Mr. Lentls, isn't it? MR. MANZ-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-There's at least one out there. HAROLD RATHBUN MR. RATHBUN-His daughterls. MR. SPUN-Well, one's Kimberly and one's Ronald Lent, you can tell me better. MR. RATHBUN-Kimberly, what's her last name, Mann? MR. MANZ-Is there a house on that lot, is that what you're saying? MR. RATHBUN-Yes, on C. MR. MANZ-There is? MR. RATHBUN-Yes. MR. MANZ-Ok, that was put up since we did this. MR. SPUN-The size of the homes, that's not set in stone, how big they are. MR. MANZ-No, it's not, itls just planned for a 5 bedroom max. for the septic system. Actually, correction. There is a maximum because of the size of tile field we put 4 bedroom, 4 bedroom, 4 bedroom, that's as big as that house can get, that's why we've listed the number of bedrooms. MR. SPUN-Would the developer, would there be individual developers or? MR. SPUN-I think what he's going to do is a combination. He may build a couple of homes, he may sell a few lots. So that's his plan of attack right now anyway. MR. RATHBUN-I'm Harold Rathbun. I been to this Board before several times. I thought we had an agreement with the Board of Appeals that this subdivision not be allowed until boundary discrepancies are settled. The boundary discrepancies ....in question, only one of them had been settled and live shown you these pictures in 1966 right after Lent bought the land from me. Lent had done that excavating and had made promises to put back proper slopes and to grade the slopes and to put in trees, etc. etc. He did the same to the lot south of me, the MacElroy lot. He did the same to the Regina Owens lot, which is now ... lot. He took thousands of yards of free fill, promising that he was going to put slopes back and revegetate the land. He's never kept those promises and I have every reason to believe he won't keep promises to you now. The property owners are going to have to litigate because he's reduced lot sizes and when they do and they get their properties put back to what they should be, Mr. Lent is going to wind up with two, at least two in my opinion, lots that'll be undersized in this development. 9 '--- '..-' MR. CARTIER-I think I can address that because I have the same concern that you brought up, and Mr. Dusek, correct me if I'm wrong because I brought up the issue of can we proceed at something where there is potential litigation involved here and it was your comment that that is not within the purview of this Board, that needs to be addressed, perhaps in a court of law or somewhere else besides the Planning Board. MR. DUSEK-That is correct. I feel that it's unfortunate that there is neighborhood problem or disputes between property owners, but if this Board were to get into everyone of those disputes, I think you'd find yourself in a very precarious situation of having to make a determination in advance of the court who's going to hear all the facts and try that very issue. You're trying to make determinations of who should win and who should loose, and I don't think that's the job of this Board. I think the applicant has the duty to come forth with a plan that he feels he can develop on that property. If, in point of fact, he should loose out on some property, well then he's not going to be able to develop those lots. When the building permits come through and they don't match up with the subdivision lots, he's going to have to then come back to this Board or go to the Zoning Board or take various steps. MR. ROBERTS-It does seem too bad, however, that we couldn't talk to Mr. Lent, here about this matter. Appeal to his better nature perhaps or a peace in the neighborhood. He lives there himself. I would think that he would want, for the sake of moving a few lot lines a little bit, to live among friendly neighbors. I don't understand why this is a problem. MR. CAIMANO-I don't either and what the Town does, of course, is to bolster Mr. Cartier's argument and concerns about the cutting of the land. All we have is your say so and you, by your own admission, cannot speak for the owner. MR. MANZ-I can speak for him. I can speak for the owner as far as what I know and I know that he's gone through the steps of having another surveyor, independently, review all of the property lines and he's come up with an agreement for Mr. Rathbun to sign, to lawyers, spent some money, to have the thing signed. Apparently, everything was all worked out and they were going to sign it and then something happened in the field that got Mr. Lent a little bit ticked off so he said, the heck with it, let them fight me. I mean the guy is doing everything he can, he's going out of his way, it's been an ongoing problem between the two and it's something I don't even think we should get into right now. We've done all the work we can,... C.T. Male's ready to sign this certified, whatever, that's all we can be expected to do and there's a problem. It's a personality thing. He had some promises back when there was clearing going on. You talk to Mr. Lent, and he's got the same things to say about Mr. Rathbun, that he was supposed to do this, he was supposed to leave this road clear and he put a tree across it. It's just not worth getting involved at that level. It's a civil matter the way I see it and the way your Town Attorney sees it too. MR. ROBERTS-It does put us in an awkward position, however. was a better answer to it. I wish that there MR. CARTIER-Mr. Rathbun, the only other thing I would add is the one other comment you made about substandard lots and the two substandard lots. We are aware of those and he's got a variance for those, correct? MR. RATHBUN-No, I'm talking about, I believe, lots 6 & 7. they adjoin MacElroy, and they adjoin me. They adjoin Whiting, MR. CARTIER-I withdraw the comment. MR. RATHBUN-When they straighten out the boundaries, those lots will be, in my opinion, will be undersized. MR. CARTIER-Ok, but ultimately, that I s a civil matter between you and Mr. Lent that can't be settled by this Board. MR. RATHBUN-The Town was formally put on notice, I have a letter. I've been in John Goralski I s office, time and time again and furnished him with documentation and we have consulted with attorney's and our deeds and our maps do not agree. When you have a deed and a map that does not agree you wind up with a piece of property that's not, you can I t sell it because you can't get a warranted deed on it. 10 '-- --' MR. CARTIER-Ok, but what's going to happen is, when somebody goes to purchase the lots in question, they're going to have to show clear title. I believe, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to pretend, I believe that that's the point at which that is going to become and issue is when somebody cannot get clear title in a title search. MR. ROBERTS-This is what Mr. Rathbun is trying to prevent some of his neighbor's from having happen to them. MR. RATHBUN-Michael Muller is an attorney and he clearly reviewed this matter at their meeting and it was Michael Muller's resolution that passed, that was presented by him and he said that this Board should take no action until those boundary discrepancies are settled. MR. CAIMANO-What happens if we approve this subdivision as is, a court of law comes in, the courts come in and say no, and what Mr. Rathbun is saying actually happens, that is, that that lot, which we have approved in subdivision, now no longer is approved. What happens then? MR. DUSEK-In my opinion, that lot becomes undevelopable for the developer. He's the one that's taking the risk and if he cannot, when he comes for his building permit, if that lot no longer is the same as it is on that map he's not going to be able to build on it. At that point, he'll have an undevelopable lot that he took the risk on that he knew what was going on during these proceedings and he'll have to come either to the ZBA and try to get a variance for it or he'll have to come back to this Board and try to rearrange the subdivision map. (TAPE TURNED) that he will have to come back to this Board and restructure those lots with the subdivision and that they won't be buildable. I think that's a way of assuring that that'll be the case, but I'm very hesitant to recommend to this Board to get in the middle of a dispute where you start deciding survey, surveyors. I just don't think it's a good idea. MR. DYBAS-What if the scenario is that a lot is sold on each side and that happens to be the lot that is left. We're saying he's stuck. He's going to come back to us and plead hardship or to the ZBA and plead hardship and then everybody is going to buck him and say fine, well, you've got a hardship. That's what we donlt want to see. MRS. PULVER-He's not if it's already sold. It's the people that's living there. MR. DYBAS-The people that are living there are going to be fine, but the person that's going to buy that lot that can't buy it, now the developers going to get stuck. He I s going to come back and have crocodile tears and everybody's going to say yeah, you know and to me, that's not the way this Board, or any board, ought to operate. MR. CAIMANO-A second scenario is, that this thing gets delayed so much he actually builds on that lot. MR. DUSEK-Well, he's not going to build on it. He's not going to be able to sell it, I don't think, and somebody build on it, unless that person, as was mentioned earlier, gets clear title and one of the problems with title is going to be that if, whoever buys it, they're going to want to make sure they get a clean survey and that's when they're going to come smack into this problem. Plus the fact that if there's litigation involved, if that ultimately does come to pass, I'm sure that the people involved in a File Lis Pendens which put notice that there's a property effected by litigation. I don't know, has litigation already started or no? MR. RATHBUN-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Do you know if Lis Pendens were filed? What they call Notice of Pendings? MR. RATHBUN-My attorney sent C.T. Male a letter. MR. DUSEK-You don't know if Notices of Pendens were filed or no? MR. RATHBUN-No there isn't any presently. I'd like to clear the air on one thing. The inference was made that a tree was fallen by me. Now, Mr. Lent was called in regards to the tree. The gentleman that called him is in this room and the reason for falling the tree was to stop motorcycles from proceeding up the drive and raising havoc in the pit in the back. Mr. Rathbun had nothing to do with the tree. 11 -- ---' MR. DUSEK-I would like to make one recommendation to the Board and that is that Mr. Rathbun has indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has made some sort of a finding or direction in this matter. I think it would be very worthwhile to pull those minutes and just make sure of what exactly was said at that meeting if it effects this lot prior to final. I should take a look at that. MR. ROBERTS-I read it the other day. It's fairly clear. Just a very short statement at the end of the resolution "The resolution doesn't diminish the claims by Mr. Hannah and Mr. Rathbun. These claims will be resolved before the Planning Board can consider this subdivision". Now, however, what was before the Zoning Board at that time was not a part of this subdivision. It had to do with a couple of other lots to the southeast that were making two or three undersized lots. MR. GORALSKI-They are part of this subdivision. MR. ROBERTS-Are they? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they're the two small lots to the north of the road, Birchwood Gourt. MR. CARTIER-What we have ,at this point is, we're hearing from two different attorney's, one who serves as a ZBA member and a Town Attorney. My predilection is to go with the Town Attorney on this issue. I would assume that Mr. Muller was speaking as a ZBA member. The fact that he was an attorney may have be incidental to this situation. Since Mr. Dusek takes care of this Board, I think that we need to go with the Town Attorney's interpretation here. MR. ROBERTS-It seems like pretty simplistic terms there. Maybe, I donlt know, have you read that, Paul? MR. DUSEK-Ild like, do we have a copy of that, John? MR. GORALSKI-I can't find one here. MR. ROBERTS-It seems kind of simple to me. I wonder why we're dealing with it. MR. CAIMANO-When you made your comments about Mr. Muller, were you talking about him as an attorney who was sitting on the ZBA, on the Zoning Board? MR. RATHBUN-He is an attorney and if you read the minutes of that meeting, he cross examined me at length, in regards to that lot, as a ZBA member. MR. CARTIER-I think the issue, we've got some time here, because this still has to come in for final and between now and final, Mr. Dusek will have had time to review this in much more detail and can give us a further opinion than the one you've given us, if that's possible. MR. DUSEK-I think that would be a good idea. The only concern I would have is I stand by the original opinion I gave to the Board. The only concern I have is, is this comment that Mr. Muller has made a part of the record, is that a controlling direction on this Board, that you can't proceed. That's what I s in the back of my mind. MR. ROBERTS-You have to tell us that. MR. DUSEK-I have to review this and make that determination, but I mean as far as my original advice that I don't think you really would want to get involved in trying to decide property disputes. That doesn't seem to be a proper forum for that. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Rathbun, the only thing I could add to this, and hopefully maybe this will be the last word on it, is that we're not unsympathetic to your situation. It's just that this Board and possibly the ZBA, is not the place to get this resolved. I think you have a litigate issue here and it needs to get resolved in the courts or some other way, but I don't see this Board as being able to resolve that situation. MR. RATHBUN-Mr. Cartier, just for the record, let me point out that as my lot now exists, VanDusen and Steves surveyed it, I could live with that. I was involved with my neighbors' in the measurement of their lots. I know what they had years ago. I know they had square lots and the surveys that they come up with now are as far away from squares as you can get. Now, a square is a simple thing to me. You'll see them all through out the .. 