The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-09-17 --.... - Subdivision No. 10-1992 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 11-1992 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 41-92 Site Plan No. 39-92 Site Plan No. 42-92 Site Plan No. 43-92 - OUEBNSBURY PLANNING BOARD IIBBTING FIRST RBGUIAR IIBBTING SEP'l!E1IBBR 17m, 1992 INDBX Estate of Denton - Karen Johns 1. J. Buckley Bryan, Jr. 7. Hugh & Karen Sinclair 8. Dr. Kook Jung 14. Richard & Irene Bell 25. John Shaw/Elizabeth Gaulin 26. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. "---- ..- (JUBENSBURY PLAlINING B01UlD BETING FIRST REGULAR BETING SEPTEllBER 17TH, 1992 7:02 P.II. 1IB1IBERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN CORINNE TARANA TIMOTHY BREWER 1IE1IBERS ABSENT EDWARD LAPOINT SENIOR PLAlINER- LEE YORK PIANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER 'l'OIiN A'l"l'ORNEY-PAUL DUSEK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MARTIN-We'll follow through the agenda, with a brief deviation, here, in the beginning. I just wanted to catch the Board up on some correspondence we've received in the past month, or maybe I've received alone, I don't know. I like to keep you abreast of these things. First of all, everybody got a copy from George Zurlo tonight, representing Claude Charlebois. He's basically asking for an extension of his approval. I think it would be best that we maybe take this up at a meeting next week, give everybody a chance to read this, and we'll deal with it either Tuesday or Thursday night. Does that sound good to everybody? . Okay. So, I just wanted to call that to your attention. The other thing I call to your attention, just to make sure you saw it, is Bob parisi's memo regarding the conditional approvals. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. BREWER-I didn't see that.. MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's why I bring it up, then. I have a copy here. You're welcome to review it. We can have some extra copies made, maybe, and distribute them again. Okay. The other thing is, I got a memorandum from Dan Kane over at the County Planning Office, regarding a teleconference for October 21st, November 9th and December 9th. This is a teleconference which is organized by the New York State Office of Rural Affairs and will consist of three live two hour programs featuring Planning and Zoning Officials from around the State and will be broadcast via satellite from Albany to approximately 30 locations. Adirondack Community College is hooked into the satellite linkage here and I believe they're going to be held there. Do you have anything on this, Lee? MRS. YORK-No. I haven't seen that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. What it's going to consist of is a mock Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing on area and use variances and zoning interpretation. That'll be the 21st of October, but I think the second thing that may be more to our interest, Planning Board review of site plan reviews and special permits, on November 9th. So, what they'll present, I believe, is a mock site plan review. MRS. PULVER-What time are these given? MR. MARTIN-Will begin at 7 p.m. and end about 9 p.m. Again, I'll pass this around for everybody's review. The third one will be consolidation of municipal services will be discussed at December 9th. Additional information may be obtained from the Adirondack Community College and the Office of Rural Mfairs, and I'll pass this around for everybody to look at. MRS. YORK-If you'd like, Mr. Chairman, I can make copies and mail them to all the members? 1 -- --/ MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. Yes. If you could do that, also, with Bob Parisi's memo of 9/15. Some people don't have it. Okay, and then something we can also discuss more, I've got a copy of a short memo from Bob Parisi to Mike Brandt, regarding a potential problem with Hudson pointe P.U.D., regarding the 25 percent open space requirement. I'll pass this along, too, and Lee, I think, can make a copy of that, and that we can certainly, it will be part of the discussion at our workshop next week, and that's all the correspondence I had. We have another issue that I've talked to you briefly about last night at our site visits, Paul's here tonight to speak to us about. It's Inspiration Park. They have a unique situation with the construction of their infrastructure, meaning the roads, and the general completion of the overall project, the financing of that. I guess the thing is they want to be able to do things concurrently, rather than putting the road all in and then starting construction. I believe that's the basic, simple premise. Paul's here to bring us up to date on that, and we're going to deviate slightly from the agenda, just to handle this. It shouldn't take too long. Okay. Paul, could you? MR. DUSEK-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul Dusek, for the record. Charles Adams is also here with Adams and Rich on this project. Adams and Rich made a presentation to the Town Board last week, whereby they indicated that, normally, it's been the Town's practice to put in roads first before any building permits are issued or any buildings in the subdivision lot, Inspiration Park, which would of course be bound by that same ordinary rule. This particular case, though, because Inspiration Park, as I understand it, Charles please correct me if I say anything in error here, but as I understand it, because the property is being funded in the fashion that it is, through the affordable housing state, that the wa y the money is alloca ted is it's alloca ted all a t once, and there's an anticipation that the entire project will be built out, and in point of fact, the project is sold out, at this point, in terms of commitments for all of the houses for the project. So, as a result, they came to the Town Board with a request of, would you waive this requirement that we put in the road before building the houses. The Town Board gave it some thought, and of course part of the thought processes consist of the fact of the reason why we have this the way we do. There's a very good reason in it, and that is that you don't want a subdivision going in where a bunch of houses are built, and then the Town gets saddled with the cost of having to put in a road, because you can believe if they put in houses and people move into those houses, they'll be down here at the Town Board meeting saying, you've got to now give us a Town Road, which it would have to. Also, there's a State Law that actually prohibits the building of houses unless they're on Town roads, or unless there's a bonding mechanism in place, and that's where Adams & Rich has come in. They said, well, can we bond it so that we can protect the Town's interest, and go ahead and do the whole project at once? They have presented a bonding proposal which consisted of a roughed out performance bond with our names added to it. They also sent me over a roughed out draft of a contract which, today I worked on and added some more provisions and sent it back over to their attorney, John Pohl, with a bunch of suggestions for additions to both the performance bond and the contract. The bottom line is, the reason why it comes to your Board is, under the law, your Board has to make three decisions wi th regard to this particular proposal. One is whether you, in your discretion, feel that bonding is, in fact, appropriate. The second is, is the amount of the proposed bond appropriate, and the third issue is, is the term of the arrangement appropriate? In this particular case, the amount of the bond has been set for, for this part of the bond, for infrastructure completion, it was set for $308,476, out of which, there's a breakdown of several different items, probably most important of which are roads and parking, which constitutes $108,252, water line improvements of $58,723, these are the amounts that are allocated, and then there's a variety of other costs, such as layout for the site and monument, the lots, clearing growth, excavation, backfill waste, etc., all of those types of things are all addressed throughout this agreement. When you put this whole package together, what it says is that if they do not do what they're supposed to under this agreement, then the Town or the owner, in the case of Adams & Rich, can come in and take, or proceed after the company puts out the performance bond, and say, either you guys arrange to complete this or give us the money that we can complete this project. Now, of course, what's critical in any of these type of arrangements is the contract documentation and whatnot to make sure that you can exercise power that you think you can, in the event that something goes wrong, and that's my end of it that I'm working on, but in addition to that, what's also important is that there's enough money there to in fact protect the Town if the project should be in default, or the roads don't get put in, and in this regard, I sent information to Paul Naylor and Ralph VanDusen today, requesting their input, as far as the cost, and whether there's enough money there to protect the Town's interest. I got a verbal report from Paul Naylor, which was in essence that he felt, under today's prices, that the 2 '-- amount was sufficient for roads. I didn't actually talk to him. My secretary relayed this to me, and he asked if I wanted it in writing, and I said yes. I don't have it for you tonight, but I understand that should be coming. I have not yet heard from Ralph VanDusen, as far as the appropriateness of the water line cost, but it seemed to me those were logical places to check to see if the Town interest would be protected, because Paul Naylor's knowledgeable in his area of roads. Ralph VanDusen is knowledgeable in his area of utili ties. Now, the other thing I should mention is the fact that, as far as these costs are concerned, Adams & Rich already have a contract with a construction company for these amounts that they will in fact put these in. So, that's further, I think, evidence of the fact that, yes, in fact, that is a reasonable amount, because obviously they were able to secure a contract for that amount. Now, we always know, of course, contracts, the amounts can be varied somewhat between the operations. So, that's why you do a double check, in terms of checking with our folks, which is what we're already doing. The term of the arrangement, by the way, would be a proposal for one year. In other words, they would have to complete everything within 365 days from the starting date of the contract, otherwise they would be in default of the performance bond. The language that I'm proposing in that regard is to make time of the essence, meaning in terms of law, that the minute the day comes and goes, and they don't have it complete, then we call, we can sa y they're in default and take them through the appropriate steps under the performance bond, in terms of getting the project complete, but as far as the actual terminology and the contract and all of that, that's part of the second process which, as I say, I'm involved in, but the Town Board will ultimately approve all of that. The first step is coming before you folks, as I mentioned, to decide the first three issues, if you think this is a good idea, discretionary wise, second is the amount of the bonding going to be appropriate, and in that regard, maybe you might want to condition your responses on Paul Naylor's response and Ralph VanDusen's, if you're not personally familiar with the necessary amounts, or any other suggestions you may have, and last, whether or not you think the term of one year is a reasonable time period to give them in which to complete the project. Those are the issues that are before you. MRS. PULVER-Paul, are you talking the entire project, including the homes, or just the roads? MR. DUSEK-All we're concerned about is infrastructure. MRS. PULVER-All right. So, one year to complete the infrastructure. MR. DUSEK-But my understanding is, Carol, and Charles, correct me if I'm wrong, your plan is actually to have the whole project completed before a year, but you ¡.,anted a year just for the sake, because of the danger of being held. MR. MARTIN-I also think, do you have a performance bond for the whole project? I think you do. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. CHARLES ADAMS MR. ADAMS-Charles Adams. There's a performance bond and a payment bond, guaranteeing both performance and payment on the entire project, for building, constructing and delivering 42 houses to 42 families, but what the Town is concerned with is what Paul has been working so hard on, is just the infrastructure portion because that's all you're really concerned about. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. ADAMS-Our zoning legislation gave us two years to do the infrastructure, and again, the requirement being just simply the posting of a bond. The reason we're appearing here is really not because we want to take a year to do it. We want to do it in the next 90 days. The purpose for being here is to build these things concurrently, so these 42 families can be in their homes this year. I think the important thing there is that these are 42 families. Some of them are now living with relatives, some of them are now, I think, cancelled their leases and done this and that, something else, in anticipation of being able to. The entire project is bonded, and I might add, too, that the other obligees on that performance bond, it's just not the Town of Queensbury, but it's also the banks who are lending the money on this. So, this had to go through and clear them so that they could accept the payment of the performance bond, because they're the ones putting the $2,700,000. 3 ---- MR. BREWER-Would there be CO's issued before the infrastructure was done? MR. DUSEK-No. In fact, that's one of the terms that I've inserted in the contract. It was mentioned by the Town Board as well, that, and I think, Charlie, you agreed to it, that no CO's would be issued for any house until such time as the vote has been accepted for dedica tion. A further protection, if you will, for the Town's interest, is also a provision that I've requested be inserted that says that the Town has no obligation to maintain, no obligation whatsoever regarding the roads and infrastructure until such time as they are approved by the Town and accepted for dedication, if that part of the process is necessary. Some of the utilities, obviously, don't need dedication to the Town, but certainly things like roads do need to be dedicated, water pipes have to be turned over as part of the process. I might add this, too, just so you know, your Board is the first part of the process, although we went to the Town Board first, they started with that. The Town Board just gave a general feeling that, we don't have a particular problem wi th this. Go ahead and start the process. your Board's the first step of the process. The next step is to get the agreements and the performance bonds in place to the liking of myself and the Town Board, if you guys give the go ahead here toni ght . MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, what this is, is this a change to the mylar itself or a notation made on the mylar, or is this just a? MR. DUSEK-I don't think that's necessary, Jim, because you're not changing any plans. It's just a matter of exactly what order the project will be completed in, as a security in place for the Town. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and as a practical matter, I infrastructure's going to go in first to allow you construction equipment in there and whatever. would to get suspect that the your materials and MR. ADAMS-I just want to be really very clear what it is we're not asking for, because we're not asking for any kind of exception about people moving into houses without infrastructure in place. We only want the opportunity to start building the houses before the infrastructure is in place. MR. MARTIN-It seems just like facilitating a fast track to completion. MR. ADAMS-That's right. MR. BREWER-Are we going to set a precedent or anything? MR. MARTIN-I don't think so. I don't view it as a precedent, necessarily. We have circumstances here relating to the financing of the project that is clearly the motivating factor. MR. DUSEK-I think, though, to answer that, in fairness, whenever !pu do something new along this line, you do run the risk of somewhat of a precedent setting thing. I think the Town Board is somewhat aware that that could be a possibility. I'm certainly aware of it. Let me say this, if, in fact, this comes together the way I envision it, and Charles saw some of my tough clauses today. He's a little concerned about the surety company, in terms of, can we reach agreements on all these issues, but if this comes together the way I envision it, I'm not worried about it being a precedent, even if it is. MR. ADAMS-That did come up at the Town Board. They asked, well, gee, if we do it for Inspiration Park, do we do it for everybody else that meets the same terms and conditions, and basically people nodded, yes, it's probably the right way to do it, in order to make projects efficient. MR. MARTIN-In that regard, we may be plowing new ground and developing alternative methods of doing this type of a thing that may be perfectly acceptable. This is no easy thing to do and not very cheap, I would imagine, getting a performance bond for nearly $3,000,000. MR. DUSEK-The other thing is, this is, of course, allowed under Town Law. It's not like it's something that's not covered some place. The only thing I will mention to you, which I mentioned to the Town Board, in terms of reviewing this from a legal standpoint, just so that you have all of the facts before you on this, there is somewhat ofa question, if you look at our own Ordinance, as to whether or not our own Ordinance, or a t least you could argue tha t there's a question 4 --- -- of whether it would allow houses being built without the roads being dedicated. There's a section of the Code of the Town of Queensbury that has a reading to it that basically says, all houses to be built on public roads. Then there's a provision in your Subdivision Regulations which maybe some of you are familiar wi th, there's a 1i tt1e clause there tha t sa ys no house can be bui1 t except on a Town highway, see the Zoning Ordinance. The Subdivision Regulations kind of make it sound like the Town Law's a little tougher, or the Zoning Ordinance is tougher than what it really is. When you go back and read the Zoning Ordinance, to me, it doesn't say that he can't build in this fashion, with performance bonds, especially since if you drop below, the next paragraph, it talks about private roads, so if you could never do it except on a Town road, then you also discount the clause that drops right below in the Zoning Ordinance that talks about private, so you could never build on a private road. When I read all of this together, in conjunction with State, Town law, I think the performance bonding is acceptable legal move. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I just want to call it to your attention, the breakdown of infrastructure, construction, and the addendum to the contract, the total sa ys 303,476. I think that's a typo. It should be 308. Okay. What I have here is, this is a copy that was supplied to the Board, that goes through, it's a contract for construction between the contractor and Adams Rich, and also as the performance bond information. So, if anybody wants to review that, it's pretty much just as Paul summarized for us. MR. DUSEK-To this set of documentation is the expert contract that I am drafting that'll have to be added, ultimately, the Town Board will have to approve too, and then also the performance bond that is there, that is what we're seeking to amend to make sure the Town's interests are protected. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, what you need from this Board tonight, before we get into a general discussion, here, or take any questions, what do you need from us, a resolution? MR. DUSEK-I think a resolution, because it is a Board action that we'd need, and you need to do, we need three questions answered, and that is, Number One, are you in favor of this bonding type of arrangement? Two, do you feel that the amounts indicated are appropriate, or would you, and as I mentioned earlier, you can condition your response on saying, well, you ~nt Paul Naylor's approval or Ralph VanDusen's approval on the amounts, if you don't feel comfortable in judging them yourselves, or anything else that you ~nt, if you \il6nt a separate engineering opinion, I think you could probably get that, and then the last question, Three, do you think a one year timetable in which to complete the infrastructure is appropriate? MR. MARTIN-Okay. Now, does the Board have any questions of Paul regarding this matter? We discussed this somewhat yesterday, during our site visits. Does anybody have anything at all that comes to mind? MR. BREWER-Do you think it's necessary to have an engineer look at it, Paul? MR. DUSEK-I think, you know, Paul Naylor has, in the past, whenever we've had letters of credit put up for the top coats on highways, he's always made the judgement calls in those areas. He's an experienced, obvious, person with the paving roads. I trust, I think, his view in terms of whether or not the amount of money there is enough to finish it, because he's probably, most likely if something goes wrong, he's the guy we're going to go see anyway and say, Paul, wha t do you think. MR. MARTIN-Yes, he also has to accept the finished product. MR. DUSEK-Right. He's the one that approves the high~ys in the end, and likewise, with the water pipes, the water Foreman has, in point of fact, laid their own ~ter pipes in the past. So, I think they're a good person to judge that one. The other items that are in there are things like cable t.v. and things, obviously, we don't have anybody locally in the County that would judge those, but I don't view those as critical as I do the water and the highway. MR. BREWER-The cable companies themselves do tha t an ywa y, don't they? MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, we do have positive feedback from Paul Naylor, and we have yet to hear from the water Department? MR. DUSEK -Tha t ' s correct. 5 -- '--" MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, what's everyone's feeling? MRS. PULVER-I don't have any problem with it. MR. BREWER-Not as long as Paul makes the contract and they come to an agreement or whatever. MR. MARTIN-I don't see any problem with what's been laid out here. Does anybody have any further discussion? Did someone take notes on the form of a resolution? NOTION TO APPROVE TIlB BOIIDING PROPœAL FOR INSPIRATION PARK ON TIlB RBCXMIIENDATION FR(M PAUL NAYLOR mAT TIlB DOlINT OF TIlB PERFORlIANCB BOIID IS SUFFICIENT, AND COIIDITIONAL UPON HEARING FR(M TIlB WATER DEPARDlBNT, TIlB (}UEElfSBURY 'l'OIiN PLJUfNING BOARD WILL APPROVE AND ALLOIi ONE YEAR FOR CfMPLETION OF TIlB INFRAS7!RUC'rORE AND ACCEPT TIlB BONDING PROPOSAL AS PRESE1f'l!ED, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Rue1, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (7:27 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think that's all we have in terms of any special requests. So, we can go right into the regular agenda. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLIS'l!ED ESTATE OF DEN'l!ON - KAREN JOHNS OIiNER: SHEILA HYERS LOCATION: UPR. BAY RD., 1lCR.OSS FR(M FREIICH NT. SNIIIILL RR-SA FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISIUII TAX MAP NO. 28-2-6 LOT SIZE: 11.605 ACRES SECTIUII SUBDIV. REGULATIUIIS JEFF YORK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:27 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-1992, Karen Johns, September 4, 1992, Meeting Date: September 17, 1992 "The Board gave Preliminary approval of this subdivision on 7-21-92. Since then APA jurisdictional wetlands have been identified on the property. The staff has met with the applicant's agent and an APA representative at the site. It is the staff's understanding that the applicant has agreed to no further subdivision of the property. In this case, the wetlands issue becomes moot. If this is indeed the applicants intent then a note should be added to the mylar indicating that on the large lot there are APA jurisdictional wetlands. There should also be a note indicating that no further subdivision can take place on this lot. There should also be a deed restriction detailing this. The Board has to make this part of their motion. If all these condi tions are agreed to by the applicant, the staff recommends approval of this subdivision." And I do have a letter here from Karen Johns, and she sa ys, "I, Karen Johns, purchaser of the property on Bay Road currently owned by Sheila Hyers, do not intend to subdivide the eight acre parcel any further." MR. MARTIN-Okay. with that letter. the applicant? So, we Okay. can certainly request that be put on the mylar, then, This is at Final Stage. Do we have anyone here from MR. yORK-Jeff York, ReMax Realty. MR. MARTIN-Okay. This seems to be the only burning issue, was the no further subdivision. Does anybody else have anything they saw, based on their review of the application? So, we're at Final. We've done the SEQRA, right, Lee? MRS. yORK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-We've had the public hearing. Is the lot numbered or anything? Has there been tax map numbers proposed that we can put in the motion with that, or? MRS. yORK-I don't believe so. yoU should do that right away. 6 '- MR. MARTIN-All right. So, we'll try our best to frame it in, then, in the context of the resolution. MRS. YORK-Right. It's the larger eight acre parcel. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anybody have any further c01lUllent, question? MR. RUEL-Is that the 8.2? MR. MARTIN-Yes, 8.270. Okay. I guess we're ready to move to a resolution. Does someone want to offer a resolution? NOTION TO APPROVE FIliAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 110. 10-1992 ESTArE OF DEII'1'01I - KAREII JOHNS, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pu1 ver : I With the following stipulation: That ~there shall be no further subdivision on the largest lot, being 8.27± acres. A1 0, that there should be a note indicating such on the mylar, and a deed restrictio stating so. , I Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 11992, by the following vote: ! AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Rue~, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Lapoin t MRS. YORK-Mr. york, If I could just ask you to bring a copy of the deed with that restriction in when it is finally done, ~nd we will, of course, see the stipulation on the mylar before the Chairman signs i4. MR. YORK-Okay. (7:32 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1992 FINAL STAGE I 'l'YPE: UNLIS'l!ED RR-3A/1IR-5 J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR. OIiIIER: SAllE AS ABOVE ~T1ON: FOX FARII ROAD FOR A 2 LO'l! SUBDIVISION TAX MAP NO. 73-1-2 LO'l! SIZE: 24.96 AeRIfs SEC'1!ION: SUBDIVISIOlI REGS , LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PREfENT (7:32 p.m.) STAFF INPUT ! Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-D)92, J. Buckley Bryan, Jr., September 14, 1992, Meeting Date: September 17, 199~ "The Board approved the SEQRA and gave preliminary approval August 11. The rt· solution stated that all engineering and planning concerns had been addressed. S nce all concerns were previously addressed, the staff rec01lUllends final approval be g anted." MRS. YORK-The only outstanding condibions was a researching of significant environmental species on site. My und~rstanding is that this has been done, but I would like that to be verified on thF record, by Mr. Steves. I understand you were at the site. I have verificatiOn! from some Town Board members, and I just want it on the record. , ! MR. STEVES-For the record, my name' s ~eon Steves. Yes, we did. We wrote to, A1 Koech1ein gave me the address in t1bany. We wrote to that individual down there and asked for an identification. They came back and said their computer indeed indicated a site there for the 1ue Carner butterfly. We then called the other official that they rec01lUllended in Albany and have not been able to talk to him directly, but we did write a letter. His office called back and said that there's nothing that they ca do right at this time of the year. So, I talked to Bett y Monahan. Bett y talk d to a, I guess an ama teur botanist, and Tuesday we went out to the site, the five acre site and the road as well, and searched the area for any plant 1ife,1 in particular, the Blue Carner. We did find some areas. We identified them abd placed them on the five acre site map, and next week when I come back with the site plan, unless you want to see them tonight, I'll show you where they are, land what we'll do to mitigate any problems that you might envision. We found most!: of them on the east end, in an area that will be undisturbed. MR. not , MARTIN-Yes. Obviously, that will be a mitigation measure. going to disturb those areas. you're certain1 y 7 -- -- MR. STEVES-That's correct. Well, this is kind of awkward that this comes up after the SEQRA review. MRS. yORK-Well, part of the stipulation during the SEQRA Review, that this would be done prior to the subdivision approval. So, I think that they have met the conditions. I think Mrs. Monahan is also here and can verify exactly what occurred. I will tell the Board that it is very difficult to get someone from DEC or the Natural Habitant Foundation to come up here because their staff is limited, and I believe that they have done the best that they can to meet this condition. In fact, probably a better job than we might have expected. MR. MARTIN-Oka y. as best you can. So, then you've identified the habitated areas on the plat, MR. STEVES-The plans themselves. We were able to identify the plant, in the two areas that we found. There's only one area that's anywhere near. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, how does everybody feel about that? That sounds like a reasonable measure to me. MRS. yORK-If I could just interject here. I know that in 1988, the DEC was very concerned because a large habitat if the Carner Blue had been destroyed at the High School, and so I know there's excitement running through DEC as we speak, about this new habitat that has been identified, and I thank you very much. MR. STEVES-Yes. I was talking to A1 Koech1ein and he didn't feel that we would find anything on site at all, because of the overgrowth, with the poplars that are there, but with the sharp eyes of Betty Monahan, we were able to find it. MR. MARTIN-Well, like I said, unless an ybody that's a very reasonable mitigation measure. and that's the best you can offer anyhow. on the project in general? has anything else to offer, I think They're going to avoid these areas, Does anybody else have any comments MR. RUEL-It's just for senior citizens? MR. MARTIN-Yes. This is the senior citizens. Okay. discussion, I'll accept a motion for a disposi tion. There being no other MRS. PULVER-Leon, I have one question. you coming back for? YOU said, when you come back. What are MR. STEVES-Next Tuesday, for site plan review. MRS. PULVER-For site plan, because I'm looking at this. Okay. All right. This is Final Stage. IIOTIai TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISIai NO. 11-1992 J. BUCKLEY BRYAli, JR., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: For a two lot subdivision, with all Planning and Staff concerns addressed. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pu1 ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Rue1, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (7:39 p.m.) NBfi BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 41.-92 'lYPE: UNLISTED LI-1.A HUGH & KAREN SINCLAIR ONllER: SAllE AS ABOVE LOCATIai: SAllE AS ABOVE LOCATION: CORIN7!1l & lIERRI7.'T RD., 1./2 llILE fiBST OF I-B7. m USE AS EXISTS FOR SllALL OFFICES - SERVICEllASTER. ALL USES IN TBB LI ZONE RBOUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEfi. CROSS REFERlfNCE: USE VAR. 7-1.991. APPROVED: 2-20-91. (JfARR1lN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX NAP NO. 1.46-1-10 LOT SIZE: 22,500 SO. FT. SECTION: 179-26 HUGH SINCLAIR, PRESENT (7:39 p.m.) 8 - STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 41-92, Hugh & Karen Sinclair, September 11, 1992, Meeting Date: September 17, 1992 "project Description: The applicant has converted an existing single fami1 y house into a small office (900 sq. ft.). Also on the property area a 22' x 17' garage and a 13' x 22' attached storage area. The property is .52 acres in size. Six parking spaces are required by code and one of them has to be a handicapped space. The applicant is not proposing any new structures, only the conversion of the house to an office. The first floor will be office space and the basement will be used for storage. The applicant is in the process of renovating the exterior of the existing buildings and cleaning up existing debris. The applicant should be encouraged to continue this work. Review of Site Plan Standards: 1. The buildings are clustered in the northeast quadrant of the property. They are currently single family residence in appearance and will not be altered. No outdoor lighting is proposed other than entry lights over the front and rear entrances. A 3' x 2' wood sign will be located in the front yard facing Corinth Road. 2. Traffic access is a concern because of the property's location on Corinth Road, which is designated a regional arterial road and is included in the Travel Corridor OVerlay Zone. In consideration of the above, the property should have a one way access off of Corinth Road and exit onto Merritt Road. Site generated traffic should be minimal. Most customers make arrangements by phone and do not visit the office. The company employs 2 - 4 people who usually remain at the office during the workday. The applicant uses two vans in his business which are usually on the road during the day and parked on the site at night. The code requires a 20' wide drive that will provide access to the main parking area. Access to two of the parking spaces will be via an existing gravel drive which leads to the garage." I spoke with the applicant, and we came up with an alternative to what they propose to do for the parking. Originally, the parking kElS kind of haphazard across the site. By doing this, you are able to locate the parking, centralize it, more or less, near the front of the building. "3. The Zoning COde requires one parking space for every 150 sq. ft. of office space. The existing building is 900 sq. ft. and, therefore, needs 6 parking spaces. Two parking spaces can be provided in the existing driveway and garage with access off of Merritt Road. The remaining 4 spaces can be provided in the northwest quadrant of the property with access off of COrinth Road and egress onto Merritt Road. The existing driveway off of Merritt Road is gravel. The proposed new parking area should also be gravel." Originally, the applicant did not have any proposal delineating where the parking should be. He has agreed to put gravel on the parking area, instead of just leaving it as what he originally intended it to be, and that was grass. "The handicap parking space should be located closer to the front door in the northeast west corner. 4. Pedestrian traffic should not be a concern at this site. There will be very little pedestrian traffic associated with this use. What little pedestrian traffic this is should not have any problem getting to the office because of the limited vehicular traffic. 5. Stormwater drainage should not be a problem. The majority of the site is permeable grass and the parking and drivekElY will consist of permeable gravel. RUnoff from the various structures will be limited and no different than if it had remained as a residential use. 6. The property is served by Town kBter and has on-site septic system. 7. The applicant is not proposing any new landscaping nor is there to be any existing landscaping removed. There is existing vegetation that provides natural screening between this property and adjacent properties. 8. The property is a corner lot. All portions of the property, along with all the structures, appear to be accessible to emergency vehicles. 9. The site was visited the day after an evening of thunderstorms and there was no evidence of ponding or flooding. The area depression adjacent to Merritt Road could be an area susceptible to ponding in the future." You can recommend approval of the project, provided that he makes the modifications to the parking as k€ propose. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and we have approval from Warren County, and they concur with local conditions. Okay. Do we have someone here from the applicant? MR. SINCLAIR-I'm Hugh Sinclair. MR. MARTIN-Okay. you've heard all the comments here and I think you probably had an extensive conversation with the Staff. The Board was out to see the site yesterday, as a group. My one suggestion at the time was that the curb cut on Corinth Road be completely eliminated, and the only access in and out of Merritt Road, but I only offer that as, it just seems like an awful dangerous road, and I know we're interested in limiting the curb cuts along major arterials as it is. So, tha t was the on1 y suggestion I had, but tha t ' s a poin t of discussion. 