Loading...
1994-03-22 ) ----' "--- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22ND, 1994 INDEX Site Plan No. 6-94 Mr. Stuart Temkin 1. Site Plan No. 7-94 John L. & Dorothy Hodgkins 4. Site Plan No. 8-94 Michael Barody 10. Site Plan No. 10-94 Logger's Equipment 11. Site Plan No. 31-93 National Realty & Development Corp. 28. MODIFICATION 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. ì ......J QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22ND, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK, SECRETARY ROBERT PALING CATHERINE LABOMBARD CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT ROGER RUEL JAMES OBERMAYER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, BILL MACNAMARA STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. BREWER-There is one item that I'd like to discuss, first, with the Michaels Group, and I'm going to turn the meeting over to Craig. I'm going to abstain from this, any discussion about it. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Very simply, the Michaels Group has requested a workshop session with the Planning Board, for as early a possible date in April, and we have nothing scheduled for the first week in April. If everyone wants to, either we can do it Monday the fourth, or the fifth, which is a Tuesday. MR. MARTIN-I'd prefer the fifth, for myself, but you don't necessarily need me that. MR. STARK-Craig, the only thing is, we don't have to have it here, though. MR. MACEWAN-This is a workshop. That room is available over there. Tuesday the fifth? ALAN OPPENHEIM MR. OPPENHEIM-How about Wednesday? MR. MACEWAN-Wednesday, the sixth, seven o'clock. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. MACEWAN-Done. The only thing that's going to change it is if the room isn't available. MR. MARTIN-I'm sure that room is available. MR. OPPENHEIM-All right. Thanks. MR. BREWER-Okay. We'll go right into the regular agenda. There is one item that's on here first, held over from last week, which would be the Temkin application. Did we leave that public hearing open? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, we did. MR. BREWER-I think we did. SITE PLAN NO. 6-94 TYPE II MR. STUART TEMKIN OWNER: SAME AS - 1 - ...--:- / " \- " r~ ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: CLEVERDALE ROAD TO HILLMAN¡ LARGE GRAY CONTEMPORARY AT TEE INTERSECTION LAKE SIDE. REQUEST IS TO CONSTRUCT A BOATHOUSEISUNDECK ASSEMBLY OVER AN EXISTING U-SHAPED CRIB DOCK. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/94 APA LGPC TAX MAP NO. 12-3-34.2 LOT SIZE: 24,853 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-60 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. Joe, do you have anything to report to us? MR. ROULIER-Yes, a couple of things. There will be a change in two of the dimensions, and I'd like to provide them to you right now. My name is Joe Roulier. I'm representing Stuart Temkin, regarding a proposed boathouse and sundeck assembly. I hope that all of you have received the revised plans that I submitted. On the second sheet, proposed plan, the elevation on the left hand side is at 10 feet, six inches. I would like to change that elevation to eleven feet three inches. The net effect is a nine inch change. MR. BREWER-Where is it, on the second sheet? MR. ROULIER-On the second sheet, the left hand elevation. MR. BREWER-Where it says, ten and a half, change it to? MR. ROULIER-To eleven foot three inches. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. ROULIER-There's two spots. There's the first, side view, and then there's also the front view. That's the only change in the resubmitted plans. I had an opportunity, this week, to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Buckley to see if we could iron out some of the concerns that they've had, and at this juncture, I would like to propose to the Board the recommendations that I'm making, along, and say that they have been approved by the Temkins, in hopes that we can obtain your approval. The first consideration is the combination walkwaylstaircase to the deck itself. Previously, that was on the south side of the structure. We have moved that to the north side of the structure. Hopefully, that will be completely out of view for the Buckleys. The second consideration is that the entire structure, both rails and supporting members, will then be stained. Nothing will be left as either natural wood or treated wood, and what we're hoping to accomplish is a stain similar to the house, whereas, aesthetically, it will be more pleasing than having to, for example, look out at rough lumber or green treated lumber. The third consideration is the railing that I have designed. I would refer to that as a very low profile type railing. I did look at an alternative, and that was using the glass type railing, but I checked into both plexiglass and glass and the cost of that, for the location, would be extremely expensive. Mrs. Temkin indicated to me that she does have small grandchildren. She would be very concerned about their safety up on the deck, so has ruled that option out. The railing that I am proposing to you will be approximately 34 inches, but instead of having the wood turned on the face side, we would have it turned on the flat side, so that, looking at it horizontally, it would be less of an obstruction than looking at it at a true six (lost word). The last consideration, and Mrs. Buckley brought this up, and it was something that Mrs. Temkin said absolutely she'd would have gone along with, had she known about that this past season. The Buckleys are very concerned about shrubbery that currently exists, not necessarily shrubbery, but wild type shrubbery, honeysuckle, and random type of growth that's growing really along the property line, and then along the shoreline of the Temkin property. They feel as though that this is another, this would inhibit their view if it is continued to let grow. The Temkins have indicated to me that Dick Mead, in the spring, will be allowed to go in there and trim the shrubbery or brush back, so that it does not exceed four feet, and if anything it should further increase the view that the Buckleys will have of - 2 - '-. the lake, in both the winter and the summer months. So, I think that the proposals that I'm proposing not only to you, but to the Buckleys, certainly should permit the Board to move ahead with this application. I would reserve the right to speak again after Mr. Buckley, if he'd like to comment on this, and answer any questions for the Board. MR. BREWER-Sure. Is there any questions from anybody on the Board? MRS. LABOMBARD-I just have a question. to be, that you're going to stain it, house? What color was that going you said the same as the MR. ROULIER-Right. We would be doing not like the red boathouse. The house right now is stained a light gray. some type of neutral type of colors, certainly that's to the left of the Buckleys on the MR. BREWER-Would you be staining that before you put it up, Joe, so as the stain won't go into the lake? MR. ROULIER-If that was, generally when we stain, we attempt to take everything at all possible from g~tting it into the lake. If the Board felt as though it was necessary for them to stain prior to that, we would do that. The problem is that, if you stain a piece of lumber, and then cut it, you have the but end of the lumber up, then we would have to go back and re-stain it anyway. So, quite honestly, it wouldn't accomplish anything, except just be very discreet in staining around the lake. MR. BREWER-What kind of precautions would you take? MR. ROULIER-We could put plastic down, not only on the deck, but between the actual piers itself, so there'd be no staining. MR. BREWER-I would like to see that, only because the stain is toxic, and I wouldn't want to see it go into the lake. MR. ROULIER-Fine. MR. BREWER-Okay. comment on this. Is there anybody in the public who'd like to Mr. Buckley, Mrs. Buckley? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ARTHUR BUCKLEY MR. BUCKLEY-May I add something? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. BUCKLEY-My name's Arthur Buckley. I'm here representing myself and my wife. Mr. Roulier and I and my wife have kicked this around since last week, and some engineering changes have been instituted on this thing which makes ita little bit more liveable. We'll never completely agree to the upper deck, but we will withdraw our protest. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. MR. BUCKLEY-You're welcome. MR. MACEWAN-Are you satisfied with what was accomplished between the two parties? MR. BUCKLEY-I think we reached, more or less, a satisfactory agreement. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. - 3 - -- "-- MR. BUCKLEY-They are fine neighbors, and I certainly don't want to go to war with them. I fought one war, and I don't need another. So, let it go at that, and they are very fine neighbors. They're very gentle, and we found them great neighbors, so why go to war over something like that. MR. BREWER-I think with the changes that he's made, your view won't be, it'll be obstructed, but not as much as it would have been the way it was before. MR. BUCKLEY-Well, it makes it more compatible. That entrance-way to the upper deck won't bother us, and certainly would not be like it would be, where it would come down through the center to the top, but Joe's explained what he plans on doing with it, and I'm sure you people have your thoughts about it, and we'll just live with it. That's all. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. ROULIER-I'd just like to make one comment. Actually, I have ~ comments. The proposal that's before you right now is 15 inches less than the previous approved proposal by the Smiths, back in 1990. So I am trying to keep the height of this down as much as possible, and in knowing the concerns that the Buckleys had, and also having worked with the Temkins, I can assure you that every precaution will be taken so that we do not obstruct the view of the Buckleys any more than we absolutely have to. I think that is something that I do not want to do to anyone up there, and that pretty much sums up my position. MR. MACEWAN-I would just like to comment, along Mr. Buckleys' lines, that your drawings are much more palatable than they were last week. They're easier to understand. MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion, the non leaching lumber we're going to put in. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, and also the protection for staining. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-94 STUART TEMKIN, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: With the following stipulations attached: One, that non leaching lumber, pressure treated lumber be used, and, Two, that a tarp, drop cloth type situation be used to protect stain from entering the lake. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1994, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 7-94 JOHN L. & DOROTHY HODGKINS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: MASON RD., CLEVERDALE - 4 - ~ REQUEST IS FOR A 800 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE. SEQRA: 3/15/94 CROSS REFERENCE: AV, 10-1994 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/94 APA TAX MAP NO.: 13-1-10 LOT SIZE: .44 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JOHN & DOROTHY HODGKINS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff , Site Plan No. 7-94, John & Dorothy Hodgkins, Meeting Date: March 22, 1994 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to add 800 square feet of living space to an existing 608 square foot residence. The project received a variance for greater than 50% expansion of a non-conforming structure and a variance for shoreline setback. 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 found in Section 179-39. 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 proposed addition will be compatible with the existing condi tions of the site. 2. The adequacy of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls¡ Traffic access will not be impacted by this proposal. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading¡ Parking will not be impacted by this proposal. 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 will not be impacted by this project. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities¡ Any runoff generated by this addi tion will have to be retained on site. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities¡ The project will not impact water supply or sewage disposal. There are currently two bedrooms in the house and the addition will not change that. 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¡ Landscaping will not be impacted by this proposal. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants ¡ Emergency access will not be impacted by this project. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding andlor erosion. Proper erosion control measures will have to be in place during construction and until the site has been revegetated. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-Warren County Planning Board, Warren County Planning took no action on this project, since no action was taken on the Area Variance. You also have copies of the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. STARK-How would you mitigate the additional runoff generated. - 5 - MR. HODGKINS-I'm John Hodgkins, the applicant. I drew a few things in here. I have the direction of the, okay, here's the same thing that you're looking at right here. Okay. With, this has got three gables, the house, basically. So, the runoff water can be collected in gutters. Over here, here's the lake, as you're looking at it, a drywell to be put here, which will take this group here. and this group right here. At the present time, all the water drains onto this patio, which is out here, which has good drainage off of it already, which has a drain right down through it, and over to a rock filled drainage spot on this side. That's only one side of it. That's only on the short side. The other's will be able to be drained right through. I've got lines drawn right here to the drywell. MR. PALING-Where is your septic system located? MR. HODGKINS-Up yonder. It is up here. We have quite a system. This is what you're telling people to put in. We have it. From the house to a septic to a collecting tank, a pump up the hill, all the way up to here, with large drywells, four or five section drywells up in this area. On the top of the hill, I think there are approximately 120 feet back from the lake, starting. It was done by a professional engineer who's a sanitary engineer and who's pretty good at his business. So, that's who put it in, but this has retaining walls across the back here. The retaining walls are right around here, in the back side, on this side here, the intent is to have a retaining wall, the back wall would be a retaining wall, again. MR. MARTIN-And we also discussed plantings along the shoreline, too. MR. HODGKINS-Okay. I've got plantings shown in here, Jim. You can't see them from over there, but there are 16 major trees along the shoreline of our place, none of them are going to be touched. Not a one of those are going to be touched. The plantings, the only area that would be disturbed is because of going into here. MR. BREWER-There was two or three trees in that back, wasn't there, when we went up there? MR. STARK-Yes, but we didn't think they had to be cut, though. MR. HODGKINS-No. MR. BREWER-None of those are going to be touched. MR. the go. both big. that HODGKINS-No. There is two pines about yeah big. To get into place, to get the construction done, they're going to have to I'm going to say at least one of them will have to go. Maybe of them won't have to go. So there is a sapling about yeah So, there is not any major trees. If one had to go, up in upper level, you saw those White Birches up there? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. HODGKINS-Well, one of them's almost dead already, with those Whi te Birches. That's the unfortunate part about White Birches. There's a whole strand of White Birches, as you maybe know, all the way down through Cleverdale, and we're losing, in that strand that starts almost out at the end of the Point and goes all the way down past Wetherbee's, and past Evans' and so forth, and we're losing one or two a year. I mean, it's just Birch, and I can't say anything more than that. MR. MARTIN-So, basically, see, the most important area, per the Code and per the Adirondack Park Regulations, is that area, as I explained to you in the Office, 35 feet back from the shore of the lake. - 6 - '-- MR. HODGKINS-Right here. MR. MARTIN-So, if there is going to be any disturbance area, the only way that's permitted is with an revegetation plan from this Board. in that approved MR. HODGKINS-Well, this is where the revegetation would be done, right in through here. You say 35 feet? MR. MARTIN-Yes, it's 35 feet. MR. HODGKINS-I didn't know it was exactly 35 feet, when we were talking, but I've shown it down in front, here, and this would all be revegetated along the side here. MR. BREWER-See, that shows nothing on this plan that ~ have, Jim. MR. HODGKINS-No. MR. MARTIN-No. That's why I'm raising these questions. MR. HODGKINS-No, this is why, because this is, you told me to write it on the other copy that I brought up here, and this would be, 35 feet is going to extend to approximately right there, and this area is the area that would be revegetated. MR. BREWER-So does he have to have some sort of a plan? MRS. HODGKINS-There's no landscaping there now. MR. HODGKINS-There is no landscaping there now at all. MRS. HODGKINS-There hasn't been any. MR. HODGKINS-There has never been anything. MR. MARTIN-What lies there now? MR. BREWER-Grass? MR. HODGKINS-No, it's not even grass. It's just, it's scrub poison ivy. We have quite a bit of that. That is area that has not even been, it's never even been touched. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. HODGKINS-Anything that's put in there is ahead of the game right now, at the present time. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. HODGKINS-I'm trying to think if we have a picture of it here. She may have a picture of it right here. There is just nothing there, except the trees. A tree goes up, and that's it, and around the base, you know, if anything, it's up about yeah high. MR. BREWER-Do you have any kind of a drawing as to what it's going to look like and how tall it's going to be? MR. HODGKINS-The height, at the present time, what we're talking about is, at the present time, using 12, 12 pitch gable. That will probably, it will make it two feet higher than hip roof which is currently in, but it will also be narrower. The hip roof stretches this way, but when you have a gabled roof, it will be two feet higher, but it will not be any wider, on that point. MRS. HODGKINS-This is the picture of the side where the scrub, this is that side of the house. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm asking is, do you have a picture of - 7 - -- what the house is going to look like after the construction is done, or do you have any plans at all? MR. HODGKINS-No. We have some rough plans, but not, the general plans, where it's going to be the same as the garage, which will be vinyl sided, white vinyl siding. It will be gabled in three different directions, one facing the lake, one facing to the north, and a smaller gable facing to the rear, because of the structure, because we moved the place back, so we would not go inside of the area that we already had. We had to move one part of it, the new section will be moved back by two feet, so that we will not go onto land that was, that we hadn't used before, so we wouldn't be any closer to the lake. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. HODGKINS-With your plans there, this shows your basic layout. Here's the lake. Here's one gable right here. Here's the other gable right here, and here's the other gable right there. Okay. So that's, basically, what you're going to have is right here. You see, it's going to be an Adirondack Home type looking home. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? MR. PALING-I wish we had an elevation, but we don't. It makes it kind of hard, but I don't have any other questions. MR. HODGKINS-What are you thinking about, the height? MR. BREWER-The height of the house, yes. MR. PALING-The height, and the appearance of it, also. MR. HODGKINS-Well, from one side, it's 60 feet from the nearest person. MR. BREWER-No, heiqht, sir. MR. HODGKINS-I know, but I'm just looking at view from somebody else's, somebody else looking out over, we have a full 60 foot lot on one side of us. So that's not going to obstruct anybody's view. The only thing is, we're going to have a 12, 12 pitch, in place of the hip roof pitch, which is flat this way, and then just down like that. So we're going to be offsetting one with another. MR. PALING-And the highest point of the addition is two feet higher than the highest point of the existing building, am I understanding you right? MR. HODGKINS-Yes. It's two feet three inches, or, in that area. MR. BREWER-How high is it now? MR. HODGKINS-It's very low. We don't have pictures of the house. MR. BREWER-We were at the house. We went up and looked at it. We were on the property. MR. HODGKINS-Okay. No, it's a very low piece of property. You can see it looking down here. Anyway, we have a picture looking down the hill. It's not very high house. It's a very low house. Here's the house looking down hill. MR. BREWER-But you can't measure from here. from here, right? MR. HODGKINS-What's that? Yes. I'm just saying, the house is, it's only, just a hip roof. It's not going to have those windows in it, don't like those windows, but this just the idea of the. You have to measure - 8 - -- "~ ~--' MRS. LABOMBARD-But you have to have some kind of a pretty. MR. HODGKINS-No, no. That's over here. That's a dormer, just to get some light in here. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a dormer. I've got you. MR. HODGKINS-It needs light in there, because if you have that pitch. Actually, we only have 600 feet right now. We have 600 feet there, with the 800, plus the porch area that we're talking about in here, just to finish it off. The porch is part way across already. The areas that you're seeing there, that are covered there, include all the porch area also, and deck area. This is an idea. We don't like the idea of the windows in the front, but it gives you, this is the basic layout of the. This is the new addition, out here. This is the current area, and this is right here. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else from anybody on the Board? Okay. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public that would like to comment on this, please? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-I guess we're ready for a motion. I guess Mr. Horning is your contractor. Did he come up with an idea about how tall it's going to be, the structure? LEE HORNING MR. HORNING-About 18 feet above the first floor. MR. BREWER-From the ground, I mean. MR. HORNING-The ground varies so much up there. It varies almost eight, ten feet. MRS. LABOMBARD-From my understand, 18 feet from the first floor, you mean 18 feet from the ground floor? MR. BREWER-The ground floor? MR. HORNING-From the ground floor. MR. BREWER-That's fine. Okay. Make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-94 JOHN L. & DOROTHY HODGKINS, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: That the applicant include to James Martin a vegetation plan before a CO is issued, for James Martin's approval, and also to include the drain gutters to mitigate the additional stormwater runoff, and temporary erosion control measures, a hay bale fence and silt fence along the lakeshore side during construction, to be shown on the site plan that comes with the building permit, all these things shown. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan - 9 - -" ------'-- ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 8-94 TYPE I MICHAEL BARODY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: FITZGERALD RD. - SOUTH END GLEN LAKE REQUEST IS FOR A 836 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE TO ALLOW FOR A MASTER BEDROOM AND GARAGE. SEQRA: 3/15/94 CROSS REFERENCE: AV, 9-1994 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 41-1-8 LOT SIZE: 13,570 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 8-94 \... Michael Barody, Meeting Date: March 22, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTIOø: The applicant is proposing a 836 square foot addition to an existing house. The addition will consist of 308 square feet of living space and a 528 square foot garage. The proj ect received variances for greater than 50% expansion of a non-conforming structure and a variance for side yard setback. 