Loading...
1993-05-20 SP ',-- -./ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MAY 20TH. 1993 INDEX MEETING SEQRA Review Site Plan No. 20-93 Site Plan No. 22-93 Site Plan No. 23-93 Andrea Gray 2. Gerald & Wanda Bulger 3. Lucas S. Wilson 5. Eddy Enterprises. Inc. 18. Subdivision No. 11-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE FLR Partnership 21. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ',,-- ......., QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 20TH. 1993 1:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY CRAIG MACEWAN GEORGE RYAN CAROL PULVER EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT ROGER RUEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. BREWER-I have just a couple of announcements about the agenda. American Equity is off the agenda. Stewarts is off the agenda. McCollister's off. and David and Suzanne Barnes is off the agenda, but we are going to open the public hearing and take any comments. and we'll leave it open. if there's anybody here for that application. Okay. Then we can start right in with the first item. MR. MARTIN-Tim, Mark has a request for a special meeting for American Equity, if you'd like to entertain that. MR. BREWER-I talked to Scott today about. MARK SCHACHNER MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, what we were wondering is if, some of the information was submitted very recently. We'd like a special meeting sometime in the near future. MR. BREWER-When's convenient for you? MR. SCHACHNER-There's a lot of constraints. not of ours, and not really of yours. but because of this room and this building. I think next week is bad. MR. BREWER-Well, we can do it in the Conference Room, can't we. downstairs? MR. MARTIN-Yes. You're better off down there. There's a better chance of getting it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's a good idea. There's one element that's still missing, and that's the traffic study, and that's probably not going to be done for a week to ten days. I think when Scott and I spoke earlier today, we talked about. I believe, some time during the week of June 2nd. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. the second week in June. MR. SCHACHNER-Although, I wasn't sure what was wrong with Thursday, June 3rd? MR. MARTIN-We have meetings that night, that's the Route 254/Route 9 public meetings. MR. BREWER-Okay. - 1 - ~ MR. MARTIN-And the second is a ZBA meeting. MRS. PULVER-What about June 1st? MR. BREWER-No. I can't do it. MR. MARTIN-I think we ought to give time for them to complete their traffic study. MR. SCHACHNER-res. and that makes sense from our standpoint. too. We don't really have a problem. The week of June 7th. if there's a night that's good for you all. we're comfortable with that. MRS. TARANA-The tenth? MR. BREWER-That's fine with me. MRS. PULVER-Craig, the tenth? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. that's fine. MR. MARTIN-June 10th? MRS. CORINNE-Seven o'clock. MRS. PULVER-Yes. seven o'clock. MR. MARTIN-And we'll do a media release. MR. BREWER-And, Mark, any information that you have that we should have, you'll get to us a few days ahead of time? MR. SCHACHNER-Definitely. MR. HARLICKER-You've got everything that we've received from them so far. We got a fax from them yesterday, and that's included in your packets. MR. BREWER-Right. Okay. I guess that's fine. June 10th at seven o'clock. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-You're welcome. CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 13th, 1993: NONE April 20th, 1993: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 13TH. THE SPECIAL MEETING. AND APRIL 20TH. THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1993, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we can get into the agenda. SEORA REVIEW: SEQRA REVIEW ANDREA GRAY SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT. - 2 - ,-. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENS BURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Site Plan for Andrea Gray RESOLUTION NO.: 8 of 1993 INTRODUCED BY: Carol Pulver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Craig MacEwan WHEREAS, Andrea Grav has submitted an application for a site plan in connection with a project known as or described as construction of a 26' x 48' barn, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Andrea Gray for a site plan; 2) a coordinated SEQRA Review is desired; 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA Review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 20-93 TYPE II WR-1A GERALD & WANDA BULGER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE C.E.A. GLEN LK. RD.. 300 YDS. EAST OF QUEENSBURY PARK. JUST EAST OF GLENMORE LODGE. REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT A HANDICAP RAMP FOR SEASONAL CAMP. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 172-1992 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 5/12/93) TAX MAP NUMBER 38-4-12 LOT SIZE: .151 ACRES SECTION: 179-79 E TIM BULGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. Scott. we have no notes? MR. HARLICKER-No. There was nothing really in site plan review that pertains to this. All they're really doing is putting up a handicap ramp for access to the house. - 3 - - MR. BREWER-Okay, and from Warren County. "No County Impact". MR. HARLICKER-The reason this is before you is because it's considered a site plan because it's in a Critical Environmental Area. That's the only reason that it's here. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. BULGER-My name's Tim Bulger. I'm the son of Wanda and Gerald. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'd just like to ask one question. We looked for that and could not find it. Where is the Glenmore Lodge? MR. BULGER-Right next to it. MR. MARTIN-Glenmore Lodge is just down from. MR. BREWER-Sullivan's, what used to be Sullivan's? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Actually, it's closer to the Docksider, isn't it? MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's what I mean. MR. MACEWAN-Just up on the hill. MR. BREWER-Not that I have a problem with you bUilding a ramp. We just couldn't find the. MR. BULGER-Right next to the Glenmore Lodge. MR. BREWER-I couldn't even find the Glemore Lodge. MRS. PULVER-We just weren't familiar with the area. MR. MARTIN-Do you remember going down Glen Lake Road and there was like a white picket fence. and there was lamps on light posts, and there was parking across the street from the lake, in a parking lot? MRS. TARANA-We went all around the area. Lodge? Does it say Glenmore MR. MARTIN-It's hidden, but it's there. MRS. PULVER-My only question is, do we have a diagram of it? MR. BREWER-That's what I have on my notes, here. drawing. I don't have a MRS. PULVER-I mean, I never had a drawing or a diagram or anything. MR. MARTIN-It's in the application. MR. HARLICKER-It's in the application, the back two pages. MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't have the application. problem. That's the MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here from the public who'd like to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 4 - '- -.,.¡' MR. MARTIN-This is a Type II action. There's no SEQRA. MR. BREWER-No SEQRA? Okay. I guess then we just make a motion. Why would he have to come to us because he's in a Critical Environmental Area and not do a SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-Because I think expansion of a nonconforming use in a Critical Environmental Area warrants site plan review, right? MR. BREWER-And no SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-It's replacement of a use in kind. MRS. TARANA-Isn't that considered repairs and maintenance he's just replacing it? I just wanted to ask one thing, application, again, isn't signed. Is it just this copy? isn't. you just want to make sure he does sign it. then. if Jim. My If yours MR. HARLICKER-The one we have is signed. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-93 GERALD & WANDA BULGER. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: To construct a handicapped ramp for their seasonal camp. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 22-93 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 LUCAS S. WILSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: END OF WALKER LN. OFF BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 4-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-14.1 LOT SIZE: 1.461 AC SECTION 179-18 D (1) GARY HUGHES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-93, Lucas Wilson. Meeting Date: May 20, 1993 "Pro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4 unit apartment building on 1.47 acre lot located at the end of Walker Lane. The project will be connected to municipal water and will utilize an on-site septic system. A drive will be extended from the end of Walker Lane to provide access to the site. Pro; ect Anal vsis: The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement. size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The property is currently vacant so compatibility is not a significant problem. However, the elevations submitted with the application seem to indicate that the building will only be finished on the front side; further information is needed regarding the appearance of the bUilding. The siding and shutters should not be limited to the front of the building. The way that the building sits on the site. the fact that there is a main entrance on the back side and the probability that more buildings will be built on the property support the notion that all the sides will be equally attractive. 