9 -- - MR. RUEL-I agree wholeheartedly. It's a 55 Mile an Hour Road, two lanes. It's quite dangerous. If somebody slows down to go into your driveway, they can't pass, they have to stop. MR. MARTIN-Right. we can. I'd just like to limit the curb cuts along corinth Road, if MR. BREWER-I think a car coming down the road's going to see a street off Corinth Road more so than he would a driveway. I mean, he'll see the driveway, but he'll probably pay llIOre attention to the road. MR. SINCLAIR-In your proposal, we have no use from Corinth Road, because right now that's ~ere the main, front door is, there's a porch there. MR. MARTIN-I just offer that as a point of discussion. I know it's something we've been trying to do as a result of the lessons we've learned on Route 9 to limi t the curb cuts, if we can. MR. RUEL-How wide is that driveway on Merritt? MR. SINCLAIR-Well, actually, Road, we can pull in anywhere. the whole thing's at the same plane. There just have to be one sign. On Merritt MR. RUEL-SJ, there's no problem in having cars go in and out? MR. SINCLAIR-No. It's just, there isn't much access going through the back door. MR. RUEL-And then if they park in that area that you have designated, is there enough space to turn around and go back out? MR. SINCLAIR-The way it is, the building, as !pu saw, it's in kind of an L shape. To pull in this ~y, it's going to be tough to turn around there, especially if there's anybody at all parked on that same plane. When you pull in next to that Spruce tree, and all the way across the property, there's probably 25 feet long. That's probably not enough space to make a U turn. MR. MARTIN-Were you intending on this being a graveled lot or paved? MR. SINCLAIR-I don't plan on paving, and I'd leave it grass, if I could. We could designate it some other way. If we put gravel there, we're going to be the only property on that whole road that has gravel going through the middle of their yard, but whatever it takes to get approved, we'd be glad to do that. My own feeling is, coming off corinth Road, there's only one person that uses that, and that's our Office Manager, and instead of pulling into ~ere, if you saw there's a small paved with a garage, the people used to have a garage, she parks over on the lawn, and then she just makes a U turn on the lawn. So, she's facing traffic, she can see from both ways. Everybody else parks in the back. MR. MARTIN-Well, all I was thinking, with the curb cut there off of corinth, you're the use there now, but once we establish this as a commercial use, or a commercial site, and establish that curb cut off of COrinth Road, now, you're not going to be there forever. Someone else is going to come along, maybe something of a higher intensity where they do have customers or clients coming in and out, and then tha t curb cut's there now, and it's established, and we ha ve a time now, here, in the beginning to nip it in the bud. MRS. PULVER-Well, exactly for what you just said is ~y I would be against closing the curb cut, because if he decides, later on, he doesn't want his business there, he wants to sell it as a single family home, like the diner, remember ribs there? They fill in the swimming pool and everything, it was a residential house that the Planning Board now designated was going to be commercial, fill in the swimming pool, do fencing, do this, and that. The place went out of business, and they only had a lease, and then the people who oM1ed the home now had a home they really couldn't sell as a home anymore because it had been site. MR. BREWER-Doesn't that become a different use, though? MRS. PULVER-Well, they still could have it as a home. I mean, if you can't sell it as a home. I mean, if you can't sell it as a business, you might want to sell it as a home, like it was originally. MR. MARTIN-Well, they went back as a restaurant. 10 - ...-- MRS. PULVER-It did. It did go back as a restaurant, and somebody else came in. MR. BREWER-But if he's got a spli t rail fence, he could put a spli t rail fence across tha t, and you could easil y take a spli t rail fence down. MR. SINCLAIR-I would agree with that part. MR. BREWER-I mean, not totally block it off. up. YOU could put a spli t rail fence MRS. PULVER-I don't have a problem with just putting a fence over, too, but I mean, taking out. MR. BREWER-Not necessarily making them take that driveway out. MRS. yORK-Excuse me. Mr. variance is for commercial Sinclair has a use variance on this site. So, the use. He can't go back unless he gets another variance. MR. MARTIN-Plus, it's Light Industrial zoning anyhow. MRS. PULVER-No, but I mean, originally, with the house, he still could go back and get a variance for it to be a house if he couldn't sell it as a business. MRS. yORK-But when you think of the difference in having a commercial piece of property versus having a home, he would obviously make more effort to use it as a commercial piece of property. MRS. PULVER-I agree, but if you can't sell it as a commercial piece of property, your next thought is maybe to sell it as a home, rather than to hold onto it and not make anything. MR. SINCLAIR-S:>, what about putting, what if we just put a split rail fence across that part. corinth Road would be, it's permanent enough to keep people from turning in there. MR. MARTIN-That's fine with me. MR. MACEWAN-IS !pur main entrance into your business the front door off of corinth Road? MR. SINCLAIR-Well, you know, when people come down from Revere Road and turn in to see us once in a while, that's ~ere they would pull in is off the Corinth Road. We're goin g to need some wa y to desi gna te , come all the wa y around the back if you v.ant to park, and quite frankly, the whole building v.as in a shambles ~en we bought it, and the front, there's been some improvement. The back still looks like it did when we first bought it. MR. MACEWAN-should the possibility of that handicapped parking access be relocated closer to that front entrance? MRS. PULVER-Well, didn't the advisory committee for the handicap look at this and make their recommenda tion? MR. MARTIN-I don't know, have they, Lee? MRS. yORK-No. MR. SINCLAIR-If we have one person a month come to our offices. MR. MARTIN-Right, but as a commercial entity going through the process, we should designate handicapped parking, and we always try and make it as close as we can to the entry. MR. SINCLAIR-If we came in off the Merritt Road, we could still make that, we could still get them pretty close to the front door. It's just kind of planning on how they're going to get there. MR. HARLICKER-Couldn't they access through the breeze-way in back there? Couldn't that be modified to allow? MR. SINCLAIR-My concern is just the, right now, the image that that back. 11 -- ---- MR. HARLICKER-Right, but in time, you'll, I'm assuming, fix it up. you will. I'm hoping MR. SINCLAIR-I guess M:!' 11 be motivated to do something with that back. MRS. TARANA-I would just say that I agree with Craig. I think it's good planning to do that now, and it sounds like that wouldn't be much of a hardship on you, because apparently it's only usually just your one employee who uses that entrance anyway, and I would think it would be safer for her, anyway, to come out on Merritt Road, as that whole area develops more, and I think, can't we have a little directional sign, like on the corner, which says, entrance to, or whatever? Isn't that an allowed sign, so that you don't have to worry about people trying to figure out how to get into your property. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. That's been just about as big a concern as anything, somebody making a turn, somebody thinking about making a turn causes more damage. MRS. TARANA-Yes, and I think your business is such that it's mainly your own employees that come in and out anyway, most people call you for your services, and if you do have a little sign there for delivery people or whatever you need there, I think that would solve that kind of a problem, and I would agree with Craig. If you M:!re willing to do that, I think it would be a good move for the future. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. I think that's fine. Now, in Scott's presentation, he mentioned that we're eventually going to get around to putting a sign up, and that's how this tJ101e thing came about. We thought, everything's fine, and then M:! just asked to put up a sign. Originally, when M:! thought about applying for it, we were going to put it in the yard, but now we've decided that it might be just as M:!11 on that front porch, just that we've built a new porch on and just have a sign hanging overhead. MRS. TARANA-We11, you could have that and then a little directional sign for turning in to your business. MR. MARTIN-As far as I'm concerned with signs, I say it all the time. I don't care as long as you're in conformance with the Ordinance. It's a dimensional thing, location, size. It's all laid right out. It's fine with me. MRS. TARANA-We11, he may just want to plan, when he puts the sign, having an arrow or something that may change your entrance. MR. SINCLAIR-Parking in the rear or something. MRS. TARANA-Yes. You may change your idea about the sign. MRS. yORK-Mr. Sinclair, were you invited to see the Beautification Committee? MR. SINCLAIR-I'd like to see them. I think they ought to come and see our building. We have pictures of the way it looked before we moved there, and after hauling tons of stuff away, and we put some f10M:!rs there and things like that. MRS. yORK-Well, they can make some suggestions to you about it. I don't know if they intended for !pu to come, or somehow there was a miscue on this VIilo1e thing, but it would probably be beneficial if you did meet with them. They can make some good suggestions to you as to tJ1at p1antings ~u1d be good and hearty and live and be a benefit to your business. MR. SINCLAIR-When do they meet? MRS. YORK-Wh Y don't you come, if you could call me tomorrow, or Scott, and we'll give you the name of who to contact, and they'll be delighted to see you. MR. SINCLAIR-sure. MR. MARTIN-Oka y. is there anyone application? All here right. from Well, I'll open the public hearing on this, and the public wishing to address the Board on this PUBLIC D:ARIlIIG 0PlI:IlED NO cœJIØ'r PUBLIC ØAJlUlIIG CUJSIi:D 12 --- -' MR. MARTIN-And, Lee, we have a SEQRA on this, Short Form? MRS. yORK-Yes, Short Form. RESOWTIOII fi1lEl!l DBrBRlIIlfNrION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS lIADB RESOWfiON 110. 41-92, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, the for an office "1 Board an application for: A use WHEREAS, thi¿ Board action Act, . the proposed project and Planning ~tate Environmental Quality Review NOW, THEREFOR. RESOLVED: 1 . No Federal 2. The follow NONE 3. The propos of En vi ronJ Quality Review Act /~d is unlisted in the Department ~ ..~__, ~_~ ......':/.......CI. I...LOns impl emen tin g the Sta te Environmental and the regula tions 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 r,./Jether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in section 617.11 of the Official Compila tion of codes, Rules and Regula tions for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. RUel, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there any further comment from the Board on the site plan? Okay. Has someone got a resolution put together? lIarION to APPROVJæ SIm PLM NO. 41-92 æJG. & ltARIi:N SINCLAIR, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by corinne Tarana: With the following stipulations: That the curb cut on Corinth Road be closed off with split rail fence and relocate the handicap parking accessible to the entrance in the rear. That his parking area will be gravel. COnditions being met within a year from this date. Dul y adopted this 17th da y of September, 1992, by the followin g vote: MR. SINCLAIR-We'll close that entrance off that right ak6y. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SINCLAIR-There's gravel parked over there .It ' s just rpin g to take us a r,./Jile. MR. MARTIN-Yes, to grade it off, and yes. AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. RUel, Mr. Martin 13 -- NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (8:01 p.m.) SIm PLAN NO. 39-92 tYPB I JlR-5 DR. lWOlC JU1lG atIII1R: lØ:LINDA SZO'.l'CJrORY UJCMIaf: BAY RD. lfOR'ftl OF CM'l'ØUJURY NOODS DRIVE ft) caISftlUC"r A 2,000 SO. Fr. OFFICE BUILDING MD ASSOCIA.rJED SIn: NORR'. uæ lflI!(Jl1IRBS SIm PLlIII/ REVnI.ff. (BlWl'l'IFICArIaf CCMIIIftBB) (flMRØ' COUlff.'Y PLMNING) rAX MAP Ne. 60-1-5.1 LO!r SIZE: 38.38 ICR§ SÆCf>.lfJllJ: 179-19 MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APpLICANT, PRESENT (8:01 p.m.) S'rJIFF IlIIl!f1r Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 39-92, Dr. Kook Jung, September 15,1992, Meeting Date: september 17, 1992 "project Description: The applicant is proposin g to construct a 2,000 sq. ft. office building and 15 space parking lot. The project will be built on property that is currently part of an apartment complex (Canterbury w:>ods). Access to the site will be via the existing entrance to the apartment complex. The project is bounded on the west and north by a small stream, on the east by Bay Road and south by the driveway to Canterbury w:>ods. No information has been provided concerning ~at the building will look like. Site Plan Review Standards: 1. The applicant has not provided any information regarding the size or location of the building. The applicant has to provide elevations of the building in order to determine site compatibility. The applicant has not provided any information regarding lighting on the site. The location of the building on the site meets the setback requirements. 2. The project includes a 20' wide drive. This drive will carry traffic both into and out of the site. The drive will intersect with the existing drive for the apartment complex which exits onto Bay Road. A stop sign should be placed at the intersection of the apartment driveway and the office building drive. 