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 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 project 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 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 proposal is compatible with the existing conditions on the site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths. pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls¡ Traffic access will not be impacted by this project. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading¡ Two enclosed parking spaces will be provided. 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 will not be impacted by this project. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities¡ Stormwater runoff generated by this project will have to be contained on site. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities¡ Water supply and sewage disposal will not be impacted by this project. 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¡ Landscaping will not be impacted by this project. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants¡ Emergency access and fire protection will not be impacted by this project. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding andlor erosion ¡ Proper erosion control measures will have to be in place during construction and until the site has been revegetated. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-As a result of the ZBA meeting last week, the application, the site plan has been revised slightly. If you look at the site plan that was provided with you, it shows that it'll extend, it looks like six feet out from the side of the house. The owner next door there, Mr. Milne, was at the meeting last week, and if the house was, the addition was constructed as proposed, they would be looking right in Mr. Milne's bedroom window. So the project was revised, and the addition, now, will come straight off - 10 - -- --./ the back of the house, and the existing house will be just extended out in the back. That change was at the request of the neighbor. After that, his concerns were met by that change. MR. BREWER-So that's shown on a new, has he got a new drawing for you? MR. HARLICKER-We haven't received it yet, no. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone here to represent this application? I guess not. MR. MACEWAN-Isn't the wise thing to do, to table this thing until we get the right drawing? MR. MARTIN-I was going to say, put it off until your April meeting would be my recommendation. We'll get a new plan by the submission date. MR. BREWER-Why don't we do that? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 8-94 MICHAEL BARODY, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until our next regularly scheduled meeting in April. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 10-94 TYPE: UNLISTED LOGGER'S EQUIPMENT OWNER: WILLIAM BUCKINGHAM ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD, OPPOSITE CAREY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 10,000 SQ. FT. PRE- ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING AND A 3,600 SQ. FT. POLE BARN WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 3/7/94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 127-8-25.2 LOT SIZE: 6.89 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-94, Logger's Equipment, Meeting Date: March 22, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a facility to be used for logging equipment sales. The facility includes a 10,000 square foot pre-fabricated metal building, 3,600 square foot pole barn, a 25 space paved parking area and an unpaved storage and display area. The property is 6.89 acres and is zoned LI-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. Iri 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, however, a curb cut permit will be required from Warren County because Corinth Road is a county road. 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 - 11 - - .-/ '-.-/ 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 buildings are arranged on the property so that they will have a minimum impact on adjacent properties. In order to reduce the impact of the equipment storage area on adjacent residential properties, the buffer could be increased by 20 feet from 30 feet to 50 feet. Exterior lighting includes 3 wall mounted lights that will illuminate the parking and storage areas. The freestanding sign proposed for out front is subj ect to a separate permitting process. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls¡ The site has access from Corinth Road via a 30 foot wide drive. The access road will be gravel and is aligned opposite Carey Road. Access appears to be adequate. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading¡ The applicant is proposing a 25 space paved parking area with one handicapped space. The storage area will be unpaved and accessed from the unpaved driveway. 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 adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities¡ This issue will be reviewed by Rist-Frost. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities¡ This issue will be reviewed by Rist- Frost. 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¡ Landscaping in the front along the west property line would provide screening between the proposed equipment display and the adjacent residential property. Comments of the Beautification Committee need to be incorporated into the site plan. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants ¡ Emergency access and fire protection are adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding andlor erosion. Proper erosion control measures are required during construction and until site plan has been revegetated. RECOMMENDATION: Provided all concerns are addressed, staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-In the course of the past couple of weeks, neighbors have been into the Office. Their concerns revolve around proximity of the proposed outdoor storage area, and their property. MR. BREWER-Do we have notes from Rist-Frost? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, you do. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. Good evening. For the most part, the notes, initial notes, centered around the septic system, and in general, without the on site, or institute of real time perc test, doing a complete evaluation of the stormwater and the septic system, it couldn't be fully accomplished, because you need to have the real site data to check the design, to see if the areas are proper and things of that nature. So, the general statement, until those perc tests are done, you can't get a final review of the actual design of it, which is essentially, what that first note is about. Soil survey indicates that there may be rapid draining soils in that area. Until we have a perc test, we don't know. The general note is that installation of the septic system should be done in according to DOH and Queensbury Sanitary Ordinance. Just put a note on the drawing that says that, and that'll cover it. There was a question about the 15 gallons per employee per day water usage, and based on the fact that there aren't any shower facilities or any other heavy equipment washing facilities, things of that nature, then that 15 gallon per day figure isn't, certainly, accurate. - 12 - '- '- MR. MACEWAN-Would a high pressure power washer be considered that? MR. MACNAMARA-It could be, if it's used extensively in the process. They did make some notes in their application with some hosing acti vi tie s, and those were accounted for in the ir water usage figures. If that's what they're referring to, then I believe they've already accounted for that. I'm not sure if that's what they were indicating when they talk about the general hosing, I believe it was an hour and a half a day, or something of that nature. JOHN GORALSKI MR. GORALSKI-I can address that now or? MR. MACEWAN-Fine. MR. GORALSKI-There is a pressure washer that is used. We're providing a separate oil separator and drywell for that. So that water won't be going into the septic system. So that 15 gallons a day is essentially for the restrooms in the building, for washing dishes, and that type of thing. MR. MARTIN-Where is that going, that spray wash? MR. GORALSKI-That's going into an oil separator, and then a drywell. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. So given that that's the only water usage for that disposal system, the 15 gallons is certainly accurate. A general note is the distance from the water line and the absorption trenches ought to be specified on the drawing, just so that they're installed correctly, because when you scale the drawing, it looks like they're within, I believe, it's a 30 foot number that it needs to be from the property line. I'm not exactly sure what the number is, I'd have to look into the Code, but I know that if it were shown on the drawing, it would certainly answer the question without a doubt, as to where it is. Another general note, the Code notes for coverage of absorption trenches shows eighteen to twenty- four inches, and I believe it's noted as 30 inches on the drawing. The miscellaneous notes, the area seems to be fairly approximate to some residential houses, and we didn't see any notes on there regarding lighting, if there was any, and if there was going to be any lighting, what was the strength of the light going to be and basically going towards whether the residents would be able to see it more than they'd see anything else in the area, type of issues. The locations of the utili ties in the street weren't shown, and from a general construction viewpoint, if someone were out there looking for the tie ins, and they had no idea where they were, obviously, they'd run into some trouble unearthing unwanted things, breaking things. So it's good practice to show your utilities out in the street. Regarding the storage area, it's not clear whether or not that's going to be used in the winter time or not, and if it is, it's a considerable amount of area, as far as snow removal. There could be a note in there that says where the snow will be plowed, pushed, stored, whatever, because, again, it does fairly closely abut some property. Lets see where the gas and the telephone are being installed. It looks to be, but there's no distances shown, but it looks to be pretty close to the property line, and they may either want to specify what distance that is, or just take care, obviously, not to get into the property line. Lets see, the access aisle for the handicapped parking space needs to be marked, so that it's remaining clear, so that if any handicapped people come, the eight foot high aisle space is reserved for their use. I mentioned earlier, as far as the stormwater system, the design certainly looks good, but without the final perc test number, you can't verify that, yes, in fact, they've got the required area for the required volumes that are being addressed, - 13 - - c r G'~ and, lastly, as was already mentioned, there's going to be an oillwater separator on the site, and, Number One, the location of it looks like it might be, and I'm not sure what kind of equipment, movement, trucks, things of that nature, you're going to have scooting behind your building, but if there's anything of any weight, then if you could put the oillwater separator somewhere where it wouldn't see the weight of those trucks, tractors, whatever, that would certainly be recommended, Number One, and Number Two is there isn't any real details on the type or the size or how it was sized, as far as oil separation and what do you plan on doing with the oil once you pull it out. That's what that note is about. Those are the comments from Rist-Frost. MR. BREWER-Okay. questions? Would you care to address them all, or take MR. SCHACHNER-Why don't we do a little bit of both. For your records, I'm Mark Schachner, and with me is John Goralski. We represent the applicant, Logger's Equipment sales. I assume the Board, just speaking from the big picture perspective very briefly, I assume the Board is familiar with the fact that Logger's Equipment sales is an existing business in the Town of Queensbury. It's currently located on Lawton Avenue, which is off of Sweet Road off of Route 9. Logger's proposes to move it's entire operation from the Lawton Avenue property to this site on Corinth Road. The site is zoned Light Industrial, and the proposed use fits squarely within the allowed use of the Light Industrial zone. There are no significant changes anticipated from the current operation, although I'm not sure people are very familiar with the current operation. Between John and I, I think we can answer most, if not all, questions about it. Basically, the site design, the site plan design, has been accomplished, keeping a couple of purposes clearly in mind. I think the most obvious one, and I think this is picked up on by the Beautification Committee and by the County Planning Board, but I don't think, correct me if I'm wrong, but was the County Planning Board recommendation read in? If it wasn't, I think it should be. The County Planning Board took a careful look at this, and the County Planning Board unanimously recommended approval, and the comment was, "recognizing the preferred location of the ingresslegress, the sensitivity paid to the aesthetics and that the buffer areas will remain in place", and I guess in summary, or in big picture fashion, we believe that the site plan is very thorough and very adequate in terms of taking into account the sensitivity of the location of the site and surrounding properties. The property is amply sized for the proposed use, and the site plan shows a very significant buffer areas and very significant buffer vegetation. As far as the internal workings of the site, I don't think any of the staff comments had any problem with that. In fact, the only staff comment expressing any concern of the nine criteria considered by the staff was on the buffer issue, and we believe that the site plan as shown has very ample buffer area already. John can address the engineering concerns. The only other thing I wanted to add was on lighting. This is not a night time facility, nor is this, although there are sales, it's not sales in the sense of a car showroom, that you want people driving up and down (lost word) at night and say, gee, aren't those beautiful vehicles. It's not that type of operation. So there is absolutely no sales oriented or customer oriented lighting whatsoever. For safety purposes, there will be a very small light over the entrance, and that meaning the actual door entrance, and that's about it. So there's no lighting at all at night. MR. BREWER-I guess as long as you're talking about that, the display area, is that going to be, I know they, from time to time, have used skidders and what not. MR. SCHACHNER-They have reconditioned, the display area will be strictly new or reconditioned things that are for sale. MR. BREWER-They propose to put the skidders right out on the - 14 - ~ ,---/ ~J Corinth Road? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, in the area called, display area, there will be vehicles, I don't know if you want to call them vehicles, trucks and skidders that are for sale that would be in that area. I mean, they're not riqht on the Corinth Road, in that there is a setback there. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-Mark, how many pieces of equipment would be out there at anyone time, generally? MR. SCHACHNER-If you're talking about in the display area, you're looking at a maximum of about 10 equipment items. MR. STARK-Is that what they have now? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Often less, never more. MR. MARTIN-The other thing, I would concur with the comment about this being a relocation of what is currently a nonconforming use in its present location. I think in the broader picture, from the overall Town Planning perspective, this is a positive move. MR. BREWER-It's a positive move, but, to look at used equipment, skidders and what not, they're not real appealing to look at, dri ving down Corinth Road. I know exactly what they are, and I don't object to anybody having a business, but. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess I have two responses to that. One is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people think skidders are good looking pieces of equipment, especially to would be purchasers of them, people in that business, and, secondly, we are talking about a Light Industrial zone. If I look at the list of eighteen or so permitted uses, seventeen permitted uses, I think I can point to a whole lot of things in that list of seventeen that may not be, at least in your subjective opinion, Mr. Brewer, the most aesthetically pleasing uses, or involve the most aesthetically pleasing equipment, but that Section of the Zoning Law, which is Section 179-26, does have certain setback requirements, does have certain minimum lot size requirements, front yard setbacks, rear yard, side yard. We comply with each and every setback requirement. In addition, if you really want to talk about aesthetics of the use, so to speak, there are components of this use that are probably less aesthetically attractive than the new and reconditioned trucks and skidders that are for sale. Those activities, of course, are occurring way off the Corinth Road, in the back of the site, and are very, very far removed from Corinth Road. MR. BREWER-I guess the reason I say that, Mark, is because the display area happens to be right next to somebody's house. I mean, I wouldn't want to look out mY front or side window and see big trucks and skidders. I guess I'm just trying to take into consideration their, I don't know how long they've lived there, but if they've lived there for any period of time, I wouldn't want to, all of a sudden, have a bunch of trucks and skidders and pieces of equipment in my side yard, so to speak. MR. MACEWAN-A way around that, we could ask the applicant to buffer it. MR. BREWER-There really isn't a buffer between, I presume, where that house is now, you're going to tear that down, and it's just open. I mean, he's just going to going to look out, or whomever, it going to look out their window and they're going to see that stuff. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, as far as the two existing buildings, actually, - 15 - ',,--.._/ there's a possibility that they won't be torn down, that they'll be left up, but your point's well taken. I think it's a difficulty that does arise when you have, obviously, residential, existing residential use in a Light Industrial zone. There is distance in there, but I think your concern is more a visual thing, than sheer number of feet, so to speak. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALING-Well, why wouldn't you put a normal buffer there, by the Johnson property, like you have around the rest of the property? MR. SCHACHNER-When you say a normal buffer. MR. PALING-With a normal requirement. MR. SCHACHNER-We do meet the setback requirement. MR. PALING-Not for a buffer, though, I don't think you do. You don't have a buffer. MR. GORALSKI-There is no buffer. MR. BREWER-There's no requirement. MR. SCHACHNER-The Zoning Law specifically says, that there's a buffer required if you're adjoining a residential or commercial zone. We're not adjoining a residential or commercial zone. We're squarely, wholly, and entirely within a Light Industrial zone. MR. BREWER-The Johnsons is in the Light Industrial zone. MR. SCHACHNER-It's a difficult that's why that's not required. the Zoning Law. si tuation because of that, but We comply, in every respect, with MR. MACEWAN-Would you be willing to put some sort of buffer, some sort of greenery there, hedge row, or cedars, something along that property line to give them some privacy? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think we can recommend that. MR. MACEWAN-Back track one more thing for me. You said that the house and existing garage may not be torn down? Your plans say they're to be removed. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I guess what 1.. was saying was, if the Board felt that it would be helpful to keep them, for some reason, as a visual buffer, which I don't, personally. MR. MACEWAN-Not in my opinion. MR. SCHACHNER-Not in my opinion, either, but that's why I was saying that. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions before we go on? MR. MACEWAN-Before we go, I do have a couple of questions, pertaining to the engineering comments. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. Lets let John go through them, and then. MR. GORALSKI-I could go through them entirely. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I'm interested in the oil separator issue. MR. GORALSKI-Do you want me to go backwards and start at the oil separator and work my way up? - 16 - " ---. ,~ I "~ MR. MACEWAN-Whatever you want to do. MR. GORALSKI-All right. Well, why don't we do that. We are providing an oil separator and a drywell so that we are not putting any of the water from the washing of the vehicles into the, for lack of a better term, domestic septic system. The oil separator will be sized, and I didn't do it on this plan, based on 450 gallons per day. The oil will be, there will be a regular maintenance schedule for the oil separator. That oil will be removed from the tank and disposed of properly, just as oil from the changing of, changing oil at a service station, that type of thing, is also disposed of. MR. MACEWAN-How deep is that buried? MR. GORALSKI-The oil separator? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, I mean, is it ground level? MR. GORALSKI-No. It would be probably two feet below grade, the top of it would be two feet below grade. MR. MACEWAN-As to the concern that was raised with the possibility of some sort of damage being done to it with heavy equipment rolling over it. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Two things. One is, there won't be any heavy equipment being parked on this back side of this building. However, both the oil separator and the drywell would be provided with heavy duty traffic covers. so that wouldn't be, but we can add the details to the plan, showing the size and the operation. I'll work my way back through these. Stormwater plan, as your engineer stated, we need to provide a perc test. We became involved in this project in January, and as everyone knows, there was there was a little bit too much snow on the ground to go out a do a perc test. Actually, we even tried to go out and do a perc test, but there was too much frost. We spoke to Scott and Jim about that, and came to the conclusion that we would submit the plan, based on an assumed perc rate. I believe that there are fast perc rates in that area. What we propose to do is, as soon as the frost is out of the ground, we will provide an on site perc test in the area where the leach field will be, and where the drywells will be, and submit that, before we get any type of building permit, to get final approval from the engineer. Access aisle for handicapped parking. We do delineate an access aisle for handicapped parking. We didn't put the cross hatching, the painted lines that would be painted. That will be done. The utilities are on our property. The utility pole that we're coming off of will be electric, and you just put the gas right near the electric, and that will be, there will be care taken that that will all be on our property. I can put dimensions showing the actual setbacks on the plan, and that would be done in the construction documents. Snow removal, there's a little over two acres in this equipment storage area, which is far more than the amount of equipment they actually store. The plan, right now, is for snow to be stored, basically, adjacent to the pole barn, and along that back portion of the equipment storage area. That's giving plenty of room, they have heavy equipment loaders that they