Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1990-11-27
'--- '--" QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 27TH, 1990 INDEX Site Plbn No. 17-90 J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider Restaurant 2. Subdivi~ion No. 13-1990 PRELIMI~ARY STAGE Robert and Margaret Reid 17. , Site Plþn No. 55-90 Site Plþn No. 28-90 Subdivi~ion No. 10-1990 FINAL S1TAGE ¡ Site Pl~n No. 85-90 Site Pl~n No. 86-90 Guido Passarelli 18. Dunham's Bay Boat Co., Inc. 20. Kelly Subdivision 34. Robert Eckardt 34. Arrowhead Equipment, Inc. Owner: William J. & Catherine Ehlert 39. Subdivi~ion No. 16-1990 Sketch Þlan Daniel & George Drellos 42. THESE 4RE 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~RY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND ¡REGULAR MEETING NOVEMB~R 27TH, 1990 7:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT PETER QARTIER, ACTING CHAIRMAN CAROL RULVER, SECRETARY JAMES MARTIN NICHOLAS CAIMANO JAMES HAGAN EDWARD !LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT CONRAD IKUPILLAS DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN E~INEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CA~TIER-We're going to start 10 minutes early, here, and get some internal, business type things out of !the way, here, that usually get left until the end and, somehow, don't get done. I would make note, first, of the fact that the Planning Department has received a letter of resignation from Stu Baker, lour Assistant Planner, and I would just like to publicly state that we're going to miss him. He did! some good work and he's going to be a difficult individual to replace, but I would wish him luck. ,He's going to a Watershed Association Project in Northbridge Massachusettes and their gain is our 10$s, I'm afraid. I'd like to get some minutes out of the way, here. What I'd like to do, is do a pa¢kage motion on these. CORRECl1ION OF MINUTES September 20th, 1990: NONE Septem~r 25th, 1990: NONE October' 16th, 1990: Page 38, follows the motion to approve Site Plan No. 78-90, then it starts in, "Mr. Cartier-We have some odds and ends to take care of, here", but it isn't headed up by anything, sIb a h~ading that that refers to Lead Agency Status for the re-zoning of the Aviation Mall Project; Page 4Ö, it continues on, Mr. Caimano speaking, "how could this man get to this point", sIb a heading for the section on the Hogan application starting at Mr. Cartier's third comment from the bottom, on Page 38; wacko, sIb wacko type November 12th: NONE MOTION ¡TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MIrIITES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adopti on, seconded by James Marti n: Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: :Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. CA~TIER- Thank you. One other issue. We have a resolution to set public hearings, regarding a proposed amendment to the Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board. We got this last week and we said we were going to hold off and give ourselves a chance to read it. In reading it over, we had made some recommendations about some changes that were made. Those changes have been incorporated. Anybody have any questions or comments or suggested changes in that? I'd like to get this going as soon as we can. I assume we're going to hold a public hearing at a Planning Board meeting. Is that correct? MS. CORPUS-Yes, Mr. Chairman, you could. If you'd like, I did prepare a resolution, if the Board wishes to adopt that. There is a blank date, there, for the public hearing. 1 -' MR. CAIMANO-This one, here. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay. How about the first meeting in December? That· is, what, December 18? MRS. PULVER-18th. MR. HAGAN-For clarity, Mr. Chairman, you're talking about the proposed changes, as submitted by Stu Baker, on November 21st, and, also, by the Town Attorney, on November 21st. MR. CARTIER-Correct. It's the four page set. MR. HAGAN-Because we've had a number of amendments or resolutions. That's the one you're talking about? MR. CARTIER-Right. So, we have a two page resolution, setting a public hearing, if anybody would like to introduce that. tlJTION . TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 18TH ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE RULES AND REGULATIOIIS OF THE ¡PLANIIING BOARD, Introduced by Carol Pulver who move for its adoption, seconded Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas SITE PIlAN NO. 17-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT WITH STORAGE OF DRY GOODS, BUSINESS RECORDS ON SECOND STORY PORTION. FIRST STORY OF EXISTING RESTAURANT TO BE RENOVATED. SLEEPING QUARTERS TO REMAIN AS IS ON SECOND STORY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANIIING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-2 LOT SIZE: 0.98 ACRES SECTION 9.010 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. HAGAN-(Refering to Staff Input) Word of correction, we do not deny, we disapprove. MR. GORALSKI-Whatever term you'd like to use. MR. CARTIER-Okay, does the Board wish to address this issue of parking, now, or do you want to wait or when do you want to get to this. I think before we make any motion or get into a prolonged discussion of this, I think that's one issue that we have to decide. Do you want to decide it, now, or do you want to wait, or what? MR. CAIMANO-I think they've waited long enough. I think we should make a determination. MR. MARTIN-I agree. We can go ahead with it, now. MR. CARTIER-You want to discuss it, now? Okay. Does anybody care to share their thoughts about the parking and the deck issues? MR. MARTIN-Well, since I'm the one who sort of opened this discussion, earlier, I'll be the first one to jump in. My correlation between parking requirements and the deck stems from the Ordinance as it relates to the design standards for parking and I originally cited Section 7.071, Parking Area for Gross Floor Area, 100 square feet of Gross Floor Area, both in a restaurant situation and a tavern or bar and then, if you go back and look at the definition of Gross Floor Area, this is a little bit involved, Floor Area for Commercial or Industrial establishment, the total area in square feet within the exterior walls of a building or structure and, when applicable, the sum total of all floor areas or the principal and accessory buildings or structures under single ownership or business and I believe the deck would qualify as an accessory structure because, when you look at the definition of Accessory Structure it means, any building or structure affixed to land or a portion of a main structure or portion of a main structure or any moveable structure in excess of 100 square feet that is located within a required shoreline setback that is incidental or subordinate to and associated with the permitted principal use. In reading that definition. I believe the deck that's more than 100 square feet in size, that's located within a required shoreline setback and it's subordinate to the principal use of the restaurant. So, I'm making those ties between those readings of the Ordinance, I believe the deck should be included in the parking computations. 2 ---' MR. CARTIER-Yes, my reaction was, if you put four walls around this deck and a roof over it, there would be no question that parking would have to be provided for that area and the fact that it's an exterior deck is somewhat incidental, as far as I'm concerned, and doesn't excuse the need for parking for that area. MR. CAIMANO-No, but John makes an interesting point, regarding Diningroom C. elimination of Diningroom C, or closing of Diningroom C, when you open the deck. way or not? He's saying that Do you see it that MR. CARTIER-Well, me? MR. CAIMANO-Either one of you. MRS. PULVER-I have a comment. Just let me jump in, here. I'm looking at what they have on their prints, and they claim to have 62 spaces and I can't see, they have the deck included in that, for seating. MR. CARTIER-That's what is required. Yes. I had a question about that, too. That's what, I believe, including the deck means that's 62 spaces are required and I can only find 45, or 41. MRS. PULVER-Well, they claim 62 spaces are available. MR. GORALSKI-If you look at the, where it says, at the very bottom of the parking design rationale, it says, vehicle parking on site equals 45. dock parking equals 17, for a total of 62 spaces available. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but what is dock parking? MR. GORALSKI-The contention that the applicant is making is that the deck is open during the summer and, at that time, there is available space on the docks for people who arrive by boat. MR. MARTIN-I see. MR. CARTIER-Okay, I guess my problem goes back to, and I wish I'd pulled the cover sheet, because this comes out of some Zoning Board notes, and this is a comment by Mr. Barton. I'm reading from a set of Zoning Notes, here, Area Variance 1254A and Use Variance 1254B J. Paul Barton, owner, said that expansion is needed to accommodate people for the summer season. There are 26 seats in the front room, which fill up very quickly. Mr. Barton said that he's had many people ask about having a deck added on, so they could be closer to the Lake. I'm a lot uncomfortable with the idea of asking a restaurant, tavern owner to close a portion of his establishment, to keep people out of that. I think the temptation is going to be much too great to keep that open. MR. CAIMANO-And who enforces that? It's almost a police situation, which I don't like, at all. What are you saying? When you said, I see, what are you saying, you're in agreement with these numbers, Jim? MR. MARTIN-I believe the calculations are, when they're done, in terms of the square footage, which the Ordinance would require, those would be the ones we would follow, because they are greater than what is needed, when you do a calculation, based on the available seating, and, again, this is a point of contention, what I feel is left out of the calculations. as they relate to square footage, is, they acknowledge, in their calculations, based on the seating of the restaurant, that the cocktail area will require an extra burden of seating and parking, but then it's left out of the calculations done on square footage. They have included the overall square footage of the restaurant and bar, but, again, and this is the point of contention, I believe that the tavern should be included as it reads, here, one space for each 100 square feet, as they have there, plus one space for each linear foot of bar. That addition, there, on one space for each two employees, they have that, also, but I believe the linear foot of bar calculation needs to be included. there. MR. CARTIER-I agree. because, by Ordinance, it states that, when there's more than one use, parking needs to be required for each of those uses. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, the Zoning Administrator has determined that that would not be the way to calculate the parking for this site, and that the entire thing is considered a, the entire building is considered a restaurant. MR. CAIMANO-But that flies in the face of logic, doesn't it? MR. MARTIN-Well, I've read that letter, and it makes reference to the restaurant as the principal use, but the section I cite, in the Off Street Parking Design, for any building having more than one use, parking space shall be required for each use. It doesn't say more than one principal use, or it doesn't get into how the uses are categorized or if they're prioritized or principal or secondary, it is simply more than one use present and, I think. given the fact that a person can go into the restaurant, have dinner, or can go into the bar and simply have a drink and then leave, and not have dinner, you have a dual use situation, there. I don't argue that one use may be primary over the other, that I'm sure his restaurant receipts far out weigh his bar receipts, but the fact still remains that somebody can 3 ----- ---' go in there, have a drink and that's their only purpose, in being there, and then leave. MR. CARTIER-Yes, we don't have an either or situation. It's not a question of either they have a drink or they have dinner. Jim's pointing this out, I think. It's a matter of, that both can take place at the same time. The tavern can be occupied, the restaurant portion could be occupied, and, to add to the mix, here, the deck could, also, all be occupied at the same time. I think we need to keep in mind, here, we're talking, again, about a critical environmental area, okay, and there's a tremendous amount of impact, in this area, by this, already, I have questions in my mind that the site, already, can't support the use that's being made up, in terms of parking problems that have showed up on Glen Lake Road, in the past, on occasion. Well, lets get back to the deck issue. Is it the feeling of this Board that the deck parking, or parking needs to be provided for the deck area, in addition to the restaurant area? MR. CAlMANO-It is, in my opinion. I don't think there's any question. MR. CARTIER-Do we need to make a motion to that effect? MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, that appears to be one of the items left out of the Zoning Board's decision and the Zoning Administrator's decision, when they were discussing this issue, previously. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-Well, why don't we. rather than do that. Mr. Chairman. why don't we just go along and clear up as many points as we can. and then find out where the heck we are. at the end. so that the applicant can know how to answer whatever problems we have. I mean. obviously, there are some things which we are going to say yes to. and I think we should just go through the whole thing and find out where we agree and where we disagree and let the applicant answer those questions. too. MR. CARTIER-Okay. but I want the applicant to understand. in as formal a way as possible. that we are going to require parking be provided for the deck. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Is it your intention to go through all the rest of these notes? MR. CARTIER-I think so, yes. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. because there was a letter in here that ought to be read into the record. MR. CARTIER-I know. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to wait, then. on that motion? MR. CAIMANO-I don't think. my opinion is, that we shouldn't piecemeal this thing. We should do it all at once. MR. CARTIER-Okay. does the Board agree? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. John, could you continue, please. MR. GORALSKI-The second item in your packet is a motion on a Notice of Appeal from Susan C. Popowski (attached) The next thing we have is that the Town Board has approved. the Local Board of Health. I'm sorry. has approved Mr. Jeffrey Martin to determine Seasonal High Groundwater. A letter. that was received in our office on November 5th. from H. Wayne Judge. to Town Planning Board. RE: Docksider Application. dated November 2nd. 1990 (attached) Letter from Michael O'Connor. to Patricia Collard. Zoning Administrator. dated November 19th. 1990 (attached) Letter from the Beautification Committee. dated November 12th. 1990 (attached) That plan was approved by the Beautification Committee MR. CARTIER-Okay. Tom. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Okay. anybody on the Board have any comments? MR. CAIMANO-My only comment is that. for the record. it should be noted that. the argument not withstanding. Mr. Judge is the lawyer of record for the Great Escape and has argued against these propositions. in many cases. just for the record. MRS. PULVER-I have a comment. My comment is, on the letter that Mr. O'Connor sent to Patricia Collard and she responded that the parking for the Docksider is to be based on a restaurant operation and not a tavern operation? 4 --- MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MRS. PULVER-That's correct. So, that's the way we are supposed to consider this, is as a restaurant and not a tavern? MR. GORALSKI-That is what's been determined by the Zoning Administrator. yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Do you have an answer to that, Mike? MR. GORALSKI-Mr. O'Connor has submitted a copy of Mrs. Collard's reply to that letter, dated November 20th, 1990. Would you like me to read it? MR. CARTIER-Please. MR. GORALSKI-"I am writing to reply to your letter of November 19th, 1990. You are correct in stating the following: That, per Section 7.071 B of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the outside deck is not considered in computing the number of parking spaces, i.e. the square footage of the outside deck and the seating of the outside deck need not be added to the square footage of the building or seating of the building. That, per Definition Number 239, Restaurant, and Definition Number 294, Tavern. that the parking should be computed for the restaurant operation. solely as a restaurant and not as a restaurant and as a tavern, that the parking shall be computed for an apartment and a marina, per schedule, that the Planning Board may establish parking requirements, consistent with those specified in Section 7.072, for the Launch Ramp. At the Zoning Board of Appeals, on November 14th, 1990 meeting. it affirmed my decision of August 29th. 1990." MRS. PULVER-So, my other question is, according to that, how many parking spaces do they need for this application, according to what the Zoning Administrator has said. MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Administrator determined that they correctly calculated, well, I have to go back and find it. MRS. PULVER-Well, we'll wait. MR. CARTIER-While you're looking for that, I guess the problem I have is the idea of including in this. I understand the rationale behind it. but I have a problem of accepting boat parking as vehicular parking. that area is not going to be used just by boaters. It can also be used by drive in customers and. as far as I know, there's no way to park an automobile at a dock. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, if I could address that? MR. CARTIER-Yes, while John's looking for that, if you don't mind, we can hear from the applicant, please, Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor, from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. You, obviously, may have a difference of opinion with myself or with the applicant. I will try to make our application in the manner that I think that we are proposing this project, in a business like manner, something that will be a benefit to the Lake. We have gone over this, in great detail. and I think. if you go through your Section Five review of Site Plan Review. You will find that every impact that we have or. possibly have, from the project, because of mitigating concessions that the applicant is willing to make, that are. in fact, beneficial impacts. and not negative impacts, upon the property, upon the neighborhood and upon the Lake. Really. what you're talking about. here. is not an expansion. I think we got off on the wrong foot. some place along the line, talking about expansion, and numbers play games and we play games with numbers. Basically. we're talking about remodeling. reorganizing the restaurant. We're talking about adding 1497, internal, square feet. If you take a look at that, as shown on the floor plan. MR. CARTIER-Before you go any farther, please tell me how that doesn't get categorized as expansion, if you're adding over 1400 square feet? MR. O'CONNOR-Because, in doing that, we're willing to give up some of the uses that are already on the site and is a trade off, as a mitigation. The building size, itself. will expand. The actual impact on the site will not expand. MR. HAGAN-Bottom line, are you or are you not increasing the seating capacity of this establishment? MR. O'CONNOR-Bottom line, on our proposal, no. The present seating, at the restaurant, is 56 dining seats, if you will, inside the restaurant, 15 seats at the bar. and 44 seats on the deck. Count them however you want to count them, but that's what we presently have, and we, purposely. when we made our application, talked about having a room where we could have meetings and a room that we could close 5 '---' -- off. purposely, for meetings and set it up, so we could segregate it from other activities that were going on in the restaurant. That was the idea of trying to get a separate dining area, as well as trying to get some extra view of the Lake, which is an attractive part of the setting. as a second benefit of that, though. we are offering. as a mitigating fact. to have that to be non-exclusive or exclusive when the deck is open. we would not use that, and you talked about enforcement. I looked around, when you talked about that. There's a sign on the wall back there that says, Maximum Occupancy 300 persons. We're not talking about anything different than enforcement of the same type restrictions and something that's going to be very clearly visible. much more easily determined than if you tried to determine how many people were sitting in this room. You'd have to count. What we're going to propose is that this restaurant section is closed, when anyone is on the deck. You're going to be able to walk in, you see one person there, you're in violation and you've got a problem. That's no different than any other rules, no different than any other regulations that we have in the Town of Queensbury, and I think Mr. Barton, by his past experience. has proven that he's not beyond that. MR. CARTIER-Can I ask you a question about these? These numbers do not agree with what has been submitted. okay. On the blueprint. it shows total interior dining area. 64, and the bar shows 19. MR. O'CONNOR-This is after the expansion. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-That's after the expansion. This is as it presently sits there, now. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-And there's a deuce that's missing when you count this. right here. You're actually going to end up with a square footage requirement and not a seating requirement. because you're talking four seats for a parking spot, or 100 feet for a parking spot. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Here's what's proposed. with the deck closed. Mr. Hagan, and I made this up, because I went through the minutes and I saw you asked this specific question, what is the number. With the deck closed, you're going to be talking 85 seats. as opposed to the 115 seats that you've got there. This is what is going to be year round operation. With the deck open, you're going to talk 105 seats. Now, that's trading off the 24 seats that is in Section C, an area that could be easily cordoned off and closed. It'll be a meeting room. It'll be an alternative to the deck. It'll be an area that will be used. in inclement weather. It will be used during the winter months. when the deck is closed. As I understand the issues on parking. there are two issues. I take exception to what I think the Board's finding is on. probably, boats, but as I understand it, there is no question from Mr. Hatin, Pat Collard, or from Mr. Goralski. as to the question of whether or not this should be considered as a tavern and a restaurant. Whether you get beyond the 100 feet per parking spot, to one foot per linear foot of the bar. In fact, we proposed that to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the other night and I know there's a lot of controversy going on. as to who has the final say with what our Ordinance says and I would just as soon not get involved in that. I'm trying hard not to. MR. CARTIER-For the record, I will speak for myself. there is no controversy, as far as I'm concerned. As far as I'm concerned, the Zoning Board of Appeals is the one who has the final say. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, that's my understanding that, initially, under our Ordinance, you have to go to the Zoning Administrator. There's a question. now, as to who fills that role, or doesn't fill that role. and, if you disagree with that decision, you have thirty days from which to file an appeal and that appeal goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Board of Appeals either affirms or denies that particular. Now, we had a long discussion, the other night. before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Pat Collard issued. with consultation with David Hatin, a letter of August 26th which said, One, that you don't include the deck in your parking calculations and, Two, that the uses that you will consider on this property will be restaurant. marina, apartment, and some consideration for boat launch and you will have to come up with some kind of a determination for a boat launch. MR. CAIMANO-But nothing for the bar? MR. 0 'CONNOR-Nothing for the bar, and nothing for the deck. exterior. Our proposal, I'm begging the question on that, because I understand that you're firm in that. in reviewing the minutes that say you want to include the deck. The deck is 900 square feet. I think, if you consider everything that we offer, you can see that we can actually meet those requirements. even considering that 900 square feet. when you add it to the square footage of the main building, but. back to the letter of August 25th. We were satisfied with that letter. I think this Board had some question, and I've never been able to get my hands on the communications between this Board back to Pat Collard, as to clarification that was requested. A neighbor did appeal that determination, within the thirty days required, to the ZBA. MR. CARTIER-If my memory serves, there was no formal request. from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board, because it would have been a duplication of the Popowski request. 6 .--- MR. O'CONNOR-I probably would have preferred to have you have made a formal presentation because, when I got there, and I'll show you the minutes, we got into a little discussion as to what they wanted to consider. They said the issue of tavern and restaurant was a dead issue, that it was not a tavern. it was a restaurant. and it had not been appealed within the 30 days and that was the issue, that was the result. They did not take a formal vote on that, but, specifically, Mr. Shea. Mr. Turner, and. I believe, Mr. Kelley. if you review the minutes, said there's no question on that. If you read the true definition. a restaurant is other than a tavern. a tavern where the principal income is in the sale of alcoholic beverages. We can show you. MR. HAGAN-However, the liquor license determines otherwise. Now, I don't want to embarrass anybody, but I'd like to know what type of liquor license this establishment has. MR. O'CONNOR-It's a restaurant liquor license. MR. HAGAN-Okay, with no Wet Bar. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. it's MR. HAGAN-Well, then you're in violation of New York State Liquor Laws. There is a distinction. on your liquor license. MR. O'CONNOR-There is a distinction. If you don't serve meals, then you've got a tavern license. MR. HAGAN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-We serve meals and, as part of that application. we had to show a floor plan, which showed the full length of our bar. It showed the surface areas at the end of our bar, and that's for which we have a license. We are a licensed New York State restaurant. MR. CAIMANO-That was for the application for the license, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-That's for the application for the license. MR. CAIMANO-Just out of curiosity, for the record. did the Zoning Administrator ask you about your license? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. CAIMANO-So, the determination was made without asking. MR. O'CONNOR-Go back in your own history on this kind of thing. What did you do with Carl R's? That's a favorite Friday afternoon watering hole. They're parking requirements are as a restaurant. MR. HAGAN-Okay. Part of my concern is, from a practical aspect, when we throw out the consideration of the seating of the bar, and I'm not a bar hopper, but there's been very few bars. during the popular hours, that I've ever been able to get up and get a seat at the bar. They're usually piled up, three deep. and that's the part of this operation that concerns me, in relationship to the parking because, from observation, during July and August, and even sometimes in June and September, when you drove through there, the parking spaces were not adequate before the addition. Now that we prohibit parking on the Glen Lake Road, I just don't know where the people are going to go. MR. O'CONNOR-They aren't going to be able to stop, if we are full. MR. HAGAN-That's right. MR. O'CONNOR-But I will offer things to you that shows that we've mitigated the parking. We haven't even gotten into other aspects of it. Right now, there is no limitation on seasonal rentals. We have, I think. 