Loading...
1990-05-22 QUEENSBURY PLABNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 22ND, 1990 INDEX Site Plan No. 32-90 ./ Dr. Rob~rt L. Evans 1. Site Plan No. 33-90 Charles A. Cairns Champlain Oil Company, Inc. 9. Sit~ Plan No. 34-90 Stanl~y F. Gannon, Jr. d/b/a Top of th~ World Auto Body 11. Sit~ Plan No. 35-90 Micha~l Sal~em d/b/a NAPA Auto Parts 13. Sit~ Plan No. 36-90 John M. Hughes 15. Sit~ Plan No. 37-90 Warr~n-Washington Co. Chapter NYS Assoc. for Retarded Children 17. Sit~ Plan No. 38-90 Phillip K. Lau d/b/a Qu~ensbury Car Wash 28. 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. QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR. MEETING MAY 22ND, 1990 7:30 P.M MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY PETER CARTIER JAMES HAGAN MEMBERS ABSENT NICHOLAS CAlMANO CONRAD KUPILLAS DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-THOMAS YARBOWICH PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 19th, 1990 Special Meeting: Pag~ 5, in the Motion, second lin~, Mr. Gannett states and Mr. Gann~tt, be shimmed sO that it do~s not drain, sib so that it do~s drain appropriately STAND AS AMENDED April 26th, 1990 Scoping S~ssion: Page 7, Mr. Roberts speaking, second paragraph, sib ~ foot trees, not 2 foot tr~es STAND AS AMENDED NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 32-90 TYPE II WR-1A DR. ROBERT L. EVANS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE, 7TH WHITE HOUSE ON LEFT ON BARRIS BAY FOR CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING L-SHAPED DOCK INTO A 32 FT. BY 38 FT. U-SHAPED DOCK AND BOATHOUSE. PROJECT IS 60-75'%. COMPLETE. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 13-1-18 LOT SIZE: ±o.47 ACRES SECTION 4.020 D BOB STEWART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Not~s from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-The Warren County Planning Board approv~d with the comm~nt that st~ps from the d~ck must be to the dock, not to land. I believ~, also, that th~ c~nt~r pier was omitt~d by th~ ZBA so that it would now be a U-Shaped dock. MR. HAGAN-B~fore th~ Board starts to comment, let the record show that the applicant is a neighbor, my p~rsonal physician, r~presented by my personal attorney. I'm not excusing mys~lf, however. MR. ROBERTS-Does the applicant care to fill us in on this? MR. STEWART-My name is Bob Stewart, a lawyer in Glens Falls. I am representing Dr. Evans and his family here tonight. Dr. Evans and his family liv~ year round on Clev~rdale on Lake George. They own an. existing dock that has b~~n ther~, w~' re not sur~, 40, 50 years, or probably even longer than that. Th~ dock has always b~en in its present location. It was, originally, a U-Shaped dock. The pier or the deck that was parall~l to and adjacent to th~ shore, deteriorated som~ y~ars before Dr. Evans bought the prop~rty and h~ has operated it, in th~ y~ars he's known it, as an L-Shaped dock. The proposal in front of you tonight is to take that exact sam~ ~xisting dock and reconstruct th~ pier that's parall~l to th~ shoreline to conv~rt it back to its original U-Shaped configuration and 1 then to construct over it, a d~ck to cover th~ dock. A couple of reasons pr~cipitate this. Number One is, anybody who's on the Lake, always wants a covered boat slip.. to keep the rain and sun off your boat, but s~condly, Dr. Evans has just purchased an antique wood boat which makes it even mor~ of a concern to him that it be protected from the sun. As far as the location of the dock and the boat traffic in and out of the dock and th~ comment of Staff as far as the numb~r of boats on the dock and another comment, I think I heard, an enlargement of the dock, th~re really is none of that and the dock is going to be the sam~ size it always was. It I s going to b~ in pr~cisely the same location it always was. Th~ flow of traffic in and out of it is going to be exactly the same as it always was. It will be no closer to the neighbor to the south than it always was. Th~ issues, h~r~, is, should it hav~ a deck or a roof ov~r it. I think that's, basically, the issue. Now, when he began to go about this, Dr. Evans hir~d a contractor who was from Washington County, not a dock build~r who built often in the Queensbury area. They appli~d for all of the permits that they thought were nec~ssary and applied for and obtained permits from the Lake Georg~ Park Commission and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, where upon they w~nt ah~ad and began to build the dock and th~n they were told that, becaus~ of the amendment of the Queensbury Ordinance of 1988, Queensbury now took jurisdiction and they also requir~d a p~rmit. I just would like to make it as clear as I can that there was no attempt here to try to bulldoze something through hoping that nobody would s~~ it. They applied for all the permits. They mad~ it public. Th~re was no secrecy about it, but unfortunately they didn't realize that Qu~~nsbury also requir~d an application. One last thing, since th~y want~d to reconstruct the pier that ran parallel and tied to the shore, and sinc~ the new Ordinance required a 20 foot setback and we would be less than the 20 f~et, w~ appli~d to the Queensbury Zoning Board of App~als and they unanimously granted us a variance last week to put that dock in. I still want to make it clear that w~ ar~ no closer to th~ n~ighbor than we ever were before. I think that's about it, as far as bringing you up to date on the facts of th~ matt~r. Obviously, I' II answ~r any qu~stions you have, but I want to be as brief, in view of the hour, as I can be. MR. ROBERTS-Does the neighbor to the south happen to be here or do we have a lett~r? MR. STEWART-There are neighbors both to th~ north and south, I understand, h~r~, tonight, who would like to speak. The neighbor immediately to the south, the Abbott sist~rs, are not here tonight, but they have signed, and there is in the fil~, a cons~nt form, signed by them, indicating they I r~ familiar with it and they've approv~d it. MR. HAGAN-We'd like to see that. MR. CARTIER-Just for the record, Dr. Evans, when he bought this property, th~re was an L-Shaped dock in exist~nce, is that correct? Okay, I just don't want to ~stablish prec~dent here that we're reconstructing along th~ shoreline because on~ ~xist~d there a long time ago. I think we're starting out, this may b~ a minor point, but we're starting out here with an L-Shaped dock. MR. STEWART-Yes Ilm trying to bring you up to dat~ on what happen~d. I'm not trying to make any major points about it. Th~re is the original of the Abbott. MR. ROBERTS-Do you..in the file, John? MR. GORALSKI-No, I don't see a copy of it in th~ file. .. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, does somebody care to r~ad that? MR. HAGAN-Since I asked for it, I'll read it. We, th~ undersigned, are the owners of th~ pr~mises which directly abut the pr~mises of Robert L. Evans, on the south and W~ are fully familiar with his proposed dock construction and his application for a sit~ plan r~view and area variance in connection with that dock. W~ hereby advise both the Planning and Zoning Boards, that w~ have no objections to Dr. Evans application. MR. STEWART-Now, also, w~ filed consent by Mr. William Wetherbee and Mr. Peter Lewin and Mr. Edward Kinney. I don't know if those, were those in your fil~? Did you see those also? MR. GORALSKI-W~ don't have any letters in th~ fil~ from any of th~ neighbors. MR. CARTIER-Do you want me to r~ad this? 2 MR. ROBERTS-Y~s. MR. CARTIER-Wß, thß undersigned, ar~ the owners of the premises directly north, which refers to Mr. Wetherbee, and south of Dr. Evans MR. ROBERTS-South of Dr. Evans is already MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute, they're not. Okay, Mr. Wetherbee is directly north. DR. ROBERT EVANS DR. EVANS-And Mr. Kinn~y is directly north of Mr. Wetherb~e. are two neighbors on both sides. That's why those MR. CARTIER-Okay, and Mr. Lewin is not directly south, is that correct?. .south, or something? MR. STEWART-That's right. I think h~'s directly south to the Abbottls. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We, th~ undersigned, are the owners of th~ premises directly north and south of th~ prop~rty of Dr. Robert L. Evans and we are fully familiar with the proposed dock construction and his application for a site plan revi~w and deßd variance in connection with that dock. We hereby advis~ both the Planning and Zoning Boards that Wß hav~ no objections to Dr. Evans application and it's sign~d by Mr. William Wetherbee, Mr. P~ter Lewin, Mrs. Lorraine Lewin, and Edward Kinn~y. MR. ROBERTS-I guess the qu~stion that should be ask~d, ev~n though th~ most effected party to the south who's reparian rights, if that's what it is, have to be violated every tim~ you get in and out of your dock, are in agreement with this, I wonder what the new owner, god forbid, a long time down the road, might think if h~ wanted to fulfill all his rights in that. I donlt know how far we go with these things. Weak~ns our position, her~, to say too much about this, it seems to me, by virtue of the ZBA already having grant~d th~ variance and the neighbors, particularly to the south, agreeing to it. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm on the horns of a dilemma, here and part of thß dilemma is not the applicant's fault. It I s the fact that we're only sitting here with four mßmbers. MR. ROBERTS-That, too. MR. CARTIER-And when that happens, I vßry much dislike the id~a of being put in the position because of the membership of the Board and being, possibly, a sole vot~, here, but my dilemma, v~ry simply, is, what Mr. Roberts was alluding to, her~, and that is the propßrty rights of th~ own~rs to the south. I havß another issue, here, that I want to g~t into. I guess, I do hav~ a problem with this expansion in terms of access to the dock, but I guess I can lessen my difficulty wi th it if Dr. Evans understands that the neighbor to thß south has the perfßct Ißgal, and legitimate right to put in a dock 20 feet to the south of your propßrty lin~ and this Board would probably not deny such an application if one w~r~ to appear at the Planning Board, which would s~v~rely impair your access to your dock. I would also like it undßrstood that the dil~mma here is one betwßen you and your contractor, not b~tween this Board. I'm wondering if this had been approv~d, had we looked at it when it was still just on paper. The other question I have is, now that that unit, that middl~ stak~ dock, or whatever it I S call~d, has b~en r~moved, do you have any support for th~ middle of the roof at all? How is that support~d? MR. STEWART-Let me handle that. This qu~stion came up, for the first time, at the Zoning Board, last week and I havß to tell you that when I looked at th~ plans, wh~n I got involved in this, in the last... weeks, i t n~v~r occurred to me that that c~nter section, whatev~r you want to call it, constituted the dock and mad~ it an E-Shaped dock. Th~ Zoning Board was concern~d when they thought that it might because the definition says that if you can walk on it and use it to gain ingr~ss and egrßss to the shore, then it may fall within the dßfinition of dock. So, w~ advised them that we will remove any surface planking that would afford a dock wher~ you could walk on that surfac~ thing and they'll b~ left with support poles and they were satisfied that that l~ft it a U-Shap~d dock, not an E-Shap~d dock and that that was not a probl~m. MR. ROBERTS-Yßs, pilings for tying the boats, but not MR. STEWART-Yes, but no place wher~ you could walk or stßp on it. 3 '-- MR. HAGAN-Just pile..for support? MR. STEWART-That I s right, and so that there I s no misunderstanding, they said if you fe~l, because I think it caught us all by surpris~. Some Staff member, I think, mßntioned it, part way through the discussion, that, if we f~lt that it was important to us to try to get that, it I S only about a foot widß, but if we want~d to get it to step up.. ty~, that it would be our responsibility, at that tim~, to r~-apply for anoth~r variance and then that would be a whole new discussion down the road, but we have agreed that, as far as this app lication is concerned, we will r~move any surfac~ planking and it will not bß any kind of a deck. It will just be the support polßs. MR. CARTIER-For the record, Mr. Stewart, I'm the one who brought it up with Staff because what I was afraid of is that it was going to get missed by the Zoning Board and when it got to here, we I d have to s~nd you right back to the Zoning Board. MR. STEWART-Yes, because we had not asked for a variance on that point because we didn't s~nse that, or at least I didnlt sense that that was a.. The oth~r thing, Mr. Cartier, you said something about, again, the enlargem~nt. If you're talking about putting the roof on top, of course, it's an enlargement, but I want to mak~ it as clear as I possibly can that, as far as the location of the dock closßr to the neighbor to the south, we are not moving one inch, to the best of my knowledge, and the flow of traffic in and out is what it has been for 50 years and has always b~en and would be, in any event, whether there was a roof ov~r it or wheth~r there wasn't a roof over it. MR. CARTIER-Well, I just want you to understand that, as a Planning Board, we have to tak~ th~ long vi~w and nobody I s going to live forever and Dr. Evans is not going to be there forever and the Abbott's arß not going to be there forever and I guess wß'r~ probably not going to b~ here forever, ~ither, but, again, I just want to be clear in my own mind, we ar~ still talking about a vertical support post for th~ center of th~ roof, platform deck, whatevßr it's called, corr~ct? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay, are you going to have two boats tied up in ther~? DR. EVANS-Thatls correct. MR. STEWART- Incidentally, I have photographs which, I don I t know if you've all had an opportunity to go up there and see it, or not. I don't know if any of th~se would h~lp. MR. ROBERTS-I think welve all se~n it. MR. STEWART-You've all seen it. Th~ trawler boat that's in there is a neighbor's. His dock's under some imm~diate repair. Hß's ti~d his up over there for a couple of days. MR. ROBERTS-That's Mr. Lewin's boat or? DR. EVANS-Right. MR. STEWART-But the long wood. .with the green cover is Dr. Evans and he has a fiber glass boat that he would normally keep in the boathouse also. MR. CARTIER-How long is that. .out there? DR. EVANS-Thirty-two feet. MR. CARTIER-And does it stick out? DR. EVANS-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Wßll, it comes under th~ eaves. MR. CARTIER-Okay, it IS under the eaves. MR. HAGAN-This picture, Bob, would be, since the neighbor on the south doesn It object, I don't see why I have to..as Peter says, this Board's concern, long aftßr 4 '--- we' r~ gon~, what's going to happen and even that picture shows that a deck up ther~, with a railing, is going to obliterate most of their view of Long Island. I've been up th~r~ and we've both vi~wed it, but I, the structure, as it now stands, without the railing, does not obliterate the view of Long Island. When the railing goes up, it will. MR. CARTIER-My concern, let me speak construction is on the Abbott property much less, on Dr. Evan's property and for me, is to the south impacts much the greatest impact of this and it impacts v~ry slightly, more on the Abbott property. MR. STEWART-This is a picture, taken from the Abbott property, the boathouse as it I S now constructed. I also have pictures to th~ north and south for whatever reason. looking out over of the boathouse MR. CARTIER-Is this taken from Mr. Weth~rbee's, from the north? MRS. PULVER-Yes, from the oth~r side. MR. STEWART-Yes, that would be looking from the north. MR. HAGAN-I'm saying the Abbott's are being very gracious. MR. ROBERTS-I think we all feel that way and, I guess, some of us also feel that, perhaps the dock regulations in the Town of Queensbury are maybe a bit lenient at the moment. As a matter of fact, there was a meeting last night, the Citizens Advisory Council, trying to make sOme suggestions, perhaps, to tighten all these things up, but, however, that has nothing to do with the Ordinance as it is tonight, and, again, with the ZBA already having rul~d on this and the neighbor to the south, as you've mentioned, being very magnanimous, I'm not just sure if there's a whole lot we can do here tonight, having seen this project 70 percent alr~ady compl~ted, which puts us at a very untenable position and doesn't make..very happy. MR. HAGAN-Plus the County approved it and we don't have enough to overrul~ the County. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Hagan, that's if the County were disapproving you'd need a majority of th~ Board. You just need a simple majority. MR. HAGAN-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL WETHERBEE MR. WETHERBEE-My name is Bill Wetherbee. I'm the resident to the north, to whom refer~nce has been made. 11m a life long, seasonal resident of Cleverdale and, sinc~ 1976, I've been a year round resident of the property which now adjoins Dr. Evans to the north. I will.. I realize you have a delicate balanc~ b~twe~n the individual needs of the property owner or request of the property owner and the oth~r considerations that have be~n already discussed by Mr. Cartier and others and I support that very strongly and recognize it and approve of your end~avors in that respect. I think in this regard, howev~r, there are some circumstances that have b~en detail~d by Mr. Stewart that I would like to underscore with r~spect to this matter. I realize we ar~ d~aling with speculative things when we talk about the Abbott property owners to the south as well as us to th~ north, although we would not be as significantly impacted, admittedly, particularly insofar as a~sthetics are concerned. The point has been made, and I want to emphasiz~ it because I do think it is important in this consideration. What Dr. Evans proposes to do, essentially, is to reestablish a dock with a cover over it and a deck on top of it at the site of wh~re one previously existed and I do not have a particularly good photograph, but I am going to urge you to take a look at this one, none the less, which was taken in 1963. In that photograph, you are looking from our dock, southward, the structure which previously existed at the ~xact same location as the one which Dr. Evans now proposes to er~ct, the structur~ he is asking for approval of. As you can readily see, that was an enclosed boathouse. It is my position and I think the Abbotts would agree with m~, that that was more obtrusive and consisted of a great~r blockage of any view from an a~sth~tic view point than that which Dr. Evans propos~s to erect which would, basically, be an open structure that would not b~ enclosed the way that boathouse was. Since we ar~ dealing with conjecture and speculation, one might sp~culat~ that, had the previous owner elected to rep lace that, after it was deteriorated and finally done in by ice, and/or had Dr. Evans chosen, at the time he purchas~d the property, to replace it, there would have b~en a structure there which is more, in our opinion, obtrusive than 5 ~ "--' that which he proposes to erect and I do believ~ that that is an extenuating circumstance in this particular instance which I would urge you to consider with respect to th~ matter at hand. Finally, I certainly understand what you're saying about boat traffic, boat navigation, ~gress and access to the dock, etc., but, once again, I would point out that, basically, the structure which he is erecting or re-erecting, if you will, or proposes to re-erect, really does not change the basic configuration of that which existed 25 years ago and existed for some time prior to that, both in terms of access of boats and in terms of the view which neighbors had. So, while I can r~adily understand and support your concerns, I would urge you to make those considerations as you deliberate on this matter. Thank you. MR. HAGAN-Bill, the only thing that I would cont~st on this, from this picture, and I agr~e what Dr. Evans is building is much nicer looking than this, however, our fault is with the height of it and, assuming that the boat stays, or stops, are 4 f~et, above the dock, that roof would appear to be, at most, 7 feet above the dock. This structur~ is planned to be 11 and a half feet and that's the thing we have the problem with. MR. WETHERBEE-Yes, I readily understand where you I re coming from, although, I cannot r~member that well, I'm sure you're correct. The previous structure, owned by the previous owner, was not as high as the one which is now proposed. Here, again, I can't speak for occupants to the south. I would repeat what I said before, even though the elevation is greater, Jim, and I r~cognize what you're saying, I think the nature of the construction, once again, is aesthetically less jarring and less obtrusive than an enclosed, 7 foot high structure, or whatev~r the approximate dimension was, but you're right. PETER LEWIN MR. LEWIN-My name is Peter Lewin and I live 2 houses down from Dr. Evans and I would feel that if you were down on the prop~rty, probably, the major view or obstruction, would be from my house. I don't s~e anything wrong with the boathouse. We have no objection, providing it be left op~n. I wouldnlt like to see it closed in. I do have a big boathouse myself, which you've all probably seen which is just about ruined by the ic~ this year and our boathouse is opened and Dr. Evans looks down and also sees my boathouse. I have no objection to it even with the deck, with th~ railing, or whatever he's proposed and he's talked to me about it. The only thing I would object to is if it was enclos~d. That's the only thing that I would have to say. DR. EVANS-P~ter, I want to talk to you, specifically, and other members of the Board. My decision, really, in building this boathous~, my apologies, is one of ignorance and and not of arrogance. I thought I was going through all the proper hoops and, in fact, not only my contractor, but even Carl Parker, did not advise me. We sent copies of everything to the Town as the mistake was made when we started. In any event, I have been a good neighbor. I have talked and taken my neighbors, directly, and most...the Abbott's, to this, from day one. I've known them since I moved in. live cleaned up the property. I have done everything to keep the property pretty, and beautiful and well kept and they're very aware of that. Last fall, when this project started, I went over and we sat down and w~ went through, step by step, exactly what I was doing. They had no problems. Th~ boathouse is 60 percent completed, they came back up, we sat on their porch, we talked and I told them, went through my plans, they knew exactly what 11m doing. They had no problems. No one has a crystal ball. No one can predict what happens on that property next door. I'm mortgaged to th~ teeth. I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to be there forever and my neighbors, they' re th~ Abbott family from South Glens Falls. They're sumttler residents, they've been there forever. Th~y have many family members who come back and they're aware of previous boat traffic, the traffic that will be ther~ and we've even talked about first refusals on their property. No thank you, we're not selling this. This is our family camp and they hav~ been very aware of what I am doing. So, again, no one has a crystal ball, her~, and I know what you I re trying to prot~ct. I have all my n~ighbors, two north and two south, saying, we have no probl~m with putting a roof on your dock and so I would really ask you since, and, again, I know what your r~sponsibility is to the Town, but I think that as a homeowner and a year round r~sident of Queensbury with much inv~stment in the Town, that I have been a good neighbor and I I ve done everything which I feel is appropriate and right. No one has a crystal ball, God only, Himself, but, in any event, I really feel that this is a proj~ct that has merit, which my neighbors have no problem with and I would urge you, if you would, to approve this tonight. 6 ---,. MR. CARTIER-Okay, two things. One is, I hop~ anything I said was not misconstru~d to sugg~st that you were being arrogant. I did not and I understand you. Secondly, this has been repr~sented to us, as the reason for a roof, is to prot~ct antiqu~ boats. I hav~ no argum~nt with that, but I beJ.i~ve th~ decking and the use of th~ decking up there is ~xpanding the use beyond what is stated as the reason for the roof, that's the problem I hav~. DR. EVANS-In terms of? MR. CARTIER-Of putting a rail up there and allowing peopJ.e to sit up th~r~ which becom~s part of the neighbor's.. DR. EVANS-But this is a sundeck, too, and people on the Lake have sund~cks. I m~an, my property is completely enclosed by trees. I have two young children and on~ on the way and that is, really, we are not in the sun, on our property. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I still hold to the b~lief that the impact of this dock, deck and boathouse combination is the greatest on people other than you on your property and I'm very uncomfortable with that. This is why I'm bothered, sitting h~re with only 4 members. Are you willing to compromise, here? DR. EVANS-What is your compromise? MR. CARTIER-Are you willing to lose the deck raiHng and build this as it was suggested? In other words, the roof is not going to be used for sitting on. MR. STEWART-On behalf of Dr. Evans, let me say this, the Zoning Ordinance spells out what is a legaJ. size boathouse and this is, approximately, a foot under the size for a flat boathouse and it's four or five feet low~r than the size for a pitched roof boathouse. So, asking for the deck on top, including the raiJ.ing, is exactly what the law of Que~nsbury says the man is entitled to have. MR. CARTIER-But, Mr. Stewart, the law also provides this Planning Board with other things to look at besid~s just what is in the law because if all we had to worry about was spelled out in terms of the law, as you d~scribe it, we wouldn't need a Planning Board and before anybody g~ts up and cheers about that, let's understand that that's what welre here for. MR. STEWART-I think the question is wh~ther or not, und~r site plan review, a Planning Board has th~ right to rewrit~ the Ordinance that says, when the Ordinance says a man can have a boathouse 14 feet high, that the Planning Board says, no, it can only be 12 feet high, or 10 feet high, or 9 feet high. I would mak~ a sugg~stion, however. First of all, I would point out that the Board can approv~ the boathouse, but not approve the railing. That is within your boundary. If the qu~stion is, is there something that we could consent to, I would propose a compromise. The plan that was submitted to you showed up and down, vertical two by two, spindl~s, I think th~y were called, surrounding the boathouse. Here is another way to approach a railing. The problem with children is, you don It want anything for children to faJ.J. off a railing..significant, but this, I b~li~ve, is Mr. L~win I s dock. Her~ I s the diff~r~nt tr~atment. H~ opened up that railing and th~ middle board going around forms sort of a seat, so peop Ie up there, they can sit on the seat. That opens up the air and the view, I think, considerably more than the p roposaJ. that Dr. Evans made wi th th~ sp indle and w~ would agr~e to chang~ our plan to have an open-spaced railing that would give mor~ vision through, of that.. MR. ROBERTS-But you'll still ne~d some kind of meshing there to make it solid for children, though, wouldn't you? MR. STEWART-Well, on~ thing, the chair, which goes half way up, forms anoth~r rail. MR. ROBERTS-Y~s, but you couldnlt rely on that. Somebody could crawl under that, Ilm sur~, but something could still b~... MR. STEWART-Yes, in oth~r words, we could open up, I'm concerned about saf~ty, but, oth~r than that, we I d be willing to work with you in terms of opening it up to try to create more visibility. MRS. PULVER-I tend to like th~ spindles better for..a purpose. I mean,..children, it would make it easy to slip through that. 7 ----. MR. ROBERTS-This kind of a railing around the top of a boathouse is not an uncommon thing. We approve them all th~ time and 1 think, perhaps, we're asking a bit much if we ask him not to be able to us~ that. MR. STEWART- I hav~ one on eith~r side of me on Assembly Point. one on my left. Dr. O'Keefe has on~ on my right. Bill Ross has MR. ROBERTS-Beauty I s in the eye of the beholder, but it almost seems like it finishes things off so then it mak~s them, somehow, even mor~ attractive. I don't ev~n understand why, according to th~ County, that steps couldn I t go direct from the land to the dock. I, of course, don I t agree with the County I s philosophy on that. If you've got a high~r ground level issue, why not walk out, directly, on the level, p~rhaps,.. on the lev~l, but actually satisfy handicapped acc~ss to the decking, so I would disagree with the County and I would certainly hav~ no problem with SOme kind of railing as proposed. MR. CARTIER-Well, I do and, again, pointing out to Mr. Stewart that it is within th~ purview of this Board to go beyond what is spelled out and we are authorized to do that. I hav~ problems with the railing. 1 could live with the rest of the impact that this construction has on this property to the south if we did away with railing and the use of that roof for sitting on and I am mindful of th~ fact that there are only four of us sitting here and, again, that bothers me. I was in this dilemma a few meetings ago, too, and I kept my mouth shut and I shouldn't have and 1 decided I wasn't going to do that anymore. So, I guess, we're between a rock and a hard place, both of us here. What I'm sugg~sting to you is, w~ have four members of th~ Board sitting here. We need four votes. 11m suggesting a compromise. You have some options. MR. ROBERTS-I would suggest w~ table this until we get a larger quorum, perhaps, because 1 think, Peter, youlre out in l~ft field on this one. MR. CARTIER-Okay, that I s exactly what I was going to suggest. You do have an option to table and hope you get a mor~ favorable vote when we've more members h~re. MR. STEWART-There is another possibility and that is, I suppose a motion can be offer~d to approve the boathouse as submitted, but without th~ railing, leaving it to Dr. Evans to see what recourse he wants to take, whether that's legal and profitable. MR. ROBERTS-So that you could continue construction and cover th~ deck. MR. STEWART-We can at least get the boathouse done, the boat under cover, and, 1 don't know if this is proper but I'd like to see it, and table the issu~ of the railing to another months m~eting, do you feel that's.. MS. CORPUS- I don't beli~ve that that's a legal possibility, Mr. Stewart. Board is restricted to approving with modifications or disapproving and I think biforcating the application is a possibility. The don't MRS. PULVER-Well, why canlt w~ have a motion on the dock, everything but the railing? MR. STEWART-Could I have just a moment with my client? MS. CORPUS-And either approving or disapproving with that modification? Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes, disapprove of the entire railing, as it is right now, until.. MR. GORALSKI-And th~n they would have to make another submission. MRS. PULVER-Yes, then they would have to, well thatls what..another submission. MS. CORPUS-Correct, what you would do would be mak~, it would be an approval with a modification. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-So, that would not preclude them coming back, though, with th~ railing as another MR. GORALSKI-Right. 8 -/ MS. CORPUS-As a separate application, y~s. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay, as long as you und~rstand that I'm not going to play games, h~re. If I'm unhappy with the railing now, I'm going to be unhappy the next time around, also. MR. ROBERTS-I gu~ss, p~rhaps, th~ ball's in your court, P~ter, are you willing to do this? You're the swing vote on this thing. MR. CARTIER-You took the words out of my mouth. That's why I said, I really don't like sitting here with only four members here.. th~ applicant, but I'm not going to operate on the basis of, we only have four members h~r~ and that creates problems for us. It doesn't allow us to do what we're supposed to do as a Planning Board and, unfortunately, Dr. Evans happened to b~ the one this came up with. Yes, 11m willing to make a motion on this, to approve this with the stipulation, I'm not making a motion yet, I'm just hearing myself out, here. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, but let me just make sure we can close the public hearing. Is ther~ anybody else in the audience who cares to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-SEQRA is not involved in this dock application. MS. CORPUS-No, itls Type II. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-90 DR. ROBERT EVANS, Introduced by Peter Cartier who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For conversion of an L-shaped dock into a 32 ft. by 38 ft. U-shap~d dock and boathouse with the following stipulations: that the middle fing~r pi~r shown on the plans submitted not be constructed; that the upper railing shown on the plans not be constructed, the purpose of this is to r~duce the eff~cts on the property to the south of th~ applicant's property, specifically, the Abbott property. Duly adopt~d this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAN NO. 33-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA CHARLES A. CAIRNS CHAMPLAIN OIL COMPANY, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CITGO GAS STATION/COLONIAL MART, WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9 NEAR EXIT 20 ON I-87. FOR THE ADDITION OF A 415 SQ. FT. WALK-IN COOLER ADDITION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 35-1-4.2 LOT SIZE: ±D.73 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K JOE INGRAM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-And the County approved this without comment? MR. GORALSKI-Approved. MR. ROBERTS-Would the applicant car~ to add anything to this application? This s~ems rather straight forward. MR. INGRAM-My name is Joe Ingram. I work for Graphics/Construction Management Services of Essex Junction, V~rmont and we're representing Mr. Cairns in this application and we agree that it's a very small project and be happy to answ~r any questions that you might have. 9 '~ -' MR. CARTIER-The only question I have was for engineering staff. This is over an existing septic line. Is there any problem with that, installing this, building this ov~r a s~ptic line? MR. ROBERTS-I think if it's just a line, I don't suppos~ it would be...if it's a field. MR. YARBOWICH-The building service to th~ septic tank, construction over it, is, g~nerally, not a probl~m as long as the proper considerations are mad~ during construction as far as adjusting th~ footings and so forth. Adequate clean outs n~~d to be maintained in any ~vent. MR. ROBERTS-What about the sugg~stion of the Staff or somebody had that..permeable ar~a? MR. YARBOWICH-For the existing zoning,.. the property a 30 percent green area is required. However, if there is no change in the amount of green area, as a r~sult of the project, engineering review indicates that there are traffic ar~as,..s~ptic system, a particular area to not~, and that th~ ~xisting site characterization does not m~et that 30 percent requirement. MR. ROBERTS-Is there an easy way to satisfy this or is it not a problem? MR. GORALSKI-The reason I didn I t bring that up, and maybe you can help m~, wh~n th~y, wh~n the tankers come in to fill your tanks, they driv~ around the back of th~ building to get out, is that correct? MR. INGRAM-I'm really not sur~ exactly how the traffic comes through. MR. GORALSKI-It would appear to m~ that that's the only way they can get in and out of that site without backing out onto Route 9, that's why I thought it would probably be better off if you kept that 36 foot area as gravel sO th~ tankers can drive around th~ back and pull straight out onto Route 9, as opposed to backing out. MR. ROBERTS-And that particular gravel area does not appear that it g~ts a whol~ lot of use. It's probably more permeabl~ with some grav~l th~re, although I donlt suppos~ we can fudge that. MR. INGRAM-But, I think, the point that youlve mad~ and that we're making is that th~re's no change to that portion of the sit~ in this proposal. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-I guess we do need to do a Short Form SEQRA on this project? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. RESOLUTIOR WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION RO. 33-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: WHEREAS, th~r~ is pres~ntly befor~ the Planning Board an application for: an app lication by CHARLES A. CAIRNS D/B/A CHAMPLAIN OIL COMPANY, INC. for the addition of a 415 sq. ft. walk-in cooler addition and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that th~ proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to r~view under the Stat~ Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No f~deral agency appears to be involved. 10 --' 2. The following agenci~s ar~ involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlist~d in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and th~ regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environm~ntal Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the rel~vant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for det~rmining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in S~ction 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for th~ State of New York, this Board finds that the act ion about to be und~rtaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of th~ Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a stat~ment of non-significance or a negativ~ declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopt~d this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-90 CHARLES A. CAIRNS CHAMPLAIN OIL COMPANY, INC., Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, s~conded by Carol Pulv~r: For th~ addition of a 415 sq. ft. walk-in cooler addition as applied. Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAN NO. 34-90 STANLEY GANNON, JR. D/B/A TOP OF THE WORLD AUTO BODY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 178 QUAKER ROAD, OPPOSITE NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS FOR THE ADDITION OF 4 REPAIR BAYS AND A STORAGE ROOM. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 109-3-4 LOT SIZE: ±3.51 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K STANLEY GANNON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Not~s from John S. Goralski, Planner (attach~d) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved. ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engineer (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Okay, does the applicant hav~ any other further comments to ~nlight~n us? If not, does the Board have any questions? MR. CARTIER-Did you send a copy of this hazardous mat~rials form to th~ fir~ d~partment? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, we have that and we forwarded it to the fire marshal's office and they will forward it to th~ fire department. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 11 '-' ----/ MR. ROBERTS-Th~re would appear to be ampl~ land involved in this prop~rty to do what~ver ne~ds to be done, I would think. We need the Short Form for SEQRA on this project? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 34-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: MR. CARTIER-(Referring to SEQRA) How do you get rid of, what do you do with som~ of thes~ hazardous materials wh~n you're done? How will you dispose of those? MR. GANNON-Okay, my nam~'s Stan Gannon. r'm representing Top of the World Auto Body. W~ have a hazardous waste company called HazCo that comes in and pumps, W~. .55 gallon drums that are marked hazardous wastes and we have an EPA Numb~r and ~verything like that and we Ire allowed to have 90 gallons on site, before th~y have to come and pump it out. MR. CARTIER-Alright, thank you. So, that IS been addressed. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: The addition of 4 repair bays and a storage room on the property of TOP OF THE WORLD AUTO BODY OWNED BY STANLEY F. GANNON on Quaker Road and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review und~r th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No fed~ral agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: Non~ 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 th~ Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been complet~d by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered th~ criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant ~nvironmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to ex~cute and sign and fil~ as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-90 STANLEY F. GANNON, JR. D/B/A TOP OF THE WORLD AUTO BODY, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For th~ addition of 4 repair bays and a storage rOOm as the app licant app lied for, with the addition that, during construction, proper erosion control measures, shall be provided during the construction for the protection of adjacent properties. 12 -- --./ Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano SITE PLAN NO. 35-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A MICHAEL SALEEM D/B/A NAPA AUTO PARTS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 121 QUAKER ROAD, SOUTH SIDE OF QUAKER, APPROX. 200 FT. WEST OF RIDGE ROAD FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 59-5-6, 7 LOT SIZE: ±o.46 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved. ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engin~er (attached) MR. HAGAN-I have a qu~stion for Staff on your comment. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I think I do, too. MR. HAGAN-The last paragraph(referring to Staff Input) they stipulate that all existing structures be demolished at once. This is an activ~ business with a consid~rable inventory on hand. Wouldnlt that impose a considerable hardship on them? What are th~y going to do with their inventory and what ar~ they going to with the business on a day to day business? MR. NACE-Can I address that? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, please. MR. NACE-Okay, my name is Tom Nac~ with Haan~n Engineering, representing the owner. Let me just quickly addr~ss th~ comment on the table, here. I think I interpret~d the comment from Staff a little differently, in that, they didn't want to se~ part of the building ripped down and part..the other part to keep it weather proof and didn I t want an unsightly ~yesore from that aspect. What the owner int~nds to do is start off by tearing down just a small portion, you can see the dott~d area h~r~( ref~rring to map) is th~ ~xisting building, okay. What he intends to do is tear up just a v~ry small portion in the back of the existing and then construct about 3/4 of the new, g~t that constructed and weather.. th~n mOve all th~ inv~ntory into th~ new portion and set up business in the new portion. Th~n, in one fell swoop, completely demolish th~ existing and finish off the remaining 1/4. Itls a very tight sight to work with..options that we have. MR. ROBERTS-Could we ask for anymore than that? MR. GORALSKI-No, I think, really, what that does is, it provides for the ongoing business and there really won't be a point wh~re you'll have a demolition site th~re because they'll have the new building up by the time they get it demolished. MR. NACE-Any d~mo1ition that would be existing for any l~ngth of time would be this, in back here, and the public really wouldn I t be able to see it. The other comment I can address is the Highway permit and I'll give you a copy of the County permit. They have also requested erosion control and w~ will provide erosion control. I missed that when I put the plans together. There will b~ ~rosion control across the top of the n~w drainage ditch that the County put in and down one side to protect that and I III wrap it around the corn~r of the property to protect any run off onto adjacent property. MR. CARTIER-Do you have comments from the Beautification Committee? Do you hav~ a copy of this? MR. NACE-Y~s, I do. 13 '---- -.../ MR. CARTIER-And you have no problems with th~ changes they suggested? MR. NACE-No, w~ will comply, as much as possible, with what they requ~sted. MR. CARTIER-Didn't we have a letter from the Citizen IS Advisory? MR. NACE-Handicap? MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay, that will be in that gr~y entrance. There's handicapped parking and that will be that grey entrance. MR. CARTIER-And you got the lett~r of approval from the Warren County D.P.W.? MR. NACE-Yes, w~ did. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-Should we address SEQRA? RESOLUTION WHEN DETElUUNATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 35-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is pres~ntly b~fore the Planning Board an application for: demolition of existing building and construction of a new 7,000 sq. ft. building known as NAPA AUTO PARTS on 121 Quaker 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 R~view Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No fed~ral agency app~ars to be involved. 2. The following agencies ar~ involved: Warren County D.P.W., has been addr~ssed 3. Th~ proposed action considered by this Board is unlist~d in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Qu~ensbury. 4. An Environmental Ass~ssment Form has be~n complet~d by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for det~rmining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the sam~ 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 b~ necessary a statem~nt of non-significance or a negative d~claration that may b~ required by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano 14 '-, ---,' MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-90 MICHAEL SALEEM D/B/A NAPA AUTO PARTS, Introduc~d by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: With the following stipulations: that erosion control m~asures be provided as describ~d by Mr. Nace; that Beautification Committee recommendations be incorporated; that handicapped access and parking and proper signage be provided. Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano SITE PLAN NO. 36-90 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 JOHN M. HUGHES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF BAYWOOD DRIVE, OFF WEST OF BAY ROAD, LOT 4 IN JOHN M. HUGHES SUBDIVISION. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PR.OFESSIONAL DERTAL OFFICE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 60-7-11.1 LOT SIZE: ±D.72 ACRES SECTION 4.020 F JOHN HUGHES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached.) ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Wayne Gannett, Town Engin~er (attached) MR. ROBERTS-We have a letter from the Water Department? MR. GORALSKI-That's a l~tter that, actually, has to do with the dedication of th~ road. It r~ally do~sn' t have anything to do with the sit~ plan. It just happen~d to come at th~ same time. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, and th~ Beautification Committee? MR. GORALSKI-Approved. MR. ROBERTS-And the County also approved without comment. MR. GORALSKI-Approved also and I think there is a letter from th~ Independent Living Center asking for th~ parking spaces and the parking spaces that are provided ar~ larger, the total for th~ two spac~s will be larger than what I s requir~d. MR. ROBERTS-So, it's be~n address~d, okay. Is there som~one here to speak. John, do you car~ to add to any of this? I suppose responding to th~ engine~ring comments would be the most significant. MR. HUGHES-John Hughes, owner and d~veloper of Baywood. As far as th~ b~rm, it hasn't been put in p lac~, there, y~t. I attempt~d it, but with all this rain and mud, I didn't have v~ry good success. I'm waiting for it to dry up a little bit before we can do it. As far as the wat~r that's running over the road, th~r~, and puddling, it's due to the fact that we put wrapping pap~r under the grat~s ther~ wh~n they paved last week and the wrapp ing pap~r' s never been taken back out, yet. I didn't want to take it back out because th~r~ was a little bit of dirt coming over th~ shoulder there and I didn I t want it to get into th~ storm s~w~r so that's the reason for the build up of water right ther~ in that corner. As quick as it drys up, now, we'll go right back at it. MR. ROBERTS-It would b~ surprising if there wasn' t wat~r flowing most ~verywh~re by now. Do we have any oth~r qu~stions about this? Appar~ntly, it's combining th~, making larg~r lots than originally was anticipated. Parking spac~s, Staff, ar~? MR. GORALSKI-Th~ only, according to th~ plan, the applicant is r~questing that several of th~ parking spaces remain gre~n ar~a. I don' t se~ any probl~m with this, as long as the tenant feels that that' s adequat~ and if it do~s become a problem, that the additional parking spaces will be provided. 15 '~ MR. ROBERTS-Y~s, we've customarily done this, as long as we agre~ that you have spac~s that can be added if w~ find that to be n~c~ssary. I just think this should be und~rstood, up front. Well, of course, it is in the Zoning Ordinance, as well. MR. HUGHES-I was going to say, I think it's all in the.. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, it is. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-Do we have any oth~r big problems or can we get into SEQRA on this? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION BO. 36-90, Introduced by P~ter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: MR. CARTIER- (Referring to SEQRA) Mr. Hughes has made refer~nce to the comments by Engin~ering Staff and indicated that that will be corr~ct~d, is that correct? MR. HUGHES-Right. MR. ROBERTS-By the way, did th~ Town accept the road? MR. HUGHES-Yes, they did. W~ got acc~pted last night. WHEREAS, there is presently before th~ Planning Board an application construction of a professional dental office in Lot 4 of the JOHN M. SUBDIVISION, of Baywood Drive and for: HUGHES WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No f~deral agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involv~d: None 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implem~nting the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Que~nsbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of ~nvironmental conc~rn and having considered th~ criteria for determining wh~ther a proj~ct has a significant environmental impact as the same is s~t forth in S~ction 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and R~gulations for th~ State of N~w York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertak~n by this Board will hav~ no significant environmental ~ffect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authoriz~d to execute and sign and file as may b~ necessary a statement of non-significance or a n~gativ~ declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano 16 MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-90 JOHN M. HUGHES, Introduced by Peter Cartier who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For construction of a professional dental office by John M. Hughes, Lot 4 of th~ Hughes Subdivision with the following stipulations: that th~ landscaping plans submitt~d to th~ Beautification Committee be incorporated; that the berm construction and drainage issues raised by Rist-Frost engine~ring be address~d and that the parking areas requested be held in abeyance. Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano SITE PLAN NO. 37-90 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-10 WARREN-WASHINGTON CO. CHAPTER NYS ASSOC. FOR RETARDED CHILDREN OWNERS: DAVID BOWEN, LUCY WHITE 27 COTTAGE HILL ROAD, WEST ON AVIATION TO COTTAGE HILL ROAD ON LEFT, HOUSE ON RIGHT FOR USE AS RESIDENCE FOR SHORT TERM SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN AND ADULTS. TAX MAP NO. 91-4-15 LOT SIZE: ±a.18 ACRES SECTION 4.020 E STEPHEN HOLMES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Not~s from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Is there SOmeone here to speak on behalf of this applicant? MR. HOLMES-My name Warren/Washington ARC. comments, I'd leave it is Steve Holmes. I'm the Executive Dir~ctor of In the inter~st of time, perhaps, rather than making open to questions you might have. the any MR. HAGAN-Concerning the parking, it would be helpful to know how many peopl~ you int~nd to ~mploy there, full time. MR. HOLMES-Gen~rally speaking, we would, as far as full time employ~es go, there would be parking at that site at..time..with parked cars. MR. HAGAN-How many cars can you park there. MR. HOLMES-We figure, if we were to back cars in, side by side, we can get as many as six cars on the lot, in addition to putting one in the garage, but that would be having them side by side. So, we would not want to do that... MR. HAGAN-What about in the winter time when you have snow there? Have you got ~nough room to plow out a space for six cars? MR. HOLMES-Well, we don't anticipate having six cars. We think if we ne~d~d to put six cars on th~ lot, we could. That's what w~ put on our application. We think that four would probably be the maximum amount we would have, but we think we could do six. MR. CARTIER-There would be absolutely no parking on the street by emp loye~s, is that correct? MR. HOLMES-W~ll, we anticipate trying, w~ would pref~r to park in the, I don It know if parkingls restricted on the street? MR. CARTIER-It is. MR. HOLMES-But we would prefer to park in th~ driveway. W~ were planning to park in th~ driveway. MR. CARTIER-I can't put my finger on it right now, but somewhere in the narrative, I believe, it is, okay, here it is, (Referring to Sit~ Plan Application) It~m N. Curr~ntly th~ residence is not handicapped accessible. However, as the building is built on a slab, th~ door step is only several inch~s from ground l~vel. The walkway will eventually be re-Iandscap~d to provid~ a gradual incline into the building. Since we are talking about people with handicapping conditions, h~re, 17 ~ the idea of "eventually" bothers me considerabJ.y. It seems to me that this is a piece of property that, if it IS going to be used by handicapped, people with handicapped conditions, it needs to be MR. HOLMES-That probably is not a good choice of words. W~ would anticipate doing it very quickly, as soon as we get the money. In a sense, with this particular pi~c~ of prop~rty, one of the reasons why we're so excited about this piece of prop~rty, given many of the buildings welve looked at, is the ease of making it acc~ssibl~. We've look~d at many buildings that are up 3 or 4 fe~t, which r~quires a long~r ramp. In this particular case, a very small, we won't really need a ramp, w~ will b~ able to landscape right up.. MR. CARTIER-How many clients would you say you'll be serving on a given day? MR. HOLMES-In a giv~n day? MR. CARTIER-Or at one tim~, in the house? MR. HOLMES-At on~ time, th~ most people that would be there at one time would be in our afternoon program which is our afterschool program and ther~ would be, at most, 12 children there, at on~ time, thatls at most, gen~rally sp~aking. Mayb~ I'd ask Ruth to comment on it. Ruth Robinson is our family servic~ coordinator. Generally, it's 8 to 10, 12 kids in the afternoon. RUTH ROBINSON MRS. ROBINSON-Twelv~, tops. MR. HOLMES-Twelve, tops. MRS. ROBINSON-And they fluctuate. Some start coming in at 2 and are gone by 4 and the rest ar~ gone by 6. Everybody's gone by 6. MR. HOLMES-Basically, in terms of this program, the afternoon program s~rves as kind of a drop off service Or an afternoon respite, aft~rschool type program for these children. MRS. ROBINSON-Our current afterschool program servic~s 12 children. They start coming from school at two and four buses, currently, cOme in and they're all there by 3:30, and alr~ady two have gone home. So, the top children in the building at the same time is 12. MR. CARTIER-Are we, we're not talking full sized buses h~re, are we? W~'re not talking 46 bus~s or anything like that? MRS. ROBINSON-W~ have one full size bus that does come. MR. CARTIER-Okay, that's it, but the other buses are small? MRS. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-And, apparently, the septic system, you feel, is adequate for this. MR. HOLMES-We feel it's ad~quate with the us~ we project. We've talked with Action S~ptic System, which is a group that services s~ptic systems and they f~el that, at th~ most, what we would n~ed to do would be to increase th~ amount of service that the syst~m would get. Right now, that syst~m..1, 000 gallon system, would typically b~ serviced onc~ ~very thr~e years, according to the Company..talked with and they would recommend that, in this case, we would service it onc~ a year and we fe~l it would be adequate. If w~ found otherwise, of course, w~ would comply with any engineering studies or anything to be used. MRS. PULVER-Is someone going to live there? MR. HOLMES-This is not a permanent, full time r~sidence. MRS. PULVER-Okay, that's what I was going to say, you are not going to use this as a full time residence? MR. HOLMES-No, th~ purpose of this r~sidence is to provid~ us, as the application states, is to provide a respite for people, for families of developmentally disabled individuals who live in the Warr~n and Washington communities. These ar~ kids and, in some cas~s, adults, in the afternoon program, it won't be adults, but 18 --- .-/ sometim~s, on the w~ekends, ther~ will be SOm~ people who ar~ over 21, but th~se ar~ folks who are living in th~ community now, able to live with th~ir families and what we're doing is providing families opportunities to do other things, but in som~ cas~s with this p.rogram, it's...but SOm~ people have actually been able to take a vacation for the first time in their adult lives, married liv~s. It I S very much a respite type of an opportunity. MR. CARTIER-You're talking about, Prospect School does this, two nights a w~ek. MR. HOLMES-Right, Prosp~ct School does it Friday and. . MR. CARTIER-And you're talking about a s~ven day a we~k operation? MR. HOLMES-W~ll, what w~' re talking about is a multipl~ use type of situation. Five days, during th~ aft~rnoon, we would have a drop off program and th~n, on th~ we~k~nd, w~ hav~ a, what w~ call our fre~ standing r~spite program, where th~ kids, up to 4 people would actually COme in a stay with us from Friday night to, som~times as long as Monday morning when they would b~ transported to school. Sometimes they go home Sunday, during the day. MR. CARTIER-But we are talking about overnight use, then? MR. HOLMES-During th~ we~kends, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HOLMES-But they' r~ not living there, th~y' re staying ther~ for that period of time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WALTER C. DONOVAN MR. DONOVAN-I am a resident of 32 Cottage Hill Road. I 'v~ liv~d th~re for 20 years. My name is Walter C. Donovan. When I mov~d in ther~t the homes were pr~tty w~ll, m~diocre. During that p~riod of 20 years, most everyone on the block has improved th~ir prop~rty to mak~ it comply with th~ Beautification Project that's going on in the Town of Queensbury. In addition to that, oth~r new homes hav~ been built within the area. Th~ price of the homes have b~en constantly climbing and so have my taxes. The hous~ that's in question here, at 27 Cottag~ Hill Road, was occupi~d for a family for bett~r than 25 years. They sold out because th~ children gr~w up, got married and left. A contractor came in and redid the interior of this particular home and when he finished with it, he put a sign up for $89,900 right in broad daylight. It' s b~en vacant, now, for the past 4 months. I feel that a project such as th~y int~nd to put in here is not going to give any valu~ to my house and it will devalu~ it. My heart goes out to these childr~n that ar~ retarded or any handicapp~d p~rson, but I feel th~ area we are in is a resid~ntial area. It is not a school. It is not to be conveyed as a school. Your talking about parking six cars in this driveway. It I S impossible. Th~ driv~way is not completed. It's all shatt~red. There's no space to put a car in th~ garage because it's very small and th~ in and outs, and th~ septic tank will not hold with the constant contribution of th~se children using the bathroom. It's not equipped to accommodat~ what th~y' r~ talking about, here. I feel th~y have a school up th~ road for the m~ntally r~tard~d. It's up there near th~ fire house on Aviation Road. Why can't they, if they' v~ got this kind of money to sp~nd, build a facility close to that school and us~ that, instead of invading a resid~ntial district. That's my comment on it. I oppose it. MIRIAM BECKERLY MRS. BECKERLY-I'm Miriam Beckerly and I got the first letter from the, in fact, I liv~ on Prospect Drive which is just in back of this property and we've been th~re 35 years and felt it was a residential ar~a. Th~ peopl~ n~xt door asked, 34 years ago, if th~y could have a business on their property and it was refused. Now, I fe~l this is kind of a business. It I S a very qui~t neighborhood, believ~ it or not. Ther~ might one bus that COmes down our street, but there are many buses that go down Cottage Hill Road and I really want to object to it, with that many people, because it is a quiet area. My h~art also goes out to these young people. I wish there wer~ a hom~ for th~m, but I don't think this is th~ home. Itls small. It's a small house. Th~y say five b~drooms. We hav~ four in our house and we put a 20 by 20 addition on, which they haven't done. So, I I d like to bring up that question. 19 -/ BILL MCLOUGHLIN MR. MCLOUGHLIN-My name is Bill McLoughlin. I live at Number 9 Cottage Hill Road. I've lived there for 20 years. Now, this house that th~y'r~ talking about, Number 27 Cottag~ Hill Road, as Walt~r C. Donovan has stat~d before, I won I t repeat everything that he has stat~d so w~ll, but I oppos~ this b~caus~, from the letter that I have received, from th~ Town, it stat~s that it would be a residence. Now, by what this gentleman states, here, it sounds like more, that it's going to be a school, of a lot of coming and going and, pertaining to the parking, you'd nev~r be able to g~t six cars in th~r~ because I hav~ two cars. I can just about get them in my driv~way the way it is now, but I would like to oppose this proj~ct. That's all I've got to say. DAVID BOWEN MR. BOWEN-I don't know if I'm out of turn to sp~ak her~. My name is David Bowen and 11m the contractor in question. I was the person who bought the house and renovat~d it and, as far as the addition, I can address that. There was an addition put on, approximately, 10 y~ars ago, with two bedrooms and another bathroom, that's in the back of the house. Itls a kind of a T-shaped structure. Therels a garag~ that I s set farther back. Th~re is a lot of room for parking. The oth~r thing is that the house is in v~ry good shape. The drive is in, certainly, ad~quat~ shape and the septic was built in th~ past five years, to Town code and I think that what theylre proposing to do, p~rhaps, I'm going to be a little bit prejudice here, I think it's a good thing, yes, but, as far as th~ neighbors, I think that ~verybody can say, and can pay, lip servic~ in saying that their heart goes out to the childr~n. Well, then, why not give a little bit more support and giv~ an okay to something that is clearly needed and is clearly in the best inter~st of the community. Thank you. FRANCIS X. WHITE MR. WHITE-My name is I'm r~tired and I put Driv~ and I feel Furth~rmore, I don't Francis X. White. I just moved up here about a year ago. all my mortey into my house that I bought at Number 17 Prosp~ct as though the depreciation of the house would hurt me. approve of this happening. Thank you. MARTIN FAIRCLOUD MR. FAIRCLOUD-Ilm a Board Member of the Warr~n/Washington ARC. I just hav~ on~ comm~nt for the gentleman who talked about, perhaps, building a new facility on Quaker Road as a place to servic~ the clients. The comment that I'd like to make, the theme that Warr~n/Washington ARC really maintains is, we mak~ good neighbors and, in all communities that we have programs, if you talk to our neighbors, almost to ~v~ry p~rson, that is what you will hear. Ilm fully in support of this project. I would encourage th~ Board to support it also. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-May I ask why you'r~ leaving 137 Ridge? MR. HOLMES-Since welve moved in here, welve had th~ intention of trying to locat~ a p~rmanent facility. We're leasing that building, right now, and it's a commercial prop~rty and it' s r~ally not th~ type of prop~rty that we want. W~ want it to be involved in a n~ighborhood. Thes~ are all children that live in neighborhoods and w~ want the charact~r of their lif~ to be continued when they're in our program, as w~ll. That building that we're living in now is a very ~xpensive building, b~ing in a commercial zon~ and the rent is prohibitive and we don' t hav~ any permanency ther~. We feel it I S important to own our property. If I could just mak~ a couple of comments on some of the things that were said tonight, and I appreciate th~ points of vi~w of all the individuals who spoke. In t~rms of the siz~ of the building, this is a home that I s just a perfect size for us. We 'v~ look~d at many, many, many hous~s in th~ Warren/Washington area. This particular hous~, th~ way it happ~ns to be constructed, it's 1300 square f~~t. It has v~ry small bedrooms and, for a respit~ program, small bedrooms is a v~ry good f~atur~ because most of the space is laid out such that itls in common area. So, it has a huge living room/dining room area and a huge kind of a play area and it also has an ~nclosed backyard which facilitates the types of proper sup~rvisions that we would want th~ children to have. In terms of property values, there is no evid~nc~, and there have been a numb~r of studies involving such faciliti~s, nationwide, and th~re is nO evidence that these type of facilities effect prop~rty values in any way, shape or form. That is a f~ar that is often expressed, but not on~ that has been substantiat~d by any kind of documents or research. I think, echoing 20 --..../ what Martin Faircloud said, we have b~en good neighbors in all of the neighborhoods that we're involved in and we're in a number of communities within this ar~a. This is a little bit different program for us, but we think it's, probably, th~ most community type program we've been able to put together, in that, we'll be serving p~op Ie who are living in Warren/Washington County, who are th~ neighbors of people in Warren/Washington County, who are here and that's pretty much th~, I'd like to make this point. I'd welcome other questions. MR. CARTIER-11m of s~rvic~s are 11m asking is, what 11m saying? thinking down the road, suppose you have to ~xpand. These kinds sor~ly needed. What happens if you have to ~xpand? I guess what is this building maxed out, in terms of its, do you und~rstand MR. HOLMES-Yes, in terms of what w~ want to do with this program, becaus~ our vision of this program, is what's nice about it is itls size. Th~ only expansion that I would propose, at this particular location, ever, would b~ that we might do mor~ nights. For instance, right now w~' re doing a w~ekend program. Th~r~ might be a time, in the future, where w~ would be able to receive enough mon~y so that we could hav~ a couple of weeks, during th~ summer, when r~latives or family could actually go away on vacation, but what we like about the program, and I'm sure yould agree with me, is the fact that it's a small numb~r of kids. We're not looking to have a school. It IS really not a school, in any way. Itls a respite opportunity. It's not, we donlt consider it baby-sitting s~rvices, but it's probably the closest thing that you could compare it to, but th~re is a recreational component involved and we don't consider what we do as school. What w~ do is play. MRS. PULVER-And these children have sp~cial needs. MR. HOLMES-And th~se people have sp~cial needs and it's an opportunity for socialization. We've been doing it for two y~ars now. It I S b~en a very, very succ~ssful program. W~ have 175 families in the Warren/Washington area that are utilizing th~ various family support services and as many as 75 or 80 probably would b~ abl~ to tak~ advantage of this typ~ of a program. MR. CARTIER-Okay, youlve described expansion in terms of time. in t~rms of physical expansion of the building. I'm talking more MR. HOLMES-No, this building, first of all, this building does not lend its~lf to any physical expansion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HOLMES-W~ would never int~nd to do that nor would w~ intend to have mor~ than four children there, during th~ w~ekends or more than 12 childr~n there during the day becaus~ th~ building r~ally would not allow us to do the type of nice, small program that we do. If we ~ver needed to expand this type of service, w~ may, there's a possibility, I suppos~, in the futur~, 4 or 5 years down the road, or sometime that we might move to another location or have a s~cond location lik~ this, but we 1ik~ the smallness of the program. The problem would be, on~ of the oth~r problems with the sites that we have now, just to follow up a question, although w~ have about the same amount of square feet, the bedrooms are such that th~y're very big and we don't have as many vacant. So, having five bedrooms, ~ven though they're small, makes it v~ry easy for us to accommodate individual sle~ping quarters during the evening and w~ really don't have any intention of having this be a larger program in terms of the numbers. MR. CARTIER-Ar~ you not required to have a Queensbury Fire Code situation, so on and so forth, for a use of this typ~? MR. HOLMES-W~ need a wired in alarm system, which this building already has. MRS. PULVER-And, of course, th~se childr~n don I t drive, so th~re' s not going to be an expansion of cars. MR. HOLMES-Ther~ will be no vehicl~s from the children. The children will b~ dropped off and picked up and that will incr~ase, there will be some traffic from that, th~re's no doubt, but we feel it's... MR. CARTIER-Well, we're not talking about, possibly, expanding th~ garag~ for us~? 