2. The adequacy of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular access and circulation is adequate. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The applicant is providing the required 8 spaces including one handicapped space. 4. The adequacy and - 5 - ',,--- arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Staff recommends that the plan be reviewed by Rist-Frost for adequacy. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The project will be serviced by municipal water and on-site septic system. The sewage disposal system should be reviewed by Rist- Frost for adequacy. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings landscaping and screening constituting a visual andlor noise buffer between the ap~licant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of eXlsting vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead plants; Staff believes that a hedge should be provided between the drive/parking area and the adjacent property. Consideration should be given to planting some trees in the area between the apartment and the access drive. A landscaped buffer should also be provided between the buildings and the adjacent property line. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and provision of fire hydrants; The fire and emergency access are adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding andlor erosion. There does not appear to be areas that area prone to flooding, ponding or erosion. Summary and Recommendation: Since the potential exists for further development of the site, it can accommodate up to 12 dwelling units, future plans for development should be explained. The approval should be conditioned on Rist- Frost approval of the drainage and stormwater management plan and sewage disposal system." MR. BREWER-Okay. We do have someone here for the applicant. MR. HUGHES-Yes. I'm Gary Hughes, representing Luke Wilson. MR. BREWER-Could I ask you please just to put up a drawing. if you have one with you. Would you care to address any of the notes that Staff has made? MR. HUGHES-Did you want me just to go down through them? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, for example, the finishing of one side. You're obviously going to finish all three sides, or all four sides? MR. HUGHES-Yes. They will all be sided. MR. HARLICKER-Sided with shutters and. MR. HUGHES-I can make note of that. yes. We don't show that on the drawings at this point, but we can do that. MR. HARLICKER-Fine. MR. BREWER-Are there going to be more buildings built on the property? MR. HUGHES-There is potential. At this point, there wouldn't be, but if there is, we would be before the Planning Board for future expansion. At this point. we're just looking at getting this building in. MR. LAPOINT-Did Rist-Frost have time to go over this? MR. HARLICKER-No, they haven't. They just went out today. So that's why Staff is recommending that any approvals be conditioned on their review. MR. MACEWAN-Would it be beneficial if we tabled this. give him plenty of time to respond to all these answers, and give time for Rist-Frost to get back to us? - 6 - ----' MR. LAPOINT-Well, there really isn't, other than Rist-Frost, there's nothing else here. Is there? MR. HARLICKER-Not really, nothing that can't be discussed tonight. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, that's it, right, just the stormwater management plan? MR. HUGHES-That part of the project has been taken care of, at this point, by a licensed engineer, and there is a sealed drawing. It's all been taken care of. It just has to be okayed by Rist-Frost. They haven't seen it yet, but we've had our work done for quite some time. There should be about 14 pages. It's sealed by a licensed engineer for stormwater management, also for the septic. The plot plan should be sealed by a licensed engineer for the septic system, again. MR. LAPOINT-Did we get any other comments from Rist-Frost or anybody else on the meeting tonight? MR. HARLICKER-No. Due to, there was an oversight, and this did not go out with the rest of the, we thought it did, but it didn't. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, it's an internal Town type mishap. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, no fault of the applicant. MR. BREWER-Okay. There is some question about maybe some trees along these borders, and some shrubs, or a hedge. MR. HUGHES-Between the existing neighbor, the Pinchuk property, and. MR. HARLICKER-Well, along both of them. MR. BREWER-Between the apartment and the access drive, between the building and the adjacent property line also. MR. HUGHES-Right. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You don't show anything in that big front yard area there. It would be just nice, maybe put some trees along the drive or something like that, maybe to highlight the drive in the property, or something to dress it up a little bit. MR. HUGHES-Okay. We've shown a couple of maples. If you think that we should have a couple more. or a few more along the front. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, something to make the property a little more attractive, as you're looking at it. MR. HUGHES-We have no problem with that. MRS. PULVER-Did this go to the Beautification Committee? Normally, they would make a recommendation on that. MR. HUGHES-I don't believe we had to do that. MR. MACEWAN-Would you have a problem if we sent this on to the Beautification Committee. with any suggestions, comments that they would make, that you would follow them? MR. HUGHES-Lucas wants to be a good neighbor. He would not have a problem with doing more landscaping. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. We'll send it on to them, and let them make their recommendation. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions? I'll open the public hearing. - 7 - ----- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WILLIAM COOK MR. COOK-My name is William Cook. I'm just wondering what the overall height of the building is, and what size the apartments are, and what kind of tenants are expected to be housed here? MR. HUGHES-The initial plans. the building itself is going to be 25 feet, standard two story wood construction building. Here's a front elevation of the building. What we're looking for, tenants. obviously, he's thinking along the lines, we've checked with real estate people, that the rent would be roughly $600 to $650 a month. He's looking to get long term renters. In other words, retired people, older professional people, but obviously, we can determine who's going to be there or what's going to be there, but that's what he's looking to for the property. MR. COOK-The potential future bUildings will be similar in design? MR. HUGHES-Yes. The property. right now, has the potential of, I believe, 13 units. This has four in there, and again, what we would do is we propose to put this building up, and if he decides to sell it, or go on to develop it. or whatever he decides to do, he needs to corne back before the Planning Board for approval again. MR. MACEWAN-As each phase of his expansion goes. you will all be notified of it, because he'd have to come back for site plan review, for every step of the way. Correct? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-So you will all be notified. MR. COOK-What is the potential width of the driveway into this? There's a hydrant there, at the end of Walker Lane. and then there's the entranceway to the home that's off to the right. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The access on the site plan is 20 feet wide. MR. COOK-That will mean that the hydrant stays in place? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. HUGHES-There's an apple tree that would have to come down. MR. HARLICKER-Probably. MR. COOK-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Is there anyone else? ESTHER DANSKY MRS. DANSKY-My name is Esther Dansky, and I live on DorIon Drive, part of the Baybridge, Queensbury /Baybridge Homeowners Association. Could you explain to us, it's very difficult to see the diagram, coming in Walker Lane, where would this building be, in relationship, your building would be going straight up from Walker Lane? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MRS. DANSKY-Where would this building be? Would it be seen from Walker Lane? MR. HUGHES-Again, Walker Lane is right here. It comes up, and the building is going to be up, it would be off the right as you're corning up the road. okay, and this is quite covered, here, with trees, foliage, whatever, up through this area, and then this was - 8 - "'.