20 dock spaces, usable dock spaces. We've had as many as nine seasonal rentals. Our proposal would be that we would have that limited to two seasonal rentals and. in fact, we will have those rentals have a one page agreement that says that they don't have parking, but I still will include, and we included in our schedule, here, something for those two seasonal docks. We will rent those docks to people who live in the immediate area, up behind Sullivan's Drive. They've had docks there, or docking privileges. there, for years. The Ordinance says that when you have a marina. you're entitled to one and a half boats, per parking spot. So, when we get to two boats, that means we've got to have two parking spots. That is a limitation. Mr. Hagan, of what has not been there, up to date. Another limitation that we're going to offer is launching. We've got a record which will give you an indication of launching. There are three types of launching, if you will. We've got them classified. three types of launching. One is the day use people who want to park on the premises. use the boat on the Lake for the day, but leave their car and. probably, the trailer there. The other is the one way launching. which we're not talking about changing, that's really a convenience to the residents of the Lake. It gives them easy access to get their boat in and out in the beginning and end of the year. It doesn't really cause 7 '-" -' a traffic problem. They're taking their boats in and out, at times, for repair. The other. I guess, is some launches for canoes. This is the actual record, if you will, of launching. in 1989, and I'll be honest with you. I think Paul had so much going on he didn't try and keep a record for this particular year. What we're saying is, look at that and the worst scenario that you have. there, impose an obligation, to us. for ten parking spots. That's five cars and five trailers. That's an actual record from two different months of the season. There are only four occasions, there, when you had that many people there, during the entire day. Now. this involves the fisherman who comes early in the morning, before Paul opens up. goes out, does his fishing. comes back. ten, eleven o'clock in the morning is gone. It involves the people who are water-skiing in the afternoon. It involves some people who do come for the whole day. My recollection is. you've got one day. there. where you have 18 launches. You've got one where you've got ei ght. You've got one where you've got seven. You've got one where you've got six. What we're saying is, give us the worst scenario, and that's probably a very conservative figure. MR. CARTIER-Well, Mr. O'Connor. I'm going to stop you, here. for a minute, because I have a very serious problem with all of this because what you are presenting to us. here. now. is different than what was submitted through the review process and we are very reluctant to change horses in the middle of a stream like this and consider this. These numbers should have come in at the time these numbers were applied for. MR. O'CONNOR-We attempted, Mr. Chairman, to have a workshop meeting. The request was on your agenda. last month. to have a workshop meeting, so we could do this. We did have a workshop meeting with Staff and tried to determine where the problem would be. I don't think. until the ZBA actually held it's meeting, this last week, we were really able to determine what was going to be the parking or not going to be the parking. So. that's a problem that we have. I would understand that you would not, probably, approve the parking, as we have it presented to you, tonight, and this is why we're offering mitigation of it. MRS. PULVER-Back to my question. How many parking did the Zoning Administrator determine that was needed for this? MR. GORALSKI-For the building. as a restaurant use with the employees and the dwelling unit. there would be 43 spaces required and then, I believe that this Board had discussed the boat launch, previously. and had come to an agreement on 10 spaces for the boat launch. MR. CAIMANO-So, a total of 53. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-There are 43. required, and then the boat launch is determined by the, MR. O'CONNOR-John, did she itemize that? I didn't see where she ever itemized that. MR. GORALSKI-I don't think she did. MR. O'CONNOR-I have a total building space of 3577 square feet. MR. GORALSKI-Alright, which is 36 spaces. MR. O'CONNOR-That's 36 spaces. I have six employees. that's three spaces. The dwelling unit of two, requiring two, which is a total of 41. MR. GORALSKI-And then the marina. MR. O'CONNOR-And then you have the question of the marina, or a launch. Mr. Cartier. I understand your rules and I'm not trying to take advantage of you. Mr. Hagan. in these minutes, asked for specific numbers, and that's why I actually did it. I could give you this oral presentation. without giving you the little handouts, and I think I'd lose myself. MR. CAIMANO-Me, too. MR. CARTIER-Well, the problem is I think what you're doing with us is a defacto workshop session, here. MR. CAIMANO-Let me make a suggestion. here. My suggestion is, Mike, that you go through just a broad brush on what your presentation is. My suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is that we listen to the pros and cons from the audience. besides Mr. Judge's letter, and I really think. in fairness to the applicant. he has some very strong points. There are some very strong points on the other side. We have done this. before. I think this thing requires a workshop type session, in which there can be a give and take, without boring to death the rest of the audience who are sitting here waiting for their own determinations on things. We've been at it almost 45 minutes, now. and I don't know that we're getting anywhere, because you haven't convinced me. yet. Zoning Administrator notwithstanding. if she didn't do the background exercise that Mr. Hagan did. right here at the table, of asking what the license was, how can she make a determination regarding this process. 8 '- --' MR. O'CONNOR-Because that's kind of clear cut. MRS. PULVER-She bases it on the Ordinance. MR. o 'CONNOR-I would differ with Mr. Martin. but there is a definition of Tavern and there is a definition of Restaurant. MR. CAIMANO-I don't agree. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but that's where I think the determination of the Zoning Administrator has not hit the mark. I do not dispute that the primary use of this facility is a restaurant. MR. CAIMANO-Neither do I. MR. MARTIN-But the question that needs to be posed to the Zoning Board of Appeals is, are there two uses present. two separate and distinct uses present. not saying that one is not primary over the other. or that evidence cannot be presented that one is of a greater use, but there are two uses present and. in reality, the practical situation is, a person can come in and sit down at that bar. have a drink and not eat and have their car out in the parking lot. and that happens, and that's reality and that's what needs to be looked at. in this application. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. I can only quote from Page 10 of last week's meeting. "Mr. Shea-There is not a tavern and a restaurant. There is a restaurant. Mr. Turner-Restaurant." and they went down through the various people on the Zoning Board of Appeals. Let me throw out one other thing. too. just if there's any questions of the audience or anybody. The septic system is designed for total occupancy, total number of seats, not give and take. and that should be clearly understood. The capacity of the septic system. which has been approved by your consulting engineer. is for everybody being in every seat. all at one time. MR. CARTIER-Does that not work to your disadvantage, to tell us that? Simply because. what that implies. to me, is that, in fact. this entire place can be occupied. at any given time. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. O'CONNOR-No, because the septic is different than the parking regulations. The septic is under DEC Regulations, under Department of Health Regulations, and under the Town Sanitary Code Regulations. Those Regulations set forth specific requirements about floor measurements, and those measurements were met. I think they're excessive, but they were met and we showed that we will meet them, to show that there won't be a question of compliance, again, and to show that you've got a positive impact. even on the septic system. from what's there presently, to what's going to be imposed. or what's going to be built. MR. CARTIER-To go back to your point, I have no objection to a workshop session, as long as you are willing to take public input. at a workshop session. that it not just be between the Board and the applicant. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, I think it's important. MR. CARTIER-There is some indications that I've had, informally. that discomfort, on the public's part. with the workshop session setting for this, if they are not allowed to participate. MR. CAIMANO-I have no objection. MR. HAGAN-While we're on that subject, would I be out of order to ask. in the audience, who is here, to speak. regarding this application? MR. CARTIER-Yes. We're going to get to that. MR. HAGAN-We better consider that, before we make up any. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me give you just two little quick charts, if I can. This is a calculation. including the 900 feet of the deck, as far as part of the square footage. but not including the 495 feet in Section C, and it does include something for dockage and use by dockage. which. if you're going to, equitably, impose the regulations for launching, I think that part of that you ought to take a look and see what you want to impose. MR. CARTIER-Well. Mr. O'Connor, quite frankly, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time looking at this. because this is getting us into a defacto workshop. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I just want to give it to you, as part of your package, Mr. Cartier, because I understand what you said to me at this point. I would be glad to proceed. I had a question. in my own mind, 9 -../ when you began reading the letters. As I understand it, there are a number of letters that have been submitted to the Board, from the course of the beginning of this application, in support of this application, which I never have really heard read, in full. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. they have been. Every letter that's been received and addressed to the Planning Board has been read into the record. and every letter that was addressed to the Zoning Board was read into their record. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I know the one's to the Zoning Board were read into their record. John, but I don't know if, in honesty. in my review of all the minutes, and I've reviewed all the minutes. that there have been any other letters that have been read into this. There was one letter by Mr. Evans. I believe. Mr. Cartier. but other than that. This is not a popularity contest. but I question MR. CARTIER-Well, that's an issue that can be resolved at a workshop session, also. I don't have an answer to that, myself. MR. GORALSKI-I do. Every letter that's been addressed to the Planning Board has been read at the meeting. MR. CARTIER-Then the question is answered, as far as I'm concerned, but you can clarify that. yourself, for your own interest. MR. HAGAN-This may not be pertinent, but what is your present, legal seating capacity of this establishment. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, it's 115. MR. HAGAN-US. MR. O'CONNOR-That's what we. presently, use, and, there, I think you've got a real question. That may not be the limitation. that's what's been used. with good judgement. MR. HAGAN-You don't have anything posted on the wall? MR. O'CONNOR-Seventy, for internal, and you've got 44 on the deck. MR. CAIMANO-That's 114. MR. O'CONNOR-So, that's 115. MR. CAIMANO-No. it's one less, but that's okay. MR. HAGAN-The only thing that bothers me is a little bit connected with what Jim is saying. There may be a seating capacity at the bar. but I hesitate to guess how many people are usually there, on a Friday and Saturday evening. before and after dinner. The practical part of this is what bothers me. MR. O'CONNOR-I have a chart, which I won't attempt to show. understanding what you've got, but showing a flow of people. over the course of a normal day. based upon checks. which I think will address part of that concern. The people, when they do gather at the bar, the restaurant is not full, that's been the history of this establishment, and when you take a look at the square footage, Mr. Hagan. you're including all the walkways. all the waitress areas, much unseated area, when you get to your calculations. We're talking about 85 people. on something that is 3600 square feet. If you go to the other part of the Ordinance and you say. four per hundred, you'd be talking greatly in excess of that. You'd be talking 120, 144. MR. CARTIER-Mr. O'Connor, excuse me. I'm going to cut you off. We've been at this for 50 minutes. now. I know there are people that wish to address us and I think all of those things that you're raising can be done at a workshop session, okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I do want this Board to understand something. here. We are the Board that will be issuing whatever decision is made about this project. The applicant is, certainly. free to challenge whatever decision this Board makes, by other means, okay. I'd like to open the public hearing, if I may. and ask anybody who cares to address the Board on this issue. please come to the microphone and state your name. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SANDRA ALLEN MS. ALLEN-Hi. I'm Sandra Allen, from Miller. Mannix, and Pratt. We're here, tonight, to represent the Glen Lake Association. We had a meeting with Mr. O'Connor and the applicant, with the full Association, 10 '-"" on November 13th. Our firm was present. representing the Association. Mr. O'Connor explained the entire project to the Association and we went over numerous questions with the Association and our firm prepared and questioning the project. The Association made the motion that the renovations to the property did not adversely effect the Lake. In addition, the Association applauded the new septic system, the stonJIWater management improvements and the decreases in the rental spaces. that's what the Association would like to present to you. tonight. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-May I ask how many people voted on that issue? Was this a meeting of the entire Association? MS. ALLEN-Yes, it was. There were. approximately. I would say, approximately, 30 members of the Association there, at that time. I do not recall any negative votes, although there might have been a small minority. MR. CARTIER-Okay. thank you. Anyone else care to address the Board? I'd like to operate on the same way that the Town Board does. that everybody has the chance to speak once before somebody comes up to speak, again. JEAN SULLIVAN MRS. SULLIVAN-My name is Jean Sullivan and I live on the corner of the Glen Lake Road, on the Sullivan Road. and I am here to represent three famil i es, the Wi 11 i am J. Sull i van's. the Thomas Rose Krantz's, and the Walter Quilmans, which represent four houses on the Glen Lake Road, three of which are directly across the street from the Docksider, and the fourth is across the street and up the hill. by Chestnut Road. Someone in each one of the households has lived there 40 years. We are here to support Paul Barton's quest to enlarge the Docksider Restaurant. by making a larger kitchen. storage area, and restrooms. Since the Sullivan's owned this piece of property, in years gone by, and since I worked there as a waitress and as a bookkeeper. I think I can attest to the improvements that Paul has made. The Sullivan's used to have clam bakes, and maybe some of you remember them. We had free beer, on the hill. We had a lot of noise. I don't hear that, from Paul Barton, and I live across the street. The sewer system of the Docksider is greatly improved from what was there when the Sullivan's were there. We used to have church. up in front, and you could sometimes smell the sewer while you were at church. This has been greatly improved. There was always parking along the road, and I understand that now has been eliminated. The type of customers that the Docksider attracts are mainly people in pursuit of a good meal at a reasonable price. and. who. in the summer. need a good breath of Glen Lake fresh air. and they're local people who need to rub shoulders with their neighbors. As for the traffic on the Glen Lake Road, I dare say that more traffic is generated by people trying to avoid the back up mess on the Lake George Road that has been caused by the build up of the Million Dollar Mile, and by the Great Escape, I guess that's a half a mile. In closing, let me say that Paul Barton runs a respectable business, catering to local folks, and some of us walk across the street. We don't need a parking spot, and their voice should be heard louder than some who are just occasional residents. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anybody else care to address the Board, please. JOHN BROWN MR. BROWN-Good evening. I'm John Brown. I live on Glen Lake. Fernwood Road. I don't hear any noise from the Docksider, at all. I've been there about eight years. It's very quiet down there. Also, I'm guilty. very guilty, of going to the Docksider, on a Friday night, but I bring six to eight people with me. We have pizza and maybe a couple of drinks. So. I do take up a lot of space. I just want to say, there's where your parking goes. I bring them by boat. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Anyone else, please. Thank you, Mr. Brown. MARJORIE MCPHILLIPS MRS. MCPHILLIPS-1'm Marjorie McPhillips, permanent. year round resident of Glen Lake. and I have been a very vocal participant in matters pertaining to the water in and around Glen Lake. and I believe that Paul Barton and the Docksider has been an asset to the community. My family and I go, frequently, to his place. in the summer time. and we go by boat, and I cannot see any problems with the present use. and strongly believe the Board should grant this approval. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else care to address the Board, please. GEORGE SICARD MR. SICARD-My name is George Sicard. and I'm a resident of the neighborhood, where Paul Barton's restaurant is. I've been a resident of this neighborhood my whole life. almost 40 years. I'd like to say Paul has been an asset to the community and also to the neighborhood. I'm sure the Board is aware, through Mr. O'Connor's presentations of Paul's letting the restaurant facilities use the Association. the Glen Lake Kiwanis, the Glen Lake Field Days. and I'm sure many other events that I'm not aware of. organizations, charitable organizations in the community, use the restaurant. I'm fully in favor of this. and I see, due to the upgrades that Paul has made. in the 40 years I've lived there. it's never looked better and it's never been done better. Thank you. u --- MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. HAGAN-Is there anybody opposed to this? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. We'll find out. Anybody else, please. SUSAN POPOWSKI MRS. POPOWSKI-I think you know who I am, unfortunately. I'm Susan Popowski. My mother has lived on Glen Lake for 70 years. I will repeat that. again. so you will not consider me just a fly by night, part time resident. My concerns, again, are not personal. They are simply for Glen Lake. There are some very specific things I really feel this Board needs some perspective on because I think it's very difficult for you to get some perspective. Regarding the Glen Lake Association, I would like to comment that this project has been. really. in the wind for at least a year. There has been no notification from the Glen Lake Association, regarding this project. until October of this year, when it was brought up at the Glenmore. There were 40 to 45 people present. Apparently, there was quite a bit of discussion of some of the problems on Glen Lake, the noise. the jet skis. the boats, etc. No vote was called for at that meeting. Post marked November 7th was a notification to all Glen Lake Association members. The meeting was the 13th, by November. as you well know, most of the summer residents are long gone. They are only fools like myself that will drive four hours to come to a meeting like this. Not too many people will do that. At that meeting, there were 22 to 23 people, I am told. and a call of hands was asked for. You, also, I think, ought to note that Mr. Barton has been a director of that Association and. therefore, I think, obviously, we have some friends among the Association members. So. I think that what the Glen Lake Association does. has to be taken with a grain of salt. Regarding the parking, I would like to note a few things. I realize I am not very popular and I am very sorry to say some of the things that I feel need to be said. but. again, I'm just trying to bring up the facts, so that this Board can make an informed decision on facts, not on emotional feeling about the applicant. The original Site Plan that was submitted, upon which a negative declaration was brought in, and all the SEQRA information that I have poured through, had some figures in it that I have a little bit of trouble with. One is. there was no seating mentioned on the deck at all in that original Site Plan. and when some of these decisions were made, they were made, I believe, on the basis of some very vague information. The deck was said to have perimeter seating, and that was it. no figures were given. My own personal calculations were that there were probably 28 seats on the deck, because there are seven tables of four. Suddenly, in order to keep our seating in balance, we have 44 seats on the deck. Now, maybe we do have 44 seats on the deck. right now. I don't know. The increase, in square footage, amounts to a 71.9 percent increase. The difficulty with this newest Site Plan is, the parking lot, from the previous Site Plan. is decreasing, by 2800 square feet. 16.9 percent. That, alone, presents the major problem that I have is the parking situation. There is no place for the cars. At the Zoning Board meeting, which I filed the appeal for, there was quite a bit of discussion about the parking. Unfortunately, . the discussion came about that, in 1987, when, I guess this Board and the Zoning Board. gave the variances for that deck, parking was not discussed. MR. CARTIER-Just a minor correction. This Board did not give any variances, that is a Zoning Board function, only. MRS. POPOWSKI-It didn't? That was strictly zoning? I thought there was approval from the Planning Board, in those variances, no? MR. CARTIER-But not with regard to variances. The only Board that can approve variances is the Zoning Board. MRS. POPOWSKI-Okay. Well, there was much discussion. that night, with the Zoning Board, and they did grant the fact that there was no discussion of parking, at the time. I reiterated the fact that, obviously. that's not in the Ordinance, and that's a problem. I don't think there was any question, that night, as to the fact that that .li. a problem. that that's not addressed in the Ordinance. and that. to me. is where the problem has come from. In the last two or three years, we've opened up a deck with 28 to 44 seats. and there are. we've not accounted for the parking. Now. where we go from there, I don't know, but I think those figures need to be considered. On the mention of dock parking. I think you need to note that, in Section 202 of your Definitions. a parking space is defined as accommodating an automobile. There is no question in the Ordinance. as to what a parking space is. My calculations, on some of the parking. with or without the deck. even without the deck, it's very marginal, right now. You're talking. without the deck. which is there, you're talking a requirement of about 37 spaces. If you add that deck on, which is there, according to their own calculations, you're talking 47 spaces. That's two more than in the proposed parking lot. and then we're talking about expansion, so I don't know where we go. from there. My other question has been noise. and I know that, apparently, nobody else hears this noise. Today. when I drove in. I went over to the Lake. in the dark. and went down, at the edge of my property. to figure out why the noise is so bad to Mrs. McNeal. myself, Mrs. Doyle, that stretch. Well. you've got the point. where the deck is, the Lake curves in and then comes out. and that noise must just come straight across. If you're on the other side of the road, you don't hear that noise at 11 o'clock at night, coming from that deck. across the water. and if anybody doubts it. you're welcome to come, in next July and August, and sit in my house and listen. and I wish somebody 12 -.-/ would, before they make a decision. My last question. or last problem, and, although I'm not an engineer and I can't speak specifically, I have a little difficulty with the septic. Simply from the standpoint that, last year, we expanded, or updated a little bit. We could call it updated, but it really was an expansion. We had to put in a new septic system of some sort. Obviously, like everybody on Glen Lake, our septic system was deplorable. In speaking to the Building Committee, I was told, now, I have 19.470 square feet. We have a double lot. The Docksider has, approximately, 44,000. when you reclaim the shoreline. A lot of that is parking lot. So it's not all permeable. I was told by this Committee. the Building Committee, that, for my 10 week use, there was no way I could put a septic system on my property for my building. There was no way. It was inconceivable. I now have 5,000 gallons of concrete holding tanks in my backyard. for the benefit of Glen Lake. and I'm happy to put them there. but I don't see how on earth a septic system can go in, that is adequate to field any larger a restaurant than is there right now. Thank you very much. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak, please. MARIANNE MCNEAL MRS. MCNEAL-I'm Marianne McNeal. I am four camps to the left of the Docksider. and the biggest thing that I'm upset about is that, if they're going to. now, put ~ people on the deck, that is going to enlarge my problem, because the noise that comes through. when I am sitting there, trying to enjoy, as we said. the wonderful Glen Lake air, I might as well close my windows and buy an air conditioner. because the noise permeates. When people come to get into their boats. I can hear that. just as plain as if they're sitting right there with me and I'm really very upset about that, and I understand one of the things that you do consider is the nature of the neighborhood and I think, as I've said before, many of these people have year round homes. here. This is their biggest investment and now, if this is going to happen. I think it's going to effect how they want to live there. I think it's going to effect the quality of their existence and I just hate to see something like this happen, just because commercialism is coming forward. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else? JEFF GODNICK MR. GODNICK-Hi. My name's Jeff Godnick. I'm a year round resident on Glen Lake, also. I'm five camps the other side of these people. To address a few issues. The noise, to begin with. She states that her property, the Lake curves in and around and she sits on the point. I'm the same thing, on the other side. I've got absolutely no problem with noise in the summer time. It's never bothered me. It's worse in the winter time. when the ice is frozen. I can hear noise from across the Lake. but, as far as the summer time. you get boat noise, but that's got nothing to do with the Docksider. whatsoever. As far as parking is concerned. as a business man in Glens Falls, and I've also got stores in Rutland. Vermont and Stratton. Vermont. We've got over 100,000 square feet of furniture showroom. I've got less parking than Paul has, in that one facility. I'd give my right leg for that piece of property. They say that you can't use the dock space for parking, as far as automobiles are concerned. That's true. but if you lived on the Lake and you see the people that go to the Docksider, which is mostly local people. it's amazing, every dock is filled, at night. with local people. That's who's there. On our side of the Lake. we have a walkway that runs up, probably, about 20 camps, to the right of the Docksider. Every night, when I'm on my deck, having dinner, there's people walking down at the Docksider, that have dinner down there. So. you've got a lot of people walking and a lot of people riding. I see absolutely no problem with the project. I think he's done a good job in preparing it and is doing a lot more than, really, is necessary. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else. please. JUDY SATHER MS. SATHER-My name is Judy Sather and I am a resident of Queensbury and I travel the Glen Lake Road, every day. all seasons. and I have to just let you know that. as a tax payer and as having a car. that I never found traveling on that road to be a problem, and I would also like to reiterate what Mr. O'Connor had said, that they want to improve the premises, as far as the kitchen area. the storage area, and the restroom area, not the actual size or capacity of the restaurant. and I think that's an improvement that is very much needed in that restaurant. if you've ever been in there and. perhaps, taken a look at the storage area. It's really needed and that's all I just wanted to say. is that I've never had any trouble traveling on that road, especially after driving up around other areas in the summer time and how congested they get and there's. relatively, no problem at all on that road, and. certainly. off season. it doesn't seem to be a problem. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MARY SCOTT MS. SCOTT-Hi. I'm Mary Scott and I live four doors to the right side of the Docksider. I can't claim to be a long time resident of Glen Lake. I've been there a year and a half, when I moved here to take 13 '- a job as Administrator at ACC. and it was very difficult moving into a strange area, but I found a very warm welcome. Most of these people I met in the establishment Paul runs. It's a friendly, local place. It's mostly neighbors, and it's just a really nice place to go. on a Friday night. He runs a really reputable establishment. Most of the year. if you went through there, and I go through the parking lot often, several times a day, walking my dogs. There's a handful of cars. there. Parking is not a problem. As far as noise goes, yes, there's boat noise and so on, but most of those people are riding around the Lake. They're not going to the Docksider. I'm not troubled by it and I just wanted to let you know my feelings. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else, please. MARK PRONTO MR. PRONTO-My name is Mark Pronto. I live in South Glens Falls, but I am the head of the kitchen at the Docksider and I'd just like to attest for the storage area and. also, I see Paul Barton every morning, and his concerns are for the Lake. He is very concerned about the septic. He has gone out of his way to do what he can to make sure that the Lake isn't effected. That's all I have to say, thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MIKE LATHAM MR. LATHAM-Hi. My name is Mike Latham. My parents own a place about a mile up the road, called the Trading Post, and if this was going to be that big a deal. we really would have fought it. but this is good. We lived down on this Lake for over 20 years. and if we thought it was that bad, what he's doing. we wouldn't be standing here, tonight, and everything, really. what he's saying, the parking and everything like that. there's no problem. I park there every day. It's a family deal. now, and. to me, when you're talking family and everything like that, you've got to come to consideration. We've been here 20 years. 25 years, well, these guys have been here 20 years. 25 years, too. but it's time to come to consideration, and families have to stick together, and this is where it comes time. too. and we'll stick together. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. frankly, I'm not sure where we're going. MR. CARTIER-I have a good idea. May I offer a suggestion? What I'm hearing, my own, personal feeling, is that we've had a lot of different numbers thrown at us, tonight. that are different from what went through the review process, and I definitely think we need a workshop session. I certainly don't see this project being approved. tonight. Correct me if I'm wrong, there are still some unanswered questions, and I think we have to look at this parking issue, still. much more closely, and I think the direction to go. here. is to table this. and schedule the workshop session. MR. O'CONNOR-I have no objection to that. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. In other words, you are agreeing to table this application. correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-I've got a whole long list of positive impacts that I really didn't even get talking about. and I don't know, I would ask that you leave the public hearing open. MR. CARTIER-Certainly. Feel free to bring those up. MR. O'CONNOR-So that. after we iron out things. if we can iron out things, we'll come back and address, even. some of the other mitigating factors that we are offering. MR. CARTIER-You can feel free to bring those up in the workshop session, also. What we will do. I think, is schedule a workshop session, and I'd like to schedule it in such a way that we could have the minutes of this meeting available for that workshop session. MR. GORALSKI-We can have the minutes of this discussion. on this application, ready by the 1st of next week. MR. CAIMANO-We ought to have this room. too. if we're going to open it to the public, if we can get it. MR. GORALSKI-There's a Town Board meeting, Monday night. 14 '--- -' MR. HAGAN-Did we address SEQRA on this. before? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. and we negative dec'd this and what did we decide about that, because I have a note in here, to the effect. it questioned whether we could re-open the SEQRA process. Do you recall? MS. CORPUS-I believe the Board had wanted to see what the applicant was proposing. before making any determinations on that. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so that's still a question, and I think that's something we could also address, informally. at a workshop session. MR. HAGAN-Right, that's why I brought it up. MR. MARTIN-I just had a question. John, what, exactly, was the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals, in regards to this project? Were there two determinations made, or what was the specific determination made by the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I can read the motion to you. and I can tell you how 1 interpret the motion. MR. MARTIN-Alright. I'd appreciate that. also. MR. GORALSKI-"Motion on Notice of Appeal No. 1-90 Susan C. Popowski That the Zoning Administrator determined the Zoning Ordinance properly when referring to Section 7.071 Off Street Parking Design, Letter B, Floor Area, for the purposes of computing parking requirements, shall be the sum of the horizontal area. within exterior walls of the several floors of a building, excluding the basement. cellar. and attic areas, used primarily for storage or service. Also, that the outside deck is not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance, as it pertains to the parking schedule computation". MR. CARTIER-Let me correct myself, Mr. O'Connor. We haven't gotten those Zoning Board minutes. yet. sent out to us. MR. GORALSKI-Probably not. We just got these today, so that we would have them for the meeting, and. if you'd like my interpretation of that? MR. CARTIER-Sure. go ahead. MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Board determined that. in fact. Mrs. Collard's determination that they met the parking requirements for the building, was correct. They also stated, in the last sentence. that the deck, the outside deck. is not addressed in the parking schedule. Then. I think the Board could go to Section 7.071. which states that, for any uses not included in the parking schedule, that the Planning Board could establish a reasonable number of parking spaces for that use, that's .!!!.l interpretation of what their decision was. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think we agree with that. and I think. maybe, this is the time to make a motion to that effect, that we are going to expect the applicant to include. in his parking calculations, parking to meet the deck. Correct? MR. HAGAN-Say that again. It sounds like you just contradicted what John said. MR. CARTIER-No. I just want to be sure we're all on the same wavelength, here, that we agreed earlier this evening. MR. HAGAN-Well, repeat what you just said. Peter, because you just contradicted John, in my opinion. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Cartier, if I might. I think there's a problem. there, and it could be a long debate and you would have to go through the minutes and the discussion leading up to that resolution. because, what they said is that her determination was correct, and her determination specifically said, therefore. the outside deck is not considered in computing the number of parking spaces. I went back to them, after they made the motion, and said. hey, lets clarify it, because I don't want to have to have a big issue about the thing, is it or isn't it? Now, a good deal of time, money, and effort has gone into this thing, based upon determinations that have been made, and there's a little changing of the rules. in mid stream, and we're trying to avoid that. if we could, but they say, in the beginning of that motion, that the determination is correct. MR. CARTIER-But it also says, also, that the outside deck is not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the parking schedule computations. MR. O'CONNOR-But you have to look at her determination, I think. MR. CARTIER-Under 7.071. as far as I'm co~cerned. this Board has the right to include parking requirements. for that deck. which is what I was trying to say. before. Jim. 15 ---- ....-/ MR. O'CONNOR-But lets, for the purpose of argument and presentation, we will include a calculation of that deck, without consenting to whether you're right or wrong. basically. MR. CARTIER-Okay. alright. We can deal with that at a workshop session. I think. MR. LAPOINT-I'd like to comment that I'm just a bit disappointed that, given the amount of time we've all invested. here. we can't come to some type of decision, given what's in front of us. now. I'm all for the workshop session. but MR. CARTIER-I understand what you're saying and we've been at this thing a lot longer than I'd like to be at it. too. My concern is. that we've been given some different numbers, now. that have gone through, the numbers that came through the review process, by Staff, and that's what we need to address. MRS. PULVER-I just want to be sure that I have this straight, that the Zoning Administrator has determined that they need 53 parking spaces? MR. GORALSKI-No. MRS. PULVER-That's what you just told me, 43 for the restaurant, and 10 for the boat launch. MR. CARTIER-There's nothing to prevent us from having the Zoning Administrator at the workshop session. to get this thing straightened out. MR. GORALSKI-Not at all. MRS. PULVER-I know, but, before we get there, I want to be sure that I have this straight. MR. CAIMANO-But John is saying no. MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Administrator. and I believe the number is 43, determined that the number of parking spaces. according to the schedule, the parking schedule, that are required, are 43. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-She, specifically, said that the boat launch is not addressed and should be addressed by the Planning Board. MR. CAIMANO-Thus the 53 number that Carol said. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. PULVER-Okay. That's how I came up with 53, then. and what they're saying is that, they can come up with 62 spaces. MR. HAGAN-Where? The plan doesn't show that. MR. GORALSKI-Forty five parking spaces and seventeen dock slips. MR. CAIMANO-There are no spaces. that's the fight. MR. CARTIER-That's the bone of contention. MR. O'CONNOR-In determining what is applicable or what is fair, for the boat launch, we would ask the Board's consideration to consider the fact that most. a lot of the traffic, during the peak season. does come from the Lake and does come by boat and that some consideration to the 17 spaces that we reserved, for that. be had and be given. There's also a consideration, which I understand that the Town Board is going to set a date for a public hearing or they're going to have a public hearing on a proposed zoning resolution. in the near future. that may change the width of parking spots. from 10 feet to 9 feet, and that's an additional 4 spots that would be available, based on that. MR. CARTIER-And I assume you don't wish to be grandfathered, in that situation, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-There's an issue, by itself, because. grandfathering. because what we're talking about is existing parking lot. MR. CARTIER-Lets save all of this for the workshop session. or part of this for the workshop session. and get on with it. We started to set a date, I believe. for next Tuesday. which is December 4th. What time? MR. MARTIN-6:30? 16 '-' --- MR. CARTIER-Well. 6:30. we run into the set up, here. How about 6:45? MR. CAIMANO-6:45 is fine. MR. HAGAN-What date? MR. CARTIER-December 4th, Tuesday. Okay. that needs to be made in the form of a motion, I believe. The public hearing will be left open, on this. Anybody from the public. who wishes to address the Board, at this workshop session. will, certainly be afforded that opportunity. There will be no votes taken, at a workshop session, that's not what is involved at a workshop. We will have to come into a normally scheduled meeting. such as this, in order to vote on any proposal. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask one question, Mr. Cartier. with me. tonight. is Mr. Morse, Mr. Scartelli. and Mr. Dean, from Morse Engineering, who did the drainage design and the septic design. Do you want to have them in attendance at the workshop meeting? MR. CARTIER-Do we have any questions about drainage? MR. HAGAN-No. I think that's already been approved. I don't think we have any right to get into that. MR. CARTIER-I think the issue's going to be over parking. MR. CAIMANO-Tom, in engineering, is everything taken care of? MR. YARMOWICH-The applicant duly notes the one comment that was offered, tonight, and I don't see any reason. MR. CARTIER-I'm sure they'd be delighted to be there, Tuesday night. but their presence will not be required. MR. HAGAN-I still have a qualm with your statement about having adequate parking. If you have always had adequate parking, why did the Town of Queensbury have to create a law to prohibit parking on the Glen Lake Road. MR. O'CONNOR-They actually did it at our request, so that there would not be an issue, in the future. MR. HAGAN-Okay. but that still doesn't indicate to me that you've always had adequate parking. which you keep insisting you have. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. well, we went to the Town Board, Mr. Hagan, so that the neighbors would have some recourse, if there was any problems. from any overlapped parking. and asked, specifically. for the Board to study that. They did. with Mr. Naylor. They outlined an area. We took it to the Glen Lake Association and talked about it, reported back to the Board and said, we support that, would you do that. It's kind of like. they've done it at Cleverdale. They've done it up by the San Souci and other areas. MR. HAGAN-Yes. but I'd rather hear you say you have all the parking that's legally required, or that ~ require. MR. CAIMANO-Well. lets get on with it. Why don't we do that at workshop. MR. CARTIER-Yes. we have spent almost an hour and a half on the first item and I'd like to get on with things. So, we have a date set. We need a motion to establish that date for a workshop session. Does anybody care to make a motion to that effect? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-90 J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For expansion. for a workshop meeting on December 4th. at 6:45 pm. in the Queensbury Senior Center, for the purpose of completing a discussion on parking and it's ramifications. Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 1990. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ROBERT AND MARGARET REID OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WIfICOM DRIVE, flJRTHERLY ALONG RIDGE ROAD FROM QUAKER ROAD TO WINCOMA DRIVE, CONTIrIJE flJRTHERLY FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISIOII. RETAIN 5.73 ACRES SURROUNDING EXISTING RESIDENCE, CONVEY WESTERLY 1.66 ACRES FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILOING LOT. TAX MAP NO. 55-1-2.11 LOT SIZE: 7.39 ACRES 17 '--" -- MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, if I could. I'll explain why this application is back before you. This application received Preliminary approval last month. However, the applicant did not send out the public hearing notices. as required by the Subdivision Regulations. We have received the Certified Mail receipts and all property owners within 500 feet ~ notified of the public hearing this evening. So. I believe all you have to do is hold the public hearing and decide whether you'd like to reaffirm your motion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me. one other thing. You should reaffirm this SEQRA Negative dee, if that's appropriate. MR. CARTIER-Do we need to go back through all the questions? MR. GORALSKI-No. Just take any public comment and, you may want to go through some of the questions. if there's any public comment on any of them. MR. CARTIER-Okay. thank you. I will open the public hearing on this Preliminary Subdivision application, and would anybody care to comment or ask questions? Thank you. There being none. I'll close the public hearing on this issue. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does anybody wish to raise any SEQRA issues. beyond what has already been raised, or can we reaffirm. well. I'll call for a motion to reaffirm the original motion that was made to approve. plus a resolution regarding the negative declaration. MR. CAIMANO-Can we do them both in one? Okay. MOTION TO REAFFIRM APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1990 ROBERT AND MARGARET REID, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a two lot subdivision. Retain 5.73 acres surrounding existing residence, convey westerly 1.66 acres for residential building lot, as originally passed on October 16th. 1990. Duly adopted this 27th day of November. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAN 11). 55-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9, AT THE LOCATION OF THE tlJUNT ROYAL JlJTEL FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER 44,605 SQ. FT. DEtllLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOPPING CENTER WITH PARKING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 70-1-9 LOT SIZE: 5.25 ACRES SECTION 4.020 (K) JIM MILLER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-Okay, I think that I'll also remind you that we're looking at this again because we had to have five votes to override the County. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CARTIER-So. we tabled it until then. We'll take Staff Comments, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. CARTIER-We also have a letter from the State Department of Transportation accepting the traffic study that was done and another second letter from the State Department of Transportation. dated November 1st. stating that they approved the or have no objection to the proposed driveway access. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. 18 -..../ MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And a letter and comment from Queensbury Beautification. approving. and they were satisfied. and. also. Warren County Planning approved. They rescinded their disapproval of October 1990. Tom. please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Okay. DEC has indicated that a SPDES Permit is required. Is someone here to represent the applicant? MR. MILLER-I'm Jim Miller. from Northfield Design, representing Guido Passarelli. I was thinking that we wouldn't do a formal presentation tonight, per set but rather just address any questions or problems that may still be outstanding. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. If I understand, unless the Board has some other comments. it sounds like the only outstanding issues have to do with the brick walk and cross walk striping. Is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Those are the only two outstanding issues. Did we do a SEQRA Review on this? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, you did. MR. CAIMANO-We did a SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-That's been completed. Wonderful. JOE SPORKO MR. SPORKO-We could address those items. if you'd like? MR. CARTIER-Please. MR. SPORKO- I'm Joe Sporko with the LA Group, and I li ke to just address the comment on the brick sidewalk, very quickly. Comment from the Town Planner was regarding a connection of the brick sidewalk. through the parking lot, to the building. We have provided such a connection, on this side of the building. This would be on the south side of the building, connecting the brick walk across, to the sidewalk, located in this portion. right here. That would, then, connect the pedestrian travel to this immediate sidewalk, and allowing the pedestrians to travel underneath the covered walkway. So. we have provided a safe pedestrian connection. The original comment made by Stu Baker was to provide a connection along both sides of the Center. We considered that, but rejected it, because that would direct the pedestrians across what would be the busiest portion of the parking lot. So. we felt that it was a safer and better connection, and easier and shorter. to connect right here and these are on the plans on Sheet Number One. Regarding the cross walks across the travel lanes we have absolutely no problem with that. and we will do that. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Public hearing was left open, I assume? MR. GORALSKI-As far as I know it was. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody care to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEl MR. CAIMANO-How about John's coment regarding Stu Baker's comment on his comment. Do you have any cross coments regarding? MR. GORALSKI-Any comment on the comment on the comment? MR. CAIMANO-On the comment. MR. GORALSKI-No. I think they've addressed the issue. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. MR. HAGAN-Forgive me. I have a problem with abbreviations. In regards to the State Department of Environmental Conservation. what exactly is an S-P-D-E-S Permit? 19 '--- --,,' MR. CARTIER-State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit. MR. GORALSKI-Very good. MR. CARTIER-That's the first thing I learned because that's the first thing that ever came up, and I'm glad somebody finally asked. MR. GORALSKI-SPDES. MR. CARTIER-SPDES Permit. okay. MR. HAGAN-Okay. I didn't bring that up to be facetious but that. to me, is an important issue. and has that permit been applied for. yet? MR. SPORKO-Yes. Regarding the SPDES we made application for the SPDES in October. They have received the application and deemed the application complete. However, they must complete their technical review and we haven't heard back yet. MR. HAGAN-This would have to be pertinent in any motion. MR. CARTIER-Any motion that we make can be contingent upon receipt of that SPDES Permit. MR. CAIMANO-Well. he can't do anything without the SPDES Permit anyway can he? Can he get a Building Permit without it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes he could. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Yes, as a matter of course, whenever that's come up. I think we've always made that part of a stipulation in the motion. Does anyone care to make a motion? MR. CAIMANO-Sure. IIITIOR TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-90 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a retail shopping center 44,605 square feet. Demolition of existing structures and construction of a shopping center with parking, contingent upon the receipt of a SPDES Permit. Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 1990. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. GORALSKI-As soon as you get that SPDES Permit, just submit it to the Planning Department. and then you can go ahead with getting your Building Permit. MR. MILLER-Yes. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 28-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-42A DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT CO.. INC. OIIfIER: SAME AS ABOVE DUNlfAM'S BAY, EAST SIDE OF ROUTE 9L FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE OF 70 BOATS AND UP TO 25 BOAT TRAILERS (WITHOUT BOATS). (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 10-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 13.59 ACRES SECTIOR 9.010 WALTER REHM. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. GORALSKI-If you'd like, I can take out the notes from previous meetings that I've written and I can do that. but just a couple of new things that have come in since then. This is a letter from the Warren County Planning Board, to Queensbury Planning and Zoning Office, dated November 15th. 1990 (attached) MR. CARTIER-Okay, before you go on, what's the Board's feeling on this? Do we want to kick this back to Warren County Planning? MR. CAIMANO-I don't think it's necessary. You're already going to have a public hearing. here. MR. HAGAN-I don't have any objection to it, but I'm asking. if we do agree to send it to them what purpose will it actually serve, if we, in effect approve? 20 ',-, ,-.,/' MR. CAIMANO-Right. It serves no purpose. Either way, what purpose will it serve? MR. GORALSKI-If you approve it by five votes or more. it probably would not serve any purpose. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. HAGAN-So. why don't we wait until we find out how the Board's going to vote before we determine that then. MR. CAIMANO-Good point. okay. MR. CARTIER-The only reason for going back to Warren County would be to allow public input, at that level. and we can certainly take public input and have and will take more here. MR. GORALSKI-There's also another letter in here that was received November 26th, if I could, Mr. Chairman. MR. CARTIER-Please. MR. GORALSKI-lilt is my understanding that Site Plan and Review application for Dunham's Bay Company. Inc. will be heard on the November 28th agenda. It is in this regard I wish to record my concerns via this communication, since I plan to be away on that date. Please refer to my previous correspondence to both the Warren County Planning Board and Queensbury Town Planning Board. wherein I tried to raise the question of traffic safety on Route 9L. I am not convinced that the Warren County Planning Board gave adequate consideration to the problem of highway traffic and the intent and potential for serious accidents. I would suggest that your movement toward approval of this application be predicated on the recommendations of a traffic report prepared by a professional engineer. Also, before approval of this Site Plan Review. the adequacy of the site clean up should be certified by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. My last observation indicated numerous partially filled barrels on the site. as well as lack of back fill stabilization. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours truly, John Salvador. Jr." MR. CARTIER-And that was as of, what, November 26th? MR. GORALSKI-November 26. MR. CARTIER-Well. those of us who were out making site visits last Saturday can confirm that those barrels are still there. One other thing, this went to the Zoning Board of Appeals for some determinations, and if I can quickly summarize what those determinations were, the question came up as to what is allowed in a Land Conservation 42 Acre Zone. It was the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals that boat storage .li. allowed. That sales and quick launch operations are not allowed from an LC-42 Acre. Karla? MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman. at last week's Zoning Board of Appeals meeting I addressed the Board to the fact that that particular meeting was not properly noticed. At that time, the Zoning Board voted to rehear this matter with proper notification to surrounding land owners and pertinent parties. If the Board feels that any of that determination is relevant to its determination here, the Board does have the option to table this matter, until that matter's heard at the Zoning Board. If the Board feels that those determinations are not relevant to this Site Plan application, then you needn't do that. MR. CARTIER-What's the Board's feeling? MR. CAIMANO-I want to go forward. MRS. PULVER-Yes, I do. too. MR. CARTIER-I agree. I don't know that their determination is going to change because, having read the minutes of that meeting they spent a good deal of time with Dave Hatin and detailed discussion of that process, and I don't know that anything is going to change as a result so. okay. MR. HAGAN-How many times have we already tabled this? MR. CAIMANO-Three that know of. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. HAGAN-My opinion is that this Board should take some action tonight. MR. CARTIER-I agree. 21 ',-, '-.-' MR. CAIMANO-I agree. MR. CARTIER-I have no problem with that. Would the applicant care to address the Board please. Mr. Rehm, maybe you're going to do this. Your letter of September 10th, was that ever read into the record? MR. GORALSKI-I believe that that was read into the record along with my comments of September 19th. MR. CARTIER-Yes, they must have been because I have it marked. MR. GORALSKI-If you'd like, we can read them all again. MR. CARTIER-No. MR. REHM-Is it the pleasure of the Board that these matters be read into the record? MR. GORALSKI-Would you like me to read them again? I certainly will. Mr. Cartier, I think they may have some value to the Board, if you'd like to make a determination. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I'm particularly interested in Mr. Rehm's September 10th letter. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. REHM-I would have a lot less to say if that were read. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Letter From Walter O. Rehm. III. to Mr. Richard Roberts and Planning Board Members dated September 10th (attached) MR. CARTIER-(Referring to letter) Do you know what the chemical composition of that stuff (Soil-Sement) is? I'm reading the ad here and it is that, in fact, an ad, but, out of curiosity. is this something that's been approved by DEC or it's been looked at? MR. MARTIN-It says. ecologically safe. MR. CARTIER-Yes. but this is an advertisement. KAREN HOWARD MRS. HOWARD-I got that from DEC. MR. CARTIER-Can I ask your name please? MRS. HOWARD-Karen Howard. I got the information on them from the DEC. I spoke with that corporation and they said yes, it is approved by New York State. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. My impression from that letter is that a number of the issues that have been raised by neighbors have been addressed. I. or somebody else might have a question regarding the barrels. We were on site two Saturdays ago and there were still, what, Jim. eight barrels? MR. HAGAN-Seven or eight. I forget the count, and they were either full or predominantly full. MR. REHM-That's used oil which builds up at this time of year, in which there's a service that comes and removes that used oil. As you know, it can't be deposited in landfills and so on, and so there's a service that comes periodically and picks it up, I think at a charge now, and they used to pay for it and now they charge to take it and that will be disposed of. MR. CARTIER-My concern was that they were just sort of, it appeared to be randomly dumped if you wi 11. MR. HAGAN-If the plugs had leaked so would the oil. MR. REHM-Sure. MR. HAGAN-And eventually, ended up in the Lake. that was our concern. It was sort of a disorderly way. at least. of taking care of that. The barrels were laying on the side instead of being upright. MR. CARTIER-Yes. and I think those barrels should not be stored outside on permeable soil. They should be on an impermeable surface. 22 '--.-' --.../ MR. REHM-On a cement slab or something of that nature. I think that makes sense and I also think that a cement slab could be devised. similar to the large bul k oil tanks where, if there is leakage there's enough of a lip around it so that it would not get into a pervious area. MR. CAIMANO-Not only would it be done, but those people will do that for you and engineer exactly how big that has to be and how high the lip is. It's expensive, but it will be done. MR. REHM-Well, I'm speaking for the Howards. but I think that makes a lot of sense and it's. I think it would be possible to limit the quantity of this oil, so it doesn't build up as it has built up now. MR. HAGAN-That's accepted in recycling now down at Kingsbury. MR. REHM- Is it? MR. HAGAN-Yes, but not in that quantity I'm sure. MR. CARTIER-Where? To the landfill on Ridge Road? MR. HAGAN-No, the recycling site in Kingsbury on Dix Avenue. The ground in that area. also. we kicked it about and it looked like it had been soaked at one time or another with oil or grease or something. MR. CARTIER-In the same area that the barrels are the ground appears to be saturated there, and I think that's something that's also going to have to be cleaned up. MR. REHM-We'll take a look at it. I think there's no question that those barrels need to be limited in number and they need to be put in a secure area so that if there is some leakage that it doesn't get into the soils. I think that makes sense. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else have a question of the applicant? Okay. I know the public hearing was left open on this and I'll be glad to take comments from the public. I would only ask that we don't re-plow old ground here in the interest of time. I'd be glad to take whatever comments you want. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN SCHRINER MR. SCHRINER-My name is John Schriner. I've been a guest on the Shortsleeves property since 1963. So, I'm speaking on behalf of my myself and on Mr. Shortsleeves behalf. and there's a couple of items here in this letter that I just want to comment on. One of them is the sight distance. and 1'm sure this statement in here is referring to the remarks that I made at a previous meeting here. "Furthermore, notwithstanding statements made to the Board to the contrary. the sight distances when traveling in both directions on Route 9L are substantial". Okay, we started off, I believe, last April. The attorney made a statement here that I disputed. that the sight distance in the northerly direction from the right-of-way road was, approximately four football fields. and I believe that comes to 1200 feet. I disputed that and over at the County Building he dropped down, and now his sight distance is 650 feet. I personally measured it myself from the center line of the right-of-way road where it meets 9L. I came up with 425 feet. and this was a lot different in the site distance than has been said there is. I don't feel that this is enough area. and there's a parking lot just on the north side. It used to be Sally Shenier's property. If there's vehicles parked in that parking lot, this sight distance becomes a lot less. MR. CARTIER-Where is this parking lot? MR. SCHRINER-On the north side of the Town road that enters. going down into the Boat Company. MR. CARTIER-That's private property? MR. SCHRINER-Next door to them, private property. He has a parking lot up on top of that hill and if this is filled with cars this sight distance gets a lot less because of the curve in the road. than this 425 feet that I've come up with yes. MR. HAGAN-Which represents a bigger or lesser objection on your part? I'd like to know what your objection is. MR. SCHRINER-That this sight distance isn't long enough for safety for an oncoming car to see and have time to stop. MR. HAGAN-I just wanted to make sure I understood you. MR. SCHRINER-Yes, since they cross this double line every time a boat is moved or every time a trailer is moved entering this right-of-way road from the south, they're crossing a double line. Number One, this is illegal, and, Number Two. it's not safe. 23 '- ----' MR. YARMOWICH-In most cases the sight distances is determined based on the limit of the right-of-way. Cleared areas outside of the right-of-way, unless they're permanently unobstructed, would be the only unusual case, such as a cliff or something like that, because of the concerns of vegetation and private property development. I'm not sure, precisely, where this gentleman's figures come from, but whoever determines the sight distances should take that into consideration, and that would be the appropriate way to determine for this condition if a curve is involved. Hills, of course, is a different situation. This is a combination of the two, as my memory serves. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but what popped into my head was, and I'm not a traffic engineer. that's why I'm asking you. Four hundred and twenty five feet is an adequate sight distance. is it not? MR. YARMOWICH-If it were not to penetrate the right-of-way line. The statement this gentleman made that causes me to make that remark is something having to do with private property and anything possibly occurring on that private property which would modify that existing distance, as he's measured it. That is to say that you have to take the edge of the right-of-way into consideration when determining the sight distance. unless there's something else that is unusual there that would prevent it from every becoming obstructed. MR. CARTIER-What's the approximate distance between the right-of-way and this parking that we're talking about, parking on private property that reduces the sight distance. MR. SCHRINER-I'll take a guess at probably 250 feet maximum. MR. CARTIER-Still, is that adequate sight distance? MR. CAIMANO-Well, let's talk about some logic here though. Did I hear Mr. Rehm say that there's never been an accident in 20 years? Has there been an accident, in your knowledge, in this corner, Mr. Schriner? MR. SCHRINER-No. MR. CAIMANO-There's an old axiom in marketing, you can take all the numbers you want, but. if it doesn't sell the hell with your marketing. In this case, we've got 20 years of no accidents, what are we arguing about? MR. SCHRINER-But there always could be one tomorrow morning, too. MR. CAIMANO-In any piece of road in this entire Town. MR. SCHRINER-Right. So. your theory of going backwards as far as I'm concerned.... MR. CAIMANO-I'm not going backwards. I'm going to keep going forward. MR. SCHRINER-Well, you are. Twenty years back, you just said. MR. CAIMANO-Right, let's go back 20 years. There's never been an accident. MR. SCHRINER-Very true. I'll admit to that. but I still don't think it's enough. MR. CARTIER-Well certainly, if a series of accidents begin to develop. somebody's going to start taking a look at that corner much more closely. MR. SCHRINER-Yes. I'll bring that part out. I went over to the Department of Transportation for New York State and their theory is until someone gets killed or a serious accident. they will not even look into it. This is their theory, and I said to the gentleman, Steffan. I said. this is a heck of a way to do it, and he said. that's the way the rules are. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I understand what you're saying. MR. SCHRINER-But I'd like to comment on one other thing I did. I went to the New York State Police on this same thing, the traffic violation of crossing the double line. They agreed with me. It's ill ega 1. Number One. ri ght off the bat. It's ill ega 1 and the second thi ng is, they told me they will not. or they cannot, because they don't have the personnel to send a car over there, waiting for a boat to be moved so that they can ticket them, and this is understandable. MR. CARTIER-Okay. but I think that's an issue between you and the State Police. MR. SCHRINER-Right. MR. CARTIER-I'm not sure that's an issue between us. 24 "'--' .-/ MR. SCHRINER-I'm leading into something. MR. HAGAN-I'm trying to understand and follow you. There's no break in the double line anywhere? MR. SCHRINER-No. MR. HAGAN-How do ~ get into your driveway then. MR. SCHRINER-I don't have to cross it. MRS. PULVER-Coming from the other direction. MR. HAGAN-When you're coming from the south. MR. SCHRINER-Right. MR. HAGAN-You don't have to cross it? MR. SCHRINER-No. MR. CAIMANO-Do you jump over it? How do you get across the road? MR. SCHRINER-I can do it with a car. You can't do it with a boat and a trailer, or a car and a trailer. MR. CARTIER-I see. MR. SCHRINER-Or you can't do it with anything double. MR. HAGAN-If you have a driveway. even when there's a double line. they leave a break in it so you can drive into your driveway. MR. SCHRINER-No. There's no break in that line. MR. HAGAN-Well then. every time ~ go into your driveway from the south you're breaking the law too. MR. SCHRINER-No. I'm not. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Let's see if we can clear this up here and simplify this. and, again, somebody correct me if I'm wrong. A double line means no passing, okay. MR. SCHRINER-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MR. CARTIER-That doesn't mean you cannot cross that line, because if that meant you could never cross that line you could only come from one direction to get into your driveway, and you couldn't get into your driveway coming from the other direction because you'd have to cross the double line. MR. CAlMANO-No way. You couldn't get at Mr. Kenny's shopping center from the other side of the road if that was the case. MR. SCHRINER-That's very true. but your interpretation of it is a lot different than the State Police, because they told me anytime they see it, they'll be ticketed for doing it. So, I mean. it gets to that. but one thing I wanted to arrive at, while talking to the police. and Karla can, maybe, comment on this. The question came up would the Town be liable. if they knowingly know of this situation, in the event of a serious accident. I discussed it with Paul Dusek and Karla was there, and her feeling at that time was she didn't think that they could be. because it's a State road, but she was going to look into it. So. I would like to ask if there is a possibility? MR. HAGAN-May I comment on that? MR. SCHRINER-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Okay. If. in fact, we gave a permit for Dunham's Bay Boat Company to continue to operate on this. and there was an accident, before we would be liable. we would have to be proven that the accident was caused by the traffic from Dunham's Bay Boat Company. Now, I related in the first hearing that I have a daughter with four kids in the car, and a dog. She was involved in a serious accident. the car was totaled. It had nothing to do with Dunham's Bay Boat Company. It was my daughter's negligence going around that bend in the winter time. Now. how could we prove, or how could ~, prove. that every accident that's ~ to take place is going to be caused by the operation of Dunham's Bay Boat Company? 25 '- --- MR. SCHRINER-I didn't say everyone could. but let's assume this. That boat is across the double line in the left hand lane, alright. Now, your daughter comes down and hits that vehicle. Who's fault is that? MR. HAGAN-The Dunham's Bay Boat Company. MR. SCHRINER-Right. MR. HAGAN-But it's never happened. MR. SCHRINER-I understand that. but what I'm asking is, could the Town be liable, taxpayers money. She can answer it. MS. CORPUS-I don't believe that I can, and I'm not sure if it's relevant to this discussion because this particular use is a permitted use on this property, per our Zoning Ordinance. If you're asking me to weigh the relevance of our Zoning Ordinance, versus some negligence, liability. I can't do that, at the moment for this Board. If the Board wants me to look into any of those issues as it's relevant to the Site Plan. I will. MR. CARTIER-The question is, is the Town liable if. because we approve a situation whereby somebody has to cross a double line and there's an accident. because they've crossed the double line, is the Town liable. I'm not a lawyer. but my common sense gut reaction is no, because people cross double lines allover Town, as a result of things that we approve, and I'm not sure that the question comes up that we're liable. MR. CAIMANO-As Karla said, it's not relevant. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHRINER-Okay. my other thing here on this same statement. This letter was written September 10th. alright. They claim here they're going to take all. well. let's see, "Although private traffic cannot be completely eliminated on the right of way, every effort will be made to limit it". Okay, September 10th this came. On September 16th. I was painting on the green camp up there. that's right next. seven feet off of the right-of-way road. and it was on a Sunday morning between 10 and 11 o'clock. There was an awful lot of traffic, and I figure what's going on. I stopped five cars coming up. Three of these vehicles were sent up there by a salesman. Bob Salter. the guy showed me his card and told me if I've got any complaints take them up with this Bob Salter. Now, here on the 16th six days after this letter. we're going to cut down on traffic, I find out that the salesman is sending private cars up there to look at boats that are for sale. I mean. as far as this is concerned, this all sounds good. This is great, but in reality. it means nothing. It means nothing. MR. CARTIER-Well. let me present you with what is going to happen. If we approve this, we are, I think we're going to approve it with all these stipulations. and if you find that these things are not being met, you have every right to come into the Building and Codes Department and issue a formal complaint and Mr. Hatin will deal with it. That's why we're here. to begin with. MR. SCHRINER-I was going to ask you that. who do you take all these violations to, because I'm sure they're going to be there. Okay, my other thing, this dust preventer. As far as I'm concerned, this is a temporary thing. It may go down, today. a month from now, we've got the dust back. If they don't want to do this. why don't we. if we're going to be going this route. why don't we go to this black top. These people were promised black topped roads in 1972. and it never became a reality. MR. CARTIER-Please correct me if I'm wrong. It was my understanding that that was an alternative that was brought up and the Howard's don't own that road, do they? MR. SCHRINER-No. they don't own the road, but they can do whatever repairs are necessary. MR. CARTIER-It's a right-of-way only. correct? MS. CORPUS-Legally, it would require the agreement of all the owners that are pertinent and relevant to that right-of-way to come to that agreement. MR. SCHRINER-Well. I'm sure they'll give them agreement to let them black top the road. (END OF FIRST DISK) 26 '- -' MS. CORPUS-That includes the cost of that. MR. CARTIER-My understanding. and, again, correct me if I'm wrong, is that's an alternative that came up in the past and it was nay sayed by the neighbors. The neighbors said no. MR. SCHRINER-That they didn't want a black topped road? MR. CARTIER-Yes, that they didn't want a black topped road. They didn't want anything done to the road. MR. SCHRINER-I don't recall that. I'd like to hear that statement on the thing. I don't ever recall hearing it. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. SCHRINER-And these two people here, they own the right-of-way road. 1972 they were promised that. to keep the dust down. You can't even open a window in the camps up there in the summer time. That's all I've got to say. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Alright. Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? MILDRED WOODIN MRS. WOODIN-There's one question I would like to ask. MR. CARTIER-Yes, ma'am. Would you identify yourself please. MRS. WOODIN-I'm Mildred Woodin and I'm part owner of this right-of-way. How is it that everybody involved in this was against it but one person, and you are going to approve it? MR. CARTIER-No. I haven't said we're going to approve it. MRS. WOODIN-Well, you just made that statement. MR. CARTIER-I said, if. okay. MRS. WOODIN-Yes. that I can't understand, when everybody involved. there's not one that agreed with it, and I don't understand it. MR. CARTIER-Everybody involved, you mean. neighborhood? MRS. WOODIN-Not only that. but my own property gets banged up pretty well from all these boats. and this right-of-way is supposed to be 20 feet, and that's what it's going to be from now on. MR. CARTIER-I don't know if I can answer your question to your satisfaction, but I'll take a shot at it. As a property owner, you have certain rights. As a property owner, Mr. Howard has certain rights, also. MRS. WOODIN-I agree. MR. CARTIER-And I think what we have attempted to do here, as a Board. is to take very seriously. the concerns that have been raised by neighbors. and try to get Mr. Howard to mitigate those concerns and deal with those concerns. It is my personal feeling only. and I'm not speaking for the Board here. that I think most. if not all of those concerns that have been raised by neighbors have been addressed. They may not have been addressed to the neighbors complete satisfaction, because I suspect, and. again. correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm hearing is that the neighbors are opposed to 2.!!l. operation up there. MRS. WOODIN-No. I'm not opposed to it. As a matter of fact. when he first went there nobody really opposed the man, but he's done everything so up side down and inside out it's ridiculous. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but recognize. now, we've got a handle on this. He's here in front of us for an approval, okay. and if we approve that, and we stipulate certain things. and he does not meet those stipulations, he's back into the frying pan, because that's why he's here to begin with. MRS. WOODIN-He never lived up to the stipulations on the first permit he had. never. not once. MR. CARTIER-Okay, well. as I said, I don't know that I can give you an answer that's going to satisfy you. You do have the option to take Mr. Howard to the Building and Codes. MRS. WOODIN-And then, from different things I've heard here, I've been criticized because I won't sell him a piece of my property. Why should I do that? 27 '-" -.-/ MR. CAIMANO-I don't know who criticized you. MRS. WOODIN-Well. in the letters from Mr. MR. CARTIER-Well. that's between you and those gentleman. Anyone else care to speak? Okay, if nobody else cares to speak I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. REHM-It's sometimes difficult to sit through these meetings, as I know it is for you and listen to what I consider to be unreasonable and exaggerated complaints, and it is particularly difficult, in this case, because I don't know of any marina business on the Lake, which is a difficult business on the Lake, in today's environmental awareness. that is operated any better and with anymore concern for the nei ghborhood or concern for the Lake or concern for the envi ronment than thi s one, and the Howards have partially because of my threats and partially because of their good sense, generally kept their mouths shut and they continue to keep their mouths shut through this, but I want to assure the Board that we also consider this, if it is approved. an ongoing process. If you do approve it, and if difficulties continue. we're willing to work with the Board, and we're still willing to work with reasonable neighbors to solve any problems that exist. This is a situation where you have a cOllRllercial use and a residential use that are coming together and there are conflicts and that's natural and you understand those things. and the Howards have a legitimate concern in being good citizens of this community. They have been. for a long time. They are a major business in this community and I think they've gone as far as any reasonable individuals could be expected to and they've done it in the best humor possible. I have only one comment with respect to Mr. Goralski's recommendations. In this business, limiting this business to 10 o'clock in the morning. from 10 o'clock in the morning to 4 o'clock in the afternoon is simply not workable. This is a rush rush business in the spring. It's a rush rush business in the fall. Everybody wants their boats in the Lake at the same time. Everybody wants to leave their boats in the Lake until the very last minute. and because of the limitation of storage on the Lakeside of the road it's necessary during portions of the year to move a number of these boats in a fairly short period of time. I do think that the boats should not be moved at 6 or 6:30 in the morning. and they should ~ be moved after dark or anything like that, but I would respectfully ask the Board to extend these periods, because that's the nature of the business, and, in terms of daylight during these periods it really isn't a problem. MR. CARTIER-What I'm hearing you say borders dangerously on what sounds like a quick launch operation. MR. REHM-No. It has nothing to do with a quick launch operation. This is storage of boats. and, in the spring, people call and say, put our boats in the water. Everyone wants their boats in the Lake as early as possible. So. it's necessary to take the boats from the storage facility down to the marina service them and get them in the Lake as soon as possible. That requires one movement of the boat down. MR. CAIMANO-If it were a quick launch operation. he'd have asked for the times. all through the summer, not once in the spring and once in the fall. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. REHM-This is just one way. each season. MR. CARTIER-I just want to be very clear, here. with regard to this quick launch issue, and that is, you've been through the definition of a quick launch. I'm not going to go through that again in detail. You're representing to us that there is no quick launch operation taking place from that upper property? MR. REHM-We represented that to you in writing. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. REHM-And we'd do it again. We've done that from day one. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-I would like to take exception. Number One, I'd first like to state that I know Mr. Howard. I've served on the same Board as he has. I know him socially. I know him as an upstanding citizen. However. I know what can happen during busy periods of operating a business. and I don't think that it's fair that you say that the neighborhood has exaggerated. They may have exaggerated some, but not for the most part, because we have visited the site, and we do know that people go up and look at boats for purchase. So, it is being used as a sales lot, maybe not predominately. but somewhat, and this is an objection and I don't think it's an objection that should be down played. and I think we have to recognize and make sure in any motion we make that we recognize the complaints and so 28 ~ stipulate in this motion that they be carefully honored, because, as you state, in the spring and the fall when it's really busy it's very easy, as a businessman, to become a little bit careless. and I think this is what's happened. Even right now, those eight barrels laying on the side is a very careless act. MR. LAPOINT-I take exception to that also. I was not on the inspection in November, but I ~ on site in October. our Saturday site visit, and that was one of the worst oil sites I've ever seen and it's hard to believe that you would even operate like that in the 1990's. They have barrels of used oil. no containment, stained soil all around. like that. MR. CAIMANO-Given that though Ed, have you visited all the other marinas and are they all operating the same way, or have you not visited them. MR. LAPOINT-Not the other marinas, but probably a hundred or so other sites, in general. MR. CAIMANO-Well. we're talking about a marina in this particular case. MR. LAPOINT-No, not marinas in particular but gasoline stations, fuel oil facilities. MR. CAIMANO-I'm not saying it's not bad. I'm not saying that it doesn't get slovenly. I'm saying that I'm arguing the case, here, that in this particular boat operation, the spring and the fall. where they're draining crank cases and putting boats away, you may have well gotten there at a time, at the worst time of their operation. I'm not saying they shouldn't do something better, and I presume from what Mr. Rehm says and what Mr. Howard says, that they ~ going to do something better. MR. HAGAN-I just wanted to recognize that this member of this Board does not take kindly to the applicant's remarks about the neighborhood. that's all. MR. REHM-Well. I'll tell you, I understand what you say. but I think, and I don't want to get in an argument, but we've been through a series of meetings where we have made every effort possible to cooperate and we. frankly. have not received any cooperation. We've received nothing but complaints and criticisms and so on. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Rehm. I don't mean to cut you off, but I'd like to, because you're re-plowing old ground here. We're not hearing anything new here, and I'm not sure we're going to solve anything by going over some old stuff again. MR. REHM-I think you're probably right, but. you know. every once and awhile you have to have your say. We've been quiet for a long time. Every once and a while you have to have your say. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay, does the Board care to have any discussion here? MR. CAIMANO-Well. I think that there are several things. We've tal ked about them, and I think each of us should have our say, since it's been on here so long. Number One, the traffic problem is a pig in a poke. There isn't a road in the world that isn't, potentially. a traffic problem. My street is a circle. there's not much traffic there, and, yet, there's been accidents on that street. This particular piece of road hasn't had an accident in 20 years. That doesn't mean that tomorrow morning. there's not going to be an accident. but the history says that people are cautious, careful. and that these people are cautious and careful. So. my opinion is that their traffic problem is a pig in a poke. that's Number One, and I think it can be addressed by what Mr. Rehm has said. The dust problem. apparently. has been mitigated by the owner. The only problem is. as Mr. Hagan points out, what we're going to do. up topside. there, because that's really not a sales area. and there has to be something done there. and I think that something has to be done as an accommodation, not only to the residents. but also to the Howards, if that need be. MR. CARTIER-Well, Dave Hatin and the Zoning Board wrestled with that issue with regard to whether or not sales were taking place up there, and if I read the minutes of that correctly. even though there are boats stored for sale up there the sale itself. does not take place up there but takes place down at the marina itself. MR. CAIMANO-That's what I understand. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me. Mr. Chairman. The Board did not make that determination. MR. CARTIER-The Board did not. That's right. that was Dave's comment. MR. GORALSKI-The Board said that they did not have enough evidence to make a determination one way or another, whether sales was taking place at the storage site. MR. CARTIER-Correct. Thank you. MR. CAIMANO-Obviously, however, evidence says that people have gone up there with salesman's cards, so something went on, and we just want to make it clear, that's all. 29 --- MR. CARTIER-Well, yes. and Dave's comment was the alternative was that a boat be brought down for a customer to look at. MR. CAIMANO-Well, that's easy for Dave to say. MR. CARTIER-Correct. which is not a solution. and he pointed that out. Anybody else care to comment? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-I would like to see, in any motion that's made, if the motion is toward approval. that what is contained in Mr. Rehm's September 10th letter be stipulated in the motion. I'd like to see it reinforced that no quick launch operation will be allowed from that particular site. MR. CAIMANO-Let's try it then. Let's see how far we get. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Before you do any motion to approve or disapprove, I would recommend you do the Short Environmental Assessment Form. MR. CARTIER-We have to do a SEQRA. We haven't done a SEQRA tonight. MR. CAIMANO-We haven't done one all night. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMIIlATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION (1)'. 28-90. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pul ver: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: exterior storage of 70 boats and up to 25 boat trailers (without boats) at DUNHAM'S BAY BOAT COÞFANY, in DUllhu's Bay, east si de of Route 9L. and, WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.U 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 authori zed to execute and si gn and fil e as may be necessary a statement of non-si gnifi cance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of November. 1990. by the following vote: MR. CAIMANO-Before you take the roll. I want to make one point. if I may. The specter of conflict of interest has arisen again, and I want to go on the record as saying that I don't think there's anybody that's more concerned about conflict of interest on this Board. My tracks are up and down minutes of these meetings for months. I find that there is no conflict of interest here. The prior conflict of interest was a relative who worked as employee. does not work there. has not worked there. and it's my determination that I am not in conflict. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. 30 '--' AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. Caimano. Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. HAGAN-Before we get into a motion. I had a thought reading the application. It mentions storage of boats and boat trailers. Now,.if. we stipulated in a motion for approval that we would contain this approval to exactly that. In other words, you couldn't store oil up there. Now, the reason for thi s is, it woul d become an obvi ous item that you had to get ri d of. You woul dn I t let it accumulate until you had eight 55 gallon drums up there, but I'm aSking. what hardship would this impose on the applicant? MR. REHM-First of all, I think that would be a better storage area than down at the Lake, just because of the distance from the Lake. MR. HAGAN-But I'm sure there's still oil stored down at the Lake. maybe temporarily in five gallon drums. MR. REHM-And it's moved up there, to get it away from there. MR. HAGAN-And it's moved up there, but I'm wondering what kind of a hardship would this impose on the operation. if you were forced to get rid of that in smaller quantities and not shift it up on the hill and forget about it. MR. CARTIER-What do you mean by smaller quantities? One 55 gallon drum? MR. HAGAN-No. I mean, when he gets five gallons in it. have him dispose of it instead of putting it up on the hill and forgetting about it. MR. CAIMANO-Well. I don't think he puts it on the hill. I think it comes from right there, does it not? Isn't the work done up on the hill? MR. REHM-No. The work is done at the Lake. MR. CAIMANO-And then brought up? MR. REHM- Yes. MR. HAGAN-The application says, and I'd like to start containing our thoughts strictly to the application, for exterior storage of 70 boats and up 25 boat trailers. Now, if it's contained to that, and that only, we would get rid of a lot of the complaints in the neighborhood. Would we or would we not? MR. CAIMANO-Good point. MR. HAGAN-Okay. So. I'm asking what kind of a hardship this would impose on the applicant? MR. REHM-According to Mr. Howard. they will only pick up larger amounts of oil, he says several hundred gallons. Maybe a way to solve that problem. though, is to design the containment sufficient to handle the maximum number of gallons. MR. HAGAN-I have a personal objection to having something that can cause a problem being stuck up on the hill where I'm going to forget about it. and I think that's part of what the argument that comes forth from the neighborhood is. We put stuff up there and forget about it. because he's a busy man down on the site. I sympathize with the operation, but I'm trying to think of a way of satisfying both the operation of the Boat Company and satisfying the neighborhood. They're both very important. MR. REHM-I would suggest that a containment facility be constructed sufficient to handle whatever number of gallons of oil would be there. MR. HAGAN-How often does a vehicle from the Boat Company go as far as Glens Falls or Hudson Falls? There is a place. now, to get rid of used oil and recycle it. MR. REHM-If there's a place to get rid of used oil on a regular basis then that's not a problem. and we would have no problem with the storage of a couple of 55 gallon drums of oil. if that place exists. If it's necessary to have someone come, one of these businesses that pick up used oil and will only come if they can pick up 3 or 400 gallons. which is common, in a gas station. MR. HAGAN-That's true, but, I take it myself, but I don't have that quantity. However, your application says for storage of boats and boat trailers ~. 31 '-"" MR. REHM-Yes. MR. HAGAN-So why can't we contain it to that. MR. CAIMANO-Let me just bring up a point that Jim brought up. just as devil's advocate, Jim Hagan. and that's the fact that maybe you want to get that oil as far away from the Lake as quickly as possible anyway. If there is an accident at the Lake. it's going right Í!!.. the Lake. If it's an accident on the hill, at least there's an opportunity to clean it up. MR. HAGAN-It soaks in the ground and it takes years to get down there. and it's far worse then because it's longer lasting. I'm an environmentalist too. MR. CARTIER-If this oil is contained in a trap, if you will. that will prevent leaks if it's placed on a non-permeable surface, perhaps, inside the building. I'm not talking about another building out there. MR. HAGAN-It would be one less trip up the hill. too. that aggravates the neighborhood. I just think the applicant should give some consideration to that. MR. REHM-And we will. and if there is a solution. that's fine. If the oil can be disposed of locally by sending a Dunham's Bay truck some place fine. that's perfectly alright, but if that isn't an a lternati ve. then someone has to come and pi ck it up from Albany or Schenectady or wherever they come, and they will not come unless they can get a larger amount. MR. HAGAN-I tried to tell you that I am sympathetic to the applicant. I'm also sympathetic to the neighborhood and I think there is a way to satisfy both, but both are going to have to give a little bit. as you so pointed out. MR. REHM-That's exactly what I'm saying. We're willing to do whatever's reasonable. MR. HAGAN-Right. Because there's another point, that if I were a neighbor. If I see oil stored up there. I'm thinking. well, they're making oil changes on the site. That is not the purpose or use of that site. MR. REHM-That is not allowed on that site. MR. HAGAN-Right. MR. REHM-We understand that. MR. HAGAN-And it would get rid of repairs and all the other things I heard about in the beginning. MR. REHM- There are no repairs. Repairs do not take place up there. The repair facility is down at the Lake. Oil changes do not take place up there. That's all done down at the Lake. The idea of this, and I, again. state this for the record, is the storage of boats and trailers. Now. there are going to be some incidental things, and I think this oil is one of those things. and it .li. a much better alternative than having it down at the Lake. MR. HAGAN-Yes. but we saw over 400 gallons up there. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. incidental, I mean, it's the only thing I see mishandled at the site. MR. HAGAN-Well, what you call, "incidental", is paramount, in the neighborhood. MR. REHM-But this is a marina. Lets be reasonable about this. MR. LAPOINT-Well, reasonable is not storing it in barrels on the earth and tipped over and oil soaked earth. that's not reasonable. MR. REHM-And you know that I'm not suggesting that. and I have said three or four times to this Board, as I'm sure the Board understood, we're prepared to construct an area for this, inside the building. if inside the building is where you'd prefer, that is permeable. MR. CARTIER-That is ~ permeable. MR. REHM-That is ~ permeable, that will have a facility. in the event that there's leakage, the leakage will be contained to that area. Now, that is reasonable. MR. CARTIER-I think what we can do is also stipulate a time deadline for the construction of that. It's not a matter of, well, we're going to get it done sometime in the future. We can have it done within 30 days. or 60 days or something like that. 32 '- -.../ MR. HAGAN-Are you going to limit the amount of oil he can store up there? MR. CARTIER-Well, Jim, what I'm saying to you is, if you want to stipulate that, the applicant has agreed to try to work something out. He has the right to come back later on and say to us, I cannot meet that stipulation in the approval, and request a revision of the approval. MR. CAIMANO-Could I ask Mr. Howard a question? Can you build a containment shed, one that looks nice. one that melds into the building out there by the tank, somewhere in that corner, for oil. MR. CARTIER-You mean, down at the Lake? MR. CAIMANO-Down at the building. MR. HOWARD-There just, physically, isn't any real estate that isn't already being used on. MR. LAPOINT-I'm going to offer a suggestion and solution. You can buy palettes, containment palettes. They're made out of impermeable plastic that is specifically designed for oil, that you put four drums right on, that is portable. Wherever you go with the drums is wherever the palette goes. It's containment. It's got enough capacity to contain seepage out of the drum. It will save you from building a concrete dike. so to speak. up at the storage area, but. again, how soon is soon, and getting it cleaned up. MR. HOWARD-This is probably one of my biggest headaches. and I would love to find a real solution. I'm agreeable to most anything. MR. HAGAN-Mr. Howard. visit the site down in Hudson Falls, Dix Avenue. just as you approach Route 4 on the ri ght. MR. HOWARD-I will. MR. HAGAN-They have a facility for taking used oil. They recycle it. There are certain industries that have burns that burn it for fuel. MR. HOWARD-I wasn't aware of that. If there is. that would be the answer. MR. CARTIER-At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to short circuit this. which I am, you can stipulate. again. in the motion. whatever you like, and I think that's a very appropriate stipulation that you're suggesting, what you're talking about, and. again, it's up to the applicant to decide. if he wishes. that he cannot meet that stipulation. to come back to this Board and request a revision. MRS. WOODIN-I have a suggestion. Perhaps this gentleman knows where he got rid of some oil. Why doesn't he ask that person what he could do with his. MR. HAGAN-I merely wanted to know what a hardship this would impose on the applicant. MR. CARTIER-Are we ready for a motion? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and then some. MR. CARTIER-Alright. Jl)nON TO APPROVE SITE 'LAK 110. 28-90 IXI.HAII'S BAY BOAT CO., IIC.. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the exterior storage of 70 boats and up to 25 boat trailers (without boats) on Dunham's Bay Boat Company. Dunham's Bay. east side of Route 9L. with the following stipulations: Number One, the site not be used for the purpose of sales. Number Two, the di stri buti on of a dust retardant approved by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and that it be applied, when necessary, as long as the boat storage facility is in use and that an MSDS be submitted to the Planning Department. Number Three. the site not be used as a quick launch and that, as soon as practicable, but no later than March 1st, 1991. an alternative method of storing used oil be found by the applicant. At the very least. an oil secondary containment facility will be constructed in order to facilitate no more than 500 gallons of used motor oil. Number Four, a letter should be sent to the Director of Building and Codes to inspect this site as soon as practicable, after the March 1st deadline. unless prior communications has been held between the applicant and the Director of Building and Codes. The movement of boats or trailers, to and from the approved site, be limited to daylight hours only. Items Two and Three of Mr. Rehm's September 10th. 1990 letter be implemented. Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: 33 '---' -- AYES: Mr. Caimano. Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-There is no patron parking on that property up there, correct? Anybody who uses the marina does not park up in that area at all, correct? MR. REHM-That is my understanding. That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. SUBDIVISION (1). 10-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-2O KELLY SUBDIVISION MER: JOHN C. & NANCY A. KELLY SOOTHEAST CORNER OF STEPHANIE LANE AND CORINTH ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 126-1-20.15 LOT SIZE: 1.13 ACRES LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF NOTES Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Would the applicant care to say anything? MR. STEVES-We have complied with the request of last month and here we are, tonight. for final approval, and my name is Leon Steves. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does the Board have any questions or comments? There being no questions or comments, I think we're ready for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1990 KEllY SUBDIVISION, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For a 2 lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 27th day of November. 1990. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN rIl. 85-90 TYPE II WR-lA ROBERT ECKARDT OWNER: SAllE AS ABOVE (l)RTHERLY AlOIIG ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, 1 MILE, FIRST HOUSE ON WATER, NEXT TO TOWN WATER STORAGE TANK (BlUiE). TO MAINTAIN A WALKWAY 5 FT. BY 3 FT. WHICH ACCESSES THE BOATHOUSE DECK. THIS IS A REVISION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP (I). 8-2-6 LOT SIZE: 150 FT. BY 72 FT. SECTION 4.020 ROBERT ECKARDT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-Warren County said "No County Impact", I believe. MR. CARTIER-We also have. "Below is a list of former violations on this property from Building and Codes files: 1/17/89, Lake George Park Cormrission. Carl Parker, called Building Codes Department, regarding the illegal construction of decks. 1/24/89. violation letter stating applicant needed variance and a building permit. 5117/89, variance to maintain deck over the water is denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 5/23/89. order to remedy violation. illegal decks removed. Mr. Eckardt then submitted for a variance to build the existing boathouse." Okay. Anybody have any questions? I would also note, in going out and looking at that site, again. last week. that we have an E-shaped dock on less than 150 feet of property. That is something that we should have picked up. those of us who were on the Board at the time. E-shaped docks are only allowed on property frontages of 150 34 '-' ------ feet or more. So, we are confronted here with an E-shaped dock. as a result of .2!!!. slipping up, on. I believe, what is 87 feet of shoreline, somewhere on that order. Mr. Eckardt, would you care to address the Board? MRS. PULVER-I want to ask you a question, John. Would you explain. the proposal was denied because the Warren County Planning Board recommended denial. that was when he submitted for the deck with the stairs. right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. PULVER-Okay, and there were not sufficient votes to overturn the County recommendation, which meant the Board needed five. but there was not five present. MR. GORALSKI-There were not five votes. MRS. PULVER-Okay, there were not five votes, alright. The project was reheard by both Boards. again, by the County Board and the Planning Board. at that time. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. PULVER-And the proposal was approved. MR. GORALSKI-The change was that then there was no connecti on di rectly between the deck on the house and the deck above the boathouse. The County Board approved it and the Planning Board approved it, based on the access to the deck over the dock. or the boathouse, to be either from the ground or from the dock below. MRS. PULVER-Okay, I just wanted to be sure I had that straight in my mind. MR. HAGAN-That was a specific requirement? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, of both Boards. MR. HAGAN-And now \'4e have. in fact, a deck. or a wal kway, from the deck over the boathouse to the deck on the house. MR. GORALSKI-That's my understanding, yes. MR. HAGAN-So. in reality. what you've done is facilitate your original request without approval. MR. ECKARDT-May I say something? I went to the Warren County Planning Board last month, and they did approve it. Is that on file. there? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they said, "No County Impact". MR. ECKARDT-Now. I have some pictures here. when I built this, if I may show you. First of all, my mother. or my mother-in-law, or my younger kids cannot use the thing. because they have to go down 16 flights of stairs and up 15. to go five feet. MR. CARTIER-Well. the fact of the matter is, they can use it. because you've built a walkway, illegally. So, it's been made available now. MR. ECKARDT-Now \'4ait a minute. Okay. When I went I got the permit. okay, I went to the Park Commission and I had approval for a 35 foot boathouse. When I went to the Planning Board. it was only 30 feet on the board. So, when I went to apply for the permit. I saw the Zoning Board lady. She said I would have to re-apply for a ~ foot, which I already had approved by the Park Commission. So. I let it go. If I would have gotten the 35 feet, I wouldn't have needed the walkway. which was approved by the Park Commission, and the Warren County Board, but when I went to the meeting at the Planning Board it was on the plan, 30 feet, which I didn't see. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. I don't understand that. If you had gotten the 35 feet, you would not have needed, what? MR. ECKARDT-A walkway. MR. CARTIER-The short walkway. MR. ECKARDT-Right. MR. CARTIER-Why would you have not needed that? MR. ECKARDT-Because the boathouse is only built 30 feet. The other five feet would have come in. 35 '- '-"" MR. HAGAN-Yes, but you originally built the deck over there. and they found that to be... MR. ECKARDT-I had to remove a deck. right. MR. HAGAN-Yes, you had to remove it. MR. ECKARDT-Which had nothing to do with the boathouse. MR. HAGAN-However. you went ahead and you put a walkway from one deck to another deck, right, without a permit? MR. ECKARDT-I'll tell you why I did this. MR. HAGAN-Well. the fact remains. you did it, and. the first time, I would have thought. because when I was serving on the Warren County Board, you came up to see me about that. MR. ECKARDT-I went up to see you. right. MR. HAGAN-And we discussed that and you claimed ignorance, but after that lesson. I would have thought you would have learned, and you went ahead and did it without a permit, again. MR. ECKARDT-I was under the impression, when I did this, that nobody else could build a boathouse with a deck going to it. This past summer. right on Assembly Point, here's decks that were built. including Mr. Moynihan's and everyone has a deck 15 or 20 feet longer, going from their house. deck and steps. Mine is five feet. These are all 20 or 30 feet. Here's Moynihan's, because he might know somebody, could build one, 30 feet, right next to you. MR. HAGAN-And when was this built? MR. ECKARDT-This past spring, and I was under the impression. when I built this, that nobody could do thi s. but everybody has done it, and here's pi ctures to prove it, and these homes a re all withi n a mile of my house. These are right next to my house. MR. CARTIER-But the difference is. I understand your point. Mr. Eckhardt, and the difference is precisely that. MR. HAGAN-They did it with a permit. MR. ECKARDT-I've.9Ql a permit for the boathouse. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but not to join the two decks. MR. ECKARDT-Well, if everybody else does it, a law is a law, right or wrong? MR. HAGAN-Yes. but they got a permit first. MR. ECKARDT-Then why didn't they give the permission to build one? MR. HAGAN-You didn't request it. You went ahead and built it. MR. ECKARDT-I didn't request it? MR. HAGAN-No, you just went ahead and built it. MR. ECKARDT-I got the permit for the boathouse, I was told that nobody would have this, but everybody has it. If I go through I red light and you go through a red light, we should both get a ticket. MR. HAGAN-The point I'm arguing with you is, you went ahead and did it, these people did it, but they got a permit first. MR. ECKARDT-But I still had a permit for everything else, and this is part of the boathouse. MR. HAGAN-But the point of contention is the boathouse. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Stop, right now. If we're going to continue this, we are going to talk one at a time. One!1!. time, only. Mr. Eckhardt, I want you back at that microphone please. MR. ECKARDT-Well. I'd like to pass this around so everybody can take a lock at this. MR. HAGAN-I'm not going to argue the point that these sites exist or not exist. but I'm going to argue the point that everyone of them got a legal permit and built them legally according to the Building Code. and did it properly. You went ahead and just did it. 36 -.-/ MR. ECKARDT-But I was told nObody else could do it. that's why I agreed not to build a walkway, but why should I go down 16 steps, and up 16, to go five feet, when everybody else can go 30 feet, and I did get a permit for the boathouse. which. this is part of the boathouse. MR. HAGAN-Why did you not get the permit for the walkway? MR. ECKARDT-Because they said nObody can do this. MR. HAGAN-So, you just purposely broke the law? MR. ECKARDT-No. My permit is also for the boathouse, and the walkway is combined. It's the same permit. I wouldn't just get a permit for a walkway. The boathouse .li. the permit. and if everybody else has one, there's no reason why 1 shouldn't have one. MR. HAGAN-That's right, but you have to do it legally. MR. ECKARDT-I did. I saw Mr. Hatin and he said. the permit, if this is approved, it's approved. I wouldn't need a permit because I already got one, for the boathouse. MR. CAIMANO-Any comments, John? MR. ECKARDT-And I did see Dave, twice, about this. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know what you're asking me. I'll answer any question you want to ask me. MR. CARTIER-Lets keep firmly in mind what's in front of us here. We have, before us, a request to approve a short strip, attaching land to the deck, that was built, clearly. illegally, without permit. okay, that's the issue at hand. I don't want to go back and re-plow old ground. The Board needs to consider whether or not they wish to approve or disapprove this, okay, and lets keep it on that basis. Does the Board have any other questions or comllJents? Mr. Eckhardt. do you have anything else you wish to say? MR. ECKARDT-Well. I would just like to say that I explained this to the Warren County Board and they did approve it. one hundred percent. MR. CARTIER-We have that on record. MR. ECKARDT-Well, John didn't say that it's in the minutes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they approved it. MR. ECKARDT-They did? Okay. I didn't hear that. MR. CARTIER-Would the Board care to have a discussion? MRS. PULVER-Well. my feeling is that it's there. To make him take it down may be more of a hazard. It's functioning. MR. CAIMANO-Of course. the problem with that thinking. just to play devil 's advocate. is that. it certainly opens up a Pandora's box of things that could be done. MRS. PULVER-Well. no, it's functioning, it's minor construction. If it were the boathouse I might feel differently, but it is only a walkway, and you saw the stairs that they had to go down and go up. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I don't not sympathize. I feel the same way Jim does. in a sense, though. MRS. PULVER-I hate all that construction on the Lake. MR. CAIMANO-No. that's not my problem either. My problem is simply that if we all went ahead and just did things and then came before our Board, then we'd be in, anarchy comes to mind. MRS. PULVER-Well, I asked myself this question. If that wasn't there and he was here before me, right now. asking to do it, I think I would allow it, okay? MR. CAIMANO-Okay. That's a good point. MR. LAPOINT-I agree. MR. CAIMANO-Make your motion, then, lets get on with it. 37 ',-" '--' MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. I need to hold a public hearing. Does anybody else care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. ECKARDT-I'd like to say something. My mom is 94. She's terminally ill. She's in a wheelchair. She's in a bed. The only way she can get out to the deck is if I take her in a wheelchair. I can't go down and up all these stairs carrying her. MR. CARTIER-For the record. that's Mrs. Eckhardt. MRS. ECKARDT-So. that's why. when we got the house, he built the top deck. It was even with the house. thinking it's okay. because she could go out and sit out there. We had to take that down. I mean, come on. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Well. I'm on your side, so let me make this motion and we'll see how many other people are on your side. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else care to comment? There being no comments, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED tlJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAIt (I). 