3. The parking requirements for office buildin gs is one space for every 150 sq. ft. of floor area. The proposal incl udes 15 parking spaces (14 plus 1 handicapped) which meets the code requirements. The applicant is not proposing any loading area. The parking area includes an area for vehicles to back into enabling them to drive forward instead of backing out of the parking area. 4. Pedestrian traffic could be a concern with the project as proposed. Pedestrians will have to k8lk through the actual parking area and behind parked cars in order to get to the building. In doing this, pedestrians are at risk to being struck by cars backing out and pulling into the parking area. To remedy this situation a sidewalk should be placed on the eastern side of the parking area running the length of the parking lot to the building. 5. Stormwater from the site will be directed to tk'O retention areas. One is located near the intersections of the apartment drive and the office drive and a larger area is loca ted a t the northern end of the parkin g area. A stormwa ter mana gemen t plan ~s completed for this project and it's conclusion ~s that the drainage system is adequate. It is not indicated on the plan ~ere runoff from the building will be directed. Furthermore, there is no indication on the plan regarding how the stormwater will reach the retention basins. There are no catch-basins indicated on the plan nor is there any curbing shown around the parking area. Due to lack of information, staff cannot effectively review the adequacy of the drainage facilities. 6. The applicant is proposing to connect to an existing ~ter1ine which services the apartment complex. An on-site se~ge disposal system is proposed and is currently being reviewed by the town's engineer. 7. There is no vegetation, either existing or proposed, shown on the plan. Therefore, no review can be completed at this time. These are mature apple and pine trees currently on the site which should be saved. 8. There is no information regarding fire protection available for review; accessibility to emergency vehicles does not appear to be a problem. 9. The site is listed as a significant wetlands area according to the Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Special consideration should be given to maintaining the integrity of the wetlands adjacent to the stream. 10. A major source of concern regarding the project is the issue of 2 principal uses and structures on one lot. Problems will arise in the future when either of these uses are sold. Someone many want to buy the apartments but not the office or buy the office building but not the apartments. To prevent problems down the line, the property on ~ich the office building is to be built should be subdivided from the larger portion of the property that contains the apartment complex. Staff believes that the proposed office building should not be considered until the property is subdivided." ØGIlIØR ~ 14 -- --- Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, September 16,1992, "Dear Mr. Parisi: Rist-Frost has reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments. 1. The handicapped parking space needs to be 8 feet wide with an 8 foot wide access aisle. 2. The test pit data indicates depth to bedrock at 38 inches. The sewage disposal system design does not maintain the 48 inch vertical separation between the absorption bed and bedrock as required by NYSDEC guidelines. The sewage disposal system design needs to address the depth to bedrock issue. Rock may also limit excavation for setting the septic tank consistent with the grading plan. 3. Regarding the grading plan: a. The proposed 321 and 322 contours at the office entrance driveway do not tie-in to existing contours on the grading plan. b. A proposed 320 contour that ties-in to existing contours needs to be developed to the north of the area to be graded. The 35 foot buffer between the stream and the limits of disturbance needs to be maintained. c. The north SWM detention basin berm requires side slopes no steeper than 3:1 and an eight foot minimum top width per Queensbury design standards. Proposed contours around the SWM detention basin should reflect this. The 35 foot buffer between the stream and the limi ts of disturbance for the SWM detention basin and outlet culvert must remain undisturbed. 4. Regarding stormwater management: a. The proposed inlet and outlet invert elevations of proposed culverts should be indicated on the plan. b. construction of the auxiliary spillway should be specified. c. It is unacceptable to deposit cleared snow in SWM basins. A note to this effect should appear on the drawings if physical site conditions cannot be provided that preclude improper on-site storage of cleared snow. The smaller SWM detention basin to the south of the proposed building will be adversely impacted by snow plowing for Canterbury woods Drive and the proposed office driveway by the nature of basin location. This should be addressed in terms of site layout and SWM basin location. d. The SWM basin berm construction detail should be corrected to conform to comment 3c. e. In general, runoff projections made in the SWM report should include anticipated increases in runoff from modifying ground cover from brush and woods to grass or impervious surfaces. RUnoff will norma 11 y increase when brush or woody vegetation is removed. f. Bay Road and Canterbury WOods Drive pavements will be tributary to drainage Area 1 and should be addressed in calculations to properly size SWM facilities. g. Time of concentration values should be demonstrated by calculations. The values given in the SWM report appear longer than wOuld be expected for proposed conditions with extensive impervious surfaces. h. CD.lculations demonstrating appropriate design of principal and auxiliary detention basin spillways should be provided." MR. MARTIN-Okay, and we have Karren County approving upon concurrence with local conditions. Do we have someone here from the applicant? MR. LEVACK-Good evening. My name is Mark Levack. I'm here acting as agent on behalf of the applicant, Dr. Kook Jung, and I'm here to address everyone of the issues that we have before us, from Tom Yarmowich' s letter, and from the Town of Queensbury's staff recommendations. we feel, going over these recommendations, that we're in a position to address and answer to the Board's satisfaction answers to these questions and to tha t purpose, I've brought Jon Lapper alon g wi th me, and Jack Huntington, the engineer on the property, so if you have any questions regarding the current state of the complex, or any of the engineering issues that were brought up by Tom Yarmowich, Jack Huntington can comment on those this evening. MR. MARTIN-aka y. MRS. PULVER-I have a couple of questions, before we get into it. Melinda owns the propert y? MR. LEVACK-Correct. MRS. PULVER-Is she leasing the property to Dr. Jung to build a building? MR. LEVACK-No. MRS. PULVER-She is selling the property to him? MR. LEVACK-She is selling the entire complex, and this approval for a 2,000 square foot office building, the sale is contingent upon the approval of the 2,000 square foot office building. MRS. PULVER-Contingent upon him getting this. Okay. MRS. TARANA-She's selling the property with the apartments on it, too? 15 ~ MR. LEVACK-That's correct. She's selling 38.38 acres, and as a contingency to that sale, we're requiring a 2,000 square foot office building. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is that it, Carol? MRS. PULVER-Yes, well that answers my question about having it subdivided, that, I mean, it would be pointless to have her subdivide it when he wants to buy the whole thing and put his office building on it, as well. MR. LEVACK-Yes. It would be the purchaser's office building. He is not "ping to be leasing this to anybody else. It is going to be his personal practice. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Well, I was just a little unclear as to whether they were leasing him the property and he was building it. I have no problem with what you've just told me. MR. LEVACK-Thank you. I'd be happy to "p down each one of these items, if you'd like to start from Item Number One and go down through it, Item by Item, because we feel we have the necessary people here to address satisfactory answers to every one of these questions. MR. MARTIN-Right. Is that all right with the Board? pressing? Do you Kant to continue on like that? IS there anything else MRS. TARANA-I wanted to ask one question, just so I don't forget Environmental Assessment Form, on Page Three, Project Description, that it was three 8 units and two 6 unit multiple families. it. In '.Pur you have put MR. LEVACK-That currently exists on the property right now. On the 38 acres down Canterbury Drive, there are. MRS. TARANA-I thought this Section KaS supposed to describe the project that you were proposing? NO? MR. LEVACK-We11, technically speaking, it is a part of the project that we're proposin g, beca use we are not 100kin g for a subdi vi sion here. We're puttin g it all on the same parcel. MRS. TARANA-Yes, I realize that. I'm just wondering r.J1ere the office is described. MRS. PULVER-I think he's only describing r.J1at's already there because the office is not there. MRS. TARANA-But the proposal is to construct an office there. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Am I reading this wrong, Lee? MRS. yORK-No. you are reading it absolutely correctly. The EAF is a document designed to assist in determining kilether the action proposed may have significant environmental impacts. So, it should be detailed in there. MRS. TARANA-In other words, you particular project, the description of it is not in the EAF. JACK HUNTINGTON MR. HUNTINGTON-My name is Jack Huntington with Morse Engineering. I believe that it's detailed on the front, in the opening conunents of the Part I, Site Description. MRS. TARANA-I guess my point is just that we should have this form correct, right? MRS. yORK-I would agree with you. MR. HUNTINGTON-In that spot where it asks for existing conditions, we put existing condi tions . MRS. TARANA-No. This is Project be your office buildin g. I just it has to have something changed description is being described on Description. Project Description, which would want to make sure the form is correct. Maybe there, but it doesn't sound like the project there. I think it's probab1 y just a simple 16 - --- matter of changing your project and putting it on that line, but I think that it should be done if it's not correct. MR. LEVACK-We wanted to be sure that we covered every detail of the project, and that means that there are currently existing office buildings on the property. MRS. TARANA-I see what you're getting at, but I just think the project has got to be there as ~11. MR. HUNTINGTON-The Project Description requests, in their request, H., if residential, the number and type of housing units. Initially, three 8 unit and two 6 unit. Ultimately, there'll be three 8 unit and two 6 unit residential units there. There will be, it doesn't ask for this building in that spot. MRS. TARANA-So, that's not what you're describing as already being there? You said, ultimately, there will be. MR. LEVACK-Yes. MR. HUNTINGTON-We put here wha t was asked for, oka y. It doesn't ask for informa tion on what we're doing, at that stage. It asks, if residential, state the number and type of housin g uni ts, and we did. Ini tia11 y, there's three 8 unit and two 6 unit apartments. Ultimately, there will still be that many. We're not changing that. There is no place here to state what we're doing. MRS. TARANA-My feeling is probably 8 just isn't an ans~r, because you're not building. It looks, when you read this, like you are building three 8 units and two 6 units, and I don't think that that's what you kBnt to have there. I think you probably just want to take that out. MRS. PULVER-No. I'm reading that just the opposite. of the project. That's already there, part MRS. yORK-The project is not residential, is what Mrs. Tarana is saying. So, if we could just eliminate that. Okay. MR. MARTIN-Oka y. yes, wh y don't you take us through your items there. We have one through ten on the Staff Ct>mments. We'll start there. MR. LEVACK-Okay. I'm going to have Jack Huntington come up and we'll just go through these item through item. The first item is saying that the applicant has not provided any information regarding the size or location of the building. Would you like to address that? MR. HUNTINGTON-The size and the location of the building is on the plan. The proper setbacks are noted. It's a 2,000 square foot building, that's 30 by 67, so they are on the plan. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think they were probably mostly alluding to the elevations and the building appearance. Ct>u1d you just describe what the appearance is going to be? Are we looking at wood frame construction and? MR. LEVACK-We are looking at wood frame construction, and we talked a little bit about the type of building that's going to be built, and he has thrown around a couple of different ideas. I think he's opting more tOkBrds a conservative looking cultural professional building, something along a similar vein with Bay Optical. He's looking to do a handsome architecturally pleasing building. Because of the time constraints that we've been faced with, I'm trying to get this application approved. He hasn't elected to try to hire an architect and get a building design or choose a building at this point, but I would like to emphasize that I think his goal for the project is to do a stately handsome cultural professional office building. MRS. yORK-Yes. Bay Road is a very visible corridor in the Town, and was designated as a community center, ultimately, in the zoning. So, it is very relevant here that the Board look at or try to define exactly what type of building and facade it will be. So, that's why the question has come up. MR. LEVACK-SUre. I understand the reason behind the question. I'm tr yin g to describe why we haven't had the time to put together that, at this point in time, and I'm trying to get a little background as to what his intentions are. Are you asking me that, for approval this evening, we need to have elevations? If 17 - --- that's the case, then I can't answer that question at this point in time, but I can address his desires and his wishes, and he'd be more than happy to sit down with the Town to address any type of architectural plans that we might have at a future point in time. MRS. PULVER-The Town doesn't have an archi tectural review board. MR. LEVACK-Well, it should, I guess. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think Lee raises a good point. This is as close as we can get to that under our existing mechanisms that we have. We have already an established theme with the Hughes Development further down the street where there's some commercial office buildings in there and I think to pick up on that same theme would be a nice decision, in terms of what the Town would like to see, or at least for me anyhow. MR. LEVACK-Is it sufficient to say, at this time, that if we conform more strictly wi th the character of cul tural professional office, wi thin the Ba y Road corridor, specific to the Bay Road corridor. MR. RUEL-I'd like to see a schedule, a rendering of the proposed building, rather than just talk about it. MRS. PULVER-We've never required that, though, of any applicant. definitely be setting a precedent. We would MRS. yORK-The Board can require that, and it's something I think this Board has been working toward, to a great extent, with some of the architect that we've seen in the past year and a half, I think it would be a benefi t to the communi t y if we did start looking a little harder at some of. MR. RUEL-I highly recommend it. MR. MACEWAN-Have any conceptual designs been done so far? Nothing on paper at all? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. LEVACK-I'd like to add at this point in time that I feel that as agent on behalf of the applicant, I feel qualified to say that we could make that a contingency of Final approval this evening, that the Board review the architectural. Again, I'm trying to emphasize, along the way here, the time constraint particular to this deal, that has reall y got us under the gun for time, here, and we'd be happy to satisfy any type of contingent approvals that may require final review of architectural renderings. MR. RUEL-If you can get an artist's drawing in a couple of days. MR. LEVACK-Well, again, whether it's a couple of days or it's prior to his building in the spring, I think as long as it's made as a contingency to final approval, as a contingency this evening for the final approval, I think we can satisfy the Town's request on tha t . MR. MARTIN-All right. Would you continue on, please. The second comment regarding the driveway and so on. MR. BREWER-Wait contingency that toni ght . a minute, Jim. I think this is important here, because the Mark's asking for is outlined in this letter that Bob gave us MR. LEVACK-Well, if you're trying to set a precedent by requesting us to submit full renderings or elevations prior to an approval, I would say that we might be able to avoid that by, again, making a contingency based on a final approval this evening. MR. MARTIN-Well, the only problem I have with that is if you're going to make a contingent approval like that and then have to come back before the Board anyhow, you're not going to, in effect, have an approval. you're going to have something that's tabled until the Board, if that is the Board's wish to see a rendering, then there's going to be no approval. It will be a tabling until the elevation is looked at an accepted, if that's ultimately, what the Board decides they would like to see. 18 -- -- MR. LEVACK-Well, again, I'd just like to address that question by saying that I feel that the doctor's desire to build something in conformance with the character of Bay Road and his desire to build a handsome stately architecturally pleasing building would be on a par or greater to the quality of office buildings on Bay Road. That's my understanding of what his goal is here. I don't know what more I can conunent on that, other than sa ying that we talked at length to the type of quality of building he wants to put up there, and I'm satisfied that it's going to meet or beat anyone's expectations on Bay Road. MR. MlJRTIN-I agree, that's all you ~ say at this time, but again, if the Board decides that they'd like to see an elevation, then that's something that's going to kick in a tabling. I'll tell you that right now, flat out. MR. LEVACK-Well, us this evening. then I would request that the Board not make that request of I would like to proceed on. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, that's vi'ly, I want to go through the list here, and I'm making notes of those things that appear to be an issue, and we'll hash those out here at the end, but lets continue on and see how far we can get. MR. LEVACK-SUre. The second item is the applicant has, we've gone over that. Well, lets back up to Number One, the applicant has not provided any information regarding lighting on the site. I will say that the lighting will be on the building itself. That's vi'lere we're addressing that. The location of the building on the site meets the setback requirements. MRS. yORK-Okay. Excuse me. Will there be lighting on the signage on the site also, and will lighting reflect into Bay Road? MR. LEVACK-To my knowledge, he does not have any desires to light the sign on Bay Road. MRS. YORK-Oka y. MR. LEVACK-He's talked a little bit about a wood sign, a wood carved sign, a wood professional shingle, and he has not talked at all about lighting the sign on Bay Road. He has talked about putting floodlights off of the north end of the building to light the parking lot. MR. MlJRTIN-Oka y. MR. RUEL- I have a question here. On your proposed buildin g outline, there's sort of an entrance-way in the front. Is that a separate entrance? MR. LEVACK-That' s correct. MR. RUEL-Well, then, Mr. Chairman, shouldn't the setback be up to that vestibule or whatever it is, rather than up to the building? MR. MlJRTIN-I think, typically, the setback is either the eave of the building or the building wall itself. It's the eave of the building? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. LEVACK-That' s not a vestibule. MR. HUNTINGTON-That's just a step to get up to the. MRS. YORK-Right. I just want to speak to the issue of floodlights, especially along a highly traveled corridor. I can understand his desire to light a parking lot, but we have to assure ourselves that the lights will not interfere with traffic and traffic flow. MR. LEVACK-Sure. MRS. YORK-And that has to be a concern of the Board. That's why, as part of the review process, we look at lighting. MR. HUNTINGTON-The lighting we anticipate will be what they call a wall pack, and it's a directional lighting. It could be directed toward the parking lot. It wouldn't interfere with the lighting on Bay Road. 19 -- -- MRS. YORK-Okay. That would have to be something that the Board would want to stipu1a te. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, are we all through with Comment One? To answer !pur question, Roger, the setback line is typically drawn from the eave of the building. MR. RUEL-So, any structure in front of the building doesn't count? MR. MARTIN-Not in terms of a step, a porch is different, but a. MR. RUEL-What is this structure? MR. MARTIN-That is a step or a stoop into the building. MR. RUEL-Just an open area. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Lets continue on. MR. LEVACK-Okay. The project includes a 20 foot drive. That is correct. The drive will carry traffic flow into and out of the site. That is correct. The drive will intersect with the existing drive for apartment complex which exists on Bay Road. That is correct. The stop sign should be placed at the intersection of the apartment driveway and the office building drive. We do agree with that, and we do intend on placing a stop sign at that intersection. MR. MARTIN-I think he's actually calling for two, one at the driveway of the apartment and also at the driveway of the office building. MR. LEVACK-I think that's an additional comment that's well taken, and one should be placed there as well, so people don't just drive right out onto Bay Road. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. LEVACK-I think we've satisfied Number Two. Number Three, the requirements for the office buildings is one space for every 150 square floor area. That is correct. The proposal includes 15 parking spaces, one handicapped. That is correct, which meets the code requirements. parking feet of 14 plus MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't think there's an y comments to address in Number Three. MR. LEVACK-Okay. Then we'll just go on to Number Four. Number Four, the pedestrian traffic could be a concern with the project as proposed. That may be correct. pedestrians would have to walk through the actual parking area behind the parked cars in order to get in the building. In doing this, pedestrians are at risk of being struck by cars backing out and pulling in to the parking area. To remedy this situation, a sidewalk should be placed on the eastern side of the parking area, running the length of the parking lot to the building. We don't agree with this in theory, but we wonder why buildings are being approved today without making that a requirement, and we wondered why we're being asked to have this as a requirement. MRS. YORK-Maybe it's something that should be considered. (END OF FIRST DISK) 20 -- -- MR. LEVACK-I agree. It should be considered, and I guess my point is just, more or less a point of interest. We're prepared to put a pedestrian easement along that easterly side of the parking lot that would be separate and distinct from the front of the cars, or the rear of the cars, so that pedestrians could have direct access to the building without walking in the parking lot. MRS. YORK-Right. What does Dr. Jung do? MR. LEVACK-He's a psychiatrist. MRS. YORK-Okay, because we were worried about patients, handicapped, wheelchairs. I think it might be a good idea to get the flow of pedestrians away from the traffic corridors. MR. LEVACK-I think that's a good idea. for a parking lots, and walkway as a to running up to the building. So, I parking. As I said, he is prepared to make prov~s~ons separate area from the parking, in addition feel that we've mitigated that issue of the MRS. TARANA-Mark, just to let you know, we did at least one time that I know of, ask that a sidewalk be put in for the apartments over on Meadowbrook, remember, it was the same type of situation. They parked their cars and had to walk to their apartments. So, we did ask that they put a sidewalk. MR. LEVACK-Right. pedestrian traffic I don't disagree with that. concerns. We will address I think it's a good idea to address that satisfactory to the Board. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Item Five, I believe, is dealt with in the Engineer's letter, and Item Six is dealt with in the Engineer's letter. I think the cozmnent in Item Seven is there are mature apple and pine trees currently on the site which should be saved. My question would be, to what extent are they going to be saved? MR. LEVACK-I guess I would say that as the site is cleared for building and parking, special attention should be paid to clearing only those areas that are necessary for septic installation, parking and building. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Item Eight, there's no real cozmnent there. They're saying emergency vehicle access is not a problem. Okay. I have a question to staff for Item Nine. Special consideration should be given to maintaining the integrity of wetlands adjacent to the stream. What kind of special consideration can we give to, during construction or? MRS. YORK-Right. The erosion control standards that are stated in the Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-Okay. you ~uld have no problem with that I assume? MR. LEVACK-Absol utel y not. MR. MARTIN-All right. Item Ten, the cozmnent there, I believe, is summarized in the last sentence. The Staff believes that the proposed office building should not be considered until the property is subdivided, and they've stated the reasoning for that, a major source of concerning regarding the project is the issue of 2 principal uses and structures on one lot. MR. LEVACK-Right. I'm going to let Jon Lapper address that question. JON LAFPER MR. LAFPER-Good evening. To clarify, I represent Melinda Szotyory, who is the present owner of the property. She asked me to come down and answer anything the Board needed to hear about the existing property. I did discuss this with Paul Dusek tonight, briefly. lk1der the circumstances, because there's 38 acres, a very large parcel, and the back is zoned for residential and the front is zoned for professional, wha t' s proposed is totall y in accordance wi th the Ordinance, and there's nothing in the Queensbury Ordinance that requires that you can't have two different principal types of use on the same parcel. I think that there's valid issues with respect to this, in that mostly that has to deal with access. The way this KBS designed was that the existing curb cut would be used. The existing drive is a nice wide drive, suitable for the residences and also suitable for the professional office, and what was intended was that there wouldn't have to be a new curb cut on Bay Road, which we felt what the Board would want, and for that reason, in addition, Kook Jung, the purchaser, is looking to own an apartment complex 21 -- and also to have his office there. He has no intention of, or no desire to subdivide it at this time, because he wants to own both. Obviously, if at some point one was going to be sold, there would have to be subdivision approval. I think that the way this comment is written, and with all due respect, I think it's speculative to say that problems will arise in the future if either of these uses are sold. Right now, obviously, it would have to be sold as one piece of property with professional office in front and apartment complex in the back, and there's nothing wrong with that, and if the doctor wanted to do something else at that point he'd have to come before this Board and asked for subdivision approval, 38 acres there's a very big distance between the buildings, existing apartment building and the proposed office building. There's a lot of leeway for this Board to make any kind of conditions that it would want to make at that time. I just would argue that it's not appropriate to require that he subdivide it at this point, since his plans don't require it. He's lookin g to own both, and there's nothin g in the Ordinance that mandates that you can't have two principal uses on a parcel, certainly a 38 acre parcel. MR. MARTIN-Well, how does everyone feel about that? This is more of a philosophical planning issue here more than it is a hard and fast. MRS. yORK-If I could just interject. you're absolutely correct. There is nothing in the Ordinance that prohibits this at all, and that's a given. The Staff's concern is that, in the very recent past, we have been receiving a lot of requests for variances for substandard lots, where principals uses, a number of principal uses have been allowed on the same site, and ultimately it appears there becomes an opportunity for people to divide up the different uses and sell them. In this particular instance, that may not happen for a very long time, and 38 acres, as g:Ju said, may not be an issue at this time, but in our review of it, we felt it was necessary to bring it to the Board's attention, because it is happening more and more in the Town of Queensbury, and in fact, we intend to talk to the Town Board about maybe changing the Ordinance in this regard, simply because of what we're seeing in substandard lots being created and variances having to be issued because of the fact that numerous different uses are allowed on site, okay. It was just an opportunity to bring this to the Board's attention. MR. MARTIN-Right. So ~at you're thinking, a change to the Ordinance something to the effect of only one principal use per lot? MRS. yORK-Right. We would like the opportunity, at some future date to discuss this with the Planning Board and get your thoughts on this matter, because it is becomin g, as land gets more and more dear in the Town, it is becomin g a problem that we're all going to have to deal with. MR. LAFpER-Mr. Chairman, generically, theoretically, I agree that that's an issue, and I can think of different places in the Town ~ere, here, because of the size of the lot, there's certainly no under-size issue. There's a ~ole bunch of property between Bay Road and this complex. What I'd like to explain to the Board, which is not at all your problem, but my client's problem, just to tell you ~y Mark's been pushing this thing, trying to push this thing through. Obviously, it's never my position to hElnt to come to a Board and tell you that we've got some reasons ~y we want this thing to be done quickly. That's not a good posture for an applicant to take. My client, Melinda Szotyory, is a widow. Her husband, Ed Grahl, had somewhat of a notorious reputation in the Town for managing this complex. He died of cancer about a year and a half ago, and in the last year of his life, under the influence of a lot of drugs, it could be argued. He was just a strange duck, got into a lot of problems with some of his tenants, people didn't pay rent, because of how he maintained the place, there were a lot of issues that Dave Hatin had to deal with. He passed away. Melinda had never had anything to do with managing the complex. She was put in the position ~ere she had to become a businessr;.t)man very quickly. There were a lot of issues, a lot of site issues that had to be dealt with, and in the last year and a half, she managed to get the place back on its feet. There were, I think, nine vacancies, and a ~ole bunch of tenants that weren't paying the rent when she took over. Now, it's fully leased, everyone's paying their rent, Dave Hatin' s satisfied. A lot of improvements had to be made, and they have been made. At this point, because of the problems with her husband, she's in ~rkout situation with her bank, and it's very likely that it's very quickly going to be put into a foreclosure situation. The fact that Kook Jung came along and was looking to build an office building in that corridor of the Town and was in a position financially, and it was his interest in owning the apartment complex as well, he was real stable for Melinda, and at this point, we have a contract that's contingent upon site plan approval, and it's important that site plan approval be granted. certainly the Board has a lot of valid issues. It's my un derstan din g tha t Jack Hun tin gton talked in grea t detail wi th Tom Yarmowich, and ever ythin g, 22 '- ~ with the exception of this issue, Number Ten, that the applicant is prepared to make all those changes, and what we're asking for is that it would be contingent upon Tom's review of the plan that we've submitted. We're willing to do everything that's on the list. with respect to the first issue, as to the site elevation, which we all know is nothing that's been required in the Town in the past, in an effort to satisfy the Board on this issue, which is an important issue, but also not to hold this up, and because Kook Jung doesn't intend to have this designed until this spring, what I'd like to suggest is that you include a condition that the architecture be compatible with the existing office park right down Bay Road, which are those buildings that look like residences, somewhat of a colonial residential style, that that might protect this Board. Obviously, this is my client's problem and not this Board's problem, and you have to do what's best, but that's my suggestion. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, how does everrpne feel about Comment 10? MR. RUEL-I'd like to delete it. MRS. PULVER-I don't believe it's an issue. He's buying the whole complex. MR. MARTIN-I appreciate your position and I agree, philosophically, that this is something that's got to be addressed. !!1l. belief anyhow is I don't know where we're grounded in the Ordinance to enforce this type of thing, if enforce is the right word, but impose this sort of measure on the applicant. MRS. PULVER-I think Lee is right. start with changing the Ordinance, when this happens in the future. Tha t ' s ~ere it shou1 d start, though. It shou1 d and then tha t gi ves us somethin g to work wi th , MRS. yORK-Right. MRS. PULVER-So we should get together and brainstorm a little bit. MRS. yORK-I think a workshop session is really needed. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, in terms of the engineering here, and this, again, is, for me persona11 y, as a 1a y person on a lot of these thin gs, I'd like to see Tom Yarmowich satisfied, because he's my defense, or my expert in this, and I see some things here, I'm encouraged to here that you've had a conversation with him. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, I have. MR. MARTIN-And that these things can be worked out, but I would like some indication from him about that directly, for me personally. MR. BREWER-I would agree. I would like to see it in writing that Tom has had all these things satisfied. MR. MAR TIN- I know, theoretica11 y, these thin gs can be worked out and you're both in a greemen t on tha t . MR. BREWER-I don't think we've really done that in the past, give contingent approval upon the engineering comments, until Tom has satisfied. MRS. PULVER-Yes, we have, contingent upon Tom signing off that all engineering has been addressed. MRS. yORK-Well, what I would suggest to the Board is perhaps tabling this for a week. MR. BREWER-How about Tuesday. MR. MARTIN-I was just going to say, we're in a fortunate position of having two meetings next week, Tuesday and Thursday night. Depending on how :J2E!:... schedule can jibe with Tom's, to have these issues addressed and a letter written back to the Board from Tom sa yin g tha t every thin g can be addressed and you've amended your mylar. We have several things, not only this, the engineer's, but all the things we've talked about here in the Staff comments, maybe we can see this again next Tuesday or Thursday, and that will help your time frame. MR. HUNTINGTON-If we can be put on the agenda for Thursday, I would appreciate it. 23 '- MR. MARTIN-Yes, I would think that would be best. I think Tuesday would probably be pressing them, and maybe you, for that matter. MR. HUNTINGTON-Tom, when I talked to him today, he said, I think everything you ¡.,ant to do is feasible on the site. MR. MARTIN-Right. Well, I think you're in the fortunate position, here, of knowing now you have a quantitative list of what the concerns are, and we're certainly not g:;ing to keep throwing things at you vilen you come back next time. This, I believe, is a comprehensive list. If not, we'll make sure you have tha t before you leave tonight. MR. HUNTINGTON-If you have a letter that says Tom has no corranents, then I won't have to be here. MR. MARTIN-SO, does anybody else have anything to offer from the Board? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here from the public vilo'd wish to corranent on this application? 1!UBLIC IÆARIf#; OPlJ.fQþ MR. MARTIN-If not, I think I'm going to leave it open, if we're going to be looking at a tabling, here. MR. BREWER-Where do he stand with the side¡.,a1k? I don't know the answer to that question. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to see the side¡.,a1k in, myself. MR. LEVACK-I think we've agreed to put the sidewalk in. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Is that the general feeling of the Board? Okay. MR. HARLICKER-Excuse me. I'd just like to clarify something, here. chan ges goin g to be on a revised si te plan tha t you'll submi t to us, the and the landscaping and lighting and everything will be on a revised plan? Are these vegeta tion MR. LEVACK-The vegetation and landscaping plan has already been submitted to the Beautification Corranittee, and has been approved. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Would you get us a copy of it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. What we'll do, Scott, in the context of a resolution, is we'll frame in a time for them to respond to Jl£.!:!