Loading...
1994-02-22 " QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22ND, 1994 INDEX Site Plan No. 4-94 Mr. & Mrs. William Sullivan 2. Mr. & Mrs. William Sullivan 7. C.B. Leeser, Jr. & M. Susan Leeser 12. C.B. Leeser, Jr. & M. Susan Leeser 14. Daniel R. Barber 20. SEQRA Review SEQRA Review Site Plan No. 5-94 Subdivision No. 2-1994 SKETCH PLAN Site Plan No. 6-94 Mr. Stuart Temkin 33. SEQRA Review Harris Bay Yacht Club 33. 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 MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22ND, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK, SECRETARY CATHERINE LABOMBARD JAMES OBERMAYER CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT PALING PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. BREWER-I'd like to stray from the agenda just one second. We have a letter from Aviation Mall requesting a workshop in March. March 8 sounds like a good date for everybody. I guess it's best for Aviation Mall, March 8, seven o'clock, right here. Do we need a motion or anything for that? MR. HARLICKER-I don't think so, just agree to set a date, and make sure everybody agrees to it. MR. BREWER-All right. That's fine with you, Mr. Piazzola? MR. PIAZZOLA-Yes, it is. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. You're all set. We'll be here March 8, seven o'clock. Okay. Now we can go right to the regular agenda. Do you want to do the minutes, George? MR. STARK-Well, we can't do the ones that are on here. MR. MACEWAN-Jim was going to look into that, and ask Paul Dusek what we were going to do about that scenario. MR. STARK-We can do the January and February, but we can't do November/December. I haven't heard back on that. MR. BREWER-All right. So, we can do, January, what dates, George? MR. STARK-What we're doing is February 9th, January 27th. We can approve those, but we can't do anything. MR. BREWER-All right, on the November 16th and 23rd, and December 14th, and 21st. Make a motion. January 27th, 1994: NONE February 9th, 1994: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9TH, 1994 WORKSHOP SESSION AND JANUARY 27TH. 1994 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer - 1 - ",-, NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. BREWER-Okay. The first item, George. SEQRA REVIEW: Resolution Acknowledging Lead Agency Status and review of the Long EAF for Mr. & Mrs. William Sullivan. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to introduce it? RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Site Plan No. 4-94 Hr. & Mrs. William Sullivan RESOLUTION NO.; 8-1994 INTRODUCED BY: Craiq MacEwan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel WHEREAS, in connection with the Site Plan No. 4-94. Mr. & Mrs. William Sullivan, 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: 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 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. BREWER-All right, now, we want to do the SEQRA first. - 2 - .-- MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There was a Long Form EAF that was submitted. MR. BREWER-Have you got notes for that, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 4-94 SEQRA REVIEW, Mr. & Mrs. William Sullivan clo Dr. Thomas Sullivan, Meeting Date: February 22nd, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 153 square foot addition to an existing kitchen. The single family house is located on Lake George in the Lake George C.E.A. PROJECT 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 proj ect site? Because the pro j ect involves construction of an addition there will be a slight change in 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 proposal will not affect any protected water body. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? The proposal will not affect any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The proposal will not affect surface or groundwater. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The proposal will generate some additional runoff from the kitchen expansion. 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. Will the proposed action affect 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 or structure 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 space or recreational opportunities? The action should not have an adverse effect on 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 sources of fuel and energy 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 pro j ect. 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 for the purposes of SEQRA. " MR. MACEWAN-Did you guys, when you went on site visits, see the place? MR. BREWER-Did not. Couldn't find it. Is there anybody here for this application? What does everybody want to do? Do they want to go over it, even though we didn't see it? MR. MACEWAN-I don't see how we can. - 3 - -...-' DICK WHITE MR. WHITE-Why didn't you? MR. MACEWAN-Couldn't find it. MR. OBERMAYER-Couldn't find it. MR. WHITE-It's posted right up front. MR. MACEWAN-Where was it posted? MR. WHITE-Right by the road. MR. STARK-Was this the yellow house? I put it there myself. MR. OBERMAYER-Was it a yellow house? MR. WHITE-It's down at the bottom, if you face the driveway, there's an old garage to the left hand side of it, and then the driveway goes down and curves in and out down at the bottom by the lake. We're actually building on the back uphill side. MR. BREWER-It's not the house ~ looked at. MR. OBERMAYER-What road is it on? MR. WHITE-It's right on, on the back side of the lake, there, just past the entrance to Plum Point, if you're coming from one direction, and just before the mountain, Lockhart Mountain Road. MR. BREWER-There's no way down to it, though. right? MR. WHITE-A driveway. It isn't plowed out, but it's there. MR. BREWER-That's why we didn't see it. MR. OBERMAYER-We probably drove right by it. MRS. LABOMBARD-We were looking for a driveway; MR. WHITE-What it is, is an older existing home. The back side, or the uphill side, facing the road behind it, had a bump out addition that was there already. It had a (lost word) and a porch area and so forth, all right. What we're doing is redoing the existing section that was there. It was totally eroded. What they want to do is square off that back side. It adds to 150 some odd square feet that we're talking about, with the footprint, and it's an older couple that own the house, and what they're doing is we're trying to get them down to the house so they can use it on a regular basis, I guess. It doesn't impact, the only additional living space is actually what's going to be a kitchenldining addition to the house area there. Just to give them a more gentle slope down in there for handicapped access. MR. MACEWAN-Is there any way that could be plowed out so we could get up there and take a look? MR. WHITE-It's a tough jOb to plow. Everything that is in there now would have to be bucketed out. I can't plow that with a plow. It was originally clear at one point. I mean, we did some work. MR. STARK-Did you see it, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-You say it, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, I trudged down in there. - 4 - MR. STARK-Could you enlighten us? MR. HARLICKER-It's like he says. You can see it partially from the road. You can see they've started some of the construction. It looks like it's been roughed in. Like he said, it's a very minor addition to this house. You can't see it from the lake. I don't even know if you could see it from the adjacent properties on either side. ~ opinion is it has very minimal impact on the site. MR. WHITE-The one side is the eXisting renovation, that's all it was. We stayed within the footprint. MR. BREWER-Well, how does everybody feel about it? MR. STARK-I'll go by Scott, there's no impact. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, me, too. MR. RUEL-I think the sketches here are adequate, as far as I'm concerned. It seems to indicate what they're going to do. MR. WHITE-All it is, is just a small bump out. MR. RUEL-You have a front elevation, and you've got a floor plan. Frankly, I don't know that I could see anymore if I went there. I'd probably see less, because half of it is covered under snow. I don't have any problem with this. MR. BREWER-Now what do you think, Craig? same? Do you still feel the MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I still feel the same. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-That's the rules that govern this Board, we're supposed to abstain from voting on any site visit we don't make, and we didn't make, even though we tried. MR. BREWER-Well, I almost kind of agree with you. say yes to this. I mean, if we MR. MACEWAN-You're setting an awful bad precedent. MR. BREWER-You are. MR. MACEWAN-Nothing personal to the applicant, or the applicant's agent. MR. WHITE-I mean, with all due respect, we filled out paperwork before, there was a Short Form, should have had our approvals back in January. At that point, it was pointed out to us that we had the wrong paperwork. We refiled, that's why this thing has stopped for this period of time. I've sat another month, now, waiting to get to this point, posted my signs, filled out this stuff. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. He's played by the rules all along. MR. WHITE-Yes. I mean, I've tried to do what I was supposed to do. With all due respect, I understand what you're saying, that you have an obligation to visit the site. I can't bus people around to sites and so forth. It was marked. It was there. I, personally, put it there, so I know it was there. MR. BREWER-And I'm not doubting you, not even a little bit. MR. WHITE-I mean, what we're talking about is not monumental construction, here. We're talking about 153 square foot, you're talking about an area that's roughly, what, 10 by 15. I mean, this is a little bump out, on the back of a house. It's been there since God was a child. Trust me, I know the condition of it. What - 5 - - we're trying to do is get it done so these people will have access to this thing. I've already lost two months on this thing, sitting here now. I completed what ~ was supposed to do. MR. HARLICKER-He's done everything we've asked him to do. MR. MACEWAN-When are we having this workshop with Penney's? I'm just trying to help the guy out, that's all. MR. BREWER-Well, we can go through the SEQRA if the four members of the Board want to vote on it. They're more than welcome to. I mean, you and I can vote the way we want to. I mean. we could still go through it. He just has to have a negative or a positive dec, and a second and a vote, and if he passes, then he gets it. I mean, we shouldn't deny him that right to go through the SEQRA. MR. MACEWAN-True. I agree with you on that point, but the basis for making the determination of our SEQRA is henceforth visiting the site. If you haven't visited the site, how can you go through the SEQRA? MR. BREWER-I'm telling you the way ~ feel. MR. OBERMAYER-But we do utilize Scott's, I mean, Scott did see the site, and he's recommending that there isn't any. MR. MACEWAN-You're supposed to see the site as well. MR. BREWER-Well, lets go through it anyway and see what happens. I guess that's the worst that can happen, is he can get turned down, and then we can table it until the 8th. That's the worst that can happen. Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-94, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning MR. & MRS. WILLIAM SULLIVAN, and Board an 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 Type I 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 - 6 - 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 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. BREWER-Okay. site plan. You've got a negative dec. Now we have to do NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 4-94 TYPE I MR. & MRS. WILLIAM SULLIVAN clo DR. THOMAS SULLIVAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR - 3A. C . E . A. LOCATION: RT. 9L, PLUM PT. - ON RIGHT HAND SIDE OF RT. 9L, PAST LOCKHART MT. RD. REQUEST IS FOR A 153 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING KITCHEN AREA - EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. SEQRA: 2/22/94 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/9194 APA TAX MAP NO.1-i-iS LOT SIZE: 21,353 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-79 DICK WHITE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 4-94, Mr. & Mrs. William Sullivan clo Dr. Thomas Sullivan, Meeting Date: February 22, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 153 square foot addition to a kitchen. The property is located on Lake George wi th access off Rt. 9L. The property is zoned WR-1A. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A., the project is in compliance with the other requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located. In accordance with Section 179-38 B., the project was reviewed in order to determine if it is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, and it was found to be compatible with the zone in which it is to be located and should not be a burden on supporting public services. In accordance with Section 179-38 C., the proposal was reviewed regarding its impact on the highway. There was found to be no significant impact on the road system. In accordance with Section 179-38 D., the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. 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 project will be compatible with the site and the existing structure. 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¡ The additional runoff generated by this addition will have to be contained on site. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities¡ The project will not impact the water supply or sewage disposal system. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other sui table plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual andlor noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of - 7 - ,--,. existing vegetation and maitenance 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 ¡ The project will not impact emergency services. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding andlor erosion. This is not an issue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-Warren County Planning Board said there was "No County Impact". MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any comments or questions? MR. STARK-Yes. Did you get a copy of the staff notes? Well, the one issue that Scott raised was about the additional runoff being generated, having to be contained on the site. How did you plan on doing that? MR. WHITE-Basically, the runoff, we're not generating additional runoff. We're bumping out, right now, what, basically, came down to the building and came around it. What we're doing is, we're going to contain that in a footing drain system, to take care of that. So there's nothing going, actually, it's more than what was there. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here from the public who would like to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRANK LOCKHART MR. LOCKHART-I'm Frank Lockhart, neighbor. The first question is, how come they got the building pretty near completed before they got a permit? MR. BREWER-I don't know that, sir. I don't know the answer to that. Scott, do you know the answer to that? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. BREWER-Probably didn't know you needed a permit, right? MR. HARLICKER-One that came through with the permit, I suspect. MR. LOCKHART-They must have known they needed a permit. MR. BREWER-I know that. I said that in. MR. LOCKHART-They got a permit for the sewer system, which there was never a permit posted any place, that I could see. It has to be visible to the public, if I understand. MR. BREWER-Yes. Maybe the applicant can answer that. MR. WHITE-There was a permit issued for the work that we've done and completed. We've changed the outside configuration of the building. We've worked wi thin the existing footprint of the building that was there, the porch. MR. LOCKHART-No. You excavated. I know. MR. WHITE-I'm not arguing with you. I'm just representing what we presented, you asked whether we had a permit for what we had. We did have a building permit for what was completed. MR. BREWER-There is a building permit right here, for the septic. - 8 - ~ MR. WHITE-Separate from the septic. MR. LOCKHART-I never got a notification. MR. BREWER-They didn't need a permit for that, sir. MR. WHITE-There wouldn't be one necessary for what we did on the existing structure. MR. LOCKHART-You excavated for four foot deep, from the porch that he's talking about, back into the bank. MR. BREWER-They cut into the bank? MR. LOCKHART-Yes. MR. WHITE-We cut into the bank to reinstall footings, cross wall, and the area that was already the re prior to that, once it's backfilled, it's back (lost words) and that's exactly what we were authorized to do. The backfill, at this point, has not been completed until we. MR. LOCKHART-I don't know. I've been stomping around there for 60 some years, and I know quite a lot about the place, the stone walk, thing around there, drywall. MR. BREWER-And that's been removed and changed? MR. LOCKHART-That's been dug out with a backhoe, the concrete slab was poured last winter, when it was cold, a wall was laid up and studded. That's why I wonder why we have a public hearing when the building's already been sheeted and roofed. MR. WHITE-We're within the footprint of what was there. MR. BREWER-I guess what we can do for you, Mr. Lockhart, is ask Mr. Martin to go up and have it checked. I don't know how he could, lets put it this way, he's not supposed to do anything until he complies with the rules of the Town. If he did, then that's out of this Board's jurisdiction. We can't enforce any law or anything. That would be Jim Martin, in the Building Department. As far as we're concerned, we're just trying to do our job to make sure he's doing what he's going to do. MR. LOCKHART-Another thing is he says going to put the water into a footing drain? MR. WHITE-Any surface drainage system is going to, what was there before, a concrete gutter. MR. LOCKHART-Is that going to go directly into the lake from the dock? MR. WHITE-Not from what we're (lost word). MR. LOCKHART-Well, there's a drain that goes all the way around the footing, from previous work of, what, eight, nine years ago. MR. WHITE-On the edge of the building, on the front side, where the house used to go like this, right? This area of the building, right in here, there's a porch, all right. MR. LOCKHART-Way up into here, where there's an old septic system, and they run a drain down, they picked it up, brought it down this way. They picked it up, they run it right back, you people didn't do it. It was done previous, but that's why I questioned, you're going to hook into this, the water's going to go into this other thing, and directly into the lake. We don't need any more. MR. WHITE-That was preexisting in that area. We haven't even been - 9 - in that area of the bUilding. What we're doing is what's over in here, and what we're concerned about is making sure that we control whatever comes off of this building in this area. It was already a this ridge line of the building. There's a porch that comes back in. All right. Everything, basically, (lost word) to the uphill side of the building and was caught in a concrete trough in here, right around the building. What we're going to do to control it, there was, actually, what we'll have is more than what was there before. We're not doing anything on this end of the bUilding at all, and I'm not tying into anything that goes into the lake. In fact, we put in that upgraded septic that pumps, now, up the hill. I don't know what he had before. MR. BREWER-All right. Well, in our motion we can make sure that you don't tie into that drainage that goes directly into the. MR. LOCKHART-That's a no, no anyway. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LOCKHART-So, I've got to see Martin about this? MR. BREWER-Yes, sir. MR. LOCKHART-This permit, because I don't remember anything that might have (lost word) on the septic system. MR. WHITE-The septic system is one portion of the thing. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They're two separate permits and separate issues, septic and building permit that it sounds like he got for the renovation of what was there. MR. BREWER-Yes. It's right here. MR. LOCKHART-How come he didn't have to have it? MR. BREWER-They didn't have to have a public hearing for the septics, sir. MR. LOCKHART-No, the other, the addition. MR. WHITE-What you've got is essentially what's according to now about three phases, one was to upgrade the septic, which we've got the permit. You've got an application. That system's in and inspected, and done. The other thing was to submit, and which we did, an application to do this construction we're talking about on the front side of the building. It was at that point, it was determined that we needed to go through site plan review for the new section. For the old section, we didn't need to do that. It was preexisting. We stayed within the footprint. That's what he's seeing, at this point, which I think you'll find, is that footprint, or, granted, at this point it's not backf illed yet, because I don't know which way we're going with the rest of this thing. MR. LOCKHART-So you're going to add to what you've already got? MR. WHITE-As far as stick work. as far as walls and so forth? MR. LOCKHART-Yes. MR. WHITE-What you're looking at now is totally within the existing footprint of what was there. What we're adding is 153 square feet of living space, total, that is not there, which is what is in the application, which, I believe if you talk to Jim and Dave Hatin, you'll find that you have all the forms, the paperwork. MR. LOCKHART-You're crowding the property. - 10 - MR. BREWER-But if it's within the footprint of the building, sir, we can't, he's not adding anything out. MR. LOCKHART-You can build anything you want, as long as you stay the same building? MR. BREWER-Pretty much. I don't know that for sure. I'm saying he's applying for 153 square feet, and I don't know if he's going to get it or not. Won't know that until the vote is called. MR. OBERMAYER-I have a question for you, as far as the square footage goes. It indicates on your sketch that actually the square footage is a little bit larger than 150. MR. WHITE-What you're looking at is the sketch includes the portion that's preexisting, I believe. What we did, when we they broke this in, and we found out that we had to go for site plan review for the additional space, a portion of that's existing. As long as we stayed, again, within that footprint area, that wasn't part of that square footage, because it was already there. MR. RUEL-You're asking for an extension of the kitchen area, only. What about the bathroom? MR. WHITE-That bathroom has been, will be replaced, and tied in. That's existing. All we did was upgrade it, it's tied to the new septic system. MR. RUEL-I see. Yes, because that total area is about, almost 300 square feet. MR. WHITE-Exactly. MR. RUEL-But you're only asking for that one section, between the bathroom and the outside wall. MR. HARLICKER-Right. building. So you're squaring off the back of that MR. WHITE-What we're doing is squaring off that back. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, but actually you poured your footing, the whole footing, at the same time, right? So you did pour the footings ahead of time. MR. WHITE-Right. We're below grade, at this point. So had it not been done, that was done for construction reasons, but had it not been approved, (lost word), but it didn't make sense to go in there and do separate pours and we're not above grade. So, essentially, at this point, I could put a patio in there, and he meets the requirements of the Town. MR. BREWER-Is there anything else, sir? MR. LOCKHART-No. I guess not. MR. RUEL-Are you adding any additional plumbing facilities in that area? MR. WHITE-Well, I've got a kitchen sink that's already there, that, again, will be tied into the new, everything's going into the new septic system. MR. RUEL-The existing sink assembly will be moved into the new area. MR. WHITE-It's all tied into the, there's no additional bathrooms going in. There's no additional fixtures going in. MR. BREWER-Anybody else? - 11 - ",--# - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-94 MR. & MRS. WILLIAM SULLIVAN Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded b~ George Stark: For a 153 square foot expansion of an existing kitchen area. Expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area, with the condition that there be no alteration in the present drainage arrangement. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1994, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Paling SEORA REVIEW: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF FOR C.B. LEESER. JR. & M. SUSAN LEESER RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Site Plan No. 5-94 C.B. Leeser. Jr./M. Susan Leeser RESOLUTION NO. ¡ 9-1994 INTRODUCED BY: Roger Ruel WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: George Stark WHEREAS, in connection with the Site Plan No. 5-94. C. B. Lesser. Jr. & M. Susan Lesser, 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: and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to - 12 - " , - 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 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. HARLICKER-Are we going to go through and do the SEQRA first? MR. BREWER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-1994, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning Board C.B. LESSER, JR. & M. SUSAN LESSER, and an 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 Type I 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 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling NEW BUSINESS: - 13 - --- SITE PLAN NO. 5-94 TYPE I C. B. LEESER, JR. & M. SUSAN LEESER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: LAKE PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY PT. PROPOSAL IS FOR A 2 STORY EXPANSION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. THE FOOTPRINT WILL BE EXPANDED BY 657 SQUARE FEET AND THE LIVING AREA WILL BE EXPANDED BY 828 SQUARE FEET. SEQRA: 2/22/94 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/9194 APA TAX MAP NO. 9-1-7 LOT SIZE: .41 ACRE SECTION: 179-79 JOHN RAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-94, C.B. Leeser, Jr. & M. Susan Leeser, Meeting Date: February 22, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to an existing single family home. It will be a two story expansion that will increase the footprint by 657 square feet and the living area by 828 square feet. The addition will result in a decrease in the number of bedrooms from 4 to 3. The property is located on Lake Parkway, Assembly Point and is zoned WR-1A. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A., the project is in compliance with the other requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located. In accordance with Section 179-38 B., the project was reviewed in order to determine if it is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, and it was found to be compatible with the zone in which it is to be located and should not be a burden on supporting public services. In accordance with Section 179-38 C., the proposal was reviewed regarding its impact on the highways. There was found to be no significant impact on the road system. In accordance with Section 179-38 D., the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. The pro j ect 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 addition will be compatible wi th the existing structure and the site in general. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls¡ The project will not impact traffic access. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading¡ The project will not impact off street parking. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience¡ Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities¡ Any additional runoff from the expansion should be contained on site. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities ¡ The existing sewage disposal system services a year round home with 4 bedrooms. Since the expansion will actually reduce the number of bedrooms from 4 to 3 the existing system should be adequate. The addi tion will not impact the existing water supply. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual andlor noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants¡ This will not be impacted by the project. The site will have to be revegetated after construction is complete. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants¡ Emergency accessibility will not be impacted by the addition. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding andlor erosion. Erosion control measures need to be shown on the plan to ensure that runoff during construction does not go into the lake and is contained on site. RECOMMENDATION: Providing any additional runoff is contained on site and erosion control measures are in place during construction and until the disturbed areas have been revegetated staff can recommend approval of this site plan." - 14 - -- ~ MR. HARLICKER-Warren County said there was "No County Impact". MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there someone here representing the Leesers? MR. RAY-My name is John Ray. I'm from Rehm and Ray in Lake George, representing the Leesers. MR. BREWER-Does anybody on the Board have any questions, other than staff comments? MR. STARK-Did you see the staff notes before tonight's meeting? MR. RAY-Yes. MR. STARK-How are they going to alleviate the erosion going into the lake during construction, the runoff? MR. RAY-During construction? Filter fabric, silt fences, and so forth located on the downhill side. Aside from that, I believe that would be adequate to take care of that. MR. BREWER-New York State Erosion Control measures, we can. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You might want to put that note on the site plan, and that'll give the building inspector something to go by when they go out there. MR. BREWER-So, whoever makes the motion, we can include that in the motion, New York State Erosion Control measures. I don't see, on here, where your septic is. MR. RAY-Okay. If you'll notice on the right hand side of the plan, it says, existing to remain, 21 feet setback. I do have another older map. MR. BREWER-Fifty-four foot, existing to remain? MR. RAY-No, I'm sorry. Here's another map. inches from that existing. This is 12 feet 4 MR. BREWER-How come it's not on this map? MR. RUEL-What are you looking for? MR. BREWER-The septic system. MR. OBERMAYER-It's not on this drawing. MR. RUEL-Yes. It should be on there. MR. RAY-It's right down in this area right here. It was probably omitted, due to the fact that a recommendation came (lost word) actually removing one bedroom, it really wouldn't have any effect. MR. BREWER-Well, it would be nice for us to know where it is, that's all. Usually, it's on the map. MR. RAY-Yes. I don't know why I have it on mine, to be honest with you, and you don't have it on yours. I really can't answer that question. MR. BREWER-Okay. know? Is it a holding tank, or what is it? Do you MR. RAY-No. It's a 500 gallon septic tank. MR. OBERMAYER-Is there a leach field with the septic tank, also? MR. RAY-I don't believe so. leaching tank, seepage tank. I think it's, actually, it's a - 15 - "~ -. MR. OBERMAYER-Drywell. MR. MACEWAN-What kinds of problems does he inherit by having a four bedroom facility with a 500 gallon tank? MR. BREWER-That doesn't even meet the Code, does it? MR. MACEWAN-No, it doesn't. MR. RAY-If I could address that, the building has been in existence for a number of years, with four bedrooms, with the eXisting tank working perfectly. I won't put these people in a position where they've got to take up an existing working tank, when they're actually lessening the impact, lessening what is the measurable feed into that tank. The bottom line, it's a good system. It works. They've never had a problem with it. MR. OBERMAYER-I see you're adding a laundry room, though. That'll have a washing machine in it, too, right? Currently the existing home doesn't seem to have a laundry room located in it, according to your plan. MR. RAY-I don't know if the existing. MR. OBERMAYER-It seems like you're adding a second bathroom. MR. RAY-(Lost word) laundry room, or whether it says an extended washer and dryer. MRS. LABOMBARD-Aren't you adding another bathroom? Isn't another bathroom going in? MR. RAY-There is another bathroom. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I don't understand what the impact of the bedroom versus the bathroom. To me, it's the bathroom that runs into the septic tank, not the bedroom. MR. RAY-Well, I fought that battle before, on a number of occasions. The input into a septic tank it's measured in the house, per bedroom, number of gallons that flow in there. MRS. LABOMBARD-I understand that. MR. OBERMAYER-But practicality, though. MR. RAY-Well, from a practical standpoint, the actual usage is going to depend on how many people you put in the house, and. the theory being, when you've got four bedrooms, there's space for X number of people. When you've got three bedrooms, you're actually lessening the space. Whether those three people utilize two bathrooms or three bathrooms, it's the bedrooms that count when it comes to sizing the septic tanks. MR. OBERMAYER-But wouldn't you, it looks like you're, according to the existing floor plan, it doesn't indicate that you have a laundry room at all, and that would definitely impact the size of the septic tank. MR. RAY-Again, your septic tank is sized according to your number of bedrooms, not, you know, number of baths, not laundry rooms or anything like that. I mean, whether or not they actually have a designated laundry room isn't going to. MR. BREWER-I'm sure that doesn't make any difference. MR. RAY-Yes. It's not going to increase. MR. BREWER-Like, we don't have a laundry room in mY house, but we have a washer and dryer. - 16 - --- MR. RAY-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-The current septic system, you said, is a 500 gallon. Is it just a holding tank that has to be pumped out? It has drywells? MR. RAY-My understanding of it is, it is a 500 gallon seepage pit. MR. BREWER-How far away from the lake is it? MR. RUEL-With a leach field? MR. OBERMAYER-There's no leach field. MR. RAY-No, there's no indication of any leach field. MR. BREWER-One hundred and fifty-two feet to the lake. That's not going to hurt the lake, I don't think. MR. RUEL-Do your setback requirements, do they meet the Code? MR. RAY-We don't increase any. MR. RUEL-Yes, well, it's changed, the side yard. MR. RAY-Yes, that does meet the Code. Yes. MR. RUEL-It all meets the Code? MR. RAY-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-How do you stand on this? MR. HARLICKER-I spoke with them on the phone, and I was of the opinion that since it was a functioning system without any problems, that the actual decrease in the number of bedrooms is actually an improvement to the site, as far as their septic system goes. MR. BREWER-So if that system ever fails, Scott, they'll have to upgrade it to today's standards, correct? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RAY-Correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-Who determines, (lost word) it failing, going out in front of the lake and taking a coliform count, is that failing, or is it failing when it just backs up and you get that horrible smell? MR. HARLICKER-I think it's a combination of things, the smell, they go out and do a visual inspection. They actually check the system, also. MR. MACEWAN-In most instances around the lake, they do a dye test, to see if it actually is leaching into the lake. MRS. LABOMBARD-But what would prompt the dye test? MR. MACEWAN-Complaints. MRS. LABOMBARD-From the neighbors. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Believe me, if it fails, somebody's going to know. MR. RAY-You're 152 feet from the lake, long before, if they have a septic problem, long before it actually reaches the lake, that - 17 - '--" house is going to be uninhabitable. I mean, they're going to have raw sewage, basically, bubbling out of the septic tank, running down the side of the yard. One point I'm trying to make that unfortunately happens a lot. They've got an existing system, okay. What they can determine is that there's a 500 gallon leach pit or seepage pit next to the house. Short of digging up that system, you can't get an engineer to certify exactly what that system is, what it will hold, how it will function, and so forth. MR. MACEWAN-There are tests that can be conducted, though, as to percolation. We just dealt with that when we were talking with DiPalma here about a month ago. So, there are tests you can do, without digging it up, to determine what the capacity is of the septic system, and the efficiency of it. MR. RAY-Okay. Right, those can be done, okay, but, got a four bedroom house that's been working. percolation is adequate. again, we've Obviously, MR. RUEL-Scott, for my edification, the determination of the size of the septic system, in a residential home is determined by bedrooms only? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, that's my understanding. MR. BREWER-He's got a preexisting system, though, Roger, and it's working. Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought, when we went and looked at it, what you're going to do is aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors. It's not going to cut off any of the visual, their visual perception of the lake or anything. I mean, I think the plan is very nice, but I just have a big problem with why the people on the lake, and I have property on the lake, that my family has spent lots of money ~utting in a State of the Art septic system, pumped over 200 feet back, but why, when you do some kind of renovation, why can't there be that little extra money taken out and put aside to upgrade the septic system. I just have a big problem with that. I mean, I just have a problem with it. It costs a lot of money, but. MR. RAY-I can understand your problem, and I think what we run into many times is, if anything's done, the first thing that's got to be done is upgrade the septic system. The fact remains, they have an existing, working, well functioning septic system, and this addition is by all definitions lessening the impact, lessening the sewage that's going to flow into that system. I'm not sitting here saying, as a result of this addition, they're going to use less water, there's going to be less going into the septic system, but the way that it is measured, by Code, is the number of bedrooms, and there's a specific number of gallons that can flow in there, but with this addition, they're actually downsizing what they need for septic. MR. MACEWAN-How old's the system? MR. RUEL-How old is the system? MR. RAY-That I don't know, and I don't believe they know, either. MR. MACEWAN-How old is the house? MR. RAY-I don't know. I'm sorry, I don't know. CHARLIE ADAMSON MR. ADAMSON-It goes back at least to the 20's. MR. BREWER-Okay. I would presume that the system is not in the 20's, though. Is there anything else? Okay. I'll open the public - 18 - --.....-- hearing. Would you care to comment, now? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLIE ADAMSON MR. ADAMSON-Charlie Adamson from Assembly Point. I'm within the 500 feet. We have a notice. I'm not here to object in any way. I am very concerned about the septic, and I thought maybe I could take a few minutes, because I understand that the, unless they've rewritten the rules, the rule is that you have to have one hundred and fifty, you have to provide for one hundred and fifty gallons per bedroom in your septic system, okay. That would mean that a two bedroom house would be three hundred, four fifty, six hundred, and so on. Okay. That is a totally meaningless approach to what you have on the east side of Lake George. I have a system. I'm the third house down from the Leesers. I have a system which I put in in the 1960's that's working. I know exactly where it goes and how big it is and so forth, but the only way that you can be sure that you're doing everything you can, and a lot of people do this, and a lot of people don't do this, is to limit the amount of water that you put into your system very severely, and I have a water meter on my system for four years now. I'm running 64 gallons a day into the ground, not all of that goes into the ground. That's a measurement of everything that comes into the house, but to comply with the systems, I mean, what you would have to have, the leaching field to take care of, well, you would have to take care of 450 gallons. There isn't room on these properties up there, so what you have to do is consider that whatever the Code is, the Code, basically, does not fit, and you have to consider, I don't know, whatever the source is going into the system, you have to limit it to this. This has nothing to do, particularly, with the Leeser's structure. I just wanted to say that, because the system is not well understood, but I have six bedrooms. Six times one hundred and fifty is nine hundred gallons th~tmy system has to take care of, theoretically. It works very well. MR. RAY-Again, this is pretty fairly large scale renovation, along with updating the house comes updating old plumbing fixtures, which means low volume toilets, which means flow restricters and things like that. So, I think the overall impact will unquestionably be, there will be less impact. MR. BREWER-All right. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Enlighten me here, maybe Mrs. also. Aren't the houses around Lake itself, subject to an inspection once a George Park Commission or somebody? inspected once a year? LaBombard can enlighten me George, right on the lake year, by somebody. the Lake Is your septic system MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. STARK-Has it ~ been inspected? MRS. LABOMBARD-No, not that I'm aware of. MR. BREWER-I think the Lake George Park Commission, I'm not positive that's the entity that did it, but it was trying to go around the whole lake, and, Mr. Adamson, maybe you'd know more than I, about inspecting all the systems on the lake. Didn't the Town get involved in that last year, or something? MR. ADAMSON-Two years ago, basically, they, I don't know that they ever finished it, but they did most of the properties, and they even got a five year permit, which meant that they had some basis for understanding what your system was. It was put in by somebody, - 19 - there was a record of it. Other systems, if you had no evidence, you couldn't prove anything, then you got a three year approval, temporary approval, with the idea that you would have to upgrade at the end of the three years. I believe the end of the three years is either this summer or next summer, but you have a problem insofar as the courts have just knocked out the Park Commission's Regulations on their Septic Ordinance, and I don't know whether Queensbury is still taking the responsibility for doing that up there in North Queensbury if it's on the lake or not. I haven't heard whether, Mike Brandt was trying to turn it back to the Lake George Park Commission. The Park Commission doesn't have any regulations now, so I don't know what it is. I don't know what the plans are for, as I say, I've got a three year permit. Presumably, I have to do something the end of this year, or the end of next year. I haven't the slightest idea what I'm supposed to do, except sit quietly and wait. MR. BREWER-So there was something done. MR. ADAMSON-Yes. They sent an inspector around, almost to 80 to 90 percent of the people, maybe 100 percent of them. It should be on file here. MR. BREWER-Yes. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? In that motion, I would like to see something about, if they're upgrading the bathrooms or whatever, some water, energy saver devices included. MR. STARK-All the toilets sold now have to be 1.6 gallon flush maximum, that's the law. You can't buy a toilet in New York State with more. It's a 1.6 gallon max right now. MR. BREWER-Well, we can put it in the motion. If that's the law, then he can't do it anyway. MR. OBERMAYER-It doesn't hurt to put it in. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to do that? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-94 C.B. LESSER. JR. & M. SUSAN LESSER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: At Lake Parkway, Assembly Point, for a two story expansion of a single family house. Footprint will be expanded 657 square feet, and the living area will be expanded by 828 square feet, with the condi tions, One, that the site be inspected by the DEC Erosion Control, it should be indicated on the site plan, and, Two, that you install water saving devices where possible. Also, indicate the location of the septic system, on the map. That the applicant come in and bring two copies of the site plan in to the Executive Director to have them stamped. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Paling SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1994 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED DANIEL R. BARBER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SFR-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: WESTERLY SIDE OF BAY ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET NORTH OF CEDAR COURT AND WESTERLY SIDE OF ALICE LANE, APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUTH OF COUNTRY COLONY DRIVE. PROPOSAL IS FOR A SUBDIVISION OF + 52.82 ACRES INTO A 20 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-31, 39.1, 43, 44 LOT SIZE: + 52.82 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - 20 - '---' MARK BOMBARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. The floor is yours. MR. BOMBARD-Okay. My name is Mark Bombard. I work for the firm of Coulter & McCormack, Licensed Land Surveyors in Glens Falls, New York. The applicant is with us tonight, Mr. Daniel Barber. The site, I'm pretty sure everybody is pretty aware of it. The sign is up. It's right up the road here, three, four hundred yards, on the other side of the road, on Bay Road. We're proposing 20 lots on 52 plus acres of land. We had a split zone, SFR-1A and RR-3A. For some reason the zone line, and we have no explanation from VanDusen and Steves or Staff or anybody else, but the zone line, for some unusual reason, comes down, goes through the property, comes almost to a point, comes back across and out. This land here is represented as three acre. The one acre zone is split this side of the (lost word). Encompassing some of this land here is some of the better land. It gets steep, and this is obviously zoned correctly back here, because it is under the name we have titled the name of the subdivision since the application was submitted. It's called the Ridges. We've done the density calculations which don't show those during a staff meeting, we went through, to just go through the routine and make sure we had the correct density for each area. They show up on here. In the three acre zone, we have a total possible lots of five. We are asking for five, one of them which is Lot Eight, which is 18.96 acres. In the SFR-1 Acre zone, we have a possibility of 19 lots. We're asking for 15 lots. We're proposing a loop road, coming off of Bay Road. The site distance each way, at the bottom of the hill, as you head up, it's got the printing place on the right hand side there is about three to four feet of very good site distance, maybe more. We haven't done that inspection on paper yet. We're proposing about 2600 linear feet of road, from the center line of Bay Road. We propose a stop intersection here, because of the tight radius. We do not want a circular to pick up speed. MR. BREWER-Don't you have to meet the 300 foot radius? MR. BOMBARD-Not in a stop intersection. MR. BREWER-All right, a stop you don't. MR. BOMBARD-That's why we're calling for a stop intersection there, because of the tight radius. MR. BREWER-Has Paul Naylor looked at this? MR. BOMBARD-I don't know if this was sent. Prints were made available for the Highway Department and the Water Department. I don't know if they. MR. HARLICKER-Well, we did receive comments. I think Jim relayed it to you, regarding water, that you have to tie into the Town water. MR. BOMBARD-Right. Did anything go to anybody, or no? MR. HARLICKER-We haven't heard anything back from Naylor. MR. BOMBARD-Okay. A map went over to him? MR. HARLICKER-It's my understanding that it did, yes. MR. BREWER-But, it's not indicated on this map there's going to be a stop intersection there. MR. HARLICKER-Well, the ones you have, no. You got those prior. They've revised it. MR. BOMBARD-We went to a staff meeting with Jim Martin and Scott - 21 - '-'" and determined that that was going to be the case, that we couldn't, that was one of our major questions, that we couldn't make the radius, what could we do. We decided to go with the stop intersection. We haven't heard back from Mr. Naylor, one way or another, at the moment. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. BOMBARD-We do propose, and we have a waiver in front of you to act on. We would like to waive the 50 scale map requirement, and go to 100 scale, which would make a reasonable size map to look at. Other than that, I believe, this map is a little more advanced than the one you got, because the deadline for Preliminary is tomorrow. So we had to continue right along with it. It's the same design. The only difference is, here, it shows the stop intersection. On that one it had the short radius, which we decided at the meeting. MR. BREWER-There's only one other of them in Queensbury that I know of, it's a round road like that, is Inspiration Park has that same design. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, that was one of the comments. Just to relay a comment, I spoke with Jim today on the phone, and we had discussed the possibility of tying in to Susan Place there. It was his concern that if you'd like to reconsider the possibility of tying in over there, into that dead end street that they have. MR. BOMBARD-We did look at that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because that's the lot that I was telling you about, that didn't have any frontage on the original roád. MR. BOMBARD-Country Colony comes out here. It comes out to Tee Hill Road. Country Colony comes in, and this is a rather large older subdivision. It comes down into the Dallek Subdivision that our office did in 1980. It has Alice Drive and two dead ends on Susan Place. This subdivision is almost complete. I think it lacks one house. At that point, the Dalleks proposed the dead end street to come out here for possible future development. At this point, I don't know the status of this, except there has been comment from the other owners up in Country Colony, and in the Dallek Subdivision that they don't really want an additional 20 vehicular. MRS. LABOMBARD-It would be a thoroughfare. MR. BOMBARD-Yes, it would, in essence, and then the road, Alice Drive and Country Colony is more or less a substandard road. It's not, I mean. it is a Town highway, but it's not up to the current amount of traffic, it's availability to go down through there. MR. HARLICKER-I don't think it's fair to so, though, that 20 cars, I think most of the cars will still probably go out onto, you know, it would be more of a secondary or emergency access point. MR. MACEWAN-You're asking for another road, not cutting off going into Bay Road. You're asking for another access. MR. BOMBARD-Yes. I don't believe it would be used. I think it would be something to make Code, and I don't think it would enhance the subdivision, and more chances than that, it would hurt and create more public controversy over the site. MR. MACEWAN-Well, from a safety standpoint and an emergency standpoint, it certainly would make sense, having another access into that subdivision. If for any reason that access right at Bay Road was to be blocked off and you need to get to the back side of that subdivision, for whatever, reason, because of an emergency, you'd have a tough time getting in there. - 22 - "-- MR. BOMBARD-The Code calls for, if you have a dead end road, which this is a loop road, which doesn't completely fall under that Code, if you have the availability, and go with a double wide entrance. MR. BREWER-What I'd almost see, to me, and just my opinion, would be a better chance of going right out to Cedar Court and Lot One. It's a hell of a lot closer, and you wouldn't have to lose the lot. You could cut, for emergency access, go right out to Cedar Court. Then you'd still have your two accesses. It would bring you down to here. Because if you come over here, you're going to have to go right on the edge of Fifteen. I don't know. It does the same effect. It's a lot closer for them. MR. BOMBARD-The only thing that it does, I mean, it does not help our subdivision. and it does, that the two accesses would be side by side, which the double width entrance would solve the same problem, and we are trying to, Mr. Barber being a developer, we're trying to withhold his development styles. His other subdivision, I'm sure everybody knows, is Sherwood Acres. They have their own personalities and we'd like to hold that type of atmosphere. If we have an entrance in off of Cedar Court, which is not a bad road, but it's going to lose what we're trying to create here in the Ridges. MR. HARLICKER-The way I see something like that, instead of having a town that's interconnected, you've got a town with, essentially, small little, almost mini, isolated little communities within it. and I don't know if that's for the benefit of everybody either. It's nice to be able to get from one development to another without having to have to go out onto the main roads. MR. BOMBARD-This Cedar Court is also a loop road. I'm not if it's completely built in or not. I haven't been all the way around it. MR. BREWER-Yes, it is. I know the subdivision is not doing well. DANIEL BARBER MR. BARBER-It's multi residential versus residential, which doesn't blend together whatsoever. MR. BREWER-That's been changed, though. MR. HARLICKER-The only thing they changed was the lots. They went from footprint only lots to small lots to go with each unit. MR. BOMBARD-We don't want to fall into that trend. We're trying to do something a little more different. MR. BARBER-There's four condominiums on the back side of there which are not selling. It does not blend together. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I mean, you could provide another entrance, so to speak, like it was entering a different development. MR. BOMBARD-We're not saying that we could provide, because we don't own the land. The only parcel we own is the one on Bay Road. We don't own frontage on Cedar Court or frontage on Alice Drive. We've been approached through the people in the Dallek Subdivision. Alice Drive, and they don't really like the whole idea. So as I say, at this point, that that one would die in the water. MR. RUEL-What is this here? MR. BOMBARD-That's a 16 foot right-of-way that was conveyed with the total parcel for subdivision. MR. RUEL-Sixteen feet? MR. BOMBARD-Sixteen feet, the future of which I don't know what's - 23 - -"-" going to happen to it. Right now, it's attached to Lot 15, but I don't believe it'll stay that way, and if it does stay that way, we would have to condition it that there would be no access through Bay Road, through that 16 foot right-of-way. There is a road there now which is used for access. Our main entrance right now, there's, on Bay Road, the white barn looking house, the big structure, that shall be removed. MR. BREWER-How wide is the road going to be, coming in from Bay? MR. BOMBARD-That's a 50 foot right-of-way, but on each side we have a common area of .53 of an acre and almost .09 of an acre. So, we almost have about 1.4 acres of land on each side of the entrance way to play with. MR. HARLICKER-So, did you decide what you were going to do with that? We talked about, before, about making them parts of Lot 15 and Lot 1. MR. BOMBARD-We thought about that, and we weren't sure that's a good idea, especially to the point, until we found out, since this is Sketch Plan, what your thoughts were. If we do need a wider right-of-way, then we would use it for that. The access land would be either conveyed to Lot One. MR. BREWER-He does have to have double the width. MR. BOMBARD-You don't need double the riqht-of-wav width. We need double entrance. It's the same way with, another subdivision is Courthouse Estates. It's a single entrance subdivision with a double wide entrance. MR. BREWER-Yes, but I think 35 houses kicks it into, it has to have two entrances, or they can change" it to, like a boulevard, right? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. BOMBARD-Right, which we're under. Actually, 19 lots will access, Lot 13 accesses off Alice Drive. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. That's what I was curious about. I was really more concerned about you. That Lot 13 doesn't even look like it's part of the community that you're proposing. I mean, if I. were somebody that was going to go out and look for a new development to build a house, I mean, I would really try to tend to shy away from Lot 13. MR. BOMBARD-It might be one of the lesser, but by the name of the subdivision, there is a very large ridge that runs this way, and make~ it very difficult for accessing any other way other than off of Alice Drive. This is a very nice piece of land right down through here, except it gets that big bridge in the back, and you can't access to it. So that will be, it would be a slight handicap in Lot 13, but it's a very nice site. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question that doesn't have to do with the roads, but I'm familiar with the people that own the bordering property, the Nolans and Jane Barton. Is that their property that borders on Glen Lake? MR. BOMBARD-Yes, it is. MRS. LABOMBARD-And I know that Jane has a cottage on the lake. What's the distance from the back end of her property to the lake? MR. BOMBARD-This line here is the 500 foot line from Glen Lake. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I missed that. Thanks. MR. BOMBARD-In the RR-3 Acre zone there is a no cluster within 500 - 24 - -..-r feet of the lake. We're required to demonstrate that we are not clustering in that area. This is the line that goes to the lake. We have, there is virtually no development up in that area anyway. It's one big lot. So the only thing you could get in there is one lot, or one house up on the hill. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're talking about the monster lot there? MR. BOMBARD-Yes. parce 1. This is all Lot 8. It will be conveyed as one MR. OBERMAYER-How many acres is that? MR. BOMBARD-18.96. MR. HARLICKER-And as long as you're talking about the Nolan's, they also own the property right in there, and they had expressed an interest in, right now it's a landlocked parcel, and when they found out about the possibility of this subdivision going through they had expressed an interest in being connected so they would have access through here, similar, for this subdivision to provide something like they did here at Susan Place, a 50 foot wide easement back in there, and you were going to show some contours, or I don't know if you got around to doing that, showing why it wouldn't work. MR. BARBER-We discussed that, and that's not landlocked. over onto Fitzgerald Road. I come MR. HARLICKER-It does? MR. BARBER-Yes, over on Fitzgerald Road. I thought I brought that up downstairs. MR. HARLICKER-Because they came in, and we looked at the tax parcels, and I was, unless they own that big one and then a smaller one adjacent with frontage on. It's about a 30 acre parcel, I think. Yes. it would be Lot 33. MR. BOMBARD-It's right here, Scott. right here. See it. Access to Lot 8 is MR. BARBER-There's a road there already. MR. BOMBARD-The whole area is, it's a wood lined area, potential woods in here. MR. HARLICKER-That was going to be my other comment. It would be nice if you could kind of shift it down this way, maybe make these a little bit wider to compensate for it, but you've got these nice natural barriers with property lines, right up to the property lines, the hedgerow, just kind of shift this down, widen these out a little bit to compensate and still have the one acre lot size. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. BARBER-The way the road came in, though, the crest there, was the best place for the road. There was contours coming in. MR. BOMBARD-We tried three or four different road designs. We utilized it in the sense that these people on Lots 16, 17, and 18 will own the hedgerow. It's all on their property, but it's up to them to maintain it. Lot 12 and 14 have a hedgerow there. Other than that, we couldn't maintain it. MR. BREWER-Well, let me just ask you one question. You've got all your lots, you start at lot, just look at Lot 4, it's 125, then you go to five is eighty-five, and then one hundred and ten, then one hundred and forty-five, then you drop down to fifty-five feet, and then one hundred and fifty-five, and then one hundred and fifty. - 25 - ~ -...; Couldn't there be something done so that all those are more uniform? I mean, they're all uniform except for that one, fifty- five foot, and I know that's just to get the. MR. BOMBARD-That's Lot 8. and they won't be building in there. MR. BREWER-It won't be built on? MR. BOMBARD-Lot 8 will, but it will be back in the big part of the lot. There's a farm road that comes through Lot 8 and up onto here, where supposed to build the house up here. The minimum road width is 40 feet. We didn't really think he needed the standard 150 feet or whatever. MR. BREWER-I didn't know that there was a road, because the road doesn't show on the map. So you don't know. MR. RUEL-That Number Eight will be for a future road? MR. BOMBARD-No. MR. BREWER-No. It will be a road to a house up on the hill. MR. BOMBARD-We have used our density in the three acre zone. There's only available for five lots in the three acre zone, and we're asking for five lots. So Lot Eight would be forever, unless you get a changed zone. We used the density up on the lot. We were only, to our calculations, allotted five lots. MR. BREWER-What do you mean, for clustering? MR. BARBER-(lost words) two different zones here. MR. BREWER-How can we consider that clustering? That, by no means, is clustering, to me. MR. BOMBARD-Because of the way the zone line came across, Lots 19 and 20, Lots 8, 9, and 10 are considered in the RR-3 Acre zone. and they have to abide by the three acre zone setbacks. Lots 9, 10, 19 and 20 are under the three acres, minimum. Lot 18 is five times over, six times over. That's why it's considered a cluster, but we're allowed to cluster because we're out of the 500 foot setback. MR. BREWER-Yes, but can you really call that clustering? I can't. MR. BOMBARD-I think it's zoned wrong, personally. MR. BREWER-I do, too. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, that's an option. They're clustering within the subdivision. They've got, essentially, development rights for that, what is it, 20 some acres back in there, of the whole, what's zoned RR, in your calculations there. MR. BREWER-So you're making the undersized lots by saying you're clustering? MR. BOMBARD-No. We don't want to consider it clustered. I don't like the term "cluster". I don't believe it's a cluster, especially when you're clustering it, we have a lot in a cluster is 2.24 acres. That's an awful big cluster lot. It's a poor term, but it's the only one we have available for it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. What they were going to do, then, is put in, similar to what they did with the Glen, and put in restrictions, as far as cutting and removal of vegetation on most of Lot 8 there. Wasn't it everything inside that 500 foot radius? MR. BOMBARD-Yes, they're going to restrict the cutting. - 26 - -- MR. HARLICKER-Cutting and clearing in that. So they were going to use the same sort of process that they used in the Glen, as opposed to having land dedicated to a homeowners association, they were going to constrict development in there with easements. MR. BREWER-Would there be a homeowners, or no? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. BOMBARD-No. We're trying to get away from the homeowners, where, we have the green area here, which is kind of, if anybody had a decent idea for, it would be nice if the Town took it. We are not in that, offering it at this point. We may widen the right-of-way out for our boulevard or double width entrance. Other than that, as Scott mentioned, it may go to Lot One, and this may go to Lot 15, or we may approach the owners on each side and see if they would like. MR. BARBER-We've decided against that. We're going to keep doing, remember, I talked to Tom about it, we're going to keep it, because then you can control it. You can keep it nice looking, etc. It would stay, business ownership. MR. BOMBARD-We're trying to create a little community, as I said, Scott, it's good or bad, depending on, a little community amongst itself, here, and if we can keep it as nice as we can, and as pri vate. This site was maintained earlier in its life as a Christmas tree farm. MR. MACEWAN-What kind of homes do you propose to build in there? MR. BARBER-They're up to 200 minimum, it has to be, with the size of the lots and the cost of producing the lots. We thought we'd get a lot more out of here, but obviously we can't. MRS. LABOMBARD-And it's all going to be all underground utilities? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes, it has to be. MR. BOMBARD-We originally planned to do on site water, and then Mr. Martin called me last Friday, and somebody had discovered a regulation or a Town law that if you were within 500 feet of the water district you had to hook up, so we're going to have to, the water district, of course, now, is here, Cedar Court. So we're within, so we're going to have to go to the water. MR. RUEL-Are there wetlands indicated there? MR. BOMBARD-No. There's wet areas. There's no designated wetlands on site. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. BOMBARD-These two standing water areas you see on here are manmade ponds. They aren't standing water for any wetlands or bogs or marshes. They're man developed watering holes. MR. BREWER-I'll just make one note, maybe you did. When you sent a letter, did you sign it? MR. BOMBARD-The originals are signed. MR. BREWER-The originals are? MR. BOMBARD-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have another question, as far as the aesthetics go. Do you have any specs as to whether or not you have to have - 27 - -- real wood siding on the sides of these homes, or are you going to let them vinyl, or freestanding fireplaces with clapboards around them, versus real masonry fireplaces? MR. BARBER-That's the way they're built anyway. It would be all wood siding. That would be in our deed restrictions. MR. BOMBARD-These lots won't be sold without the houses on them. Mr. Barber will doing the houses. MR. RUEL-How many square feet, roughly? MR. BARBER-The way the price of lumber is going, I don't know, upper 2,000. It's very lovely in there, very nice surroundings. MR. BOMBARD-If you guys would like, I would escort you through. It's a very difficult thing to see where you're going. You get in there, and once you get in there, these hedgerows are very difficult to find your way around. MR. HARLICKER-I tried getting back in there, and I made it. It's tough to get in there. It might not be so bad when the snow melts. MR. BOMBARD-Just call the office, and I'll make arrangements to have you guys shown around. MR. HARLICKER-I might have missed this, but what's the Board's position on tying in to Susan Place, via that, having that second access through there? MR. BREWER-I don't know. MR. MACEWAN-I, for one, would prefer it. MR. HARLICKER-I think that should be clarified now at this meeting, maybe. MR. BARBER-If you go look at the property over there, everybody over there is very upset that could be any road through there whatsoever. We're building homes right there right now, up in Country Colony. We're going to start another one soon. These are already lots. People are very up in arms. The road is very narrow coming through Country Club itself. It doesn't lend itself to, seriously, if you look at it, it really does not, coming through there. MR. BREWER-What if he had a boulevard type entrance, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-It was just a suggestion. MR. BREWER-I understand. MR. HARLICKER-That's what Sketch Plan is all about. MR. BOMBARD-We, during the review with Jim Martin and myself and Scott, ~ thought we had pretty much decided, without (lost word) of course, that this was the way to go. Maybe a double wide entrance, boulevard entrance, would be more convenient, but access to different parts off of different substandard or lower roads that we didn't want to do. MR. BREWER-If you put a boulevard type entrance in there, then you'd know what to do with some of that land on each side. MR. BOMBARD-That's correct. MR. MACEWAN-Are you talking a boulevard with a median in between, a divider? MR. BREWER-Yes. - 28 - '-- ~ -- MR. MACEWAN-Would that be acceptable to you? MR. BARBER-Possibly, yes. We were considering that anyway, okay. We had that as our beginning. MR. BREWER-That would give it a nice appearance going in. MR. RUEL-Yes, it would enhance the aesthetics. MR. BREWER-I think, in my mind, and I agree with the two entrances and exits, Scott, but in this case, I think you're making him, I think we would be making him go to an awful lot of expense that wouldn't serve any purpose, I don't think. MR. BARBER-It would hurt our layout of the land, too, if you look at the road. MR. BREWER-That's just my opinion. I don't know how anybody else feels. I think it would look better. How would it look better? MR. RUEL-With an island in the middle? MR. BREWER-No. I thought you were talking about the other. MR. RUEL-No, no. I was talking about an island in the middle. MR. BREWER-I agree with, the theory of it I agree with. MR. HARLICKER-I'm just saying, the way things go, we're getting a lot of these isolated, and we're going to have a community of nothing but little isolated pockets. MR. BOMBARD-The right-of-way right now we have proposed is 50 foot, but at any point now, since these aren't considered in any of the lots, at this point, we can widen the right-of-way out. MR. RUEL-If you had two roads, with an island in the middle, what would the width of the roads have to be? MR. BOMBARD-It would have to be Town regulations. MR. HARLICKER-They'd still have to be Town standards. MR. OBERMAYER-How wide is tl1.e road? MR. BOMBARD-The Town regulations are 24 feet between. MR. RUEL-Twenty-four? So each one would be 24. MR. BOMBARD-Not on a single road. There are no regulations as of yet. That would be up to Mr. Naylor's discretion. MR. BARBER-Then it would only be one way. MR. RUEL-Yes, one way. Right. That's what they call boulevard? MR. BREWER-Yes, it would be a road here, here, and a median in the center. MR. RUEL-Yes, right. MRS. LABOMBARD-You know what else you could try, (lost word) worried about a bottleneck effect here, due to the fact that you have all that land there, you come in the entrance where you would take a right turn, instead of making it so, as a right angle, you might want to open it up, then put a little median in there, and stick a big spruce tree in the middle, and that way it wouldn't be so, like you're clogged, as you come in, right at that first intersection. - 29 - ~ MR. RUEL-Yes. You wouldn't have the right angle. You could curve it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I'm just saying, you could have the traffic, you just wouldn't have that right angle as much. MR. OBERMAYER-She's thinking of making it more sweeping right here. MR. HARLICKER-So you're saying have one way traffic around, that's kind of what it would lend itself to, if you do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I didn't say that. but that's an option, just open it up so this isn't so. MR. BOMBARD-That would be the point where we would neck down into the double traffic. MR. RUEL-I have a request, would you please reduce the size of that thing. MR. BREWER-We've got a waiver here, if we're going to grant it to them. MR. BOMBARD-We had to do this for demonstration purposes. It's according to the regulations. We've supplied a waiver for it. MR. RUEL-You needed a waiver to make it smaller? MR. BOMBARD-Yes. MR. BREWER-All right. Does anybody have anything else they'd like? How does everybody feel about that, Scott asked about that connection with the other road? MR. RUEL-With the entrance? MR. BREWER-Yes. Lets just go right down the line. MR. STARK-In my opinion, if I lived up there, I wouldn't want the road connecting. I'd like a little community onto itself, without going into the thing. I don't see any need for it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Jim? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I don't feel that it lends anything to the development. I mean, adding a road isn't going to help it at all. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. My sentiments are the same. Definitely. MR. RUEL-I like two roads. It doesn't seem to be feasible here, in this case, but wherever possible, we like to have two roads in a development. We have too many developments, just recently, last week, Al Cerrone's development that he added in in the back, and everything is landlocked. It's one single road feeding I don't know how many hundreds of homes, and it's a bad situation, as Craig mentioned a moment earlier, for emergency use and safety, etc., and if at all possible, I guess it doesn't seem possible here, but any time I look at a subdivision, I like to find a way of getting another road in there, at the other end of the roadway, not adjacent to it. It wouldn't do any good. MR. BOMBARD-All right. It would be, I understand that, too, and I like to do it, too. You have to understand, we don't own access on any other right-of-way, to start with. We can't demand access to. MR. RUEL-How about Alice. You could get onto Alice, couldn't you? MR. BOMBARD-This is our only other access here, and as was stated before, this ridge comes around here and it prohibits the use of that. - 30 - "- MR. RUEL-No, no. I'm talking about Alice that comes down. MR. BOMBARD-We don't own access. We don't own this piece of land here. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I feel the fact that there's no dwellings on that, on the entrance road, that if, for example, there's no pipes that are going to break, there's no houses that are going to. MR. BREWER-How do you think the pipes are going to get in there? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but I'm saying, feeding out from another, but they're not going to be under the road, they're going to be on the side, and you're not going to have any houses. There's not going to be any hold up because there's a fire. traffic off because there's no houses there anyway. So what happens is, if somebody can't get around, if something's going on with Lot One, then the house on Lot Two just goes around the other way and comes back out. That's why I think it's necessary that you have to make that bottleneck a little bit bigger. MR. BOMBARD-Yes, we do, and I'd like to also make the statement, we aren't required to have two accesses for 20 lots. MR. BREWER-No, I agree with you. I know that. MR. RUEL-We know. It's something we'd like to see. MR. MACEWAN-I'm in favor of having a duel access, but seeing in the situation where it isn't feasible for the applicant to do it, at the very least, I would like the applicant to have a double wide boulevard to gain access to it, for the mere situation for safety, emergency. At the very least, that's what 1 would want. MR. BREWER-Okay. That issue's out of the way. Is there any other issues that we want to talk about with this, so we can go on? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. His other issue he wants to deal with is making his drawing smaller. MR. BREWER-Yes. I know. His waivers. I want to talk about that, too. Anything else from anybody? All right, lets deal with his waivers. He's got a waiver for the map. Does somebody want to introduce that? MOTION TO APPROVE A WAIVER FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF MAPPING SCALE OF ONE INCH TO FIFTY FEET. FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPLICATIONS. TO BE CHANGED TO ONE INCH TO ONE HUNDRED FOOT SCALE MAP FOR A 22 BY 34 INCH MAP SIZE, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. BREWER-Okay. What's the next waiver? There were two of them. MR. BOMBARD-Yes, landscape plan. MR. BREWER-Landscape plan. MR. RUEL-What's the waiver? MR. BOMBARD-To waive the requirement. - 31 - MR. RUEL-The requirement is for landscape plan? MR. BOMBARD-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes, but this is for Sketch? MR. BOMBARD-Yes. There's a requirement under Sketch Plan. MR. BREWER-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE A WAIVER FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN AS PREPARED BY PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR SUBDIVISIONS OF 20 OR MORE LOTS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. BREWER-With the items that we talked about, you're going to come back with something a little different than that, not a lot different, but a little bit different. MR. BOMBARD-Yes. MR. BREWER-We'd like to see a boulevard type entrance. MR. BOMBARD-Which is incorporated in the boulevard, widening that entrance there. MR. BREWER-Right, and you're going to put some restrictions in there about cutting on Lot 8, the hedgerows and what not. I think Dan said something about. So maybe you could just give us a draft of that for Preliminary, and then Final. MR. BARBER-There's going to be one house on Lot 8 anyway. I mean, we'd probably like locate it, and then everything else would basically be left alone. MR. BREWER-Okay. Maybe you could do that, and you'll show that road, and any other features on the map that should be there. That's about it. MR. RUEL-The boulevard entrance, and what else? MR. BREWER-And he's going to indicate where the home or house will be located on Lot 8, and he will give us restrictions per discussion with, like, the cutting on Lot 8, and the hedgerows, they're on there, but he's going to include his restrictions. MR. BOMBARD-We can only maintain two hedgerows (lost word) depending on the owners. MR. BREWER-Right. MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1994 BARBER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its seconded by Catherine LaBombard: DANIEL R. adoption, On the westerly side of Bay Road, approximately 550 feet north of Cedar Court, westerly side of Alice Lane, approximately 100 feet south of Country Colony Drive. Proposal is for a subdivision of 52.82 acres into a 20 lot subdivision, with an indication on the Preliminary plan of the Boulevard entrance, and indicate the - 32 - ---. location of the houses on the lots, and also indicate the restrictions of hedgerows, etc. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 6-94 TYPE II MR. STUART TEMKIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: CLEVERDALE ROAD TO HILLMAN¡ LARGE GRAY CONTEMPORARY AT TEE INTERSECTION LAKE SIDE. REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT A BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK ASSEMBLY OVER AN EXISTING U-SHAPED CRIB DOCK. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/9/94 APA LGPC TAX MAP NO. 12-3-34.2 LOT SIZE: 24,853 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-60 MR. BREWER-Just want to make a quick motion to table, we have a request to table an application until next month, from Joe Roulier. MR. RUEL-Temkin? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Do you want a motion? MR. BREWER-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 6-94 MR. STUART TEMKIN, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: It was denied at Warren County, to be postponed until March 15th, 1994. Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Paling SEQRA REVIEW: SEQRA REVIEW: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN THE REVIEW OF THE HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB APPLICATIONS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF. BRIAN O'DONNELL AND JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. We have to have a motion to accept lead agency status. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Variances and Site Plan Review for the Harris Bav Yacht Club RESOLUTION NO.. 5-1994 INTRODUCED BY: Georqe Stark WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel - 33 - WHEREAS, in connection with the variances and site plan review applications for the Harris Bay Yacht Club, 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: 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 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NOES ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. BREWER-Now, I don't know where we begin with all the new stuff we got in. MR. RUEL-We've got a lot of paperwork. MR. BREWER-I guess I would like to comment, first of all, on the letter from the Lake George Association. I agree with it wholeheartedly, and I disagree with Paul Dusek from last week, the simple reason is I called the State ENCON Attorney and it states that we do have a right to review that, or consider the septic system in your review. I called and asked Sandy Allen and she spoke to another lady that does nothing but SEQRA reviews, I explained the situation, and she said if it's on the site, we do have a right to review it, and I think that's what's stated in the Lake George Association's letter, and I'll have George read that into the record. MR. STARK-Okay. "February 17, 1994 Chairman Tim Brewer, Town of Queensbury Planning Board Re: Harris Bay Yacht Club Project Dear Chairman Brewer & Planning Board members: The Lake George Association (LGA) would like to comment on the Harris Bay Yacht Club rehabilitation project currently under review by the Town. The LGA understands that the Town is expected to render its SEQR determination at its Jan. 22nd, meeting. SITE PLAN REVIEW The LGA disagrees with the Town's interpretation of Sec. 179-58, that the proposed project will not increase the use of the HBYC site and, therefore, the Town has no authority to review the existing sewage - 34 - "-- -...-/ disposal facilities in connection with the present site plan. The Town's site plan review process does not say that an increase in use is a requirement that has to be met to trigger a review of the site's current infrastructure. It does state, however, that the adequacy of stormwater and sanitary waste disposal facilities will be included in the planning board's site plan review. It is the Town's responsibility to ensure that the existing sewage disposal facilities at HBYC are working properly and will continue to work properly. If there is a possibility that this is not the case, then the Town has the absolute right and obligation to require any and all additional information it needs to determine that there is no threat of water contamination from septic pollution to the lake water used for drinking by people surrounding HBYC, or to any endangered species habitat found in Harris Bay wetland. REVIEW OF S.E.Q.R.A. EAF Part I A cursory review of Part I of the EAF on the project raises some questions. (A)(2) The total acreage of the project area needs to be clarified and made consistent with the project narrative. The project's total acreage is listed as 26.4 acres. Yet the total site acreage according to the project narrative is 43.7 acres, from two parcels. The largest parcel of 25.5 acres is undeveloped, and all the docks, etc., are located on the 18.16 acres, which according to the narrative, is divided into three distinct sections. 3.2 acres along the water is where most of all the new activity will take place. What is the actual total acreage of the project? (B)(f) Project Description: Does this number of off-street parking spaces include the 6 additional parking spaces that will be added? (B)(7) Asks about the number of project phases. Does the project narrative include all of the phases in the long range master plan? Does the interior renovations to the clubhouse include increased seating capacity or plan for any restaurantlbar activity? According to DEC' s SEQR handbook the two key factors in determining significance of the project are severity of the impacts and the importance of the impacts in relation to the setting (in this case in a CEA zone, on the edge of a wetland and Lake George). The LGA asks the Town to keep in mind during your SEQR review that the rules are clear that the determination of significance must include consideration of the "potential for direct and indirect impacts as well as long and short term impacts". Cumulative impacts must also be considered since the project plans a number of phases. Another issue that should be considered by the Town when reviewing SEQR Part 2 is growth inducement. Al though not likely to produce more yacht clubs, the rehabilitation is intended to promote an increase in business activity at the existing facility. This is a secondary impact that must be considered. The increase in business activity should be identified and quantified if possible, and the associated impacts acknowledged. An example is, the project is designed to attract more people for longer periods of time. This means more use of the HBYC. More use of the club leads to the indirect impact of extra demand on the existing sewage facilities. This is an indirect impact that the Town is required to review under SEQR. Is the existing sewage facilities adequate to handle increased business activity? This sort of associated thinking needs to be applied throughout the Towns review of Part 2 of the EAF. USE AND AREA VARIANCE CRITERIA The HBYC proposal needs both an area and use variance according to the Town's zoning ordinance. For a use variance, the rules expressly require that the applicant is bound to follow certain requirements to prove hardship. Some of the information that needs to be submitted to the Town to meet the use variance criteria includes the purchase price of the property, its present value, real estate taxes, the amount of any mortgages or liens, the asking price while the property was for sale, the cost of obtaining the necessary variances in order to comply with local zoning, the projected income from the proposed use, etc. Has all this information been submitted? In conclusion, the LGA respectfully asks the Town to remember that the purpose of the rehabilitation of the HBYC is to make the facility more attractive, accessible and convenient to the people who use it. The people who use the facility are members of the HBYC and the general public. (In 1991, the LGPC determined that the HBYC is a commercial - 35 - --' operation, open to the general public). The intent of the project is clearly to promote more use as well as an increase in the time the facility is used. It needs to be guaranteed now that the sewage disposal facilities for the site are able to handle existing use plus any possible increase in use. Thanking you in advance for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Kathy A. Vilmar Director, Land Use Barbara E. Chick, MD. President" MR. O'DONNELL-If you'd like, I could address the points that she makes. MR. BREWER-Sure. Why don't we go through, we've got about, I don't know how many letters to read here. I don't know where to go next. I think that pertains to the site plan, and we're doing the SEQR tonight, is that Joe Roulier's letter? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. He requested that it be read in tonight. It reiterates a lot of the stuff that he talked about at the previous meetings. MR. BREWER-But I think a lot of and we're doing SEQRA tonight, read it, but we're going to letters. it pertains right to the site plan, but if you want to read it, we can be here until 12 0' clock reading MR. O'DONNELL-Is it possible just to mark them as exhibits, and consider them as part of the record, without having to read them out loud? MR. BREWER-Can we do that, Scott? But then the whole Board, well, I'd rather have them read, only because then the whole Board hears them and knows. This letter that you wrote, is that to your members, or to our members? MR. O'DONNELL-It's the February 18th letter. MR. BREWER-Right. All right. Why don't we, do you want Kathy to read some of them, George? MRS. LABOMBARD-I have the John Salvador letter. MR. BREWER-Go right to John Salvador's letter, and then we'll go from there to Rist-Frost' s letter. Why don't we have her read that, and then Rist-Frost's letter. We'll just have to mark them so we know we've read them. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. "Dear Mr. Brewer: I will be unable to attend your Planning Board meeting of February 22 and would like to record my concerns on the referenced subject as they impact the commonality of our environment in North Queensbury on Lake George. Without some program of "subsurface stabilization", I am convinced that the continuous application of layer upon layer of fill material to the parking lot and boat storage area of the Harris Bay Yacht Club will not accomplish the desire to keep the filled area "high and dry". The utilization of fill material as a stabilization medium is nothing more than "de-facto" filling of Lake George. Many people have testified about the repeated filling of the project site and that Spring lake water levels continue to resul t in the parking area being flooded. Assuming Lake George water levels vary between certain defined limits, the only explanation for the flooding is that the total surface area is sinking. Technically, the application of fill material represents a sur-charge upon the unconsolidated organic silts which have accumulated over the ages. In time, each new application of fill material settles to a point where flooding occurs. This "settling" effect is not consolidation of the underlying organic silts but rather a displacement of that mass. Since consolidation of the organic silt itself cannot take place due to constant pour-water pressure, displacement occurring is resulting in the organic silt being squeezed between the fill material and the subterranean - 36 - '-- ---' bedrock. In turn, the silt is being "pushed" out into the area f Harris Bay, which is not burdened by the sur-charge material. This activity of filling has caused the displacement of the underlying silt, rich in nutrients, into the waters of Harris Bay and may have already caused serious environmental degradation. I am sure that the engineers engaged by the Town of Queensbury, with their knowledge and expertise in the field of soils mechanics, can substantiate my understanding of the effects of filling the parking area. Assuming my analysis to be correct, then the applicant, Harris Bay Yacht Club, has caused the land of the State of New York lying below mean low water line of Lake George to be filled by repeatedly sur-charging their parking area. To fill such land wi thout a grant or lease of the land or at least an easement, license or permit to do so would be a violation of Art 2 Section 15-a of the NY State Public Lands Law. Also, the filling of the parking area at Harris Bay Yacht Club may constitute a filling of the "waters of the United States" over which the Army Corp of Engineers maintains jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is in accordance with Title 33USC Section 1344 and Corps of Engineers Regulations 33CFR 320-330. The applicant should be required to furnish a jurisdictional statement from the Army Corp of Engineers in this regard. If you have any questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, John Salvador, jr. Manager" MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to read, in reference to that, from Rist-Frost. MRS. LABOMBARD-From Rist-Frost, Regarding the Harris Bay Yacht Club, "Dear Mr. Martin: In response to your 2/15/94 request for comments on Mr. Salvador Jr.'s 2/14/94 letter, it is not clear from the applicant information provided to us on Jan. 13, 1994 the extent of the fill being requested to be applied to the parking lot. No proposed elevations of the parking area are indicated. only existing parking area elevations are shown. Mr. Salvador Jr. indicates that 'repeated filling of the project site' is leading to 'sinking'. If repeated fillings of the site have occurred because of subsidence, then a condition of lateral soil movements away from the project site is technically possible, along with routine soil consolidation. If this condition were occurring, environmental impacts are possible. Mitigation activities may be undertaken to address these impacts, if it could be shown they were occurring. If the Planning Board believes the additional amounts of fill (yet to be determined) to be significant in relationship to the overall project site, a detailed soil analysis and sub-surface investigation of the site could be performed by the applicant, as part of site plan review. This investigation would indicate areas of fill, organic materials, and the elevation of underlining bedrock. Analysis of the data could then be used to assist both the Board and applicant in determining specific soil site condi tions, which could be addressed during site plan review. Without specific information regarding the sub-surface conditions at the site, we are not in a position to provide further comments relati ve to Mr. Salvador's letter. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William F. McNamara, P.E. Project Engineer" MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to continue? MRS. LABOMBARD- "To Queensbury Site Plan Review Board (Planning Board) RE: Harris Bay Yacht Club (HBYC) Application FROM: Joe Roulier I regret that I am unable to attend tonight's meeting. However, I sincerely hope that the Planning Board will carefully consider and evaluate both my comments and recommendations. Proposed Fuel Tank Location Al though the new fuel tank will supposedly conform to all government safety regulations, I believe that something so unattractive should be moved to a more suitable, less visible location. The location presently proposed by the HBYC gives little consideration to the visual effects this tank will have on the surrounding area. Placing a few trees around the tank to disguise its appearance represents a token offering by the HBYC - 37 - -- to the Town to give approval of the location. The fact remains that the location, as proposed, offers the HBYC the easiest and least costly alternative in terms of the hook up to the existing gas dock. There are several alternative locations which would be equally suitable, principally on the south side of the road or the eastern most portion of the p~rking lot. These alternative areas not only remove the tank from the shore area, in the event of a major spill, but will, in conjunction with planned plantings, will reduce its visual impact on the area. Proposed Deck and Awninq The addition of an awning-covered deck at the Harris Bay Yacht Club encourages situations such as the DocksiderlGlen Lake and the AlgonquinlBolton Landing. It could possibly become a meeting place for many boaters with music and loud noise. I ask that the Board please investigate other similar facilities to determine what the possible effect could be on the noise level of Harris Bay. Remember also that the HBYC claims that it is "not for profit". However, it offers sewage pump out and gasoline sales "for profit". This facility is open to the public, and a covered deck will draw people to the area causing increased boating and vehicle traffic. I strongly urge this Board to either deny this phase of the project, or place definite restrictions on their activities. Fill As I have previously indicated, it is possible that adding fill to the area may have an environmentally detrimental effect to Harris Bay. Mr. O'Donnell casually passed this off by saying 'it is not sinking to China' or ' it just raised a little sediment'. I saw first hand at the HBYC area the crane effect of fill penetrating the spaghnum bottom of Harris Bay. The addition of more fill will ul timately create an environmentally devastating effect on the bottom of Harris Bay. There should be a thorough Environmental Evaluation by qualified persons before any further fill is added to the Bay. Septic I remain very disappointed that a review of the existing septic system cannot be part of this proceeding. It is amazing that a system put in place over 20 years ago, designed to be used for a much smaller facility, is permitted to be used. I believe that the SEQRA review is intended to review both the specific project and the overall facility. For example, Project Information Letter A Site Description, not just Project description Please note numbers 9, 14 & 20 of this section: 9) The site location (& leach field area) is over a principal aquifer. 14) The views of the lake - Mountains are very important to our area. In fact, the very essence of our area. 20) The addition of significant amounts of chemicals to highly concentrated sewage, in my opinion, does constitute hazardous waste. The H. B. Y. C. has taken a 'out of sight, out of mind' position regarding its septic system. It is up to us to pursue this critical issue. Liqhtinq I understand the need for additional lighting at the HBYC, but would encourage the use of low level l~ghting, not 12' high lights as requested, which would give the parking lot the look of Ames or K-Mart. Please keep in mind that these lights will be highly visible to residents of Harris Bay. Shed My objection to increasing the size of the shed is purely from an aesthetic point of view. With very little imagination the HBYC could make room for their vending machines within the Clubhouse building. Please deny this portion of their request. Sign I have no objection to moving an attractive sign to the Clubhouse. However, this should be the only sign permitted on the premises. Gasoline and neon beer signs should be removed since they have no place in a residential neighborhood. Taxes Mr. O'Donnell indicates that the HBYC pays its fair share of taxes to the Town of Queensbury - approximately $40,000 based upon an assessed evaluation of about three million. There are 271 docks selling from $20,000 to $40,000. Why isn't the assessment between "5.4 and $10.8 million? Plus whatever the Clubhouse, outbuildings, etc. are worth. Sincerely, Joe Roulier" MR. BREWER-We have one more. MRS. LABOMBARD-"Dear Members of the Planning Board". This one is from Rowley, Forrest, O'Donnell & Hite, P.C. "I am writing to you to discuss with you the question of timing of Harris Bay's Capital Improvements Program. As you know, Harris Bay has come to the Town - 38 - .--- --- with a comprehensive plan at the beginning of the process. Harris Bay has also been straight forward with the Town in explaining that it intends to finance the improvements by a Capital Improvements Assessment on the members which will necessitate completing the work over a period of years in phases. Because that is how the work will proceed, however, it does not change the fact that it is a single project. At the Workshop there was a question about whether Harris Bay could be required to return through the permitting process for approval at each stage of the project and whether an expiration date could be imposed on the necessary permits. I urge you not to impose such restrictions for several reasons. First, your ordinance does not permit you to do so. Second, the project is before you in its entirety right now and will not change once the necessary permits are issued. Third, your ordinance permits the Town all the oversight authority it needs for the entire duration of the project and requiring Harris Bay to make multiple trips through the permitting process will not get the Town any more oversight authority than it already has. Requiring Harris Bay to return through the permitting process will do four things. It will require the Town to duplicate the time and effort which its staff and Boards have already spent on this project each time Harris Bay is required to return. It will add uncertainty for Harris Bay since it cannot actually proceed with the work until each required permit is issued. It will require Harris Bay to incur the expense of the permitting process each time a return is needed and it will extend the time required to complete the project because money spent on multiple trips through the permitting process will not be available to perform the work. In short, it will impose a significant penalty on Harris Bay for being straight forward about the nature and estimated length of time required to complete its project without any legal or practical benefit to the Town. If Harris Bay had come to the Town with its project and said nothing about phasing, it would have been entitled to a single permit and as much time as it needed to complete the project as long as it started within one year. I urge you not to attempt to impose a requirement of multiple trips through the permitting process or attach expiration dates, which your ordinance does not provide. Very truly yours, ROWLEY, FORREST, O'DONNELL & HITE, P.C. By BRIAN J. O'DONNELL" MR. BREWER-Thank you. Okay. Would you like to make any comments? MR. 0' DONNELL-I think some comments are warranted on the Lake George Association's letter. First of all, it's premised on, their theory that your SEQRA review can get into the septic system is premised on their feeling that the Capital Improvement project will increase the business of Harris Bay, and that premise simply is not accurate. Harris Bay is a member of (lost word) There are 271 docks available for boats in one service slip. That's all there is there now. That's all there is going to be, and that dictates the use of the facility, as does (lost word) in the season. There is only a certain amount of time. None of the aspects of the Capital Improvements project which is before you is going to increase the number of people, increase the length of time, or increase the intensi ty of the use. Now, it's true that the Lake George Park Commission has ruled that Lake George, or that Harris Bay is commercial under its own regulations. The effect of that is the determination of the level at which fees must be paid to the Lake George Park Commission, period. It's not commercial under any other view of the world. It's a member owned facility. It truly is a not for profit corporation, and I can tell you that it does not make a profit, and it has not in its history, and I don't expect that it will. The SEQRA review allows you to review the project which is proposed, and if the project which were proposed sought to change the septic system, yes, you could review it. It doesn't, except for the proposal to move the vacuum tank from one side of the building to the other, and if that is a problem, that can be deleted from the project. This project has absolutely no effect in the type or intensity or density of the use on the project, or any impact on the septic system. It simply doesn't. - 39 - .