12 -- MR. ROBERTS-There is one thing that we might do as personally do, with or without the Board's approval. to Mr. Lent. I don't see why we can't perhaps talk the neighbors. a Board or I think I will I'm going to try to appeal him into making peace with MR. DYBAS-I think the issue is important enough. himself . I think he ought to represent MR. MANZ-He could be here to represent himself, but I think you're going to get the same situation you just stated, or Mr. Cartier did, that this isn't the forum and it's going to be one guy stands up and says, you promised this, this, and this and the other guy going, you did this, this, and this and it's going to be a heated debate, I can tell you right now and it's not the place for it. MRS. PULVER-We're going to have another public hearing and they're going to go at it in front of us. MR. ROBERTS-It's not the place for it, but I don't think it's something that needs to go to court either, from everybody's standpoint, that just doesn I t seem too necessary to me. MR. CARTIER-I just don't want us playing kangaroo court. MR. MANZ-He's tried to resolve this, spent additional money, and he had an agreement worked out and he's elected not to sign it just because of the fact that he was upset about something and he feels he's right, so if he feels that if it goes to court, it's not going to hurt him. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-Stated we were addressing preliminary approval. Do you think that this is something that we need to table for more information or are most of the issues resolved to the extent that we could go to final? MR. GANNETT-Stated I'm willing to go with the Board's pleasure. I believe that all our comments can be addressed by revising the drainage report and making the other modifications suggested in our letter. We would have no problem if the Board elected to make a preliminary approval at this stage if part of the information were provided at the final submission. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, would staff feel the same way? MR. GORALSKI-Stated I don't have any problem as long as the specific items that are to be addressed are listed so that we have something to refer to when the next submission comes in. MR. CAIMANO-Stated from a technical standpoint, it is tabled. It's only a preliminary approval anyway. So, we're going to have a right to see this again. Obviously, these notes are here. So, from a technical standpoint, it is tabled until all these questions are answered. MR. MANZ-Stated yes, but there's a difference between preliminary approval and tabling it. MR. CARTIER-Stated I understand what he's saying. It's a defacto situation in that these issues are going to have be addressed before you get approval. MR. CAIMANO-Stated I didn't mean that we're tabling it. MR. DYBAS-Stated it's a certain process and if we approve it, it will be approved with all these conditions because you have to have all this taken care of before you get final anyways. MR. MANZ-Stated I agree. I know what you're saying now. MR. DYBAS-Stated don't confuse this with tabling. Tabling is something entirely different. MR. MANZ-Stated right. MR. DYBAS-Stated tabling is no action. You come back next month, you start from the same square you left off with. 13 ',,---, '-./ MR. ROBERTS-Asked, any Board members have any more questions? Shall we address the SEQRA issue, which, I guess, we have to do before we can go any further. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 17-1989, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a subdivision of 9 single family lots know as IMPERIAL ACRES on Moon Hill Road, 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, MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact and 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 nonsignificance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1989 ROBERT LENT IMPERIAL ACRES, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: With the following stipulations: That the comments by Mr. Goralski and Mr. Gannett be addressed and incorporated in the final application. Secondly, that cutting restrictions be incorporated based on the discussions held regarding cutting restrictions and slope maintenance. Third, that a waiver be provided regarding relevant seepage pits on lots 7 & 9 and slopes. Fourthly, I'd like to see lots 1 & 3 shown as single, incorporated lots so that lots 1 & 3 be conveyed to and combined with. Five, that the catch basins at the end of the cul-de-sac be tied into the County right-of-way rather than between lots 7 & 9, if possible. MR. GORALSKI-Asked, have you spoken to the County? Have they approved the tie in to their drainage system? MR. MANZ-Stated not that I recollect. We'll look into it. MR. GORALSKI-Stated it may be something you want to check into and make sure they have no problem with. MR. MANZ-Stated we may have copied them on the drainage report, but I can't even swear to that. So, weill do that. MR. CARTIER-Stated I have a note to myself about lot 4, but I just wrote lot 4. 14 '~ -J Is there something unusual about lot 4. Ok, that's what it is. Have a map in here somewhere, showing the well locations around the property? want to be sure that that gentleman's concerns were addressed. we seen I just MR. MANZ-Stated maybe we can located the well on his property on the next submission. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that's a requirement. MR. GORALSKI-Stated, yes, that is a requirement of Sketch Plan and they did do that. I think there were a couple where the note stated that they couldn't find the well and couldn't contact the owner. What you might want to do is get together with this gentleman and be sure that the separation distance is maintained. Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 23-1989 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA LI-1A NANCY S. DINGMAN; MARIE S. MASON; BETTY S. DUELL NORTH AND SOUTH OF Drx AVEN1JE NORTHEAST OF QUAKER ROAD, NORTHWEST OF HIGHLAND AVENUE FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISIOIl. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-3.1 LOT SIZE: 18 ACRES CHARLES NACEY STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Asked, is it possible that we would not see, I'm looking at the sub..of 3.42 acres, is it possible that we would not see this again? If it's a commercial site plan, we're going to see it again. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think we probably would see it again, if we felt we needed to. If we think there's potential drainage problems in the neighborhood. I would agree with that, I would hope we would see it again. MR. NACEY-Stated unless the parcel was used as is. MR. CARTIER-Stated I just want to raise a flag on a couple of things on that southerly portion which is known as lot 1 here. I think I mentioned this before, but I want to reemphasize it again. I don't think we I d be too thrilled to see a road cut off on the Quaker Road off this piece of property and secondly, there is a question of, question of, historic value of some of the houses on that property that may be raised at further site plan review. I just want to flag those two issues. I don't want to surprise anybody with that later on. MR. ROBERTS-Stated you used the word "raised", don't want to see them raised until we do see the site plan. MR. CARTIER-Stated that's razed (ha ha) MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 23-1989 lIAlICY S. DIlIGHAN; MARIE S. MASON; BETTY S. DUELL, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a two lot subdivision, Dingman, Mason, Duell. Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE 15 ''"--' ---/ SITE PLAN 78-89 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA JAMES FREGOE FREGOE CONSTRUCTION MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE FOR THE ADDITION OF TWO BEDROOMS AND ONE BATH. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACIC PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 13-2-41.2, 43, 44 LOT SIZE: 13,460 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 D JAMES FREGOE PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Stated (referring to notes) just for the Board's information, we do now have plans that show that with the setbacks on it. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Asked does this show space enough to build another system if this one fails? I guess, it probably does. MR. GANNETT-Stated based on the scale of the drawing, there appears to be. MR. CARTIER-Stated this is served by lake water, is it not? MR. GANNETT-Stated yes. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I don't know. Is this a private well? MR. FREGOE-Stated no. They have their own system over there. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, from the lake? MR. FREGOE-Stated It must come from the lake, but all the residents around there have their own, like a municipal water system. It's not a well and none of the adjacent properties have a well. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, do you have further comments that you'd like to make? MR. FREGOE-Stated I think we've given you everything that you wanted so I don't think there's anything else you want to know, if you do, if I can answer, I'd be happy to. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I'm still not comfortable about traffic. .. .what I see is the enlargement of the usage in this building and that could possibly be substantially part of the number of people using it and I don I t see where the cars are going to park, for one thing. MR. FREGOE-Stated, well you have a parking lot, as you look at that plan, to the left of the house,.. house, two cars and then he has a section, a 30 ft. by 30 ft. acre, to the right. MR. ROBERTS-Asked, is that actually on your property? MR. FREGOE-Stated yes, which the neighbors now use as parking, but that could be his parking area. What he's actually doing is to...we had two bedrooms on the house. We're taking the two bedrooms out and making one master bedroom and then putting two up. So, in actuality, to the property, we're only adding one more bedroom. MR. CARTIER-Stated and bath. MR. FREGOE-Stated and bath. MR. ROBERTS-Stated if memory serves, this is largely for rental homes. It's not owner occupied? MR. FREGOE-Stated no, this is owner occupied. Mr. Finnecy called the Building Department. He I s owned it for 3 years and he hasn't rented it since he's owned it. Apparently, the people before him used to rent it. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I'm not sure whether the public hearing was left open or not. I will say that it's still open. Does anybody in the audience care to comment on this project? 16 ~ --../ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Mr. Roberts-I have negative feelings about this project. on it, and I don't know what to about. I can't hang my hat MR. HAGAN-I feel, I agree with you, the fact that, to begin with it is a nonconforming lot and basically, it is my philosophy that when you do have a nonconforming condition, you should seek to prevent any additions to that nonconforming situation and on that basis, I'm not in favor of approving this. I'm willing to listen on why my philosophy may be wrong. MR. FREGOE-Yes, I wish the owner could be here to represent himself, but the reason this is nonconforming, and correct me if I'm wrong, is because the house is 4 or 5 feet too close to the front lot or the front road, but he has more property than most of the lots around him. MR. HAGAN-This lot is less than one acre? MR. FREGOE-Correct. MR. HAGAN-So that, in itself, makes it nonconforming. MR. FREGOE-Yes, but I mean if the house was setback just the extra feet than this wouldn't have to come to this Board in the beginning, the way that I understood it from the Building Department, I could be wrong. MR. ROBERTS-It would probably have to go to the ZBA and also come here, since it is, in fact, an enlargement of a nonconforming lot. MR. FREGOE-I mean, he has an old, antiquated septic system now which is off the back of the house. MRS. PULVER-You're putting a new one in? MR. FREGOE-We're putting a new one in. MRS. PULVER-You're not changing the foundation? MR. FREGOE-No, we're not changing the foundation. We're only going up with the back half of the roof stretch. MR. CARTIER-I just want to understand it. setback from the front property? It's nonconforming only in terms of MR. HAGAN-And the size of the lot. MR. CARTIER-I think the concern is overuse by rental and I think that's something the neighbors are going to have to work off. MR. FREGOE-The main reason, and this is what he's telling me, the main reason he's telling me that he wants to add the two bedrooms is because he has kids that come up and what they're doing now is sleeping on a little den that's on the side of the house on a pullout couch. MR. ROBERTS-We don't have anything in the file on this one, as to input from neighbors? MR. GORALSKI-We have no letters from the neighbors, no. MR. FREGOE-He went around and, individually, found out where the other septic systems were located and the neighbor behind them was all in favor of this because of the fact that we put a new septic system in and take it away from the back line. MR. CARTIER-This was advertised, because there I s a comment here from Mr. Baker, Assistant Planner on November 28th meeting, I'm reading from the last meeting, "The Board may wish to table this application for one month and request the applicant to pay for readvertising. The applicant's agent, Fregoe Construction, filled out the application for site plan review incorrectly, consequently, the legal notice advertised was incorrectly identified". Was that all taken care of? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. 