Loading...
1993-06-15 ./ ----- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15TH. 1993 INDEX Site Plan No. 22-93 Lucas Wilson 1. SEQRA Review Mark McCollister 7. SEQRA Review Andrea Gray 8. Site Plan No. 25-93 Andrea Gray 9. SEQRA Review Guido Passarelli 11. SEQRA Review American Equity 13. Site Plan No. 26-93 Chalmers. Jr. & Julia Dewey 27. Subdivision No. 11-1991 Sunset Hill Farms 30. Subdivision No. 11-1993 fINAL STAGE FLR Partnership 35. Subdivision No. 3-1993 FINAL STAGE National Realty & Development 36. Corp. Site Plan No. 27-93 Janet Huston Bell 53. DISCUSSION REGARDING JOHN MCCALL SITE PLAN 62. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. -'---" --- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15TH. 1993 ']:00 P.M. MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY CRAIG MACEWAN GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 22-93 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 LUCAS WILSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: END OF WALKER LANE OFF BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 4-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. TAX MAP NO. 60-']-14.1 LOT SIZE: 1.467 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 D(1) GARY HUGHES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. HARLICKER-Some information has come to light in the last few hours today. According to the Highway Superintendent, the Town Surveyor. and what's on record up in the Clerk's Office. Walker Lane does not extend all the way up to the applicant's property. Some background information. they've got references in their deeds that they supplied, and it's also on the tax sheets. as extending past the applicant's property. Looking at it today. and contacting the Highway Department. it turns out that it's .31. thirty-one hundredths of a mile from Bay Road to the end of Walker. and according to Paul Naylor and Leon Steves. it pulls up 25 feet short of the applicant's property. and I think the applicant might have some background information on that. So if that's the case. it turns out that the possibility of having a landlocked parcel. and the need for a variance. We need to find out just who owns the property that's shown on the Tax Map as Walker Lane. If it turns out that the applicant owns that property. they might not need a variance. and they might meet the frontage requirements. and that's what we're going to work on. That's where we stand. as far as the property goes. HR. BREWER-Would you like to address that? GARFIELD RAYMOND MR. RAYMOND-Garfield Raymond. appearing on behalf of Luke Wilson. who is the developer of this project. This is a copy of the Tax Map which, if you look at that. you'll see that Walker Lane not only bypasses the property in question. but it also goes approximately an additional 360 some feet to another piece in the back. which was the former owner of all of this property. The way that we understand this. back in 1963. there were a number of highways that were in existence here in the Town of Queensbury. of which the Town did not have any interest. They were not dedicated to the Town. So in 1963. the Town had a resolution. I believe it's Resolution 166. in which they dedicated a number of towns that they are, town roads that they were maintaining. even though they were not owned by them. and had not been dedicated by the owners of the - 1 - -- property. At that time. from the sheets that the Town Highway Department has now. they indicate .31 miles was dedicated on Walker Lane. It all depends on where you start to count that .31. and that is a question that we would raise, because that would show that there would only be 1.636.8 feet on Walker Lane. which would not even go up to the areas in which there's been development in. on the northern portion. I'm not sure if there's any other dedications to the property. or to the road, at the beginning of Walker Lane. because if the .31 dedication by that resolution. where's the starting point, where's the ending point. and that's the confusion on this. I think the intent. at the time of the resolution. was to dedicate all of Walker Lane that was currently being used at that time, and there is a landing. or a loading dock. that is up on this property. just. it would be west of the property in question. that was being used by the people at that time. and that was open to the public. and I think that it was the intent to include all of Walker Lane. and that's why it's reflected on this map as that. as such. and that's where the confusion is. MR. BREWER-You've got me confused. because. where's Bay Road. here? MR. RAYMOND-Okay. You're looking at. this is Country Club Road. here. Here's Bay Road. This is Walker Lane. We're talking about this. Right. MR. BREWER-Now this section is developed? MR. RAYMOND-This is the Baybridge Estates. is over here. HR. BREWER-So. isn't there a loop of some sort? MR. RAYMOND-There's a loop that comes up from. right in here. It would be right about here. It comes down around like this. MR. BREWER-And that's all dedicated? MR. RAYMOND-That is all dedicated. I believe. by Valenti. That group has dedicated that. but what we're talking about is the dedication of this portion here. Walker Lane. dealing with Walker Lane itself. The property in question is this piece right here. 14.1. Tax Map Number. Yes. MR. BREWER-Scott. do we have a map that shows this loop of Valenti's. on a Tax Map. so we can put this in perspective. where that meets? MR. HARLICKER-Not with us. no. Baybridge connects in. On the site plan it shows where MR. BREWER-I guess what I've got to ask is. we don't have enough clarification right now to do anything? Is that correct? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I've told you all the information that I've been able to gather today. MR. MACEWAN-When did all this come to light? MR. HARLICKER-Today. MR. RAYMOND-Mr. Wilson had approached the Town. previously to buying the property. and had questioned this. to determine whether or not there would be a problem. He was told that there would not be a problem with this. I think. though. that if you go back to the intent, and that resolution. you guys can address that better than I. but if. MR. HARLICKER-I' m not familiar with the resolution that you're referring to. MR. RAYMOND-The Resolution 166 was dealing with all of Walker Lane. - 2 - ----- and in that. they add .31. and 'if you use that as a definitive number. I don't believe that any of your surveys are going to jibe with the surveys that have been done on that particular road. on that lane. They just. where's the starting point. and where's the ending point? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The Town Surveyor said the starting point would be the edge of the pavement on Bay Road. That's what I was told today. HR. RAYMOND-Well, we have old surveys which would differ with that. and this is an old survey which was done for the Geniers. which goes back in 1954. which show Walker Lane. consisting of a road which is only 10 feet wide. a dirt road. and it went all the way for approximately 2.096 feet. and I think that's what was in existence at the time of the resolution. MRS. TARANA-What year did you say that resolution was? MR. RAYMOND-The resolution was in 1963. MR. BREWER-Ed. do you want to look at this? George? MR. STARK-I have a question for Scott. Scott. how did this come to light today? You said it came to light today? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It was just pointed out by the representative of the neighbor that it wasn't the question whether that exactly was a Town road or not. and then upon investigation of it. it turns out that it's questionable whether it is or not. and that's where we stand right now. HR. BREWER-Well. technically. if anyway. right? I f he has to get approval until he gets a variance. it does. we can't move on it a variance. we can't give him Is that correct? MR. HARLICKER-Right. Yes. but then the question comes uP. if that's not a Town road. who owns that piece of property? MR. BREWER-How do we find that out? MR. HARLICKER-That's what we're working on now. MR. MARTIN-We're trying to get some deed references and things like that. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. contact County Mapping. MR. BREWER-So it would be safe to say that we're going to take no action tonight. HR. STARK-Put it off for next week. clarification. Haybe we'll have a MRS. TARANA-May I just ask a question? together with Lucas Wilson? MR. RAYMOND-I do not believe that that has taken place. Did the neighbors get MRS. TARANA-Is that still in the works. or what's happening with that? MR. HUGHES-They didn't contact. I tried to call him Saturday. or call Pat Decker. I guess it was. Saturday. I left a message on her answering machine. She got back to me Sunday at 9 o'clock. Lucas has been working out of town. and a lot of times he'll stay right up there for the week. or a couple of nights. He wanted to try to meet with them Sunday at noon. He wanted to meet with them after church. and I called her. and she didn't call back until Sunday night. So at that point. it was really too late to have a meeting. - 3 - "- -- He does want to meet with them. He wants to hear what they have to say. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. RAYMOND-The other thing is if you're saying that all of Walker Lane was not dedicated at that time. with that resolution. if you're using that number as permanent number, meaning that it's carved in stone. I don't believe that one of the building lots that's up there. that a house is on. would be a properly zoned house. it has the same problem. Also. there's some question as to whether all of the road. the road that goes into the Baybridges. if that would be off of Walker Lane or not. I mean. it all depends where the starting point is. and all I can say is. you've got to go back to. what was the intent when they passed that resolution. As I say. at that time. in 1963. there were a number of roads. This road was never dedicated. It was taken in by way of that resolution. MR. BREWER-Again, who plows that road? MR. HARLICKER-Well. Naylor says it's a Town road. up to the edge of the pavement. and that's where the Town road ends. According to Leon Steves. who's the Town Surveyor. he concurs with that. That the road extends up .31, you know. thirty-one hundredths of a mile. and that's the end of the Town road. He's contradicting that. He's saying that the Town road extends farther because of the Resolution 166. passed in 1963. which is correct. Right now I can't. I don't know. MR. BREWER-Okay. My opinion is. I would like to wait until we get something from your office. or Paul Naylor. to verify or deny what we do. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-How does everybody else feel? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Certainly. MR. LAPOINT-Unfortunately. I missed the last meeting. Did we clear up all the engineering on this? Most of it? MR. BREWER-Yes. but we did come to a conclusion that they were going to meet with the neighbors and see if they could clear up some problems that the neighbors thought they might have. and you just heard that that didn't happen. MR. STARK-Mr. Raymond says that came. like. 2.096 feet. according to the resolution. which is roughly four tenths of a mile. which would include the frontage in front of the Wilson property. Could they get together with Paul Dusek this week. and we'll reschedule it for next week, and maybe it'll be cleared up by next week. MR. BREWER-If you don't mind be ing here until one 0' clock next week. MR. STARK-No problem. You know. he's saying one thing in the resolution. which makes it okay. Somebody else brought it to their attention that it's .31 miles and everything. MR. BREWER-So do you want to wait. Ed. or? MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. BREWER-You don't want to wait? MR. LAPOINT-No. - 4 - - ---" -- MR. BREWER-Do you want to wait. George? MR. STARK-It's up to you. but we should have it clarified. MR. BREWER-It's not up to me. It's up to the Board. MR. STARK-You know. if he says the resolution. then it's 2100 feet. 2.096 feet. That's in front of the Wilson property. period. MR. BREWER-Okay. All right. The public hearing was left open. and Mr. O'Connor's got his hand up. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-For the purposes of your record. I'm Michael O'Connor, from the law firm of Little & 0' Connor. I'm here this evening representing Steven Pinchuk. who is the adjoining owner to the parcel in question that you have here. I may be the culprit that raised the question as to whether or not this application would require a variance. If you take a look at the map that was submitted to you. I don't think there's any question that it does require a variance. This has reference thereon. and it was submi tted by the applicant here. to a survey. and it indicates where the Town road ends. and it's well short of the property. That's how we saw it. It's not a mystery. It says. approximate end of public highway. Walker Lane. I personally am familiar with Walker Lane. Walker Lane is a road that was taken by the Town of Queensbury by prescription. and back when we did the site plan review for Worlco Management Services, Inc.. which is the office building on the corner. the north corner of Bay and Walker Lane. we had to get a deed for 25 feet from the predecessor in title. Dorlon. so that they would have a 50 foot width along that portion that adjoins the Worlco Management Services. Inc. The roadway. as it's been used. even to the point where it's shown on here. is not a 50 foot wide roadway. There is no jog in the Pinchuk property. and that's shown on here. and the corner of this property. The Pinchuk property comes out into the roadway as far as this property. If you take a look at the prior deeds for this property. which, we got a copy of today. there are two deeds I'm referring to. and I'll submit them for the record. One is a deed from John Dorlon and Mark and Martha Mi tchell to John Wright and Edward Crumeanel. and that shows that the parcels being conveyed are being conveyed with the right-of-way from the parcel to Walker Lane. and not being conveyed with frontage on Walker Lane. a Town road. I think when you get into the research on this. you're going to find out that there was a prior application to this Board for a similar type use on the property. and that application was turned down. I don't have all the information on that now. Mr. Whipple. the prior owner of the Pinchuk property. tells us that. in his time. in his ownership of the property immediately to the east of this property, there was an application for construction on there. and it was turned down by the Town. on the basis that that did not have any road frontage. which is the same issue that's before you right now. So what has been submitted to you clearly shows they don't have road frontage. I don't think you can jump from that. from the survey map. from the plot plan that was submitted to you. and presume some intention of some resolution which was back when they were trying to expand the subsistence. or the assistance that they get from the State of New York under the Donovan Act. for maintenance of highways. They went along and they picked up every piece of mileage that they could pick up. If they picked up .31. that's what they thought they could pick up at that time. The pavement. as Hr. Naylor has referred to as being the end of the road. is before this property. or ends before this property. It intersects the driveway that goes through the Pinchuk property. MR. STARK-What's the date on the deed. Mike? You refer to the deed. What's the date on it? Did it predate that '53? - 5 - - MR. O'CONNOR-1986. There are two deeds. One frQm Dr. Hughes and Betty Jane Baxter to John Wright, and the same people. I don't know why there were two deeds. What we did is we picked up the Tax Map Number off of this. and went and got the deed references. and we'll submit those for your records. but I think what's submitted to you. by documentation. clearly shows they don't have Town road frontage. I also have another problem on that. and I don't know what has been submitted to you. and I apologize if I'm incorrect in making my statement. but there's no showing here what the total buildout is going to be on this parcel, and I thought that we would require that of anybody who was coming in with a proposal. MR. BREWER-He's got a proposal for one apartment building. Potentially. he could put other buildings there. MR. 0' CONNOR-And there's been no discussion of that at all? I thought there had been some discussion? MR. BREWER-There was discussion of it. and at this point in time he said he didn't have any specific plans for more buildings. HR. O'CONNOR-If you get into that. then you're going to also require a 50 foot roadway. or area. back to those buildings. and with this layout, I don't think that's permitted. MR. BREWER-Well. with this layout. if he can't do it. then that's his problem. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I raised it as a point of record. MR. BREWER-And we did talk about it in depth. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I apologize if you did talk about it and I wasn't here. I'll give you a copy of those two deeds that shows that the property only has access by right-of-way. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And that's our comments. MR. BREWER-Thank you. comment? Is there anyone else who would like to MR. RAYMOND-In terms of that. making reference to the map that was submitted to you. that's only indicates an approximate. and that was taken from the survey prepared by Mr. Steves. Also. the deeds that he has given you. if you look at the deeds that are referenced. all up and down Walker Lane. they always make reference to that right-of-way. because that's how it started. It was always a right-of-way. and everyone had a right-of-way in common. to have access up and down Walker Lane. It makes the same reference to that in all of the deeds. As far as the resolution. we'll address that next week. HR. BREWER-Okay. Do we want to table this? Do we have your approval to table until next week. until we can get this mess straightened out? MR. RAYMOND-Yes. MR. BREWER-And you will try to contact these people. and get the differences straightened out. if it's at all possible? Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-93 LUCAS WILSON. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: Pending further information from the Planning Staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: - 6 - -- - ---- AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Hr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver SEQRA REVIEW: SEQRA REVIEW - MARK MCCOLLISTER - RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we want to read the resolution? MR. LAPOINT-It's just that simple? MR. BREWER-Just that simple. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH HARK MCCOLLISTER RESOLUTION NO.: 6-1993 INTRODUCED BY: Roqer Ruel WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Craig MacEwan WHEREAS, in connection with the Mark McCollister proiect. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. by resolution. previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review. and WHEREAS. the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA Review. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows: 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action. as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant for the fOllowing reasons: Referencing the minutes and resolution of the Planning Board's June 10th. 1993 meeting. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint. Hr. Brewer - 7 - ---/ NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver SEQRA REVIEW - ANDREA GRAY - RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS REGARDING SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF. MR. BREWER-Okay. and. Scott. we have notes from you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 25-93 SEQRA Notes. Andrea Gray. Meeting Date: June 15th. 1993 "P ro; ect Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a 26' x 48' barn. The project is located at 1436 Bay Road and the property is zoned LC-42A. The proposed barn is proposed to be constructed with a front yard setback of 60' when 100' is required. Pro; ect Analysis: The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment submitted with this project and offers the fOllowing comments: 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? The proposed action will result in a slight change to the project site. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The proposed action will not affect any protected water body. 4. Will proposed action affect any non- protected existing or new bOdy of water? The proposed action will not affect any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The proposed action will not affect surface or groundwater. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The proposed action will slightly alter drainage flow patterns and surface water runoff. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? The project should not affect any non-threatened or non-endangered species. 10. Wi 11 the proposed action af fect agricultural land resources? The project should not affect any agricultural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not impact any aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact any site of historic. prehistoric or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any site of historic. prehistoric or paleontological importance. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? The action should not affect open space or recreational opportunities. 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation system? The project should not effect the transportation system. 15. Will proposed action affect the community's energy or fuel supply? The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable odors. noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? There should not be objectionable noise. odors or vibrations as a result of this project. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The project should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. Recommendation: The project does not appear to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment; therefore. the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH ANDREA GRAY RESOLUTION NO.: 10-1993 INTRODUCED BY: Edward LaPoint - 8 - r ---- WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel WHEREAS. in connection with the Andrea Gray proiect. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. by resolution. previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review. and WHEREAS. the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for the purposes of SEQRA review. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows: 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action. as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant for the following reasons: That there is no environmental impact with the project. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Hr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. BREWER-Do you want to just go right ahead with the Site Plan. as long as we're doing this right now. rather than go to three other items. then come back to it? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Plan? Do we have the notes in front of us for Site MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They're in the packet that you got. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Yes. I'd like to do it now. MR. BREWER-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 25-93 TYPE I LC-42A C.E.A. ANDREA GRAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 1436 BAY ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A 26' X 48' POLE BARN. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 5 -12 - 93 AP A CROSS REFERENCE: AV 143-1993 TAX MAP NO. 22-1-20.1 LOT SIZE: 2.48 ACRES SECTION - 9 - ------... -..- 179-13 D(3)(b)(10) ANDREA GRAY. PRESENT MR. BREWER-I don't think there's really any questions that ~ have. Maybe you can explain what you're doing and we can go through. Have you got notes on this. Scott? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 25-93. Andrea Gray, Meeting Date: June 15. 1993 "Proiect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to construct a 26' x 48' barn. The project is located at 1436 Bay Road and the property is zoned LC-42A. The proposed barn is proposed to be constructed with a front yard setback of 60' when 100' is required. proiect Analysis: 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; From the front the barn will appear to be a single story. From the back it will be a two story structure with the bottom floor open. similar to a walkout basement. The barn. because of it's size and distance from the principal structure. should not have a negative impact on the rest of the site. The applicant should provide information regarding what the building will be constructed of. 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. The 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-Okay. Maybe you'd just like to explain what you're going to do. Mr. Gray? MR. GRAY-Yes. When I did apply for this. I asked the Zoning Department first to approve the setback first. which I think you're aware they did. Basically. I originally wanted to build a garage. but since I was doing agriculture. I wanted to be sure whatever I did do. it would be a building approved by the Town. as far as the proper usage. and what I could build. The barn seemed to be the best route to go. because I wouldn't just park a car. I have a tractor trailer. and tillers. garden utilities that belong in a barn. and a barn is. according to what I read. is a building required to be approved to be built. So that's basically why I'm here. The restrictions on a garage say that I can't put a tractor in it. and I can't put in it things necessary for farming. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions at all? MR. STARK-What's the siding on this. Mr. Gray? MR. GRAY-Well. we had planned on a nice natural barn board. stained dark. to make it look very good. We also own the barn up here. - 10 - '-- -- MR. BREWER-Okay. There is a public hearing on this. I guess I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here from the public who would like to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. Now would anybody care to make a motion? MRS. TARANA-I just want to make a comment. I was going to commend you on the preparation of your appl ication. but when I see who you're sitting with. I wonder if he did it? You did it? MR. GRAY-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Good. It was a well done application. MR. GRAY-Thanks. Thanks for your help. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-93 ANDREA GRAY. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: For the construction of a 26' x 48' barn. at 1436 Bay Road. Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver SEORA REVIEW: SEQRA REVIEW - GUIDO PASSARELLI - RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS REGARDING SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF. MR. MARTIN-I'd just remind the Board that you did do this before. but there was a procedural error. in that the lead agency status wasn't requested. So. that's why we had to do it over again. but you've done this exact same SEQRA review before. MR. LAPOINT-Can I ask a qUick question? Should we open a public hearing before we do the SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-No. It's not required for SEQRA. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Does anybody remember. or do you have notes. as to what our comments were the last time? MR. HARLICKER-I've got a copy of the old EAF that you filled out. MR. LAPOINT-Great. Can we read right from that, then. or just put that in the record? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Again. I'm looking for help. Should we go through this again. or just put it in the record as it is? MR. BREWER-Is there anything. legally. that says we can't just reference the SEQRA we did before? MR. MARTIN-Right. Yes. You can do that. - 11 - ~~ --- MR. BREWER-We can just reference the SEQRA we did before. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'll put that in underneath the. Be It Therefore Resolved. MR. BREWER-Right. That's fine. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH GUIDO PASSARELLI RESOLUTION NO.: 11-1993 INTRODUCED BY: Edward LaPoint WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel WHEREAS. in connection with the Guido Passarelli proiect. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. by resolution. previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review. and WHEREAS. the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with the SEQRA as follows: 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action. as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant for the following reasons: That there is no significant environmental impact that can't be mitigated in the project's design. and this resolution refers to the previously conducted SEQRA Questionnaire. and should be re-included in the motion for this date. the 15th of June. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notification and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver - 12 - '-....... ~ MR. BREWER-Okay. Next. SEQRA REVIEW - AMERICAN EQUITY - RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS REGARDING AREA AND USE VARIANCES AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF. MARK SCHACHNER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have any notes. Scott? MR. HARLICKER-No. Nothing. updated. there should be in Yarmowich. We haven't your packet really received a letter from any Mr. MR. MARTIN-Dated June 15th. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I can give you my copy. Tim. and you can read it in. MRS. TARANA-Okay. "Dear Mr. Martin: Rist-Frost has reviewed concept SWM information submi tted by J. H. Weller Associates on behalf of American Equity Corporation. The information submitted. and Warren County Soil Survey data. suggests that an infiltration based SWM concept is probably appropriate for the development of the 31.43+/- acre parcel. On the basis of the above. it is concluded that a SWM design meeting Town of Queensbury performance guidelines is feasible and that implementation should properly mitigate potential negative environmental impacts with respect to drainage and stormwater runoff." MR. BREWER-Okay. and we do have someone here from the applicant. I just want to ask you. the items that we talked about last week. did you have a chance to look into them. Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. For your records. I'm Mark Schachner from Miller. Mannix and Pratt. attorney for American Equity Corporation. the applicant in this matter. I believe we did the principle ones. We 11. let me say the principle one. in our opinion. was the stormwater management issue. and Hr. Weller. or our engineering consultant. did meet. along with Mr. Harlicker. from your Staff. with Tom Yarmowich. of Rist-Frost. your Town Consulting Engineer. and the result of that meeting was obviously the letter that was just read. which seems to clearly indicate the Stormwater Management Plan will appropriately mitigate any potential environmental impacts. The other principle issues that were looked into. aside from some minor site plan issues. basically involve some specific questions that we had. when we were talking about the Environmental Assessment Form. and I don't know how you plan on doing this. If you can go item through item. which we assume you do. when those come up. I'll be glad to address them specifically. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess. specifically. what I was thinking of was the CWI issue. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's a good example. and that comes later on in the EAF. and our position on that is that. although technically it's really not a school. what we found out is it's a day treatment program. as well as some administrative things. and it's our position that there's absolutely no need to quibble over it. We would say that that particular item on the Environmental Assessment Form should be checked off as yes. Lets call ita school like building. even though it's not technically a school. We would certainly urge and indicate in our opinion that it's a small to moderate impact. but we feel it's appropriate to call that a school for the purposes of the Environmental Assessment. MR. MARTIN-The other comment I'd like to have on the record is that the Board should remember that you're doing this SEQRA Review in - 13 - consideration of not only the use and area variances. but your site plan and any subdivision issues as well. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-This is a comprehensive review. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. and although. in fairness. you weren't at the meeting Thursday night. but we actually discussed that at length. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And we took the position. adamantly, if that's the case. that this is SEQRA for the entire project. and we appreciate that comment. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. I would prefer to get all the issues out before we go through it. and then we can talk about them. or how does the everybody else feel? Get them out? Craig had a concern about wetlands. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. as I indicated at the Board's special meeting. we don't have a heck of a lot to add on the wetlands discussion. We understand that at times there is water on the property in certain places. and there is clearly a drainage way on the property. but our investigation shows that the issue's been examined in at least three contexts. and in all three contexts. the determination has been made that there are not freshwater wetlands on the property. The three context are. the commercial subdivision that was approved by this Board meaning the Planning Board. not the same individuals. obviously. several years ago. and I have now. wi th me. the entire file. that is not very large. from that commercial subdivision approval. The indication in the Environmental Assessment Form that was approved by the Planning Board is that there are no wetlands. The Planning Board issued a SEQRA negative declaration. and al so. at that time. there was a form that the Planning Board checked off. going through sensitive environmental concerns. and next to Item I. which reads environmental concerns. and relates to ponding. flooding. erosion of wetlands and water type concerns. the answers were. none. none. none. none. and none. The second context would be the Earl Town Planned Unit Development. for which a very detailed environmental Impact Statement was prepared several years later than that. As I demonstrated. again. at the special meeting Thursday night. and I'll be glad to show you again. the wetlands studied showed that there were significant. as I understand it. significant freshwater wetlands on parts of the approximately 1.000 acre Planned Unit Development. but none on this particular site. on our site. or even contiguous to our site. and then the third would be. of course. the Warren County Freshwater Wetlands Map. which also shows that there are wetlands on property in the general area. if you will. but neither on nor contiguous to our site. I've got copies the relevant maps, which I'll be glad to show to anybody. but I guess I feel like I should. in particular show them to Mr. LaPoint. since he wasn't present Thursday night. and again. I don't mean to pick on Mr. LaPoint. Anybody can see these. I showed them very qUickly. I think. at the special meeting. This is the map. the wetlands map. from the wetlands study that was one of the exhibits to the Environmental Impact Statement for the Earl Town Planned Unit Development, wetlands being delineated in the black. gray. or shaded area. if you will. and our site being colored by us. by the way, in green. The Warren County Freshwater Wetlands Map. which was also included as part of our application materials. to the Town currently. does indicate. and you're all familiar. I believe. with the symbols for wetlands. The wetland is actually designated HF3. and again. our property is not only not in the wetland. it is not contiguous to the wetland. nor is it within the 100 foot buffer of the wetland. - 14 - MR. MACEWAN-But the question that I asked of you. Mark. was whether those wetlands would fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corp of Engineers. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. and our only meaningful response is that we have had consultants walk the site. to indicate that there are no jurisdictional wetlands from either agency. There's nothing more definitive. really. that can be said than that. that. again it's our position that. absent any substantial reason to believe that there are jurisdictional wetlands. we cannot come up with affirmative proof from the Army Corp of Engineers or anyone else like that. simply because they cannot be forced to write a non- jurisdictional letter on any kind of timely basis. MR. MACEWAN-I also asked you to look into it. Did you? HR. HARLICKER-As far as? MR. HACEWAN-Whether that was there. if it fell under the Engineers. non-jurisdictional jurisdiction of the wetlands over Army Corp of MR. HARLICKER-No. I did not. MR. BREWER-So where does that put us now? If we go find out that there are. and we do the SEQRA. how long would that take to find out. Jim? MR. SCHACHNER-Well. can I answer that? I mean. my experience with the Army Corp is if for some reason you force an applicant. any applicant. to get the Army Corp of Engineers up here from the New York District Office and get some sort of affirmative determination that there are no jurisdictional wetlands. my experience is you're talking. not only a multiple month process. but literally as long as a year or more. I think I related to the Board at the special meeting. I've been involved in a number of projects that were Army Corp jurisdictional. and everybody knew they were Army Corp jurisdictional. and it still took a year to get the people. MR. BREWER-What is the criteria for their jurisdiction? MR. SCHACHNER-It's a several page regulatory definition that principally relates to what's called Hydric Soils. and one of the difficulties in New York State in particular. is that there are actually three different operative regulatory definitions. one from the United States Army Corp of Engineers. which is the federal definition. but applies in New York. One is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regulatory Definition. and yet a third. in some places. the Adirondack Park Agency Regulatory Definitions. not in this particular application. but in other areas of the Town of Queensbury, as well as other municipalities. Again. our position I think has to be that the concern's been expressed. We've done with due diligence. the research that can be reasonably expected. to identify that there are no jurisdictional wetlands. In answer to your question. just to play sort of a worse case. worst scenario game. if. in fact. a determination is made that there are jurisdictional wetlands, as I believe you know. the Agency can step in and get involved. and in fairness. I have seen that happen, not very often. but I have seen it happen. They are capable of doing. just incredibly slow. MR. MACEWAN-That question was also raised with Zaremba. on the other side of the road. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-They had the Army Corp come and check out the site. and made a determination. MR. MARTIN-As I recall. what initiated that was C.T. Male went over - 15 - '-- .....---" the site and they found approximately. I think it was an acre to three acre parcel that was wetland. and that's what initiated the Army Corp review. MR. MACEWAN-C.T. Male contacted them? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MACEWAN-How long did it take them to come to the site? MR. MARTIN-I don't know. I know they got a determination from them. I don't know how long it took them. though. MR. MACEWAN-It didn't take very long. MR. MARTIN-It couldn't have been. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you know for sure that an Army Corp representative actually physically went to the site? MR. MARTIN-No. I'm not sure about that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. My prediction is that they probably didn't. for what it's worth. MR. MACEWAN-They got a determination in a relatively short period of time. much less time than what you're indicating. though. HR. SCHACHNER-If their determination is not based on the site visit. then their determination is not meaningful. I don't see why it would be. in your opinion. Your whole point. as I understand it. Mr. MacEwan. is that you have this fundamental belief that there may be wetlands on the property. and then you want somebody to go out there and prove otherwise. Well. I don't know how a letter from somebody in New York City. saying that. without a site inspection. is going to satisfy your concern. MR. MACEWAN-I have some reservations about it. because I do believe there are wetlands involved. and I want to be absolutely certain. before I cast a vote. in my mind. that that's indeed the case. or not the case. MR. SCHACHNER-You're entitled to your opinion. All I'm saying is. for a multiple acre project. that to impose that sort of burden on an applicant. you're never going to have an application being complete. because you're not going to get Army Corp for final. in my opinion. MR. BREWER-Okay. Traffic was another concern. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Traffic. I think the. correct me if I'm wrong. MR. BREWER-We did have a study done. You're right. MR. SCHACHNER-I thought we'd covered that. but in fairness to you who have not yet had a chance to review the detailed traffic study. but we certainly did go over the conclusions. and our view is that. in filling out an Environmental Assessment Form. we think that the answer is yes. there is a traffic impact. We even concede that's there's a potential larqe impact. but we think that the five mitigation measures we identified at the special meeting appropriately mitigate the potential traffic impact. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything from anybody else? Those were the three items I had. Do we want to go through it? Okay. MR. LAPOINT-"Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?" MR. BREWER-Yes. I've got. construction of paved parking area for - 16 - -- -- 1.000 or more vehicles. small to moderate. MR. SCHACHNER-That's exactly what we had. also. as far as proposed. MR. LAPOINT-That's it? MR. BREWER-I guess that's all I've got. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual landform found on the site?" MR. BREWER-I would say. no. MR. LAPOINT-No. "Impact on Water Will proposed action affect any waterbody designated as protected?" No. "Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quantity or quality?" MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. Mr. LaPoint. I'm sorry to interrupt you. but I think you might have missed one. MR. BREWER-You skipped Four. MR. LAPOINT-I'm sorry. "Will proposed action impact any nonprotected existing or new body of water?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. LAPOINT-No. MRS. TARANA-Isn't that what we don't know? MR. SCHACHNER-That's not really a body of water. MR. LAPOINT-A body of water is different than a wetland. MR. BREWER-A body of water would be like a pond or a lake. or stream. creek. Okay. Go ahead. Ed. MR. LAPOINT- "Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quantity or quality?" MR. BREWER-I would say. yes. surface. Well, I think it'll effect the MR. SCHACHNER-The stormwater mitigation wouldn't effect, we don't think. the quantity or quality. but I'm open to suggestions. HR. BREWER-You don't think that's going to create more? MR. SCHACHNER-It can't create more runoff. and that's the reason that I don't. we would submit that the answer's no, but again, if I'm missing something. tell me. because municipal sewer. water connections. don't use in excess of 20.000 gallons per day. We don't have wells bigger than 45 gallons per minute. MR. BREWER-Yes. but I think, in my mind. if you're taking all that water from your parking lot and shoving it somewhere. you're going to effect, how can you not. Jim? If it goes in here. and you're moving it from here over to there. JIM WELLER MR. WELLER-I'm Jim Weller. I work as a Consulting Engineer for the applicant. The letter that you read from Tom Yarmowich indicates that the stormwater management plan will go in the direction of infiltration. to the greatest extent possible. and that the runoff will be minimized. maybe actually eliminated. MR. MARTIN-I think you might want to consider that in the next question. Number Six. - 17 - -- MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Keep in mind you're about. what. 2,000 feet away from some of the most scorched earth in all of Queensbury. I mean. upgradient. HR. BREWER-Well. that's just my opinion. I have a right to that. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And we're not quarreling with it. We just couldn't come up with an example. HR. BREWER-Okay. I'll say no more. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?" MR. BREWER-I'll say yes. it will. You're moving it from Point A to Point B. That's altering it. MR. LAPOINT-Within the scope of how many feet. though? it's. I mean. MR. BREWER-It doesn't matter how many feet. Ed. it. you're moving it. I'm not saying it's a impact. If you're moving potential large HR. SCHACHNER-Can I make a suggestion on that one? Although we had proposed checking no. maybe you could check yes. and then if it doesn't fit exactly within any of the examples. do what you just said. other impacts. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's fine. Small to moderate. You're moving water from Point A to Point B. HR. LAPOINT-You see. creating any floods. erosion. We're not drainage patterns. designated floodway. just academically. we're not going to be We're not going to be creating substantial putting anything incompatible with existing and we're not allowing development in a I mean. that's the intent. MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't meet the examples. I'll agree with that. The other thing is. you'll find that if you check yes for the reasons you've indicated. in my opinion. you'll end up doing that almost every time then. MR. BREWER-Well. I think this is a significant project. and you're going to put. MR. MARTIN-As a Staff Comment. I would say you could say a small to moderate impact. incompatible with existing drainage patterns. I would think that would be reasonable. just as a comment. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "Impact on Air Will proposed action affect air quality?" MR. BREWER-No. MR. LAPOINT-No. "Impact on Plants and Animals Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?" MR. BREWER-No. MR. LAPOINT-No. "Will proposed action substantially affect nonthreatened or nonendangered species?" MR. BREWER-No. - 18 - MR. LAPOINT-No. "Impact on Agricultural Land Resources proposed action affect agricultural land resources?" No. on Aesthetic Resources Will proposed action affect resources?" Will "Impact aesthetic MR. BREWER-I would say. aesthetic. no. HR. LAPOINT-No. Okay. "Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic. prehistoric or paleontological importance?" HR. BREWER-No. MR. LAPOINT-No. "Impact on Open Space and Recreation Will proposed action affect the quantity or quali ty of existing or future open space or recreation opportunities?" MR. BREWER-No. HR. LAPOINT-"Impact on Transportation Will there be an affect to existing transportation systems?" MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/ or goods. small to moderate. I don't know whether proposed action would result in. I don't know about major traffic problems. because they have been mitigated. they said. MR. RUEL-Some traffic problems. HR. SCHACHNER-Cross out. major. MR. BREWER-I don't know if I agree with that. Well. can we address that second exit at site plan. can't we. or entrance? That is part of the review. and I think that would cause a problem because I think you're going to create a problem like you have right at Shop N' Save. That's just my opinion. HR. SCHACHNER-For the benefit of Hr. LaPoint who wasn't present when we had some debate about that at the special meeting. we feel otherwise. but we don't disagree with the Chairman's position about. discussing that at great deal at site plan review. Is that a fair characterization? MR. BREWER-Okay. So can we eliminate that word "major". and just leave traffic problems. MR. LAPOINT-Make it small to moderate impact, to be mitigated during site plan? MR. BREWER-I would say it's potentially large impact. and it can be mitigated. MR. BREWER-Potential large impact. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Potential large impact. to be addressed and mitigated during site plan? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. and if it isn't corrected then. there's still a large impact. MR. LAPOINT-Right. "Impact on Energy Will proposed action affect the community sources of fuel or energy supply?" HR. BREWER-No. MR. LAPOINT-"Noise and Odor Impacts Will there be objectionable - 19 - ~ ,/ "-- -../ . odors. noise. or vibration as a result of the proposed action?" MR. BREWER-Well. we had discussion about that because of the CWI. MRS. TARANA-My comment about that would be. when the blasting is going to take place, I know they do this in another place I'm thinking of. they just alert the institution or whatever that they're going to do it. then they let their clients know, because there are. you know. MR. BREWER-Okay. I would say. no, then. if that is done. MRS. TARANA-It's a yes. but they're going to mitigate it. small. and they're going to take care of it. It's MR. BREWER-Small to moderate. under blasting within 1500 feet of a hospital. school. or other sensitive facility. Okay. Ed? MR. LAPOINT-"Impact on Public Health Will proposed action affect public health and safety?" MR. BREWER-I would say. no. MR. LAPOINT-No. "Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?" MRS. TARANA-There's commercial along there. MR. RUEL-The whole area is industrial. MR. BREWER-I think we can say. yes. and it's a positive impact that will create employment. Can we put something posi ti ve down for once? MR. LAPOINT-Sure. I'm always for that. Good. That's a good way to think about things. "Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" 11R. RUEL-No. MR. LAPOINT-No. MRS. TARANA-I think we should go back. though, and address a couple of these things that Scott pointed out. regarding the 11.000 vehicle trips per day. just because I think that they should be. I think we should note them. even if they're not large. MR. BREWER-You want to note that there will be an impact on air. yes? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. BREWER-Proposed will produce 1.000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour? Are they predicting that? MRS. TARANA-Yes. They're saying 11.000. Is that what the criteria is? Do you think that's? MR. RUEL-That's one hour. one thousand an hour. MR. SCHACHNER-You're mixing an hour and a day up. MR. MARTIN-Are you saying Impact on Air? Is that where you're at right now? MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-You said 11.000 vehicles per day. day. a 10 hour day? Is that a 24 hour - 20 - --' . MR. SCHACHNER-Well. to make this easier for you, I would also. elsewhere in the traffic study. we do have an indication that there could be 1.000 in peak hour. So I think what Mrs. Tarana is proposing is a small to moderate next to. proposed action would produce 1.000 or more. and I don't think that's unreasonable. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-The other thing. Tim. the last one, Impact on Character of Community. I just want to raise the issue of. proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. You might want to consider that one. as you're taking light industrial land and going to commercial retail. through the use variance. MR. BREWER-Well. I don't think it's going to set a precedent. because anybody can get a variance. Right? I mean. that's fine if you think we should. MR. MARTIN-No. no. no. I just raised the issue. MRS. TARANA-What did you say the zoning was again. going from what to what? MR. MARTIN-Light Industrial to Retail Commercial. or Commercial Retail. Highway Commercial. HRS. TARANA-Well. I think the issue with that is what Scott brought up once before, with the other one. You take out all the Light Industrial. and don't replace it some place else. MR. BREWER-Okay. It's fine. If you want to put it down. I don't have a problem with it. MRS. TARANA-Well. I think you are setting a precedent with that. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's all we're going to check. then. on the air. is that one thing? Is everybody happy with that? How does everybody feel about checking the. proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects? Yes? MR. RUEL-Yes. Moderate. MR. BREWER-Okay. Small to moderate on that. then. Jim. That's it. MR. MARTIN-The other thing is. Large Impact. Part III has to responses that. since you be filled indicated Potentially out. if you have any MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. The only Potentially Large Impact. I believe is the traffic. the transportation issues. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And. again. we would urge that. it be filled out by indicating that the five mitigation measures we proposed will mitigate potential impact. and that. therefore. the potential impact is not an important one. something as simple as that. MR. BREWER-Do you have to fill out Part III. Jim? MR. MARTIN-No. but I think the Board should go through the items noted under Number Three of Part III. and just put those on the record. as to what your determination is. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Part III. Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts. Okay. Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column Two of Part II. MR. MARTIN-So this would only apply to your one potentially large impact. on traffic. You have to go through and consider each of - 21 - -- those. HR. LAPOINT-Okay. Briefly describe the impact of a little over 1.000 cars per hour. at peak. that's the definition of the impact? MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly. MR. LAPOINT-And Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mi tigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). Now. if they are going to go through site plan review wi th us. which we have an opportunity to comment on. configurations, traffic flows, and that type of thing. and they've already proposed five mitigating measures. MR. BREWER-Then it can be mitigated. MR. BREWER-Right. HR. SCHACHNER-And we've committed to those. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. BREWER-But there may be other items that we. maybe we might eliminate that other entrance. I'm not saying we will or won't. but it's possible, if we deem that it's unsafe or whatever. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Based on the information available. decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. MR. MARTIN-And you should consider. then. those items listed underneath there, along the bullets there. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. To answer the question of importance. consider: The probability of the impact occurring. MR. MARTIN-Highly probable. I would say. MR. LAPOINT-The duration of the impact. Per their traffic study. there's a peak. a temporary type peak. It's irreversibility. including permanently lost resource of value. I don't think that's relevant. It's no damage. Whether the impact can or will be controlled. Again. we'll reference the mitigative measures already proposed. and any additional mitigative measures we may include during site plan. The regional consequence of the impact. We're right on the border of our neighboring community. right Kingsbury? MR. MARTIN-Right. HR. LAPOINT-It's better we get the project than them. along the same road. MR. BREWER-It could affect them. but I don't know how. MR. LAPOINT-Well. it affects us. if it's in their property. of no benefit to us. It's potential divergence from local needs and goals. I don't see anything there. MR. MARTIN-The Master Plan has referenced commercial development along the major intersections of Quaker Road. such as Dix Avenue. Ridge Road. Bay Road. HR. LAPOINT-And whether any known objections to the project relate to this impact. Did you guys have public hearing last meeting? MR. BREWER-No. We won't. for SEQRA. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I think that's going to come up at site plan. when we address the site plan. MR. BREWER-At site plan. - 22 - '- -..-/ MR. MARTIN-And during the variances. also. There's hearings on them HR. BREWER-And your variances are. what. next week? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-That's all I have for Part III. HR. BREWER-Okay. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AMERICAN EQUITY CORP. RESOLUTION NO.: 12-1993 INTRODUCED BY: Edward LaPoint WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: WHEREAS. in connection with the American Equity Corp. proiect. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. by resolution. previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS. the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows: 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action. as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant for the following reasons: That there is no overall significant adverse environmental impact wi th the following concerns. that we will address the existing five traffic mitigation measures, and possible more mitigation measures at site plan review. and all other issues raised in the SEQRA Review. during the public hearing and the si te plan review for this site. and we want to forward this SEQRA resolution on to the ZBA with the minutes of this review and meeting. for their consideration. wi th respect to the area variance. That we direct the Planning Staff to get these minutes together separate from the rest of the meeting. so they are available. That we've characterized all the rest of the impacts in the SEQRA Review as small to moderate, or none, with the exception of the traffic impacts. which will be considered at site plan. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and - 23 - ~ ...- Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: MRS. TARANA-I want to ask a question. first. before I vote. I have the same concerns. in fact. I probably voiced them before Craig did. when we went on site visits. about the wet land. not wetlands. Is there a way of making a determination. other than through the Corp of Engineers. of what that land is in there? MR. HARTIN-See. it's my recollection of what happened with Zaremba is that when the engineer went to the site. he is bound by his license. if he finds areas that he thinks may be wetlands. to indicate those on a site plan. and then that information is submitted to the Army Corp. and the Army Corp's only response to this, or typical response. as I understand it. is to say. then. you have to replace that like area with a man made wetland. somewhere else. and that's what they are saying they are going to do with their site. and that is the typical response. and that's not an indication that the Army Corp was actually to the site to see it. That is just what they indicate as an acceptable mitigation measure. MR. SCHACHNER-And for what it's worth. that's not the only response. but that's certainly a common response. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-But I guess our position is that. in addition to our own engineering firm that's been there. we also have. and you have. in your records. not one. but two previous determinations that include engineer's determination. The C.T. Male stamp. in fact. I guess you're saying that that's the same engineer. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's the same firm. MR. SCHACHNER-Which I didn't even know. but C.T. Male Associates. it's their map that did the wetland study for the Planned Uni t Development. It's their map that shows wetlands elsewhere. but not on our site. and. again. it's just coincidence. I think. that it's the same engineering firm, but it's certainly an engineering firm. MRS. TARANA-Is it possible to have a biologist look at that site. for a determination? MR. MARTIN-Yes. anything like that is certainly possible. MR. MACEWAN-Wasn't it the issue with these previous engineering findings. they were looking for DEC flagged wetlands. is that correct? MR. SCHACHNER-No. I don't believe it is correct. In the context of the Planned Unit Development, my understanding is that that was to delineate. a wetland study to say whether. not whether. in that case it would be where, anyone's jurisdictional wetlands were. or DEC. or anybody else. Now. in that case. they certainly did find wetlands. So it was not a situation where C.T. Male was out there saying. no there aren't any wetlands. As I understand it, others may know more than I. they found lots of wetlands. but not on or even contiguous to or near this particular site. MRS. TARANA-I' m just wondering if. because there are wetlands, fairly close to it. not too far away from it. that that would disrupt any of the environment. if what is wet land in there would. in some way. endanger the habitats of any animals that might be in the wetlands. I guess that's the assurance I want. only for this reason. I walked the land and saw a Blue Heron standing there. To me. a Blue Heron I associate with wetlands. and I just wonder why he was standing there. - 24 - ----/ '- MR. SCHACHNER-You're referring to your trip with Mr. Laakso. right? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So. then you were on. what I understand to be. the PUD tour. with Mr. Laakso. MRS. TARANA-But we started there. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Our position is going to be consistent. and it's going to be that we are. in practical terms. we are not in the wetlands. we are not contiguous to the wetlands. We're not within the 100 foot buffer. and that's all we can say. We don't believe there's any potential significant adverse environmental impact relating to the wetlands from this project. from this parcel. It's not related to any future development on the other 1.000 acres, and there may well be development, I mean. I have no idea. MRS. TARANA-That reminds me of one other question that I should ask. in regard to the SEQRA. The little chunk on the map. I don't know the direction. to the left on the map. you said you didn't plan on deve loping that now. Do you have future plans for developing that. because that is. isn't that right next to a wetland? MR. SCHACHNER-It's close. but it's actually not. Just to make sure we're on ,the same wavelength. you're talking about the triangular shaped parcel? MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-We have no. I mean. pie in the sky. Anything could happen. but we currently have. not only no plans. We don't even have any ownership. control. or option or anything else on that. MRS. TARANA-And if they were to pursue that in the future. they would have to come back for another SEQRA Review? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Very definitely. MRS. TARANA-Because I think that I would be real concerned about that. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's not considered as part of the context of this SEQRA Review. or this site plan. or this project. So. yes. it would come back. MR. MACEWAN-Isn't that triangular portion part of this subdivision? MR. MARTIN-It's part of the subdivision. but not. MR. MACEWAN-Then it's part of the SEQRA Review. because this SEQRA Review is all inclusive of the subdivision. and the site plan. MR. MARTIN-Point well taken. MR. SCHACHNER-Creation of that lot. you're correct. but no development. MR. MACEWAN-So you wouldn't have to come back for another SEQRA Review. because it's part of this subdivision? MR. SCHACHNER-No. If somebody wanted to develop something on that land. they certainly would. MR. MARTIN-It's going to require site plan. MR. BREWER-Any commercial use in that zone would have to come back - 25 - - for site plan review. and that would kick it into a SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. No question about it. MRS. TARANA-Okay. I'll vote yes. MR. RUEL-I had a question. Am I to assume that what I'm voting on is not necessarily final. but rather it's predicated on traffic review and other factors that may be found in site plan review? MR. BREWER-This is a SEQRA Review saying that there is no significant environmental impacts related to this subdivision. MR. RUEL-Yes. but there could be. Couldn't there be some findings. as a result of site plan review. and then what recourse do we have? MR. BREWER-What's that scenario. Jim? If significant findings, after we did a negative recourse. if there are significant findings? there was some dec. what is our MR. MARTIN-Then you can re-open the SEQRA Review. MR. RUEL-You can? MR. HARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-But it is final then? MR. MARTIN-No. HR. BREWER-If we find that there is something else. we can re-open it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-But then would he have to go back and get a variance. again? HR. HARTIN-If it in some way would impact his that would be. in terms of not being able requirements. or something like that. yes. variance. whatever to meet his area MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-So this is the proper sequence. doing this first. and then site plan. and not the reverse? MR. BREWER-Yes. exactly. MR. SCHACHNER-You can't do it in reverse. It's illegal to do it in reverse. MR. BREWER-You can't do it. MR. RUEL-I vote yes. MR. MACEWAN-One question before I cast a vote. Will we do another. will we not do another SEQRA for site plan? MR. MARTIN-Correct. MR. MACEWAN-That's correct? No. AYES: Hr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Hr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Hrs. Pulver MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you very much. - 26 - - MR. BREWER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 26-93 CHALMERS. JR. & JULIA DEWEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A. C.E.A. LOCATION: WARNER BAY (SE CORNER OF LAKE GEORGE IN KATSKILL BAY) TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CRIB DOCK TO REPLACE CURRENT STORM DAMAGED DOCK. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 6-9- 93 APA TAX MAP NO. 19-1-41 LOT SIZE: 24.104 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-60 BRAD DEWEY. REPRESENTING APPLICANTS. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 26-93. Chalmers. Jr. & Julia Dewey. Meeting Date: June 15. 1993 "Proiect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to construct an 8 foot by 40 foot dock. The property is located on Warner Bay. Lake George. The dock will replace a storm damaged dock. Proiect Analysis: The project was compared to the criteria found in Section 179-60 which contains the regulations regarding construction of Docks and moorings. The proposed dock complies with the regulations found in Section 179-60 and Staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. DEWEY-Brad Dewey. MR. BREWER-I have one question. MR. DEWEY-The new one? No. Is this dock already done? MR. BREWER-Because we were down there. last week. and we went down. and there is a dock down there. It has a new. HR. DEWEY-It's the one that I'm replacing. MR. BREWER-That has a new top on it? MR. DEWEY-I know, but that wood. eventually. will end up on the new dock. MR. BREWER-Okay. HR. DEWEY-I can't moor a boat there where people can go out on. So what I want to do is construct the new dock and remove the old dock. MR. BREWER-You're going to move that over to the. if you're looking at it. MR. DEWEY-Move it into the property. si ts right on the property line. property. Right now. the existing dock two or three feet from the MR. BREWER-So. it will meet the setbacks then? MR. DEWEY-It will meet the setbacks. MR. MACEWAN-What's wrong with the existing dock? MR. DEWEY-Mother Nature. over 38 years. has damaged the crib to beyond repair. and really what I want to do is get rid of a potential easement situation. MRS. TARANA-How long will the new dock be? MR. DEWEY-It will be 40 feet long. MRS. TARANA-Forty by eight? MR. DEWEY-Forty by eight. - 27 - "-'" MRS. TARANA-Those are the Reg's? MR. DEWEY-Yes. MR. BREWER-Does anybody else have any questions? MR. HACEWAN-Yes. dock. Your application says that it's a ~ foot long MR. DEWEY-That's an error. If you look at the plans. MR. RUEL-And it shows 400 square feet. MR. DEWEY-It's 320. MR. RUEL-Three twenty. right? HR. DEWEY-Yes. and that's well within the. MR. RUEL-You don't show the height of the dock. extended into the water. You show the width and the length. There's no height. What is it. roughly? Do you know? HR. DEWEY-Roughly about five and a half to six feet. MR. LAPOINT-That's from the lake bottom, correct? It's not five or six feet off the water? MR. DEWEY-No. It's from the lake bottom. MR. LAPOINT-From the lake bottom. It's only maybe a foot to two feet off the lake? He does show the mean water level with no scale. but I just want to correct. because I think he might have mislead you to believe it was six feet out of the water. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Planning Staff. Is there any regulation on the use of pressure treated lumber in lakes? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I believe there is. Treated lumber. when used for construction of docks. shall be of sealed and nonleaching type. 'rhat's on Page 18024. Section 179-60B(1)(a)(13). I think it is. Whatever that means. but it's supposed to be of a sealed nonleaching type. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I don't even think they make the other type, that creosote soaked. anymore. for retail. I'll put it in there anyway. MR. MARTIN-I think there are some wholesale places that will still sell you railroad ties. MR. LAPOINT-They can't use that type of pressure treated lumber. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DEWEY-I built a boathouse on another piece of property. about six years ago. and it's. the stringers are pressure treated lumber. and from the water line down. it's pine for the cribs. MR. RUEL-The reason I ask is the lumber is treated with toxic materials. HR. MARTIN-I think a lot of the dock builders use cedar. I think that's been proven to be the best. MR. RUEL-Well. that's not what it says on the plan. MR. MARTIN-Well. I'm just saying as a general rule. - 28 - -- MR. RUEL-And if it's toxic material. and we put it in the lake. I just had a question about it. and what I just read doesn't tell me anything. MR. LAPOINT-It does say pine cribbing. pressure treated stringers and deck. correct? MR. DEWEY-That's true. MR. LAPOINT-If you look. MR. DEWEY-As a matter of fact. this one is being designed exactly like one of the piers that was built in the boathouse on the other property. six years ago. MR. BREWER-Well. we can put that into the motion. that he uses a nonleaching lumber. MR. RUEL-What is a nonleaching lumber? MR. LAPOINT-Pine. nontreated pine. MR. BREWER-Right. as opposed to. like. the lumber that I have on my deck. on the back of my house. In other words. the stuff that they treat it with will not leach out into the water. MR. RUEL-They have such material? MR. BREWER-Sure. Untreated. MR. MACEWAN-Regular construction lumber. MR. RUEL-Carry on. MR. DEWEY-Can I use pressure treated lumber with stringers? MR. BREWER-Of a certain type you can. yes. MR. DEWEY-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-No. no. no. You can use pressure treated stringers and decking. regular PTL lumber you buy at Grossman's. for the stringers and deck. This is not in the lake. The crib is in the lake. and he's going to use pine for that. like it shows on his drawing. MR. DEWEY-Yes. MR. BREWER-What Roger's talking about is the deck of the dock. Right? MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. BREWER-That water's going to splash up on. and if it leaches. it's going to go into the lake. What it says here. treated lumber. when used for construction of docks. shall be sealed nonleaching type. It's as simple as that. isn't it? Okay. With that. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-All right, and this is Type II. So there is no. MR. LAPOINT-They never do SEQRA on docks. which just goes to show you how ridiculous the whole statute is that. here's something you - 29 - -- ~ do right in a lake. and it's exempt from that. Yet we do all this stuff for these other projects. I always like to make that point. when we start considering all these environmental impacts. and we worry about nice. clean. groundwater leaching back into the ground. and think it's going to be of some environmental concern. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would someone care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-93 CHALMERS. JR. & JULIA DEWEY. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: ~ For the construction of a new crib dock to replace the current storm damaged dock. with the following conditions, that the dock be constructed of crib material 40 feet by 8 foot. as shown in the drawings. with pine cribbing material. and sealed nonleaching type pressure treated lumber. for the stringers and decking. and the C~unty has reviewed, and there's No County Impact. Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver OLD BUSINESS: ltv\b ~ SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARMS APPROVAL. REDUCTION OF 10 LOTS TO 7 LOTS. MODIFICATION OF MARK SCHACHNER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. Scott. well, we do have a letter from the Department of Health. Maybe you'd want to read that in. MRS. TARANA-This is to Ms. Holly E. Elmer. Hydrogeologist and Associate. The LA Group. regarding the Proposed Realty Subdivision Sunset Hill Farm. Queensbury, Warren County. "Dear Ms. Elmer: I have reviewed the plans attached to your letter of April 19. 1993 on the above referenced project. Those plans. dated April 14. 1993. show a 7 lot subdivision. Since only four of the lots are less than five acres in size the project is non-jurisdictional. Accordingly. Department of Health approval would not be required for the filing of these plans with the County Clerk's Office. Very truly yours. Brian S. Fear. P.E.. District Director" MR. BREWER-Okay. and Scott. we have notes. MR. MARTIN-Did you get a copY. in your packets. of a letter I received from Dennis MacElroy? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. we did. MR. MARTIN-I think I'd read that in. too. as a public comment. or maybe at the public hearing. whatever you want to do. MR. BREWER-Lets read it now. MRS. TARANA-This is addressed to James Martin. Director. Dept. of Community Development. Regarding Sunset Hill Farm. "Dear Jim: During a recent unrelated meeting with Brian Fear. he informed me that the plan for the Sunset Hill Farm was being revised from 10 to 7 lots. Of the 7 lots. only 4 were to be less than 5 acres. thus avoiding the requirement for Health Department approval. As we also discussed the recent situation with the "McCall" lot - Parcel 7.-1-16.7. the question came up as to whether that lot should be part of the properly executed subdivision. It is my understanding - 30 - -- '--- that Mr. Knox had been creating and selling (?) lots (7.-1-16.2. - 16.4. -16.5. - 16.6. - 16.7 and 7.-1-22) over the years in a piece- meal fashion until the Town Planning Department finally realized that a major subdivision was in order. I have attached a copy of the applicable regulations "New York State Realty Subdivision Laws" Public Health Law: Article 11 for your review. I have highlighted a few sections that could be pertinent. Perhaps Paul Dusek and/or Brian Fear will have an opinion as to the applicability of this law on the current situation. Please keep me advised. Sincerely. Dennis MacElroy" MR. BREWER-I don't see anything highlighted. MR. LAPOINT-He's got a couple of things underlined. MR. MARTIN-It didn't come out on the copier. Tim. There were some highlighted sections. MRS. TARANA-I think on Page One he's highlighted. "A tract of land shall constitute a subdivision upon the sale. rental or offer for sale or lease of the fifth residential lot or residential building plot therefrom within any consecutive three year period" That's all I find. Do you have more marked. Jim. on the original? MR. MARTIN-Page Two, Number Three at the toP. "3. "Residential lot" or "residential building lot" shall mean any parcel of land of five acre or less. any point on the boundary line of which is less than one-half mile from any point on the boundary line of another such lot in the same tract" Page Three. "Realty subdivisions; plans required to be filed and approved. 1. No subdivision or portion thereof shall be sold. offered for sale. leased or rented by any corporation. company, or person. and no permanent building shall be erected thereon. until a plan or map of such subdivision shall be filed with and approved by the department or city. county. or part-county department of health having jurisdiction" Two. "Such plan or map shall show methods for obtaining and furnishing adequate and satisfactory water supply to said subdivision." He's highlighted Section 117 at the bottom. just the title. and that was it. in terms of highlighting. MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have notes from Scott. STAFF INPUT Staff Notes. Subdivision No. 11-1991. Sunset Hill Farm Modification. Meeting Date: June 15. 1993 "Pro;ect Description: The applicant is proposing to modify an existing subdivision approval. The original 10 lot subdivision was approved in 1991. The modification calls for the combining of lots numbered 8 and 9 into current lot 6. combine lots numbered 5 and 10 into current lot 7 and merging lot 3 into lot 1. The realignment of these lots reduces the total number of lots from 10 to 7. Pro;ect Analysis: The proposed modifications would be an improvement on the approved subdivision. Staff would like to see the proposed drive that was to serve lots 5. 8. 9 and 10 modified to reflect the new lots. the easement descriptions should also be revised to reflect the new lots. Staff would also recommend that the proposed drives that will service lots 4. 5. 6 and 7 be combined into one." MR. BREWER-This subdivision doesn't have a final approval. Is that right? MR. MARTIN-Right. because they never got their Department of Health approval. MR. BREWER-Because we gave an extension. not too long ago. MR. SCHACHNER-It has a conditional final approval. MR. HARTIN-Right. - 31 - -- ----- MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-I'm sorry. Yes. That hasn't been signed. It's not a signed plat. It has a final approval. a resolution of final approval. and an extension to that. MR. BREWER-Okay. concerns? Mr. Schachner. would you like to address the MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Very briefly. I think I'll address the application for modification and the concerns. all in one fell swoop. Basically. we think this is a very straight forward. very simple. very advantageous minor modification. All we are proposing to do is take the eXisting approved 10 lot subdivision and eliminate three lots. and make it a 7 lot subdivision. Mr. Martin. Mr. Brewer. and Mr. LaPoint. in particular. will remember the months of discussion of this subdivision when it was initially approved. One of the attractive. or one of the positive features of our proposed modification is there is absolutely no change whatsoever in any design or engineering. and the reason for that is that we have accomplished the proposed modification strictly by erasing existing lines and houses. This top map is the subdivision as it was approved. and all we have done. and I'll flip over to the new subdivision. with the proposed modification. We're going to erase the line between lots eight and nine. We're going to erase the line between lots five and ten. We're going to remove the proposed house here. We're going to remove the proposed house here. and obviously the driveway leading to it. and the driveway leading to it. and we're also going to remove the house here. and make this part of Lot One. but we are not changing the configuration of any driveway or proposed home site. or access or runoff of anything else. Nothing is being changed from the detailed engineering that those of you who were on the Planning Board a year ago recall. Our proposed subdivision. therefore. is literally the exact same configuration. with strictly the erasures that I indicated. We feel that it's a substantial improvement. It's a modification from 10 lots down to 7. and I can very easily address the concern that was raised in that comment letter by Mr. MacElroy. Very simply. he's completely off base. The lot that he's referring to. which was sold by Mr. Knox recently, is simply not part of this subdivision. has never been part of this contiguous holding of Mr. Knox's. He owns other land. elsewhere in the Town of Queensbury. including elsewhere on Assembly Point. but it's not part of his contiguous holding. Other lots have been sold at other times in the past. some as part of the subdivision. some as not. but as I'm sure you're all aware. this was a contiguous holding. as far as the particular subdivision. and the lot that he's referring to is simply not part of that subdivision. MRS. TARANA-Will you point that out. Mark? It's not on there? MR. SCHACHNER-I can't point it out. It's not on the subdivision. That's the whole point. MRS. TARANA-But it's the construction that is taking place there right now? MR. SCHACHNER-I believe that's correct. MRS. TARANA-Is that the lot you're talking about? HR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I believe that's correct. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's the one. MR. SCHACHNER-By coincidence. this is literally coincidental. your agenda tonight evidentally also includes some review of that construction. and the purchaser of that lot. and his attorney. Howard Krantz. happens to be here. and if there's any further concern. Mr. Krantz went through the detailed title work on this. - 32 - " -- -- and he knows. and he can assure you, I think he's sitting right behind me. and he can assure that the McCall lot is not now, and never has been part of this subdivision or this particular contiguous holding of Mr. Knox's. It's simply a non- issue. Hr. MacElroy is off base. MR. BREWER-Okay. submitted? Have you considered the notes that Staff MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and as far as the first two comments. if I understand them correctly. as far as seeing the proposed drive was to serve lots 5. 8. 9, and 10 modified to reflect the new lots. MR. HARLICKER-Are you talking about the note there. underneath. ingress and egress. common drives for lots 5. 8. 9, and 10? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think that's already occurred. MR. HARLICKER-Those lots don't exist. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. but the note is incorrect. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's correct. The numbers on the note have to be changed. and we agree with Staff's comments. and we can certainly do it. We can even do it right now. in fact. MR. HARLICKER-What about the possibility of altering that drive a little bit? Is there really a need to continue on with the driveway on lot 7 when it serves lot 6? Can't it just be cut up into lot 6? Thereby. no easements will be needed any farther? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Our response to that. and again. I have to take those of you who were on the Planning Board during this review back to that time. There were discussions. if you recall of numerous alternatives from a paved highway through the heart of this very beautiful property on Assembly Point. to separate individual driveways for each and every lot, and the beauty of our proposed modifications is zero new engineering. not one whit of new engineering. There are a couple of problems. and we frankly will not agree with the proposal to combine those two driveways into one dri veway. Number One. that would change the engineering of the project. and we're not prepared to do that. after the exhaustive detail and thorough review it went through. Number Two. as we said. at that time. we're trying to limit and not have too many homes on one particular driveway. We don't want to get involved in Attorney General Homeowners Association situations. We think that. from the standpoint of the would be purchaser. that's a less attractive alternative. and we are not proposing that as part of our modifications. MR. BREWER-Okay. How does everybody feel? HRS. TARANA-I just wonder how you're going to. who's going to maintain the common driveways, then? How are you going to handle that? MR. SCHACHNER-Same as was being handled before, but that's not a fair answer. because I don't know if you were on the Board then. MRS. TARANA-I think I was. but. MR. SCHACHNER-Actually at the very end. and I think we previously submitted to the Board copies of possible maintenance agreements between the parties. but in any event. the answer is. this is all private stuff, privately maintained between the purchasers. MR. LAPOINT-I have a question. Then the upper green shaded line. and you have a link between Lot One. actually should not be there, - 33 - correct. the strip of green. right down to there? That strip of green shouldn't be on the drawing. correct? That's one lot now? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. it's one lot. It's helpful to have the strip of green. because there's a previously separated lot that that goes around. That's why that line is still there. MR. LAPOINT-But that's one of the consolidated lots. because you didn't keep the strip of green for the other consolidated lots. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. I guess the point I'm trying to make is. this parcel here is not part of Lot One. MR. LAPOINT-I got it. So just the upper green line should be gone? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. In essence. that's it. MR. LAPOINT-All right. MR. RUEL-The two Lot One are really just one lot? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. RUEL-And it should be marked just once. without separation? It's all one lot. isn't it? MR. SCHACHNER-Well. I think that's what Mr. LaPoint was asking. It's not to the extent that this parcel is already a preexisting separate lot. So the reason to put the two numbers there is to indicate that this is part of that. I see where it's confusing, but that's why they're numbered that way. MR. LAPOINT-I just wanted to make sure that I understood. MR. RUEL-Yes. One number would have been better. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. RUEL-And two notes have to be rectified. right? MR. SCHACHNER-I think just one note. actually. MR. RUEL-Two notes. MR. HARLICKER-The other one. it says. lots 6 and 7. and it's lots 4 and 5. now. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. BREWER-I just want to ask one question. to refresh my memory. I asked about this. These lots. I think. if I remember correctly. have no right to the water. Is that correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. BREWER-And that is in this subdivision, in the deeds and restrictions? MR. SCHACHNER-Even in your approval. as I recall. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? We don't have a public hearing on this. right? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. BREWER-Okay. I want to make sure I got clear what we have to change for notes. So lets get it as explicit as we can. so we don't have questions during and after the motion. Okay. Change notes to reflect. Mr. Schachner. you can even give me the words. - 34 - '-- MR. SCHACHNER-There's one note. MRS. TARANA-I have a question. I'm curious why you went down to seven lots. because as I remember the project when it came before. you were quite adamant about having to have ten. or whatever the original number was? Why have you now gone down to the seven? MR. SCHACHNER-Several reasons. The principal reason is because of the extreme expense which frankly the applicant cannot afford to take the series of well tests that would be needed on each and every lot. It's extremely expensive. It's difficult to get testing equipment into the lots. and that's the main reason. MR. BREWER-Okay. Ed. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARMS. Introduce by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: To reduce the number of lots from 10 to 7, with the following conditions: That the notes be changed on the final drawing. to reflect the fact that egress and ingress and common driveway easements for Lots 5. 8. 9. and 10 is now changed to Lots 6 and 7. Two. that ingress and 'egress in common driveway easements for Lots 6 and 7 be changed to Lots 4 and 5. and that none of the other engineering in the subdivision change. and we're going to reference these changes to revised drawing Project Number 91055. by the LA Group. currently dated 4/14/93. and revised according to Notes One and Two above. Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A FLR PARTNERSHIP OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 53 LUZERNE ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A 1.21 ACRE PARCEL FROM THE FLR PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY. CROSS REFERENCE: AV #40-1992 TAX MAP NO. 118-1-5 LOT SIZE: +2.69 ACRES SECTIÖN: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MIKE CUSACK. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 11-1993. FLR Partnership Final Stage. Meeting Date: June 15. 1993 "Pro; ect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.7 acre lot into two lots. The lots wi II be 1.21 and 1.45 acres in size. The property is located on Luzerne Road and is zoned light industrial one acre. The 1.21 acre parcel will be to the rear of the 1.45 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 the AMG Industries. Due to the nature of the subdivision and the lack of potential future development. the applicant requested a waiver to the section of the subdivision ordinance regarding layout. construction. landscape. clearing. grading and drainage. and contour requirements. Pro;ect Analysis: During preliminary subdivision review. it was found that there were no significant problems associated with this proposal. Recommendation: Since there are no outstanding problems associated wi th this proposal. staff can recommend final approval of the - 35 - ',-- -- subdivision." HR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. RUEL-Yes. What is the contamination? MR. CUSACK-Mike Cusack. Attorney for the applicant. and with me is Fred Alexy. one of the partners in the FLR Partnership. FRED ALEXY MR. ALEXY-There are PCB's on the property. MR. RUEL-The GE type? MR. ALEXY-The GE type. MR. BREWER-And that is sealed. MR. RUEL-Yes. Is there a sign? I couldn't tell from the road. on the fence. indicating that it is a contaminated area. danger. keep out. skull and cross bones? MR. CUSACK-No. That's not required here. MR. RUEL-It's not required? MR. CUSACK-No. Off the top of my head. here. back in 1979. when DEC first started the clean up legislation. enforcing. they identified the site and cleaned it up. as part of one of their initial site identifications in New York State. and what was done was immediately adjacent to this property. they built a cell. a storage facility. and basically filled that up. and whatever they didn't clean up on the property. was somehow encapsulated. buried. and it remains in an undisturbed shape. For obvious reasons. we don't want to disturb that. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. RUEL-That satisfies all of DEC requirements? MR. BREWER-They did it. didn't they? MR. CUSACK-It was their work. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. PARTNERSHIP. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: 11-1993 moved for FLR its For the subdivision of a 1.21 acre parcel from the FLR Partnership property. with the following conditions: That the applicant be granted a waiver from the Section of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding layout construction and landscape. clearing, grading and drainage. and contour requirements. Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE I NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OWNER: GROSSMAN. BAKER & RUBIN ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF N.Y.S. RT. 9 AT WEEKS ROAD. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 17.74 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS~ ONE LOT OF 6.45 ACRES - 36 - --- AND A SECOND LOT OF 11.28 ACRES. AN EXISTING AMES RETAIL STORE IS LOCATED ON THE PROPOSED 6.45 ACRE PARCEL AND A PROPOSED WAL-MART RETAIL IS TO BE LOCATED ON THE 11.28 ACRE PARCEL. CROSS REFE~ENCE: AV 111-1993 TAX MAP NO. 71-1-3. 5 LOT SIZE: 17.74 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 3-1993. National Realty & Development Corp. Final Stage. Meeting Date: June 15. 1993 "Proiect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 17.74 acre lot into 2 lots. One lot will be 6.45 acres in area and the other will be 11.28 acres. The proposed Walmart is to be located on the larger lot and an eXisting Ames store will be on the smaller lot. The applicant received variances for side yard setback. permeability. buffer zones, and planted divider strips in the parking lot. Project Analysis: This is a simple two lot subdivision to allow for the construction of a 161.000 square foot Walmart. During preliminary review there were found to be no significant problems associated with the proposed subdivision. The applicant was asked to show the zoning districts on the plat and has done so. Recommendation: Since there are no outstanding problems associated with the proposed subdivision. the Planning Staff can recommend approval of this final subdivision plat." MR. BREWER-And we have notes from Rist-Frost. These are old notes? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any questions? MR. LAPOINT-We al so have something by the Town of Queensbury Wastewater. correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Those are also old notes. and more to the site plan. and they have been addressed. in any event. MR. MARTIN-How many people on the Board still have their plans that were submitted with this. the big. thick group? I would hang on to them. because that also contains the site plan. I have extra copies. in case anybody did throw them out. or got rid of them. MR. LAPOINT-But we're not doing site plan tonight? MR. MARTIN-No. but I just caution you. That does include your site plan application. MR. MACEWAN-But there have been some minor revisions to the plans since that original proposal. correct? BILL WHITE MR. WHITE-No. MR. MACEWAN-I thought there was a couple. they were minor things. though. MR. WHITE-Other than the revisions that we made to Mr. Shaw's comments. MR. O'CONNOR-Just for the record. Mr. White is with me. and I'm Michael O'Connor. and we're addressing your comments. I think that the plans that. Mr. Martin is referring to plans that he received within the last month or so. There was a packet. MR. MARTIN-Yes. They. like. early last month. MR. O'CONNOR-Those included some revisions from the very first set. - 37 - ~ --- if that's what your comment was. MR. MACEWAN-Right. and the ones that I have are the original first set. MR. O'CONNOR-You should have gotten another set within the last month. MR. MACEWAN-I don't have them. I never got them. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-I don't think we received the second set. MRS. TARANA-No. I don't have them either. MR. RUEL-I never did. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we have another copy of the same set. MR. WHITE-There's only one set of drawings that were submitted. It was the full set. It was a thick packet. MR. MACEWAN-The one I had originally was the bound proposal form. In the back it had the acetate sleeves with about four different drawings in them. MR. WHITE-No. That was submitted for SEQRA. MR. MACEWAN-This one I don't have. MR. MARTIN-Well. that's why I'm making sure everybody. MR. BREWER-I don't have one. MR. RUEL-I need one. MR. BREWER-I don't believe. if I do. I'll return it. but I don't think I do. Jim. MRS. TARANA-It's this blue edge thing. Is this the same thing? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's the one. MR. BREWER-I probably did then. If I have it at home, I'll bring it back to you. MR. MARTIN-And I also have updated traffic studies. This. again. is for site plan. but I wanted to give you. we just got these in today. MR. RUEL-I have those. MRS. TARANA-Why is this site plan. and not subdivision? MR. MARTIN-It's on for site plan next week. MRS. TARANA-No. but why. this is not to be considered under subdivision. is that what you're saying? MR. MARTIN-Right. I'm giving you a week's time on this. because it just came in today. MR. MACEWAN-You just received it today? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-And this was revised back in February? MR. MARTIN-Well. you may have gotten it. but there's been a lot of - 38 - -.. mix up over submissions on this application. and I just want to make sure you have it. MRS. TARANA-But wouldn't we consider the traffic study for subdivision? That's my question. MR. MARTIN-Not necessarily. It's usually a site plan issue. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I guess I don't follow that. putting a major retail store is not part of a subdivision review? MR. LAPOINT-All we're doing is drawing a line on a piece of paper. right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-You're basically creating two lots. and they may be owned by separate entities. The traffic plan will be superimposed on those. and there will be some cross easements. The easements will satisfy the requirements of the traffic flow. and the traffic design. probably more so than the individual ownership of the lots. MR. MACEWAN-Say that one again. now? MR. O'CONNOR-Well. if you actually look at the subdivision plan. that is a division of the property into separate entities. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. 0' CONNOR-Okay. The traffic plan that has been designed to serve both of those entities required some front easements that really disregard the lot ownership, if you will. MR. MACEWAN-In other words. you're saying then. that traffic studies correspond directly with the subdivision? MR. O'CONNOR-They correspond directly with the use of both parcels. and the impact of both parcels. MR. MARTIN-Of the entire site. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't have that right in front of me. but the major entrance is at the north end of the site. which is a lot that is presently occupied by the Family Diner and by the Ames building. There would be easements which will allow those that are utilizing the Wal-Mart property to enter and exit through that main entrance. MR. MACEWAN-All right. and there was some questions. in the past. as to where the location of that traffic light was going to be. too. right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. there have been. MR. WHITE-It's been since determined by New York State DOT and approved. and there's a letter also. that DOT has written. MR. MACEWAN-Approved for what location? The last location I was aware of was Montray Road. MR. WHITE-No. The County has requested that we reevaluate it. to look at it at the same intersection as Ponderosa. which we did. We reevaluated it and submitted it to DOT. and the DOT has since approved the traffic location lining up at the Ponderosa entrance. MR. BREWER-Do we have a letter saying that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's the one I just gave you. - 39 - - MR. LAPOINT-March 26th. from Joseph Kelly. MR. MARTIN-You've had that for some time. I think. MR. WHITE-If I could just say one word on that. traffic. what they are is common area type easements. The easements for easements. access MR. WHITE-Someone drives into the Ames area. they're technically on Ames property. yet they can cross over that to go through Wal-Mart. and from Wal-Mart back to Ames. There's also other agreements as to stormwater drainage. Stormwater drainage systems encompass both parcels. So they have some common maintenance agreements between the two. The same for sanitary sewer. The same for plowing. The same for maintenance of the pavement. These are common in most typical shopping center developments. MR. 0' CONNOR-My point was. I think. that the placement of the property line won't effect the impact of the site. whether it's over one row. or the north or to the south. that's just going to be the property ownership. and that's what your approval by the subdivision. both lots would conform to all requirements of the Ordinance for that particular zone. MR. MACEWAN-Well. I think the grey area that we're kind of asking questions about here is. even though this is only a subdivision where. per se, you're putting a line on a piece of paper. how does the overall picture fit into everything that we've been dealing with. in making a decision on it? MR. O'CONNOR-It is one of the approvals that we need to go forward. We need to have the approval from the subdivision. I think this is why this is on for this night. Next week is the scheduled site plan. before we get to site plan. if we follow what has been the protocol and procedure for approval for a project. and then next week you will have what will amount to a mutual. or a joint application for site plan approval for the two individual lot entities. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else. Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Not right at the moment. no. MR. RUEL-Did you say the traffic study was for both the 11 and 6 acres? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. it is. MR. RUEL-In the introductory paragraph here of your traffic study indicates it's only for the 122.000 square foot facility. MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at that. it also takes into account the existing traffic from the site that will be maintained. when you get into the narrative of that. I'm not sure that it's attached to that. MR. RUEL-Further along in the document? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. it does. It does account for all the traffic. what's existing on the site. and what's proposed. MR. RUEL-It should have said. it should have covered that right in the introductory paragraph. Okay. If it's in there. MR. 0 I CONNOR-We tried to make it not confusing. confusing. I apologize. If we made it MR. BREWER-Would anybody care to make a motion? MRS. TARANA-I tell you. I can't understand why we're not looking at - 40 - -- the traffic study for a subdivision. if they did not subdivide that land. MR. MARTIN-I thought the traffic was also looking at during the SEQRA Review. which encompassed all three actions. the variances. the site plan. and the subdivision. That was done in February. MRS. TARANA-I think we probably did look at it in that way. but I have some questions about the traffic. the traffic study. I don't want to bring them up if it s not appropriate. but I can't understand. MR. MARTIN-You can bring it up, Corinne. I'm not saying it's not. you just can't do it. It's usually. you know. a site plan concern. but you can certainly raise it at subdivision. MRS. TARANA-Well. how does the rest of the Board feel about it? MR. RUEL-It should not affect the subdivision. MRS. TARANA-Why not? MR. BREWER-Well. because if it goes to site plan. and we. for whatever reason. if we should deny it. it's still a subdivision. I think they have to subdivide so that they can do this project. If they get the approval of the subdivision. they'll go to site plan. If we see that the traffic is a problem. with that building. we can deny it. and then the subdivision still stands. but they don't have their building. MR. HARLICKER-Somebody else could come in and put. You'd have two separate lots. MR. BREWER-But it would have to come back for site plan. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-All you would have is just this piece of paper. with a line down the center of it. and Person A owns this. and Person B owns this. MR. MARTIN-See. the problem you usually have is. like. take. for example. the Earl Town commercial area along Quaker Road that's got. I don't know how many subdivided commercial lots. There's maybe 10 lots along that strip. They got a subdivision approval. but there's no way of telling. at the time. what the end use is going to be. and that's why you have site plan approval. at the point at which. before the building is actually built. or right before the building is actually built. and then you can evaluate the site specific traffic related to that specific project. Whereas subdivision. this subdivision could occur. and something could go wrong with the project. the subdivision would stay valid. and Wal-Mart. for whatever reason. could go away. and another commercial use could come here. I'm not saying that's likely going to happen. It probably won't. but that's. as a technical matter. Then if you were to do a traffic related to the subdivision. what bearing would that have. MRS. TARANA-Well. you got variances for this. right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We did obtain variances. area variances. in the very beginning of this. We got a variance for encroachment upon the buffer zone along the back of the property line. We got a variance for zero side line setback between the two individual lots for the buildings that will sit on the two lots. We got a variance from the dèmarcation of the parking. Instead of a demarcation of every 150 stalls. we were allowed to have the demarcation as presented. We got a variance from the permeability of each of the respective sites from an acquired permeability of sites. Those are the variances. - 41 - "-' ' ~,' MRS. TARANA-So why is that subdivision and not site plan? seems site specific to me. the variances. That MR. MARTIN-Yes. I agree that is site specific. MRS. TARANA-They got the variances for the site. MR. O'CONNOR-The variances were necessary before we proceeded with subdi vision. in particular the zero lot line. because by the subdivi::;ion. we're creating the zero lot line at least on the existing Ames building that will remain. If we came in here and were looking for a subdivision without going through the variance process. we would have been creating a nonconforming lot. So that's why I think we put the variances ahead of the subdivision. and now the subdivision's ahead of the site plan. It's all part of the same process. and I'm not trying to duck your questions. In fact. I would appreciate your questions. an open discussion tonight. so that we know what your concerns are. with what we have submitted. because as somebody did mention, we had submitted this traffic study in the past. There was some concern. initially. by DOT. that we were using too high a traffic count for the type use that we proposed. and they made us change it. using a more conservative traffic count. We did that change. and the only real jockeying that we've done from what was submitted before was where the intersection of the main entrance would be on Route 9. after the initial resubmittal to DOT. which was shared with this Board. I think. back at the time of SEQRA. MR. LAPOINT-By more conservative. you mean a lower traffic generation number. So you had originally come to us with a higher model proposed. to the applicant's consultant. and DOT said, that's too many. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And came back. and. I just wanted to make sure everybody understood conservative. and what direction that meant. MR. 0' CONNOR-That's the direction. they told us to use a lower number of trip generation. or for the trip generation. then we had proposed to use. HR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I just want to make sure I've got any conditions in here. I don't see any from the Staff. We've addressed Rist- Frost's letter of May 20th. The Wastewater letter they've taken care of. Am I missing anything. Staff? MR. HARTIN-No. MR. BREWER-Everything has been done on Rist-Frost. Correct? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We went through it. putting the notes on the plan. It's just a matter of MR. LAPOINT-And the same thing for the Department of Wastewater? MR. HARLICKER-These aren I t really addressed in the subdivision. These are more site plan. MR. LAPOINT-Site plan. Grease trap, service line clean out. sewer manhole drop connections. manhole cover and rings. service shows 90° elbows and location. all real technical drawing type stuff? MR. O'CONNOR-We have a map plan and proposal that we're presenting to the Town Board for the sewer district. MR. BREWER-All right. Can I just stop for one minute. Ed? I know there's people out here that normally the public hearing is closed. - 42 - but these people have been here for two and a half hours. Would anybody out there like to say anything about this before we make a motion? Is that all right with everybody on the Board? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-I'd love to hear from them. KELLY DEMPSEY STRANGE MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-Good evening. My name is Ke II y Dempsey Strange. and I represent Halsey Development Corporation. which is the owners of Robert Gardens Apartments. The main reason we're here this evening is we're concerned with the traffic impacts. the placement of the light. traffic light. So that's our main concern. Whether or not you're going to address that this evening. MR. BREWER-I would think that. not to cut you off or say no to you, that next week we're going to be at site plan review. which would be more site specific items. It would be more appropriate to talk about those items. but I just didn't want to not let you speak. seeing as how you've been here for two and a half hours. MR. MARTIN-Just to address that comment. I have some updated information. and we're supposed to be getting a letter from DOT. DOT has looked again. a second time. at placing the light at Weeks Road and Sweet Road and they will not waiver from the northern entrance location. They will not. MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-North entrance, meaning in front of Ponderosa? MR. MARTIN-Right. location. They will not waiver from their current MR. MACEWAN-What's their position for that? Why won't they? MR. MARTIN-Their position for that is it's an overriding concern of the amount of red time that will be required on Route 9. because the intersection of Weeks and Sweet Road are offset. So they're going to have to be individually signaled. and they've had experiences other places in the Capital District where that type of same situation has actually worsened the situation. in terms of accident rates and things like that. and they don't want to repeat the mistake a second time. MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-Well. our concern is we have 400 families that live behind the complex. that exit and enter at Weeks Road. and by putting the traffic light in front of the Ponderosa. people are going to be avoiding Weeks Road. and they're going to be cutting across through the parking lot. which is very congested now. MR. MARTIN-I not waiver. assisted by traffic. be location. raised that same exact point with them. and they will They say that the traffic on Weeks Road will be the fact that you'll be. now you'll be gaping the creating gaps in the traffic with the light in the MR. MACEWAN-Do you have an official letter from them stating that? MR. MARTIN-I'm supposed to be getting it. MR. MACEWAN-You're supposed to be getting it. MR. MARTIN-I said I want it before the site plan meeting next week. They're the permitting agency. MR. WHITE-This whole area here is sort of a wide black topped area right now. We'll be dividing it into two entrance drives in the site here and here. They straddle the entrance into Robert Gardens North. to try to discourage any thru traffic. - 43 - -.../ ' MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-That will be blocked off. the one where all the traffic. MR. WHITE-You wouldn't be able to drive straight through Robert Gardens into the shopping center. You'd have to take a right. and then come in here. or a left. and then a right into the Plaza. I mean. it's designed that way. MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-Would their be traffic lanes. or is it all properly designated parking? MR. WHITE-This area here. they'd be curved entrances, about 24 feet wide. two lane traffic. and the area here in the middle would all be landscaped green space. MR. O'CONNOR-The openness of the curb cut right now is going to be eliminated. Right now there's no barrier there at all. MR. WHITE-Just a little bit on what we're talking about with the signal. Ponderosa is here. and this is where the signalized entrance to the site would be. There'd be a right in and right out at the Queen Diner. and what we'd do is realign the existing entrance here. near Montray Road. so that it aligns directly across from Montray Road. This intersection would not be signalized. This also. and it was a DOT requirement. that this be exit only to the right. So these people can't try to come out here and go left. MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-They do. MR. WHITE-Well. they won't be. after we construct that curb median and sign it. We're going to actually construct it and sign it so that the only way people can go. coming out of this entrance. is to the right. So they don't cross the traffic. MR. STARK-You're showing on here that you're making changes on Weeks Road. Okay. You don't own that property. MR. WHITE-But we're out in the Town right-of-way to do that. Weeks Road is a Town road, and we need approval from your Town Highway Superintendent. MR. STARK-I everything. this? mean. you're showing trees on Ames property and Do you have an agreement with Ames that you can do all MR. WHITE-Yes. Ames has been a party to this whole thing. and we've been reviewing the whole site plans with Ames. as we have wi th Wal-Mart. and they're very much aware of the application. We're in contact with them. HR. LAPOINT-So all that landscaping is an enforceable part of the whole subdivision plan? I mean. that's going to happen? MR. MARTIN-It's part of the site plan. It's enforceable. MR. WHITE-The other we're doing. we're reconstructing the entire parking lot. Ames new parking lot, new lighting. striping. The whole center is taking on a whole new look. MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-I have one more question. regarding parking. Are you going to be adding any parking onto the northern perimeter. along Weeks Road? MR. WHITE-Onto this area here? MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-Along the Ames. along there. MR. WHITE-Yes. There are more parking spaces here now. think there's any parking spaces along this north area. We're going to cut in some parking spaces in that area. I don't Yes. - 44 - -- MR. BREWER-But that won't even be your property. will it? MR. WHITE-No. but Ames is a party to the application. MR. BREWER-So then shouldn't it be an application for Ames to do that? MR. WHITE-Well. no. actually it's National Realty that owns it. MR. MARTIN-National Realty owns both sites. MR. BREWER-All right. MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-How far will the parking extend? MR. WHITE-This area here? MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-Yes. MR. WHITE-We have parking about that distance. A little bit more than the width of the bUilding. MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-And there will be a buffer between the Weeks Road parking? MR. WHITE-And then there's green space. Maybe afterwards you could look at it a little closer. but there's also green space and some plantings around this area. MR. BREWER-Anything else? MRS. DEMPSEY STRANGE-No. thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who'd like to comment? BILL KASOLD MR. KASOLD-I'm Bill Kasold. I'm attendant up at Robert Gardens. I missed some of the commentary. but one item that particularly confuses me is. what if a traffic signal is put at Ponderosa. Traffic that is going south. stopped at that traffic light. is going to back uP. how far. a quarter of a mile. half a mile. Coming out of Weeks Road. it wi II be impossible. unless you're going to try to squeeze between cars. people aren't always polite. and I can just see a preponderance of accidents there. and that somehow there ought to be maybe another light at Weeks. coordinated with Ponderosa. So that these people can get out. Remember. now. There's 388 tenants there I believe. and just about everyone of them has a car. and the traffic right there is horrendous. getting out. I had one particular person tell me that he tried to get out at three o'clock in the afternoon. in order to go down and work at Finch Pruyn. He counted 75 cars before he could get out. It's hard to believe. but he said. three o'clock in the afternoon, it was a regular occurrence. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I believe that. Now. if traffic stops at that light. at a regular interval. and people do not block the intersection. you're going to be able to get out. as opposed to sitting there and watching 75 cars go by. MR. KASOLD-We know it's illegal to park at intersections. but they do it. and wherever you are. we have that trouble all around. until some provision has been made to let these 388 people out. if they want to get out. and I don't think that's been attended to yet. MR. LAPOINT-Well. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if they can't get out now. the light can only improve the situation. MR. KASOLD-No. it can't. because then they will be backed uP. when they stop at a red light. - 45 - - MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Again. I always leave space. I don't think that happens 100 percent of the time. MR. KASOLD-You do. that's right. but you take a look tomorrow and tell me. you look across tomorrow. on the way you travel. and see what happens. See. how often you. MR. LAPOINT-Well. I travel every day in Schenectady. which is very rude. and I still manage to get out. MR. KASOLD-You do. but take some of these little old ladies. and some of them look under the steering wheel. MR. LAPOINT-But do you see the point I'm making? Now the traffic will be stopped. instead of zipping through there at 50 miles an hour. MR. KASOLD-That's true. MR. LAPOINT-Now that's a benefit. MR. KASOLD-It's stopped. but it's at a crosswalk. and there's no place to go. unless you're trying to squeeze between cars. MR. LAPOINT-All right. You sit there. I agree. MR. KASOLD-And that's a pretty hard thing to do in town. MR. LAPOINT-Right. said. 75 cars go by. but if you can't get out What's the difference? now. like you just MR. KASOLD-Well. I just bring these comments to you for you consideration. I'm sure you'll find some way. between you and the owners. of working this thing out. but do take care of these little old ladies. Thank you. MR. BREWER-We sure will. from anybody? Thank you. Okay. Any other comments MR. MACEWAN-Just one comment. for what it's worth. I guess I'm not totally satisfied with the traffic conditions. Even though we're just talking a subdivision. I guess what we are really talking here. whether a Wal-Mart or anybody else goes in there. a subdivision is going to be potentially granted for any sizeable commercial endeavor. and if that's the case. how does it fit in with the overall scheme of things up there. with that much increased traffic. or projects of that size? Even though. per set as we say. we're just putting some lines on a piece of paper. MRS. TARANA-I agree with you. Craig. I think we're putting lines on paper. but we know what those lines are for. and we know that with the Wal-Mart. there may be inherent traffic problems. There will be traffic problems. and I have a problem with that. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. I think we went through this. and thought we had handled it at SEQRA. and at that point. we indicated that the impact of traffic is something that could be mitigated by signalization. by turning lanes, and that's exactly what we've proposed. That was this Board that gave us that approval. MRS. TARANA-And who determined. made an analysis. that a traffic light there is the best mi tigati ve measure to be taken for the problem that exists there right now? MR. O'CONNOR-Our consultant. in conjunction with the DOT traffic people. MRS. TARANA-I guess I have to raise a question. then. about the consultant thing. because this is something I didn't realize before. The consultants that did your traffic study are the same - 46 - -' ones that are dOing the Route 9/254 traffic study. MR. WHITE-That's exactly right. MRS. TARANA-I don't see how they can be objective. They've already declared that the Route 9/254 intersection is a failed intersection. and that they're going to look at a one mile radius of everything that's impacting that intersection. and how to mitigate that problem. Now. half a mile. almost to the tenth of a mile. is the Wal-Mart. Now how can they say. on one hand. we're going to look at this major intersection, which has failed. and do something about it. and on the other hand, say there's no problem putting in a Wal-Mart that's gOing to impact that traffic. MR. MARTIN-There's a couple of fine points that have got to be brought out here. First of all. they weren't retained by the Town or the County to do the Route 9/254 study. until after they were retained by Wal-Mart. and after the letter was written by DOT in March. MRS. TARANA-I know that. and I'm not saying that that's Wal-Mart's problem. but it is the same firm. MR. MARTIN-And the second thing is it's not a failed intersection. MRS. TARANA-He said that the night he was here. MR. MARTIN-Well. that's not correct. MR. O'CONNOR-I heard the presentation that was made. in connection with our presentation. where you had the traffic study before you. which had even a higher traffic count than what DOT says we should attribute to this project. and it did not bring the level of service for the intersection of Quaker and Route 9 to a failure state. MRS. TARANA-I think. was that meeting taped that night? MR. MARTIN-What night was that? The night we were here for the Route 9/254? No, it wasn't taped. MRS. TARANA-Because he said it was a failed intersection. It's a Level of Service D. right now. MR. MARTIN-Right. but that's not failure. MRS. TARANA-Well. it's not failed. It's not an F. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. TARANA-It's certainly not a good. functioning intersection. or we wouldn't be studying it and trying to do something about it. I think that's a real conflict. when you've got the same people looking at two problems. MR. O'CONNOR-I was not present at that meeting. but I know that they are aware of it. which may make them a more beneficial. or more knowledgeable to the Town. as to what our projected traffic pattern is. and they considered that. when they decided. or determined that that section had the classification that they spoke of. and that is not a failured Level of Service. MR. MACEWAN-How do you propose that two representatives of the same traffic consulting company can give you two opposing views of the same scenario? MR. O'CONNOR-I haven't heard two opposing views. MR. MACEWAN-He said that that night that there was a significant problem at that intersection. warranting a traffic study to be done - 47 - -- along the whole corridor. MR. MARTIN-Right. and there is. irregardless of whether Wal-Mart is there or not. MR. MACEWAN-And the consultant representing this applicant says that there's not a problem through that whole corridor. that it's going to be mitigated with traffic signals. MRS. TARANA-See. you're putting a traffic signal at. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We're talking about apples and oranges. You're talking about the corridor in front of this shopping center. and you're talking about the intersection a half a mile to the south. MRS. TARANA-No. I'm talking about the whole thing. MR. HACEWAN-Yes. but how would people get to the shopping center. Jim? MR. MARTIN-Through the intersection. So they're saying that the impact of Wal-Mart is not lowering the Level of Service in that intersection. MRS. TARANA-And I'm saying it's going to impact it. You tell me where your customers are going to come from. what directions will they come from? MR. WHITE-That information's in the traffic study. MRS. TARANA-I know. I looked at it. MR. WHITE-I believe dt's close to a 50. 50 split. north and south. on Route 9. MRS. TARANA-And that says that 50 percent of your customers are going to come down Route 9. from the north. from where? MR. O'CONNOR-Up Town and up County. Lake George. Warrensburg. MRS. TARANA-See. I just can't believe that. I don't care if they stood there and counted every car. You're not going to tell me that there's not a greater number of cars coming down Aviation Road. taking a left. going north. to get to that Wal-Mart. They're coming off the Northway. They're coming from Westland. They're coming from Glens Falls. You don't have to do a traffic study to know that. MR. O'CONNOR-The typical shopper for Wal-Hart. from what I've heard in the presentation. are not all necessarily local people. They are people who will make the trip more likely to Wal-Mart. purpose 1 Y. from an outlying area. In fact. I've been surprised that this is considered a more metropolitan area than most the Wal- Mart's that are established there. They draw from a larger marketing area than the immediate area. MRS. TARANA-So they're coming from Lake George? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Lake George. Warrensburg. They're coming from Chestertown. MRS. TARANA-And what is that population. compared to the City of Glens Falls. the rest of Queensbury. Westland. and people coming off Exit 19? MR. 0' CONNOR-I think you're going to have some coming from the south. or from the east. from Hudson Falls. Argyle. that area. which will come north. MRS. TARANA-Right. coming north on Route 9. through the - 48 - -- -....-' intersection. MR. 0' CONNOR-It comes through the intersection in a different direction than it comes from Aviation Road. MRS. TARANA-Well. I guess my point is that the mitigating measure for the traffic problem is to put a traffic light opposite the Ponderosa and Montray Road. Nobody goes on Montray Road. Rarely. Your traffic study shows one car going on Montray Road. I don't find how that solves anything. MR. O'CONNOR-The idea of the traffic light isn't necessarily the side road traffic from Montray Road. It's to give people a break to get in and out of our site. which is on the west side of Route 9. and to give a pontooning effect. so that people could get in and out of Weeks Road. an extension of Weeks Road. to Robert Gardens Apartments. The traffic coming off the east side of Route 9 is going to be very minimal. In fact. that's why they moved it from one intersection that we had it proposed to. to the present location. MRS. TARANA-I guess it's the same thinking that they had on Country Club. when they put the light in at Glenwood. Am I right? So Country Club could get out. That was supposed to mitigate it. Perfect example. What happens at Country Club is the lights are not in synch. So when you've got a green at one end. you've got a red over here. and when this turns red. this turns green. Consequently. traffic is always moving. and you can't get out of Country Club. MR. MARTIN-The overriding concern. as I recall. for the placement of the light at Glenwood was the accident rate count at Glenwood. as opposed to Country Club. It was c~early higher. MRS. TARANA-But that's what they told us. that that's one reason you can get out of Country Club. MR. O'CONNOR-Going south on Country Club. you get out very easily. MRS. TARANA-On Country Club? MR. O'CONNOR-Going south on Country Club. you get out very easily. MRS. TARANA-No. MR. O'CONNOR-I travel it five times a week. and I go out. I take a little jog over onto Quaker. and then down to my house. MRS. TARANA-Have you been there recently? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. four times. Every Saturday and Sunday. at least three or MRS. TARANA-I come out every day. and it's gotten. I think there might have been. at the beginning. the lights triggered differently. but now. well. that's a different issue. Who cares? MR. MARTIN-Corinne. on Page Four and Five of the traffic study I just gave you. these are 1992 peak hour counts. during the week and on Saturday. In front of the Plaza. 600 heading north. 572 coming south, thru traffic. MRS. TARANA-On Saturday? MR. MARTIN-On Saturday. MRS. TARANA-What day was that? MR. MARTIN-I don't know. It says. Saturday. peak hour. - 49 - ----,,' MRS. TARANA-I would guess that it's traffic coming down from Lake George to go shopping and get their groceries. MR. MARTIN-All right. and then week day. 563 each way. exactly. MR. O'CONNOR-These are done by actual counts. and I don't know how else you would analyze traffic. MRS. TARANA-I know that. They just don't make any sense to me. I mean. do they make sense to anybody else? MR. MARTIN-And then when it gets to Route 254. the south bound traffic is 543. and the north bound traffic. thru traffic. is 464. MR. RUEL-What does this have to do with the subdivision? MR. BREWER-I don't know. MRS. TARANA-Well. what it has to do with it, to me. Roger. is that we're looking at a subdivision which we know is going to impact the traffic. and they've told us. looking at subdivision. we shouldn't consider traffic. MR. LAPOINT-No. We did consider traffic at SEQRA. Heavy duty. We sat right here. MRS. TARANA-Based on the information we had at that time. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Now there's conflicting information. MR. LAPOINT-There's, again. these things are absolutely useless. I mean. we have wasted $78.000 worth of taxpayer's money to do this corridor study which resulted in nothing. and this one is the same thing. except the applicant paid for it. You know what's going to happen. It's obvious what's going to happen. We all drive. MR. MACEWAN-What's going to happen? MR. LAPOINT-It's going to be busy up there. and now there's going to be another traffic light there. What else do you need? Do you need $78.000 to tell you that? I mean. what did we get out of that corridor study? Nothing. What's going to be built? What's going to be different? Nothing, and it's going to be out of date in six months. MR. MARTIN-I wouldn't say that. MR. LAPOINT-It's going to be out of date in six months. It's useless. The minute this goes in. that one goes out. You've got to skip. and just look at it obviously. There's going to be traffic up here, generated by this mall. These things mean. look at these. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make amotion? about that next week. We can argue MR. RUEL-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1993 NATIONAL ~EALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP.. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: The proposal is to subdivide a 17.74 acre parcel into two lots. one lot of 6.45 acres. and a second lot of 11.28 acres. An existing Ames retail store is located on the proposed 6.45 acre parcel and a proposed Wal-Mart retail is to be located on the 11.28 acre parce 1. - 50 - -- Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. O'CONNOR-We have on the agenda the matter for site plan review on the 22nd. Because of the County not receiving a full packet of material. the County. at it's Planning Board meeting. recommended denial of site plan. without prejudice. subject to the right to submit the packet information that they didn't have. We talked to Mr. Haley. who is the Chairman. and we talked about trying to get a special meeting for your meeting of the 22nd. That was not possible. because of people on vacation. They will not consider this for site plan review under July 14th. and I mention that. at this point. simply you are advertising to do your site plan review on the 22nd. and I'd like to go forward with that. If you can do it on the basi s that you can do it conditional on the County approval later, I'd liKe to have you think of that. I don't know if you've done that in the past or not. MR. MACEWAN-We have. but we've been told by the State that it's illegal. We cannot do conditionals. MR. MARTIN-I'd advise against that. MR. 0' CONNOR-Wi th our presentation. if you feel confident and comfortable with what we present, you can. with a majority plus one. still go forward. Why don't we wait and see what your feeling is. MR. BREWER-We can hear it. but I guess. from what people are saying here. I don't think it's going to happen. MR. MACEWAN-My position. I think I would rather table it until we see what happens with the County. MR. BREWER-Well. we're advertised for it. presentation. We can hear their MR. MARTIN-And if you have any concerns. it would be a good time to get them out. MR. O'CONNOR-I'd also like to hear your concerns. Lets not keep it a big secret. if we've got concerns. MRS. TARANA-There's no big secret. MR. BREWER-I have one concern. MR. O'CONNOR-Lets have as much communication as we can. and if we can mitigate any of your concerns. MR. BREWER-I'll make a concern known to you. that I know Guido Passarelli's project. I happened to see him over at the Highway Department one day. and he is considering tying into the sewer. Maybe you could talk with him and see if maybe you can work together to. I know you're going to be doing it. and he's right up the street. and if it's extended. you know. if everybody worked together. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand how it works. extension. which would get it to our property. it extended. he can his extension. We will ask for an If he wants to have MR. BREWER-He is going to do that. but I mean. - 51 - - '-- MR. O'CONNOR-If it's simpler to do it at one time. we've already indicated that Leon Steves has approached us on the same subject. as long as it doesn't hold us up. HR. BREWER-Right. It just would make more sense. because if you're going to do it. and the restaurant out in front's going to do it. and Guido's gOing to do it. up above the Carwash. and the Carwash comes back and says they want to do it. why not everybody do it at once. It would make more sense than to have you do it. then this guy, then this guy. MR. O'CONNOR-The simple problem is time. We need time to coordinate everybody. us. down to. that's five different property owners. That's not a simple task. MR. BREWER-No. them. It's just a thought. Maybe you could talk with MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objections. and we'd be willing. MR. BREWER-Because I'll probably suggest that to him next week. when he comes in to talk to you. MR. O'CONNOR-I think he has the same problem that we have with the County. The County is now involved in their 30 day business. They are simply rejecting applications. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-If there is any way that that whole intersection. that whole section of Route 9 could start to be looked at. and maybe some plans made, I don't know what the answers are. obviously. or I wouldn't be sitting here. but I remember up at the Million Dollar Half Mile. that after it was all built out. there was thought that. had they had interconnecting parking lots. it would have been so much better. They even. with the Dexter plan. said that they would go ahead. the businessmen themselves would go ahead and do that. and as you see. nothing's happened along that line. If there's any way. I don't know how it can happen. but if there's any way we can start looking at connecting those properties. to move. MR. BREWER-But then when you do that. Corinne. you're going to take parking places away. and then they're going to have to come back. MR. MARTIN-Well. the traffic studies. the corridor studies are done. and copies are available in my office. I don't have enough to distribute to every individual member. but you're welcome to come in and look at them. The recommendations are done. and it's in writing. and it's about to be taken up by the Transportation Council. MRS. TARANA-But are the recommendations things that are really practical and could happen? MR. MARTIN-Some are. some aren't. but. like for example. in that section of Route 9. the Million Dollar Half Mile. they're calling for improved turning movements by installing turn lanes. like in front of the Municipal Center for south bound traffic onto the Northway. That would be a very easy one to undertake. It's called for under public land. MRS. TARANA-But the thing is. those suggestions all come after it's all built out. and then it's no good. You know. if these people that are beginning to develop now. would know about some of those suggestions and could start incorporating them into their plans. MR. MARTIN-What I would like to see. and I want to inform Ed of the Route 9/254 study. is I want to see that study be in such a format that that is. in a format of a plan to be adopted by this Board. and that anybody who comes before this Board. involving a parcel of - 52 - '- -/' land within that study area. you know what you have to do. We're calling for a new road through this section of property. If you're going to develop this piece of property. then we want you to deed over to us that right-of-way. because that's what our adopted plan says. You know that gOing in. This is what we're looking for. MRS. TARANA-And when do we anticipate that plan being put in place? MR. MARTIN-End of JUly. MRS. TARANA-This July. so that these people will know what that plan is. when they start getting their site plan? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think there's anything within that proposal that would affect our site development. Everything in that is off- site. MR. MARTIN-The only thing I've been passing along to the consultant. in terms of this site. is if we could get pedestrian walkways between this site and the Greenway North neighborhood. to encourage people to walk there. rather than get in their car and drive. Beyond that. I don't know what we can do. MR. O'CONNOR-As part of our presentation. when we went for the variances. we met with the neighbors from Greenway North, and we agreed that we would keep open the pedestrian traffic ways that are there. that are in existence. We went through the whole scenario with them. as to fencing that they wanted. some screening that they wanted. We asked them specifically. do they want us to cut off what are informal pathways now. and they said. no. We said we'd leave them open. So we've already incorporated that. Mr. Martin. in our proposal. MR. MARTIN-Things like that. that's what I. and that's just a suggestion on my part to the consultant. When we get some more formalized concepts. I'll share them with you as soon as I have them. MR. BREWER-Okay. and we can discuss all this stuff next week. and then we'll do whatever we do. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-Just for the record. I abstained because I didn't have two pieces of information that I needed to make a decision tonight. and that was that traffic analysis that you're talking about. I'd like a copy of it. plus when the letter comes in from DOT regarding that traffic light. I'd like a copy of that. too. That's the only reason why I abstained. MR. BREWER-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 27-93 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A JANET HUSTON BELL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF RIDGE RD. SOUTH OF QUAKER ROAD. EXPANSION OF CHIROPRACTIC OFFICES WITH APARTMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: 29-1993 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE 6-7-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 6-9-93 TAX MAP NO. 59-5-12 LOT SIZE: .75 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 27-93. Janet Huston Bell, Meeting Date: June 15th. 1993 "Proiect Description: The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing chiropractic - 53 - -- "-" office. The addition will consist of 1.450 square feet of office space and 888 square feet for a second apartment. The site plan also includes landscaping and a reconfiguration of on site parking. There are seven additional parking spaces proposed. The property is zoned highway commercial and the applicant received a variance to allow the addition to be located wi thin the 75 foot buffer required along this portion of Ridge Road. Pro;ect Analysis: 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 proposed addition should be compatible with the existing structure. The proposal includes the placement of two lights to illuminate the parking area to the rear of the bUilding. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. inc luding intersections, road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; Traffic access to the parking area appears to be adequate. A 20 foot wide drive will serve as access to the rear parking area. Access to the parking spaces in front will be directly from Ridge Road. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sUfficiency of off-street parking and loading; The placement of 11 parking spaces in the front of the building access directly from Ridge Road creates a situation that is less than desirable. Backing directly out onto Ridge Road raises concerns regarding safety. The parking arrangement in the front is an existing situation and the applicant has relocated several of the eXisting spaces to the rear parking area. However. because of sight distance and aesthetic concerns. and since there is room for several more spaces in the rear. staff would recommend that the two southern most parking spaces be relocated to the rear of the building. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; The main entrance to the building is in the front. There is to be a sidewalk from the rear parking area around the north side of the building to the main entrance. The handicap ramp is on the south side of the building and is adjacent to two handicap parking spaces. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; See comments from Rist-Frost Associates. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; See comments from Rist-Frost Associates. 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; Staff would like to see some landscaping between the sidewalk and the north side of the building used to provide screening between the rear parking area and the adjacent property. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The project does not impact emergency accessibility. 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: Providing the two southern most parking spaces in the front are relocated to the rear and some additional landscaping is provided along the north side of the building and along the rear parking area. Staff can recommend approval of this project." MR. HARLICKER-There's also letters in here. as I mentioned earlier. from Rist-Frost. Warren County Planning Board. and it went before the Beautification Committee. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would you read in the Rist-Frost? ENGINEERING REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. Town Engineer. June 14. 1993. this is regarding the Janet Huston Bell Building Addition to 356 Ridge Road. for Site Plan No. 27-93 "Dear Mr. Martin: Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the project and has the following - 54 - -- -- engineering comments: 1. Existing and proposed utilities are not indicated. In particular. what utilities are required for the proposed apartments? Water supply and sewage disposal are not indicated. 2. At a minimum. the site plan should stipulate that erosion control during construction will be in accordance with New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. T Regarding stormwater management: a. The proposed SWM infiltration drywell should be sized to accept the increase in runoff from the proposed 4515 square feet of newly created impervious surfaces during a 50 year design storm. Subsurface soils/groundwater data. soil percolation and drywell design calculations are required to demonstrate SWM adequacy. b. The drywell detail should indicate the depth of the proposed structure and the slope. if any. of the stone filled excavation around the precast concrete drywell. Tom Yarmowich. P.E.. Managing Project Engineer" MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller. I'm a Landscape Architect. and I'm here to represent Dr. Bell. First. in response to the comments from Rist-Frost. I received those yesterday. and I submitted a letter. which I gave a copy of to Scott. back to Tom Yarmowich. and addressed those issues. Regarding the utilities. it's an existing apartment. and there's existing offices there now. and there's municipal sewer and water serving the bUilding. So. we don't anticipate any need to change that. or there's no on site utilities. Overhead electric and telephone now comes off of Ridge Road. and that would be upgraded. but it would basically be in the same location where it is now. The second issue. regarding the erosion control. we agree with that. and we've made modifications to the drawing already showing some hay bales and the drainage channel. There's a drainage swale that runs along the north side of the property. to the drywell. and we've added a hay bale filter dam along that swale. We've also added hay bales around the drywell to protect the berm construction. and then a silt fence in that corner which is a low area. to prevent any siltation off of our property into Mead's Nursery. which is to the rear and to the north side. The third issue. regarding the stormwater management. we submitted the calculations for the drywell. located in the rear, to accommodate any additional runoff from the roofs and the parking areas. and we sized that drywell accordingly. and the new plan shows the dimensions that, I spoke to Tom Yarmowich. late this morning. after I had faxed that information to him. and he was going to try to get a letter here tonight. He accepted that. and said that it met his requirements. but unfortunately, he didn't get to the letter before the end of the day. So those issues should be taken care of. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? I have one. This 24 foot driveway down to the. I guess you could call it the south end of the parking lot. on the entrance. why wouldn't you eliminate that. and use this one driveway. rather than create a new curb cut? MR. MILLER-There's no driveway over there. What happens along here now. This all open. and right now, if you were to look at this. this is parking all the way across. right to the corner. and there's a driveway. a small driveway here. You can see this line that curves around this way? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MILLER-This is edge of the existing pavement. So right now, all of this is paved. with the exception of a little island here. Then it's paved again. So what we've done. at this point. is trying to recognize there is a concern and a problem with. actually. there isn't a problem with backing out. but there is a concern. and right now. there's 18 spaces across here. and this plan shows elimination of seven of them. which would be relocated here. and then this would be a new driveway. and this would be six additional spaces. There's also a garage that's going in. - 55 - '-" -J'^ MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying is eliminate parking right here. so that you don't have this. MR. RUEL-How do they get out of here? They have to back into the road? MR. MILLER-What happens. well. part of the situation. now, is the office. the chiropractic office. is on level with the street. The grade drops back. so the grade in the back's a story below. Right now. our handicap ramp is here. It's the only handicap access into the bUilding. Our main entrance into the building is here. So. this parking is necessary to have for patients who are in pain or handicap, and what happens is, because of the slope here. we've eliminated what we feel is enough. Our concern is. if we eliminate too many. we're creating a hardship on the patients in accessing the building. MR. BREWER-How many doctors are in the bUilding? MR. MILLER-There's three. MRS. TARANA-How did the handicap get from way over on that side over to your main entrance. or is there another entrance? MR. MILLER-Well. there's a ramp right here. because there's a hallway that comes through the center of the bUilding. See. what we have done here is there's garages here. and there would be employee parking in the rear. and part of the addition would be having a new entrance to the back. to try to get some of that parking in the back. So this is primarily for patients and handicap. MR. BREWER-It would just seem to me. if you could eliminate the parking in the front. how many spaces are you going? MR. MILLER-We have eleven. MRS. TARANA-And you've got your handicap people parking in the front. MR. BREWER-Yes. but if you left. MRS. TARANA-No. no. I'm saying. they're the ones that might find it more difficult to pullout onto Ridge Road. MR. BREWER-Why? They're sitting in a car. MRS. TARANA-What if they have bursitis or something? MR. BREWER- I'm eliminated these. saying if you left your handicap You don't really need them. there. and MR. MILLER-Well. you do for access for the patients. because what happens here is we have a grade. a slope down here that's about five to six percent. and to have patients parked in the back. MR. BREWER-You don't have an entrance in the building in the back? MR. MILLER-Well. you do. but it's up a floor. because the grade drops down about eight feet to the rear. So. as a matter of fact. there's garage space and an apartment down below. So it's a whole story below. and the office building is at the upper level. MRS. TARANA-And you'd have to put in an elevator to get the patients up to the second floor. MR. MILLER-Well. that would be the problem. and that's why the expansion was to expand the office on the same floor. So you wouldn't create a problem. - 56 - '"'--" MR. BREWER-It is dangerous to back out into Ridge Road. I know I go home every night down Ridge Road. MR. MILLER-The way it actually works. if you see here. this is the center line. and this is the edge of the travel lane. this is the edge of the lane here. and you can actually back out into this space without getting into traffic. and pullout. MR. MACEWAN-Did you guys address the issue that the County approved this thing with the condition that six of those spots be eliminated? MR. MILLER-They didn't explain the whole thing. What they approved that night was they said that. eliminate five spaces in the front. contingent on the Town only requiring 25 spaces instead of the 30 that's required by zoning. and they wouldn't explain how that was supposed to work. That was their whole approval that night. Their approval wasn't to take five from here and move it to the back. and just eliminate five totally. MR. RUEL-You have to have 30. right? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Based on the square footage. MR. MILLER-There are 26 required for the office space. and four. two each for each of the apartments. MR. RUEL-So anything you take off of here would have to be elsewhere? MR. MACEWAN-The question is. in this instance. if that was the case. and the County said. eliminate six spots. if that's okay with this Board. that we allow you to have 25 instead of the normal 30. Now doesn't he have to get a variance? MR. MILLER-Well. that's what I asked them. and they said to come back here and work that out. So I was hoping we could get five votes tonight. and I wouldn't have to raise that question. MRS. TARANA-Their comment says. though. to eliminate. to reduce the six spaces. and that landscaping be brought in. across the front. in place of the eliminated spaces. MR. MILLER-Yes. but they don't talk about replacing it. which was what they had discussed. They didn't add that into their written. MR. MACEWAN-In this scenario. Corinne. he has to have 30 parking spaces for this. By the County telling him to eliminate six would bring him down to 25. which now he would need a variance to get. MRS. TARANA-Well. they can't grant a variance. So you can't assume that. MR. BREWER-Are these locust trees there now? MR. MILLER-No. All of this planting in this area would be new. around the eXisting parking. MR. BREWER-What would be the hurt to not put them in there? MR. MILLER-We have an existing practice there now. We have 18 spaces across the front. Everybody parks. and that's the main access. and the reluctance of my client to reduce any more than this is that now he's creating a problem to his patients which. MR. BREWER-There's three doctors there. If you put three handicap places out front. there's only three. How many. well. I suppose you could have people waiting. It just seems to me that. you've - 57 - """,,., '-' - got room out back. MR. MILLER-In most cases. you're absolutely right. but the problem is. it's not like an office building. where it's all employees. MR. BREWER-They may come out of there. pullout. and have to go right back in. though. is what we're trying to say. They may come out of the office all right. back out into traffic and have to go right back into his office. because they get into an accident. MR. MILLER-We asked about that. There has been no accidents out in front. MRS. TARANA-How many are going to be in the front? MR. MILLER-There's 11 across here. There's 11 now. but there was another seven down here. That's what we eliminated. to create the driveway and eliminate a problem between the parking and the access on the driveway. MRS. TARANA-Okay. So how many do you think you have to have in front? What if they had some parallel parking? Isn't there enough for two? DR. BELL DR. BELL-Jim. you've been in that office. Do you have any trouble swooping out? Do you ever back into traffic? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. HARLICKER-I had to pull in and out with the van. and I difficulties getting in and out. MR. MACEWAN-My aunt lives across the street. So I know that it's difficul t. with that little bi t of a crest there. If you're backing out. and going to head north. you'd have a tendency. if you couldn't. especially because you're a little bit further down the road. to be able to see over the crest of that hill looking back toward the City. MR. BREWER-How many parallel places could you have there? DR. BELL-Probably only four. MR. BREWER-Would that be sufficient for out front? Then you'd only have to pick up seven in the back. DR. BELL-Well. my only concern is that you're taking I run an acute care type of practice. The people that come to me are often in quite a large amount of pain. and don't move along very well. To bring them all the way to the back. and have them have to come all the way to the front, would be a difficulty. MR. BREWER-Yes. but we're talking. there's three doctors there. If you had four places out front. that could mean all three plus one waiting in the waiting room. in the offices. You're going to have six or seven or eight people that bad that wouldn't be able to walk in there at one time? DR. BELL-Yes. It's very common. MR. BREWER-Eight people. at one time? For how long? Because when these three in your offices leave. these three have a place to park. I'm not trying to give you a difficult time. I'm just trying to. DR. BELL-No. no. I understand what you're saying. but. MR. BREWER-Or at least one of them is going to be gone. and three - 58 - ----------------" --- will remain. DR. BELL-So you're talking waiting time in the office. etc.? A common waiting time. plus a visit time. is 45 minutes to an hour. I mean. our parking lot. all the way across, all 18 spaces is very commonly full. MR. BREWER-And everyone of them are in acute pain? DR. BELL-Well. half of them. It's an acute pain office. I mean. that's what chiropractic centers deal with. MR. BREWER-How does everybody else feel? MR. STARK-Leave them there. MR. LAPOINT-If we could eliminate two. and move two out back. that was Staff's suggestion. I always like to go with their. could you move the two southern most out back? I mean. that's quick. Would everybody agree with that? MRS. TARANA-What do we do about Warren County's? MR. BREWER-If we vote. and we get enough votes. we can override them. If we don't. we don't. It's denied. right. or no action. MR. MARTIN-No action. Yes. MR. BREWER-Roger. how do you feel? MR. RUEL-Well. I think you ought to move all the spaces in the front to the rear. and install an elevator. MR. MACEWAN-I think there's some room for compromise here. if we can. Ed's headed in the right direction. if we can work with him to eliminate a few of those spaces. I don't think it's necessary to eliminate all six of them. but if we can work with him. we can put a few more out back. and keep some out front. we can probably come to some happy medium here. MR. BREWER-How are they going to eliminate them? I guess that's the next question. DR. BELL-I feel I've compromised from 18 down to. what do I have left. 9. MR. MILLER-That's elimination of half of what's there. MR. BREWER-How are you going to eliminate them? MR. MILLER-Well. what we would do is follow the Staff's recommendation. the two southern most spaces. the asphalt be removed. and that area would be lawn. and the other spaces would be relocated. MR. LAPOINT-I don't mean to design the project. but if you have two less there. and just the concept. just slant those parking spots in, so when you back out you're already pointing in the right direction. You don't have to go out on the apron of the road. curb of the road. I don't know how that works out for handicap. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but what about slanting. Ed? slant them the wrong way. I mean. once you MR. LAPOINT-Well they can't come in from the north. That's for sure. That's the problem. but you've got to drive around the block. I mean, parking. that's what you do in narrow parking spots is you angle them in. so that they back out. and they're already in the right direction. if that's what you're really worried about. - 59 - ----.... - MR. MILLER-So you'd be looking at angling them in a direction like this. so they would back out. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I don't want to engineer the project. but just as a concept. I'd just as soon leave them square and eliminate two. like the Staff suggested. recommend approval. and get out of here. but we've got to make a compromise that everybody wants to live with. without debating it for another half an hour. MR. BREWER-I think that's a good idea. slanting. Ed. Eliminate the two and slant the. MR. LAPOINT-Well. it's not without it's problems. You're not going to be able to make a left turn into there. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MILLER-Well, how much of a slant would you? MR. LAPOINT-Again. you guys have got to figure it. MR. MILLER-I think if you're coming in from the right side. going in. you probably have enough of a turning radius that you could still park there. if you were heading north on Ridge. MR. LAPOINT-I don't want to do anything foolish either. you guys are supposed to propose to us. I mean. MR. MACEWAN-Is there room out back? It appears that there's room out back. where you have the two locust trees planted on each side of the rear parking lot. that if you took and relocated those two trees. you could add four more parking spots out there. MR. MILLER-You can. The problem. though. is you're creating a hardship to the patients. and I think that what we're looking to do. because we're starting from scratch with a facility that wasn't existing. We would agree with you. and we try to have all the parking in the rear. As it is. we're talking about eliminating half of it. and to further do that is. MR. MACEWAN-What we're trying to do. too. is also relieve somewhat of a public safety problem. too. out in front. So. I guess it's six of one. half dozen of the other here. MR. BREWER-Do we have to do a Short Form on this? We have to do a public hearing. right? Has everybody got their comments out. on the Board? MR. RUEL-Have you had any accidents as a result of the present parking? DR. BELL-I've been there nine years. The doctor before me had been there 25 years. I asked him. and there's never been an accident of anybody pUlling out of that parking lot onto Ridge. If you'd like to contact the gentleman that was there 25 years before me. I can give you his name. MR. MACEWAN-During the time that you've had your practice there. and the previous doctor had his practice there. had these parking spots existed there. on Ridge Road. all this time? You've never had a problem with the County or anybody else? DR. BELL-No. MR. STARK-Roger. he's already going from 18 down to 9. eliminates half the cars out there. That MR. BREWER-Okay. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anybody here that would like to speak on this application? - 60 - - PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-I think it's unlisted. MR. LAPOINT-What would that be. short form or long form. guys? MR. MARTIN-Short form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 21-93. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Corinne Tarana: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JANET HUSTON BELL. for expansion of Chiropractic Offices with apartment., and WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant 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 negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-93 JANET HUSTON BELL. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: For the expansion of a Chiropractic Office. with apartments. with - 61 - - -- the following conditions: One. that the applicant demonstrate to Rist-Frost's satisfaction compliance with their letter dated 14 June 1993. and include all such changes on the final site plan. and. Two, that the applicant relocate the southern. the two southerly most parking spots along Ridge Road to the back of the property. Three. that the applicant comply with the Staff's comments for additional planting on the north side of the bUilding. and Beautification. Duly adopted this 15th day of June. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver DISCUSSION REGARDING JOHN MCCALL SITE PLAN HOWARD KRANTZ. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Krantz. MR. KRANTZ-Good evening. I know the hour's late. I will be as brief as I can. I'm here on behalf of John McCall. and the architect. Al Mugrace. for some informal discussion. almost like a workshop. Just to give some quick reactions to you. prior to the meeting on the site plan approval. This is regarding the proposed docks for John McCall's residence. MR. BREWER-When is this coming to us for site plan approval? MR. MARTIN-Probably next month. You'll meet the application deadline. You already have your stuff in. I think. as a matter of fact. So it'll be on for your next month. but they did come in actually a week late, and I thought. well. we could get it on as a discussion item with the Board. You could indicate any concerns you had now. and they could adjust if necessary for their formal application. MR. BREWER-I'm not even going to look at it. MRS. TARANA-Well. we just got it tonight. Just so you know that we really haven't even looked at it. MR. KRANTZ-We appreciate that. This is not the site plan formal hearing. We just want to give you just a quick overview. As you look at the plan. in the upper left hand corner will be a boathouse. and there'll be another one in the lower left. and then across Assembly Point Road. in the lower right hand corner. will be a straight dock. and all these docks are well within the requirements of zoning. as well as the Lake George Park Commission. MR. BREWER-Why would he want three docks. may I ask? MR. KRANTZ-For whatever boat he wants to have. Actually. he could have even more docks than what is shown here on the plan. MR. BREWER-Are these docks going to be rented? MR. KRANTZ-No. MR. BREWER-Positively absolutely not rented? MR. KRANTZ-There's no plans to rent the dock whatsoever. MR. LAPOINT-What have you got. all crib type affairs? MR. KRANTZ-Yes. I also want to point out that there's old - 62 - -- cribbing. if you look about the middle of the left side. there's old cribbing that extends dangerously out into the waters of Lake George and DEC has already issued a permit for removing that old cribbing. it's become a navigation hazard. and much of that is going to be used right on site. to stabilize the shore. MR. LAPOINT-You're going to put. in the water. all pine. untreated. nonleachable type cribs. right? MR. KRANTZ-Absolutely. MR. LAPOINT-And you'll have anything on toP. in terms of pressure treated lumber. as the nonleachable type? MR. KRANTZ-Absolutely. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I wanted to have the Board consider. the al teration of the shore line. He's not altering the shoreline. However, there is significant erosion that's been occurring there. and I think he's going to make efforts to restore the shoreline wi th natural boulders. and that type of thing. I wanted the applicant to go through that with you. so you knew that was part of the site plan. MR. LAPOINT-You've got a stabilized end wall here. Are you going to mortar that in. or just pile the rocks? ALBERT MUGRACE MR. MUGRACE-Well. we're primarily going to pile the rocks in. MR. LAPOINT-Just pile the rocks in. Great. and you'll put in there about not using all kinds of herbicides. pesticides. fertilizers. on your topsoil and seed? You'll try to do that with. like just straight 10. 5 or something like that? Put that right in your plan. I think we'll want to see that when it comes to SEQRA. MR. BREWER-He's pulling water out of the lake to drink. MR. KRANTZ-Right. MR. BREWER-So I don't think he wants to pollute it. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Well. I'm trying to get the itemized list of every conceivable thing we can ask you for. You're going to give us elevations. the height out of the water. the exact dimensions of the dock, the exact square footage of the dock. MR. BREWER-Now is this the extent of the docks you want to put in there? How many docks is he allowed here? MR. MARTIN-It's based on your shoreline frontage. MR. BREWER-How much frontage is there? MR. MUGRACE-Eight hundred twenty three linear feet. total. MR. RUEL-It's 333 on one side. MR. KRANTZ-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-Two fifty one to five hundred feet. you're allowed three docks. MR. BREWER-What page are you on. Jim? MR. MARTIN-Page 18024. 179-60. MR. HARLICKER-Is DEC involved at all with the shoreline alterations? Do you have to get permits through them? - 63 - -- '"V'" MR. MUGRACE-We obtained a permit to remove the stone from the abandoned stable. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. but they're not involved in the shoreline alteration? MR. MARTIN-I'd like to see a copy of that permit on removing the rocks from the old steam boat wharf. MR. MUGRACE-I can get you a copy. MRS. TARANA-And all the docks are for your own personal use. MR. KRANTZ-Absolutely. MR. LAPOINT-Put that in there, if you can. and you're going to clean out and reshape this existing swale. Will you give us a cross section of detail of what that's going to look like in the end? MR. MUGRACE-Sure. MR. LAPOINT-I see one continuous one all the way through. MR. MUGRACE-Yes. it's all the way through. MR. BREWER-It is all the way through? MR. MUGRACE-There's an accepting culvert there. MR. KRANTZ-The old dock. south of the old cribbing. is really falling apart. That's bad news. That's got to go. MR. RUEL-That's a shared driveway over here? MR. MUGRACE-Right now it is. yes. MR. RUEL-It'll remain that way? MR. KRANTZ-It has to. MR. LAPOINT-Now proposed residence. you're going to build a house right smack dab in the middle here. right? MR. BREWER-That's all ready got the foundations there. MR. MARTIN-They all ready have a building permit. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So that wasn't even part of the site plan. MR. BREWER-No. We were up there when we looked at the Knox property last week, and we saw the house being built. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. TARANA-We didn't go back and look at the docks. though. I mean. we weren't even looking at that project yet. MR. BREWER-Next month we will. That's all I've got. Anybody else? MR. LAPOINT-Are you close on your setbacks? setback for one. What's the required? I see a 40 foot MR. MARTIN-Twenty. MR. LAPOINT-Twenty. So you have plenty of room there. MR. MARTIN-The north one. if you notice. Ed. is 20. MR. LAPOINT-Twenty is exact. All I can say is. it would be nice if - 64 - -, ..- . it weren't so exact. I mean. if people want to go 20 feet on their side. and have a boat. It gives you 40. You're okay. You're not going to have a 40 foot. MR. BREWER-You never know. Ed. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to see a dimension on that other dock. Do you have your dimensions from the setbacks here? You don't on your one across the road. Put a setback line in there for me. MR. KRANTZ-If we're finished on this, I just have a very brief comment. I know the hour's late. I've mentioned this to Dave Hatin. I've mentioned it to a couple Queensbury Town Board members. I don't think I mentioned it to Jim. A way in which I think you can improve the appearance of the Town at little or no cost. I've been living here in Queensbury for over 20 years. since 1972. and as the Town has grown. I've seen a deterioration of the appearance of the Town. This is to be expected. to some extent. when you have growth. but I've also been to a lot of Board meetings. including the clients that I've represented. and if you think traffic patterns and studies are sometimes misleading. talk about commercial artist's renderings. about all the landscaping they're going to do. You send these people to Beautification. and I've been there myself. You're going to have this. You're going to have that. Take a look at what's been done and what hasn't been done on your landscaping. When you enter Queensbury and you have your signs uP. Rich in Natural Beauty. A Beautiful Place to Live. why. then. if you're traveling down Route 9 into Glens Falls. it starts to look like a park. That looks like the rural area. and all you see is asphalt. People do not put in. I'm talking about the commercial. not the residential. They do not put in. in my opinion. half the landscaping that they promised. and that you conditioned your approval upon. MR. MARTIN-Well. you're right about that. and this Board is aware of the new policy that I instituted about a month ago. When someone comes for their CO. their final inspection for occupancy. we now. as a Planning Staff. are going around and we're counting trees. We're pulling out the site plan that was approved by this Board. and we're going to count trees and we're going to look for types. and they're going to be held accountable. right down to the last weed. for what they've said they were going to do. MR. KRANTZ-I think that's a good step in the right direction. Also. I know that you guys have more than enough to do now. but if you picked out the worst offender. going back. when you're driving around. gee. is that what that Quaker Road project was supposed to look like? And if they're really. I'm not saying if they don't have exactly what they're supposed to have. but if a given project is way short. I think you have every right to go back and say. look. we approved this four years ago. You produced this. You've got 60 percent of what you're supposed to have. Something. if you've got blue and white buildings. if you want. MR. MACEWAN-Brings us back to bilious blue. MRS. TARANA-I agree with him 100 percent. MR. MARTIN-I handed you out. or Scott did. tonight. like a draft of an agenda. and some other preliminary subdivision approvals. I was just thinking. as a means to how we approach our meetings and the way we structure the agendas. that they seem to be too regimented right now. and there's no room for like what happened with Mr. McCall just now, or. if the Planning Board wanted to take up a general topic of discussion. relating to just generic planning. or planning in general. planning concepts. or whatever. So we were kicking around with the Staff. provide more of an opportunity for this type of thing right within your agendas. and I gave you. here. a format for a new style of agenda. which would be. start off with minutes. We would provide you with a notation as to the exact - 65 - -,- minutes to be approved, not just leave it up to you. because I know sometimes that can be confusing. and then. the second area of the meeting would be strictly resolution items. Things like. like tonight. for example, the final subdivision with the Partnership, here. with the toxic waste site. I mean. that was pretty much a closed and shut deal. You have no SEQRA Review. No publ ic hearing. All the engineering and technical comments were addressed. That's something that could be dealt with. pretty much. in a resolution format. and we could group those together and just go. bing. bing. bing right down through. how many you have for a gi ven meeting. then Old Business would be tabled items. Again. maybe an open and shut type of a thing. or if there were any held over concerns. we could go through those. Then your SEQRA Reviews would be grouped together. and then new business would be totally new applications you're seeing. as we noted there. sketch plan through site plan. petition for zone changes. mobile home parks. and then lastly. which would be. I think. the most important element of a new system. would be discussion items. Maybe incomplete applications, or applications that came late. Right now. we're just shutting people out. and we're saying. you've got to come back a whole three weeks. and we're not even going to let you see the Board. That doesn't seem fair. I don't think we're doing a service to the applicant. MR. LAPOINT-I agree with that. MR. BREWER-But not necessarily hear them that night. MR. LAPOINT-No. no. MR. MARTIN-I told Mr. McCall tonight. you are not going to get a resolution tonight. The Board is not going to consider this formally. but you can get their informal comments going into a formal application for next month. and also workshop discussions. anything in general. like Mr. Krantz's comment tonight about site plan. following up on the landscaping. what's being done about that. what can be done. things like that. So there's. somewhat of a format like the Town Board uses. rather than just some dry old. new business. MR. LAPOINT-I agree. Lets do it. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And then the other thing that's here with you is resolutions. I'm concerned right now that a lot of our resolutions right now that a lot of our resolutions technically aren't in compliance with the Ordinance. There's some things called for in there that we just don't do. We just move on them. and this would give. Scott's gone through and looked through what the Ordinance calls for. and this is based on that. and then you'd have a consistent format every time you pass on something. it would be in compliance with the Ordinance. There are areas in here where if you need to make contingencies or there's flexibility built into this resolution. MR. BREWER-You know. that's the thing that I never know. and maybe we shouldn't know. When we make contingencies on big projects. we never know if they were ever carried out or they weren't. really. I mean. I mean. you know. but we never know. Maybe we should get. maybe. a summary of what things were done and what weren't done. because sometimes. like I drive by a project and I say. gee. I know we can condition that guy to do something that's not done. Why isn't it. and I come in and I talk to you. and I say. Jim. why hasn't this guy got it done? Maybe every month or two months we get a summary of the conditions that we imposed upon people. and they were done or not done. MR. MARTIN-Yes. the best we can. - 66 - MR. MACEWAN-A case in point is the gentleman on Quaker Road. MR. BREWER-He's got time. because I came in and I looked at that. and he had a year from the date we approved it. MR. RUEL-Do you have the Staff to do that? It takes time. MR. MARTIN-Well. the best thing to keep track of something like that is if you get on it the next morning. We have a computerized calendar there. I mean. you put something. we can put something on it a year ahead of time. or whatever. and that's the best way to keep track of it. MR. BREWER-And that's just a way of double checking things. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREKER-It's just checks and balances. and then you know. when somebody gets their CO. you look at their conditions. and you know that they're all met. say. hey. gee. site plan so and so had these conditions that were met. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-As they come up. not necessarily everyone. but as they come up. MR. MACEWAN-I've got a question for you. Regarding. I guess this falls under the Subdivision Ordinances. How would I go about making a proposal. to the remainder of the Board. and to the Town Board. about making changes in one of those Ordinances? MR. MARTIN-You can start it through this Board. I would say. if you want to do it personally. write up your changes, show it to the Board. and the Board can advance it on. or you can do it individually, but I think it would carry more weight as a Board. I think the Board would probably support you. MR. MACEWAN-Because we were talking about this thing in there about sketch plan. where sketch plan is an oPtional thing. I'd like to see sketch plan made a mandatory thing. It worked real well last week with American Equity. Specifically. we have applicants who come in here. and we may say. yes. we like your idea at sketch plan. even though it's a conceptual thing. They try to tie to us and say. well. you approved this thing. I'd like that reworded so that it's not. we're not being strung out for it. MR. MARTIN-Along those same lines. that's what I'd like for this workshop session. wi thin this new agenda format here. Get more people in here sooner. prior to them getting in the formal pipeline. so to speak. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Because I've always thought the Board is very. even when I was on it. we were very willing to sit down and talk to any applicant. at special meetings or whenever. MR. MACEWAN-Well. if anything. maybe this new agenda will speed up our evening. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well. I want to give it a try. but I just wanted to run it by you. MR. BREWER-Yes. that would be great. MR. LAPOINT-The thing. and I go to a lot of other Planning Board meetings. so I see what happens. What we've got to stop doing is - 67 - ~, ""'". '"'- debating in the middle of a motion. okay. Because I make a lot of them. you've got to be honest with me if you've still got comments. and not keep going half way through the motion. MRS. TARANA-Well. sometimes you have questions come up when you're making the motion. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Fine. Then we should sit longer. as a professional appearance. okay. other Boards don't do that. Okay. You don't see. you get half way through. three votes taken. and then we go off into a five minute debate. Just a suggestion. MR. BREWER-No. I agree with you. but a lot of other Boards have prepared resolutions in front of them. too. MR. LAPOINT-You sit down and you think. You get your comments out. and we try to go slow. You see. what functionally happens is a guy like Mike jumps in and starts making resolutions for you. Let me tell you. it happens. We go all the way from us talking to Staff talking. to the applicant talking. to people out in the audience talking. in the middle of the resolution. So what we've got to do is tighten that up. I don't have to go any quicker. and I don't want to rush the meeting. but when we're ready to go. if you're not ready. stop. There can't be that much difference, 45 seconds into it. that you've got to chime in and start a debate about a whole other subject. The time is before then. MR. MARTIN-I've got one last issue. When we had the Sign Ordinance Workshop the other night, which was in conflict with your meeting. not much really happened. Really they decided to take a step back. A committee was formed to go into the Sign Ordinance and try and just do specific changes. one at a time. to bring them to the Town Board. We reserved a spot on the committee. there's one person from the Zoning Board there as well. some other people from the community. We reserved a spot on that committee for the Planning Board. We were hoping someone would like to take a few hours. over a given period of time. and work on this committee. and it meets very infrequently. MR. MACEWAN-Whatever became of the Roger Ruel incident. where he was asked to? MR. MARTIN-Corinne wrote to the Board about that. Before we get into that, would somebody like to get on this committee? MRS. TARANA-Well, what happened with that other committee? Let me ask you that first. the committee that was supposed to start looking at the Master Plan? MR. MARTIN-I'm trying to get the 149 study done. and then I want to do that. but we're waiting for comments from Betty now. They're supposed to come this week. MRS. TARANA-Okay. Have you set a committee for that already? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. RUEL-Did you receive my letter? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Would somebody like to be on that. I think it's important somebody from the Planning Board do step forward. even if it's for no other reason than to serve as a conduit to the rest of the Board members. to keep you abreast of what's going on. MRS. TARANA-When do they meet? MR. MARTIN-Very infrequently. in the evening. If you were trying to schedule the meeting in the early part of the month. away from. MRS. TARANA-Every month they meet? - 68 - ......... J, - '- MR. MARTIN-No. maybe not even that. MR. RUEL-I read the Ordinance that you sent me. Sign Ordinance. and I didn't see where the Planning Board has any participation in the signs. MR. MARTIN-No. not really. MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-We're going to have one next month. aren't we? The woman who was here last night. or Monday night. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Rolling Ridge. So. would somebody. Corinne. do you want to volunteer? MRS. TARANA-Well. I had volunteered for that other committee. That's why if I were going to be on that other committee. I don't want to be on this one. too. MR. MARTIN-I don't think there's going to be that big of a deal. I mean. a lot of time. MR. BREWER-If all else fails. I'll do it. If nobody else will do it. I'll do it. MRS. TARANA-What day of the week? MR. MARTIN-Well. the first meeting. I think. is July 7th. MRS. TARANA-You can put me on. but I'm not sure I can make them all. MR. RUEL-Is there any way of getting that Sign Ordinance translated into English? MR. MARTIN-That's mostly the intent of this committee. MR. RUEL-It's terrible. MR. BREWER-Didn't we ask Jim Martin to direct a letter to the Town Board. asking them to undertake a study? MR. MARTIN-Yes. a traffic study. MR. BREWER-We asked you to do a solution study. not a traffic study. MR. MARTIN-Solution study. solutions to the traffic . MR. BREWER-Right. Did you ever do that? MR. MARTIN-No, but I'm going to do that. MR. BREWER-When? Give us a date. Within two weeks? MR. MARTIN-I'm trying to sort out in my mind a source of money for that. because it's something we have. MR. BREWER-Gee. Jim. they're willing to spend money for a building up on the Corinth Road that they spent $800.000 for. and they're not using the damn thing. why the hell not spend $4 or $5 or $10.000 on something useful. MR. MARTIN-I just don't want to be like Bill Clinton and get too many things in the works here at once. and then wind up not doing anything. I want to get the 149 study. we're this close. I want to get that done. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. but there's nothing going on on 149 right now. and - 69 - '. ......., ....r there's a lot going on on the Bay Road area. MR. MARTIN-There's more coming. There's a petition for zone change for another site along Meadowbrook. MR. MACEWAN-That's coming. We have stuff that's going on right now. this moment. it's happening. that's more important. I think. than 149. right now. MR. MARTIN-149's almost done. MR. BREWER-By the time you get a letter to them. and they consider it. and something happens. if we wait. MR. MARTIN-I will do it this Monday night. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 70 -