- .,-- For that reason, the Lake George Association's theory is simply wrong. Let me address Mr. Salvador's letter. He says that if the facility is being constantly filled, it's sinking. The facility is not being constantly filled. The area was filled years ago when it was permissible to do so, and the site which is there was developed. Since that time, since 1980, I can recall a single occasion on which any fill was added, and it was a small amount of fill to resurface potholes in part of the parking lot. I can recall no other instance in that entire time period when there was fill added to the site. I pointed out photographs to the Board last time, and each of these dock heads, these concrete pads that anchors the dock to the shore, if the site were sinking, those concrete pads would have been gone years ago. They're not gone. Yes, the water level of Lake George rises and falls with the Spring and the Fall, and, yes, if there's a lot of water, the parking lot does flood, but it's not because the site's sinking. It's because the water's rising. Now, Harris Bay will be doing a soils analysis, as part of its project. The location of that fuel storage tank is going to require it, and we certainly, I can't imagine that Harris Bay would proceed without doing the soils analysis necessary to see if the foundation is going to be required to keep that tank on top of the ground. I think that Mr. Salvador also is raising with you a false issue. Finally, on Mr. Roulier's, I don't have a copy of that. I did see it. I'm curious why it's in two different handwritings. I don't know what that indicates. It appears that he's now moved on to hating every aspect of the project, with the exception of moving the sign, and I don't think any more time on his comment~ is really warranted. MR. BREWER-Okay. Could I ask you one question? Are you a member of the Board of Directors of that Club? MR. O'DONNELL-I am. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then you would know about the fill then. MR. O'DONNELL-Yes. MR. BREWER-That's my only reason for that question. MR. RUEL-Do you propose to add any fill at all, between now and when the five year project ends? MR. 0' DONNELL-Yes, we do. There are three areas where there's going to be some fill. Assuming that we get the permit that the Department of Environmental Conservation requires for the walkway along the shore, there is going to be some fill there to raise it from its current level to slightly above the mean highwater mark. MR. RUEL-Is that for the walkway? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Can you give us an idea how much? MR. O'DONNELL-Right off the top of my head, I can't. MR. MILLER-It varies, but it'll probably be a maximum of about eight inches. MR. BREWER-I mean in yards. MR. RUEL-How many yards? MR. MILLER-Not off the top of my head. MR. MACEWAN-That question was asked to supply us tonight, from our workshop session, we wanted to know that answer. MR. 0' DONNELL-I didn't realize that you wanted to know it for - 40 - -- purposes of SEQRA review. We're going to be back before you for Site Plan review. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, we did. It was for purposes of the SEQRA. MR. O'DONNELL-Well, I'm sorry. I don't have that answer for you. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. O'DONNELL-There's another area which is, the parking lot will have ~ grading work done to it. It's basically just to flatten the area and move the runoff off towards the back. That also is not going to be a significant amount of fill. The area where the greatest amount of fill is proposed is across Route 9L, in the area of the storage buildings, and I can't give you a yardage figure on that either. MR. OBERMAYER-Do those storage buildings, they have slabs inside them? MR. O'DONNELL-No. One does. has a concrete floor in it. The farthest one. This one back here This one is dirt. MR. BREWER-All right. Do you want to ask our questions now, and then we'll take comment from the public about what we discussed when we were out there? We went out there last week and looked at the site for quite a little while, and there was some thing that we thought maybe should be done, and I don't know how you feel about them. I think I'll bring up, first of all, that the tank, the gas tank, why couldn't that be arranged in a different location, rather than so close to the wetlands, like maybe where the tank is now? MR. 0' DONNELL-It could be. It could be located in different locations. The reason that we've proposed to locate it here is to get it out of the parking lot, and provide an area where we could put some vegetation around it to screen it, but still keep it relatively close to where the current hook up is, going out to the gas dock which is on the end of the C dock. Mr. Roulier proposes moving it across Route 9L, which of course will require boring under Route 9L and a lot more expense and problems, presumably in the hopes that Harris Bay won't be able to meet them. He also proposes moving it over here, and I can't see that that would really accomplish anything of great value either, but make it farther away from where it's got to connect, and would require running the line either through here or through here. MR. BREWER-How close is the wetlands, as I'm looking at the map, at the right? Is there wetlands? MR. O'DONNELL-Over here? MR. BREWER-Yes. How close would it be if you did put it over there, just hypothetically. MR. O'DONNELL-If we were to put it right here, it would be right next to the wetlands. MR. BREWER-So you're in a no win situation. MR. O'DONNELL-Right. If you take a look at the photographs. MR. BREWER-I just felt very uncomfortable looking at the spot where you wanted to put it, so close. MR. OBERMAYER-It appears like you're putting it right in the wetlands, in looking at it. MR. O'DONNELL-It's next to the wetlands, for sure, but the entire site is surrounded by wetlands. - 41 - ..- MR. MACEWAN-Will that proposed gas storage site be filled? MR. O'DONNELL-I'll get right back to you, Mr. MacEwan. MR. STARK-What's the height of the tank, I mean, the maximum height? MR. MILLER-Eight and a half feet. MR. STARK-That's all? Okay. shrubs and so on. So you could easily screen it with MR. O'DONNELL-We think so, yes. Mr. MacEwan? MR. MACEWAN-Just for clarification, I think construction, because you were going to put correct, and it was going to be up, and it was like closer to 11. 11 and a half foot to the top it was all said and done. it would finish that on a slab, going to be more of the tank, when MR. MILLER-It shouldn't be that high. The tank itself is like eight and a half feet, and then the slab will probably be built up six to eight inches above the existing grade. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. That proposed area where you want to put that new tank, will that be filled in that area for that tank? MR. MILLER-No. We'll have to create a foundation for it, and fill it slightly. We can set it at any elevation. It can be raised up. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I'm raising the same concerns that these guys had. When I looked at the site, it appeared from where you have the proposed tank site is actually sitting right in the wetlands, not on the edge of the property. MR. MILLER-No. MR. BREWER-No. They're four feet away from the wetlands. MR. MILLER-Right now, the gravel parking area comes back like this. So the proposal is to locate the tank, essentially, in the corner of the parking area. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons we wanted to move it was, one of the other concerns, in dealing with the Fire Marshall, was damage to the tank, let alone the visual and the wetlands, and the idea, this site was selected as probably being the best compromise. There's obviously not an ideal site, but it would be far enough from the main activity. It would serve some separation, and would also, we would be decreasing this parking area and creating a screening to try to address the visual concerns. MR. RUEL-Is this fuel fed to one dock, or all of them? MR. MILLER-Yes, it goes out to this dock right here. MR. RUEL-Just the one? MR. MILLER-Yes. There's a fuel dispenser at the end of the C dock, and it will just go to that one dock. MR. MACEWAN-Will this proposed tank be larger than the existing tank you have now? MR. O'DONNELL-It will be smaller. There are two tanks right now, there's a three thousand and a four thousand gallon tank. This will be a total of six, as opposed to seven. MR. BREWER-Where was the other spot that we did talk about last time we met, that we decided possibly would keep it 20 foot away, rather than the four foot, where you proposed, on the map? You - 42 - -- were going to lose three or four parking spaces. MR. 0' DONNELL-You were suggesting us to move it out into the parking lot, and what we were trying to do was get it out of the parking lot. We think that we've addressed the problems of spills with the way that we're proposing to construct the tank. First of all, it's the double wall tank to start with, so the entire thing is encased in concrete. Second of all, we're going to put it on a pad with curbing, so that if there is a spill, it's not going to go back into the wetland. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but the pad is pitched towards the parking lot. So if you do have a spill, it'll flow towards the parking lot. It's open on one side. MR. O'DONNELL-That's true, but we're going to have the spill protection equipment right there. MR. STARK-Did Kip Grant, the Fire Marshall, think this was a good location for it, or what? MR. MILLER-Yes. What we did is we looked at the Fire Code and the setback requirements from the buildings, and he felt, given the constraints of the site, that that would be a good location. MR. OBERMAYER-I think you're going to have trouble actually unloading the gas. It's probably a 6,000 gallon tank, tanker is 40 feet long. How are you going to make that turn, that radius, with cars parked there, and get out of the parking lot? MR. O'DONNELL-I don't believe they use 40 foot long tankers. What they do now, I believe, is send up ª- truck, with a sufficient amount of gasoline to fill the tanks, and then they leave, and I believe it's a truck approximately the size of a fuel, home heating fuel. MR. OBERMAYER-No. tanks. Those are only, like, a three thousand gallon MRS. LABOMBARD-But you're not going to let it get down. It's like our own tanks at home. We won't let it get down to empty. They'll fill it on a regular basis. MR. O'DONNELL-Typically, they fill it, I believe, twice a week, or once a week. MR. OBERMAYER-But, economically, you're going to want to have a larger, you're going to want to order larger volumes of gas, instead of ordering many little trucks. So I'm just wondering how you're going to make that turn. It's going to be difficult. I can see a problem. MR. O'DONNELL-What they're doing, right now, the gas mound is right here. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Then they could pull in, pull parallel to it, and pullout the other driveway. MR. O'DONNELL-Right. A the time these deliveries are made, it's a very low usage times for the Club, so the parking lot is basically empty. They do it during the week, so that the gasoline supply is up for the weekend, because that's when the greatest demand on it is. The trucks are not going to have any trouble coming in and getting here, any more than they have getting here. MR. RUEL-You know, millions of gas stations have tanks underground. Why isn't yours underground? MR. O'DONNELL-Right now they ~ underground, and it's my understanding that the State of the Art is getting away from that, - 43 - ----" to the extent possible, because if you have a leak, and an underground storage tank, you're going to have fuel contamination of the surrounding soil, to a much greater extent than you will if you have a leak in an above ground storage tank. MR. RUEL-Yes, but if you have a double containment type tank, with a sensing alarm system, if you have a leak you'll know it, immediately. MR. BREWER-Yes, but what he's saying, Roger, is if they have a leak, and it's underground, they don't know where the leak is, they have to dig the whole tank up to find the leak, where if it's above ground, you can see where it is. MR. MILLER-Because we have high groundwater here, and that's why there's a mound now. When they put the existing tanks in, they sort of half buried them and half filled them. So, one of the concerns is that the tanks, now, are immersed right in the groundwater, and we felt it would be a better condition to get them out of that groundwater. That would be an alternative if we couldn't replace it with above ground tanks. MR. OBERMAYER-You had mentioned that you're going to be taking soil samples when you remove the tank, that's just to check for contamination. It's not really doing an analysis of the soils itself. MR. MILLER-We're going to do an analysis of, at least in this area where the gas tank, new tank will be installed. A structural engineer will have to design the foundation, the footing on that. We have some of their concerns of the soil that's been expressed, to a different extent, so we would have that designed by an engineer. MR. OBERMAYER-When you remove the other probably have to take samples of the soil. tanks, though, you'll DEC requires that. MR. O'DONNELL-We will do whatever ENCON requires us to do. Well, what's been told to you about the fill being added and the site of the place sinking is absolutely false, as opposed to out here. When we go to set something the size of the 6,000 gallon concrete tank over here, the Club is certainly going to do the soil analysis that it needs to do, to see what kind of a foundation we need to keep that from sinking. So, yes, we are going to be over here with engineers. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Just kind of off the subject a little bit, does the Yacht Club cater to boaters on Lake George, other than member of the Yacht Club itself? I mean, can a boater come in off the lake and get gas there and go in and buy something inside? MR. O'DONNELL:Yes, he can, to that extent, but as far as using the facility, no. MR. OBERMAYER-Can he pump his boat out into the septic system? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes. I believe that the Lake George Park Commission requires us to do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-And they pay you to do that? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes, they do. MRS. LABOMBARD-And the Lake George Park Commission requires you to do that. Is it because they see the Harris Bay Yacht Club as another vehicle to end pollution of maybe people discharging their holding tanks? I mean, I hate to say that, but so they'll say, go down to the Harris Bay Yacht Club and at least they're there to do - 44 - '-- ..-r that. So is this like a give and take type of situation, maybe? MR. O'DONNELL-I believe it's because Harris Bay is classified as a Class A Marina, under their regulations, that they're required to pump out. MRS. LABOMBARD-But you're a private Club. though. MR. O'DONNELL-In their own little world, they make the rules. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm playing the Devil' s advocate a little because you're helping them out by pumping out the boats, they'll help you out in some other. bit, maybe MR. BREWER-They're a not for profit organization, but they're a commercial entity. MR. 0' DONNELL-Right. You should understand that Harris Bay has litigated with the Lake George Park Commission the issue of whether it is commercial under their regulations. This is not something that we went into cooperatively with the Lake George Park Commission. We took it to court. The court said, their regulations are okay, and the way they've drawn them, you're commercial. There's nothing you can do about that. Pay them the fees. MR. MACEWAN-But through your own admittance in a way you are a commercial endeavor by selling gasoline and what other commodities you have to offer the general boating public up there, outside of your membership. MR. O'DONNELL-To that extent, that's correct. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to provide a new elevation drawing, so that we could see what elevations are going to, the fill will be located at? MR. MILLER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I do agree with Joe on one thing, and that was as far as building another shed to house the vending machines. I mean, what's wrong with the vending machines, I know you did answer that last week. I still see no problem with getting off your boat. I've been down there, and coming up and getting a coke out of the main Clubhouse, instead of just having to build another? MR. O'DONNELL-All right. There's two things to consider. Number One, the facility is used by the boaters longer than the building is open. In the Spring and the Fall, the hours of operation are much less than they are during the height of the season, but people are still up there, either putting things on their boat, or taking things off their boat, and if you put the machines inside, you're going to restrict access to them. Number Two, there's a limited amount of space inside, and some of the machines, like the ice machine and the coke machine, are pretty good sized machines. So it really isn't physically practical to do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now the ice machine, though, that's going to need a drain. MR. O'DONNELL-No, it's a machine, it's basically a refrigerated, an ice truck puts block ice into. MR. OBERMAYER-Why wouldn't you locate the new gas tank over by your existing propane tanks, in that same proximity, if you can unload your propane tanks? I see you have existing propane tanks located over. MR. O'DONNELL-That's correct. It could be located over there, but that increases the difficulty of hooking up with the connection going out to C dock. - 45 - '",,-,"c -.../ MR. OBERMAYER-Right. I see that. MR. MILLER-One of the other concerns that that, the east side of the property tends to be more constricted. There's a lot more traffic and car movement over there, which is another reason we wanted to stay on the west end. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have question. This really has nothing to do with the building, but is there a limit to the size of a boat that can hook up to one of those docks? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes, and each one is different. In the Prospectus, there is a schedule of the maximum permitted link, graph, and beam of boats permitted in each slip. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Just, could I have a figure on the length? MR. O'DONNELL-It varies from slip to slip. I think the longest one is 42 feet, and that would be, this is an old picture. This is a 1983 picture. You really can't see it. I believe that there is a 42 foot, there may be three 42 foot slips. One is on the end of F dock, which is here. Another is on the end of A dock, which is here, and these two, no, they're back to two, at one point, these two were owned by the same individual, and he had a house boat. The other slips vary in size, down to the low 20's. MRS. LABOMBARD-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else? Okay. I guess it's your turn. Please, if we could limit it to a short period of time. CHARLIE ADAMSON MR. ADAMSON-My name is Charlie Adamson. I live on Assembly Point. I'm not here because I live within 500 feet of this, but I am very concerned that they do this right, and I was glad to hear that Mr. O'Donnell is a member of the Board, because I would not like a lawyer coming in here and making the kind of remarks that he's made about this, innuendos he's made about Mr. Roulier. Mr. Roulier's doing a very good service on raising the questions he has. He may not be right in all of them, but I think you have taken him seriously, and I hope you will continue to do so. I have a question. It's not clear to me to what extent somebody driving by the Harris Bay Yacht Club would be attracted to go in and buy things. I've seen signs for newspapers and milk, I guess, and so forth. There used to be a bar there. I don't know whether there's a bar there now or not. I don't know whether it's open to the public, but somebody's mentioned that they're putting a deck with a cover on it. If there were any place for people driving by to come and sit, that would be kind of attractive, I think. and I think there might be more people stopping there than perhaps the proposers of the project have said. Mr. O'Donnell mentioned the concrete pads. I'm not sure how long those concrete pads have been there. That area has always, from the time the road was built, about 1930, and they had trouble with it sinking for a while. As far as I know, it's stopped sinking, but I don't know why it's stopped sinking. The fact that they've put concrete blocks there to hold the docks is a smart idea, but maybe they haven't been there, I don't think they've been there. have they been there as long as 30 years or 20 years, or are they fairly new? ~ MR. O'DONNELL-I can tell you they've been there since 1980, and they were not new at that point. MR. ADAMSON-Okay. I'm just wondering, I'm not sure that saying that they haven't tipped yet, or sunk yet, is, there's a sound basis for saying that. One other question I had. Mr. O'Donnell, did I understand you right that the level of the parking lot is not sinking, the lake is rising? I think I misunderstood you. - 46 - -- ..-/ MR. O'DONNELL-The water fluctuates in the Spring and the Fall. As the snow melts, the lake level rises, and as the water is let out at the north end, the lake level falls. MR. ADAMSON-But you weren't saying that the lake, overall, is getting higher maybe every year, or something like that? MR. O'DONNELL-I'm not saying that. MR. ADAMSON-Okay. Fine. I would hope that you take the opportunity to do some of the investigative work, maybe test what is down there, and test what this fill will do. I would hope that also be concerned that an improvement in a facility like this, I think that if they're going to enlarge the main building, may lead directly to an increase in the septic requirements. I think, if that's true, then that is premafacia, I think, a reason you'd have to look at the system. I think you've all seen the system up there, the exposed pipe. You should go up and see it. MR. BREWER-We went up. We could not see the pipe. MR. OBERMAYER-We couldn't see it. MR. ADAMSON-Well, maybe, I don't know, maybe they pull it out if it's not in the air. MR. BREWER-No. Actually, we didn't really know where to look. We did look through the culvert and up, but we just couldn't see it. MR. ADAMSON-It's unbelievable to drive by there and think that the chemicals, the sediment of the effluent is running along there. What happens if a car goes over there and breaks the pipe? It should be protected. Anything like that should be piped inside another pipe that protects it. This is, I don't know who approved it. MR. BREWER-I don't know either. MR. ADAMSON-I'm sure somebody did, and I have no idea. Everybody else, we talked earlier tonight, everybody else, almost everybody else up there had their septic systems inspected within the last, or the inspector came to the property and looked at it, within the last three years. I don't know whether that applied to the commercial establishments up there or not. If so, there should be some sort of record as to what was recommended for this. The septic area, the leaching field, as far as I can see, I have not imposed upon the property, have not gone on it. I can see it though. It's very close. The Queensbury rule has been, for about a decade now, 100 feet back from the lake. The Park Commission I think is 200 feet, but this looks to be about five feet, the septic, it's not a very expensive job to take that and push it back further, if they've got the space for it. I don't know whether they have the space for it, but I do like what I have heard somebody suggest, which is that the real solution for the kind of product that they are producing, which is not just the septic effluent, but also chemicals. I think there's some chemicals, the boats involve chemical use. The real solution is to collect that in a holding tank and take it to the processing center. MR. BREWER-I've just got a question for you. what that chemical is? Does anybody know MR. ADAMSON-What they put into the? anybody that runs a boat must know. I don't know, but I think MR. BREWER-Is it biodegradable, or what is the chemical? MR. MILLER-The newer ones, now, are biodegradable. The older ones which caused the problems used to have formaldehyde in them. - 47 - -- - MR. BREWER-So I would think that any entity that's making you use those chemicals in your boat is going to make you use, I know, I work in a store where we sell antifreeze and what not. We have antifreeze that's biodegradable now. We have plumbers antifreeze for your camps and what not. I presume that they're making them use that now. I don't know if it's a law or not, but I'm sure we could find out. MR. ADAMSON-You don't use chemicals in septic systems. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but this isn't a septic system. It's in a boat. MR. ADAMSON-No, but when it goes over to the base of Assembly Point it's a septic system. MR. BREWER-I agree with you, but what I'm trying to say to you is, if they're using a chemical similar to the chemical that you would put in your camp, and let it go out in the Spring, then I can't see that it's harming anything. I don't know that it is or isn't. Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. ADAMSON-Okay. Mixed with the septic effluent, I don't know whether that's good or bad. MR. BREWER-I don't know either. MR. ADAMSON-I don't know, but the thing is, maybe you could find out, but I still think with the vulnerability, the inadequacy of the leaching field. MR. BREWER-I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm just giving you a scenario. MR. ADAMSON-Yes. Okay. That's all I have to say. MR. BREWER-Thank you. KARL KROETZ MR. KROETZ-My name is Karl Kroetz. My main concern was pollution in Lake George. I agree with the Lake George Association that the sewer system of the Yacht Club it is relevant. I live in Harris Bay. I'm one of hundreds of people who cannot get the permit to operate my own septic tank system. from the Lake George Park Commission because it isn't 100 feet away from the shore. It's 90 feet. The rules are it must be further. I think, if I came to you and wanted the improvements made of the nature that we're talking about here for the Yacht Club, that you'd give me a hard time, and you'd want to know, what about my septic tank system? What's there? This is why I think it is relevant to discuss what is going to happen with all these improvements to the septic tank system. I was at the other meetings where no one seems to know what the system is all about. The Lake George Park Commission asked ~ and I had to show them, and I did. I have a septic tank. I have a leaching field, and in spite of that, I cannot get a permit to operate. I got one for three years. After three years, I've got to change it. Here, we're talking about something 100 times more pollution. Nobody even questions the need for even asking what is the system, where is the system. I can tell you this, that my system is 20 feet above the lake, is 90 feet away from the shore of the lake, and it's not approved by Lake George Park Commission. The Yacht Club system discharges within five to ten feet of the water in Lake George, in the wetlands, and nobody even wants to talk about that, and this is my concern. MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any comments? MR. RUEL-Yes. Who is the agency that would be in charge of checking out the septic system? It seems to me that at the last - 48 - - -" meeting it was indicated that several agencies or groups had. MR. HARLICKER-Well, the Lake George Park Commission. MR. RUEL-They went and checked it? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It's my understanding that they've been out there, I think, several times, following up complaints. MR. RUEL-When was the last time, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know. MR. OBERMAYER-Would we have any documentation to that effect? MR. HARLICKER-There was some. MR. MACEWAN-Bill somebody or other went there. MR. RUEL-I would strongly recommend that the agency check it out again, not now, during the winter months, but rather during the season that it's being used. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I think Jim made the point, also, that come June or July, there's going to be a thorough investigation of the system. MR. RUEL-There will? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, an independent investigation, independent of what's going on here tonight. MR. RUEL-That's fine. That should satisfy everyone, hopefully. MR. HARLICKER-I can't answer that. Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Tim, would you your conversation with the DEC lawyer? MR. BREWER-I just explained the situation that we're in, that an attorney, even our own Town Attorney, says we can't, we don't have a right to consider it in our SEQRA review of this application, and she said that we most certainly do have a right to. It's part of the project. We have a right to consider it in our SEQRA review. MR. MACEWAN-How would you feel that would fit into our SEQRA review, though? I mean, obviously there's some significant information we feel we're being, we're lacking here. How do we do that with? MR. BREWER-Impact on Water. I mean, the people are telling us that discharge is five feet away from the water. The pipes go over the top of a wetlands. What happens if, like this gentleman says, a car goes over the pipe and it breaks? MR. HARLICKER-I think the question may be, is the septic system part of the project. That's what you folks have to determine. MR. BREWER-Right, and I understand what this gentleman is saying, it doesn't pertain to the project because they're not doing anything to it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-And I clearly understand that. MR. HARLICKER-I mean, I don't think there's any argument, if it's part of the project, then, yes, it's subject to SEQRA. - 49 - MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, though, Scott, I mean, we just did an application where a guy was building on to his house. He wasn't changing his septic, and everybody asked him all kinds of questions about the septic. So, I can't, there's a double standard there. I mean, we can do it with some guy with a house, and Harris Bay, with all the boats, and the pumping into the, I mean, they have a membership of, I don't know the number, was it 250 or something? MR. O'DONNELL-Two seventy-one. MR. BREWER-Two seventy-one. MR. O'DONNELL-If I may, Mr. Brewer, the fact that people come here and ask questions about it doesn't make it part of the project. The project is what's been proposed, and the septic system is not part of it. MR. BREWER-I understand that. To me it is, I'm sorry. MR. O'DONNELL-But on the documents which have been proposed to this Board, as the project. MR. BREWER-It's part of the project, because there's an Impact on Water, and that could have an impact on water. You're changing the tank. You're making it more accessible. More people can come in there. More people can pump into that holding tank that you're going to let the effluent go through those pipes into the wetland. So, for me, it's part of it, and you're not going to change my mind. I'm sorry. MR. RUEL-Well, if you feel that there won't be any increase, and the system should be working all right, then you have no objection to having someone come and check the system out, when it's in use, during the summer months. MR. O'DONNELL-The proper agencies, no, I have no objection to that, and I expect that they will. MR. BREWER-They are going to do that anyway. MR. RUEL-Well, okay, that's it, then, isn't it? MR. BREWER-Well, to me, and I'm not trying to be stubborn about it, but I'm just saying, when we ask this question, Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected. MR. RUEL-And then we come up with some mitigating. MR. BREWER-Right. saying. If they can mitigate it, then, fine. I'm not MR. O'DONNELL-Mr. Brewer, let me ask you to do one thing, when you get to that question. Take the project in the specifics that Harris Bay has proposed it, and ask that question with respect to each of the specifics. Will the shed at C dock effect the lake? Will the awning on the deck effect the lake? Will the movement of the fuel tanks from underground to above ground effect the lake? Will the addition of the walkway effect the lake? Will the fence across the road effect the lake, and will the fill in the area of the storage buildings across the lake effect the lake, as it's been proposed? And if the answer to each of them is no, then the answer to the total is no. MR. BREWER-What about "Other Impacts"? You're making improvements, so, possibly more customers could come in there. I don't know. I'm saying there's a potential for it. I'm not saying it's going to happen. I hope it never happens. MR. O'DONNELL-There's a limited number of space, there, at Harris Bay. It is not going to increase. You can be certain of that. - 50 - MR. MACEWAN-But the ability for you to pump off a number of boaters out of that lake, other than membership, could certainly increase, and we don't have any idea how many boats you have pumped off up there. MR. O'DONNELL-It will be as it has been. Nothing in this project will change that, up or down. MR. MACEWAN-I don't know if I necessarily agree with that. You've admitted yourself that, in a way, you are a commercial enterprise, and part of the money making that you get for your membership is by offering the services, pumping off boats. How many boats do you pump off that aren't member's boats? MR. O'DONNELL-I can't say. I don't know. MR. MACEWAN-All right. determination. That's what, ~ have to make that MR. O'DONNELL-But that's not a part of the project that is proposed before you. MR. MACEWAN-But it is, because part of the project that you're referring to is you're going to relocate that pumping station so that fits into the site plan, which also fits into the septic, which fits in with part of the project. MR. O'DONNELL-No. If necessary, we will delete the movement of the vacuum tank from one side of the lake to the other. If that is what the Board is going to fix on as a basis for getting into the septic system, I'm confident that Harris Bay will delete the movement of that vacuum tank. MR. MACEWAN-To me, then, you're making a statement, it's almost like you've got something to hide. MR. O'DONNELL-No. The statement I'm making to you, Mr. MacEwan, is that Harris Bay is not interested in spending money to replace the working system, any more than any other tax payer in the Town of Queensbury is, and Harris Bay has designed it's project knowing that this issue has come up, to avoid the issue. MR. MACEWAN-No one's asking you to replace the system. MR. O'DONNELL-Sure they have. MR. MACEWAN-No one on this Board has asked you to replace this system. MR. O'DONNELL-That's correct, not on the Board, but the people who have been coming here, have been coming saying, well, the system should be replaced. The system should be changed to holding tanks. The system should anything other than what it is. MR. MACEWAN-And it's ~ job on this Board, as part of the site plan review, to determine whether that system is adequate or not. I believe that. MR. O'DONNELL-If that's what the project was involving, I would absolutely agree with you, but the project specifically does not involve that. MR. MACEWAN-Well, you and I could go round and round on this. I concur with Mr. Brewer and I agree with him 100 percent that it can effect this overall project. MRS. LABOMBARD-Black or white, the way you've presented it, you've done a great job, answer no to all of those questions. I mean, I did, but then you can start doing all the other implications and all the other ramifications and all the other opinions of everybody - 51 - - else, and you're back going around in a circle, but there's a fine line, and I think it's all ethical, when it comes right down to it, and we're not dealing in ethics here, unfortunately. MR. BREWER-Lets end the public comment, end comment from everybody but this Board, and decide whether we want more information, or we to do the SEQRA tonight, or what do we want to do? MR. RUEL-Well, aside from the septic system, I see this five year plan as a definite improvement, all right. Now, if we deny this application, he'll revert back to what he had, and we will have a gas tank underground, and we won't have all of the improvements. and the septic system will remain the same, the traffic will be the same, the same number of boats, etc. So, I don't really see what is being accomplished by trying to deny this. I see improvements, all right. The only area that I question, really, is the septic system, and the gentleman has agreed that they'll have the system looked at, not now in the winter time. but rather during the season when it's being used, to make sure that it's adequate and meets all of the requirements. MR. BREWER-I think you're taking me wrong, Roger. intentions of trying to deny any project. I have no MR. RUEL-No, but I'm just saying if you do deny, then it reverts back to status quo. MR. BREWER-And I don't think this Board ever sets out to deny any project. I think if we have an idea that something might be wrong, to fix something is not to deny the project. MR. RUEL-I know, but if you make enough very expensive changes, the applicant may decide not to go ahead with the plan. That's all I'm saying. MR. BREWER-If the changes are warranted. then they should be done. That's the way I feel. If they're warranted, if that septic system can stand on its merit, then nothing will have to be done, and that's the way I feel. MR. RUEL-And that will be checked. MR. BREWER-I wouldn't turn my back on anything. MR. RUEL-What else is there, beyond a septic system? MR. BREWER-I don't feel comfortable about the gas tank four feet from the wetlands. MR. RUEL-And the fill? MR. BREWER-I don't know about the fill. I honestly don't know about the fill. I'm not an engineer. I'm not a soils expert. MR. RUEL-The only way you could eliminate that is to build a huge platform. MR. BREWER-I'm not saying that's necessary. I know Joe Roulier from here. I mean, I take his word for what he says. I don't know. He's not an expert. He admits he's not an expert. MR. RUEL-Well, that's all I have to say. That's it. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry. I don't mean to blow up. MRS. LABOMBARD-When would you have the testing done? If it's done in April, it's certainly going to show different results than if it's done in the middle of August. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. - 52 - -- MR. OBERMAYER-That's right. MR. HARLICKER-The testing for the septic system is proposed in July, the peak of the season. MRS. LABOMBARD-But if that was the last criteria that has to be established, then you're pro j ect couldn't even, we would, the project would be delayed by so many months. MR. STARK-No. If they have the system checked by somebody in July. say we give them approval or disapprove it, it doesn't matter. Okay. If he has it checked in July and it fails, they have to fix it. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. STARK-Our approval or disapproval has nothing to do with that. MR. RUEL-That's right. MRS. LABOMBARD-I understand. Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-What we're reviewing is really quite, it's very independent of the septic system. Their project, their proposals, as far as ~ could see, are not going to impact the septic system, as it currently exists. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's your opinion. You have a right to it. MR. STARK-Okay. I have some comments. I have a boat up there, Tim, never dreamed of going to Harris Bay Yacht Club for gas, for a soda, to have the boat pumped out, my boat gets pumped out. I just, I never even think of go ing there. It's a private club. That's the way ~ consider it. It might be commercial according to the Lake George Association and the Park Commission and all that. I wouldn't dream of going there. It's a private club for the people that go there and sit on their dock, sit on their boats on the dock and go out and cruise and come back. They put an awning up, I'm driving down the road, I'm not going to stop there because they've got an awning there, go in and have a beer or something. I don't even know what they've got there. I'm not going to go and buy a soda or get ice there or anything else. All the improvements that, all the project that they're proposing is going to make the place look better. If ~ was a neighbor, I'd ~ them to go ahead and do this. That's mY opinion. If the septic system fails or something, then the Lake George Park Commission will go in and say, okay, you've got to do this, you've got to do that, whatever. That's their problem. Our problem, as a Board, is whether, they're improving, I think they proposed five things, and if, I think they're all good improvements, move the tank from here. put it over here, so you don't see it from the road, fine. If I was a neighbor, I'd want them to do that, and as far as whether they put a thousand yards of fill in, I know what a thousand yards of fill is, because I put a thousand yards of fill under my indoor pool. Whether they put a thousand yards of fill, two thousand or three thousand, so what? If it takes five hundred five hundred yards of fill to level the parking lot, fine. If it takes one thousand, so what? I mean, asking them for a number of yards of fill, where does this come from? Craig, you questioned the number of, amount of fill. Why is that number so important to you? MR. MACEWAN-Because it directly effects the lake frontage right there. The amount of fill that they bring in could have adverse effects on the lake itself. MR. STARK-How? MR. RUEL-Because it's an indication of the area sinking, and we were told, when it sinks, it pushes the silt below it into the water, into the Bay. - 53 - -- MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I'd like to point out something, too. The letters, Mr. Salvador and Mr. Roulier, the points they made weren't, no sources were made. I just wanted to make that point. MR. OBERMAYER-They're on speculation. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. We don't know if that's true. MR. STARK-Mr. Roulier was talking millions of yards of fill. A million yards of fill didn't go into the Aswan Dam. I mean, these are crazy figures, a million yards of fill. Mr. Salvador is a soils engineer. I mean, I don't see the road sinking. If no fill has gone in there since you've been a member up there. MR. O'DONNELL-A little bit in 1990. MR. STARK-You're talking fifty yards, you know, how many truck loads, two, three truck loads? MR. O'DONNELL-Probably. MR. STARK-I mean, to fill some potholes. Fine. MR. BREWER-I don't think anybody has a problem with that, George. MR. STARK-Well, there was a comment made, how many yards of fill. He doesn't know how many yards of fill. Nobody can say how many yards of fill. MR. BREWER-But if they're going to fill that whole parking lot, you can bet your life they're going to get prices on a contractor to come in there and give them an estimate on how much is going to be in there. You can bet on that. MR. STARK-Fine. You can figure out, roughly, how many yards, you know, you're filling six inches over such and such. MR. BREWER-Yes, right. MR. STARK-You're talking, I don't think you're talking a thousand yards of fill, myself. So, whether it's a thousand or five hundred or two thousand, so what. MR. BREWER-That's what, you have to look at this, George, and you have to consider everything on here. So what if it's two hundred thousand yards of fill. If it makes an impact, then you have to answer the question, yes, it does. If it doesn't, fine. I agree with you one hundred percent, but if it does, that's what we're here doing. We have to do the SEQRA, and we have to do it proper. MR. STARK-Lets do the SEQRA, then. MR. RUEL-We don't know whether it has an impact or not, actually. MR. BREWER-You're right, we don't. So we could request to find out, to have an engineer, a soils expert, find out if it will have an impact. That's what the point of it is. MR. RUEL-Well, there's no need for that if he's not going to put any fill. MR. BREWER-Right, and he said he's not. So that's fine. MR. RUEL-So, end of conversation. MR. OBERMAYER-I think what would make all of us more comfortable is if we had some sort of guarantee that the septic system ~ going to be looked at this summer, okay. MR. BREWER-It iä going to be. - 54 - - MR. OBERMAYER-We're all going back to, we're forgetting about most of the project and we're worried about the septic system. MR. BREWER-It ~ going to be looked at. There's a guarantee that it will be looked at. MR. RUEL-No problem. Right? MR. BREWER-How do you feel? Do you want to do it, or do you want to ask more information, or what do you want to do? MRS. LABOMBARD-You heard what I said. I could answer no to those five questions, and therefore the whole total picture is, no, it's not going to have any of those negative effects that have been proposed. I think it's a far higher authority with that whole septic system. So I think we should just go for it. MR. BREWER-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I think I'd like a little bit more information. MR. BREWER-Such as? MR. MACEWAN-To go back and beat a dead horse, but I want to know exactly how much fill is going to be in there, and I'd like to know a little bit more about the history of that soil up there, and have some sort of professional opinion, as to what it can either hold or can't hold. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. that? Who does that, and who pays for all MR. MACEWAN-The applicant and the Town Engineer. MRS. LABOMBARD-And the Town Engineer? MR. MACEWAN-The Town Engineer would do it. MR. BREWER-No, not necessarily. They can hire an engineer of their own, if they want. MR. MACEWAN-Can they? MRS. LABOMBARD-But if the Town Engineer does it, it's gratis? MR. BREWER-No. MR. OBERMAYER-The Town picks up the cost. MR. BREWER-No, the Town does not. It's billed to the applicant. MR. RUEL-The applicant pays. MR. BREWER-I don't know. I don't have a problem going ahead with the SEQRA, but I would like specifically to know what everybody, I mean, you want to just know about the yards of fill and about the soils? MR. MACEWAN-The stability of the soil up there, yes, before I would render any opinion from me. MR. BREWER-When do you want to start your project, naturally, as soon as possible. MR. STARK-First phase? MR. O'DONNELL-This winter we're going to be working on the interior of the Clubhouse, which does not require any review. It requires a building permit, which we either have, or expect to have within a day or so. I would expect that, the things which are proposed to - 55 - you as part of the project, we'd be looking at next year, starting, obviously, within a year. MR. OBERMAYER-'95? MR. STARK-'95, you're talking. MR. O'DONNELL-Either the fall of '94 or early '95. We have to start it. start something within a year in order to activate the permits, but I can't imagine anything being done during the summer, because of the (lost word). MR. STARK-Tim, we have our engineer look at it, and he says, well, you know, he says his opinion, and then they trot out their engineer, and he says, well, it's not going to be any problem at all, and then you and I are not engineers. so what do we do? I mean, I think we've got to use common sense on this, more than anything. I mean, I don't see the parking lot sinking every year. I see the water level, we get more melt because we have more snow, and the water level's coming up, but I don't see the road sinking up there. The concrete pad's been in since 1980. That's staying the same. I mean, to me, if anything's going to sink. MR. BREWER-Didn't they lose the docks one year? MR. O'DONNELL-We lost F dock in a wind storm. MR. BREWER-Was it a wind storm? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes, and the entire system has been replaced. F dock was the first to be replaced because it got destroyed, but since then the entire system has been replaced. It's a different system. MR. STARK-I don't see, Tim, where, if we required their engineer or our engineer or whoever to look at this, what are they going to tell you, the soil's sinking, or it's not sinking? MR. BREWER-No. address these occurring. It says, mitigation activities may be undertaken to impacts, if it could be shown that they were MR. RUEL-If, yes. That's a big if. MR. BREWER-Well, if they don't do the test, they'll never know. MR. OBERMAYER-Maybe you can approximate how much fill you plan on putting in before we go this other route. MR. BREWER-Jim. I don't think that'll tell us anything, because I think if you give Craig or me or any of us a number, say, ten thousand yards, what in the hell are we going to know that's going to do? MR. OBERMAYER-That's a lot of fill. MR. MILLER-What we were going to do is hire somebody like Empire Soils Investigations, or Fred Dente's Soils Scientist, people who specialize, and what they would do in a case like this is, they'll take a bore right down through and pull it out intact, so they could see exactly what you've got. So, I'd envision we'll see the gravel and the various layers of fill and identify what the material is, down to the organic material, down to refusal, maybe thirty, forty feet down, and then what they can do, under laboratory conditions, is test those soils for bearing capacity, very similar to what they do in designing a foundation for a high rise building or something like that. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. your pad. You're going to have to do that anyway, for - 56 - MR. MILLER-That's right. MR. BREWER-So, how much of a hardship would it be to ask you to do that up front? MR. MILLER-We just can't do it now. MR. BREWER-You can't do it until spring. MR. MILLER-What your engineer has suggested is do it as part of site plan, and, I mean, our position is, for example, with the fuel tank, if you can give us the variance saying, yes, go to an above ground fuel tank, then we've got to go and do it. If we do it now, we're doing the engineering for foundation, and then if we don't get the variance for the fuel tank, we've done the engineering. MR. BREWER-You haven't got a variance for that? You have not got a variance for the above ground tank? MR. MILLER-No. MR. O'DONNELL-No. MR. BREWER-We have to do the SEQRA first. So, if we go through this SEQRA and give you a neg dec, and then you don't get the variance for the tank, then you just rip this up, right? MR. MILLER-Then the tank's out. That's right. MR. OBERMAYER-I can't see why you wouldn't get a variance. MR. BREWER-Well, then what I think, Craig, then, I think we can do this, and if we answer these, if we do this SEQRA, and we answer any of these questions that we have a problem with, potential large impact, and then mark them, can be mitigated by project change, that's not going to kick it into an EIS, is it? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. BREWER-That's not my intention, but what I'm saying is, when we get to site plan, if we require that soil boring, it will be next month, naturally, before you start construction, and that proves that it can't be done, or something iä wrong, then we're not lying on the SEQRA. We're saying it can be mitigated. If it can't be mitigated, then you can't do it, as part of the site plan review. MR. MILLER-Right, if testing shows that we can't put that gas tank there, we're not going to put it there. MR. MACEWAN-Well, what happens if the cost becomes prohibitive to them? MR. BREWER-That's tough. I'm letting them know, we're going to ask them for it. I'm being honest with them. That's all. I mean, that just keeps us moving. That's all. I just don't want to stand still forever. Is that fair to you? MR. MILLER-It is fair. If the testing actually shows that that fuel tank can't go where we've proposed it to go, we're not going to put it there. MR. BREWER-No, I understand that, but I'm not talking about the fuel tank. I'm talking about any fill or, I'm hearing stories about the parking lot sinking. You're going to do a bore anyway. If it shows that that is the case, then I don't know what we do from there. I just don't know. You're going to do the bore anyway, you said. MR. MILLER-Right. - 57 - -:j MR. BREWER-So we'll just require that at site plan. We're going to be guaranteed that the septic system is going to be checked. So, if we answer these, Potential Large Impact, and we answer them, they can be mitigated, then we're through it. MR. OBERMAYER-The boring, I don't think, is going to tell you whether the site is sinking or not. It's just going to tell you the bearing capacity of the soil. It's not going to give you any long term. MR. BREWER-Yes, it can. MRS. LABOMBARD-He's the engineer, though. MR. BREWER-Yes, but we've got another engineer right here, too, who says it can. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just reading what he's saying. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, sure you could do a full scale soils investigation, but a regular boring, I don't think, will do that for you. MR. BREWER-You're saying they'd have to go further than that? MR. OBERMAYER-Right. That's right. MR. BREWER-How much more of a job is that? MR. OBERMAYER-You're probably talking a lot of money. MR. BREWER-Well, I don't know what else to do. We might as well, lets go read through it and do it. MR. RUEL-I notice all the impacts are negative. MR. MACEWAN-Tim, I don't feel comfortable with it. Poll the Board and see what they want to do, and if they want to go through the SEQRA. MR. BREWER-I just did. Everybody said yes. George said yes. MR. MACEWAN-I'll abstain from it, so go ahead with it. MR. BREWER-Okay. We have other involved agencies, right, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. BREWER-No other involved agencies? MR. HARLICKER-Well, there were, but they didn't get any responses back from them. They had their 30 days. We didn't hear back from them. It was the APA, DEC. They all were notified of the project. MR. BREWER-Okay. "Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?" Yes, and I would say, "construction that will continue for more than one year or involve more than one phase or stage". It's a small to moderate impact. MR. RUEL-Construction will continue for more than one year? MR. BREWER-That's what I said. MR. RUEL-Okay. Small to moderate? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. BREWER-"Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site?" - 58 - - MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-"Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?" MR. STARK-Small to moderate. Yes. MR. RUEL-That's a good question. MR. BREWER-I don't know. I have a problem with this, only because of the chemicals being pumped into the wetlands. I don't know what they are. I mean, can we find that out? That's the way I'm going to answer it. I don't know how anybody else is going to answer it. MR. RUEL-How about, extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body, the sewer line running through the wetlands? MR. BREWER-That doesn't hurt it if the line's running through it, Roger. MR. RUEL-Above, yes. MR. BREWER-How does it hurt it if it's running above it? MR. RUEL-It's near a sewer pipe. MR. BREWER-It doesn't hurt it running over it. The only way it would hurt it is to run in it, but what I'm saying is, Other Impacts, Chemicals from pump out station into the wetlands. I don't know what the chemicals are. They could be a potential large impact, and I don't know how you can mitigate it. MR. RUEL-Yes, good question. MR. BREWER-How do you mitigate it? MR. RUEL-A holding tank, that's the only way. MR. BREWER-So you want to say it can be mitigated? MR. RUEL-Yes, of course, anything can be. MR. HARLICKER-Okay, and if you go that route, then you've got to go through, there's a Part III that you have to do. It's on the last page, Page 11, once you say something's a potential large impact. MR. BREWER-Well, it's a potential large impact because of the chemicals or the effluent from the pump out station into the wetlands. That is my reason for saying that. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. So that's where you briefly describe the impact. Okay. Now, describe how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to small to moderate impact by project change or changes. MR. RUEL-Holding tank. MR. BREWER-No. It also could be mitigated by the biodegradable chemicals being used, but how do you check that? I don't know. MR. STARK-Tim, if you've got a boat and you pull up and you use their pump out facilities, okay. They don't test what you're pumping out. MR. BREWER-That's what I just said, George. I don't know how you'd check it. There's no way to check it. So, therefore, I don't know how you'd mitigate it. MR. STARK-Answer no. - 59 - -- MR. RUEL-By the use of biodegradable chemicals andlor holding tank. MR. BREWER-How do you control it, Roger? MR. RUEL-Well, you have a holding tank, you can control, it doesn't matter what comes in. It's not going to wind up in the sewer. MR. STARK-That's not the project, Roger. MR. OBERMAYER-The only problem is, I think we're getting away from the project, again. Is that, are we talking about the septic system? Are we talking about the project? MR. BREWER-It's part of the project. project. To me, it's part of the MRS. LABOMBARD-If you take what the LGA letter, Dr. Chick, has written, then it's part of the project. MR. STARK-Well, I don't believe what she reads either. they have jurisdiction. I say they don't. She said MR. OBERMAYER-I wish we had an attorney that could tell us. MR. BREWER-We did have an attorney that told us, three attorneys that told us. MR. OBERMAYER-What did everybody say, no, no, no? MR. BREWER-No, no, yes. MR. STARK-Two out of three. MR. BREWER-What do you do? MR. MACEWAN-It sounds to me like you guys need to have some more information before you make a decision. MR. RUEL-It sounds that way, doesn't it? MR. MACEWAN-Henceforth, that's why I abstained. MR. BREWER-Well, I say it could be a Potential Large Impact. I don't know. I'm just one vote. MR. STARK-What's that? Okay. Lets take a vote on whether it's a Potential Large Impact or not. MR. BREWER-Fine. That's what we're here for. George? MR. STARK-No, it's not. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't believe the septic system is part of the project. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-But you're using the word "Potential Large Impact". Yes, I do. MR. BREWER-Yes, I do. MR. RUEL-Small to moderate. MR. BREWER-Well, that puts us, where? Two, two, and one. Either it is or it isn't, Roger, that's what we're voting on. Either a Potential Large Impact or it's not a Potential Large Impact. MR. RUEL-It's a Potential Large Impact. - 60 - _. - MR. BREWER-Okay, but that still doesn't carry. because that's only three Board members. MR. RUEL-No good? MR. STARK-Well, then you can't do the SEQRA tonight, is that what you're saying? MR. BREWER-I guess that's what we're saying. MR. STARK-So now you want to stall them again? MR. BREWER-I don't want to. George. MR. STARK-No, but you're going to stall them until next month, and what are you going to know next month that you don't know right now? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I think you might, if you come out of this meeting with some specific information as to. MR. BREWER-But, you know, I think that's a poor excuse, because we come to a deadlock, we should change our vote and say, no, it doesn't. I mean, that's. MR. STARK-Okay. We're deadlocked. So what are you going to tell the guy? MR. BREWER-I guess we're going to have to find out what they're going to do about the septic system. We'll get an attorney that does nothing but SEQRA and we'll get her written opinion whether we have a right to do this or not. MR. STARK-Who's opinion? MR. BREWER-ENCON. MR. RUEL-Why can't we go on and say it will be mitigated? MR. BREWER-How is it going to be mitigated? MR. RUEL-We'll leave that up to the experts. MR. BREWER-We have to have an answer for them. MR. STARK-Tim, we just said that checked this spring or this summer. their system is going That's their problem. to be MR. BREWER-Okay, then that's the answer we're looking for, George. MR. STARK-Their system's going to be checked whether ten more boats go there, pumped out or not pumped out or whatever. We don't have anything to do with that. I'm looking at the project for the five phases that they proposed, period. I'm not looking for increased pump out. I'm not looking for, if he's got a boat and he uses some kind of chemical that isn't biodegradable. I don't know what he uses in his boat. MR. BREWER-I know that. MR. STARK-I don't know what anybody uses in their boat. MRS. LABOMBARD-And I agree with you when you look at it, in that respect, but then as soon as I read the LGA letter, I totally can't look at it that way anymore. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. but is the LGA letter correct? MR. BREWER-But is their letter correct? I mean, come on. - 61 - - MR. STARK-The LGA is no more important to me than John Salvador, what he's saying, or Roulier, what he's saying, or anybody else, what they're saying. Who's the LGA? It's the Lake George Association. MR. BREWER-So, in other words, we should have no input from anybody on any applications, George. Is that what you're saying? MR. STARK-No. I'm listening to what everybody says. MR. BREWER-You're not listening to what everybody says. MR. OBERMAYER-What did our Town Attorney say? MR. BREWER-Our Town Attorney says we don't have the right to include this in the project. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm going to go with the Town Attorney, then. MR. STARK-Remember, you and I got into it the last time, and we said, lets ask Paul, and Paul said no, and then you agreed with him. Last time, you and I, we had a disagreement about it, we said, okay, lets ask Paul, Paul says, don't consider it, I said, fine, you said, okay, fine. MR. BREWER-I agreed with it, but I didn't feel comfortable with it, and I called ENCON. I mean, I'm sorry. I have a right to do that. MR. STARK-Yes, and what did ENCON say? MR. BREWER-ENCON said you have every right in the world to do it. That's all they do. Paul represents the Town. I mean, does he do SEQRA all day long? MR. STARK-We represent the Town. MR. BREWER-Fine. MR. STARK-If they withdraw, say, okay, we take everything off the table, the septic system stays the way it is, and whether it passes this summer, or it doesn't passes this summer, it doesn't have anything to do with this project. MR. OBERMAYER-If we were to vote the project down, okay, the SEQRA review, then, as George says, it's going to continue just the way it is anyway. It has no bearing on it. MR. STARK-And then if ten more boats want to go in there this summer to be pumped out, fine. MR. BREWER-So what you're saying, we should just vote yes, and let it go through. I disagree with that. MR. OBERMAYER-For this part of the project, yes. MR. RUEL-Tim is trying to answer this question, here. Read this thing. What are you going to do with this? Everything you say makes sense, but then read this. How do you answer this, and you say, yes, it does have some potential or any kind of impact, but how do you correct that? MR. STARK-Every thing's got an impact, Roger, whether it's small or large. MR. OBERMAYER-Whether the project has an impact, that's the title of the SEQRA review, you say it's the pro;ect that we're looking at, the project in front of us. MR. RUEL-Yes. That's all we're talking about. - 62 - '- MR. BREWER-Isn't that part of it? Isn't the runoff off the roof part of the project? Isn't the runoff, the permeability part of the project? The whole damn thing's part of the project. Just because they're not putting a piece of pipe on the ground, that doesn't make it ~ part of the project. Is that door part of this building or not, or is it just the outside four walls? I mean, come on. MR. STARK-You've got to use your head, Tim, and, everything that they propose has a potential impact. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. STARK-But we're not here to talk about the septic system. MR. BREWER-Why aren't we? Tell me why we're not. MR. STARK-The Town Attorney says it's not part of the project. MR. BREWER-I can't have a disagreement with him? believe it is. I've got to MR. STARK-Okay. So we have an impasse right now, and you might as well deny him the project right now, because there's no way they can get this project passed to your satisfaction? What do you want them to do? MR. BREWER-I'm saying that it does have an impact, George. That's all I'm saying. MR. STARK-Okay. Mr. O'Donnell agrees with you. impact, say, okay. He stands up and agrees with okay, but then he says to you, what do you want me What are you going to tell him? It has a big you right now, to do about it? MR. BREWER-I want him to tell me what he's going to do to fix it. MR. STARK-Okay. septic system. He'll say, I'm not going to do anything to the MR. OBERMAYER-We're going to withdraw the project. MR. STARK-We're going to withdraw the project. MR. BREWER-Then I'm going to say, okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, what have we accomplished? MR. BREWER-Probably nothing. MR. STARK-Harris Bay spent money for nothing. The place stays the same. It doesn't look that particularly attractive up there or anything. All the neighbors, they're all happy then? I can't believe that. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry, George. I don't agree with you. MR. STARK-Tim, we're here to help the Town of Queensbury tax payers, I mean, people coming in, the project. MR. BREWER-That's right, we are, and we're here to help the environment, and we're here to help the whole Town, not just Harris Bay or any particular applicant, George. MR. STARK-I don't feel threatened because they're putting a gas tank above the ground or anything, and I'm a tax payer in this Town. MR. BREWER-I didn't say I was threatened about it, either. I think they've got the State of the Art tank. I just asked if they could - 63 - -- - move it, three or four of the members asked if they could move it. They said, no. Do you see me arguing about it? MR. STARK-Well, what do you want to do, Tim, to get over this impasse? MR. BREWER-I don't know, George. I just gave you my opinion, and I'm stating what I feel. We voted on it. What are we going to do? I don't know, three against two. MR. HARLICKER-Well, why don't we try this. We've got an impasse on the Impact on Water. Why don't we go through the rest of the SEQRA, see how it works out, and then at least then we're going to narrow down the scope of what, where the disagreements are at. If that's the only item in Part II here where the Board members seem to disagree on, at least something's been accomplished. MR. BREWER-Okay. "Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-Okay. "Will proposed action groundwater quality or quantity?" I've got action will require the storage of petroleum greater than 1100 gallons." Has anybody got affect surface or down here, "Proposed or chemical products a problem with that? MR. RUEL-Small to moderate impact. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. HARLICKER-Well, I think, if you go back and look, any time you check something, and the examples that are given, it's a part Potential Large Impact, if I remember right. MR. BREWER-It's a potential, and it can be mitigated, because they have the double liner tank and all that. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, and the mitigating measures would be the double tank, and the overflow, and all that stuff. MR. BREWER-"Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns of surface water runoff?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-Okay. quality?" "Impact on Air Will proposed action impact air MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-No. "Impact on Plants and Animals Will proposed action effect any threatened or endangered species?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-None that we know of. "Will proposed action substantially effect non-threatened or non-endangered species?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-None that we know of. "Impact on Agricultural Land Resources Will proposed action affect agricultural land resources?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-"Impact on Aesthetic Resources affect aesthetic resources?" No. Will proposed action - 64 - - -,' MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-"Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-" Impact on Open Space and Recreation Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open space or recreational opportunities?" No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-"Impact on Transportation Will there be an effect to any existing transportation system?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-"Impact on Energy Will the proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-"Noise and Odor Impacts Will there be any objectionable noise, odors or vibrations as a result of the proposed action?" No. "Impact on Public Health Will proposed action affect the public health and safety?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-Okay. "Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-"Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. STARK-Adverse environmental impact, right? know it's going to be adverse? Does the public MR. BREWER-I don't know. word, George. I guess we have to take them at their MR. STARK-I'm the public, and I don't see any adverse, I mean, you know, I've got just as much right to say something as Mr. Salvador or Mr. Roulier. These guys are up there talking all the time. I say there's no adverse impact. They say there is. Where do we go from there? MR. BREWER-I guess we say, is there or is there likely to be public controversy? Is there any public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. RUEL-There is. MR. BREWER-Is there or isn't there, is what they're asking you. MR. STARK-Well, I'm sure there will be. MR. BREWER-Okay. So then we have to answer it yes. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. So going back, Number Five, you came up with yes, and because of the storage of petroleum or chemical products - 65 - greater than 1,000 gallons. Is that the only yes, other than Question Number Three, that you came up with? At least that's what I've got. MR. RUEL-Three and Five, and the very last one. MR. HARLICKER-The last one, well, that's kind of a separate, that doesn't require any further. MR. RUEL-Nineteen is all by itself? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. through Part III, mitigating measures Impact to Moderate. Okay. So, for Number Five, we have to go and briefly describe the impact and what will be used to reduce the Potential Large MR. BREWER-It will be mitigated by the double walled tank. MR. HARLICKER-Any other methods? What about spill equipment? MR. BREWER-Spill equipment, they said they were going to have right there. MR. STARK-The alarms, various alarms and so on. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. "Based on the information available, decided if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the questions of importance, consider the probability of the impact occurring." I would suspect the impact occurring, that being a spill or some sort of rupture of the tank, what is the probability of that occurring? MR. BREWER-Hopefully none, but there's always a probability. MR. STARK-I don't think anything, the tank, you can see the lines, but not the tank. MR. BREWER-Yes. How can we give that any probability factor? MR. HARLICKER-It just says that these should be considered. You're not given a definite answer, but these are the types of items you should. MR. BREWER-It's not very probable because of the location of it. MR. HARLICKER-Right, the duration of the impact, its irreversibili ty including permanently lost resources of value, whether the impact can or will be controlled, the regional consequence of the impact, its potential divergence from local needs and goal s or whether the known obj ections to the pro j ect relate to this impact. So now we're back to Question Number Three, and the septic system. That seems to be the only outstanding SEQRA issues. MR. STARK-Tim, would you read Number Three again, please? MR. BREWER-"Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, and 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL) MR. RUEL-Do we have a copy of that? MR. HARLICKER-Not here tonight, no. MR. BREWER-I'm sure Lake George is protected. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. wetland, which is. It specifically says a designated freshwater MR. MACEWAN-It is. It's also in a Critical Environmental Area. - 66 - MR. RUEL-The possibility of contamination of the septic system, right? MR. BREWER-That's what I say. I don't know if anybody agrees with me or disagrees with me. I know somebody who disagrees with me. MR. STARK-Well, Tim, lets go back to Leeser, and their septic system. That's possible that could fail. We don't know what size. MR. BREWER-Any of them could fail, George. MR. STARK-I mean, so, yet we gave them an okay. There's a possibility their system could fail ten times this summer. MR. RUEL-Can't we say that it'll be mitigated by results of the inspection to be made and a corrective action to be taken if necessary? MR. BREWER-Say anything you want. that. I never said you couldn't say MR. STARK-I would go along with that. MR. OBERMAYER-Who's to say, though, that they necessarily have a problem with the septic system, okay? We're hearing various points of view. We really don't even know. MR. BREWER-You're right. We don't. MR. RUEL-That's why I said. We should wait for the inspection, and the results of the inspection will tell us whether some corrective action is necessary. MR. STARK-Well, Rog, you can't wait. I mean, if they don't check it until, suppose it isn't checked until, Tim said, August or July or something like that? So we'll table everything until the results of the State checking their septic system? MR. BREWER-For that project, yes. I mean, it's nothing to say. MR. STARK-For what project? MR. BREWER-For the project that's in front of us. MR. STARK-You mean all five phases, or just the one phase? MR. BREWER-All five phases. If this SEQRA is not completed, they can't do the five phases. They could still operate, I believe. I don't see why they can't still operate. MR. STARK-Yes. The septic system is the way it is, always, whether we give them the okay or not. MR. BREWER-That's right, but I'm not going to answer that question and say no to it, when I believe that there's potentially a large impact. I'll stay here until midnight. MR. STARK-Okay, but Roger just came up with an idea that said that if we give the okay, and, what did you say, Roger? MR. RUEL-I said it would be predicated on inspection, the results of the inspection, corrective action will be taken. the and septic system if need be, MR. STARK-Tim, suppose the septic system passes in July, what's your answer on that then? MR. BREWER-I would still say there still is a potential. MR. STARK-There's nothing they can do, then? - 67 - MR. BREWER-I'm not saying their septic system isn't working, George. I'm not saying that. By no means am I saying that. I'm saying there is a potential for a large impact because the septic system goes over the wetlands and dumps out just past the wetlands. If there's chemicals in there, from the boats, and I'm not saying there is or there isn't, I'm saying there could be, because it says, potential. The chemicals are put into boats, and they are pumped into a tank, and that effluent is pumped through those pipes into those beds. I'm saying that can effect it, and I don't see how you can argue and say it can't effect it. MR. STARK-So there's nothing they can do to make you change your mind about that large impact? MR. BREWER-No. MR. STARK-Well, then they might as well withdraw the project. MR. BREWER-Why? I'm only one person, George. There's seven of you here. MR. RUEL-Wait a minute. George, it's an impact. It exists. It's there. You can't close your eyes to it. MR. STARK-Okay, Rog, the same question to you. How can they make you feel comfortable that there won't be an impact. They can't, right? There's nothing they can do to make you feel comfortable that there's no impact? MR. RUEL-No, because they can't change the location of the pipes. They can't change the location of the septic system and it's location. MR. STARK-So there's nothing they could do to make you feel comfortable that there's no impact? MR. RUEL-No. MR. STARK-You might as well deny the project then. MR. RUEL-The only thing that'll make me comfortable is to have the thing checked out, have it checked out in the spring. MR. OBERMAYER-And that's going to be done. MR. STARK-And that's going to be done, Roger. MR. OBERMAYER-And that's independent of this. MR. RUEL-And if everything's okay, that's fine, but if it isn't, they'll have to make changes. MR. OBERMAYER-What does that have to do with relocating the tank, okay, and bringing in some fill? What does that have to do with the septic system? I guess I don't see the. MR. RUEL-He's just trying to answer this. That's all. You try to answer it. MR. STARK-We just did. MR. RUEL-You did? What, no impact? MR. STARK-No impact. MR. HARLICKER-They're saying that the septic system is not part of the project. MR. STARK-The Town Attorney said that. - 68 - - MR. HARLICKER-Tim is saying that the septic system is, at least it's my understanding, that the septic system li part of the project. MR. OBERMAYER-Our Town Attorney told us that it's not part of the project. MR. BREWER-Fine. Do what you want. of dOing what you're doing. Okay. doing what I'm doing. I'm not trying to talk you out Don't try to talk me out of MR. RUEL-If it's not part of the project, then I agree with you. I'm assuming it's part of the project. George, Jim, I'm assuming it's part of the project. MR. STARK-I say it's not. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm saying it's not. MR. RUEL-Well, that's it. That's the key right there. MR. STARK-The Town Attorney said no. I'm just going by what the Town Attorney said. He's our guiding light during legality issues. MR. RUEL-Well, where's the Town Attorney? MR. STARK-He's not here. He already gave his visit. MR. OBERMAYER-He gave us his opinion the other night. MR. RUEL-Is that in writing? MR. STARK-It's in writing. It's in the minutes. He said it is not part of the project. We shouldn't consider it. MR. RUEL-Wait a minute. That was, what, at the last meeting? MR. STARK-That was at the workshop. MR. RUEL-And it's in the minutes? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. RUEL-And now we read a document from, what, the Lake George Association? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but our legal counsel is the Town Attorney, right? MR. RUEL-That doesn't make him right. MR. STARK-It doesn't make what she said right, either. MR. OBERMAYER-That's someone that we have to rely on, okay, to make a legal interpretation for us. MR. MACEWAN-At the very least, what we should be doing is answering all the questions and finding out all the facts before you make a decision on something that's a legal, binding document that can hang this Board out to dry. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree with you. MR. MACEWAN-That's what our obligation is under SEQRA review. It's a legal, binding document. MR. BREWER-You know what could make me change my mind, George, if they had a holding tank for the, just the boat pump out, and pump that out and had it disposed of, not into those leach beds, then I would say that there's not an impact. That could make me change my - 69 - - mind. MR. RUEL-That's right. MRS. LABOMBARD-That could make me change mY mind. MR. STARK-Well, I have no idea, we could sit here all night, then. MR. BREWER-I'm just saying, that's what could make that impact that I'm worried about not be there. MR. RUEL-So why don't we just state it that way? MR. BREWER-That could mitigate it, but is the applicant willing to do that? We don't know that. I mean, you charge for it. MR. O'DONNELL-I'm not in a position to tell you that. The decision is not mine to make. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. O'DONNELL-One thing I ~ tell you is if the Board puts up a sufficient number of hurdles and makes it sUfficiently expensive, my guess is that Harris Bay will ban the project. MR. BREWER-Do you not charge for that pump out though? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes, but, Mr. Brewer, you can't think that what we charge for a pump out would approximate the amount of money necessary to replace the system. MR. BREWER-I have no idea. MR. STARK-What do you want to do? MR. BREWER-That's how I would change my mind. MR. STARK-And he gave you an answer, so what do you want to do? MR. BREWER-I don't know. Try talking Roger into something else, or her into something else. I don't know. I'm just stating my position, George. I feel strongly about it, and I'm sorry that we disagree, but. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. You're entitled to your position. I'm entitled to mine, so where do we go from here? Do we just sit here all night? MR. BREWER-We have a member that's missing. We can wait until our workshop and do it again, if you want. MRS. LABOMBARD~I know 30 homeowners at Hewlett's Landing that had to float an almost $1,000,000 bond in order to revamp their entire septic system systems. in order for all of those dwellings to become legally inhabitable, but what I'm trying to say is why, like, Karl Kroetz has said, maybe I'm expanding this issue, but the individual person has to bear a lot of the responsibility to keep the lake clean. Why can't a great big conglomerate of boat owners bear some of the responsibility? MR. STARK-Wait a second. As far as I'm concerned, right now, and as far as you're concerned, Tim, I think the system is working, correct? MR. BREWER-As far as I know. MR. STARK-There's tests to indicate the system's working. I mean, no their tests, the Department of Health's tests. MR. BREWER-Yes. - 70 - "- ~ MR. STARK-That's good enough for me. MR. BREWER-I never said that it wasn't working, George. You're not listening to what I'm saying. MR. STARK-You're saying the potential is there for a disaster. Whether we pass it or not, the potential's still going to be there. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. STARK-I mean. a car runs off the road tomorrow and breaks a line. MRS. LABOMBARD-Maybe we can make a statement, if that's all that we. MR. STARK-Well, what you're saying, then, is, in essence, is that the project will be denied because we can't come to a decision tonight? MR. BREWER-No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that there is a solution to the problem, that I stated out in the impact. There's another member missing. If he wants to wait until the 8th, we can have a vote on it then. I mean, we could take all this conversation and let Bob look at it and come up to speed and look at the minutes, and if he wants to make a decision on that question, then you have your vote. I mean, there's always an answer, George. That's why there's seven members on the Board. MR. STARK-Well, there's six here tonight, and so what you're telling the applicant, then, that we have to table because we can't come to a decision? MR. BREWER-Pretty much. MR. STARK-I mean, he can either agree to that or disagree. MRS. LABOMBARD-Unless he wants to take the chance, and we vote on it. MR. STARK-Well, I mean, it's a hung vote. There's not four votes to either pass it or not pass it. MR. RUEL-Tim, is the septic system part of the project or not? MR. BREWER-I've got to believe it is. stated that all night long. That's mY opinion. I've MR. RUEL-Okay. All right. MR. BREWER-That's just mY opinion. MR. STARK-Well, Tim, you're the Chairman. What do you want to do? MR. BREWER-Does the applicant want to table until the eighth? There is one member missing. I can't guarantee you any results. MR. O'DONNELL-I can't see what good that's going to do us. MR. BREWER-Maybe if application, I'm sure the last two meetings. no to that question. he read the minutes and looked at the he's looked at the application. He was at Maybe there could be a four vote, to answer MR. O'DONNELL-As I see the votes, apparently, Mr. Stark and Mr. Obermayer, from their comments, I gather they would vote that there's a negative declaration. MR. BREWER-Correct. - 71 - "- MR. O'DONNELL-The three of you would say that there's a positive declaration. MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. O'DONNELL-Mr. MacEwan is abstaining. MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. O'DONNELL-So, the best case scenario is I end up with a hung vote, which I have right now. MR. MACEWAN-In all fairness to you, as the applicant, if I was to vote on this thing tonight, I would declare a positive dec on this myself, but I'm willing to wait to find out a little bit more information if I can get it, before I render a decision on that. That's why I abstained. MR. O'DONNELL-And what you're interested in is the amount of fill? MR. MACEWAN-The amount of fill, and I answered regarding that septic system it from them, in writing. If the DEC that site plan, that's enough for me. need to have some questions from DEC. I'd like to hear feels that it's not part of That's why I abstained. MR. STARK-If you had a positive declaration on SEQRA, you would have to do an Environmental Impact Statement. I have no idea how much that would cost. Charlie Wood's cost a couple hundred thousand dollars for his. MR. BREWER-It had many more impacts, though, I think, George. MR. O'DONNELL-I can't be positive, but I can be close, that would kill it. The real question to you is, take a look at what's actually been proposed. Do you think it's positive or don't you? If you think it's not positive, send the project down the drain. MR. BREWER-I'm not saying that. You're making a statement for me. MR. O'DONNELL-No, no, no. MR. BREWER-I'm saying, the project is positive, but there are parts of the project that are negative. MR. 0' DONNELL-Mr. Brewer, the septic system's not part of the project. MR. BREWER-Well, I disagree with you. I'm sorry. MR. STARK-Then you're going against what the Town Attorney said? MR. BREWER-Yes, I am. MR. MILLER-Even if the septic system's part of the project, for the sake of argument, what you should be looking at in SEQRA is what impact, it's existing. The lines are running. MR. BREWER-So, does that make it right? MR. MILLER-No, it doesn't make it right, but I don't think that this is the place it should happen. I think the investigation this summer is going to make the actual determination. Everything we have now, from the Park Commission, who has jurisdiction, they went out and did their tests, said it was working. That's the best information we have. Now, all we have is. MR. BREWER-That's not the question. The question is not whether or not it's working. See, everybody's missing that. I never said it wasn't working. I agree that it probably is working. I'm saying there is a potential impact from chemicals from boats being pumped - 72 - - .~ into those tanks and pumped into those beds. MR. MILLER-Not as a result of what we're proposing. MR. BREWER-Why is everybody picking on me? I'm just one guy out of seven. I'm just one guy. I have a right to my opinion. That's my opinion, and I'm not going to change it. MR. STARK-Okay. Roger, do you think that these five items that they're proposing is going to make any more or less chemicals get pumped into the? MR. RUEL-No. According to what they said, there'll be no more. MR. STARK-So, there's no impact. MR. RUEL-No. That doesn't change it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Back to where Craig stands. I mean, abstaining, what you need, I could feel very much like you do. MR. MACEWAN-I want to know the legal obligation as to what aspect the septic system has with this project at site plan, Number One. MRS. LABOMBARD-I would like to know that. MR. MACEWAN-Number Two, I want to have tests conducted on those soils up there to find out if those beds up there are stable to hold that, or if the rumors are that the place is slowly going under the water. I want to know that. MR. BREWER-I think that's a site plan issue, Craig. MR. MACEWAN-I want to know before that, Tim, because it's part of the SEQRA review. That falls back into one of those categories in there. MR. BREWER-Where? MR. OBERMAYER-Craig, on Item Number One, didn't our Town Attorney tell us, though, that the septic system was not part of the SEQRA review? Isn't that the legal representation that you're seeking? MR. STARK-Tim, there's going to be repercussions from the Town Board. I'm just saying. I'm not threatening or anything. You're going against what the Town Attorney says, and there's going to be repercussions. They're going to withdraw the project. MR. BREWER-George, I'm sorry. I'm just one vote on this seven member Board. I mean, there's going to be repercussions because I have a stand on something? Then let them have them. MR. STARK-All you've got to look at is whether the project's going to be, is the place going to be better as a result of this project or worse? MR. MACEWAN-George, you're beating a dead horse. People's minds are not going to change until they get more information on this thing. We can sit here until sunrise, and you're not going to change anyone's mind. Just like your heels are dug in, and you're not going to change your mind. MR. HARLICKER-Two people feel, I think, that it's not part of the project site, or project, and four people feel that it is part of the project, and it appears that that's where the impasse is. MR. RUEL-The only information I need is whether the septic system is part of this project or not? MR. O'DONNELL-It is not, sir. - 73 - - MR. RUEL-We have letters to the contrary. MR. O'DONNELL-We're the applicant. It's our project. They're not parties to this, and what they've told you is inaccurate. MR. HARLICKER-They have the Town Attorney that says it's not part of the project. Tim spoke to the DEC Attorney, two attorneys you spoke to down there? MR. BREWER-One spoke to another and said that we could consider it. MR. MACEWAN-Can you get in contact with that DEC Attorney and ask her or him to fax us the letter to your attention, with a ruling on that, please? MR. BREWER-I certainly will. I could. MRS. LABOMBARD-The point is, if my sentiments can go along with Dr. Chick's and the LGA, Dr. Chick is not an attorney. She is expressing her opinion which happened to catch me, and I'm swayed by it, but now I'm thinking, if Paul Dusek, our Town Attorney, has indeed said that, if you're going to go black and white, the septic system is not an issue. It has nothing to do with the five proposals, then we have no recourse but to disregard that, legally, I'm saying, but if it does, okay. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe I can help things out here. Considering the magnitude of this project, wouldn't it be peace of mind to wait eight or nine or ten more days until you got another opinion from someone else, before you put your stamp of approval or denial on something? Our mission on this Board is to find all the facts regarding any and all projects that are coming before this Board for approval. That's our job. MRS. LABOMBARD-But, Craig, if Paul says it's not an issue, then are we going to find another attorney that's going to read the law differently and say that it is? MR. MACEWAN-With no disrespect to Mr. Dusek. I would like to hear it from an attorney who is an environmental law attorney, and that's what DEC is. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. I have no problem with that. MR. STARK-DEC sees a, behind every rock there's an impact. MR. OBERMAYER-They do. Attorney is. DEC is not representing us. The Town MR. MACEWAN-We're at a stalemate here, because no matter what ~ say, we're not going to change ~ opinion. No matter what ~ say, you're not going to change your opinion. So at the very least, let us endeavor into ourselves and find out whether this is truly part of the site plan process or not, and if we have a lawyer from DEC that says, yes, it is, or, no, it isn't, then we can base our SEQRA review on that answer. MRS. LABOMBARD-Wait a minute. How can you have one lawyer out-rule another lawyer? MR. MACEWAN-You're wrong, here. No one's out-ruling each other. I, for myself, just want to hear from a source who I think is. MR. O'DONNELL-I am an attorney, and let me just sort of step aside from my role as a Harris Bay applicant. MR. MACEWAN-Can you do that? MR. 0' DONNELL-Sure, I can. There is law on all sides of most issues, and you can find an attorney to take each side of an issue. - 74 - ~ -. That is what we do. We ask our clients, what do you want the result to be, and we go and find what case law and statutes rules and regulations we can to support it, and in most cases, the answer is not crystal clear, and if we can't, by persuasion, convince the other side that you're right, you go to a forum to resolve disputes. Typically, that's court, and, in answer to your question, yes, an Article 78 is one of Harris Bay's options, but the question for Harris Bay is really going to be one of economics, and it's possible that the Board may conclude, yes, what the Planning Board's position is, is wrong, and we want to go to court and try and convince a judge that it's wrong. It's possible Harris Bay's Board may conclude that the Planning Board's decision is wrong, but it simply isn't economically worth it to have the fight, and if that's the determination that Harris Bay's Board makes, then they'll withdraw the project. In this case, the project that has been proposed, now I'm back in my role as Harris Bay's attorney, with the knowledge that there are people like Mr. Roulier and Mr. Salvador who have come forth and raised none issues, and they've succeeded in diverting this Board's attention from the things which Harris Bay actually has proposed, and that is, we want to get rid of the underground storage tanks. They want to put a walkway along the shore. They want a deck over the picnic area. They want to move and screen dumpsters and vending machines, and they want to put some fill in areas primarily across the road. That's what the project is. None of that will have any effect on the septic system or its use. Now, you propose to table this for another day. I suggest to you I don't think that that's going to get us any farther than we are right now. We will go through another night like we've gone through tonight, and like we went through at the workshop, and like we went through the first time we were,here, and the result's going to be the same. So I would ask you to do whatever it is you're going to do, and at least let me take back to Harris Bay's Board, this is the result. Where do you want to go next? MR. BREWER-You guys decide what you want to do. MR. STARK-Well, okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, he just asked us to take a vote. He wants to go back to the Harris Bay Board and say, look, what's our next step, and he'll go by whatever decision we decide. MR. STARK-Okay. The vote, if Craig votes, it'd be, Craig would vote, right now, you said if you vote, you'd vote for a positive dec, on the thing. MR. MACEWAN-I said, if I would, and I have no intention of doing that. MR. STARK-Okay. I'm not saying that. Vote for a positive, Roger votes for a positive, it would be four to two. Positive declaration, then he's got something to take back to his Board, then. MR. BREWER-Well, lets do it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Before we do it, I have a question. You fervently believe that if we hold this off for eight or nine days, to get some other answer to our questions, that you'll still meet the same vote? MR. O'DONNELL-Absolutely, ma'am. I've been here three times, and each time it's been essentially the same, and I think if I come back a fourth, it'll be the same. MRS. LABOMBARD-But wait a second. What if the answers we get are in favor of? MR. O'DONNELL-First of all, the Department of Environmental - 75 - - Conservation is a State Agency. It's not the Town of Queensbury. It's not the Planning Board, and it has no function to advise the Planning Board or make rUlings for the Planning Board on what the law does or doesn't permit. My guess is, if you go to ENCON and tell them, we'd like you to issue us an opinion letter, they'll tell you, that's not our function. Go talk to your Town Attorney. If I. were ENCON counsel, that's what I'd say. See, you may go there, that's what I think is probably going to happen. Even if whoever this person is says, I haven't reviewed the project. but yes, it's my opinion that it involves the septic system, where are we? I'm telling you it doesn't, and I'm the attorney for the applicant. Where we are is, you make your decision, give it to me. I take it back to Harris Bay's Board, tell them, here's what happened. If the decision is, go to the expense of an Environmental Impact, do you want to abandon the project, do you want to bring an Article 78, see if you can get it overturned? MR. OBERMAYER-We are missing one Board member, though. MR. STARK-They've got four positive decs and two negatives right now. The most there could be four positives and three negatives. MR. OBERMAYER-Even though a Town Attorney has recommended it. MR. STARK-Tim, he's got very good grounds to get an Article 78, because we're going against the advice of our own Town Attorney. There's nothing in the law that says we have to take the advice of our Town Attorney, but a judge would rule, I. would think, that we're going against the advice of our Town Attorney because of your feelings. Your feelings, remember, are not supposed to have anything to do with it. Okay. I mean, just like my feelings. That's the way the iudqe will look at it. MR. RUEL-My answer on the Environmental Impact was based on the fact that it was part of the project. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. RUEL-If I accept the Borough Attorney's interpretation that's correct, then, of course, I have to reverse my answer. MR. OBERMAYER-But how is the boats coming to shore and pumping to the septic system a part of raising the tank out of the ground and building the decks? MR. RUEL-That's the only objection I have is the septic system. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's my, I had no problem with the fill. My objection was the septic system. MR. RUEL-And I had predicated my response on that letter that you read. Frankly, I'm aware that the Borough Attorney had indicated that it was not part of the project. MR. STARK-Well, you're not going to change your mind, vote positive on it then. MRS. LABOMBARD-Can a stipulation still be put in, somehow, that you still could have the test done and we could see the test? MR. BREWER-No matter what happens here tonight, there will be a test done in July. I'll guarantee it. MR. O'DONNELL-Whether you vote up or down, it's going to happen. MR. MILLER-Regardless of what happens with this project, that's going to happen. MR. HARLICKER-But you can't condition a negative dec on a Type I Action, which is what this is. - 76 - '-- MR. STARK-He would like an answer. MR. BREWER-Okay. Fine. Lets go and vote. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Then lets vote. MR. BREWER-How does everybody feel on that comment that I made on, will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. RUEL-I will say, no, if the Borough Attorney's answer is, it's not part of the project. MRS. LABOMBARD-And I agree. MR. RUEL-I don't want to make that condition, but that's what I'm stating. MR. STARK-I mean, he said it wasn't part of the project, and we moved on, and then you told Mr. Roulier, don't talk about that anymore. Talk about the tank and this and that. MR. BREWER-You're right. I agree with you. Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have to agree. I'm going to vote for it. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-I'm not asking you to change your mind, Tim. MR. BREWER-I know. Jim? MR. OBERMAYER-No. MR. STARK-No. MR. BREWER-And I'll still say, yes. So then it will be a negative dec. Does somebody want to introduce it. MR. HARLICKER-So you're saying Question Number Three is a no? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-So the only yes was for Question Number Five, and that was regarding the gas storage and the mitigating measures, whereas you outlined earlier, the double walled, and the? MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. O'DONNELL-May I ask a question at this point? We've already proposed the double wall, and this column says, can it be mitigated by project change. What is the change that we need to make? MR. HARLICKER-Okay. There isn't any. All right. MR. BREWER-There is no change. MR. STARK-Well, it's not just double walled. system, and all that stuff also. It was the alarm MR. O'DONNELL-Right. That's part of what we've already proposed. So is there anything we need to change? MR. BREWER-Maybe we should say, no, it can't be mitigated by project change, that it is already mitigated with. It's got to be Potential Large Impact. Why can't we just answer it no, and then give an explanation? MR. HARLICKER-Well, in the directions, in the introduction, if any - 77 - -- ~ impact in Part II is identified as Potentially Large. Okay. It says here, if impact threshold equals or exceeds any of the examples provided, check Column Two, in the directions. Number C, if answering yes to a question, then check the appropriate box, Column One or Two, to indicate potential size of impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check Column Two. If impact will occur, but threshold is lower, check Column One. MR. BREWER-It says describe, if applicable, how the impact could be mitigated. It's not applicable, because it's already been mitigated in the project plans, I would say, wouldn't you? MR. O'DONNELL-We think we've done everything we think can be done. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-So that would apply to that, I think, Scott. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, okay. MR. BREWER-All right. So, now. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION FOR VARIABCES ABD SITE FLAB REVIEW, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB, and Planning Board an 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 22nd day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel NOES: Mr. Brewer - 78 - ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. BREWER-Does somebody want to introduce this? MR. STARK-Resolution regarding hiring of the Planning Board Attorney. RESOLUTION REGARDING HIRING OF THE PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that our needs will be better met with legal counsel that is solely focused on Planning Board matters; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has discussed the matter with Mr. Mark Schachner and the Board feels that his qualifications meet our needs; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board wishes to hire Mr. Schachner on a three month trial basis; Now, Therefore, Be it resolved, as follows: That the Planning Board hereby requests that the Town Board appropriate funds for this trial period. Introduced by: The Queensbury Planning Board AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. BREWER-All right. We're going to meet March 8th, 7 o'clock, here. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 79 -