17 ~ '-'" MR. ROBERTS-Was that readvertised at this time? MR. GORALSKI-No, I think the discussion that took place at the Planning Board last time, the determination was that it didn't have to be readvertised. There were people here for, to speak on the application and you felt it didn't have to be readvertised. MR. ROBERTS-There's no one in the audience who cares to comment on this? I'll close the public hearing then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 78-89 JAMES FREGOE FREGOE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: The septic system will be upgraded as a result of this addition of two bedrooms and one bath and that any other concerns by staff be addressed adequately. Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Roberts NOES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, DISCUSSION ON VOTE WAS HELD MR. ROBERTS-Asked, I wonder if wè could have a consultation with our attorneys before we finish this voting? MS. CORPUS-Stated sure. MR. CAIMANO-Asked, has this been approved by Warren County Planning. MS. CORPUS-Stated apparently, yes. They didn't have a quorum. MR. CAIMANO-(Referring to Mr. Roberts) your vote is not a tie breaker. MS. CORPUS-Stated you need the majority plus one to override. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I guess I will reluctantly vote yes. MS. CORPUS-Stated it's three to three. Motion's not carried, but County is not overridden either. In my opinion, technically, the approval would stand. You do have the option, the Board knows, to withdraw this motion, make another motion, and revote, but that's up to you. MR. ROBERTS-Stated so even though we weren't able to move it, it would still stand as a yes vote. MS. CORPUS-Stated that's my interpretation. MR. FREGOE-Asked, is the concern rental here? MR. HAGAN-Stated this is what I was going to suggest, that maybe we've got ourselves a stalemate. This Board does not have the right to specify use with approval? MS. CORPUS-Stated correct. MR. HAGAN-Stated so, I guess I can't make the suggestion I was going to make. I think if we could be assured that this was not going to be a rental property, I think we'd probably approve it, but I don't think anybody in the neighborhood believes that to be a fact and that's why I voted no. MR. FREGOE-Stated since he's been on the property, he hasn't rented it and the neighbor's agree to that. Would a letter from him help? MR. HAGAN-Stated no, we haven't got a right to ask that, we don't have that right. MRS. PULVER-Stated Jim, I think, unless we really have somebody standing before us, how can we even think that it is a rental, except in our own minds, but we canlt bring it up before everybody else if there's no that stood there and said I think he's renting it. 18 J MR. ROBERTS-Stated this is why I hesitated to vote. right to court. As I say, I've got negative feelings. a right to say no, even though I'd like to. I didn't want to send this I don't know that we have MR. HAGAN-Stated we don't have a right to prevent anybody from renting it. MR. CAIMANO-Stated but you have a right to say no. MR. ROBERTS-Stated well, you've got to have a pretty good 'reason for that. MR. HAGAN-Stated I have a legitimate reason for saying no. It's nonconforming to begin with and I don't believe we should ever allow, and that's my personal belief, anybody to expand upon an already nonconforming condition. That's a legal right that I have to say no. MR. CAIMANO-Stated and besides that the plan that you folks drew up, clearly gives us a very wide latitude in that direction. In other words, there is a philosophical plan here as well as a technical master plan and, philosophically, I think that many of us, and certainly those fellows that live on the lake, feel that, I'm going to read into this a little bit, because we approve these things without taking philosophy into thought, that's why we're in trouble today and that we go along and say, oh I don't think that's going to happen, but sure as god made green apples, we know it's going to happen sometime. So, I think the master plan gives us relatively wide latitude in that respect, in terms of the nature of what's going on in the lake. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I wonder if the attorney would agree with that. MR. CAIMANO-Stated I don't know, has the ...ever been taken to court. MR. ROBERTS-Stated no. MR. CAIMANO-Stated then we can't make that judgement. All we can go by is what's there. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that's true and we're asking the attorney for her recommendation. MRS. PULVER-Stated he's getting us a new septic, that's what I like. MS. CORPUS-Stated the only recommendation I could have to the Board right now, due to the deadlock, is if you wish to put it on the record as to your feelings for why you voted, it surely wouldn't hurt the matter if each of you had a philosophical reason with the master plan or the nonconforming use or whatever. That would also be helpful, rather than the rental issue, but certainly, the Board has that latitude to vote that way, if they believe, whether it's the nonconforming use issue or the master plan. MR. CARTIER-Stated I guess I wish we had a clearer cut case to take this stand. I'm not sure this is a clear cut case. I think that's what bothers me. MS. CORPUS-Stated I just suggest, if you wish, you may withdraw and make another motion, that's entirely up to you. MR. CARTIER-Stated for us to override we have to have a vote of 5 members to override the County. MOTION TO WITHDRAW HOTION 78-89, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: MR. DYBAS-Asked, what new evidence or statements have we received to change our minds? MR. CARTIER-Stated to go wi th this. I'm not sure that Pulver points out, speaking strictly for me, I understand I'm concerned that we have a very clear this is a clear cut case and secondly we better septic system out of the deal. where the Board wants cut case to do it and are getting a, as Mrs. MR. DYBAS-Stated what we're saying down the line is, if we have this problem again, we always have to vote yes? MR. CARTIER-Stated no. 19 -- .......,I MR. DYBAS-Stated why not, you've already set the precedent. MRS. PULVER-Stated I think you have to take each case individually. MR. DYBAS-Stated yes you do, but at least you've got a starting point where you've set the precedent already. MR. CARTIER-Stated that's my point. I I m very sympathetic to what has been said here, but I'm concerned that we do it in a very clear cut case and I think, again this is speaking strictly for me, this is one of those...I don't think this particular application is clear cut in terms of the situation. If we had one in front of us that we knew was for sure, a rental situation, where it was going to be abused and so on and so forth, then I think we could go that route without fear of sticking our necks in a legal noose. MR. CAIMANO-Asked, is there ever such a clear cut case? MR. CARTIER-Stated I don't know. MR. DYBAS-Asked, are we saying, ultimately, though, that a nonconforming use of an expanding area and disregard and critical environmentally sensitive area? Is that what we're saying here now? MR. CARTIER-Stated well, we're getting into some Zoning Board stuff there. MR. DYBAS-Stated well, no, I mean zoning, it's planning. planning that you have to consider critically environmental certainly a lake is. It says right here sensitive areas and MR. HAGAN-Stated and the fact is it's not only nonconforming, it's even less than half of todayls requirement. MR. DYBAS-Stated that's what I'm trying to say. I think specifically in the past, if my mind serves me right, that I think that the philosophy of this Board is not to approve anything in a nonconforming use for an expansion. At least that's the way we've worked in the past. So, what you're saying now, not only do we have that problem, you have a problem where you have a critically environmental sensitive area and you want to pass it and it just doesn't make any good sense to me from going to the past. You're changing the rules a lot. MR. ROBERTS-Asked haven't we done that frequently in the past? MR. DYBAS-Stated I can't remember it, Dick. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think we have allowed enlargements. MR. HAGAN-Stated yes we have, or you have. MR. ROBERTS-Stated and we've made them maybe build a new septic system. MR. HAGAN-Stated but I'm saying I think each case must be weighed on its own merit and you say, wellt it's almost conforming or it could be conforming, but when you take a lot like this at 13,460 square feet, that I s not a third of an acre and we're allowing him to expand. MR. DYBAS-Stated that's what I'm saying. MR. HAGAN-Stated and I'm saying that's overuse of property and I think that gives us grounds to deny it. MR. CARTIER-Stated I assume all the discussion is directed toward the motion thatls on the floor. MR. DYBAS-Stated no, I want to clarify the motion before you get a second on it so we know what we're voting on exactly. MS. CORPUS-Stated, Mr. Dybas, I think the purpose, I guess, if you might say that, to rescind the motion because, technically, the Board really hasn't taken any action with the deadlock vote and by rescinding the motion, making a new motion then, perhaps, it would be some action. MR. CARTIER-Asked, if the motion to rescind is defeated, where are we? 20 "--, '.......,/ MS. CORPUS-Stated back to where you were. (TAPE TURNED) Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think what Peter's concern was, Joe, and it IS mine, do we have a good enough case here to possibly go to court? MR. DYBAS-Stated I personally, honestly, feel we do. MR. CARTIER-Stated just a quick, personal comment here. The reason we ourselves in this situation is because we are missing a member. I hope the Board will take note of that and provide us with a seventh member posthaste. find Town MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 78-89 JAMES FREGOE FREGOE CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Based on the fact that the lot, being less than a third of an acre, is just more than slightly nonconforming and it's also in a sensitive area adjoining Lake George and for those two reasons, I feel expansion should be disallowed. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I was going to say it's in an area where we want all the good reasons we can come up with if you can think of anymore. Are there some other questions as well? MS. CORPUS-Stated I don't know. I think I remember somebody mentioning the master plan. MR. CAIMANO-Stated I think, from a legal standpoint, he's got whatever we need. It's nonconforming, it's expansion, it IS an environmentally sensitive area. Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: Mrs. Pulver NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A ELIZABETH PERKINS LAIŒSHORE PROPERTY OFF DIRT ROAD, ~ MILE NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 9L AND PILOT KNOB ROAD. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 FT. 6 IN. BY 12 FT. ADDITION AND A 6 FT. BY 12 FT. DECK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 19-1-39.1, 39.2 LOT SIZE: 1.88 ACRES SECTION 9.010 JOHN MASON, AGENT FOR ELIZABETH PERKINS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. MASON-Stated I just want to make one thing clear, the reason she's asking for this addition is to separate some things, some overcrowding that's gone on in the house. She has a washer and dryer, if you've been at the site, that's currently located on the front screen porch along with the trash cans and in the small bathroom adjoining the kitchen, it's a combination bathroom/utility area. So you have a hot water heater, an electrical channel, a shower, a toilet, etc., all in the same room and the addition, if you look at the diagram, it's just to separate those four areas. There's no addition of bedrooms, no addition of bathroom. MR. HAGAN-Asked, John, there is going to be additional roofing there? MR. MASON-Stated yes. 21 '--, ....-' MR. HAGAN-Stated and it's also going to be in the area, as I recall from the site inspection, it's in an area that's rather steeply approaching the lake and I don't want to question our engineer's, but, in my opinion, this is a very sensitive area for creating runoff as it is, without the addition of the roof and when you add that roof, your also adding additional runoff into the lake. If it was flat, I wouldn't question it at all, but that area is rather steep where that new roof is extending out. MR. MASON-Stated I think I can answer that, though. The area around the house is flat. The area directly behind the house starts up. MR. HAGAN-Stated right, so when the runoff comes down, there's going to be less area to absorb it after you fill this addition. MR. MASON-Stated with this area, you're still over 40 feet from the lake. I don't think it's going to be a major problem. MR. HAGAN-Stated I disagree with you, John, because that's part of what's contributing to the health of the lake is this type of construction and the area that's flat is very small, taking care of a huge area in the back and all that runoff comes down and what isn't absorbed by that property, flows into the lake and when you add a roof, you're decreasing the amount of property that can absorb the natural runoff. MR. MASON-Stated to this extent, I agree with you. Anytime we add any type of a roof, we're going to decrease the available ground that's going to accept that runoff. MR. HAGAN-Stated but this is a particularly sensitive area because the natural terrain is so steep around that property, or around that building. MR. MASON-Stated I wish I had elevations of this because I don't think it is. MR. ROBERTS-Stated this addition doesn't get back too terribly. He's....or blast a little rock or something. MR. HAGAN-Stated he's building over the area that absorbs the natural runoff now. MR. ROBERTS-Stated it's going to take some of it. MR. HAGAN-Stated yes. MR. CAIMANO-Asked, John and Wayne, why did you have not the same concern as Jim? MR. GANNETT-Stated our concern as the engineer, for the engineering considerations was it really is a relatively small area of increase and our main concern is activity during construction and maintaining proper erosion control during the construction when there will be bare earth and some grading and some exposed ground, to make sure that that runoff is prevented from reaching' the lake. Once construction is done, I presume, the site will be revegetated, any bare areas which will provide some protection of runoff entering into the lake. That's the reason why our main concern was for erosion control during construction because the increase in impermeable area is really rather small compared to the existing impermeable area. There is always some increase in runoff, but at some point, it gets to be relatively small. MR. GORALSKI-Stated I would just say that Jim is right. There is going to be some increased runoff. The fact that it is a heavily vegetated site which certainly helps with percolation and to diminish the effects of runoff, is the main reason why I felt there wasn I t going to be a significant impact from the increased, nonpermeable area. MR. CAIMANO-Stated I guess my question to everybody, going to back....said earlier, these little things are not significant. If they keep adding on top of each other, is that not why we are in the situation we are in today with Lake George? And they are not Ii t t Ie things anymore. It's jus t one thing on top of another and where do we stop? MR. ROBERTS-Asked, how far do we go? MRS. PULVER-Asked, how long has the septic been in there? 