21 '-' "--- MR. HOLMES-No, the &mount of space that is in this building, the 1300 squar~ feet that is in this building, and the exterior of the backyard which is an enclos~d space, which is also a very nice feature for us, in that w~ would b~ able to monitor th~ childr~n's activity. Perfect size for us, and w~ have no int~ntion of looking to ~nlarg~. MRS. PULVER-You said your general hours of operation are 1: 30 to 5: 30, that's, generally, when the children are th~r~ during the week? MR. HOLMES-During the week. MRS. PULVER-And y~t you'r~ there from 8:30 to 4:30? MR. HOLMES-Ruth's, actually, there. MRS. PULVER-Ruth would be there, mainly. MR. HOLMES-And what shels doing at the building is, basically, arranging.. . and talking with families on the phone. MR. ROBERTS-We've heard, tonight, from a few neighbors, have you made any attempt to contact any of the more immediate neighbors, any kind of a petition or anything? MR. HOLMES-Yes, we have. We didn't do a petition, in fact,..welve sort of b~en caught off guard today because w~ weren I t really awar~ that there were som~ of th~ concerns that we express~d tonight. We had a meeting on April 18th. We went around. We sent out a notification to th~ immediate neighbors. We had a m~eting on April 18th. W~ talked to a number of n~ighbors and we feel there is, also, quit~ a bit of support in the neighborhood. Lynn Potenza, Marilyn Potenza, came down and was also available at that meeting that night. Do you want to add any comments? You've talk~d quit~ a bit too. MRS. ROBINSON-We' ve talk~d to a number of our n~ighbors, p~rsonally, there wer~ conc~rns expressed, but most people seemed very receptiv~ and, actually, are looking forward to us in the community. Th~re is a shut in on the road who wants us to be there, wants new friends, wants to see the kids. Therels lots of positive people, in the neighborhood. MR. ROBERTS-Staff has not heard too many comments one way or the other on this? MR. GORALSKI-We had one call, today, I believe, that Stu Baker took and I beli~ve that p~rson said th~y were going to be h~re tonight. Otherwis~, we have not had any comm~nts at all. MRS. ROBINSON-If I can just speak to that, if I may. The gentleman was here, ~arlier. He had to leave. His n&me was Richard Dixon and he was h~r~ representing his parents and, basically, they had concerns of, what exact ly were we going to do. He spoke with us, stay~d for a little while, and was willing to send a letter of support to you, if that would help. MR. ROBERTS-Well, it's sort of after the fact for that, I would think. It probably would have helped us if w~' d have had a petition from the neighbors or heard something positive, here, but all we've heard is, basically, negative, from the neighbors, although... MRS. PULVER-I'd like to say something. not in our neighborhood. This is kind of the we want this, but MR. ROBERTS-Yes, sure. MRS. PULVER-And I believe that buying this home for $89,000 or whatever, is not going to effect anyone els~s property. If anything, ~veryone else is going to be m~asured against $89,000. MR. HOLMES-We haven't agreed on $89,000. MRS. PULVER-So, it could actually help the other residents if they decide to sell th~ir hom~ and this home has sold and they n~~d a good market analysis or something. This could actually help th~m. My other feeling is that many people have families with four childr~n and at least these children are just being dropped off. I happen to hav~ children that are dropped off and have two or three more dropp~d off with th~m and then th~y' re p ick~d up and th~n they I re dropped off and then 22 '--' .~ the comings and goings, you know, you'd need a book to keep track of it. I would be for this because, the other thing is, too, I know ~veryone has comp lained. They think th~ir property values are going to be attacked, or what~ver, but I have to say, are they contributing to Prospect School right now. Are they making charitable contributions so that that school could expand and then, possibly, you wouldn' t hav~ to look for other programs outside the school. I know Marilyn was trying her heart out to do different programs up there and I think this is a good p lace for this. I think it could work and I think you would be good neighbors. MR. ROBERTS-Anyon~ else in th~ audience who cares to comment on it? MR. DONOVAN-Well, before you make any decision on this, I would like to say this. You mad~ a statement earlier in the evening where you went up to visit a dock that was in controversy h~r~. I would lik~ the Board if they would consent to take a visit and go see this house. MR. ROBERTS-We've all b~en there. MR. CARTIER-We visit all sites. MR. DONOVAN-Then th~re's no s~nse in me going any further with it. I'm just saying that it's adequate. I don't think that the facilities are ther~ that they're talking about. I don It think that the septic tank, alone is going to be sufficient to hold what they want to do. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think if they had problems with th~ir septic, they, th~mselves, would imm~diately want to get that fixed, but wasn't there something h~re about th~ septic being adequate? MR. ROBERTS-Yes, th~r~ is...it's a thousand gallon tank and they thought th~y'd pump it out more often, but, to play it safe, we know the soils are pretty good up there. MR. HAGAN-I have concerns about th~ number of people that could be in this building because you said th~re would be a max of 12 people or 12 patients, plus a staff of, possibly, 4, isn't that what you said? Okay, that's 16 peopl~ and 16 people put quít~ a demand on a septic system and, having been in this community the y~ars I hav~, and watched that settlement grow, it just s~ems to me that it's hard pressed to have that topography support the syst~ms that ar~ there and I don' t s~e how you could add to the system that's there, adequately, to service that number of people on a daily basis becaus~ those homes were not built for families of 8, 10, 12, 14 people, they're too small. MR. HOLMES-Well, the argum~nt, back, I gu~ss, would be that this is not so many people, th~se are not 16 people living ther~ for 24 hours during this time. The maximum would be 16 people for several hours at at a time. MR. HAGAN-During th~ir waking hours though, I'm thinking, I don I t want to g~t personal about this, but, hygi~nically speaking, we put more demands on it during our living days then w~ do MR. HOLMES-These are not morning hours. This is late aft~rnoon hours. I mean, we could carry this discussion on and on. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, probably not a lot of show~ring going on. MRS. PULVER-They're only op~n 1:30 to 5:30. MR. HOLMES-Ruth wanted m~ to mention, we are talking about for th~ childr~n in diap~rs. . . We're talking about some very young children in the afterschool program as well. Th~se are not adults. From talking to the septic people that we've talk~d about, I mean our plan is to address any potential probl~ms. I wouldn't want to..the situation. MR. HAGAN-There's no laundry facilities in there. MR. HOLMES-There would be a wash~r/dryer there, but it would not be something that would b~ used during the week. That would only be needed to be us~d on th~ weekend and that's only for, lik~, one or two washes of sheets and towels, bedding, things like that. We're not washing peop les clothes. This is a v~ry minimal us~. W~ would not be doing any washing other than what we n~ed to. The childr~n com~ with an ~xtra set of clothes. The only r~ason we have a washer/dryer is for the conv~nience of washing sheets on th~ weekends. We believe itls a minimum use and we think th~ contingency of pumping out more often is one that will satisfy any problem that we have. 23 ~ ---' MR. CARTIER-W~ll, it syst~m. . . syst~ms ar~ handl~ something like this bedroom, p~r se. ma.y and it may not. You may end up with ha.ving a solv~nt siz~d based on numb~r of b~drooms. I don't know how w~ I d this, how the building would look at that or engineering..us~ MR. HOLMES-it I S an odd mix of, I don't know how th~ formula. would hav~ to b~ calcula.t~d. In some of the rough calculat ions that we do and, aga.in, w~' r~ not ~ngin~~rs, . . in looking at it and having ta.lked to the s~ptic folks. In using sOme of the figur~s tha.t they gav~ us, the ma.ximum, the syst~m is d~sign~d, suppos~dly, for 365 days, 24 hours use of a.. fa.mily which would b~ a.bout 35,000 gallons of sewag~. We would generat~, by the uses that w~ have,.. roughly about 27,000 gallons. MR. CARTIER-I'm just trying to put som~ numb~rs or us~ together here. On w~~k~nds you'r~ going to hav~, 4 cli~nts,..staff? MR. HOLMES-At the most, there would b~ 2, and s~vera.l of the..peopl~, 3 days? MR. CARTIER-S~v~nty-two hours, s~v~n peopl~, am I doing tha.t right? Four clients, three staff members? (TAPE TURNED) MR. HOLMES-W~' d lik~ to keep the thre~ days, but, actually, most p~op l~ ar~ not sta.ying. . . MR. CARTIER-Ignoring the ~vening r~spit~ that w~' r~ talking a.bout, we' r~ ta.lking about a usag~ of of 17 and a ha.lf hours a w~~k by 16 p~ople, plus 72 hours a. w~~k, for 7 p~op Ie, that's a 3 day weekend. So, w~' r~ looking a.t less than 100 hours of. .use. MR. HOLMES-That' s pr~tty much the figures w~ wer~ using in t~rms of coming up with th~ 27,000. MR. ROBERTS-It's a. close call. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'll a.dd my two cents, h~re. My..th~ Boa.rd at the Prosp~ct School for a coup l~ of years, so I'm trying to avoid making that, having that influenc~ while I'm deciding here. I don't know if I can do that or not. MR. HOLMES-I do want to make the distinction. County. . . This is the Warr~n/Wa.shington MR. CARTIER-I understand that. I can appr~ciat~ th~ concerns of the n~ighbors, but I think th~y'r~ fears are not going to b~ realized. MR. ROBERTS-Well, if we thought so, we certainly wouldn't vot~ for it, obviously. I would like to hav~ heard from more of the n~ighbors. I assume all the n~ighbors have been notified. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. WHITE-No, I wa.s not notifi~d. MR. GORALSKI-Everyone who liv~s within 500 f~et should have b~~n notifi~d. MR. WHITE-My n~xt door n~ighbors w~re notifi~d, but I was not, but I' v~ b~~n inform~d about this and I'm t~lling you MR. HAGAN-What number is your residence? MR. WHITE-Numb~r 17 Prosp~ct Driv~, tha.t's th~ n~xt block. MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, you might'v~ been just about, mor~ tha.n 500 fe~t away. MR. HAGAN-Tha.tls more tha.n 500 f~et a.wa.y. MR. WHITE-It's just opposit~ tha.t house because my n~xt door n~ighbor got th~ notic~. MR. GORALSKI-What's your nam~, sir? MR. WHITE-Francis X. White. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I gu~ss the syst~m isnlt always perfect, but I think, by ~nlarg~, most of th~.. 24 '- ------ MR. WHITE-I und~rstand that. I'm an ex-vet~ran from World War II. I was a pilot in World War II and I came up her~ to rest and the more I hear about this proj~ct that's going to be going on here, I'm a little bit worri~d about it. It's got me going. MR. HAGAN-Sp~cifically, becaus~ of the type of p~op l~ that ar~ going in and out of th~ building, sir? MR. WHITE-That's correct, th~ typ~ of peopl~. MR. th~ you I'm HAGAN-What retarded, find th~m not trying would be your sp~cific obj~ction to having, not only, it says for but this means physically handicapp~d people too. Now, how can obj~ctionabl~ if they're going from th~ street to the door. Now, to b~ argumentativ~. I'm trying to g~t both sides. MR. WHITE-Y~s, well, that's what th~y say, but MRS. PULVER-Sir, th~y'r~ always sup~rvis~d, too. MR. WHITE-Well, they could be marching around the block, too. MRS. PULVER-I don't think so. MR. HAGAN-If I moved into this house, with four children, and let I s assum~ some things, that I'm not a very guard~d par~nt and I let my kids run wild and they scream th~ir h~ads off at night and during the day. Now, th~re I think you could find an objection, but th~se kids are going to be supervised 100 p~rcent of th~ tim~, by adults and th~y're only going to be there for short p~riods, individually. So, it isn't going to be trying on th~m. MR. WHITE-Well, t~ll m~, why are they taking over this hous~ for, if they're going to be there for a short, is that only from time to time? MR. HAGAN-Because th~ service is County wide, for Washington and Warren Counti~s. MR. WHITE-But why bring them her~? I come up h~re for r~st. MR. HAGAN-Well, that's what 11m trying to get at. children are going to int~rfere with your r~st? What makes you think th~s~ MR. WHITE-Well, I com~ from a n~ighborhood, I don't know whether you know it, down in Astoria, Long Island. MR. HAGAN-I was born and br~d in New York City, sO if you want to talk about that, I can. There you could find obj~ctions. MR. WHITE-But I come up h~re for quite and I'm afraid that this is going to b~ a littl~ bit MR. HAGAN- I think you I re making assumptions that aren I t tru~ because these kids are sup~rvised, totally. MR. ROBERTS-More so than the average family, probably. MR. HAGAN-Your neighbors kids are apt to be more of a nuisance than th~s~ kids are. MR. WHITE-W~ll, I hav~ b~en around a lot of medical people and medical hospitals, too and around hospitals that hav~ these typ~ of people and 11m going to t~ll you that, no matter what's said about it, it's still a lot of troubl~. MR. CARTIER-I would suggest that anybody who has concerns about this, that th~y go down and spend an afternoon at 137 Ridg~. MR. HOLMES-And you'd be v~ry w~lcom~ to do that. MR. CARTIER-And I think your concerns would be ~ased. pleasantly surprised. I think you would be MR. ROBERTS-That's th~re pr~sent location wh~re they presently operat~, 137 Ridg~, you said? MRS. PULVER-Y~s, you could go down th~re and look at th~ facility. 25 --- -..-' MR. WHITE-Well, I'm not the type to go browsing around. I just want to b~ l~ft alon~ and not to bother anybody. MRS. PULVER-W~ll, if anybody bothers you, you do have th~ right to complain, too, to your local authoriti~s. MR. WHITE-I know. I'v~ got the State Polic~ right b~hind me. Th~y're officially opening up Thursday. MR. HOLMES- If I could just add one comment. We would, and I appr~ciat~ you sugg~sting that they come visit. W~ would love peopl~ doing that. In t~rms of th~ types of impact, th~ r~alistic impact on th~ neighborhood, as. .w~re talking about, the bottom lin~ is, I think anybody who got to know thes~ folks would find mor~ joy, than any kind of hassl~ or probl~m with th~se particular individuals and, in t~rms of searching for qui~t and p~acefulness, I donlt think p~opl~ sp~nding som~ time with are folks would f~el anything but that, ~specially the childr~n that are ther~. MRS. PULVER-W~ll, I don't b~li~v~ that those children are th~ problem. MR. ROBERTS-I suspect traffic might b~ the bigg~st probl~m or pot~ntial subj~ct for. . . MRS. PULVER-I think th~y would take care of traffic coming in and out of th~re. MR. ROBERTS-W~ll, th~y would hav~ to, yes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HOLMES-Just as a point of information, does anybody know the possibility of parking in th~ Queensbury High School parking lot? I'm asking this, s~riously, in t~rms of p~opl~'s conc~rns about parking and thinking of som~ MR. CARTIER-You hav~, in the neighborhood, a middl~ school, you hav~ a high school, you hav~ a church, a number of church~s nearby, ther~ may be some parking availabl~ th~r~. MR. HOLMES-Y~s, b~cause, I mean, it's very much in walking distanc~ and if parking is really a major issue for peop l~, I think that we could work out Borne sort of arrang~ment with the high school or a church wher~ p~op l~ could park their car and walk to th~ place. Itls only a quarter of a mile. MR. CARTIER-You're talking staff parking? MR. HOLMES-Y~s, for staff parking. Just to alleviat~ som~ of the conc~rns. MR. CARTIER-I think ther~ ar~ a number of ag~ncies in that neighborhood that you can addr~ss. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, I would think so. MRS. PULVER-I think if you w~nt to the high school and... MR. HOLMES-I m~an, I would be willing to suggest that that might b~ som~thing that w~ could build into this, in t~rms of, because I understand their conc~rn. I mean, nobody wants to go down and se~ six cars, although I don't think we'd ev~r have six cars, I don't think anybody wants to se~ that. In talking about this and thinking about this, we thought that might b~ something we would want to do. It's, certainly, not v~ry far. MR. CARTIER-That's something you want to do on your own. I don't think you' r~ asking us to mak~ that a stipulation and I think becaus~..som~body else is doing.. You can explore that on your own. MR. HOLMES-Well, what I'm saying is, in understanding of peopl~' s concerns about that, we have thought that through and that's probably something that w~ should check out. MR. MCLOUGHLIN-I've got one more question. The· word w~'re..this ~v~ning is r~sid~ntial. Now, I've got nothing against retarded childr~n, myself. Now, you're going to have people coming and, th~ children will be coming and going from Number 27 Cottage Hill, right? Now, will you be g~tting paid for this servic~ of th~ childr~n b~ing dropp~d off and pick~d up and sO forth? 26 ~ ---' MR. HOLMES-In terms of the reimbursement for this? MR. MCLOUGHLIN-Yes. MR. th~ and th~ HOLMES-W~ are reimbursed for this program in State, a very small, minor fe~ for th~ famili~s nobody I s deni~d services and th~ third way is service. a number of ways. One, from which is based on their incom~ w~ go out and fund rais~ for MR. ROBERTS- I think w~ know wh~re you're going here. You' r~ trying to say this is not... I think this is something that Staff and our Legal D~partment has already d~termin~d, that this is reviewable by us, as a site plan, in this particular zone, and that, apparently, has be~n addressed. Th~ decision's been made that it is permitted in this zone. MR. MCLOUGHLIN-It is permitt~d? MR. ROBERTS-That's what, I would assume that MR. GORALSKI-Th~ Zoning Administrator has MR. ROBERTS-The Zoning Administrator has, otherwise w~ wouldn't be addr~ssing it. MR. MCLOUGHLIN-I s~e, in other words, you're not going to turn th~ ar~a around from resid~ntial to commercial? MR. ROBERTS-Thatls not our int~nt. MR. CARTIER-Th~re are allowable us~s, this is a UR-IO zone. There ar~ allowable us~s in that zone, beyond resid~ntial, okay. Just, very quickly, to pick a f~w things out of her~, hom~ occupation, school, church, synagogu~, hospital, nursing hom~, health related facility, such as out patient clinic, and sO on, like a day car~ center, thos~ kinds of things ar~ allowable in this UR zone. MR. MCLOUGHLIN-How about a small busin~ss of som~ sort? MR. ROBERTS-No, unless itls a home occupation, as..said. MR. MCLOUGHLIN-Home occupation, I see. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-For you information, that's in Article 4 of the Town Zoning Ordinances, if you want to se~ it. MR. ROBERTS-No SEQRA? MR. GORALSKI-Y~s, you should review SEQRA on this. It's an unlist~d action. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 37-90, Introduc~d by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Use as a residence for short term services for developmentally disabled children and adults by the WARREN/WASHINGTON COUNTY CHAPTER OF NEW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN at 27 Cottage Hill Road and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has d~termin~d that th~ proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review und~r the State Environmental Quality Revi~w Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No fed~ral agency appears to b~ involved. 2. The following agencies are involv~d: Non~ 3. Th~ proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Departm~nt of Environm~ntal Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 27 '-' ~ 4. An Environmental Ass~ssment Form has been completed by th~ applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed th~ r~l~vant areas of environmental conc~rn and having consider~d th~ criteria for d~termining whether a proj~ct has a significant environmental impact as th~ same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rul~s and Regulations for th~ Stat~ of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be und~rtaken by this Board will have no significant environmental ~ffect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may b~ necessary a statement of non-significance or a negativ~ declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopt~d this 22nd day of May, 1990, by th~ following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Rob~rts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MOT lOB TO APPROVE SITE PLAN BO. 37-90 WARREB-WASHINGTOB co. CHAPTER HYS ASSOC. FOR RETARDED CHILDREB, Introduced by Carol Pulver who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by Jam~s Hagan: For use as r~sid~nc~ for short term servic~s for developmentally di8abl~d childr~n and adults. Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano SITE PLAN NO. 38-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A PHILLIP K. LAU D/B/A QUEENSBURY CAR WASH CORNER OF ROUTE 9 AND WEEKS ROAD FOR THE ADDITION OF TWO FULL SERVICE BAYS. (WARREB COUNTY PLANNIBG) TAX MAP NO. 70-1-3 LOT SIZE: ±1.52 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K PHILLIP K. LAU, PRESENT STAFF IHPUT Notes from Stuart G. Bak~r, Assistant Plann~r (attach~d) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County approved. MR. CARTIER-Can I just ask you a question about that because that maybe tak~s care of a concern I have. Is it your understanding that th~y go into th~se two, first and second bay, after having gone through the car wash, is that right? MR. GORALSKI-Right, after. MR. CARTIER-In other words, they're not going to pull in off the 8tre~t, into th~s~ bays? MR. GORALSKI-That's my understanding. MR. ROBERTS-Well, you wouldn't go through th~ main car wash and go through on~ of the smaller ones, thatls a dO-it-yourself. You'd do eith~r/or, wouldn't you? MR. GORALSKI-Why donlt you ask Mr. Lau. MR. ROBERTS-We do want to hear from our engin~~ring d~partment first, though. ENGINEER REPORT Not~s by Wayn~ Gannett, Town Engin~er (attached) MR. ROBERTS-Okay, Mr. Lau, would you care to answ~r th~ qu~stion that's b~~n ask~d or any oth~r comments you car~ to. 28 '-- -./ MR. LAU-My name is Phillip Lau. I'm the owner of the Qu~~nsbury Car Wash. Right here(Referring to map) is the ~xisting car wash. Actually, as you exit the car wash, this is the first bay. We will use it as a full service. Betw~en the door and the ~xit, th~ first bay is approximat~ly 40 f~et, because the car wash.. is 28 f~~t. The car wash ~xit is off both sides of the building. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but my question was, they're going into the first bay, out of the car wash, is that right? Th~y come out of the car wash and go into that first bay? They don't drive off the street and into that first bay? MR. LAU-They exit through th~ first bay. MR. CARTIER-Okay, that answers my question. MR. ROBERTS-Why are you doing that. When I go through the main car wash, I'm done. Why do I go through another bay? MR. LAU-An ext~rior wash, when they've been through th~ car wash, th~n they'r~ don~. They go out the ~xit. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MR. LAU-What I'm trying to do is, the kind of servic~ like the Quaker Road car wash offers. They come inside your car and clean th~ carpets and after th~y wash it, th~y us~ a towel to hand dry your car outsid~, wipe off the window, cl~an the window, what you call full-service. MR. ROBERTS-I s~e, okay. MR. LAU-From the exit, from the time they exit th~ car wash, to the first bay, it IS about, approximately, 40 fe~t. Thatls why I put a storag~ room here b~cause if I put the bays right here, it's too close. I find it v~ry easy to g~t into it, ~ven with a full siz~d car. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, where are you going to, now, hav~ the dumpst~r? You pr~s~ntly hav~ th~ dumpster in your storage area, as I recall. MR. LAU-Yes, the dumpst~r will be here. MR. ROBERTS-Okay, I missed that. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ROBERTS-Do we have, do w~ ne~d MR. GORALSKI-Short Form SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 38-90, Introduced by Peter Cartier who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: The addition of two full-service bays to the QUEENSBURY CAR WASH corner of Route 9 and Weeks Road, owned by PHILLIP K. LAU and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed proj~ct and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No f~deral agency appears to be involved. 2. The following ag~nci~s are involv~d: None 29 '- ---' 3. Th~ proposed action consider~d by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environm~ntal Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environm~ntal Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyz~d the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is s~t forth in S~ction 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of N~w York, this Board finds that the action about to be und~rtaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is her~by authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a stat~ment of non-significanc~ or a negativ~ declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN RO. 38-90 PHILLIP K. !.AU D/B/A QUEENSBURY CAR WASH, Introduced by Jam~s Hagan who mov~d for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulv~r: For the addition of two full service bays be approv~d as the applicant has submitted. Duly adopt~d this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Roberts MR. ROBERTS-We hav~ a couple of things of a housekeeping nature. Which do you car~ to addr~ss first? MR. GORALSKI-I could probably just go quickly through this for you. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. (END OF FIRST DISK) 30 '- --./ MR. GORALSKI-Back in March, you voted to recommend approval for a change of zone for Adirondack Industrial Park and I 'v~ given you a map and a legal description. That map consists of the ~ntire portion of the Warren/Washington Industrial Park that's in Que~nsbury. The Town Board, in reviewing this, is considering, now, re-zoning the entire Industrial Park from Light Industrial 3 Acr~ to Light Industrial 1 Acre. Th~ Planning D~partment has recommended that that would be the appropriate way to go about this, inst~ad of re-zoning, simply, 4 or 5 lots, that th~ entir~ Industrial Park be re-zoned. The conditions on th~ r~st of th~ prop~rty is exactly the same as the property you already vot~d on. So, if you find it appropriate, lid like to just pass a motion to that regard. MR. ROBERTS-Didn't we think about this som~, b~fore, and felt that som~ of the other lots wer~ smaller lots and, perhaps, shouldn't be broken up into smaller units? MR. GORALSKI-I included a map of the entire Industrial Park, I believe. MR. CARTIER-You're looking for a motion to recommend to the Town Board, right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARTIER-For are-zoning? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THE RE-ZONING OF THE INDUSTRIAL PABK LAND FROM LI-3A TO 1 ACRE TAX HAP NO. 55-2-19, 55-2-20, AND A PORTION OF 55-2-21 AS DESCRIBED IN A DESCRIPTION GIVEN BY BAABEN ENGINEERING, Introduced by Peter Cartier who mov~d for its adoption, s~conded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vot~: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Carti~r, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MR. GORALSKI-We have a coupl~ of more things. Th~r~'s another re-zoning which, I'm sorry we didnlt get to you any earli~r. MS. CORPUS-You mean a revision of the Zoning Ordinance, John? MR. GORALSKI-Right, it's a r~vision to the Zoning Ordinance, concerning Article 8, which is ~x~mptions and Karla will probably be better versed in it, since sh~ can ~xplain exactly what it is and what it means. MS. CORPUS-It IS a proposed exemption for the Town, when the Town buys property. Right now, under State Law, th~ Town is ~xempted from the Zoning and Subdivision Reg's by State Law, however, this is, to tell you the truth, it was generally in response to a few specific situations wh~re the Town has sought to buy property for c~rtain districts, more particularly, th~ Water District. When that happ~ns, and we want to buy a portion of sOmeone I s prop~rty, the Town has to go through the Subdivision Process, ~tc., just like anybody ~ls~. It I S very long and very time consuming and it also results in rather a conflict of int~rest because we would have to hire an attorney to r~present the Planning Board and one to repres~nt th~ Town Board, if that were the person, or the district. MR. GORALSKI-Could I just jump in ther~? MS. CORPUS-Sur~. MR. GORALSKI-Actually, th~ problem is that, if the Town owned th~ piece of property and wanted to subdivide it, they wouldn't have to go through subdivision approval, but since som~body else owns that prop~rty, that's why it has to go through subdivision approval now. MS. CORPUS-Right and it's usually, the way th~ Town works it in negotiations with th~se people, is the Town takes all the responsibility for doing mOst of that, anyway, as part of the n~gotiations. The people s~lling property, generally, don' t tak~ on that, well, won I t tak~ on that responsibility, l~t I s put it that way. This was don~ in this particular form for a coupl~ of reasons. The hundr~d 31 '- -- acre cap is in order to g~t around a Type I designation, under SEQRA. If you affect more than 100 acres, you hav~ to go Type I and we didn't want to do that. Also, there was, on the advice of Lee York, from the Planning Departm~nt, thought it was very good advice, to put in, at the bottom h~re, this exemption shall not apply to those transactions which r~sult in the sell~rs remaining adjacent property b~ing in violation of the relevant area and/or setback requirements of S~ction 4.020, that's what~ver zone they're in. In other words, we could not, at this point, the Town could not buy a piece of property that's, for example, in a five acre zone. We couldn't buy five acres and leave that person with a half an acre. Okay, that would be in violation of 4.020 because then it would be an undersized lot, that's in order to avoid all those problems Or we wouldn't be able to divide a piece of property where in it made the house, thatls existing on the remaining sell~rs land, too clos~ to the side lines, now. It covers those particular problems. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I'll say what I to indicate that there is a potential, property of less than 100 acres and commercial property in a residential th~ir own planning process. said before. On the record, I just want here, for a Town Board to buy a chunk of do whatev~r they wish with it, dev~lop zone. Th~y are exempting thems~lves from MR. GORALSKI-They can do that anyway. MS. CORPUS-If they own it now, they can do it. MR. ROBERTS-It shouldn't be allow~d. I hav~ a very negative approach to this. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. ROBERTS-I think that municipalities and state government ought to have to conform to local planning boards. MR. HAGAN-I agr~e. MR. ROBERTS-And we've just made that quite plain, up in the Lake Georg~ basin, as far as the Lake G~orge Park Commission's rulings. One of the things that th~ Lake George Association finally got through on making the State and municipalities and everybody else come under these new environmental regulations for stormwater management and some other things and this was kind of a break through. We've slapped the Town's wrist before for filling in a wetland and s~lling it off. Doing things like that that we didn't think they should have done. MS. CORPUS-Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, at this point, if they own that property, they can still do that. This won't change that particular problem. MR. HAGAN-If they already own it. MS. CORPUS-If they alr~ady own the property, right. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but I'm not for expanding upon that abuse, and that's what w~'re allowing. MS. CORPUS-The Board's perfectly willing to make that you fe~l. I, personally, hav~ no personal stake in it. it. recommendation, however I was asked to draft MR. HAGAN-I don't either. MS. CORPUS-You're right. I see where your concerns are. MR. HAGAN-I 've s~en it happen, where the State, th~ municipality has becom~ a detriment to the community and thatls what we're allowing here. MS. CORPUS-Okay, at this point, you have to understand, the Town doesnlt own the prop~rty, okay, this is a prop~rty it's going to purchase. For example, l~t me give you an example. If th~ Town buys a piece of prop~rty, mostly what I can think of, it would have to go through a subdivision approval, if they wanted to buy a piece of someonels land, they'd hav~ to go through subdivision approval. Once the Town owns that property and records that deed, they don I t have to go through sit~ plan approval because they I II already own the property. So, th~ Board will have no control over what the Town does with that property aft~r, anyway. Did you hear that, 11m sorry. 32 '- -- MR. ROBERTS-I guess I didn't. MS. CORPUS-Okay, you talked about controlling what th~ Town did with th~ property. This isnlt going to change that, ~ither. Right now, for example, we have a pi~c~ of property w~ want to buy, we have to go through subdivision approval, that's all, okay. Once the Town gets subdivision approval for that property, gets a deed to it, records that deed, there's nO more review by any of the Town Boards becaus~ the Town will own that property. The Boards will not have site plan revi~w, as it is now. As the law is now, because the Town is exempt by State Law. Once it owns the property. MR. ROBERTS-Maybe that's what weld like to see changed. Maybe we'd lik~ to s~e th~ present laws change. MS. CORPUS-Right. Law issue. This a particular case because, onc~ they kicks in. If what you I re saying, then I think that's more of a Stat~ particular am~ndm~nt doesn I t cov~r that. Again, I don' t s~~ where the Town will ever have to go through site p Ian approval hav~ a recorded deed to the property, the exemption automatically MR. ROBERTS-That's New York State Town Law, you said? MR. CARTIER-But at least, at present, th~y have to go through th~ subdivision process. MS. CORPUS-Yes, that's about the only, itls not ev~n them, either, it's the own~r of the property. MR. GORALSKI-You have to remember that it's not the Town that is going through the subdivision process. MR. ROBERTS-It would b~ the s~ller. MR. GORALSKI-It is the s~ller of the property. MR. CARTIER-But he's selling a pi~ce of prop~rty to the Town, that's one of the buyers. MR. GORALSKI-Y~s. MR. CARTIER-I'm just trying to red flag, there are pot~ntial probl~ms with this. MS. CORPUS-I understand. too. I gu~ss I'm trying to mak~ up answers as I go along, MR. CARTIER-11m not sugg~sting this Town Board is th~ one that might cr~at~ problems, but w~'re opening door here for.. MS. CORPUS-Right, as a practical matt~r, it won't be the Town, it is the peopl~ selling, it would be th~ s~ll~rs, on a regular basis, it' s g~nerally th~ s~ll~rs responsibility. All I can say is, gen~rally, they also sell for less than what th~y could probably get from a commercial buyer, at times. MR. CARTIER-Well, I can see a potential for collusion, here. MR. GORALSKI-Well, just to put an end to this, right now. Karla and I could sit h~re and make arguments all night. MS. CORPUS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Th~ point is, this is a r~commendation from the Board. MS. CORPUS-And it definitely has to go befor~ th~ Town Board and I don't know wheth~r you think your int~rests are somewhat differ~nt than the Town Board's would b~. MR. GORALSKI-Just to mak~ the point clear, this ~x~mpts a person who owns a piece of property, who is s~lling that prop~rty to the Town, from going through subdivision approval, provided that the lot that that person will r~tain m~ets all of th~ particular ar~a requir~ments of the Zoning Ordinanc~. MR. CARTIER-I have 98 acres. 33 MR. GORALSKI-Y~s. MR. CARTIER-I want to subdivide it and I want to avoid going through th~ subdivision proc~ss. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARTIER-I make a d~al with Town Board M~mber X. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARTIER-It says, 11m going to s~ll you two of these 98 acres. I'm going to sell, to the Town, two of thes~ 98 acres. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARTIER-That way I can avoid having to go through the subdivision process. MS. CORPUS-In order to do that, you hav~ to MR. HAGAN-Just for those two lots. MR. GORALSKI-Just for that two acres. and s~ll off lots. You can It subdi vid~ the oth~r 96 acr~s MS. CORPUS-Right and, also, somehow, som~body's got to pay for this. Th~ Town just can I t go and say, okay, we I re going to buy this. It I s got to come out of somebodyls account, som~wh~re and there has to b~ a purpos~ for it, wh~th~r it's a recreational area that it becomes or part of th~ Wat~r District. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. CORPUS-it's got to be for some needful purpos~ of th~ Town, that's just th~ function, in general, anyway. Th~ Town cannot buy land for no purpose. MR. ROBERTS-Well, mayb~ we'r~ being a little nit picking on this on~. MRS. PULVER-Can th~y buy it for speculation? I didn't think so. MR. ROBERTS-I can think of anoth~r example to do this. Th~re's a possibility to expand Limb~rt 's land and I suppose it would make a few acres th~re... of on~ of th~ reasons th~y may want this parcel of land, east, into Tupper it a lot easier for them to pick up MS. CORPUS-The immediate problem is, Tom Flah~rty has to expand his water, I gu~ss it's some tanks, or something that ar~ failing and he's got to build some new tanks and the only property is adjac~nt to the existing Water Treatment Plant and he's got to do it soon b~fore, apparently, there's some problems with th~ tanks. MR. CARTIER-So, this has not com~ out of the ether. Th~re's a concr~te reason. MS. CORPUS-There is. This is th~ one, this is th~ specific, is the Water Tr~atm~nt Pian t . MR. GORALSKI-You have valid concerns, in that, your concern that the use of the prop~rty is reviewed and is a valid use, but I point out that the lots that are cr~at~d, on~ lot is a lot that th~ owner will retain. On~ lot is a lot that will b~ sold to the Town. The lot that the own~r retains, if h~ wants to subdivide that any further, he would have to get subdivision approval unless h~ was s~lling thos~ lots to the Town. MS. CORPUS-Right, and the lot he retains cannot be, in any way, substandard or nonconforming. MRS. PULVER-Nonconforming. MR. ROBERTS-And both your Departm~ntls are r~commending'w~ do this, right? MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Right. 34 ---- MR. ROBERTS-Okay. MR. HAGAN-I just tak~ those words "general exemption from all Zoning Ordinance". MR. ROBERTS-Yes, that's a pretty broad swe~p. MS. CORPUS-W~ll, that's the int~nt, is to make an exemption from all th~ Zoning Ordinances and Subdivision R~g's. I don't know how else to say it becaus~ that's exactly what's intended. I guess the r~st of the languag~ is the limiting languag~. MR. CARTIER-What do you n~ed? A motion to MS. CORPUS-To recomm~nd approval or disapproval. MR. CARTIER-Of this? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MS. CORPUS-To the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Is this to set a public hearing? MS. CORPUS-No, to the Town Board. MR. GORALSKI-This is just like, as if you were doing a re-zoning. MOTION TO RECOHHEHD TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDlHABCE ARTICLE 8 TO BE DESIGBATED AS· SECTION .030 AND DESCRIBED AS GENERAL EXEMPTION·:FROM ALL ZONING ORDlHABCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY CONSTITUTING LESS THAN ONE IIOHDRED TO BE PURCHASED BY THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, Introduced by Pet~r Carti~r who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulv~r, Mr. Roberts NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Motion by Mr. Cartier that Resolution No. 38-90, where did we l~ave off? MS. CORPUS-Are we 30? W~lr~ 40, arenlt we? MR. GORALSKI-On r~-zonings? I donlt know. MS. CORPUS-I don't know. We didn't have a number. MRS. PULVER-Fill in the blanks. MR. GORALSKI-Would you like us to fill it in afterwards? MR. CARTIER-Th~ Resolution Number? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes, fill in the blank after. MS. CORPUS-W~ hav~ one more thing. MR. ROBERTS-You read the lett~r from Chris Carte and Lori Carte that's going to go into the Post Star. MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. ROBERTS-Did you want to have sOm~ kind of a rebuttal that goes in along sid~ of that? MR. HAGAN-I would say we have to. MR. ROBERTS-Something in th~ natur~ of..L~e York? L~~' s response that has already been s~nt to him, lett~r. Have you had a chanc~ to r~ad apparently, after h~ sent his 35 --- MR. HAGAN-But that didnlt addr~ss our concerns. MR. ROBERTS-No, but I say, it needs to b~ expanded. MR. HAGAN-The only thing I can say, if we could, statistically, throw at him, th~ number of site plans that we have approved on the first pr~sentation. MR. GORALSKI-Seventy-four percent in 1989. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think the paragraph, h~ refers to Astro-Valcour, we can handl~ because, as a practical matt~r, w~ had concurrent review on that for several months. It was a unique situation. It was also one that was for th~ community benefit and I think we can eas~ that. MR. CARTIER-I think we want to respond to this person, item by item, and just let him take it from th~re. MRS. PULVER-I wasn't here for a coupl~ of meetings, but I looked up in th~ minut~s and check~d it out ther~. MR. ROBERTS-Well, Staff is very familiar with what his review was, and h~ knew what he was g~tting into. He knew it could cost him up to $1,000 when he read th~ first ch~cklist and if held done everything appropriately, he would have sav~d hims~lf some money. We all have to admit that Rist-Frost se~ms to b~ charging an arm and a leg for their s~rvices. However, that's nothing we have anything to do with. MS. CORPUS-No, the Town Board ~l~cts th~ engin~er and they decide who's going to be the Town Engineer. MR. ROBERTS-As L~~ suggested, w~ have to pass the buck, to some extent, on cost, but if you want to comp lain, comp lain to th~ Town Board, but we can also exp lain why we do this and try to do it uniformly and to be fair to everybody and SOme of the little guys, I suppos~, get hurt. Maybe we ask too much for some of th~s~ littl~ things. Maybe w~ should do things diff~rently, but, right now, w~ hav~ to b~ uniform in our review proc~ss, I would think. MR. CARTIER-I think what also needs to b~ point~d out, here, is that one of the downsides of growth is more r~gulation and mor~ control You have to hav~ it, wh~n you g~t more growth. The little guys have to do just like the big guys do. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. I don I t know, does somebody fe~l strongly about this, want to writ~ this letter? MS. CORPUS-I would just ask that our Department g~t a copy, before it went out, for revi~w. MR. ROBERTS-That's probably a good idea. MS. CORPUS-I don't know whether Paul will hav~ any comments, but, 11m sur~, actually, 11m sure h~ will. MR. GORALSKI-As you said, Dick, I've thought about this a little bit. I don't think this letter should com~ from the Staff or be drafted by the Staff, okay, b~cause there are issues that are address~d to the Staff in that l~tter. Ther~ are issues that ar~ addressed to the Planning Board. So, what I would ask is, if th~ Planning Board feels they want to respond, that, either one person draft a lett~r and get ev~ryon~ I s approval, or you just appoint someone to answer th~ letter or you set up a meeting. MR. ROBERTS-I think we all want to see the letter.. MS. CORPUS-My only suggestion is, it seems as though some of the concerns were, again, not necessarily the Planning Board. There were a couple of things, I think, directed to Dave Hatin and the Planning Department. MR. ROBERTS-Well, that's what John just said. MS. CORPUS-11m not sur~ whether the Board should addr~ss th~ issues that are not specifically addr~ssed to the Board's action. 36 -- ----' MR. ROBERTS-Well, I think we can g~t Staff to agree to the letter. Anybody who's mention~d in the l~tter, we probably all better agre~ to it, th~n. MS. CORPUS-As joint signatures? MR. ROBERTS-Well, that could b~. MR. CARTIER-You'v~ got five working days, here, too, according to th~ Post Star. If you want the letter to app~ar simultaneously, you have five working days. MRS. PULVER-If Nick were here, you could g~t him to write the l~tter. MR. ROBERTS-Peter writes a good l~tter, but the Staff could probably put, mayb~, some of the facts together better than we could and we could all agre~ to it. MRS. PULVER-Well, why was th~re four months. I was here for the first meeting that he came, when he wanted to build the duplex and I can't r~member, exactly. MR. ROBERTS-it was the middle of the winter. H~ didn't have a p~rc test. He had to wait until the frost came off the ground, for one thing. MRS. PULVER-That's right, he didn I t hav~ a perc test and he was tabled, okay, and I guess he didn I t think h~ needed one, or something, for what it was that he wanted. MR. ROBERTS-Right. MRS. PULVER-But then why, he didn't come back for four months? He couldn't get on the ag~nda or what was his problem? MR. GORALSKI - He could' v~ got ten on th~ agenda. come back. I don I t remember why he didn't MRS. PULVER-Because I wasn't here when he had his last meeting. MR. GORALSKI-I don I t remember why, exactly, he didn't come back for four months. Is he saying that he didn't com~ back for four months or that it took him four months to get.. MR. ROBERTS- I didn't remember reading that he didn't COme back for four months. He might've had to wait until th~ frost got out of the ground to make th~ p~rc test. I just r~ad it quickly, mys~lf. But the question..Board, actually, if we want to respond and how. MRS. PULVER-I don't know, sometimes I think it's better not to. Like the gentleman who says, well, I just don't like th~m wh~n they' r~ not right in their head. It's just better not ev~n to respond to that. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARTIER-Well, if you don't write a r~sponse, th~n the Post Star will indicate that th~ Planning Board was given a chance to respond, but didn't. MR. ROBERTS-Well, my feeling is, we should respond. MRS. PULVER-Do they write that, Pet~r? MR. CARTIER-Yes, they will. MR. ROBERTS-Do most of you, you donlt think we should respond? MR. CARTIER-I think there should be a response, but I'm not going to write th~ letter because I'm a full tim~ working guy and I can't do it in the n~xt fiv~ days. MRS. PULVER-Well, I can't ~ith~r, but I Was only here for his first meeting that he was..I wasnlt h~re the last time, so I don't even know what he's talking about, that all these bad things that happened to him. MR. ROBERTS-Well, he IS complaining, probably, he's fairly articulat~, put it on paper and, I guess, probably, 85 or 90 percent of all the applicants feel th~ same way. 37 ~ -/ MS. CORPUS-What h~ talks about, I s~~ absolutely nothing having b~en don~ wrong. MRS. PULVER-M~ ~ith~r, why should we hav~ to defend ourselves. MS. CORPUS-I know, that's one thought. The other caution I had, also, again, just to r~it~rate what I said before, was, if the Planning Board's going to addr~ss issu~s in this l~tter that deal with the Planning Board, because some of them don't, that you don't address them or, if you do, that this letter' s co-sign~d by other, like, som~one, maybe L~~ York, that is th~ Head of th~ Planning Department and th~n there I s also some comments regarding the Building and Cod~s Departm~nt, when h~ went to get the building permit. MR. CARTIER-Th~r~ is anoth~r option and that's not to respond within fiv~ days, but tak~ some time to put the l~tter together, get it around, farm it out to every to look at and publish it later on. MR. GORALSKI-You may want to do that. MRS. PULVER-Y~s, notify the Post Star that we would lik~ to respond, but fiv~ days is not enough time since we only m~et twic~ a month and to have all Board m~mbers to see it, and so forth, that might b~ the way to go. MR. ROBERTS-If we could g~t a time delay, I think that's a good idea. MR. CARTIER-Maybe you could postpone making a d~cision. MR. ROBERTS-But if our lett~r went in three we~ks after his letter, we' d los~ a lot in th~ translation. I think, if we can It hold his l~tt~r being published, I think it would be better to, somehow, try to hurry up and get on~ in at th~ same time. MR. GORALSKI-It's really up to you folks. If you donlt want to answ~r it, donlt answ~r it. If you do want to answer it, answer it. I just don't feel that it's appropriate for myself, or Lee, or Stu, to write the l~tter for you. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MS. CORPUS-At least not those parts that deal with th~ Board. MR. HAGAN-Ar~ you going to see Nick, Carol? MRS. Pulv~r-Tomorrow, why? What would you like m~ to say to him? MR. HAGAN-W~ll, if w~ give him the facts, that 74 perc~nt of the applications are approved on first attempt. MR. CARTIER-This has to be a dip lomatic, I don I t mean to suggest anything about Nick, here, but this has to be a diplomatically done l~tter. MR. ROBERTS-Yes, it does. MS. CORPUS-That's why I suggested it b~ review~d by our office. I think there's a chanc~ that you might not make the five days. It sounds like it might b~ a problem to meet the five day requirement, from what I h~ar, especially if you would like us to review it. MR. GORALSKI-And I don't think you should send it without the legal review. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. ROBERTS-Well, unless we can get them to give us an extension, time b~fore they print his letter, I gu~ss we b~tter just not bother responding. If we want to do it prop~rly, I think it's going to take longer than that, regardl~ss of who writes the letter, to g~t it properly revi~wed and alt~red, maybe. We've got to find out, I guess, whether the paper would be willing to hold up his l~tter for awhile. MR. CARTIER-Well, for what IS it's worth, the last letter I wrote, that went through committ~e, took six months of r~visions befor~ it was don~. MS. CORPUS-And th~n Paul would have to take a look at it. 38 -- -./ MRS. PULVER-Well, as far as th~ l~tter, I ca.n only comment on th~ one m~~ting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Roberts, Cha.irma.n 39 ---~- '~ -- LOCATION MAPS May 22nd, 1990 Planning Board Meetiug NEW BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 32-90 Dr. Robert L. Evans (See Staff Notes attached) ~W7 ~..~ /¥. .u.~ o.~ Ý CA4vf;.~ )t- Q..oG¥-twPt... d :td' 4- .1 ~I/IÇ,~). 11 H,t '.' 'f...\) . Site Plan No. 33-90 Charles A. Cairns Champlain Oil Company, Inc. (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Site Plan No. 34-90 Stanley F. Gannon, Jr. d/b/a Top of the World Auto Body (S~e Staff Notes attached) O~14' L.-(. (0"''' Sit~ Plan No. 35-90 Michael Sal~em d/b/a NAPA Auto Parts (See Staff Notes attached) iN - - LOCATION HAPS May 22nd, 1990 Planning Board Meeting NEW BUSllUSS: (Cont'd) Site Plan No. 36-90 John M. Hugh~s (See Staff Notes attached) KI'..,·.".~~,...\ J,iJ.,.t:" _~~'4~.,,,, ,"':I,;':,.' Site Plan No. 37-90 Warren-Washington Co. Chapter NYS Assoc. for R~tard~d Children (See Staff Not~s attached) -~ Sit~ Plan No. 38-90 Phillip K. Lau d/b/a Queensbury Car Wash (See Staff Not~s and Map attached) . - ""'--' ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlanniW\g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: May ZI, 1990 Stuart G. Baker Area VmiaDce Uae Variance - Sip Variance - Interpretaticm Other: 5ubdmsioa: Sketch, _ PreJimiDary, -r Site Plan Rmew - - Petition fer a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppJication Number: Site Plan Review No. 3Z-90 AppJicant'. Name: Dr. Robert L. Evans MeetiDg Date: May ZZ, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant would like to complete the expansion of his dock , and construction of a new boathouse with a deck. This project is cun-ently approximately 75 percent complete, and was served with a Stop Work Order by the Building and Codes Department on 3/Z7/90. A setback variance for this project was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 16, 1990. I recommend that the Board give careful consideration to the aesthetic impact of continued dock expansion on Lake George, a designated Critical Environmental Area. The cumulative affects of increased boat traffic on the lake should also be considered. The rights of the property owner to the south should be considered. If the property owner of this property were to build a dock setback ZO ft. from the common property line with the applicant, it could create navigation problems for both property owners. Development on a property should not be such that it denies adjacent property owners similar development rights as provided by the Zoning Ordinance. SGB/sed ;- " ~ . - ~ -- 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: By: May 16, 1990 John Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: Suhdi.uion: Sket...1. Pre1im' - ....... - mary, --Ã... Site PlaD Reftew Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Apptication Number: Site Plan Review No. 33-QO Appticant's Name: MeetiDg Date: Charles A. Cairns Champlain Oil Company, Inc. May 22. 1990 ............................................................................................ In reviewing the development considerations listed in Article 5 it does not appear that there will be any adverse impacts associated with this project. The addition will not cause increased traffic nor will it impact on-site circulation. There should be no effect on drainage since the gravel area is considered non-permeable by current standards. JG/pw ._--~---_._- ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 SAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 . 793-4146 518.793-4141 '- .~".