£ office with the revised plan, by a certain date and time. MR. HARLICKER-Oka y. MRS. TARANA-I'd like to see some kind of a sketch plan of the building and what it's going to be, if that's at all possible, and the lighting. MR. MARTIN-Okay, the lighting plan, location of lighting and notations that it won't shine into the road and that type of thing. Can something be worked up in terms of a general elevation or a sketch plan? MR. LEVACK-I'll talk to him and see what I can do on that. He may be in a position to make a decision on that between now and the next meeting. MR. MARTIN-Even if it were somethin g of a model, an example, just somethin g for the Board to get a general idea. MR. LEVACK-We'll have an idea vilether it's going to be a ranch plan, a cape plan, a colonial plan. MR. MARTIN-Right. That type of thing kOu1d be very helpful. MR. LEVACK-And try to make it as specific as he can, without the. MR. MARTIN-What type of siding treatment are we looking at, color scheme, just in general. Anything else? All right. Does someone have a resolution to offer? 24 '-- -- I think we're lookin gat a tab1in g for a week from toda y, and I'd like the reso1 ution to site a date and time for the applicant to respond. Why don't we get that out of the way right now. Again, how much time do you need to review? MR. HARLICKER-If we could get it by Tuesday. MR. HUNTINGTON-We will have our engineering ready by wednesday morning. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. If we could get everything by Wednesday morning. MR. MARTIN-Okay, because it has to go through your office first before it goes on to Tom. MR. HARLICKER-Oka y. MR. HUNTINGTON-Could I get permission to converse with Tom on this as kE go. MR. MARTIN-Sure. you don't need permission. MR. HUNTINGTON-And could I take a copy of what we're doing over to him to review with him before I submit it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Anything you kBnt to do in a draft form or anything like that is fine, but I definitely want it to go through the Planning Office and then they can distribute it around to the appropriate commenting agencies. MR. HUNTINGTON-I want to get Tom's okay on my drawing before I bring it up here. MR. MARTIN-Right, and Scott will then confirm that it's been seen by Tom. Okay. Does anybody have anything else? DOes someone have a resolution? I'll leave the public hearing open, and we'll accept a resolution for tabling. MarION ro rABLB SI'Bl PLAN NO. 39-92 DR. ROOK JURG, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy BrekEr: Tabled until september 24th, with the Staff comments sent in by Tuesday the 22nd, and the Engineering comments by Wednesday the 23rd, to the Planning Department, by 2 p.m. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. RUe1, Mr. BrekEr, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (8:50 p.m.) BREAK SIrB PLM NO. 42-92 'WM II fiR-IA R:ICa:MD & IUBB aBL amø.: S1III. AS ABCNIl BARRIS BAY - BlJ.7JiØJl RœØt' SU1iMr 1'!RONRft' M'D YltCft CUJB. FOR A øu1'ArB MlAr l1lJCK. USE Ræ(Jl1IØ;S SID PUllf UVDN. (fiJlRRJlJ1/ COlIWB PliAlØIII6J DIK NAP lI/lJ. 10-1-1.52 UR SlZ.~ 2.68 ICRlJfS sø:'1t~ 179-16 RICHARD BELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:03 p.m.) $ØiFF I1I/I!O'Il' Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-92, Richard & Irene Bell, September 14, 1992, Meeting Date: September 17, 1992 "project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a 42' lon g 8' wide dock extendin g into Lake George. The dock will be a combination of floating sections and span sections. site Plan Standards: The only site plan standard that is applicable to this project is the standard concerning site compatibility. The dock will be compatible with all existing structures on the lot, the docks on adjacent propert y and the structures on the adjacent property. It is very similar in construction to the dock used by the adjacent property owners. The dock will also have a 12' section that will serve as an access ramp to the dock. The access will help prevent unnecessary pedestrian traffic and erosion on the shoreline adjacent to the dock." MR. HARLICKER-It M3S difficult to tell from the site plan it's proximit y to the propert y line, if you look on the si te plan. 25 -' MR. MARTIN-We were at the site, and the property line, I know this ~s up before us for subdivision just last winter or so, and the lot line goes right to the corner of that small boat ramp there in the water, and we saw the wood posts there depicting the boundar y of the lot. We have just, Warren Count y approves wi th no conunen t. We have someone here from the applicant all the way from Long Island. MR. BELL-My name is Richard Bell. We have received a permit from the Lake George Park Conunission for the boat dock. MR. MARTIN-The only question I had, in being there at the site, was, it was hard to tell, there I s a wetland area there between the hard and firm shore and the wa ter itself. Is this 12 foot ramp meant to extend over the wetland and then go on to the dock, so it won 't disturb the wetlands? MR. BELL-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That was the only issue I saw. Does anybody have anything else they want to ask? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Is there anyone here from the public to conunent on this application? PflBLIC lII/J:ifRIlfG 0PllUf1 NfJ CfMKØI1f ~LIC 11IJ:IIRDIG Q¿œD MR. MARTIN-Oka y. I guess, then, we I re ready for disposi tion . IIMT(Jlf fa ~ SIr. PLM /110'. 42-92 RICllMlJ & DIÐIÆ ULL, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Crai g MacEwan: For the construction of a dock. Duly adopted this 17th day of september, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. RUe1, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (9:07 p.m.) $IU P£M Nfl'. 43-92 rYM~ ~ U-11t JfINDII SHM/ælJZamtB GM/:£D t/MlI/IJR: n:ttU IIIClUIJIl) lif(JI:A'Ø!llJI/~ 144 1/2 .Rn'_ snœn 20 o.NRArB It 1lS$:Ð CM SM;Æ;$ ldIJr. uæ J6IfllIr .APEtfOfl'D I/II 'llB ZCME. r.AK M» lI/f/t. 112-1-38.2 LfJ'.r .snll~ 9.15 4ICRæ sø:1lJl!/)J¡ ~ 179-26 JOE BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT ST:ØI'F IlI8!Or Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 43-92, John Sha w/E1izabeth Ga. u1in, september 14, 1992, Meeting Date: September 17, 1992 "The site plan review is to operate a used car sales lot . The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance for this use which is not allowable in an LI-1A zone. The variance granted was for a maximum of 8 cars. A condition IJ1ich was agreed upon by the applicant was that there would be no repairs or junk cars at the site. The site is on River Street and was existing as a used car sales lot 3 years ago when the use was discontinued. The parcel is very small and contains a garage which is +28 feet from the Right-of-Way. The ingress and egress is directly from the street. The applicant stated at the Zoning Board meeting that traffic should not be an issue since only a maximum of 8 cars will be on site for sale. There is anticipated to be one employee. The only activity will be to clean the cars and prepare them for sale, no repair or chemical use is intended. All signage will conform to the Town of Queensbury sign ordinance. The application ~s reviewed with regard to the criteria for site plan review. 1. All facilities are existing on the site so the location, arrangement, and size of the structure, etc. is not an issue. Signage will conform to the Town code." Lighting ~s not really addressed, and I think you should discuss it with the applicant. "2. Vehicular access is a concern but there are not any alternatives. 3. Parking appears sufficient. 4. Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5. All facilities are existing so storm drainage is not an issue. 6. Water and se~ge facilities are not an issue. 7. The site is developed. The Beautification Conuni ttee met 26 - with the applicant and approved his plan. 8. Fire and emergency access is off of River Street. 9. Since everything is existing, ponding and erosion control are not an issue." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. The County notation is "No County Impact", and we have minutes, I believe, from the Beautification Commi ttee, of August 10th, and it's cited as Use Variance No. 90-1992. I believe they made a motion for approval. Okay. All right. Do we have some here from the applicant? MR. BRENNAN-My name is Joe Brennan. I'm an attorney here in Glens Falls, and I represent the applicant. I believe the applicant's application has been thoroughly stated as to the events that transpired from when the variance was granted. There's a lease agreement in effect, here, which also limits the number of vehicles that can be placed for sale on the lot. The variance granted was limited to the duration of the lease or any extension to the lease. In other words, at such time as the present applicant would in fact operate it. with regard to the lighting, as Lee York indicated, my understanding from Mr. Shaw is that there are two lights that are existing with regard to the building, one is actually on the building that projects light toward River Street itself. There's a second light that is already existing that faces generally west. Mr. Shaw has no intention to place any additional lights or change the lighting pattern, of course, that would be subject to your approval. Any questions that you have, I would be glad to try and answer them. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Does an yone ha ve an y question they'd like to ask. MR. RUEL-I have a question. If there will be no repairs, where will you be making repairs to these cars? MR. BRENNAN-Mr. Shaw has another business on Main Street in Hudson Falls where he does the repair work and also autobody work, and anything that needed to be done of that nature would either be done at that facility or at some other site. This site is to be strictly used for cleaning and preparation of the vehicles for sale, and the actual sale. There would only be one employee there. MR. RUEL-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Anything else. MR. MACEWAN-You said that his lease was restricted to having a maximum of eight cars on the lot? MR. BRENNAN-Eight is the number. MR. MACEWAN-That was one of our concerns. MR. BRENNAN-And that was also a specific condition of the granting of the variance, that it would be limited to a maximum of eight cars. MR. MACEWAN-And they will be parked in that sort of grassy area to the west. MR. BRENNAN-The area would be, essentially, to the west of it, between the actual existing structure and Zack's, yes. MRS. PULVER-Does Mr. Shaw have any plans in the future, if his business should rea11 y take off and he finds tha t now he's got 12 cars and not 8 cars? Has he made a provision as to what he's going to do with the extra cars? MR. BRENNAN-Well, I think that the limitation would be imposed under the lease agreement, as well as the variance. I think it would be inadvisable for Mr. Shaw to have more than eight cars on the lot. He buys the cars, generally, on a weekly basis from the auctions. If the business should go to the extent, we'd probably be looking for another site after the expiration of this lease, which is only two years. MR. MARTIN-The lease is only for two years. Okay. Does anybody have anything else. Okay. I'll open the public hearing on this. Is there anyone from the public wishing to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPBlIED NO C(MJŒJfT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 27 '- '- MR. MARTIN-I think Carol's ready to take us through the SEQRA form. RBSOW'rION fiUN DBØRJIINMIOlf OF NO SIGlfIFICNfCB IS lIAI1B RBS(JUl'~IOlIlIO. 43-92, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the the Planning Board an application for: 7lO sell used cars on River Street:, 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 zm1isted 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 vilether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in section 617.11 of the Official Compi1a tion of codes, Rules and Regula tions for the state of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by the this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. pul ver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Rue1, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. MARTIN-Okay. Any further comment on the application in general? Okay. Does someone want to offer a resolution? lIUTION TO APPROVE SI'rE PLlUI NO. 43-92 JOHN SIUJIi/BLIZABBrB GAULIN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To operate a used car sales lot on l44~ River Street. the amount of cars to be eight, and no repairs on site. The only stipulation being Du1 y adopted this 17th da y of september, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Rue1, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (9:16 p.m.) On motion meeting ~s adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 28