22 '-, -.I MR. MASON-Stated I really have no idea. MRS. PULVER-Stated because we were there and the driveway goes right over. MR. MASON-Stated yes, I have no idea how long that septic system has been on the site. MRS. PULVER-Stated ...there's a leachfield, I'm wondering, is it still in one piece or what? MR. MASON-Stated it still works. Our Company has pumped that tank every three years for probably, I'll say the last 9-12 years. I can't answer, without excavating the entire system, it's impossible for me to tell you what kind of shape the system is in. MR. DYBAS-Stated it appears to be functioning normally now. MR. MASON-Stated yes, and they have almost 2 acres of land, so, unlike a lot of other situations that we seem to get into on Lake George, there IS a lot of land here to put in a new system up in back if one was necessary. MR. DYBAS-Asked, John, do you know if that has a metal septic tank? MR. MASON-Stated no. MR. DYBAS-Asked, how long has it been in? MR. MASON-Stated I don't know. The baffles are in good shape. I can tell you that. When we uncover them, we make sure that the baffles are in good shape, but beyond that, it's that old catch-22 that we always get into with septic systems, how far do you go to make certain that a septic system is operating properly? There's been no evidence of failure. MR. DYBAS-Stated I think the concern of this Planning Board and everybody is that the septic system may be functioning properly with a metal tank, but it's rusted through and leaking into the ground and still functioning properly as far as surface area is concerned. MR. MASON-Stated and I understand the Board's concern, I just, I don't know how to address it. I don't know what the answer is. Every time someone comes in front of you for a site plan review, do you require them to rip them out? MR. DYBAS-Stated I think this has no bearing on you, but maybe we ought to, amongst ourselves, maybe get something implemented as a metal tank, after X number of years will be automatically replaced. MR. MASON-Stated I think it would be a wonderful idea. though, is that when we replace tanks, we fall under come into play and, as you know, every system on certain the current regulations would force them to have holding The problem you will have, any new ordinance that has peninsula's in Lake George, tanks. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I got kind of a kick out of John's comment there that the proposed construction should not have any impact on the septic system, if a new septic system were required, Mrs. Perkins would have plenty of property to install a conforming system. I didn't find any area that wasn't huge boulders of rock. She has a lot of land, but I don't think any of it is any good. MR. MASON-Stated that's correct. We've put systems bedrock. It's not ledge, in that area. Although, determine that. in that area, on you'd need test fractured holes to MR. GORALSKI-Stated I think my point was that they could meet the setback requirements in the existing standards. MR. CARTIER-Stated I want to be sure I understand this. by 12 ft. addition, she is going to, what is that, closet, is that bathroom? Is that what's going in there? In this 10 ft. 6 in. shower, linen, toilet, MR. MASON-Stated yes, basically what she's doing, shels moving the existing toilet and shower out into this newer area to give her a separation between hotwater heater and utility and bathroom. There are no new toilets. There's no new shower. It's just a relocation. 23 "--" -./ MR. CARTIER-Asked, is what that is coming out of, the area that that stuff is coming out of MR. MASON-Stated yes, you should have a diagram that shows it before and after. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I don't think we're looking at an unreasonable request. MR. DYBAS-Stated I don't think we are, Dick, I think there's just a lot of concern here that maybe we ought to get our act together and I was thinking out loud that something ought to be put in our ordinance that any modification or remodeling if you have a metal tank over an X number of years, I don't know, pick a number, whatever you want to pick, that the tank has to be replaced and that ensures that something else has to be done, then it's got to be done. MR. MASON-Stated I wish they (the Town of Lake George) would allow us today to replace an existing tank. MR. DYBAS-Stated and it's not so bad of a...because we can talk all we want about the lake and we can have the Lake George Park Commission and everybody else involved, but you'd have to have a starting point and it ought to be stringent, otherwise, forget about the whole process you're going through, I feel. MR. CARTIER-Stated one of the things you can do here, since it's a new bathroom going in, you can stipulate that a low water use toilet be used. MR. DYBAS-Stated I think everything in New York sold now, I think, is low water use toilets, anyway, aren't they? MR. MASON-Stated the chances of you finding one of the old, heavy-flush toilets are pretty slim these days. Most of them are the low, but I have no problem with that. I think it's a good idea. MR. ROBERTS-Stated water conserving showers. MR. MASON-Stated most of these people, at this point, we're seeing more and more, people are getting used to that at this point, up around the lake, but I have no problem with that. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. PULVER-Stated it IS just that we had a lot of discussion about a nonconforming, preexisting structure a while ago and now we're willing to go ahead with it. MR. HAGAN-Stated this is not nonconforming. MRS. PULVER-Stated it says "This is added to a preexisting, nonconforming structure." MR. GORALSKI-Stated it's nonconforming in that it's not setback 75 feet from the lake. MR. MASON-Stated this entire house is within the setback area, this is a 75 foot setback zone. MR. ROBERTS-Stated it's a problem we have most everywhere. setback. Nothing meets that MR. HAGAN-Stated you're not building it closer to the lake, though. MR. MASON-Stated no, in fact, we are building the farthest distance away from the lake that we can. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-90 ELIZABETH PERKINS, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas: With the following stipulations: Erosion control measures be provided to prevent the sediment laden runoff from the construction area from discharging to Lake George. That a water conserving toilet be applied or installed and a water conserving shower head be installed in the new bathroom. 24 '~ '--"" Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Roberts NOES: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Stated I think maybe one of the things this Board might want to consider is establishing a policy with regard to these things. That if they do come in to site plan review, and if there is a metal septic tank. MR. DYBAS-Stated that's what I'm saying, after an X number of years. MR. CARTIER-Stated but I think, we need to do that. MR. GORALSKI-Stated as soon as you start to change a septic system, the entire system has to be brought into conformance. MR. HAGAN-Stated if you knew how many people's homes you'd close down. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I think you have to becareful talking about this. George Park Commission is working on this. The Lake MR. HAGAN-Stated this guy knows better than I how many homes would be closed down if we did this. MR. DYBAS-Stated maybe not so much closed down as alternate, viable systems have to be installed. MR. MASON-Stated but there are no alternates, that I s the problem. You're going to force a great percentage of people into holding tanks. Now, if that's what the Board wants, that I s fine, but that would be my concern. What's too bad is that you can't force changing a septic tank without kicking in other regulations and other agencies. If you could do it on your own, wonderful, but you'd end up with the Park Commission, the APA, and everyone else. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I suggest that we wait and see what the Park Commission comes up with because they're working on a very stringent, new set of regulations right now. The comments that I think Wayne made about erosion control, that's boilerplate that we expect every construction to do around the lake. Am I right about that? MR. GORALSKI-Stated we should. I think it should be made part of your motion. MR. HAGAN-Stated, to John, why don't you make up a paragraph and add it to the thing that we have to read, to make sure it's included on the motion. MR. GORALSKI-Stated I can do that. SITE PLAN NO. 6-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA HARG>\RET & THEODORE HANS GUNN LANE, CLEVERDALE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 36 FT. BY 40 FT. U-SHAPED CRIB DOCK AND 28 FT. 6 IN. BY 35 FT. OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-16 LOT SIZE: 1± ACRE SECTION 4.020 STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Stated the reason this should be reviewed as a Type II action is because a dock is an accessory use and accessory use is listed as a Type II action under the SEQRA regulations. One thing I would like to state, as I have stated in several boathouse applications is that the Board should consider the aesthetic impact of the boathouse on the shoreline, both from the shore and from the lake. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SUSAN GUISER MISS GUISER-I'm a future owner of a cottage which is to the north of the Hans property. MR. CARTIER-Asked, immediately to the north? 25 --..-/ MISS GUISER-Right. Read letter. I'm here to register my strong objections to the proposed dock plans on the adjacent property owned by the Hans. As you may be aware, the Hans bought the property from my relatives, the Wosters, sometime during the fall 1989. My opposition is to the proposed plans ...First, our water line runs directly about the front of our property, approximately a few yards from the property border of the Hans and approximately 7-10 yards from the proposed dock. Needless to sày, motor boat...docking, boating and traffic will cause significant pollution on our water intake. We have a screen buffer on the...which has been adequate for generations, which obviously will be inadequate now because it could cause danger to our health and well being as we use that water for drinking, cooking, cleaning, and even watering our organic vegetable garden. Furthermore, motor boat traffic will stir up muck on the bottom of our lake, causing blockage or damage to our water line. Since by handling this, the large dock to the north of our cottage, and 90 feet of frontage, relocating that water line will not significantly reduce the above stated hazard. Additionally, my family should not have to bear the burden and cost of upgrading our pumping system, if there is such an adequate filter available. We need to have someone unclog the line and replace damaged pipes. Nor should we have to drink with chemical additives. We have enjoyed the lake for generations as part of a natural, healthy, and beautiful environment. I also object to this proposed dock plans on an environmental basis. The proposed dock will significantly alter the shoreline. It would decrease the....of runoff with the shoreline. This phenomenon has occurred naturally over the years, but I'm afraid that the proposed dock, if allowed, will hasten the process. It also burns green life and plants. Third, there could be deliberate change in the land in order to accommodate the proposed dock. When the neighbors to the north of our property built their two level dock, they extended their land out into the water considerably and from there under the dock. Our family was not consulted about this change in the land before it was completed. So this addition not only caused a negative change in the water flow on the property, but severely restricted our view to the north. Naturally, I'm wary about the potential for this to happen on the Hans's property. If this happens, our view would be so restricted on both sides so as to depreciate the value of our land, not to mention the effect the ...alteration will have on our shoreline. Fourth, the proposed dock, even with the open sides, would disrupt our view and in some areas, and would block our view. This means that our only view would be straight ahead. Also, the pollution and added noise from boats plus the severely diminished view could noticeably reduce the monetary value of our property as well as our personal enjoyment since the proposed dock