\ø.' " FilE COpy f)~í1W7f!:h "l\ 'MY Q 1~ ~] I.ANNING ~lf\I .,F=PAFtTMFN.... May 18, 1990 RFA #89-5000.033 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Charles A. Cairns Site Plan 33-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. Since gravel areas are considered impermeable, only 26% green area is prov ided. However, the increase in stormwater runoff from the small addition will not be significant. If feasible, we recommend that the applicant consider converting an equivalent square footage of pavement or gravel to turf. Very truly yours, RIWST ASS :If:~tt. P.E. Managi~"P;oject Engineer P.C. WG/cmw cc: Town Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS. NY·L.ACONIA. NH --------- ~ '" 'I "1I.a~~~'~"'~L.. " ... ~ ... " ~ ~Iij~~ ~~~~~~.... "- \I ~ } C:) I..: ~ '" ~~ ,¡ ~\(\)'4~ ~" ,~ " ~ ~ ~ ci.~ "''u",,''t''IQI...~''~ 'Q 'I , " \;\"ql...~ ,,~"'1:t~~"~'---" 0 I )'J () ? \\ " ~ -¡ ~~ "k ,1...".... )( ~ 'f\ ~I{¡>-~~Q~~~""I.\::¡ 6 ~ ' I... ~ ~ ,~IQ'iQ~~~"It.t~-.t'q ~ ' ~ '1\ iii ~~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~" " ~w\ ~ ~ , ~II¡ '" ~ ~ Q ~~ ~ ) =·os, , ,~ ~~~ ~ t:.... -.\' <¡ ,-' ,-' ,.. ~ \' " \Ir\ ~ ~~~~\t\ ~~\).~~'Ì-~ \;\ ,,~ .....¡ ~ h\{\\\~Q~, " 'I "" III ~ "It '" \(', " ~ ~ '" ~ '" _, 1\, ,~'n" Ç;¡'(., " , 1.(, ~ ~." - .-1 ~,~ ~.. W-~_~ ~-- Q C:)\C\''''~~ ,. -!) ,,~ " \¡" ~ III ,,', VI ,'<\ C\" ~ " I... ~ '. ".... ~ 't¡'I\~ ~ Iij ~ \'1 " ~ ~ \IJ \" ~ ~~"'~"" ...", "I~ ~ IQ \ V) \ij ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~'(~..... ~ ~~~~q " ~4U\I~::t I... ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~,,0,I) 1tI"'I¡'I~ ~ ~ '41 ~ ~ \.. ~ ~ ~ ~'I¡,,'o~ ,~~~~ ~~~\!¡~ II¡ 'U 1;;\ II "It ~ 1\\ t-.. 'U~ ~ ~ " " 'C)~ ,,~ ~ ~ "'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I\ ~"'" . ~ ~ t Iij , ,,~ ~~~~ ,,~!;), ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :) .~ \.; ...'1 V 'c:¡~~ ~'I ~ ~",,,'\ '4\':i."~ " ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II : " " ".... I __JI ~ " " ~ N '\I ~ ~ "I Ir\ II¡ 'I!. ~ , ~ ..., ,,~ 'Ii ... '01 , I:¡ ~ \I " ~ \ , 'I¡...':), " ~ \) ~ ' ~ ~ ~ " " "t ~ ...~ ~ Q ~\ ~ ", '\ ...t 4J ~ .... "t ~ ~. ,'Jt I¡ / ~ / II \1" /'f ~ '':t rh ~ .... II \I ~. 'Ii 'U ~ I I ... '" I II¡ . I ~:t I I I ~ ~~ ¡II ~'" ~~ II 'f\~ ,~). I I .... III "1'1\ ~~ ~ .// I OL) ,I ( ,I ~ ~ wr;-;;~~;-"-;pl ~ ~LI_ _ ___I ),/ Q. "" _ _ __ ~ ~ .J <>QQ'Q/ 1-···- ~I ~ J-"" I -- __J ~I'.~ ~ ~ '" ~ I '~ /~ }. . ~ ::tl ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii ~ 1 ~I '.~ ~ L-v' I . - ~ r -'-. - -;: -~-! 1_. II ,-·:;jrr. .!i II. ... j:~Ð~ . . . . 'IJ ~ ......~ -- \ "- ~ II ~~ ~"" ~\.. \t\ ï -----1 I ~~/ L____.J ~) Iij ~~ 14¡ o.! ,~ ~ ~.:) ~- '..--... " -] ~ ~ i' 0- II¡ C\ II¡ ¡;¡ t ~-;; ~ II¡ IJ~ ~ '1\ ~'oI ~ , ~ ~ Iij" ;J; ~~ III ~ '\III¡ . ''2 '01 ~ I.t.~ t- III '\I~ ') "- ~~ \ 0 .:± - =:r;='-'O. _. :.3_ ___ l;¡ t I., '" y' '" ' ~~~ :r:'\ ~-.,¡ OiM ~ ¢ ~ \ ¢ / ",.... tl' -' .~--_......' I::'~~/ ..:¡,:.~, L_____I ' r0--;;ø'b7"' - ï .::. . I. . L· :-'- J:: - ..1-:" ~I 1 oJ ~ -... '}. '''' I~ ò-:.. 4 .... ~ ~~ .rP1oq~~C' tl\JÐ-V ~~~.\) ....~ 'Y ....~ , ~~ /' ~~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ '-I 'f\ ~ '" ~ ~\.. " " V ,,\ ~ ~ -J '" ~ ~ "- ~... '4)~ ~ ~~ , ~ ,II ~ ,t¡ 'oJ ~Q ~ '\(\ " "- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \\ ~ t:I ~ ~ ~,,~ " 'I!. ~ ~ .... '111;01/, 'f\ ~ ~ ~ ~~ II.¡ ~ ---- ~ 1..1 ~ ~ ~ ~ , ,,~ Iij ~~::¡ ~~~ ~ "'),, I!J~I.. '::t ~~ " '" \¡ I... ,,~ '0"'" .... Ii 'I >(<:II::! II.I"~ "'- c HA~les A . C AX ~M5 ~ .. - '-- -- 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: By: Mav 8. 1990 John S. Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdi-riJåon: Sketch. PreJimma_ _ _ -I·' X Site Plan Re9iew == Petition far a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Other: Appücation Number: Site Plan Review No. 34-90 Appücant'. Name: Stanley F. Gannon, Jr. d/b/a Top of the World Auto Body Meeting Date: Mav 2.2., 1990 ............................................................................................ This application is for a 2.,400 sq. ft. addition to the existing building. This will more than double the amount of building area on the lot. There will also be a parking area created around the addition. As indicated on the plan, the removal of the southern most driveway and some existing parking will compensate for the additional nonpermeable areas created by the project. For these reasons it does not appear that this project will have any significant impact on storm water drainage. The removal of the driveway is certainly a positive aspect of this plan. It minimizes road cuts on Quaker Road improving off-site circulation and better defines the on-site circulation pattern. If there are no additional engineering comments, I would recommend approval of this project. JSG/sed i " .. ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 '-" f ILl COpy -4"" ....... ~ ) paWWìl ~{ ~AY?'1~ ~ (:.-.2:::/ ~.ANNING II ZONIN' ~FØARTMENor May 18, 1990 RFA #89-5000.034 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Stanley F. Gannon Jr. Site Plan 34-90 Dear Mrs. York: 1. Since existing pavement is being removed. there will be no net increase in impermeable area due to the proposed building addition and no increase in stormwater runoff. Proper erosion cQntrol measures should be provided during construction for the protection of adjacent properties. 2. The request for a holding tank is reasonable considering that sewers are proposed for that section of Quaker Road. The holding tank will be in accordance with the Town Ordinance. Very truly yours, P.C. ~OST A ~Yne~ett. P.E. Managing Project Engineer WG/CDl cc: Town Planning Board Members @ GLENS FAlLS, NY-LACONIA. NH ,. ~- ;> p ~ - -- --../ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY plsn'niTlg Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: May 15, 1990 By: Stuart" c: 'R~'k-Ar Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: SubdiYiaiOD: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, --L- Site Plan Reriew - Petition for a CbaDge of Zone - Freab.water WetlaDds Permit Final Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 35-90 Applicant's Name: Michael Saleem d/b/a NAPA Auto P",,.t"9 MeetiDg Date: May 22. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing the removal of the existing buildings and construction of one 7,000 sq. ft. building at the Adirondack Auto Parts location on Quaker Road. The grading and drainage plan shows some proposed re-grading within the Warren County right-of-way property. The applicant should submit a letter of approval from the County DPW before being granted sÍl:e plan approval by the Planning Board. The Board may also wish to stipulate that all existing structures be demolished at once, rather than being done in phases. This would minimize the visual impacts of the demolition work. SB/pw '" ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4146 518.793-4141 ~ F , L E"-' ( 0 P Y ............... '.... )~)~~.,~Wlf~11, ~ "'ßV~O~ l.ANN~fONINI J "FDARTMEN"r May 18, 1990 RFA #89-5000.035 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Michael Saleem Site Plan 35-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: 1. The storm drainage report indicates that the total runoff from the site is essentially unchanged. Erosion control measures should be provided as necessary during construction. Very truly yours, WG/cmw cc: . Town Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH ,. " TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ~ COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFI CATION - F Il E ( 0 P Y Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, ft. Y. l280~ Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280~ To. (X) Warren CoUDty Planning Board Da te. 5/7/90 (X) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board ot Appeals (x> Applicant Re. Site Plan #35-90 - Michael Saleem 121 Quaker Road We have reviewed the request for.( ) Variance, kx) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (x) Approval ( ) Disapproval Tom Nace of Haanen Engineering presented planting plans which were approved in concept as presented, but the Committee suggested one change: with the exception of a window to the left of the entrance door, the entire front wall will be blank, so the Committee recommends that instead of a row of spreading yews along that front planter, cluster planting would be much more attractive. Cluster planting calls for three plants, such as a pyramidal (or columnar) arborvitae with two lower growing plants, such as: spreading yews, burning bush, hydrangea or viburnum. The Committee believes this would give a more appearance than the "wooden soldier' effect spreading yews, possibly at the same or lower cost up the blank wall effect. pleasing of just and break In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~~bmitted. Robert L. Eddi.~~ í '- .. '-' ) Æ©iftwñ ~ !\fAY 1 d 199[1 ~/! Glens fa Î is Independent Living C{~nter 'lANN'NG & ZON'~ '1PD4ATMEN'" . Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped May 9. 1990 Recommendations Present: Kay Cornwell. Chairperson Nancy Calano. Secretary Sue Helffrich Margo Burrell Joseph Denig Re: Site Plan No. 35-90 Michael Saleem Dear Chairperson: This new building should be completely accessible with no step at the entrance to the store. Respectfully submitted. N~:;:g ~ on behalf of the Committee cc: Stephen Borgos. Town Supervisor Lee York. Senior Planner Dave Hatin. Code Enforcement Admin. Planning Board Committee Quaker Bay Center, Comer of Quaker & Bay, P.O. Box 453. Glens Falls. NY 12801, Voice (518) 792-3537 TTV/TDD (518) 792·3548 ; '._- . . Aa 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: May 21, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: SubdiYision: Sketch, Pre1im' - - mary, -1L Site Plan Review _ Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater Wetlands Permit Final Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 36-90 Applicant'. Name: John M. HU2hes Meeting Date: Mav 22, 1990 ............................................................................................ This proposal for a 2,856 sq. ft. dentist office on lot 4 of the John Hughes Subdivision is consistent with the previous subdivision approval. In fact, this site plan provides for a more controlled and orderly on site circulation pattern than the typical layout shown on the subdivision plat. The landscaping plan appears to be consistent with sUlTounding properties. This will help blend this property with others creating a "Professional Park" atmosphere. JSG/sed . ~ ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. PC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4146 518.793-4141 ~ --' FILE COpy . "'...... 1)~~W[ลก'1 ~\ ~AY~~ ~~ '.ANNING &'- ZONIN ""\FDARTMPN'9" May 18, 1990 RFA #89-5000.036 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: John M. Hughes Site Plan 36-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following cOlllllents: The berm construction for stormwater detention is to be constructed and stabil ized on lot 4 and the adjacent northerly lot prior to the proposed site development. Proper erosion control measures should also be provided, as necessary, during the site construction. A site visit showed that the berm along the east side of these 2 lots has not been constructed, nor has the catch basin inside that berm, as shown on the subdivision plan. Runoff is flowing across the road and ponding in the driveway of Psychological Associates. The drainage structures must be completed and all disturbed areas revegetated. If siltation or damage of the bermed detention area occurs as a result of construction it should be repaired and restored to its original condition. Very truly yours, ~OST 1:~S: ~ Wayn~nett, P.E. Managing Project Engineer WG/cw cc: Town Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS, NY-LACONIA, NH " ,. eA~ ---' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WATER DEPARTMENT R.D. 2 CORINTH ROAD . QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 12801 . PHONE 793-8866 Amp'lcan Wate' Works AS,oclltton MEMBER THOMAS K. FLAHERTY. C.E.T. Superintendent " ."c..&...... . RALPH V AN DUSEN Deputy Superintendent i¡ ~~WrJ:H ~{ ~AY -71990~ F I L E COpy -tANNING 1& ZONIN' , "EDARTMEN"r Lee York, Senior Planner Planning Board ~Jenbers ~nsbury Town Office Building Bay @ Haviland Road ~nsbury, New York 12801 .3(,.t¡D SITE PLAN REVIEW HO._.',;;·:! .,' (. Re: Baywood Drive Dear Lee: 1m inspection has been made of the water mains and appurtenances installed in Baywood Drive. we find that this installation has been made in accordance with the requirements of the TCMt of ~ensbury Water Department said installation is hereby given approval subject to Section II of said requirements. Section II requires that the subdivider or his contractor be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the installation for a period of one year fran the date of this approval. Sincerely, c....- j' ' It K. Flaherty Water Superintendent . , --" FILE (opy Robert L. Eddy, Chairman Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 17 Owen Avenue 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbur,J. R. Y. l280¡ Queensbury, N. Y. 1280! To. (x) Warren coUllty Plannin, Board Da te. 5/7/90 (x~ Queeftsbu1'J' Town Plann1ng Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) APplicant TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ~ COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION Re. Site Plan #36-90 John M. Hughes Lot #4 Baywood Drive We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variance, (x) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (x) Approval ( ) Disapproval Dave Linehan of Jim Girard Landscaping presented the plans for this doctor's office. The Committee is pleased that this office park will have conforming buildings and planting schemes. This building will be constructed with the same architecture and the planting plan will be the same as a previously approved lot #5. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wiahes to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. )þN'~"Jful~~y )u~ )~~ ~Eddý.~Chai~an i' ~ -- ~ Glens FaHs Independent tivtng Center -' ))~ftW/~¡ ~ P.1AY V IQ~[1 )1 ¡lANNING & "c;~"ì¡''; "@It~RTMEN" Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped May 9. 1990 Recommendations Present: Kay Cornwell. Chairperson Nancy Calano. Secretary Sue Helffrich Margo Burrell Joseph Denig Re: Site Plan No. 36-90 John M. Hughes Dear Chairperson: According to the N.Y.S. Code. parking spaces for the disabled should be a minimum of 96" wide with an access aisle of 60" wide. Respectfully submitted. Na~Jsec~~ on behalf of the Committee cc: Stephen Borgos, Town Supervisor Lee York. Senior Planner Dave Hatin. Code Enforcement Admin. Planning Board Committee Quaker Bay Center, Corner of Quaker & Bay, P,O. Box 453. Glens Falls. NY 12801. Voice (518) 792-3537 TIY/TDD (518) 792-3548 , , .. . - '- ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pJSlftft¡wt¡g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: May 22, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area VuiaDce Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: SubdmIIioa: Sketch, Prelim' - - - mary. X Site Plan Re.iew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater Wet1aDd8 Permit FiDaI Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 37-90 Applicant'. Name: WéUTen-Washin~ton Co. Chapter NYS Assoc. for Retarded Children MeetiDg Date: May 22, 1990 *........................................................................................... Because there are no changes proposed for the exterior of the building or site, there are no engineering concerns. This area is strictly residential. The major concern is whether this use will have any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. If the majority of the individuals are transported by school bus or in groups, this should not generate any more traffic than a typical residence. In reviewing the other development considerations listed in Article 5, I do not feel that there will be any negative impacts from this project. JSG/sed .. . - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pw-nnil1K Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: May 15, 1990 By: ~t11.Qrt ~ R!:I},Q,.. Area Variance Uøe Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: SubdiYÏ8ion: Sketch. PreJimin__ - - - -;,. -Ã- Site Plan ReYie. _ Petition fer a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Final Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 18-QO Applicant's Name: Phi liD K. Lan MeetiDg Date: Mav 22. 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant proposes a 57 ft. by 30 ft. addition to the Queensbury Car Wash on Route 9. The turning radius from the car wash exit into the first full service bay appears to be app~oximate1y 20 ft., which should provide adequate maneuvering room for most vehlcles. The location of the addition should have a minimal impact on traffic flow on the property. SB/pw f " ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS -- ..- ....'-..... "- POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 . 793-4146 518.793-4141 ì~J~aW[~i. \' ~AY ".J19~r . ~ 1.ANNIN~IZ0N¡r '·U:ØAPT~FN"" FILE COpy May 18, 1990 RFA #89-5000.038 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Phillip K. Lau Site Plan 38-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the referent project and have the following comments: Since there is no net increase in impermeable area, stormwater runoff should not be affected. Proper erosion control measures should be used, as necessary, during construction. Very truly yours, @ GLENS FALLS, NY-L.ACONIA, NH .. " ------------ ~- ','-'" ...../ I~ . I I- f - o .at. .\) ~ I ,~-_.. ~ ..... ~ ~ '0/ \t, O¡ ~ ...... Q.. " ... ~ " ... ... 1\ ~ II !: '" } ~ .. '- "I ~ ~ . . .., ~ t' '".! II .:, N/' _AJ III. f D,..,I",. J. ""..'.1 JV. 8"'· Z"'··C '-- ill.'" ;c:-,!... .~ .; ",:' J~ .; - - Ñ· U'" !!~# :'-"'~ t' . e _ -~ ~-'AyJ"... Ub... .at.....". If I.," fjr fÞ ~ ,.1 P)f~ Llr- f K. L~\J