85-90 ROBERT ECKARDT, Introduced by Carol Pul ver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: To maintain the 5 ft. by 3 ft. walkway which accesses the boathouse deck. This is a revision of a previously approved Site Plan. Duly adopted this 27th day of November. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin NOES: Mr. Cartier ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano MR. MARTIN-I'd just like to say that I'd like the applicant to understand that before he undertakes the most minor construction. that he is aware that he has to come before the Board for Site Plan Review. MR. CARTIER-And I doubt very much if this Board would be very sympathetic to any other situation like this. should it arise again. MR. MARTIN-I just want to go on record as saying that. MRS. PULVER-And that the applicant understands that you are in an environmentally sensitive area. and anything that goes on up there has to come before. we're not singling you out. MR. ECKARDT-I sure do know this, but I have the Lake George permission and the Warren County. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's why I'm making sure that you know, for future reference. MR. GORALSKI-I'd just like to make sure that Mr. Eckardt understands that this approval will be sent to the Adi rondac k Pa rk Agency and the Adi rondac k Park Agency has 30 days from the day they receive it to overturn the Planning Board's decision. MR. CAIMANO-Even though they've approved it before? MR. CARTIER-No. MR. ECKARDT-I'd like to just say something on that. When I first applied for this, Mr. Parker was in charge of Lake George Park Commission. Since then, he left, and he told me it would be alright to do that. It was this Board that turned me down. MR. GORALSKI-No. The Adirondack Park Agency, not the Lake George Park Commission. They're two different agencies. MR. CARTIER-Okay. thank you. 38 '- SITE PLAN NO. 86-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA ARROWHEAD EQUIPMENT, INC. OWNER: WILLIAM J. I CATHERINE EHLERT NORTH OF LUZERNE ROAD, JUST WEST OF NORTHllAY OVERPASS FUR SALES AND SERVICE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT . (WARREN COUNTY PLANIIING) TAX MAP NO. 93-2-4 LOT SIZE: 3.75 ACRES SECTION 4.030 N BILL EHLERT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart G. Baker. Assistant Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-The Warren County Planning Board approved. There's no Engineering Comments because there's no change in the physical conditions on the site. MR. CARTIER-Okay. and Warren County approved. Is there someone here, representing the applicant? MR. EHLERT-My name is Bill Ehlert and I'm the President of Arrowhead Equipment. MR. CARTIER-Did you care to make any comments? MR. EHLERT-No. I don't. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. CAIMANO-Well. Number Three (referring to Staff Notes). I'd like to find out. that was a question, too. What happens to these things. here, is that many times, and I'm not accusing you. Many times, things become spread out and I guess Number Three, in the Notes. do you have a limit as to where the trucks and equipment are going to be parked and. if so. where is it delineated on your drawing? MR. EHLERT-At this present time. I allow all the employee parking and customer parking on the paved area and, as far as customers trucks, that is a gravel/sand area that is accessible for the trucks, without getting stuck further into the land that's available to them. MR. CAIMANO-One of the things that concerns me, just a little bit, it is a repair facility, right? MR. EHLERT-Yes, sales and service. MR. CAIMANO-Right. and you have trucks that are coming in. large tractors coming in for repair, large straight trucks coming in for repair. MR. EHLERT-Yes. we do. MR. CAIMANO-Potential for seepage from bad or cracked engine blocks. whatever. How are we going to take care of that on the grounds themselves? I'm just concerned about the seepage of oil from vehicles that are in disrepair. getting into the ground. I don't know \'4hether that's taken care of or not. Did you guys talk about that at all? MR. GORALSKI-About the waste oil? MR. CAIMANO-Not waste oil. We're talking about straight trucks. We're talking about tractors. large vehicles in for repair. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CAIMANO-That are going to be sitting on this lot, permeable lot, and. obviously, have the potential, not only potential, but probably most of them will have some leakage of oil. What are we doing? Should we not contain this in a certain spot? Should we not have a facility to do this. I mean. it's not a car, John. It's. potentially, a mack truck. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think maybe that's what Stu's point is. Maybe you want to put them on a paved area. have them parked on a paved area. MR. HAGAN-When we were making site inspection. we witnessed a large tractor being steam cleaned right out in the driveway. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. That's a different site. MR. HAGAN-It is? MR. CAIMANO-No, it isn't. 39 /' MR. CARTIER-I believe that was on the Drellos Site. MR. CAIMANO-I didn't go with you guys anyway. Anyway. that's my concern, and I don't know if anybody else has that concern or not. MR. HAGAN-Does the applicant care to address that? Do you steam clean engines and tractors? MR. EHLERT-We occasionally clean down engines. yes, for the purpose of the employees to be able to work under better working conditions. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. EHLERT-We don't get into heavy rebuilding of engines, so we don't tear down engines and crank cases. We do have a facility for waste oil storage. That.li. stored in a 300 gallon container, which is on a palette in a berm around the tank, and we also have to have that hauled away upon request. It is not legal to haul waste oil from a site to another site. MR. MARTIN-Are there existing drains in the garage area into drywells? MR. EHLERT-There were some floor drains that were existing, there, that we think were just a water drainage. but they seemed to have just a catch basin containment where they have to be cleaned on an annual basis. just because they would just fill up. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess what I'm concerned about is I hear. seem.!£.. We're not really sure what's there and I think Mr. Caimano's point is well taken. MR. CAIMANO-That's my concern. I visited the site. It's a nice. open spot. It's a great place for that. but it also, and no reflection on you. it is a potential for hazard. Okay. now we're changing crank case oil, waste oil which goes in a drum, an accident happens, however. The tub which catches the oil tips over, the drum tips over, something is done outside. There's no limitation to where this work can be done. and my concern is that we have an ultimate concern of ground water and yet we haven't even talked about this. I'm not sure why. We do it so often that I'm just not sure why, in this case. out in the great open spaces, we're not talking about it. MR. EHLERT-All the work performed on vehicles .li. done .!.!l. the facility and not in the yard. The yard is just for parking, storage of the vehicle. MR. HAGAN-Correct me. Peter, but am I talking about the same site? MR. CARTIER-No. I think where we saw those trucks being steam cleaned was at the Drellos Site, the last site we looked at, that's the one right next to the Northway. MR. CAIMANO-This is the one that's next to the Northway. MR. CARTIER-No. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, it is. Peter. You're the one that's got it backwards. MR. HAGAN-This is right next to the Northway. MR. CARTIER-Maybe I do have it backwards. MR. HAGAN-Here's the Northway. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I stand corrected then. MR. EHLERT-The purpose. some of my customers request that their trucks be washed. It isn't necessarily steam cleaning. I have certain customers that are in the food service business that like to have the boxes steamed out from food juices and product spills and such, like that. Trucks do accumulate a lot of road dirt and they do need to be washed down. We don't, necessarily. steam them to degrease them. That's not the purpose of our facility. MR. HAGAN-But steam cleaning does degrease and we witnessed steam cleaning on your site, outdoors on the open ground. MR. EHLERT-Right, we have to do the washing of the vehicles outdoors. MR. CAIMANO-Let me just short circuit this a little bit. My point is, it is not addressed by the Staff, I don't know why, and I've asked the question now. My point is, does anybody else think that there is a potential for some groundwater contamination by tramp oil. anywhere on that spot, since we don't tell them where to put the trucks. and, if we do, then I think the applicant should decide where he's going to do his cleaning and do something to clean up whatever goes underneath those trucks. 40 -../ MR. CARTIER-Yes. would this Board be more comfortable getting more information on how this is going to be done. and how the drains are going to handle that kind of thing? MR. CAIMANO-I get the impression I'm on the wrong track over here. I'm waiting for some help, but I don't get any. MR. LAPOINT-No. I agree. If you're steam cleaning any piece of hydraulic equipment. any engine. any box, anything out on permeable surface you could be creating a problem. MR. CARTIER-I think what might help, here. is if the applicant heard. specifically, from us what we would like to see in addition to the information we have here. MR. LAPOINT-Some more detail on where the water goes. I mean, drywells. Are these just closed catch basins that just accumulate water, or what are they? MR. CARTIER-There are specific designs for capturing material to prevent the contamination of groundwater. Again, we're in a high perc, aquifer recharge area out here. and I think we need to look at that. What else? MR. CAIMANO-That's really all, and it was on Number Three. MR. HAGAN-What I'm thinking about are some facilities we've already approved. and they've grown and grown and they've become a neighborhood nuisance. Now, the day we were there everything was clean. It was great, but. if we don't confine some of the operations to certain facilities, then I think we're asking for trouble in the future, that's all. MR. CAIMANO-That's my thought, too. MR. HAGAN-In other words, I think the applicant should consider building a wash stand, to grab all the waste. MR. EHLERT-I am welcome to any.... MR. CAIMANO-Well, let me point out something to you. On there, you have listed a Short Form Environmental Assessment Form. If I do this, tonight, I can't answer this yes. I can't answer it, yes, because I don't know what's going to happen and there is nothing here to tell me what's going to happen. MR. CARTIER-I think what we need to have, if I could sum it up this way, is a description of how solvents. cleaning solvents and any other materials are going to be handled, from start to finish. How they're going to be disposed of. How you are going to prevent them from getting in the groundwater supplies and so on. and how trucks are going to be cleaned and that sort of thing. MR. EHLERT-I have a couple of different ideas. I don't know, exactly, what you're looking at. There is an isolated bay. in the facility. that could be used as a wash bay, because it .li. isolated from the rest of the work area and offices. I would think that it would need some sort of filter in the drainage to catch any foreign material that we wouldn't want into that. and I'm open to suggesting that be the facility, or, maybe, I don't know if they have material that you could lay down in a certain area of the outside area, where the trucks could be washed only in that area. MR. CARTIER-That's something for you to work out. yes, that we can look at. I would be most comfortable with some kind of filtration system on m drain in that building, not just a single drain. Any functional drain. as far as I'm concerned, is going to have to have some sort of system to catch and trap materials and prevent it from getting into the groundwater. MR. CAIMANO-And a 1 imi tati on as to where thi s work coul d be performed and where trucks are goi ng to be parked. That's all we need is just something to do that. MR. CARTIER-I think that would satisfy this Board. MR. EHLERT-Okay. MR. CARTIER-There's a public hearing scheduled. I'll open the public hearing. Does anybody care to comment on this proposal? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Do you agree to table this application until you can make some revisions and re-submit? 41 MR. EHLERT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. The applicant has agreed to table and we'll entertain a motion to table. tlJTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN (1). 86-90 ARROWHEAD EQUIPMENT, INC., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: For sales and service of heavy equipment, so that the applicant can better detail filtration of contaminated wastes. Also, so that he can designate an isolated area where vehicles with such potential waste will be worked on. and, finally, some determination for a limited parking zone for trucks under repair. Duly adopted this 27th day of November. 1990. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1990 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA MOBILE OVERLAY DANIEL I GEORGE DRELLOS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE II)RTH SIDE OF LUZERflE ROAD, \ MILE WEST OF NORTHWAY FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 93-2-6, 9, 22.1 LOT SIZE: 33.52 ACRES MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner (attached) MR. GORALSKI-I can just add to that (referring to Notes) that I spoke to Dave Hatin early this evening and he has spoken to the applicant and he said that the applicant would address many of these items, as far as the excavation is concerned, and cutting down of trees. MR. CAIMANO-Do you know anything about the pictures that were talked about, in here? MR. GORALSKI-They should be in the file, here. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-While he's looking for those, Tom, would you take us through your remarks, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Okay, I'll remind everybody this is a Sketch Plan that we're looking at. Mr. O'Connor, would you care to address? MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. I'm here with George and Dan Drellos and with Leon Steves to address the questions that have been raised. Basically, what we have here, and part of the reason that we have some sketchy information, is simply a desire to be able to market a piece of property that is not being used for present operations of the Drellos's. They have no particular plans to build something on there. What is shown on there is simply a site that says that you could put a septic system on it. You could put a building on it. It's conceivable that there might be another use that goes on that property. Anything in this zone .li. subject to Site Plan Review, and any construction that goes on there will have to be subject to further Site Plan Review. but that may be jumping ahead a little bit. Let me address Lee York's comments, first. MR. CARTIER-We're talking about sale of Lot B. correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We would like to be able to subdivide it. so that we could put it on the market. There's nothing imminent. There's no contract pending. There's no proposed use that we're aware of. The first comment that she made was with reference to Lot C, which I believe is where the existing facilities are built, that house the operation of the sanitary sewer business. If you take a look at the actual filing for (Site Plan) 61-89, and then if you go out and look at the site. you will see that the area that is de-treed. or was de-treed, is area that was shown where there is a building tha twas 42 '"--,, -.../ to be built and a retention area. There are trees that were maintained along the side. This is incorrect, and it .ill.. be corrected. This is, in our application. we put in a request for a waiver for. showing any topographical features on Lot C and Lot A. because, under this application, we propose no 1mprovements. Both of those two lots have been in here, on prior occasions, under Site Plan Review, and, perhaps, the detail that should have been shown, there wasn't shown. but it can be shown. As I am aware of the Site Plan 61-89. that was approved by this Board. there are no buffer requirements or anything of that nature. The size of the lot really had no constraints. as far as what was de-treed or not de-treed, and. again, if you take a look at the actual plan, and I've got it with me, and that's why I've got the thick file. it shows you that that's where the building is and that's where a drainage retention area was to be built. directly behind the building. Lot B. which is the lot that we have in question, she has a comment that there's a large body of water on it, which is not indicated on the survey. and I guess we would ask her a question on that. It's not a lake. It's not a pond. It's not wetlands or streams. It's the actual groundwater and it rises and falls. MR. CARTIER-That's what a lake is. Mike. A lake is where the groundwater intersects the surface. okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I'm not going to argue that. We can show that. I've got about four maps in my file and it rises and falls, any place from two to three feet, depending upon the amount of water that you have. MR. CARTIER-That is a body of water. MR. O'CONNOR-My remark. in part, was facetious. okay. and if you have a way of filling it in, we'd be glad to have it filled in. That is the borrow pit that was made when they constructed the Northway, that's where they took the fill out for that stretch of the Northway that came through. MR. CARTIER-How deep is that non lake? MR. O'CONNOR-It varies. On this parcel. here, I think it's not very deep. It's in the back part, not up in this part, here. You might go from one foot to three or four feet. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-There are two parcels. There's also a Drellos parcel that's not subject to this. and which is a separate deed, that is over in here, and, in that area, it is deeper. maybe. and that is the area where the Town, the State, and everybody has been dumpi ng stumps and trees and whatnot. excavation, construction debris in there. Lot A, which is the existing Mobile Home Park, was approved after a re-zoning application, after we created a zone. in 1986, after Site Plan Review, by this Board. and I think, if you look at the very last sentence, it says, "No grading showed". In 1986, there were no requirements to show grading. per see There was a, this is the roadway that goes through here. the road ~ shown as being a flat surface and there were cuts and fills that had to be made, and when those cuts and fi 11 s had to be made, the i ndivi dua 1 lots had to be fill ed in. There has been some excavation of fill off the back, to create these back lots as flat surfaces and flat lots. and that has been put in there. This preexisted, I think, our current requirements. I'm not sure how that stands, and, really, how it is addressed. If you look at that section that is cited. Section 7.061, it begins with the preamble, "Except for approved. existing subdivisions". This is a Mobile Home Park, in some terminology, is considered to be a subdivision, as far as having approved lots. There's a gray area, whatever, but it was a project that was approved in '86. prior to the '88 Ordinance, and I think it preexisted. The excavation in the area. although some of it has been fresh. is for on-site use. It's not fill that's sold off-site and it's, actually, you get into this DEC definition of "Mining". If it's excavated for future construction, from the area where it's excavated, it's not considered to be mining. and that, in part. this thing serves two purposes. One, it gives some fill for the up front lots that are being utilized, now, but it also levels the back lots. for the future construction. MR. CARTIER-Well. okay, to answer your first question. First part of that is. I think you're going to have to get a determination from the Zoning Administrator on that. We're not just going to wing that. as to whether that's preapproved or what. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know if it really is germane, because, again, it's off the site of what we're talking about. We're talking about creating a separation of ownership possibility, between the three. MR. CARTIER-Yes. but, nevertheless. that trailer park is part of this subdivision application. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Part of that excavation took place within the past twelve months. though, didn't it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it did. It's a preexisting continuation... 43 --- MR. HAGAN-And part of that excavation ~ over five feet. wasn't it? MR. O'CONNOR-I truthfully don't know. Mr. Hagan. You mean depth? MR. CARTIER-Based on those photos. MR. 0 'CONNOR-Okay, but that's not a completed excavation, there. Are you talking about a bank? MR. HAGAN-Well, I'm talking, it's supposed to become part of. as I understand, it's supposed to become part of the plan, before you actually do it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This was under a separate Site Plan that was approved in 1986. and. as part of that Site Plan. it's my contention that the grading that we're presently doing on site was included. MR. HAGAN-Was included? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Even though it wasn't required then? MR. O'CONNOR-Well. there was a topographical map that was shown and it was in two foot contours and there's no way that you'd put a mobil e home on there. on those lots. In fact. there's some requirements, if you look at the Mobile Home Ordinance that was adopted, in 1986, that says that your pad has to be on a flat basis. You can't put it on a grade, and I don't have that, you've got to put a gravel pad in and whatnot, but we can address that. I'd be happy to address that. I guess the last comment which, really. was what I thought concerned a lot of what we're talking about, is the subdivision, itself, is zoned for light industrial use. The Board should ascertain what the owner's intentions are. We have no particular intentions. The idea is to put it on the market. If we can find somebody that can use if for light industrial uses. then they will have to submit a Site Plan application to this Board. It is Light Industrial Overlay Mobile Home One Acre Zoning. It would have to take an awful lot of fill to actually bring it into a Mobile Home Park. So, I would think that there are some possible uses. We've gone so far as we've carried on discussions with the Town as to whether or not they are interested in it, for a possible site for a stump dump, but there's nothing concrete. We have no plans. So. I don't know how you answer that. except the fact that we would like to be able to put it on the market. for the permitted uses that are allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. MR. HAGAN-Going back to the body of water that's there. Did I understand you to say that it was man created because of excavation that was done at that site? MR. O'CONNOR-It's my understanding it is. It's called Zoli's Pond. MR. HAGAN-I'm just trying to make it easier for this Board. I need your help, Karla. If this has not been declared a watershed, I don't think that's a condition this Board has to recognize. because it's a man made excavation which accumulated surface water and. as I understand the law, if. at no time, anyone declares that to be a watershed. then, in effect, it's not a body of water. MS. CORPUS-Well, Mr. Hagan, you're more knowledgeable, at this particular moment, then I am, on that part of the law. I'm not familiar. I can get back to you on it. MR. HAGAN-Okay, well. being a property owner of substance, I do own some property where I've created a watershed and I declared it as such. So, I'm stuck with it. for life, and so is anybody else that owns it, but that's why I'm trying to find out, here, that's all. MR. YARMOWICH-If it crosses an existing property boundary. is part of the question, whether or not one can manipulate water surfaces. MR. HAGAN-Right. but it's already been done. I'm trying to establish whether we have to consider that body of water or not. MR. YARMOWICH-It appears as though part of the question is going to be, do the water surfaces migrate across property boundaries. MR. o 'CONNOR-I don't think you're going to find that this is a migrating body of water. There.li. a boundary line that goes, and I'm not that familiar with where the water.... MR. YARMOWICH-Is the water surface wholly contained within this Lot B? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I think there is a property line that divides it. If there's a question of a consent that's required, it's a family owner. We can obtain a written consent. but I don't think it's. in the sense of migrating, I don't think there are what you would call reparian rights. 44 -../ MR. YARMOWICH-I didn't mean migrate in the sense. flow. I meant. in the sense, does it extend on to another piece of property? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I think it does. MR. CARTIER-So, alteration of that is going to create alterations. MR. O'CONNOR-We plan no alteration of it. MR. CARTIER-No, but somebody else does. if you sell the property. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, and at that point. they have to submit a Site Plan to you. There's not a thing you can do in that zone. without Site Plan Review, and I can't tell you what the guy's going to do, because I don't know who he is, but we'd be willing to pay a commission if you find him. MR. CARTIER-Okay, we are left, then, with Lee's last comment, on Page 2 of the remarks, how does the Board treat the situation. We still have a, no we don't have a public hearing. MR. CAIMANO-What last comment? MR. CARTIER-liMy recommendation to the Board is that no action be taken on this proposal until an accurate plan is submitted and the Zoning Administrator reviews the situation." MR. CAIMANO-Since then, John has mitigated that. He mitigated that last comment. MR. GORALSKI-Mitigated that last comment? MR. HAGAN-No. He said he was going to do it. He didn't say when. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Hatin said that he would go out. tomorrow, and look at the site and he was not able to get there today and determine if. in fact, there are any other approvals necessary for the work that's going on there. MR. CAIMANO-That's not how I understood what you said. When you finished that paragraph. you said that. since that time, and then you went on. and I understood those... MR. GORALSKI-Since that time. Mr. Hatin spoke to the applicant, okay. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. GORALSKI-He indicated, to me, that they had some answers to what was going on there. Apparently, they do. MR. CAIMANO-Right. The way you said that, I thought that you were mitigating that last sentence. but you're not. MR. GORALSKI-I don't agree with that last sentence. but I'm not mitigating it. MR. CARTIER-The other point is that we are at Sketch Plan. I would assume that these issues are going to be addressed between Sketch and Preliminary. MRS. PULVER-And you've asked for a waiver, right? MR. GORALSKI-The waiver is granted at Preliminary. MR. O'CONNOR-The waiver, we've asked in writing, I think as is required for a waiver, of the topographical features of the two existing lots that have existing Site Plan approvals on them, because we plan fl£ alteration to those particular parcels. MR. CARTIER-Well, we've got excavation on lot... MR. O'CONNOR-But that's under our existing Site Plan Review, which we think we have approval for. and. as I understand it. Mr. Hatin is going to talk to us about it. He's going to come out and look at it and see if he thinks that there need to be some alteration. I think if you actually look at the comment by Mrs. York. though, she says, no grading plan submitted. and that's just what happened, in 1986. At that time, there were no requirements. Everything was presumed to be flat. It's not like what you submit, today. MR. CARTIER-Okay. but the assumption is. if we go ahead and approve this at Sketch Plan. all of these issues are going to be addressed, prior to Preliminary approval. 45 c_ --./ MR. o 'CONNOR-I have no problem telling you that. Leon just raised a point, too. We do have an existing Town Permit. for that Mobile Home Park, that's renewed annually by the Town Board based on that 1986 approval. MR. CARTIER-Okay, does the Board have any other questions or comments? Are we ready for a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1990 DANIEL AND GEORGE DRELLOS. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For a 3 lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-Karla wants to do an Executive Session. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE PERSONIIEL QUESTIONS. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jâmes Hagan: Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 1990. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 27th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Acting Chairman 46 ---- ---' LOCATION MAPS Novellber 27th, 1990 Queensbury Planning Board Meeting OLD BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 17-90 J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider Restaurant (See Staff Notes attached) Subdivision No. 13-1990 Preliminary'Stage Robert and Margaret Reid (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 55-90 Guido Passarelli (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 28-90 Dunham's Bay Boat Co.. Inc. (See Staff Notes attached) Subdivision No. 10-1990 Final Stage Kelly Subdivision (See Staff Notes attached) NEW BUSINESS: Site Plan No. 85-90 Robert Eckardt (see Staff Notes and Map attached) Site Plan No. 86-90 Arrowhead Equipment. Inc. Owner: William J. & Catherine Ehlert (See Staff Notes attached) LU1trJ\(¡ RO.. Lv"l.(y~C ~cÅ Corinth pò. \) ---/ ~ LOCATION MAPS Novellber 27th, 1990 Queensbury Planning Board Meeting NEW BUSINESS: (Cont'd) Subdivision No. 16-1990 Sketch Plan Daniel & George 9rellos (See Staff Notes attached) " .. :J ---...... , , ~OG~ S~~þ.. .~ LOCA 11 ON MAP ~ ~ ~ · - ~ , TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PI:lnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: November 26, 1990 John Goralski Area Variance Use Variance - Sip Variance - Interpretation Subdi'risiom Sketch. X- Site PlaJa Rmew - := Petition for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Pre1imiDary, FiDal Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 17-90 Applicant's Name: J. Paul Barton - d/b/a Docksider Restaurant MeetiDg Date: November 27. 1990 ............................................................................................ There have been many issues and concerns raised about this project and it appears that almost all of them have been addressed. The adequacy of parking facilities still remains an issue. I would first like to point out some positive aspects of this project. Specifically, stormwater management on the site is substantially improved and the substandard sewage disposal system wi 11 be replaced by a conforming system. Furthermore, ingress and egress will be channelized and this area of Glen Lake Road will be posted for no parking. Recently, the ZBA determined that the Zoning Administrator had correctly determined the parking required. They also stated that the deck is not addressed in the Ordinance with regard to parking. Section 7.071 states, "For uses not specified in Section 7.072, the Planning Board may establish parking requirements consistent with those specified in Section 7.072." Therefore, the Board should decide if adequate parking is provided to encompass the use of the outdoor deck for dinirig. In determining if the parking is adequate, the Board should consider that dining area "e" would be closed if the deck were open. This means that the number of seats after the addition will not be greater than the existing number of seats. With th is in mind, the Boar.d should consider whether an increase in use will actually occur. Also keep in mind the improved ingress Page 1 of 2 ._-._~--- -' Site Plan 17-90 J. Paul Barton and egress and no parking on Glen Lake Road. improvements outweigh the potential increase th is proposal. If the Board determines that the in use, I recommend approval of If, on the other hand, the Board feels that there is an increase in use and the parking facilities are inadequate or that there is not sufficient provision for septic system replacement, I recommend the proposal be denied. I do have one' final suggestion. If dining area "e" were eliminated, it would minimize any potent ial parking problem, minimize the demand on the septic system, and eliminate any potential enforcement problem. JG/pw Page 2 of 2 --..--------- ~ - -..... "'.HtNIIMtI,... ~I~ NY 1~1"1tH.- '-a-deodan T\Ø'MI'. ChainDaa RoD. '5, Boa f09 139 Me.owbrook RoM Queeub\ll'1. N.. YOI'k 1%80.. TOa Suua C. Popowald P.O. Box Z06 Northfiekl. VT 05663 -../ Suua Oeota. SeeNt..., 19Wfftc:rut Crt.. Queeubury, N... YOI'k lZ8CM RE: Notice of AJ)J)ea1 No. 1-90 SIWUI C. POJ)owaki Susan C. Popowaki An'Na DATEa November 14, 1990 Meetin. Date w. b... re.i.wed the requeat for: Area Variuce U.. Variuce Sip Variuc:e x Other Notice of AJ)J)ea1 and have the fol1owiDI recommeDdaticma. APPROVED DENIED TABLED RESOLVED: __ . mICE fII AIfUL .. 1-. a_ c. ~I T1IAT... __ i6IoI"'''1IA''' _._~.. ... ~ _.I11II:I ....., .-- -... 1D sra.- 7.071 .. S1MIf -- __a IDI'II I. MSØ* 11IA1' ... Clll'SIIII -. IS .... -- III ... __ ~~ AI IT ......., 1D ... -- -. CCIMfI'ATI.. Introduced by SUN" Goetz MIlo lIIOyed fo.. fts edopttOll, seCOllClld by Joyce EggJI.tGll: Dub edopted this 14th dey of No......... 1990. by the fo11owtng vote: AYES: :Mr. ~1111. Mr.. EIIIIJI.toII. Mrs. Goetz. Mr. SteeN. Mr. Shel. Mr. Turner NOES: NOlIE A8SEIT: Mr. Carr PLBAsa READ THB BACK OJ' THIS FORM 11wIk ,.. AptII"OQI of tbia appUcatiGo me.... that the appUcaat cazs QOW apply for . BØ~'" PwrDit ..... your ..... an AcUroadack PU'k jUlUdic:tioaa1e . S~9~ 1'IreoIIGN T....... Cb&Ù'tll.. ~IIT %0DÙ11 Board of AppeaJ. TT/_ ce. H. Wa1"'e Judge 4 ~ 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 CTt r r -, --: '{ i . [ .... '.' , - November 16, 1990 RFA #89-5000.017 )UNIIN8a.iZÐNtNf 1D8IIA........ Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: J. Paul Barton, Site Plan 17-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The water chlorination system provides adequate retention for a peak well discharge rate of 20 gpm. The well pump provided shall not exceed the design flow. Previous engineering comments, dated 10/25/90, have been satisfactorily addressed. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~L ~"~,~/l Thomas M. Ya wich, P.E. Project Engine TMY/cmw enclosure cc: Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONlA. NH "-" !T P!.N ";,, -.J 1- tfi[ -- - : ~ E COpy RBSOLU110N APPROVING USB OP BNGINBBR REGARDING GROUNDWATER RBSOLU'I10N NO. 29, 1990 I~troduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Ronald MontesI: RESOL VED, that the following engineer(s) are hereby approved by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury acting as the local Board of Health to be able to determine the seasonal high groundwater mean level at times other than March, April, Mayor June as listed in the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance for the Town of Queensbury adopted May 11, 1982 in accordance with Appendix F titled "High Groundwater Determination currently located on Page 24 of said Ordinance: Mr. Jeffrey G. Martin, P.L.S./Geologist. Duly adopted this 13th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: , . OW" OF \1UUN6ita..·,,, AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. MontesI, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. BorgOSIÞ)~Ti'íJOO~""" ',! NOESJ None . . J.ßL9~" ':I ~' ABSENT: None f40'l 1 ' -..----- ~ ..,..FIIIOIT AIIOQATEI. P.c. CÓNsuL TlNG ENGINEEAS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 831 21 SAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4148 518 .793-4141 v-' ~".;se;r '*4 7 ~) JE©iijr~r. PLAN RfVlEWIIII./ 7 - 90 ß OCT2 O~ October 25, 1990 'LANNIN ZONINC RFA #89-5000.017 OE" TM~T RC 90 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attention: Mrs. Lee York Senior Planner Re: J. Paul Barton Site Plan 17-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and make the following engineering c,omments based upon applicant information received from the Planning Department on October 24, 1990. 1. Grading is shown beyond the project site west property line, on Town of Queensbury property. 2. The water system design does not account for use at the Sullivan property. 3. The water supply system chlorination design does not provide proper chlorine contact. 4. The Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance adopts the DOH and DEC standards. DEC standards apply because the system design is greater tha.n 1000 gpd. Regarding the sewage disposal system design we note the following: a. There is more than 500' of subsurface sewage disposal absorption trench, and individudl trench lengths exceed 100'. Dosing is required (DEC page 56). b. Laterals are not uniform length. A closed loop network with unsloped absorption trenches is necessary (DEC page 56) . €I) GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH ~~-~-- ·~ . '---' -- Mrs. lee York Queensbury Planning Board Page 2 October 25, 1990 RFA #89-5000.017 RC 90 c. There is more than 1000' of absorpt ion trench in the system. A minimum two section absorption field design is required. Dosing mechanics shall comply with DEC Standards (DEC page 58). Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. "-_I I J", '- '.',\",")-'. Thomas M. Yarmowich, P.E. Managing Project Engineer TMY/cam FhcM""D J. SAllnCTT P"U" E. PONT'"'' ROle'" S. STCW"'" AIoAN R. RHODa H. WAYNe JUDe..: ROle"T S. McM.....II:N PHI"'~ C. MC'N""!: MA"K A. LEIOWITZ J, LAw"ENCE P"..T"OWITZ MAI.COI.M B. O'HA"A Be"T""M J. DUle THOM.... A. UIoAICW'CZ PAT"ICIA E. WATKINI GA"Y C. HOI.. M"'''K E. Ce.........NO MONICA A. Du,...., S"uce O. LI~'NI'U TIMOTHY S. SHU"C" LAW"ENCC H. WCINT"AUI MAlfflN D. AU,'''EDOU MICHACI. D. McCo"MICK RICHA"D A. Pe"IICO COUNIC.. Town planninq Board Town of Queensbury Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12804 .. . t'1T!: PLAN REVIEW NO. I 7 -1 D FILE "opy --,' BARTLETT, PONTI,."" STEWART, RHODES & JUDGE, P. C. ATTO"N EVS AT LAW ONC W"IHIIIIOTON ST"CCT P. O. Box 2188 GLENS FALLS, NEW YO"K 12801-0012 HUDION FAI.... O".cc 187 MAIN ST"CCT HUDION F...I..... NEW YO"IC 12839 (BI8) 747-3224 LAKC PU.CID O",CC S"EWITE" Pu.cc !53 MA'N ST"CI:T LAKC PIoACID. NEW YO"K 12948 (BI8) !523-97 7 2 TI:I.E~HONC (III' '.'-'11' FAX (III' '.'-330. November 2, 1990 ;l~fiw[~, l~ 'NO V - 5~90 'I.~ ·LANNING ~ONINf I)EPARTMENT Re: . Docksider Application Dear Sir: Even if the neqative declaration issued on this prior application was valid, which it probably was not, certainly a negative declaration cannot apply to this latest application which is an application for a totally different project carryinq much more drastic environmental hazards to Glen Lake. The Planning Board is reqUired by law to take a hard look at issues such as: 1. Pollution of Glen Lake - The latest proposal is to place a septic leaching field in a critical environmental area where the water table is just about at th. surface of the qround in the sprinq and summer months. To state the proposition is to argue its absurdity. The proposal is to expand parking in a critical environmental area where oil and gasoline can falloff of a vehicle and enter directly into the waters at Glen Lake without any intervening wetland filtering. The Glen Lake Association has been complaining for years about parking at the Great Escape. That parking lasts for approximately ten weeks of the year and the parking is located on the other side of, and high above, a FEN which filters all runoff. Here the proposal is to park right at the edge of the waters of Glen Lake all year round and the Association has not opposed the project. 2. parkina - In addition to the concerns raised above, there are no provisions for sidewalks or curb cuts'or plantings for every ten parking spaces. There are no safety lanes or traffic lights. There ~ . -..- -- , . November 2, 19~ - Page 2 is no traffic study. Furthermore, in a similar application relating to parking for the Bavarian Palace, several members of the Planning Board were very concerned and upset about the SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS in the parking lo~. The plan submitted here does not consider the safety of pedestrians at all. There are no walkways or any protection for pedestrians. 3. Noise - Over the years we have seen a total change in the character of this project. What started out as a small neighborhood tavern with limited utilization over a short number of hours on a seasonal basis is now developing into a full time, year round RESTAURANT AND NIGHTCLUB. The project sponsor should agree to disclose his HOURS OF OPERATION. Furthermore, everyone knows that noise carries over water. Shouldn't ~he projec~ sponsor be required to perform studies on the effect of the INCREASED NOISE this project will be likely to produce. Other applicants have been required to do so by this Board. 4. Historic and Archeoloaical Investiaation - Has any inquiry been made to the applicable state authorities as to whether or not this site has any historic or archeological significance? If not, why not? 5. Boat Launch - The project sponsor collec~s a fee for allowing boats to be launched from his property into the wa~ers of Glen Lake. Wha~ steps are taken by the project sponsor to assure tha~ Eurasian watermillfoil and other noxious weeds, chemicals and possibly TOXIC WASTES may be introduced into Glen Lake on these foreign boats, vehicles and trailers. will there be more of this ac~ivity when the nightclub expands? Similarly, what ac~ivities will ~ake place on the ice in fron~ of this supper club in the wintertime. will there be lights and noise? 6. Esthesic,- The project appears to have little or ~o open space and no landscaping. Are only some projects required to have landscaping plans? 7. Sjgnaae - Will there be any lighted signs? 8. Public controversy - Glen Lake Road is a narrow winding country road. It the Town Planning Board permits this local tavern be converted in~o a LARGE RESTAURANT AND SUPPER CLUB according ~o the application, how could it prohibi~ a similar application from being granted along ~his country road? The applica~ion seeks ~o change the character of· the area and .if the implica~ions of this project were widely known a huge outcry of public con~roversy would result. 9. Wha~ happened to the Glen Lake Association on this application? HWJ:slc:ll.l.2 SinCerelY~ ¡J)r;.". . . H.;:rJ q~ 4 "., - WILE LITTLE & O'CONNOR ATTORNEYS AT LAW NINETEEN WEST NOT"E DAME ST"EET - P. O. BOX ... GLENS l'ALLS. NEW YORK 'Z80'-08'8 ".llW-- o Q1'IIEiT - ',--- .J. DAVID LITTLE MICHAEL.J. O'CONNOflt A.-ItA CODE S'B TELEPHONE 782-2113-.-. November 19, 1990 ,.AX 7.2-..72 Patricia Collard zoning Administrator Town of QUeensbury Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804- 9725 Re: Paul Barton - Docksider site Plan No. 17-90 Dear patricia: I write to confirm my understanding of your memorandum of Auqust 29, 1990. I do not have in front of me the reque.t that was made to you by the Planninq Board and that is the purpose for my seekinq this clarification. As I read your memorandum, you came to four separate conclusions. The first conclusion is that "the outside deck is not considered in computing the number of parking spaces." By that I take it that you meant that the square footaqe of the outside deck and the seatinq of the outside deck need not be added to the square footaqe of the building or seating of the buildinq. Secondly, you reached a conclusion that the operation of the Docksider is a restaurant operation and not a tavern and that the parking should be computed for the restaurant operation solely as a restaurant and not as a restaurant and as a tavern. · '"--,, -' Page -2- November 19, 1990 Thirdly, you stated parking should be provided for an apartment and marina per schedule. Fourthly, you stated the Board should determine a requirement for parking for operation of launch ramp. The Zoning Board of Appeals affirmed your decision the other evening. Am I correct in stating the above in the manner that I have stated same? Yours very truly, ~LE , 0 I CONNOR . \ ~~\~~ By: Michael ~~'connor MJOC/cd cc: Paul Barton Queen.bury Planning Department .. ... TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION Robert L. Eddy, Chairman' 17 Owen Avenu. Queensbu17 . R. Y. 12801& To. (x) Warrtm COunty Planning Board (x) Queensbùry Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of APpeals (x) Applicant '-" -../ r :'1,; '¡ "_ ¡ 1 Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280! Date. 11/12/90 Re. Site Plan #17-90 J. Paul Barton/Docksider Restaurant Glen Lake Road - Glen, N.Y. 12804 We have reviewed the request for.e ) Variance, {x) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (x) APproval' ( ) Di sapproval The purpose of this presentation was to obtain .~roval of a change caused by relocation of the septic syste which requires the removal of 16 trees to be replaced with s1xteen maples. The owner has had an experience with pine trees being damaged by wind~ so does not wish to replace the trees of that species. The new trees will be placed in new locations as ahown on the blueprìnt. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committe. w1eh.. to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-contom1Dg 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.' ~tfullY submitted, /' ~~/;f ?Á~ obêrt L. Eddy, Chai~ ~ -- " - '---" r-t. f ~Qry TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pI_nn;t1I11 Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 19. 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area Variaace U.. VariaDce == Sip VariaDce _ IDterpretatiaD Other: SubdiYiaioa: Sketch. _ Prelimillarr, X Site Plan amew - - Petition far a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater Wet1aøda Permit FiDal AppJicatiaD Number: Site Plan Review No. 55-90 AppJiamt'. Name: Guido Passarelli - Mount Roval Shopping Center MeetiDø Date: November 27, 1990 ............................................................................................ This application was tabled by the Board at the October 16, 1990 meeting in order for the applicant to clear up any outstanding issues. o.lotion attached) I have reviewed the application, and I have the following comments: 1) The bric!t \.¡alk has not been extended to previously recommended. Crosswalk striping at all not been provided. (Notes of 10/5/90 attached) comment on engineering changes. the parking area, as access drives also has The Town Engineer will 2) The Planning Dept. has received copies of t~to reports fron DOT. (attached) 3) Beautification Committee approval has been obtained. 4) The Warren County' Planning Board has approved the proposed development. SGB/pw " '-" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY,--,· 531 Bay Road, QutJtInsbury, NY 12804-9725 (518) 792-5832 PLANNING BOARDr Site PI.aø Rnie. Peter Cartier, Vice Chairmaø R.D. fl, Ridge Road QUt!e..bury, New York IZ804 Carol Pulver, Secretary 7 Brookshire Trace Queensbury, New York 1Z804 TO: Guido Passare 11 i RE: Site Plan No. 55-90 1600 Hvlan Blvd. Guido Passarelli Route 9, at the location of the Staten Island. NY Mount Royal Motel ATTN: Guido Passarelli DATE: October 16, 1990 We have reviewed the request for Site Plan Review (Type I, Type D. Unliated) and bave the following recommendation: APPROVED DENIED X TABLED RESOLVED: JÐl'ICII TO 'lARÆ SID PLUr 110. 55-90 GUIDO PASSADLLI. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for ita adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver, For the Mount Royal Hotal reconstruction .. a 45.800 sq. ft. scalad down shopping center for the following reasons a Number One. satisfactiön by Staff and R1st-Frost that the applicant has addre..ed their concerns; Number Two, the report from DOT; Number Three. the report from the Beautification Committee; Number Four. a report from the applicant regarding' Warren County Planning Board approval. Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 1990, by the following votea A1ISa Hrs. Pulver. Hr. Catmano. Hr. Hartin. Hr. Cartier NOES, NONE ABSENT a Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas ABSTAIlIlIh Mr. LaPointe , Sincerely, QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ..., CODC.. SeeCioD 5.050 Procedure . PC/_ cc:: The LA Group APPROVAL OJ' TBJS APPLICA"- IØAIII TllAT'I'D APPLICAIIT CAllIIOW APPLY PO. A BIJILDDIG PERMIT. I. VIII.. ......... ....st... .. ........ _ .. n..IIII '-N. . ......- . ..,.... n_......-al ...... Sf .. ..-a_ tula .. ......t... tile .......... _".. .. ....~.... .. 1MaIII... ... .11.., WildS. .....t8 to ........ .., ......... ..., Mil.....) .. ...... ... ...at.. "'........... .... n-.a, vlCIa _ ....lta_ ., -. ..........,,- v. Clal. _ C.» ,... ,.... .. tlU.. .... ., .... _aa. ........,. Pet.. Carti.. Vic.' Chairmu · - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FILE -(Opy --- pt_nni"1 Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: October 5, 1990 By: Stuart Baker Area Vviaøce UIe VariaDce == Sip VariaDce _ IDt_..~tatiøD SubdiftsiGa: Sketch, -X- Site PlaIa Reriew - :::: Petitioø for a ChaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDda Permit . PreIiJD--- - -I' FiDa1 Other: ApplicatiaD Number: Site Plan Review No. 55-90 Applicant'. Name: Guido Pë:ssarelli - rtount Royal Shoppinf, Center MeetiDg Date: October 16, 1990 ............................................................................................ This ap9lice.tion ~.¡as tabled by the Board at the July 24, IS'~O IT!eetin~ in order for the applicant to Make the VariOl!S desip;n chcnges necessary to address t!1e concerns of Staff and adjacent property at·mers. Copies of the revised plans ha.ve been forwarded to DOT and DOH for their review. The To~m Engineer tlill address tbe adequacy of the en~in~ering chan3es Nhich have occurred. The cover letter subt:1itted by the L.A. Group \-TÍth the re1,ised !JIans outlines in detail the chanp,es that have been 1"',.".de to él.ddress the Planninp, Depertr.1ent concerns. I ha1,e revie~.¡ed these chanr:es, and I bave the following co~ents: I) The potential access to the north of this lot is located so that only two parkinR spaces would be: eliMinated if an interior nccess road were put in place at a future (I,ate. The reIT1ainin~ nU!1ber uill be sufficient to con"ly with the requirements of the ordinance. 2) The applicant may wish to er.tend the brick ~':al!~ to the ,arking lot on both sides of: the entrance tei proviGe for safe pedestrian access in thp. future. Both access dri1iesshould hav~ crossualk stripir.~ painted. on the ?aver.lent, for adc!itional pedestrian safety. ~) The existin?, Hater valu~$ at the proposed entrance/exit should b:;! labeled as such. This revised plan is very ~.¡el1 thought out, and the chang-es ~.¡hich have been t:'IAde should benefit botl, the developer é'md the 'I'mm. SB/pw .'-.._-~--- ~ J . .1 ',' ~') It, ~H~> ¡ '" ',~ ~ ~.::..... ~ ,.. _J.('j~~:". .. STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATJON'LANN' . ZONIN( 84 HOLLAND AVENUE 1')£ ARTMENT ALBANY. N.Y. 12208 JOHN E. TAYLOR. PE. REGIONAL alRECTOR October 26, 1990 SITE PLAN REVIEW 6fM~ E Mr. Lawrence M. Levine, Consulting Engineer Corner of Rtes. 50 & 67 Ballston Spa., NY 12020 P.E. U I KOOft ROYAL SBOÞÞIlIØ CBlftBa, BYS RT.. 9 Ton O~ QOBBIfSBURY Dear Larry: We have reviewed the July 20, 1990 Traffic Impact study for he proposed Mount Royal Shopping Center and have the following comments: 1. The traffic counts are acceptable. 2. The trip qeneration rates are acceptable. 3. A 1992 analysis year is acceptable. 4. A 3% per annum background growth ratè with the additional traffic from the proposed Shaker Plaza Shopping Center is also acceptable. 5. The trip distributions are acceptable. 6. A 50% pass-by credit is acceptable. 7. The 1992 with development through volumes on NYS Rte. 9 are understated. Instead of 50% , you subtracted lOOt of the adjoining entering volume from the through volumes on NYS Rte. 9. The 4th edition ofITE's TriD Generation (p.14) elaborates on the differentiation between new trip and diverted trip distributions and their calculations. 8. Your use of "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" in lieu of HCM levels of service "A" through "F" is not acceptable. The goal of a traffic impact study is to ascertain the deqree of impact on the adjacent roadway system. In future traffic impact studies, please us HCM levels of service "A" through "F" in your analysis. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ~'-..----_.-- .. Mr. Lawrenc~. Levine October 26, 1990 Page 2 -- You recommended that a left turn entering lane on northbound NYS Rte. 9 be provided and suggested that the proposed driveway intersection with NYS Rte. 9 and Kendrick Road might meet signal warrants. We have transmitted your July 20, 1990 turn movement volumes with our adjustments (attached) to NYSDOT Region l' s Traffic Engineering and Safety Group for further analysis. Any work in the right-of-way of a NYS highway will require a permit from NYSDOT. For information on the permit process, the developer should contact Herbert F. Steffens, NYSDOT's Warren County Resident Engineer at (518) 632-3511. As this project progresses through the permit process, comments and additional requirements from other NYSDOT Region 1 groups may be forthcoming. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Please contact me (telephone 474-6215) if you have any questions. sincerely, ~~C~..!ð KENNETH A. CARLSON Senior Transportation Analyst Planning and Program Management Region 1 KAC/JD/dah cc: L. York, Town of QueensþuryPlanning Commission F. Austin, Warren County Dept. of Public Works R.W. Carlson, Director, Plan. -& Prog. Mqmt., Region 1 J.W. Kelly, Traffic Engineer & Safety, Region 1 H.F. Steffens, Warren County Resident Engineer .---"-- ~ SITEPlAlR£VI£W.~qO . 1;f.~ t : ~'\\~' 'C '~. ''"'''"'',..1;1' STATE OF NEW YORK \)~ aM, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATrON~1 LA '1:1 , 84 HOLLAND AVENUE 'J ALBANY, N.Y. 12208 'NO~90 , kLIN E. WHITE 2LANHI 5cza....ER DEPARTMENT JOHN E. TAYLOR. P,E. REGIONAL DIRECTOR November 1, 1990 Hr. Lawrence M. Levine, P.E. Corner of Routes 50 & 67 Ballston Spa, NY 12020 Re , HT. ROYAL SHOPP ING CENTER. TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WARREN COUNTY Dear Mr. Levine, We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the subject proposed shopping center development and have no objection to the proposed driveway access as presented. The Warren County Resident Engineer, Hr. Herbert Steffens, should be contac ted regarding obtaining the necessary permit. He may be reached at 623-3511. Very truly yours, ~/M~ ~ep' W. Kell Regional Traf ie Engineer JWK.sDZs 11 ces R. W. Carlson, Regional Planning Engineer H. F. Steffens, Warren County Residency AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ftO í j ,¡- (Opy ~MMITTE! FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION '--" Robert L. Eddy, Chairman Mrs. Arthur J. Seney S t 17 Owen Avenue 8 Queensbury Avenue' ecre ary Qµeensbur,. R. Y. 12801 Queensbury, N. Y. 1280! TO. (X) Warr- COUDty Planning Board Da te. 11/12/90 (X) QUeensbu17 Town Planning Board ( ) QUeensbury Town Zoning Board of APpeals (x) Applicant Re. Site Plan #55-90 Mount Royal Shoping Center Lake George Road We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variance, (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the fOllowing recommendations. (X) Approval ( ) Disapproval Questions that had been brought up at the Planning Board hearing that pertained to beautification were reviewed so that the Committee could determine if those questions had been answered before consideration was given to the planting plans. The answers were to the satisfaction of the Commi t tee. One member of the Committee voted to approve the planting plans as submitted, but wished to go on record to show disapproval of the location and need for another shopping center, especially in that location. One shopping center in Town was cited as having several empty stores and it is understood others are planning to vacate that plaza shortly. One shopping center is very rapidly becoming a an office plaza. While the creation of jobs is highly desirable, the sales tax from shops is not being generated. The question was r~ised about the use of the false facades being used to place signs, but the Committee was assured allowed signs would not be placed on those artificial peaks above the roof line. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee .labe. to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforaiq signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approvinc the above (or attaahed plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement ot 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. ~cJru~, , cttully~submitted, ~t.Z~ Robert L. Eddy, ch~rman . ......--.----.--- ," i4 ¡; Supplemental af ',ication for Special Permits and Us. Vari'iiáces: . (to comply wtrh the Zoning Ordinance requirements for: Landscaping, Plantings and Screening) - - '.. __ "\-..........-..