invites pollution. I have seen the Hans familyls many large boats and the manner in which they operate them. The proposed dock is so large that it invites substantial ... Initially, fumes generated from the boats and small leaks in the fuel had always seem to be near a motor boat gas engine would impair our enjoyment of the outdoors and possibly effect our water supply. Six, the proposed dock is close to our swimming area. The motor boat traffic, water or jet skiiers in the lake would cause an eminent danger to the children and others who swim near that dock. It should not be necessary for us to put up a swimming line in order to ensure our safety and that of our renters. A swimming line, while of minimal expense, is unsightly and grossly violates the natural beauty of the lake. Seventh, we have long standing renters who may no longer want to rent from us because of the increased noise pollution, restricted view, and absence of its green lake environment. We do not, nor did we ever, realize a personal gain from renting our cottage, but we... family is not using the cottage and the absence of .. .may force us to lose the house or ...lose the renters who have been with us for years. I do not deny that the Hans' have a right to enjoy their new property, but I do not think it just that they should be allowed to enjoy their property to such an extent that it prohibits or restricts the neighbors from doing the same. The Hans' are still capable of enjoying all their boating and other activities on the new dock, which Mrs. Woster had built just before she sold them the property. There have already been many large houses and docks built in the Cleverdale area on the water. In this case, there is no need for a second large dock on the property. This is what happened with Lake Winnosoky in New Hampshire and that Lake is now so over crowded and polluted that many are choosing to vacation at other lakes. By denying the Hans' permit, each owner is able to enjoy the natural environments at Lake George and no owner is caused to suffer a loss monetarily or personally. For all these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed dock plans and any future plans which propose a dock on the same site. NANCY KITTREDGE-GUISER MRS. KITTREDGE-GUISER-I'm one of the owners of the Kittredge cottage which is directly to the north of the Hans'. MR. ROBERTS-This is the same property then, you're both speaking about. 26 '--" --../ MRS. KITTREDGE-GUISER-Yes, this is my daughter. Read letter. I am writing to protest the plans for a large, two story dock by our new neighbors, the Hans of Gunn Lane, Cleverdale on Harris Bay. I am one of three owners of the Kittredge cottage adjacent, on the north side of this property. The proposed dock is the size of a large house and has a two story dock going 20 feet from our property line. It will greatly interfere with the enjoyment of our property and reduce the value of our property. This massive dock will definitely spoil the view and our enjoyment of the south side of the lake. A smaller, two story dock, built wi thout our knowledge, to the north of our property, has already damaged that view. A dock of this size will have many, and large, boats. This area has too many boats(TAPE TURNED) MR. HAGAN-That was more than grand fathered when...c~me to see us. MRS. KITTREDGE-GUISER-But this dock is bigger than that. MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. MRS. KITTREDGE-GUISER-Continued reading. This area already has too many boats that do not face..too close to shore. To the left of the Hans property is a strip of land about 75 to 100 feet wide with 15 docks. Boats are docked there belonging to families on the land behind Gunn Lane. There are jet skis and a lot of power boats which have made that area an eyesore for its..., dangerous for children swimming in that protected cove, and unpleasant to the ear. It is no wonder that the Hans want another dock away from that place, but we do not want them to spoil our area. Boats coming into a dock in the proposed area would definitely interfere with our ability to enjoy and utilize the swimming area in front of our property. Our family's guests and renters swim or are on rafts and inner tubes and snorkle in this area. It could be especially dangerous for children. Our water supply comes from a line close to the property line with the Hans. Canoes and rowboats would not damage it, but many boats with the ability to stir up water and sediment heat oil, and gasoline and probably have water skiing in the area, would certainly damage the quality of our water supply and perhaps cause damage to the intake For these reasons, I am very opposed to the proposed dock. MISS GUISER-I have some more pictures that I thought you might want to see. These are the property next to the Hans' property and it's an area where, I think people who own homes who aren't on the lake .. back on the road, are ab le to have docks and water access. MR. CARTIER-To the south, youlre talking about? MISS GUISER-Right. MR. CARTIER-Mr. - Harry, what's Harry's last name, is this the property you're talking about, in the little cove? MISS GUISER-Yes, there's a little cove there and when we went, today, to take these pictures, we noticed that there were 13 of those skinny docks that you can move out of the water that... and then there looks like 2 other docks that are permanent docks. MR. ROBERTS-I think we're rather familiar with that. MR. HAGAN-That's a separate issue. MR. CARTIER-Yes, it's a separate issue, but I wish, somewhere along the line, somehow that issue would, I wish, I don't know what is takes to deal with that. MISS GUISER-I bring that up tonight only because, we covered this...earlier tonight, where it seems like we already have a lot of traffic in this area, a lot of boats and when do you stop. MR. ROBERTS-Pass those around if you'd like to, but as I say, I think we're quite familiar with this. Do we have other letters we need to read, John? MR. GORALSKI-We sure do. MR. ROBERTS-I hope they all have different comments. MR. GORALSKI-Read letters. I have just learned of the proposal to construct a 27 '----' J new dock on the Gunn Lane/Harris Bay property recently sold by Margaret Woster to the Hans family. As one of the three coowners of the Kittredge cottage immediately to the north of the Hans cottage, I would like to communicate my deep concern about this proposal. MR. ROBERTS-Well, haven't we already heard from two principles from that piece of property already. MISS GUISER-I'm not a principle. I'm a future owner. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we've heard enough from that piece of property. Isn't that another letter from the same piece of property? MR. GORALSKI-It's up to you. This letter is from Richard Kittredge. MR. HAGAN-One of the owners? MR. GORALSKI-One of the owners. MR. HAGAN-I think they have the right to have it part of the record. think you have to read it as long as it's there for reference. I don't MR. GORALSKI-Ok, this is a letter from Richard Kittredge. MR. HAGAN-Objecting? MR. GORALSKI-It certainly is objecting to the proposed dock. MR. CARTIER-Are there any other reasons stated in that letter that have not been stated by the other two owners? MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe so, but I don't want to say yes definitely. I don't believe there are, but I'm not positive of that. MR. ROBERTS-Do you have anymore? MR. GORALSKI-Sure do. Merle M. Fogg, Jr. Dear Mr. Roberts, I received, at this date, the notice for public hearing for Tuesday, January 23, 1990 at 7:30 pm in the above matter. First, I cannot be present due to prior commitments so I am responding in writing to the Board as an appropriate means of communicating my concerns. Second, I am enclosing a copy of my letter to Carl E. Parker of the Lake George Park Commission to show there is also an application before the Commission for construction of these docks that is still pending. Please refer to said letter to understand my concerns about adverse environmental impact in this matter for the proposed rock-filled, crib dock. Third, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Mazer and Dr. David Slesenger are coowners with me, of the adjoining lake frontage and have camp properties within 500 of the proposed construction. I believe they should also have an opportunity to express their views both before the Park Commission and the Board. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that, until the Park Commission has recorded their views and others and made a determination of this application before them, that an action by the Board before the said time, may be premature and in possible conflict with the Commission. I recommend that the Board adjourn this matter for one month to allow all parties and the Commission to act in this matter. Very Truly yours, Merle M. Fogg, Jr. Letter to Carl Parker: Your letter of January 9th requiring my comments and concerns no later than January 17th in the Hans matter was received on January 11th. This arbitrary short time span you designate for response smacks of collusion to favor the Hans application. Particularly as you have failed to notify Dr. David Slesenger and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Mazer who are joint owners with me as adjoining property owners to the Hans land. Commissioner William C. Henessey was a former joint owner with me on this same lake frontage adjoining the Hans property, hence he is familiar with this area. The majority of lake front property owners in Cleverdale and elsewhere on the lake have one permanent, rock-filled, crib dock for their lake frontage except commercial enterprises. This Hans application for a second rock-filled crib dock on his lake frontage has an adverse environmental impact and places the lake bed in jeopardy of dumping more rocks into it unnecessarily. If he were to remove the existing deteriorating dock and its rock-filled cribs, I would have no objection to his replacing it with his proposed dock and deck in its designated position. I do object to a second permanent rock-filled crib dock on the Hans property for adverse environmental reasons. Very Truly yours, Merle M. Fogg 28 ----- ---./ Letter from Sally Kittredge-Gifford Dear Planners: I am one of three property owners of lake front property on Gunn Lane in Cleverdale adjacent to the Hans property. I am writing to express our strong opposition to the construction of a large dock a two story dock by the Hans family on a bend in the shoreline only 20 feet from our property line. The construction and use of a dock of that size which can house multiple power boats, will seriously effect our drinking water which we draw from the lake at a point between our dock and our shared property line. We are also concerned about the loss of visibility and access to the south. We still enjoy some simpler water sports such as swimming, rowing, canoeing, tubing and small boat sailing. Many of our neighbors in this area seem to share these interests. We, therefore, are greatly saddened to know that it may now be necessary to swim, row, etc. more than 40 feet out on the shoreline to get around the small point of land and to the area beyond. Lastly, we are very concerned about safety. Points of land, even small ones, are often subject to seemingly erratic wind and current patterns. Power boat traffic from the proposed Hans dock will surely find its way into our immediate dock, swimming area from time to time. Due to high taxes, we must rent our cottage to other families for much of the summer. These families may have children of any age. The possibility of a tragic accident and even a lawsuit against us seems very real. Thank you for your consideration on this issue. Sally Kittredge-Gifford I feel this notice is totally the property is located. We situated. Rolind L. Faulkner than one weeks notice. inadequate in as much as it have no idea where Mr. and P.S. Received this notice fails to tell me where Mrs. Hans property is 1/18/90 giving us less MR. CARTIER-That was within the legal time frame? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it was. MR. ROBERTS-We haven't allowed you to speak, John. pitch? Would you care to make your MR. MASON-Well, my pitch is the following. I'm sure you I re all familiar with the application. 11m sure you've all seen it. As far as the complaints that are being voiced here tonight, to tell you the truth, I agree with a lot of them. We've too many boats on Lake George, we've got too many docks on Lake George. Boats create fumes. There's too much oil floating on the lake. We're trying to drink out of the lake and we I ve got boats running over it. I would hate to be in the position where, tonight, Ilm trying to justify an answer to some of the complaints that were made here, but I don't think all of this can be laid at the feet of the Hans. The Hans, the property is 159 feet along the shoreline. Current regulations at both the Town level, Lake George Park Commission level, Army Corp of Engineers, Warren County, Department of Environmental Conservation, all provide for docks 40 feet or less. This is 40 feet. They provide for docks 20 feet away from a property line. This dock is 20 feet away from a property line, in fact, if anything, it's further than 20 feet. It skews away from the property line. As far as the Kittredge, Illl address the entire group of letters. As far as their concern about their water line, there are many, many thousands of docks on Lake George that are closer than 20 feet to a property line and if a dock or a boat that's 20 feet away from their property line is impacting their water, then they should have their water line checked. Twenty feet away is a huge distance away. As far as the impact of waves and birds and marine life, I don't know how to answer that, I just don't, I don't believe there's anymore impact on this dock than any other dock. The other complaints, one of them was, her concern that the Hans family is planning to extend their land out into the lake. No such extension is planned. They're not planning on doing anything like the property that was done immediately north of them. Anything like that would require a whole host of permits as long as my arm. As far as the obstruction of view concern, again, I understand their concern, but any dock or any boathouse would, in some way, obstruct their view. If a boathouse were built at the other end of this property, there would be an obstruction to the view. So, I can't answer that. I mean, if we are allowed an unlimited view across a 180 degree panorama out at the lake, then no boathouses would be allowed. MR. HAGAN-I'm for that. MR. MASON-As far Kittredge family the property the that. There will as the problem with the renter, all I can say is that if the is truly concerned with overcrowding, three families renting entire time, I can assure you the Hans family won I t be doing be one family here and there won't be any rental. 