-.',,- '- apparently a meadow at one time. MRS. DANSKY-Right. MR. HUGHES-There's quite a bit of eXisting brush, undergrowth, up in here, which we would leave, and what we want to do is we just want to clear, obviously for the sake of cost at this point, is to keep the basic project right here at this point some place. In other words. we don't want to disturb any of this, because obviously the more we disturb. the more we have to fix, replace, blacktop, seed, tree, whatever. MRS. DANSKY-Are there garages? MR. HUGHES-No. MRS. DANSKY-No garages? MR. HUGHES-No. There's eight parking spots, which is what is required for the building. and one handicapped. MRS. DANSKY-Any facilities for children, a play area, what have you? MR. HUGHES-Well, what we have is, basically, out in meadow. which is not, right at this point, we're not anything with it, as far as any type of clearing. leave it, clear as little as possible. here we have a planning to do We'd want to MRS. DANSKY-Could you give us a projected or anticipated rental price for these units? MR. HUGHES-Again, he is looking at around $600 to $650, and he has checked with real estate people. He's bought the property through a real estate agent, and these are the numbers that they're throwing at him right now. and again. he'd like to get the long term renter. He doesn't want to have a lot of vacancies. He'd like to get older professional people, preferably retired people, who might be living there five, six, seven, eight years. MRS. DANSKY-Okay. Thank you. MRS. PULVER-Do you want to just point out, while you're up there, where the BaybridgelDorlon Drive comes out. so you can get a better idea. MR. HUGHES-Right here. MRS. PULVER-It's right there. not looking at the building. left. So it's the end of the road. You're The building would be off more to the MR. HUGHES-This is Walker, and then you take the left. MRS. DANSKY-Okay. PATRICIA DECKER MRS. DECKER-My name is Patricia Decker. I live on Walker Lane. You would be my view, instead of the mountains, if you build this. My comment is that I would be, right now I'm very opposed to this. Naturally. I like looking at the Vermont mountains from my kitchen window. I am a member of the Queensbury/Baybridge Homeowners Association, and I'm also a Board member, and we have very stringent regulations. People aren't allowed to have motorcycles parked outside and campers parked outside. They aren't allowed to a have decks, and this is to keep the value of our property up. In my observations, renters don't take as good care of the properties as owners, and I can see that in Baybridge. and that's not always true, and it seems to me. if there aren't going to be any garages, - 9 - '-- I will be disturbed if I have to look out at a camper or snowmobiles or motorcycles and I guess that's why we were all notified so we could just voice our concerns, and it is a concern of mine. I would prefer that if something were going to be put there. it would be permanent houses that people could own, in my mind. MR. HUGHES-What I have here, and what I've done for Lucas, is I've taken a design very similar to one that my father and brother have in the Village of Hudson Falls. They have four unit apartment buildings, two of them together, on the Boulevard. I don't know if any of you. MR. DECKER-I will go look at that tomorrow. MR. HUGHES-I wish you would. It's down on the Boulevard, okay. Again, they rent to young professional people, again. not discriminating against anyone. There's police officers that live there. nurses, a young lawyer lives in there. They have nice cars. The only toys they might have is maybe they have a boat on the lake. My brother doesn't allow any trailers, snowmobiles, any of that type of thing. All there are are the nice cars parked along the sides of the buildings, and again, we didn't have the parking in the front. We kind of put it on the sides. It's nicely landscaped. The buildings are, not fancy. They're very simple buildings. They're pretty. They're well kept. The lawns are maintained. The shrubs are maintained, and basically, I've taken this and done it along the same lines, and we're going to try to attract the same type of people, and I really wish that you would go down to the Boulevard and look. MRS. DECKER-I will, tomorrow. MR. HUGHES-They're very, very pretty buildings, and you won't see, they don't even look like apartment buildings. MRS. DECKER-Now, this is one point four acres. How many could be built there, approximately? MR. BREWER-Potentially 13 units. MR. HUGHES-Potentially 13. MRS. DECKER-Thirteen? On that small plot of land? MR. HUGHES-Thirteen apartment units, three buildings like this. MR. HARLICKER-Three buildings. MR. HUGHES-Total, could be. At this point, Lucas Wilson is not in the position to do anything like that. and again, if he did, we would have to come again before the Board. MRS. DECKER-Well, I thank you for listening. MR. HUGHES-Thank you very much. ARNOLD DANSKY MR. DANSKY-My name is Arnold Dansky, and I'm Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Queensbury/Baybridge Town homes. I'm curious, if you build thirteen units there, where are you going to put your septic system, and would it be large enough to accommodate 13 units? That's clay. It's very difficult to drain. MR. HUGHES-A couple of things. First of all, we're here tonight to discuss one building. This building here. There's nothing on here for any other buildings, and again, that would have to be at the discretion of another meeting. To be perfectly honest with you, this land will handle it, and it is, the undersoil is sand, - 10 - -- according to Rist-Frost percolation tests, and septics, there is enough room, there is enough permeable space, and all the Codes would be met in an MR-5 area. MR. DANSKY-Do you realize that next door to that is Baybridge Town Home leachfield. MR. HUGHES-Next door, which way, down here? MR. DANSKY-It would be to the south of your building. MR. HUGHES-Right. MR. BREWER-Everything that he puts in there would be on his property. MR. HUGHES-Right. MR. DANSKY-Yes, but I'm saying. does he realize that he's right next to our leachfield. MRS. PULVER-But he's not going to be disturbing it. MR. DANSKY-No. I don't think he would. but it might be disturbing to the people living in those apartments. MR. LAPOINT-Well, there's nothing leaching out on the ground there? MR. DANSKY-No. There's nothing leaching at this point. MR. LAPOINT-We're on Town water here, correct? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And nobody's drinking the? MR. DANSKY-No. MR. MARTIN-It was also proposed, over time, that this be put on the sewer. at some point in time. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Well, I just was just concerned, the word "disturb", I wanted to be sure I understood what you meant by that. by the leachfield disturbing somebody. MR. DANSKY-Well. I thought if there was any leach, the odor might be disturbing. MR. HUGHES-Well, we have a design system, right now, that we're working with. MR. DANSKY-Okay. building? What type of siding is proposed to be on this MR. HUGHES-Vinyl siding. maintenance free siding. building will be maintenance free. The whole MR. DANSKY-Will there be any restrictions on what people can park outside the apartment building? MR. HUGHES-Again, right at this point, there are no restrictions, as far as I'm concerned, and again, what I'd like to say is that it's design, and he's going to run it as the ones in Hudson Falls, at which point. there are no, again. no Winnebagos. no boats. They're just not allowed there. The boats would have to be paid to be stored up in Lake George, or wherever, like most other people do. Trailers, things like that, it's just not going to be there. MRS. PULVER-He will probably have a lease agreement with whoever he has rent. - 11 - MR. HUGHES-Absolutely. MRS. PULVER-So it would probably be in the lease agreement that there would be no appliances. MR. HUGHES-Right, and as far as the lease agreements, basically that's what my father and my brother do. They do the same things. and they have, they want to keep a nice looking building. and they want to be one of the best in the neighborhood, and that's where they're coming from. MR. DANSKY-And I would assume that each apartment would have two parking spots? MR. HUGHES-Yes, and we have one available to handicap, which we have to have by law. MR. DANSKY-Thank you very much. MR. HUGHES-Thank you. sir. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? JOAN BOVEE MRS. BOVEE-My name is Joan Bovee. I live at 60 Walker Lane. I don't live in the Townhouses. I live off to the right, on 2.01 acres of land, which, I'm more concerned, I mean, I'm concerned about this building, but I'm concerned about future bUildings that they can build. I think that's a very narrow parcel, and I think the buildings that they do in the future build are going to be facing my land. I mean, I can't foresee that they're going to build a four unit, facing the same way that that one's facing. They're going to be facing either Country Club Road, or my property. MRS. TARANA-Could you show us where you are, on the map? MR. HUGHES-She's right up here to the right. MRS. BOVEE-You may have it showing only as Steve Pinchuk, but it's two owners. MRS. TARANA-You're that same property? Okay. MR. HUGHES-And the home is up here. MR. BREWER-That's your driveway coming in here? MRS. BOVEE-On the right, yes, and our pool is over there. I mean. there's bushes and everything, but, in the future, if they build three more units, how are they going to face? MR. BREWER-Well, we are here tonight to talk about this building. and I'm sure you have a right to ask him that. If he wants to answer you, fine. but there's no way that we can tell you that right now. MR. HUGHES-There's probably a couple of different ways they could go. One could go here. There's enough room for setbacks and requirements, and then one could go back here, sideways. MRS. BOVEE-Okay. Now what are the setbacks? MR. HUGHES-The setbacks, right now, we have 74 feet from the building, which only 12 is required. On the side, we have 20. On the left side, we have 76, and from the front we have 60, right at this point. MRS. BOVEE-What do they have to be, you say the front, from the - 12 - -./' ~,.---- front, the front from the property. what does it have to be? MR. HUGHES-They're well over. MRS. PULVER-Mr. Director¡ what does it have to be from the road, 40 feet from the road, the setback? MR. HARLICKER-No, I don't think so. MR. MARTIN-What's that. MR-5? MRS. PULVER-Yes, from the road. We're talking from the from the road. MR. HARLICKER-Thirty feet on the front, ten feet on the side, and ten feet on the rear. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. HUGHES-And right now we're at 60. MRS. PULVER-So. from the road he only has to be 30 feet back, he's 60. From the property line. he only has to be 10, and he's 20. MR. BREWER-On one side, and he's seventy-six on the other. MR. HUGHES-And again, the way it was set up was for your consideration. In other words. we put the parking over here, okay, so that you would be more inclined to see the building, itself, as opposed to parking, which this over here is vacant land, as you know, and down here. MRS. BOVEE-Now there's a pond over, some place on the left, on Country Club Road. Well. I think it's behind a residence on Country Club Road. MR. HUGHES-That would be, where, over here? Country Club is where. over here? MRS. BOVEE-I don't think that far, well, no. It's on the other side of the parcel, more up a little bit maybe. north a little bit. There's a pond over there. MR. BREWER-Doesn't Country Club run from the back, like that? MR. HUGHES-Country Club is over here. MRS. BOVEE-It runs parallel to Bay. MR. HUGHES-It runs parallel to Bay. MRS. BOVEE-Would there be any seepage like from a leachfield or anything to that pond? I'm not sure where the pond is, or who owns it. MR. HUGHES-No. Again, it's been designed by a licensed engineer. MRS. BOVEE-Now, how wide is that parcel that goes out? There used to be a right-of-way, I think. MR. HUGHES-This one is 99 feet across this way. and it's 505 feet deep this way. MRS. BOVEE-Okay. Now this building you're building, how wide is it? MR. HUGHES-How wide? Twenty-eight feet wide. and sixty-eight feet long. MRS. BOVEE-Okay. So if you wanted to put one of those same type - 13 - ~--" '~ buildings about the same way, you could do that, right? MR. HUGHES-Could, yes. MRS. BOVEE-Okay. Three of them up there, up there, up along, if he wanted to. MR. HUGHES-But, again, it's not if he wants to without. again, approval. MRS. BOVEE-Right. Okay. That's 99 wide. you said. MR. HUGHES-This here, yes. MRS. BOVEE-The parcel. MR. HUGHES-Yes, and here it's at 170 across this section here. MRS. BOVEE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUGHES-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. STARK-The four units. they're all the same, two bedrooms, three bedrooms? MR. HUGHES-They're two bedroom, yes, each one, and one is a little bit different, just because of the fact that the doors have to be three feet inside, as opposed to two foot six, like the bedrooms and baths, and also the bathroom is a little bit larger, which makes one of the bedrooms smaller, for handicapped access. Other than that, the four are the same, yes. and there is a hallway in the center, which makes everything accessible, and there's no, obviously for reasons of weather. snow, things like that. MR. STARK-Why did you put a, on the lot, I mean, just out of curiosity? MR. HUGHES-When I first talked to Lucas, he wanted to be facing, he thought that that would be the best view for the people that were living there. It looks down over the Townhouses across the way, which is, it's a nice view. MR. MACEWAN-I've got a comment, maybe a thought to help appease some of the neighbors up there, is to really strive for some sort of buffer plantings up there, with planting trees that will be mature, very large trees, to kind of give it a nice natural buffer between your parcel and the neighboring neighbors up there, Townhouses and the private property owners up there. MR. HUGHES-What I've done at this point is I've shown some hemlocks back here which, again, are green year round. If you take white pines and things like that, the needles drop off. So they're a problem, but things like hemlocks are excellent coverage year round, and I'm sure that, right at this point, Lucas would not have a problem with. especially with the Bovee property, of planting hemlocks around there. Again, they grow pretty fast, they grow fast. and they're green year round, and they would form a nice barrier. I'm sure that some people have seen the ones that full and they make like a hedgerow, and they're eight or ten feet high. That's a definite possibility, and I'm sure that Luke wouldn't have a problem with that at all. MRS. PULVER-My approving this only comment is that pro j ect without having I don't feel the, having comfortable Rist-Frost's - 14 - '--' comments. Now, I realize that it was an internal problem and not the applicant's problem. We are going to be meeting for a Workshop Session. Could we just table this until then, which is only about a week and a half, and we will have their comments, and then vote on it? I mean, the rest of the Board certainly would have to agree on that, but that's my own opinion about it. MRS. CORINNE-I agree with Carol. I'm not comfortable doing that. I think it's irresponsible to do that. MR. LAPOINT-I think it's unfortunate that we didn't do our job. I always hate to, in effect, put the applicant back because we didn't do our part. That aggravates me. MRS. TARANA-But it's better to error on the side of knowing that you do something correctly. MRS. PULVER-Well, I know that you've had an engineer look at this, and it's been stamped by two engineers. The reason that Rist-Frost looks at it is to see that everything is done according to the Town standards, which are different town, by town, by town, by town, and to give you approval conditional upon their comments, and you're going to, I don't know what their comments are going to be, and maybe it is something that we should discuss, in front of the full Board, and rather than having it just be left up in the air. So, again, I hate to hold the applicants up, but I don't feel comfortable about doing it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Lets give them some marching orders. I think we want some more trees. Maybe he can pencil those in for us. get them on the Workshop Session, and we'd leave the public hearing open until then, do SEQRA now, or what? MR. HARLICKER-I would suggest you probably leave the hearing open, if you're going to do the actual voting and stuff next week. MR. BREWER-And then we could do the SEQRA next week. MR. HARLICKER-It's an unlisted action, so it's a Short Form. MR. BREWER-So, it shouldn't take any time. MR. LAPOINT-So. I just want to be clear, that we don't make another mistake, that, who will have to notice the people to make sure that they have an opportunity to be there? Is that our responsibility or his? MR. HARLICKER-No more notices are sent out, if the public hearing is left open. MR. BREWER-We can tell them right now. MR. LAPOINT-Well, yes. I don't want the circumstance where, all of a sudden we have a little Workshop Session which is not normally open to the public, and we try to close out an issue. and then that becomes a problem for us. I just want to make sure. procedurally, they have the opportunity to be there. MR. HARLICKER-They would. MR. BREWER-It's a public meeting. MR. LAPOINT-All right. Fine. MR. BREWER-So, can we reopen the public hearing? MR. HARLICKER-You just leave it open. You don't close it. MR. BREWER-I already closed it. - 15 - ---. MR. HARLICKER-Then I would reopen it. MR. BREWER-I'll reopen it. MRS. TARANA-I have another question. When will the Beautification Committee be meeting? MR. MARTIN-I think it's the first Monday of the month. MR. HARLICKER-The first Monday? So they'll be meeting probably Tuesday, since Monday the 31st is Memorial Day. It would probably be the following Monday. which is the 7th. MRS. TARANA-So they'll meet before we meet? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Is there any chance of getting that to them, so that they can give it some input for our meeting on the 10th? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, I just want to jump in there with one comment, because normally people don't produce nice elevations like this, and I'm not going to penalize someone for doing this for us. Okay. So, again. it can't hold us up because this applicant's already corne in with an elevation like this for us. MR. BREWER-Beautification Committee can't hold us up anyway. I don't think. MR. LAPOINT-Good. MR. MACEWAN-It's just recommendation only. MR. LAPOINT-Right, but this is what we've been asking for all along, as a Board, and the first time we get one. MR. MACEWAN-I'm more looking for ideas in plantings and such. MRS. TARANA-I think we should direct the Beautification Committee to really look at this not just, not for the sake of aesthetics, but also for blocking, buffering. MR. HARLICKER-Well, you guys could make your own recommendations as to what you feel would be proper. It's within your purview to do that. MRS. TARANA-But don't they get into all those different kinds of trees and shrubs and things? MR. MARTIN-Yes. They do get into the specific types. MRS. TARANA-As I'm sitting here, I'm just having some thoughts. I guess I'll look at it again, since we're going to discuss it. but I just wonder, Scott, did you consider lighting? Is it going to have any outdoor lighting that could effect neighbors? MR. HARLICKER-They have two lights, one by each sidewalk, by the front sidewalk. and the other one is to the rear of the property, behind the apartment units. They didn't appear to effect neighboring properties, because there really isn't anything directly adjacent to it. MRS. TARANA-Yes. The parking lot will not have lights? MR. HUGHES-That's correct. We have a lamppost here and one down here. and one at this end of the building, which, again, is away from this property because that's where the residents are. We tried to keep that in mind, when we thought this over and we - 16 - ~ designed it out. We tried keep the neighbors in mind, because, again. Luke wants to be a good neighbor, and he doesn't want to have problems with people, and he wants to have good tenants. and he wants to do a nice project so that he can attract good tenants that are going to be good paying tenants and live there for a long time, be peaceful and quiet, and respects his property, and that's the way he wants to be. That's where he's coming from. MR. BREWER-Okay. until the 10th? So you don't have a problem if we table this MR. HUGHES-I don't, but I don't know about my client. MRS. PULVER-Well. you weren't going to start digging in two weeks. were you? MR. HUGHES-He's excited about getting started. He's really itching. He was hoping to have them available by September 1st. So. again, and he's got, his financing and so on is all in place, and he's using his money, and he really sees that as part of his plan to get it ready by. MR. BREWER-I guess the consensus of this Board is to table this until the 10th, and we have to have your. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I mean, think this through one more time. Engineering Comments by Rist-Frost. if we were to be holding this up for, we have no engineering comments, that's quite a bit of a burden, okay. Now, he's got to abide by their comments, correct? No matter what they are. We're supposedly not engineers on this Board, and they handle that type of thing, and if he's got this properly engineered, and he's got no comments, we've just added two weeks on. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but we also want recommendations from the Beautification Committee, too, which is not going to be until the first of the month. MR. BREWER-I understand where you're coming from, Ed, but if he does come back, and he does have comments, then they're going to have to come back anyway, right? MR. MACEWAN-That's right. MR. LAPOINT-Not necessarily. He's going to meet engineering comments. as far as the approval, correct? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not in favor of pushing this through too quickly. I'd rather here Rist-Frost' s comments before I voted on this. That's my opinion. MRS. PULVER-I guess I feel the same way, only because I think that public has a right to know what the comments are as well, and, again, it's unfortunate. It's not their fault. I hate holding them up. MRS. TARANA-My feeling is. as a Board, to make a decision, you're supposed to get input from everyone who's supposed to give you input, and that includes Rist-Frost, which is why we hire them, and it includes the Beautification Committee, and I feel that if they're supposed to give the input, then we should have it. MR. LAPOINT-Well, the applicant pays, don't they usually, for Rist- Frost? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-So the applicant is actually paying for, now, three - 17 - '- -./ engineers to go over this, three. MR. MACEWAN-I don't understand what you mean by that, Ed? I mean, any applicant who comes in here is going to pay for it anyway. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. Well, I'm just contradicting Corinne's point that we are paying for the input. MRS. TARANA-I'm sorry. I made an incorrect statement. MR. BREWER-Well, I think the consensus is to table. MRS. TARANA-Take a vote. MR. BREWER-Do we have to get his agreement to table, or can we just table it? MR. MARTIN-It's nice to have it. You don't need it. MR. HUGHES-I'm not going to force the issue. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-93 LUCAS S. WILSON, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Until our June 10th meeting, pending further information from Rist- Frost, and recommendations from the Queensbury Beautification Committee. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. LaPoint ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MRS. PULVER-Is there any way that we could do it the week before? MR. BREWER-I was just going to suggest that. If we get Rist- Frost's comments back, in a couple of days you say? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. He said he'd probably get them back the first of next week. MR. BREWER-I, personally, don't have a problem with coming up here for 15 minutes, to go over them. MRS. PULVER-Next Thursday? MR. BREWER-But then it leaves, you have to notify the neighbors. MRS. PULVER-No. They're only notified once, but we can tell them right now what the date is, and they can corne back. MR. MACEWAN-Tim, you still have the Beautification Committee who's not going to meet until the first of the month? MRS. TARANA-What is the rush? MR. BREWER-June 10th, seven o'clock. SITE PLAN NO. 23-93 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A EDDY ENTERPRISES. INC. OWNER: BARBARA BRASSEL LOCATION: ROCKWELL RD. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 24' X 32' POLE BARN. TAX MAP NO. 54-5-19 LOT SIZE: 3.012 ACRES SECTION: 119-20 D(3) ROGER & BARBARA BRASSEL, PRESENT - 18 - ~ STAFE' INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-93, Eddy Enterprises, Meeting Date: May 20, 1993 "Pro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to construct a 768 square foot barn. The property is located on Rockwell Road and is zoned SR-1A. The lot is currently vacant and used as a hay field. Pro;ect DescriPtion: The project was compared to the fOllowing standards and found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; This is not an issue. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; This is not an issue. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sUfficiency of off-street parking and loading; This is not an issue. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; This is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; This is not an issue. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; This is not an issue. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead plants; This is not an issue. 8. Adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; This is not an issue. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. This is not an issue. Recommendation: Planning Staff can recommend approval of this site plan." MR. BREWER-The only thing I had a question on was, there's no real picture of it. It's just a little square on the, not the land. the barn, the building. DR. BRASSEL-It's a pretty simple design. This would be the gable end, showing this open area, and this would be the area of the interior. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Are you going to board horses? MRS BRASSEL-One horse. MRS. PULVER-We have one horse, but we board him, because we didn't want to go through all that for one horse. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any questions? MR. STARK-What's the floor in there going to be in there? DR. BRASSEL-The design best for horse arenas and areas I've researched on, and according to Horse Magazine and things that I'm abridged with, you have to put in a Number Three stone, and take out all of the, down to about a 12 inch to 18 inch area, put in a Number Three stone, a Number Two stone. and then sand, clay topping, floor, 758 foot. MR. STARK-What's the size of the building? DR. BRASSEL-It's a pole barn construction, which. is anybody familiar with pole barns? MR. STARK-Yes. I have one. Mine's metal on the outside. What's yours going to be? MR. BRASSEL-This is board and batten. - 19 - '-- '--../ MR. STARK-Board and batten. Okay. DR. BRASSEL-To match the residence, structure that's there. MR. STARK-I just wondered. You're going to have power going to this, right. for lights and like that? DR. BRASSEL-Correct. MR. STARK-That's all. DR. BRASSEL-We'll, we're going to have water. MRS. PULVER-Water, too. DR. BRASSEL-Water and power. MRS. PULVER-You do have to feed them and give them something to drink every now and then. MR. STARK-I was just wondering. MR. BREWER-I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 23-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: EDDY ENTERPRISES. for the construction of a pole barn, and WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no - 20 - · '---" .-- significant environmental effect and the Chairman of Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance negative declaration that may be required by law. the and or a Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark. Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-93 EDDY ENTERPRISES. INC., Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the construction of a pole barn. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A FLR PARTNERSHIP OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 53 LUZERNE ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A +.56 ACRE PARCEL FROM THE FLR PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY. CROSS REFERENCE: AV #40-1993 TAX MAP NO. 118-1-5 LOT SIZE: 2.69 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL CUSACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1993, FLR Partnership Preliminary Stage, Meeting Date: May 20, 1993 "pro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.7 acre lot into two lots. The lots will be 1.3 and 1.4 acres in size. The property is located on Luzerne Road and is zoned Light Industrial One Acre. The 1.3 acre parcel will be to the rear of the 1.4 acre lot and will have no road frontage, it also has less than the required lot width. The applicant received variances for these on 5/19/93. The rear parcel contains a DEC identified area of contamination. The area to be subdivided is currently vacant. The remaining lot is to be combined with the adjacent property to the west. The property involved is presently the site of AMG Industries. The applicant is requesting a waiver to Section A183-9 of the subdivision ordinance regarding layout. construction, landscape, clearing. grading and drainage, and contour requirements. Pro;ect Analysis: The proposal does not involve the construction of any new streets or utilities. The rear lot is unbuildable because of the contamination and no new construction is possible on the remaining lot. The property is serviced by municipal water and an on-site septic system. The applicant should provide a more detailed description regarding the environmental impact of the contaminated area, it's relation to the proposed subdivision and the future. Recommendation: There does not appear to be any significant problems. other than a more detailed explanation of the contaminated area, if the Board is satisfied wi th the information provided, staff can recommend preliminary subdivision approval." MR. BREWER-Okay. Scott, I have a question. How can we let them - 21 - '-- -- create a nonconforming lot? MR. HARLICKER-Well, you can waive the requirements of the Subdivision Reg's, and they received a variance to the zoning code last night. MR. BREWER-To create that lot? MR. HARLICKER-Right, for no road frontage, the 40 feet road frontage. MR. MARTIN-That's what gives you the ability to do that. MRS. PULVER-The fact that they've got the variance? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MRS. TARANA-Would you just clarify for me. On our agenda it said a .56 acre parcel, but then on the Project Description we're talking about 2.7 acres? MR. HARLICKER-I see where she got that. On the part of the EAF, under the part of Description of Action, the subdivision is listed as subdivision of a +/ .56 parcel of land from the FLR Partnership property. That's where that description came from. MRS. TARANA-So, what is that talking about? MR. LAPOINT-They're divesting themselves of a New York State Super Fund location, is that what you're doing? You're splitting this up to isolate the hot spot? MR. CUSACK-That's part of what's going on. Correct. MR. LAPOINT-That's part of what's going on. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Do you know that there's a hot spot in the back of the property? There's a PCB contaminated site in the back part of the property, okay. It looks to me like they're splitting this off. and that hot spot will remain with AMG? MR. CUSACK-FLR. MR. LAPOINT-FLR, and you folks, you represent the people who want the front part, uncontaminated part of the property. correct? MR. CUSACK-No. That's not correct. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. You're FLR, and you're subdividing? MR. CUSACK-We're FLR. We own the land. business that leases the land. AMG Industries is the MR. LAPOINT-Right. Okay. You're splitting it up. Now who are you giving the front half to? MR. CUSACK-It's going to stay with FLR. If I explained, perhaps you'd be able to get some understanding. My name's Mike Cusack. With me is Fred Alexy, the "F" in the FLR Partnership. Leo Monahan is the "L", and Bob Gay is the "R". and essentially what we're trying to do here. by way of introduction. is that there's no changes in or disturbance of the existing land here. We have to make a change on paper, merely to create a financable lot. This relates to bank financing more than anything else. We can't easily finance a piece of property where there is a hot spot, as you refer to it, and for many. many years of work and effort, Mr. Alexy and his partners have come to an agreement with DEC, and that's why that letter is attached to the application, which isolates that hot - 22 - -- spot to the rear 300 feet. Now we're talking about it as if it's a hot spot. I guess some history here would help. Essentially, in 1979, pretty much right around the time the Super Fund Legislation became effective, DEC came and took over that hot spot. and they constructed a cell immediately to the east, that's on the right hand side of your drawing, right next door is a cell, and what they did was unload the contamination from that area into that cell. It's their cell, right next door. MRS. PULVER-Where it says, Chemical Waste Landfill. that mound is? MR. CUSACK-That's correct. MRS. PULVER-Okay. They just moved it from one to the other. MR. CUSACK-Moved it from one to the other. It's built to their standards and everything else. This cell eventually filled up. DEC did whatever they did to the hot spot, as you were referring to it, and filled it in, capped it, came back a year or so later and capped it again, and the worst thing. environmentally, that could happen here, would be if we were coming here telling you we we're going to disturb that. I mean. we're not. We're not disturbing what's been done to date. It's been that way for over 10 years. It's been undisturbed since 1980. Essentially, that's your history of the land right there, but because it's identified as an inactive hazardous waste site, it's not a DEC listing. It has the effect of rendering the entire property valueless. We can't do anything with it. I f we were to just go out, right now. and say to the bank, we'll give you a lien on everything but this back corner. that would hit the County Clerk's Office. then it would hit Real Property Tax Services, and then you'd get a notice that we just made an illegal subdivision of the land. and to do things properly and legal, we have to redraw the line on paper, and really it is a change on paper. When we were reviewing it, when I was reviewing it with DEC, the DEC people that I talked to with respect to SEQRA and things like that, and things like that, I was referring to Dick Wild, who's up at Region 5, and he's the Specialist up there. It really is. It doesn't get anymore complicated than that. It's just a change on paper that's necessary so that we can do what we have to do. MR. BREWER-What's going to, ultimately, happen with this piece of property? MR. CUSACK-It'll be. in terms of, the 300 foot? MR. BREWER-No. the .56. MR. HARLICKER-The contaminated area. MRS. PULVER-The hot spot area. MR. BREWER-What I'm thinking is. they end up letting it go for taxes, and then Warren County owns it. MR. LAPOINT-Never. MR. CUSACK-That doesn't avoid the situation. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CUSACK-The situation is the same. The owners are the owners. MR. BREWER-If you property, and you you're going to do to the property. subdivide it, then you own that piece of didn't pay the taxes on it. I'm not saying that. I'm just wondering what's going to happen FRED ALEXY - 23 - "- - MR. ALEXY-Let me say that the chain of events that probably would take place. as I see it, this, we're asking that it be subdivided, and then, assuming that that was successful, we would then. then the property. I guess, would have to be reassessed for tax purposes. and somebody would assess the value on the property. and we would claim that we don't pay any taxes on it, because it has an inverted value. In order to clean this thing up, it would cost millions of dollars. and it certainly wouldn't be in anybody's interest for us to have to pay taxes on it, on something, I don't think you'd want us to do that. What we're trying to do is take what we can take out of the property that originally was purchased wi th the best intentions in mind, improving the property, and continue the worthwhi Ie marketing of the piece of property, and we're trying to maintain that status. So we're taking the best of what we can get, and trying to spin this thing off. After having worked a number of years for the State, to agree to the boundary lines of the contaminated area. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions? I'll open the public hearing. Does anybody care to speak on this item? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to go through SEQRA? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 11-1993, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: FLR PARTNERSHIP. to subdivide a subdivision of a .56 acre parcel from the FLR Partnership property, 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: Department of Environmental Conservation may be involved 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant 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 - 24 - -- negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1993. by the fOllowing vote: MRS. TARANA-Does DEC occasionally come in and monitor the waste site, the contained area, as well as the other, the open area? MR. ALEXY-Most of the adjoining area they monitor. MRS. TARANA-They have checked all the rest of that property and they have found no PCB's on it? MR. ALEXY-We've gone through the process of making borings, three different time tables. There were no contaminants there. MRS. PULVER-But DEC currently has this property on the inactive list. isn't that correct? MR. ALEXY-They currently have it. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by Edward adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1993 LaPoint who moved for FLR its For the subdivision of a .56 acre parcel from the FLR Partnership property. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. CUSACK-In preparation for final plan, the final application, with respect to 183-12 in the book, we'd like to give the surveyors directions as to what requirements will be necessary, and which ones will not, and at this time make an application for a waiver. In the interest of time, can we possibly discuss the elimination of Item B. which has to do with sewer and water, and the elimination of Item C, which deals with planning and drainage, there' s no structures here, the elimination of Item D and E, which relates to homeowners association and recreation and open spaces, because in this case you're really dealing with marking off the property from the surveying point of view, and not really getting into any. MR. BREWER-We can grant those waivers at final. MR. MARTIN-Some of those are a given, really. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Just remind us in our motion, and we'll make sure, in the final motion. I skipped that. I could have just added that in by giving a waiver to Section A183. We'll do it at final. MR. CUSACK-Okay. Thanks. MR. BREWER-Okay. I've got one other item. drafted. Has everybody got a copy? This letter that I MRS. PULVER-Yes. I read it. - 25 - "'--' -' MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. BREWER-Charles Diehl. Did you get a copy of it, Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I'm reading it right now. That sounds good, Tim. I don't know if I want to do it, but it sounds good. I mean, these are the facts. MR. BREWER-That's the truth. MRS. PULVER-Now, the only thing I would suggest is that instead of. say. from the Planning Board. but at the bottom. I would just as soon, I'd have my name on it. I want my name on it, as a person, not a Board. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I think it should go from the Board. We all voted on it as a Board, it should go as a Board. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think if you got a resolution or something, it would be helpful. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I think our names should be attached to it, not just the Planning Board. MR. BREWER-Right. Well, we can all sign it. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-But I think it should corne from the Planning Board, not as five individuals. MRS. PULVER-No, no. I agree with you. I agree with that. MR. MACEWAN-That's why we have a Chairman. Let him sign it and send it off. If we vote on it and say that's what we want, let him sign it and send it off. MRS. TARANA-They do want a resolution? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think it would be better. sign it. authorizing the Chairman to sign it. That way he could MR. LAPOINT-Procedurally, what fact of rule does this have? This is going to go to the Zoning Board and they're going to read it, and they're going to go, do we have a choice now? MR. MARTIN-They do, yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. MARTIN-This'll be like a public comment. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, in other words, we haven't hemmed any other Board's action in? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. LAPOINT-Good. MR. MARTIN-They have the power to grant variance. MR. LAPOINT-Good. MOTION TO HAVE THE LETTER THAT TIM HAS DRAFTED TYPED. SIGNED BY HIM AS CHAIRMAN. IN REGARD TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1993 CHARLES DIEHL. TO REPRESENT THE ENTIRE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: - 26 - ""---" ''''- Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MRS. PULVER-Now, I'll tell you my reason for my no. I really feel that it should come from Planning Board members and we should have our names on it. Roger is not here. Maybe he objects to it. MR. MACEWAN-Carol, I mean, if a member's absent from this Board. and we conduct business, through a. MRS. PULVER-You just said it's a Planning Board. You want it to corne from the Planning Board. That's what you just said to me. MR. MACEWAN-Signed by the Chairman of the Planning Board, voted on as a majority of the Planning Board, yes, as the Board. MRS. PULVER-Well, then I'm sorry. I misunderstood. MR. LAPOINT-Hey, Jim. Lets do some planning. two minutes on planning. It will probably be our only opportunity all year. I want to know, well, in advance. I'm speaking for myself. Maybe everybody else, when those people come in front of us for the old Kentucky Fried Chicken. what are their names? Who is it? MR. MARTIN-The Olive Garden? MR. LAPOINT-Right there in the center of town, where the old Kentucky Fried Chicken was. MRS. PULVER-Queensbury Plaza. MR. LAPOINT-What are their names? MR. MARTIN-Howard Carr, Queensbury Plaza. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. You know what I'm talking about, where the original mall in Queensbury? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-As far as planning goes. and I have bent over backwards for these guys for four years, getting them through steps of this. as planners, lets get that chicken shack torn down. MR. MARTIN-It is. MR. LAPOINT-When did it go down? MR. MARTIN-It's coming down. That was part of our approval, Ed. Okay. because I knew we were heading in that direction, but it just aggravates me every time. MR. MARTIN-They're in for their building permit for The Olive Garden. and as part of that, they have to tear down the old Moynihan Liquor Store and the Kentucky Fried Chicken store. and they're going to establish, as part of their site plan they had on there a center access way through the parking lot, in from the light there in front of Grand Union. Everything. I think. would be west and north of that center access, the whole parking lot's going to be redone, re-Iandscaped, according to the site plan, and then I told them that the next future store that comes in to occupy that. the rest has to be done. MR. LAPOINT-Good. Thanks. - 27 - - --- MR. MARTIN-And all the stormwater management, remember we had a list of 11 County concerns where we just concurred with them? They were all met. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, that was a long time ago. MR. MARTIN-The big thing is, that plaza now has on-site stormwater management, and they are on the sewer system. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Good. MR. STARK-Jim, does the Town have any plans on dOing a traffic study on Bay Road/Meadowbrook area at all, that you know of? MR. MARTIN-No, but I think the discussion held the other night, and the conclusion of the Board, was right on the money, and I'd like to do that. You've got to understand. We've got two studies going right now. We've got the Route 149 Corridor and we've got the Route 9/254 Intersection study going. MR. STARK-Well, that's all built up right now, but what about Bay Road? Can we make a request of the Town Board to do that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-We can, and that's what I wanted to talk about, right along his topic. MR. STARK-We do need that, though. MR. MACEWAN-I thought that was an excellent idea. and I wasn't saying it the other night strictly to throw it back into the applicant's, and have them foot the bill. MR. STARK-Can we make a resolution requesting the Town Board to go ahead with this? MR. MARTIN-Asking them to do so, yes. MR. MACEWAN-Asking them to do it. asking them to spend the money to have an independent study done. MR. STARK-That we need it, we need this traffic study. for the future of this. MR. MARTIN-We're in an ideal situation here, because like I said the other night, that whole area from Hiland Park, just about south, we now know all projects are approved, or in the planning stages. You've got Hiland Park. You've got the College. You've got Hughes property on both sides of the road is all done, Canterbury Woods, Passarelli, Valenti, and Bay Meadows, what was just in the other night. That's the whole area. MR. BREWER-We know right now that there is a study being done by Ace. Why don't we see if we can contact them. MR. MACEWAN-They already did. and they told us no. MR. BREWER-It's not done. MR. MARTIN-It wasn't done. and it was a private study. MR. BREWER-It's being done, so there's no sense in doing the same thing over again, if they are going to have it done. MRS. TARANA-That's for the traffic light. MR. MARTIN-That was more, I talked to them, and it was more oriented towards accident rates and things at that main entrance to ACC. - 28 - ~ -þ MRS. TARANA-It's for their southern driveway. MR. BREWER-No, but they're doing a study of Bay Road. Bay Road is Bay Road. MRS. TARANA-They're not doing a study of. MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD TO INSTITUTE A TRAFFIC STUDY ON THE BAY ROAD AND MEADOWBROOK CORRIDOR, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: MR. LAPOINT-I'm obviously going to vote no, but as long as we're going to waste money, and I'll make a suggestion, lets get a local. lets pour our money down a local toilet, and get a local, why are we going to Rochester? Why are we going to? MRS. PULVER-That's the Town Board's prerogative. MR. LAPOINT-Right, but $70,000 leaves the community, people can count cars just as well as anybody else, and there's people in Town who do it. MR. BREWER-I agree with you, Ed. MR. LAPOINT-Get them local. federal money we've got ridiculous. I mean, $70.000 going to Rochester. of to do that Corridor Study? That's MR. MARTIN-It didn't go to Rochester. It went to Clifton Park, Ed. MR. LAPOINT-They're in Clifton Park with a branch in Rochester, right? MR. MARTIN-No, no. They're just a small firm out of Clifton Park. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. LaPoint ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. MARTIN-Just to appease you a little bit, Ed, I had a list drawn up for this Route 9/254 Corridor business, and I had all local firms, and I had one of the local firms tell me, I will not bid on this, and the reason I'm not going to is because I don't feel qualified to do it. and to be quite frank with you, there's nobody in this area who's qualified to do it. You need a big firm out of Albany, Rochester, or Syracuse to do this. MR. LAPOINT-Just read what they come up with, and tell me that. again, I studied this in college. It's ridiculous. MR. MARTIN-No. I agree with you about traffic engineering, and that's why, and the problem with it. it falls short. All you get are these gobbledy gook bunch of statistics and numbers and junk like that, and nobody knows what it means. What I want out of that is I want to take it to the next step. Don't leave it to me to interpret that. I want you to tell me, now, where do I put the roads. Where do I put the curb cuts. where do I put the signals, and that's what we'll do. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, but that's obvious. Like we had somebody from Warren County Planning Board sit out here and say. I mean, $70,000. and you could have cut a strip on County property, south on Route 9. for the price of a damn cut. MR. MARTIN-Less than the price of the cut. Do you want to know - 29 - --- ----- what that study did on the Route 9/Million Dollar Half Mile? They show an access road going through the intersection of Exit 20, behind the stores, and connecting into Route 149. They did not ever talk to one property owner over which the road has to sit, and they did not take into consideration the topography over which the road is shown. MR. LAPOINT-Now here's my point. What have you done with that money? MR. MARTIN-That was dead on arrival. That idea is dead on arrival. MRS. TARANA-Yes, and I think the other point is. too. that they do the traffic studies, now, they project it with their little figures, their little manipulations, and they tell us that the level of service of these roads is going to be okay, but we have seen level of service roads that are not okay, but they still meet their criteria, and I don't want to put words into your mouth, but what I would like to see is. not a traffic study that these engineers do, but somebody, I mean, even us, sitting down and talking about, what can we do, or bring in some experts with solutions, not telling us level of service of roads. MR. MARTIN-My problem with it is. it's foolhardy to think that traffic engineering is such an exact science that you can define it within a project area, or the area within two tenths of a mile or half a mile, like the intersection of Route 9/254. There are so many factors that influence the capacity of that intersection, for 10, 20. 30 miles around this area, that you have no way of forecasting. MRS. PULVER-Right, and you have no control over that. MR. MARTIN-I mean, if Hudson Falls does something down there, it's going to effect that intersection. MRS. TARANA-Absolutely. MR. MARTIN-And that's why it's unfair to hold one individual project. it's inaccurate. MR. BREWER-So why don't we not have a traffic study done. have some company look at it as a planning. Lets MR. MARTIN-That's exactly what I'm trying to do with Route 9/254. What I want to come out of that study is I want an assumed rate of growth, and to accommodate that rate of growth. you put curb cuts here. You put streets here. You put signals here. MR. BREWER-So, could we reword that motion to indicate that. and not a traffic study, so we know how many cars are going down Bay Road? MR. MARTIN-That's what I was going to interpret that ~o mean. A traffic study which incorporates planning. MR. BREWER-Okay. Fine. Anything else? MRS. PULVER-One thing, Maria. Since I misunderstood that our names are going to accompany that motion, I will withdraw my no vote, and make it a yes vote. MR. MACEWAN-Ed, why did you fly off the handle tonight, when we wanted to table that thing? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. How many people corne before Planning Boards? I mean, now. when you go to finance a house, and I'm building a new house right now. or getting ready to build a new house. It's absolutely critical when you get your money, okay. Now, people are out there to work and to build and to create jobs, okay. An - 30 - '---- ~ applicant comes in front of us, and the first wrong was made. The second wrong, and I disagree, everybody thinks we're compounding it by approving it. We're compounding it by disapproving it. because he's the one effected. None of us. We're all going to go home tonight, and that man, Mr. Lucas, whoever he is, he doesn't have his approval now. He can't move ahead. MR. MACEWAN-The only comment I can make to that. you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing someone who's going to go out and build a house on a lot, who doesn't require them to go through the site plan review. Any applicant comes walking through that door and signs that paper and pays that fee knows that he could potentially be into a long process to get approval. It's our job, as planners, to make sure we have all the facts, and all the information, before we make a decision. MR. LAPOINT-We owe these guys a timely review of their project. MRS. TARANA-But, wait, Craig, do you remember the State Council telling us there are no contingency approvals? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MRS. TARANA-You cannot do it. You cannot do it. MR. MACEWAN-I would reiterate that again. real loud, so people hear you. MRS. TARANA-Well. no one did. MR. MACEWAN-The Officer of Rural Affairs, when we went to the Satellite Conference. MRS. TARANA-But you should be aware that there is not such a thing as a contingency approval. There absolutely is not. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 31 -