\111...,. r"-¡-.,' Luff 1. Applicant's name: Street addres.: City, State, zl., Telephone number: Location of Planned Construction: 2. Plot Dlan: (to a comprehensive scale) Zoning Board application plot plan may be used (or a separate sheet). S~ow location of driveways, ramps, walks, buildings, signs, parking areas, storage and refuse areas, existing trees (of six inch caliper (diameter)or greater) and existing tre. or shrub border. flENE. c,ee- ~accÆO ~Ur1N&ý 'ð~ VAtl~ c:; C,Te'l6C7 I Áf'ClI L. t..ð I '0) C7)0. 3. LandscaD~nR. Plantina or ScreeninR nlans: (show on plot plan) Trees and shrubs? Variety and numbers '?a; ~~ ?~N~;" [.L~~I~ 'P~ Grass or other around cover? . o,e;. ~ pt.AN"IJ~ G L'9~~ ~ ~ lÄNN ~ ~~UNt) Flower btèJ. Dlanters or window boxes? ~ - . c:;.,., e,W~ 'f'lAWt\tJ6t G L1et~~ ~ ~Op.. ee.Oc¡p..A~ MUlchinR? (material to retain moisture ~nh1bit weed growth) Marble chips Stone Redwood chips ark Pine needles Screenina? Storage or refuse areas or unsightly areas? Buffer zone? (required by ordinance abutting residential ~one) C,a5 6N~ "LA.JTnJ(~ c.f L~...,,~~ ~tÞ+J roe- fWJttWéfIr ~. Maintenance?', Give plans for care of all plants, shrubs, trees, , lawn, flowers, etc., watering, prining, weeding, fe~d necessary periodical care. 411'6 wlu., t!E: CANe tðrz. A!P;1 'ß"/ ~CAfe ~ltJf.tJAtJœ l'PD~I~. Removal or trash and. sn ? Indicate plans for litter removal from parking and p~blic areas. Show location on plot~lan ~ æ:~~Dcl~~nt,~ ~~~~-re+~~vJ ,u.., 4. Exterior bu~a finish? Brick ~r stone? Painted blocks? Clapboard? Other? ,~cz.'( ~ ~lÅ\E Your customers and the' community will be attracted to a beautified, well maintained place of business and you and your ,m,¡.y"s~lie'ake pride in the appearance of your place of business and better serve your customers. ' , Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification "* ~ W""" ~_~tz.eo ~ '\'*1, ~ ~ ræêrn~ ~~t\-°vr tH~ v,\\ð. lWO 't>ùm ~~ \)J\U, te tð I~ ~ ~&Mt- ~ ~e t?u\ \..-t>\~ A.tJt) W\U" ~e 1; pt¡~O \N~\'-\''l. c;æ ~\JJItJé:t f:. \ Fop.. ~co..\,otJc,. . ' ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P,C. CONSlJ\. TING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4148 518.793-4141 F If - '- [f'""-'" :.....' ;_.i -/ -- ..ucLI'hI.. ~ov 2 71990 1 ;,.;..¡ November 20, 1990 RFA #89-5000.055 JUNNINCI a ZONlNf DEPARTIENT Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Gu ido ,Passarelli, Site Pl an 55-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project. Previous engineering comments have been addressed. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~j L~ .~"'^"'\. ·"~v"../(. Thomas M. \ armowich, P.E. Project E ~ineer ' TMY/cmw e GLENS FALLS, NY-LACONIA, NH ._--~._--- ., . ,..,- N~ York State Deþártment of Environmental Co~g'fJä&WifW NO.S) Division of Regulatory Affairs P.o. Box 220, Hudson street Warrensburq, New York 12885-0220 Telephone: (518) 623-3671 or 668-5441 - .-.... .... Thom.. Co Jotting Commissioner November 1, 1990 Mr. stuart G. Baker Assistant Planner Town of Queensbury 531 Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804 Re: Mount Royal Shopping Center Queensbury (T), Warren (Co.) 'LANNINQ f)EPAIlTAt¡NT"Nt Dear Mr. Baker: I have received the package of information you had forwarded to NYS Department of Health in regard to the aforementioned project proposal. This Department is an invol ved agency as the proj ect will require a SPDES permit, which has yet to be applied for. We concur with the Town of Queensbury actinq as Lead Agency in this matter. Sincerely, ~~ .1¿1 ~(::)P4~ Joseph C. Prall Senior Environmental Analyst JCP/dd ..-----------. ..' . '---' -~ WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD WYLI.A MAlIITNIIt CHAIRMAN WARREN COUNTY MUNICIPAL CENTER LAKE GEORGE, NEW YORK, 12845 1'EI.EPHONE (511) 711...10 JOSEPH a...ROCauE VICE CHAIRMAN November 15, 1990 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO~ ~ -~ D 1)u..n~ ~ ~,,~ (øJ.. .. ..n'...."... ~)~W[~!r, ~ t40V151990 ~]I Ms. Lee York Queensbury Planning and Zoning Office Town Office Building Bay @ Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12804 ~LANNING a ZONIN( DIPARTIIENT Dear Ms. York, The Warren County Planning Board, at its November 14, 1990 meeting, voted to approve the Site Plan Review presented by Dunham's Bay Boat Company. The County Planning Board had specific concerns relating to traffic resulting from the project. As you are aware, the County does not hold a public hearing but, rather, conducts a business meeting with questions answered by an applicant if they are present. The County will accept written comments from other parties relative to the project prior to the meeting. In the case of Dunham's Bay Boat Company, there were numerous written comments in the file that inadvertently were not entered into the minutes. Whether or not these comments will affect the Board's decision is unknown, but in fairness to the people who supplied comments it is requested that the Town of Queensbury forward this application to the County again for review at our December 12, 1990 meeting. We realize that the Town is under no obligation to send this application back to the County and we will not dispute your decision if you ch.ose not to. Thank you for your attention to this matter and I hope that this can be resolved satisfactorily. Sincerely, .;c/~/~ /))7/ '>i1LJU,L/ " ,)' ,¡-- , .::/-C' Wylla Mae Bitner ~~r Chairperson Warren County Planning Board WMB/sjp .-.._~---_._- ____..__._. M_ . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY FrLE r ('! 'j 'l -- pI_..m"l Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J obD S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 19, 1990 By: Stuart G. Baker Area V8'iaDce U.. VarIaace - Sip Vlll'i8Dce == IDt......tiaa Othen -L- SubdiYilriGm Sketch, _ PrelimÏDal'J, J- FiDaI Site PIaa Rewiew - - PetitiOD for a Chuge of Zoae - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit AppUcatiaa Number: Subdivision No. 10-1990 AppUc:ant'. Name: John C. and Nancv A. Kellv MeetiDg Date: Nove~ber 27. 1990 ............................................................................................ This application received prelir:1Ínary approval at the October 25, 1990 Planning Board meeting. The following chanBes have been made to the subdivision plat: 1 ) A note has ,been added regarding driveway access onto Stephanie Lane. 2) A utility easement is shown on the plat. 3) A note regarding clearing limits has been added. There are no further planning concerns associated with this subdivision. SGB/pw ---_._- · ~~- ~ RlST-FAOST 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 ,-I L E ( 0 P Y 4U~LN,,_ ~)LPaw~)~ ~ 'NOV 2 71990 ~!!J --...,/ ')LANNING I ZONIN' DEPARTMENT November 20, 1990 RFA #89-5000.510 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Kelly Subdivision, Final 10-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have no engineering comments. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. :::1OM iJ~""... .A_ TholÒ~s M. (~rmowich, P. E. Managing P~òject Engineer TMY/cam cc: Town Board Members @ GLENS FALLS, NY-LACONIA, NH .....---- . - ~ --' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pt_ftft¡ftg Department WNOTE TO FILEw Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Date: November 26, 1990 Lee A. York By: Ana VmiaDce U. VariaDce - Sip VariaDce == mt_ .,.etatioa SubdmsiGa: Sketch. _ PrelimiDary, X Site Plan Reriew - == PetiüOD for a ChaDge of Zaae Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal Other: AppJicatiGD Number: Site Plan Review No. 85-90 AppJiC&Dt'. Name: Robert Eckardt MeeâDg Date: November 27. 1990 ..................................................................................................... The request is to allow a walkway access to a boathouse deck. The walkway is clUTently existing. On July 24, 1989, Mr. E~kardt appeared before the Planning Board. At that time, he stated that there would be no stairs leading from the de~k attached to the house, to the deck on the boathouse. This was made a condition of approval for the boathouse/deck construction (minutes attached). The proposal was denied because the WalTen County Planning Board recommended denial and there were not sufficient votes to overturn the County recommendation. The project was reheard by both Boards, and on September 19, 1989 the proposal was approved. The Zoning Administrator has sent Mr. Eckardt back to the Planning Board to see if the Board wishes to modify its approval to allow him to keep his walkway. LA Y /sed ----- · - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Oueensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 July 24, 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Site Plan 47-89 Applicant/Project Name: Robert Eckardt Mr. Eckardt wishes to construct a boathouse with a deck, on top of an existing dock. The design and placement of,this boathouse appears to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Assembly Point is a densely developed area of Lake George. The applicant currently has several docks and decks on the property. The Board should consider whether an additional deck on the roof of the boathouse is appropriate. The plan does not show stairs leading to the deck on top of the / boathouse. I would recommend that the stairs lead from the existing 5'-4" wide dock to the deck. Ideally, the stairway would be under the boathouse to minimize the visual impact on additional construction along the lakehsore. JG/pw "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. , , A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 ..._---~-_._- , I I . ---' ') -- MRS. DAB-Yes. M0'I10. TO up_on SITB PLA. .0. 45-8.. PAHKAJ K. DAB, VlRGDQA DASJntroduced by Mrs. MIM who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: To approve as applied for. Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann. Mr. Cartier. Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES, None ABSENT:None SITB PLAII NO. .... WR-L\ TYPBa ø JAMBS B. AYERS EA8T SHORB OP WARNIR BAY Olf LAD GIORGB POR RlCOIf8TRUCTlOIf OP THB TWO DOCKS wrrø ADDmON OP A BOATHOUSE. (WADD COUNTY PLANlQlfG) TAX MAP NO. 1H-41 SIC110NI 4.020 D LOT SIZB: 1 ACRE APPLICANT NOT PRESENT MR. MACRI-Feels that this doesn't require an explanation. MR. ROBERTS-Feels that they ShOlÙd address this. PUBUC BlARING OPIlfBD NO COMMINT PUBLIC BlARING CLOSED STAPP IRPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on ru.) Warren County Planning approved. (on file) IlO'l1011 TO APPROVE SITB PLAII NO. ..... JAMBS 8. A YlB1IJntroduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Frank DeSantis: To approve as it meets the intent of our Board. DUÍy adopted this 25th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: AYES, Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Roberts NOES, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Jablonski ABSENT:Hon. 1t ... PLAJI 110. ..,.... Tn" D ..-fA aO"T ICKABD'I' ~-er...,Y POINT ROAD, MOa.IULÚIY ALaIlO A.......,Y PODI'I" ROAD, I MILB, PIU'I' H01JSB Olf WATBa (ORAY), ADlACD'f TO TOn WATBa ITOUCD TAlfK (BLUB). poa COIf8'l'&UCTIOIf OP A ~ 8IM'I'IIOVIB wrrø A stJIIDBCK Olf TOP 01 Fr. BY 31 Fr.) OP. 8IDIID. WILL" ADDID "." I~' _ .. OP DAlD'UJIIO STAD DOCK. (WA&ItD COUNTY PLAJIJIDIO) TAX MAP 110. 1-2-4 1""" ~.. 4.D2D D LOT 8IZBa .21 Acaa ROBERT ECKARDT PRESENT .,IJP DInT Ifat.. from John Goralski, Planner <see attached) Warren County Plannin¡ disapproved. Denied -.ct on the fact it was an overuse of the property on the fact of what was presented to the Bøard. (on rue) .-cu.r01l HELD ML ECKARDT-Stated h. was not notitled of the Warren County meetinl. Didn't receive tile l.tter and the phones at the town were out for three daYlo H. spoke with Mr. Haiue, of tile Warren County Planning Board. When they came up to review the boatho... they thought tIIat a three foot section up on the top deck was ¡oing to COMect the boatho... which it isn't. ... Hatin, has been up there when this was just a worldng area when I built the boathouse 8 ~--~---- · - " ,#I ) J ---- ',-, which he did approve. There win be steps coming up trom the bottom. MR. GORALSKI-Stated Mr. Eckardt, is in compliance win aU the previous Board decisions that have been made on that. ' MR. ECKARDT-Has a permit trom the Lake George Park Commission which he did get last February. Sent a letter to Warren County which they were going to send to you. Spoke with Patricia Tatich, asked It she contacted them. MRS. YORK-Spoke with Patricia Tatich, didn't Indicate that a letter was coming over to me. She just explained to me exactly what we have here, that it was an overuse ot the property. MR. ECKARDT-Stated that Mr. Hague, told him that they didn't understand the plans that's why they voted no. PUBUC IŒARllfG OPDBD NO CO...BJfT PUBUC BBARllfG CLOUD DIICU8IION HELD MR. CARTIER-Asked it he was saying that the stairs wiD lead trom the dock to the deck? MR. ECK' ARDT-Right. MR. DYBAS-Asked if he had any plans tor the deck eventuaUy? MR. ECKARDT-No. The boathouse goes right to the water line from here (reters to map) to the top deck is 3 feet. Would either have to put a 3 foot walkway or stairs going down. MR. DYBAS-Asked how many docks is he going to have? MR. ECKARDT-Two. MR. JABLONSKI-Asked which one they we're talking about a walkway or a set of stairs? MR. ECKARDT-Stated which ever one he could do. Prefers the walkway. MR. GORALSKI-Stated. according to the determinations ot oW' Zoni", Adminiatrator, and the Adirondack Park, it the deck attached to the house Is attached to the deck on top of the boathouse, it is an extension ot the deck that's attached to the house and therefore would require a setback variance. MR. ROBERTS-Stated then they would go with the stairs. lIanOR TO APPROYB SITB PLA!I NO. ..7.... ROBBRT BCKARDTJntroduced by Peter Cartier who moved tor Its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: -"(:IpPftv. with thø stipulation that thø ~tail'll M constructed tro....rn the 5 toot 4 inch wide dock ~o ..~ ~Ir ... thAt "" .t.l... 1..,. ,""'" th. t~ "'.,.Ic tð thA tQ.p of t:h. boathðUM. Dul1adopted this 25th day of July, 1989, by the tonowing vote: AYB8a Mr. Macri, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOSSa Mr. Dybas ' ABSTADhMr. DeSantis, Mrs. Mann D-..O-.o1I HELD MR. GORALSKI-Suggested that they check with the Town Attomey to determine whether the _tention could count up to the majority. PAUL DUSEK-Has to check this. AWAmNG COUNCIL'! DIRECTION ON THIS MA'M'BR -.1c..... P<ã-0 q SI'I'II PLAIf 110. 41-1. TY,. UIfI.-nD IIC-IA STBVBIf AIID DOnA 10'l"I"O. aoU'I'B I, f IIILB SOUTH OP TBB GRBAT BlCAPB, ACRe. PROII AOWAY JmT"dII Dll'l'll1I AND ------ ~ , ) - MR. DESANTIS-Asked if the drainage area was big enough to have 15 inch pipes In there? MR. NACE-Stated he hasn't looked at the site ot the pipes per fiow considerations Would guess that a 15 inch would Þe adequate, but there should be some calculations Cor this. . MR. DESANTIS-Asked it the recharge basin will hold the water? MR. NACE-Stated the calculations that they reviewed were not correctly done. MR. ROBERTS-Asked if the Board and staff still has a problem with the parking spaces? MRS. YORK-Asked Mr. DeSantis, that on the plan does he want retail and commercial. . . MR. DESANTIS-Stated he is trying to get a handle based on what we've got. MRS. MANN-Stated Sears Roebuck. is in a maU situation it seUs turniture which he Is going to do. MRS. YORK-Stated this is probably plaza commercial. It still would be considered commercial because ot parking. MR. DYBAS-Stated that he can think ot Cive things that Mr. Sutton has. Maybe by looking at that maybe this is why he determined it commercial. MRS. MANN-Asked what would be considered a mall? PAT COLLARD-Three. MRS. MANN-Stated he has the potential Cor a mall which is commercial. MR. SUTTON-Feels that the traffic is not going to be any greater, doesn't think deliveries are going to be any worse because we are already handling it. PUBUC BBARDfG OPDBD CHARLES MC NULTY-l4 Twicwood Lane, we're kind of kitty corner to the back of the site. I think primarily we have a queation do you foresee expanding your employee parking lot at aU? MR. SUTTON-No. MR. MC NULTY-I think that this would be our main concern. We are not really impressed with what that did to the value of the property that is directly behind them. We don't want to see that haElPCtn behind us. Otherwise we have no problem to what they're proposing. PUBLIC IŒARDfG CL08ID traduced by That the foUowing be provided before they appear before us againt That the employee bathroom faclitia be identified. The 1,000 ¡anon septic system which would come under that so that it would meet the Town of QueensÞury re¡ulations. The access to Route 9, be changed to two road cuts. That the engineerin¡ is properly done. The erosion control meuUNI be properly identitied and the propoee 4 inch drainage pipet be 15. That you adequately identity the sheetin¡ and the amount of runoff that is going to be contained in that discharge buin so you know it's adequate. That the five handicapped speca be identified and to show where the arrows are ¡oing as to the parking and stripping. Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 1989, by the foUowing vote: A YES. Mr. DeSantis, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberti NOESt None . ABSTAIN:Mr. Macri ~ II1II PL&K NO. ..... ROIIIIRT BCUIIØT MR. DUSEK-Stated that there is a section of the law that says, in the event that you have a disapprovai by the Warren County Planning Board, you cannot overtum that or your approval has to be by a vote of majority plus on. of all the members of the Board. 'nMtre are no exception 9 .--.--- ----< --..' or extensions. MRS. YORK-Stated if the Board would want to rescind their vote and consider a tabUng of this application I can cau the County tomorrow and ask if they wí11 rehear it. Mano. 10 aBICDfD pa_VIOUS 1(01101f amAKDmG SIT8 PLAN 1f0. 47-81, ROBUT BCJfIlbTJntroduced by Peter Cartier who moved tor its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: To aUow the applicant to have his application be considered by the Warren County Planning Board. With the agreement of the applicant that the application be tabled. Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ~es~ ___ ~ 'lUIaRWATER WBTLAØD8 'Wi.... CURm L. MADI8IOIf,.lL HALFWAY BROOK, HAYILAJfD aOAD DIMBlfSlOlf8 0' WBTLAKDa 301 PT. BY 150 PT. TAX IIAP MO. 54-H.I TO COMBTBUCT A SDfGLB , AMlLY HOUn AND LBVBL LOT WlTIII1I 101 Fr. 0' WB'I1.AMD8 BUPPBL INSTALL,ROADWAY AND BRlDGB THBOUGB WB"n.Alm III 1'IUUDI PBASBB. PIIASB I-mL TO STRBAM BAJlK. PHASB U COMSTBUCT BlUDGBa PBASB m-cOIlPLBTB PILL TO aEAR 0' WBTLAlfD. Request by applicant to have his application tabled. 'RESHWATER WETLAIfDS PW3-8. WARKBM COUMTY DEPT. 0' PUBLIC WORKS NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORA'110M THB COUJrTY 0' WARaD PROP0ØB8 TO WlDBIf QUAKER ROAD PROM TWO LA1fD TO POUR LAMES INCLUDIlIG A II Fr. WlDB MBDIAIf POR LEn' TURNS' 'ROM THB PINBVlBW CEIIBTBRY TO ALBAlfY BJfGDfBlUUlfO, A DISTAMCB OP L87 MILES. TAX MAP MO. 5f+1O FRED AUSTIN OF WARREN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PRESENT MR. ROBERTS-Stated that D.E.C. issued a permit. MR. DESANTIS-Stated that it makes sense that whereever D.E.C. is a lead agency, and D.E.C. has isaued a permit that we shouldn't have to review it. MR. ROBERTS-Asked ~ how they felt about this. MR. ROBERTS-Stated that they have said before that we would like to somehow amend our Ordinance to say, that D.E.C. will look at the larger ones and will look at the smaUer ones. FRED AUSTIN-Stated that the mitigated meuures tor this wetland permit wu in tact worked through the Queensbury Town Board, and hu to do with the Glenwood Avenue, Hovey Pond project. MRS. YORK-Stated that they are requestfnc that anyone coming before us tor a wetlands permit would have to apply tor a D.E.C. permit and have that in hand before they come before thJa Board. Mano. TO APPROVB paBlBWAna WBTLAJID8 PDMl'I' p.~ WAJUUDf COUMTY ~~ O~ puÍìLlc w~Jt~íroduced by Victor Macri w moved for ita adoption y llda ann: That the Department ot Environmental Conservation has accordingly approved this application. To make a recommendation that the Planning Staff work to amend the Ordinance so that any approved wetlands by D.E.C. not come before thJa Board. We w1U rely on D.E.C. to handle SEQRA in this matter. Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 1989, by the tollowing yote: A YESs Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. JablOCllld, Mr. Roberts NOES: None . AB8ENT:None On motion the meetin¡ was adjourned. Richard Roberts, Chairman 10 .------~------ ~ " ) '-"" - QOIDIBURY PLAMIOIfO BOARD RBQULAB IIBB'TDfO SBP'I'BIIBBB Itt1t, 1'" 7:31 P.Me IfRIDRQ PRBSBIrI" RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN HILDA MANN, SECRETARY VICTOR MACRI PETER CARTIER JOSEPH DYBAS KEITH JABLONSKI TOn ATTORNBY-PAUL DUSEK TOn BNGDfBBK-WA YNE GANNETT LEE YORK, SENIOR PLANNER JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEIlBEBS AB8EIIT FRANK DESANTIS APPROVAL OP MDfUTBS APPROVAL OP THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MJIf1JTES OP AUGUST 15th. 1981 AS SUB"'n r;u OLD BUSDfESB SITI PLAN NO. 47-1. ROBDT ECKARDT TYPB D WR-Lt ASP....LY PODI'I" ROAD, 1 IOLB PIRST HOUSE 011 WATER (GRAY), ADlACBNT TO TOn WATBB STORAGE TAJfK (BLUE) POR COIISTRUcnOIl 01' A BOATBOUIB wrm A SUIfDBCK OM TOP Qln. BY 30 PT.) OPBII SIDED. WILL DB ADDBD OM SlDB 01' EXISTIlfG S'l'AKB DOCK. (WAUBlf COURTY PLAlfllDfG) TAX IIAP 110. I-H 1BC'ft01l 4.020-D LOT SIZBI .21 ACRBII ROBERT ECKARDT PRESENT MR. GORALSKI-Stated that the lut time Mr. Eckardt was before the Board the appUcation had been denied by Warren County Planni.. Board and he could not achieve a majority plus one vote by this Board. Since then Mr. Eckardt, has been back to Warren County Planning Board and they have approved this. MR. CARTIER-Asked if the stairs were going come from the dock? MR. ECKARDT-Stated at the lut meeting the only way it would pall was if I did have a stairway. MIL GORALSKI-8tated that accordln¡ to the Zoning Ordinance and the Adirondack Park Agency Regulations, if the top of the boathouse is connected in that way to the deck it would be conIidered part of the deck and they would need a variance. MIL CARTIER-Askød it he understood that he was avoiding having to go through the variance? They have received A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonald, Mr. Roberta NOESa None . ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis 1 ~....---.- ~'~'''\',-, ... \1't ,':.' :, .(';.~<#~þ"'~ -X"':;-S'JO t 861tc1 '... :~.~,....,.~..._~.---.\..:.,".,~ 88-EIO-tEZt-z ·oN ¡fW.l8d . ., '\J ~$~~ -47J1'O;)~ " " .', " ~. , 1 , . .'. I:IOtF' ~ ~I It ~ ~~ ~ " ~ '~ ~ . , .~ ì-1 ,., ~.s ~ =- , M3NI , . -- . ............... ..u...__....._<".............._ . .. r1ŸJfš--='~'" J 1ft j, 11i,- ~!f)ll ., 4 1988 'i !J,~ . . ,¡ '-' . ,- :---.........- '. ~~'O£ORnR a..-=---...J : . £Oßor PAlIK COA4MISS'CJ~ / t 1t ~ jt Ð , ~ Q Q.. Ð d t;~ '.)i~~, . ~ ;.) - ---- - ,. l' - &,¡UC/JEl .. .- --j"<jP 7JJ;) " -.---.-. _.. '-=-- . 'Í O~ ,_ >- , t .. ..~ ". '" .. . .. . . .. , .. 0... ... ' , ... '. ......... '41.., . , . .. '. . ..... ... --=--- . f- ðßfêfeT £CIc~f'\10 I . - '-" -..." TOWH OF QUEEHSBURY P1.wnñ~1 Department -HOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. Yark, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Auistant Planner Date: November 26, 1990 Stuart G. Baker By: Area Vartaace - U_ VariaDce - Sip V8I'ÚIDCe == mteI'pNtatiøa SubdiYiIicaI Sketch, _ P.reJimmar,., ~ Site P1aD Reflew - - Petition fœ a ChaDøe of Zone - Freshwater WetJaDds Permit FÜIal Other: Appücatiøa Humber: Site Plan Review No. 86-90 AppUcant'. Name: AlTOwhead Equipment, Inc. MeetiDg Date: November 27,1990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is proposing the operation of a heavy equipment sales, service and repair facility. No new development is proposed on the site. Site Plan Review is required for the change of use of this property. I have reviewed the application according to the criteria listed in Section 5.070 (E), and I have the following comments: 1. No changes are proposed to the site or the building. 2. Vehicular access and circulation is adequate. 3. Off street parking and loading is adequate. The Board may wish to have the applicant show in more detail the proposed limits of the truck and equipment parking. 4. Pedestrian traffic and circulation is adequate. 5. Storm water drainage is existing. No new drainage plans are proposed. 6. The buildiQl is supplied by Town water. The septic disposal is existing. 7. No new plantings are proposed. 8. Fire access is adequate. 9. There are no flood prone areas or existing erosion problems on site. . Because of the existing screen fencing, this use of the property should have a low impact, if any, on the sUlTOunding properties. SGB/sed . -., --------->--- . - - ...- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Plaftftmg Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Date: November 27. lQQO By: Lee A. York Area VuiaDc:e U. Variance == Sip Variance _ IDterpretatiaD Other: x Subdmsioa: X Sketch. _ Pre1imiDary, == Site Plan Reriew - _ Petition far a ChaDge of ZoDe Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDal AppHcatioa Number: Subdivision No. 16-1990 AppHcant'. Name: Daniel and Georee Drellos MeetiDg Date: November 27. 1990 ............................................................................................ The submission is to subdivide three lots on Luzerne Road. On lot A is the Northwinds Mobile Home Park, lot C has an existing structure, and lot B is undeveloped. A site inspection of the property revealed that the plan presented is not totally accurate. Lot C indicates that there is wooded area surrounding the building to the back and sides. This is not COITect. The original site plan for this structure (Site Plan 61-89) also showed this wooded area which would indicate that the wooded area was part of what the Planning Board approved. If this is the case and a wooded area has been removed, the applicant may be in violation of his original site plan. Lot B has a large body of water on it which is not indicated on the survey, which is suppose to show existing watercourses, including lakes, ponds, wetlands, and streams. Also, there is dumping of concrete, construction debris and macadam. There are pictures taken today which illustrate this. Lot A, which is the the Northwinds Mobile Home Park (MHC Site Plan No. 1-86) has recent sand excavation on some of the northern lots. (Pictures taken today.) The Site Plan file (MHC Site Plan No. 1-86) does not indicate that this was to take place (no grading shown). The Town of Queensbury Ordinance, Section 7.061, Site Plan Review shall be required for the removal or excavation of 100 cubic yards of rock, soil, or vegetation from a site. , Also, maximum cut or fill shall be 6 feet from the existing grade to finish grade for all residential construction. In Section 7.051 it also states that in the case of mining and excavation slopes caused by the excavation cannot exceed 30 percent upon completion. The Board may want the Zoning Administrator to review these concerns, and to request that the applicant submit a plan which is reflective of site conditions. 1 ------ ... DreIlos Subdivision -- ..- The Subdivision itself is zoned for Light Industrial use. The Board should ascertain what the owner's intentions are for lot B. The plans reflect a proposed building and septic system. The standing water indicates that the ground water level is very high in this location. This appears to be a former sand pit with some limitations as to the soils and what can appropriately be located there. The applicant has not indicated the wells and septic systems of. adjoining property owners. This may be important information for the Board given the sandy soils. My recommendation to the Board is that no action be taken on this proposal until an accurate plan is submitted and the Zoning Administrator reviews the situation. LA Y ¡sed z .,..--.-"---- " 1 ~ '" RIST-FfIOST 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 ~ FILE t. -- ..u,...tv_ ~}~W~1~ ~ 'NOV271990~.!!J November 26, 1990 RFA #89-5000.516 1Mt_. a ZOlt.· DIPMIIBIT Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Drellos, Luzerne Road Subdivision No. 16-1990 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the referenced project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Item 1.F. of the sketch plan checklist indicates that wells, septic tanks and disposal fields on adjoining properties should be shown. If none exist then this should be acknowledged by a note. 2. Suitabil ity for subsurface disposal is based on a percolation test located about 350 feet away. Testing at the actual location of the disposal site will be required for sewage disposal system design. If you have any questions please call me. Very truly yours, RI~-FJ,OST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~. CM J,A"., . ,'. '. ,( Thomas M. Ya~wich, P.E. Project Engineèr. TMY; cc: Planning Board Members @ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA, NH .,--_.~-