29 ~ '-'" MR. HAGAN-Becareful on that one, John. of the truth. I'm a neighbor and you're stepping out MR. MASON-Ok. MR. HAGAN-The Hans family is a very large family. That's all I'm going to say. They have two other dwellings up there, so layoff that one. MR. MASON-I will still say, current plans are one family, no rental. MR. CARTIER-Are you talking about house rental or dock rental? MR. MASON-Neither. One other point I do want to make here, I think part of the concern is around the second dock and, again, we're in one of those weird, catch-22 situations. The current dock cannot be reconstructed as to allow for a covered slip. It's absolutely impossible to do it. New regulations force you to be X number of feet away from the property line. You can't even build a boathouse that close to the property line. So, the Hans family was put in the position where, in order to build the dock that gave them a covered slip, they had to build away from that site. Then they came to the choice, do we tear it up or leave it alone. It serves two very good purposes. Number one, it does act as a barrier to what's going on directly south of them. You're absolutely right and I don't think I'm stepping out of line to let you know that is a motivation. There is a huge amount of use going on on the property south of this and I think it's to the Hans family advantage to have some kind of barrier there that that dock does present. The second concern is more of an environmental concern and that is, any time you drive a backhoe out there to remove these docks, you're upsetting the lake bottom and the removal of that dock, I think, would create more damage than leaving it alone. Finally, I'd like to just briefly touch upon Mr. Fogg, I think it's Mr. Fogg, I'm not sure, his concerns about the property. I think Mr. Fogg wrote a letter to Carl Parker and he thought, somehow he got confused because he asked that the dock be moved 30 feet away from his property line and the dock, as it's currently structured, is well beyond that distance away from his property line. I really don I t know why he would have any concern. None of the concerns that he addressed in there that are all technical ones dealing with notices and dates and things like that. So, it's very difficult for me to address his specific concerns. I don't know what they are. If, on the other hand, people feel that they were not notified, I would not object to tabling this for a month. I have no problem with that at all. I know that going through Park Commission, Army Corp of Engineers, all of the other agencies, this is certainly going to take more than another month and if it's the feeling of the Board that people weren't notified, fine. I do believe they were. I think any of the notices and the number of letters you received, bear that out. MR. ROBERTS-John, I've got a question about what might seems to be rather innovative measuring. Can you explain to me how you get the 159 feet in shoreline for this piece of property. MR. MASON-There's a survey, I think you have a copy of that, John, from Steves and VanDusen. Prior to purchase, the maps youlre looking at are mine, I've taken them from a survey map that was prepared by Steves and VanDusen and John had asked me for a copy of that map and that measurement came directly off the map. MR. HAGAN-Would you say, John, that the assessment on this property truly reflects the fact that it does have 159 feet of lake front? MR. MASON-Yes MR. HAGAN-You think it does? MR. MASON-All I can go by is what we received from a surveyor. Prior to me being involved in planning any dock work on this, Steves and VanDusen was hired to prepare a survey. To find out how many front feet there were. You may be referring to the fact that, because as it winds and turns, sometimes you get into situations where a straight line measurement differs by. MR. HAGAN-Well, I think the part I find, have a problem with is the approximately 89 feet that you have on the south shoreline that, actually, does even facilitate the mooring of a 20 foot boat if it were held perpendicular to that lot. MR. MASON-I would urge you to look at the survey. Itls not that I want step away from my map, but, I don't, I'm not a surveyor. I may very well have prepared something that's not in scale, that doesn't accurately reflect the shoreline. 30 "-- MRS. KITTREDGE-GUISER-...understanding that the Hans have an environmental concern about removing this existing dock that they have. Yet they don't seem to have concerns about polluting their neighbors water with boats and.. is that you have to have your septic 100 feet from the well, yet the Park Commission or whatever will allow a boathouse to be 20 feet from an existing water line. MR. MASON-There's no wasted water generated by a boat. MRS. KITTREDGE-GUISER-Yes, but what about the boats. MR. MASON-Boats are much closer than 20 feet to the water line. MRS. KITTREDGE-GUISER-What I'm talking about is just, the oil, the gas, whatever comes out of the boat, is polluting the water, is going into the water lines. MR. MASON-Your concern is a well founded concern. All I can say to respond to that is probably there a 5 or 6 thousand water intake lines on Lake George and 10,000 boats on Lake George and I think anytime you combine boats with water lines that's going to be a concern. MRS. KITTREDGE-GUISER-Well, I agree with that. What I'm saying is, just because it's been done, doesn't mean you have to continue to do it and because it has worked and we've never been any prob lems, doesn't mean there won't be one from them. MR. MASON-Twenty feet away from a property line is farther than docks have ever been placed from a property line. MRS. PULVER-Twenty feet is only two more feet than this table and a boat is longer than this table. MR. MASON-I know what you're saying. MRS. PULVER-Does twenty feet seem like a lot to anybody? a lot to me. If my water was coming two feet from beyond was a big boat dock here, I think Ild be a little concerned. I doesn't seem like this table and there MR. MASON-The separation. A concern, but horizontal separation is nothing in comparison boat is passing 5 feet over their water line. to the vertical I understand your MRS. PULVER-Also it would be sitting there a long time too. and sitting is a little bit different. Passing over this MR. MASON-Now you've lost me. MRS. PULVER-A boat passing over their water line and a boat sitting next to their water line for a long period of time are two different things. MR. MASON-I would think you'd have more damage from a boat passing over it, that's when boats discharge out of the lower units. When they're sitting there, when a boat is just sitting, there's no discharge from the lower unit. MRS. PULVER-I don't have any idea how far in the water, though, their water line goes. Maybe it just goes in 5 feet into the water, so, therefore, no boats would pass over it. I don't think they would come that close to the shoreline. MR. MASON-Most water lines, historically, go out into the Lake about 100 feet. When we install water lines, we try and keep them at least 6 feet down from the surface where the actual intake occurs, but, again, anytime you have boats on the Lake and people are trying to drink out of the Lake, theylre at odds and they're going to be at odds. MRS. KITTREDGE-GUISER- I have to be concerned with the environment of the Lake and just because it's always been that way, that's the way they're doing it, doesn't mean that that's right. MR. CAIMANO-The same thing goes for your discourse on the boathouse, where you said, it is aesthetically not pleasing, but so are all the other boathouses, in effect, is what you said, but that doesn't mean we can't draw a line and say, no more. 31 '- --../ MR. MASON-No, I'm not even going to get that far along. I'm not going to say that they're aesthetically displeasing. I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I think they are people that feel, for instance, that some of the old Adirondack boathouses that are no longer legal on Lake George because of different agencies, are beautiful. MR. CARTIER-But they're not side by side, right up the shoreline. MR. MASON-I'm just saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. MR. CAIMANO-Let' s talk about the creative shoreline here just for a second, as the Chairman brought up. There's some question about whether you have enough even for one dock. There's some question whether the shoreline here is at 90 feet of usable shoreline. Can you address that? MR. MASON-Yes. I have a surveyor. your definition of usable tonight, usable is historically then. All interpreted in the past. I can't to occur here tonight. Itls a stand surveyor and I think it's been, may be different than what the definition of I can speak to is the way these have been talk about a new interpretation that's going MR. HAGAN-Can we talk about the intent of the law? The intent of the law, in that 150 some feet along more than one dock, was created to prevent proliferation of docks on the shoreline. Now, you can claim whatever frontage you like, but from a practical point of view, go out there and stand on that land and you're taking away 90 some feet of view from that Lake. Now, you may have another 50 or 60 feet along the side that's not used, but you are creating a proliferation of docks on that lake front. You are creating a proliferation of docks on that lake front because in that area it is less than 100 feet. MR. MASON-I understand exactly what you have said. My only answer to that is that historically, and, again, you put me in an awkward position. I'm here now, trying to defend your laws and the way they've been interpreted. Your laws and your own ordinance has, historically, been interpreted as it winds and turns, not the way your talking. MR. ROBERTS-As it winds and turns under normal conditions. You're not explaining to me how this has been measured yet. MR. MASON-I don't know. We'd have to bring in Steves and VanDusen. MR. ROBERTS-It would look as though it at least measures around a man made boat launching site. Thatls not the intent. MR. MASON-Dick, all I can tell you is this, I didn't measure the property. The property was measured by Steves and VanDusen, by a surveyor. They have a, whatever the term is, I don't know the legal term for verifying it for a title insurance company. Secondly, as far as your concern on as it winds and turns or how it I S measured, I mean if you've really got a concern about that, if you want to change that, change the ordinance. MR. ROBERTS- I don't think we need to change the ordinance. means if you measure around man made inlets. I don't think that MRS. PULVER-Is there something in the ordinance, though, I seem to recall when we were out there, that you cannot obstruct your neighbors view of the Lake. MR. HAGAN-There are words to that effect. MRS. PULVER-Ok, there is something and, clearly, we were there if where that was going to be, it would obstruct the view of the Lake. MR. MASON-There is not one boathouse that does not obstruct the view of an adjoining house. We're talking semantics. MR. CARTIER-No. we're talking more than that. What we're hearing is, well, that's the way it's always been done, so let's keep doing it and I think this Board is, at this point, taking a stand and saying, no, that's not going to be a rationale for doing any of this anymore. Ok? MR. MASON-Fine. 32 "---' --- MR. ROBERTS-To your credit, however, this is an open-sided boathouse which we have been approving rather easily recently and it doesn't block the view as much from the other side. MR. CARTIER-True, but once you put boats in there, that open-sided boathouse is not going to stay empty and that's going to impede the view. MR. HAGAN-If we were approving this, we would facilitate the possibility of the mooring of at least 5 boats. What I'm looking at represents less than 100 feet of water front, usable front and that's a lot of boats in our area. MR. ROBERTS-With a mooring potential of 6. MR. CARTIER-No. that 6, just the dock space. MR. HAGAN-That's just dock space. MR. CARTIER-And you can ...somebody in ..parking on the lake side of that. MR. HAGAN-Well, you're talking about putting two boats in. MR. MASON-Can I address that, I really have to address that. If you're going to address the number of boats that can be tied to a dock, I can give you novel ways to tie hundreds of boats to each dock, but that really isn't the issue here~ MR. ROBERTS-Well, it is the issue. Theylre going to maximize the usage of a dock. They're going to find relatives they never knew they had. MR. MASON-I would ask one thing, knowing the situation and knowing the way this is developing, I'm uncomfortable being in a position of representing the Hans in a situation that that they're in right now. I would ask that you allow me to table this until next month to allow the Hans time to obtain representation more suitable than me. I mean, you're out of my bailiwick now. We're talking about different ways of measuring lake frontage than we have ever done it. We're talking about the number of boats that are being tied here and I just, if I could, I would prefer to table it until next month. MR. ROBERTS-I would think we would be willing to do that. MR. CARTIER-That's something we've got'to vote on. MR. ROBERTS-Would that satiate the neighbors who are unhappy as well. Although we're not necessarily going to readvertise it. MISS GUISER-Before you take a vote on it, may I just address some points that he brought up? MR. ROBERTS-Alright. MISS GUISER-First of all, we came from Boston and we took a vacation to do it, so I doubt we'd be able to come back for another meeting. We could write a letter. I just wanted to address a few points while we were still here today. MR. ROBERTS-I think we've about covered that. MISS GUISER-Well welve thought of other points we want to make. One point, they did say it was 159 feet and as the way I read the boating regulations, you need 150 feet to build another dock, so they have an extra 9 feet to build a second dock..build a second dock. Whether or not itls creative measuring, I'm not saying, but they're asking for a second dock and not just a second dock, but a second dock with the maximum dimensions allowed under the are 40 foot dock. So, it seems rather, like a lot. Plus it's not only that they have all the space from the new dock they're proposing, but they have space at their old dock too. Also, the way the old dock, which was newly rebuilt just before the Hans bought it, by the way, it sticks out from the property and it goes in an L shape so it does act as a buffer. Also, a two story dock would very much block our view. (TAPE TURNED) MR. CARTIER-The only concern I have is that we drag it out and we drag it out and drag it out and still end up with the same results that we have tonight. My question to the Board would be, are enough of us comfortable with where we are tonight to vote on it? 33 --- --.../ MR. CAIMANO-Yes, I think so. Mr. Chairman, there's nothing against this gentleman at all. The sense of the Board is we don't like this. Tabling this is not going to do any good whatsoever. I think we should bring it to a vote. MR. MASON-Nick, could I just answer that. MR. CAIMANO-Sure. MR. MASON-All I'm saying is, you're putting me in a really awkward position. I'm in here handling this as a contractor for the Hans family. All I would ask is that you give me one month to allow them to explore their own alternatives. It may very simply be withdrawing it. It may be changing it. It maybe going to an attorney, but at least it doesn't put me in the position where I have prejudice them. I'm just asking you. MRS. PULVER-But if they decide to change it. MR. MASON-They'd have to MRS. PULVER-And then these poor people, if they want to object, are going to have to come back. MR. MASON-Yes, but are you saying that MRS. PULVER-No. No, they can change it. MR. CARTIER-We have the right to deny what's in front of us. MR. MASON-I know you have the right. MR. CARTIER-And in that case they would have to come in with a different plan. MR. MASON-Yes, but what I'm asking you is, please don't prejudice them because of me. You know where I'm coming from. MR. CARTIER-I understand perfectly. MR. MASON-I want them to have the opportunity to speak with a lawyer. You've had several people here who have said that they weren't notified, that they didnlt get enough information. MR. CAIMANO-These people haven't brought a lawyer either. So, there's no prejudice on your side. MR. MASON-Well there is prejudice from the standpoint that the Hans family might very well want to take another different tact. I never, I never anticipated this type of response. I just didn't. MR. CARTIER-I think what you're hearing is that this Board wants a very different tact and one way to get that very different tact is by voting on this issue tonight. MR. MASON-I understand that you want a different tact, but that different tact is new to me and I've had more in front of you than anyone else. All I'm asking you, you've surprised me tonight by coming through with different ways to interpret this ordinance than have ever been used before, different ways to measure frontage, different ways to look at this entire project. All I'm asking is to table it. MR. CARTIER-I'm prepared to make a motion on this and I'm going to ground it in two specific things that are in the ordinance that have nothing to do with shoreline length. I don't mean to take a motion away from anybody here, but I want to be very careful that we do this correctly in that it's grounded in the ordinance and shoreline length has nothing to do with it because I think that is a tough issue. MR. MASON-All I can do, I would like it on the record that I have asked to table it. MR. ROBERTS-Before you make the motion, I think that they're probably entitled to have it tabled in my opinion to get an attorney. Motion to table was made by Peter Cartier, but there was no second. MR. ROBERTS-I guess that motion goes no where. What about SEQRA? 34 -- -.../ MR. GORALSKI-Docks are considered accessory structures under our ordinance and under SEQRA, accessory structures are Type II actions. So, that would be my recommendation that this would be a Type II action and, therefore, does not have to be addressed. MR. ROBERTS-With a little time to kill. I'd like to have some of my questions answered. I don't think the measuring was properly answered to my satisfaction, but I guess that can't be done. MR. CARTIER-Well, the measuring issue is they're allowed two docks with ... so youlve got a 15 foot fudge there. MR. CAIMANO-You had a motion that you wanted to make, Peter, earlier. MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN 6-90 MARGARET & THEODORE HANS, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the following reasons: Number one, it significantly impedes the view of the property adjacent to the north. Second, Article 7.101. 2 A2F states that "No dock shall be constructed as to interfere with normal navigation or reasonable access to adjacent wharfs" and I think this particular proposed structure creates some problems with getting into and out of the dock already existing on the Hans property. Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano NOES: Mr. Roberts SITE PLAN NO. 8-90 TYPE: UNLISTED .3 MILES FROM ROUTE 9L TO DEMOLISH A NEW U-SHAPED DOCK AND BOATHOUSE. AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 6-1-12 LOT SIZE: WR-lA JAMES DAVIES ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, THE EXISTING BOATHOUSE AND DECK AND BUILD (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) {ADIRONDACK PARK .25 ACRES SECTION 4.020 D JAMES DAVIES PRESENT STAFF INPUT Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. DAVIES-Stated with respect to the concerns mentioned by the Staff in connection with environmental matters and also aesthetics, I would point out that the proposed demolition is only going to be to the border line. We are not going to be disturbing anything, any part of the cribbing, except possibly that one, and I'm not even sure if we're going to remove, that one layer of wood that might be just partially above the water line and partially below it. If that's found to be a little punky, we'll probably take that out, but nothing is going to be disturbed that would disturb the Lake bottom whatsoever. As far as the aesthetics are concerned, what is proposed can only improve the aesthetics of the entire area right there. The present open-sided boathouse is very old. It's got an old, I don't know if any of you were out there to take a look at it, but it's got an old, flat roof on it. It's not very attractive. It's painted white. It's peeling. It's rotted and so on. What is proposed is, of course, going to be all new and in addition, the way it's situated, it's not going to create any kind of visual impact on the persons home, but it's actually about level with the drain upon which the homes in that particular are built. The top of the boat house is about level with the terrain upon which the house is built. So it doesn't present a visual impact now and it won't as proposed. I might point out that the reason I applied for a variance to extend the dock an additional four feet was because this is a particularly short dock, at least insofaras my ability to put my present boat there is concerned. It's only 30 feet right now. I have a 25 foot boat which is not unreasonably large and it sticks out about four feet and, in fact, I had some difficulty last summer when the swim platform was actually broken right off the boat in a storm and I think that was largely because it was fairly unprotected stick out as it was beyond the dock and boathouse. MR. HAGAN-Stated I have a question on your site plan. You show a walkway and I'm hoping that that's not the type of walkway that really is extending your property from the natural shoreline to a man made, it always seems like every small lot makes every attempt to extend a property that they possibly can. 35 '-- -- MR. DAVIES-Stated ok, if you can look at the drawing, the first drawing that I have, you'll see that the house is setback quite a bit away from where the dock is. There's probably 50 or 60 feet between the house and the dock and there's nothing but grass there. It's only going to be from the edge of the, where the land drops down to the water, straight on across to' the deck. It's going to be about 17 feet long. MR. HAGAN-Stated that's what I object to. It's a walkway to the top of the deck. MR. DAVIES-Stated that's correct. MR. HAGAN-Stated and I think if the County had a quorum, they would have denied this. MR. ROBERTS-Asked why is that. This doesn't make sense to me. MR. HAGAN-Stated this is why. There is every attempt being made, along the entire lake, by every undersized lot, to extend their lake front and what they do, they build a dock and they have a cover over it and they join that right to their land and this is another case where it's a very small lot. Now, the County says, you can have steps going down and back up, but you can't have a walkway going straight over and I object to this for the same reason. MR. DAVIES-Stated actually, they explained to me, when I appeared before them for the variance, before the County Planning Board for the variance, and they explained to me that there had been a case where somebody did exactly what you are leading up to where they actually extended. .property with their structure. Their house, the deck became part of the dock by this walkway that went from one to the other. This has absolutely no bearing on this particular MR. HAGAN-Stated but it's a walkway the same as your neighbor on the south has. MR. DAVIES-Stated yes, and north and all the way up and down the entire MR. HAGAN-Stated and here we go again. Because we've always had it, we're going to continue to do it and I think it's wrong. MR. ROBERTS-Stated I donlt see anything wrong with it. MR. CAIMANO-Stated this picture here which shows the ladder going down to the boat itself from the raised land, the stairway, it looks to me like it's disconnected from the land to the roof. Is that just the way I'm looking at it? MR. DAVIES-Stated well that's a side view. If you look at the topographical, the elevations, there's another view that shows it from the top. MR. CAIMANO-Stated I see it, yes. at? Alternative A, is that what you're looking MR. DAVIES-Stated well, that's not an alternative, that's the plan. MR. MASON-Stated actually, in this particular case, it would almost be impossible to put a stairway down and a stairway up. There's just not enough room down there at the dock, to do that. It would have extremely steep. MRS. PULVER-Stated and it is pretty steep. MR. DAVIES-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Asked, do you tie up any more boats here besides the ones that are inside the boathouse? MR. DAVIES-Stated I do not. I have my one 25 foot boat. I have a tunafish sailboat and a canoe and that I s all I intend to have. We have not a large family. We don't have any other family in town and we will not rent anything to anybody. MR. CARTIER-Stated I'm not sure how this is developed. the south of you for sale or was it just sold. Is the Wall property to MR. DAVIES-Stated it was sold by the VanDykes. The Wall's bought it about the same time. They are, by the way, very much in favor of this application. Simply because my present dock is an eyesore. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 36 "-- ----/ John Matthews MR. MATTHEWS-I'm concerned with the trend or what not, of possibly eliminating these walkways or what not, which, in the long run, is going to disable any handicapped whatsoever from utilizing a sun deck on the Lake. MRS. PULVER-You're not in favor of doing it, you I re in favor of having it for the handicapped. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, just for my own use down the road, I think it's an ideal situation. MR. CARTIER-I think in the case of a handicapped situation, this Board would be very amenable to something like that because this Board has been very sympathetic to handicapping conditions. So, I'm not sure that's an issue, but it's a valid point to bring up. MR. MATTHEWS-It's a general issue. I mean any public building has to have it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DYBAS-Stated I think John's got a valid point. I had mixed emotions about it, but the more I think about it, I think maybe his point I s valid. I talked to a fellow in business and the State law requires that he's got to have so many handicapped parking spaces. Í haven't had one pull in yet, but because the law is there, I've got to have it, but by the same token this might be the proper avenue to pursue what he's doing. I think he's probably right in doing what he's doing. That's my opinion. MR. DAVIES-Stated actually my folks who come up and visit aren I t getting along quite that well as they used to and, although they can climb stairs right now, it won't be too many years before they won't be able to. MRS. PULVER-Stated...it was Warren County..doesn't like the walkways. They haven't officially done anything about. MR. GORALSKI-Asked if I could just clarify that, in the variance approval, they approved the dock and boathouse, but not the ramp. MR. DAVIES-Stated they said they wouldn't approve the ramp if it was for them to approve or not approve, but they didn't feel it was actually.. MRS. PULVER-Stated they skirted it. MR. DAVIES-Stated they kind of did. MR. ROBERTS-Stated in this particular case, I disagree with the County on this. MR. CAIMANO-Asked we don't need a SEQRA on this right, John? MR. GORALSKI-Stated no, this is a dock, dock is an accessory uses accessories are Type II actions. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-90 JAMES DAVIES, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To demolish the existing boathouse and deck and build a new U-shaped dock and boathouse. Duly adopted this 23rd day of January, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hagan On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Chairman 37 "-- -.-/ LOCATION MAPS January 23, 1990 Planning Meeting OLD BUSINESS: Subdivision No. 17-1989 Preliminary Stage Robert Lent (Staff notes attached) Subdivision No. 23-1989 Final Stage Nancy S. Dingman; Marie S. Mason; Betty S. Duell (Staff notes attached) Site Plan No. 78-89 James Fregoe (Staff notes attached) NEW BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 1-90 Elizabeth Perkins (Staff notes attached) t j.IJ(& G&b16G -- -.../ LOCATION MAPS January 23, 1990 Planning Meeting NEW BUSINESS: (cont'd) Site Plan No. 6-90 Margaret & Theodore Hans (Staff notes attached) CLflJfll.þA/.,E ~ ~1. t 'It.. (N-IfTtr 1 ~~JI"'A)S ~ ~D i~{}~~E:; - - "our 1'.-. Site Plan No. 8-9u .Tames Davies (Staff notes attached) g~y f!..D. 1 ßRJH:~^, L17V~ - ) $Séft11l> I.. Y Þr- f¿o A Q l(¿¿~) ~ .. - -- -.../ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI_nning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: January 18. 1990 John Goralski Area Variance Uøe Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation Other: X Suhclirillion: Sketch. -!... Pre1imiDary, Site PlaD Reriew - == Petition far a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetJaDda Permit FiDaI Application Number: Subdivision No. 17-1989 Applicant'. Name: Robert Lent - Imperial Acres MeetiDg Date: January 23, 1990 ............................................................................................ This application is for Preliminary Subdivision approval of Imperial Acres. This is a 9 lot subdivision in an RR-3A zone. Lots I and 3 are undersized lots which have received variances from the Z.B.A. on the condition that they be combined with adjacent lots. It should be clearly stated on the subdivision plat that Lot I will be combined with the parcel referred to as 48-3-4.5 on the Town of Queensbury Tax Map and Lot 3 will be combined with the parcel referred to as 48-3-4.4 on the Town of Queensbury Tax Map. It should also be stated on the plat that only one single family house will be constructed on each of the resultant lots. I would also recommend that the houses constructed on these lots only have access onto Birchwood Court. There should be no new access onto B-ir~hwood C~r:, This is in line with the Master Plan's goal of internalizing subdivis1ò~~ .\\P-!> The proposed seepage pits on the western boundary of Lots 7 and 9 appear to be impractical from a maintenance standpoint. First, although a twenty foot easement is proposed, it does not have access on a Town road. Also, due to the slope and vegetation, a road would have to be constructed to get to the seepage pits on Lot 8. Furthermore, it does not appear that the grading plan provides a way to conduct the runoff to the seepage pits on Lot 9. The applicant should also be aware that the Subdivision Regulations require that all disturbed slopes be seeded and mulched. This is not shown on the road cross-section. JG/pw ,. ~ ~ RIST·FAQST ASSOCIATES. PC, CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518· 793·4141 --- SUBDIVISION 10. I '1-ICßl ~ FJtE COpy pR£LlMlNARY PLAN January 17, 1990 RFA #89-5000.017 Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York A1t... v; ""UI:I:~ò:JÞ'" ". 'B~R~' ~~IHG DEPARTMINT Re: Robert Lent Subdivision Preliminary Stage, 17-89 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following coments: 1. We assume that only one house will be constructed on all the land which makes up lot 3 and the adjacent existing lot to the north, since lot 3 is undersized. 2. We recommend additional erosion control measures be provided around catch basins and seepage pits until slopes are revegetated. The road typical sect ion refers to "Topsoil and Sand"; we assume the intent is to seed the shoulder. 3. Some of the slopes exceed the IV:3H slope maximum: a. to the West of proposed house on lot 1. b. to the South and West of proposed house on lot 2. c. to the Northwest of the proposed house on lot 4. d. to the Southwest and Southeast of the proposed house on lot 6. Also, the grading plan should clarify that all slopes be reseeded and mulched, not just IV:3H slopes. 4. Percolation tests will need to be done when the regraded land has been allowed to stabilize. This percolation rate should be the basis of the final subsurface disposal system design. . 5. Justification of the exfiltration rate (K · .005 ft/sec.), should be prov ided by perc test. A 1 so, the net storage volume of the seepage pits should include only the 401 volume of the outer stone ring. " GLENS FALLS. NY, LAOONIA. NH ·WATERTOWN. NY r ~--~- ~ "--' --../ Town of Queensbury Attn: Ms. lee York Page 2 January 17, 1990 RFA #89-5000.017 6. Calculations for historic versus developed conditions runoff, for watershed B, should be provided to demonstrate no net increase in peak runoff. 7. There is no grading noted to convey runoff from the easement between lot 7 and 9 to the seepage pits at the back of lot 9. Also, it is unclear how the Town would access the 20' drainage easement, at the back of lots 7, 8 and 9, since ;t does not appear to have road frontage. Very truly yours, ~OST A ~ ~~nn.tt. P.E. Managing Project Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures I Aa . - '-- ---- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Pfannil\g Department -NOTE TO FILE- By: January 19, 1990 Stuart G. Baker Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Area VariaDce Uøe Variance - Sip Variance - IDterpretatioa. Other: x Subcliftåoa: Sketch. _ PrelimiDary, X Final Site Plan Rmew - :::: Petition for a CbaDge of ZoDe Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Applicatioa. Number: Subdivision No. 23-1989 Applicant's Name: Nancy S. Dingman, Marie S. Mason, Betty S. Duell MeetiDg Date: January 23, 1989 ............................................................................................ There have been no changes made in this subdivision application since Preliminary approval. Since any development of the two lots created will be subject to Site Plan review, there are no further planning considerations at this time. . . ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C, CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518· 793-4141 ,-. SUBDIVISION NO. ~,ý ICfd FINAL PLAN Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York I." uf ~Uél:"~t"J::- ; 1b)~frI~~ .ß JAN ~O ~.!U ~LANNlmZONING DEPAÀII'MØfr 17, 1990 RFA #89-5000.023 FfLE COpy Re: Nancy S. Dingman, Marie S. Mason, Betty S. Duel Subdivision 23-1989 - Final Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have no further engineering comments. Very truly yours, ~ST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~~nnet, .E. Manag~g' Project Engineer WG/c~ cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures @ GLENS FALLS, NY·l.ACONlA, NH·WATERTOWN, NY t --_.- JA z~pìitIIii ~, - "'-' --.,../ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1anning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: Januarv 18. 1990 Stuart G. Baker Area Vlll'ÎaDce Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi~on: Sketch, Pre1imn.u._ _ _ -T' X Site P1an ReYiew == Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Final Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 78-89 Applicant's Name: James Fre¡oe Meeting Date: January 23. 1990 ............................................................................................ This application was tabled by the Board at the November 28, 1989 meeting in order for the applicant to obtain the information requested by the Town Engineer. Fregoe Construction has submitted a plan for an upgraded septic system. Setbacks between the leech fie ld and property lines should be shown be fore approval is granted. SB/pw .---------- - ~ 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FAlLS. NY 12801 SITE fIlM REVIEW 10 ì 1 '8'7' Fft! COpy RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C, CONSULTING ENGINEERS '----- 518· 793-4141 January 17, 1990 RFA #89-5000.078 Re: James Fregoe, Site Plan, 78-89 Dear Ms. York: pi[f©iåwr~¡(, ~JANl~~. "'LANNING a ZONING DEPARTMENT Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. Lee York We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following conrnents: 1. Setbacks between the absorption field and property lines should be noted on the drawing. 2. Construction of the field should be in accordance with Town Standards. Very truly yours, $OST A a-4~nnett. P.L Mana ng Project Engineer P.C. WG/CDl cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures @ GLENS FALlS. NY, LACONIA. NH ·WATERTOWN. NY JA t. - ---' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Januarv 22. 1990 By: John Goralski Area Variaace Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi~OD: Sltetcb. Pre1imm_- - - -I. X Site Plan Rmew - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 1-90 Applicant's Name: Elizabeth Perkins MeetiDg Date: January 23. 1990 *****.....................*....*....*......................*................................ This Site Plan is for a 10' 6" x 12' addition and a' 6' x 12' deck to be added to a preexisting nonconforming structure. The new co~struction will be less than the required 75' from the shoreline. A Variance was received in December 1989. It is my opinion that this is a Type II action under SEQRA because it is a minor addition appurtenant to an existing structure. Therefore, no SEQRA review is necessary. It does not appear that the addition will have any significant impact on stormwater runoff. This is especially true if the removal of the existing vegetation is kept to a minimum. The proposed construction should not have any impact on the septic system. If a new septic is required in the future, Mrs. Perkins has plenty of property to install a conforming system. Because of the heavy vegetation on the site and the location of the construction on the rear of the house, there, should be little aesthetic impact from this project. JG/pw t ---~--~ ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, PC, CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 518· 793-4141 '~' , P)ffiXç:,JÜWWrfi .ß JAN ~U~ o __ SITE PlAN REVIEW 10 l-q 0 F'r f: rnDV Town of Queensbury Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Ms. lee York Re: Elizabeth Perkins, Site Plan, 1-90 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following coments: 1. Since only a small addition is proposed, it appears that the increase in runoff will be minimal. However, erosion control measures must be prov ided to prevent sed iment 1 aden runoff, from the disturbed construction area, from discharging to lake George. 2. Although there is no increase in water usage at this time, if addit ional bedrooms are added in the future, adequacy of the existing sewage disposal system would need to be considered. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST AS P.C. ~nett. P.E. Mana ng Project Engineer WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members w/enclosures @ GlENS FALLS, NY, L.ÞCONIA. NH 'WATERTOWN,'NY . , .--------,- JA .- - ---' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlanniY'lg Department · NOT E TO FI L E · Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: January 9, 1990 Stuart G. Baker Area Variance Uøe Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretatioa Other: Subdi~oa: Sketch, PretiJDiwua_ - - -I' X Site PIaD Rmew == Petitioa for a CbaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Applicatioa Number: Site Plan Review No. 6-90 AppHcant's Name: Margaret F. and Theodore M. Hans MeetiDg Date: January 23, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicants propose construction of a 36' by 40' U-shaped rock filled crib and bridge dock along with an open sided boathouse. Applications have also been sent to DEC and the Lake George Park Commission. The Board should review this as a Type II action, rather than unlisted as stated on the agenda. This change is due to the Lake George Critical Environmental Area designation. There are no other major planning concerns associated with this action. SB/pw .. "------..-.-.- ~ .- - - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlAnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: January 19, 1990 Stuart G. Baker By: Area VmiaDce Use Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi.œc.: Sketch, Prelim' - - mary, X Site Plan ReYiew == Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetJaDda Permit FiDal Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 8-90 Applicant'. Name: James R. Davies MeetiDg Date: Januarv 23. 1990 ............................................................................................ Mr. Davies would like to demolish the existing boathouse and build a new U-shaped dock and boathouse. An Area Variance for this action was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at their December 20th, 1989 meeting. This action should be considered a Type II action rather than unlisted, according to Section 617.13(d)(8) of SEQR. A SEQR review is not required for Type II actions. The Planning Board should give careful consideration to the aesthetic quality of the proposed dock and boathouse, as well as to the environmental impact of demolishing the existing structure. This project will also require the approval of the DEC, and the Lake George Park Commission. SB/pw