can pile with snow up there. They shouldn't have a problem. Size of the utilities, the water line will be a two inch water line. As far as the gas is concerned, I can't give you a size of the gas line until the heating system is designed, for the building, and the heating system won't be designed for the building until they have all their necessary approvals to go ahead with the final design, but, at any rate, Niagara Mohawk has the final word on what the size of the gas service is. Mark already addressed the lighting. There are two pedestrian entrances to the building that will have just lighting for that door. It's basically for security, and probably a light over the service bay doors. Once again, simply for security. There is no general lighting of the yard or the parking area or anything like that, - 17 - '--, ~ ~" '-../' because they don't work at night. Okay. Septic system notes, our detail was based on the DEC design standards. If you want me to change it to eighteen to twenty-four inches, that's fine. The DEC standard is eighteen to thirty. MR. MACNAMARA-I just got that out of Queensbury's. generally very consistent. They're MR. GORALSKI-Well, I guess not on that one, but we can change it. That's fine. It doesn't really matter. Distance of the water line from the property line, I can put those distances on the plan. They meet all the requirements. We talked about the flow rate. There is no shower. The wash water from the cleaning of the vehicles goes into a septic system. We can add the note about the Department of Health and, once again, the perc test, as soon as we can get out there and do a perc test, we will get out there and do a perc test. So, I guess most of the issues are either notes that I can add to the plan, or I guess the main one is the perc test. As soon as I can do that, I will do that. I'm assuming that the perc test will be right around what (lost word). If it is less than that, we will have to modify the soils to slow down the perc rate. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-What is the size of the property where it's existing now, the business now? MR. SCHACHNER-On Lawton Avenue? MR. STARK-Yes, just roughly. MR. BREWER-It's tiny. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know. I might have the exact answer, but I don't now. MR. STARK-Do they plan an expansion of the business or sales? MR. GORALSKI-They've been under pressure to come into conformance. MR. STARK-All the work that's performed on the vehicles are done inside the building? MR. GORALSKI-Inside the building. MR. STARK-Nothing's done outside except washing or? MR. GORALSKI-Washing will be done inside when they get here. There are some vehicles that will be out back that occasionally, somebody may go change a tire outside or do something like that, but the major tearing apart of the vehicles is done inside. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Any of that that does take place outside will not be able to be seen from Corinth Road or anything. It would be within this back area. MR. SCHACHNER-And I don't have the answer to the size of the existing property on Lawton Avenue, but it's small, and it's very cramped for the existing use. MR. STARK-It can't be much more than an acre. MR. BREWER-It's probably less than three quarters of an acre, just guessing, maybe an acre. Okay. Anything else from anybody else on the Board? MR. HARLICKER-I have two questions. What about noise? Is there - 18 - -' ,_/ going to be any running of the equipment out in that storage area, like testing or, could you address that issue a little bit? MR. SCHACHNER-Not in any more detail than to say there's some noise associated with the operation. It's a standard light industrial operation. MR. HARLICKER-Okay, and one of the neighbors from in back, I guess the back of this property abuts Wisconsin Avenue? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. HARLICKER-What about future expansion and the possibility of having access for the back of this property from Wisconsin Avenue? That was a concern that was raised. MR. SCHACHNER-The concern is that somebody wants there to be access from Wisconsin? MR. HARLICKER-Well, they would like there to be rrQ access off of Wisconsin Avenue. MR. SCHACHNER-If there's an expansion, I think that requires additional site plan review. I think this Board, or its successor, would have an opportunity to do review that. There's not a plan for that now, nor is there, but I wouldn't say they would prohibit that either. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? MR. PALING-Are we being asked to approve the site and the buildings as well? Is this what we're being asked? MR. BREWER-That's what we're being asked. MR. PALING-But all we know about the building, and, evidentally, plans aren't complete. That's going to be modified. We don't know what it looks like, though, except for what we see on this print. We don't have a profile or an elevation. MR. SCHACHNER-No, but I have the dimensions of the building. We know the size. I'm not sure what more information you could gather than would be relative to your site plan review. MR. PALING-The profile of the building might reveal something we wouldn't want showing, pipes, mechanical equipment, that kind of thing. MR. GORALSKI-No. It's basically a pre-engineered, metal building. All the systems, the heating, the ventilating, any plumbing, there will be air conditioning in the office area. It will all be internal. There won't be any roof mounted units or anything like that. MR. MACEWAN-Is it basically like a butler kind of building, that kind of thing? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. BREWER-What is the pole barn going to be used for? MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is it will be storage of spare parts. Instead of having them strewn allover the yard and stuff, they want to keep them all. MR. SCHACHNER-They want to make it cleaner. MR. BREWER-They can have a flat roof if they want. - 19 - -./ '~ MR. GORALSKI-It won't be a flat roof. It'll probably be a four and twelve pitch, either four and twelve or five and twelve. MR. BREWER-Anything else from anybody on the Board? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED TOM JOHNSON MR. JOHNSON-Okay. My name is Tom Johnson. I live right next door, and as you brought up, I'm not too thrilled at looking out my window, my picture window faces the used logger equipment side. So, I don't know, and how far back have they got to park them by the road, the setback? Because if that house doesn't come down, I don't know where they're putting them. MR. BREWER-Well, they propose to take that house down. MR. MACEWAN-There's not a setback requirement for off the road. I mean, they could have it right next to the shoulder, couldn't they? MR. HARLICKER-No, but there might be something that you might want them to come up with. MR. MARTIN-Yes. There's no setback for vehicular equipment like that, but that is a condition that you could place on this specific site, but there is no setback. It only applies to buildings. MR. BREWER-I don't imagine they'd want to put them right out on the edge of the road, and take a chance at having. MR. MARTIN-Just as a frame of reference, the building setback in this zone is 50 feet for a front yard. We have a dimension there, Tim. The sign is at 15, if you see that. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MARTIN-So, it would be approximately three times that. MR. BREWER-So you're going to be back into where it says, the end of lawn area, anyway, right? MR. GORALSKI-Where the house is. MR. BREWER-Behind the house would be 50 feet. MR. MARTIN-But that would only be if you put a special condition on it of that nature. Right now, there is none for equipment setback. MR. BREWER-I think 50 feet's a long ways back, if they want to have any kind of a display area. MR. SCHACHNER-We'll address it. MR. BREWER-Would you be, a buffer of some sort of a hedge row or something like that would be suitable to you? MR. JOHNSON-Well, somethinq. I don't know. Hedges probably wouldn't cover much, but it would be something, because right now there's nothing. MRS. LABOMBARD-Arborvitaes, cedars, white pine. MR. MARTIN-My favorite is always Scotch Pines, the tree of preference. MR. JOHNSON-I was worried about the hours, too, but, I take it this is eight to five or seven to five? - 20 - '-- ~ MR. BREWER-Pretty much. As the operation goes now, I'm familiar with their operation. Five o'clock, they're pretty much done. MR. JOHNSON-Another thing is, I think you said the road going in was not going to be paved, right? MR. MACEWAN-Correct. MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. JOHNSON-I don't know how much dust I would be getting from that, because on the back side I have a swimming pool, and then that's where the oil or drainage comes into. MR. BREWER-Well, the oil separator is going to be between the two buildings. You're going to have, you can come up and look at the map. MR. JOHNSON-Okay. MR. BREWER-You're going to have plenty of room between the storage area and the back of your, you're going to have. MR. MACEWAN-It's a couple of hundred feet anyway. MR. BREWER-Minimum. You're going to have 250 feet before you get to your property line. MR. JOHNSON-Okay, and then I see they'll have to add some trees, too. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. JOHNSON-I was worried about the display. The dust, and (lost word) about the gravel road going in, and I was worried about the noise, too, but that's during the day. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to comment? RALPH BROTHERS MR. BROTHERS-My name is Ralph Brothers. I live on Minnesota Avenue. We have of, Smith's Garage is out behind (lost word) and beer plant on the west side, and the noise is terrible, and I don't think we need any more noise up there. If you could possibly keep it down, or, my house is (lost word) that storage area is going to be, and if it's like the one we've got up here, I don't want to look at it. I think you're going to get a lot of dirt off that road, because Smith's Garage has a dirt road out there, and every time you went down through, behind our house, the dust would come allover the place. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. BROTHERS-There should be done something about it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, maybe because it's such a lot bigger area than the one that they're in right now, it won't be as bad. MR. BROTHERS-Smith's Garage is only like maybe 100 feet from the back of ~ house, and you hear the air hammers going all day long, and you've got the beer trucks coming from up until four o'clock in the morning over there. You don't get any peace and quite up there any more. I mean, you wouldn't want to live up there. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, but I'd like to pay your taxes, probably. MR. BROTHERS-Yes, you probably would. MRS. LABOMBARD-Compared to the ones I'm paying. - 21 - ',,- MR. BROTHERS-Because mine have I've been there since 1958. I think you should do something, about it. tripled since I've been up there. don't like the noise any more. I I don't know what, but something MR. BREWER-Well, it is zoned that way. MR. BROTHERS-I know it is. MR. BREWER-And there's really nothing we can do about that, except change the zone, and I don't think that's going to happen. MR. BROTHERS-It's just too bad, people can't, pay good taxes up there. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else? BRAD WINSTON MR. WINSTON-I'm Brad Winston. I live on Minnesota Avenue also. He's right about the dust and the noise and this and that, and as far as the pole barn system that they were talking about setting up out there, to keep their equipment in, I'm sure they're talking about used parts, at least I think they are, stuff that they're going to hang on to, that there be some kind of a buffer system or something set up where you wouldn't have to look right into that either. MR. BREWER-I presume that'll be a closed building. MR. WINSTON-Other than that, noise would be the only other thing, also. You said, what, nine to five, or eight to five. That wouldn't be any worse than what's already up there. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Lets let them address any comments that they might have. MR. SCHACHNER-Very briefly, in terms of dust, I think that a number of comments have been made by Board members to indicate, or to agree with our contention that that's not going to be a M.sl problem. I think, I'm not sure you want this area paved, and even if you all did, it can't work from the standpoint of the type of equipment that's going across it. It's not going to last, and I don't think that the Town, the neighbors, or the applicant will benefi t from constantly having it ripped apart and repaved and ripped apart and repaved. That's actually a noisy, obtrusive process in and of itself, and I don't think it would benefit anybody. In terms of the visual, again, I think that our position is that, as was recognized by the Beautification Committee and by the County Planning Board, that the site design has really been planned to minimize visual intrusions, if you will, as much as possible. I think it would not be unreasonable if the Board wanted to talk about a hedge row, or whatever type of row, in that one area you discussed. The Board members didn't really ask questions about the hours of operation, but some of the members of the public did, and the hours of operation will stay exactly what they are now, and what they are now is six to five, Monday through Friday, wi th an occasional Saturday, six thirty until one. That's what they are now, along the road, and that's what they're going to stay, and I think those are the only comments that, I think we've addressed the comments. MR. BREWER-How about just crushed stone on that driveway, Mark? MR. GORALSKI-It's not a dirt road. If you look at the detail, 5SP1, it is a gravel driveway. That whole area will have eight inches of gravel. It's not going to be a dirt road. - 22 - -' ~ MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Are any treatments available for that, John, in terms of something from Peckham, like they have a liquid calcium now they put down? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. There is a calcium chloride, or something like that, to keep dust down. Typically, with a gravel paving like this, you're not going to get the dust that they're thinking of from a dirt road. This is not a dirt road. MR. BREWER-I think, initially. you'll get dust, and then after a while it'll just. MR. GORALSKI-What happens is the rain water will wash any dust that's on the gravel out of it. As a matter of fact, with the way gravel parking has been dealt with in the Town of Queensbury, it eventually gets compacted and it's like a paved area. It just doesn't get ripped up like bituminous. MRS. LABOMBARD-There's a nice alternative to that gravel, which is that crushed slate dust that you can get over at Haddaca Slate Quarry over in Hampton. MR. GORALSKI-The problem with slate in an application like this is that the heavy truck will make ruts in it, whereas, this New York State, the Type Four Gravel, is made for this application. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would you be amenable to a setback for equipment on the Corinth Road? MR. SCHACHNER-I meant to address that and I didn't. answer, generically, is, yes, but not, I mean, 50 possibly happen. I think the feet cannot MR. BREWER-What about half of that? MR. SCHACHNER-Even half is a lot. myself. I was looking at 15 to 20, MR. GORALSKI-You've got to remember that the property line is 20 feet from the road, okay. So, when you're saying a setback, you're meaning, I don't know if you mean from the road? MR. BREWER-I'm talking from the edge of the road. MR. GORALSKI-From the edge of the road. So you're saying 25 feet away from the road. MR. BREWER-It would bring you 15, to the middle of that house, maybe? MR. GORALSKI-The sign is. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry. I thought the sign was 15. MR. GORALSKI-The sign is 15 feet from the property. MR. BREWER-From the property line, and then you've got 20 from there. All right, 35. MR. STARK-So, if they were even with the sign, they're going to be 40 feet from the road, Tim. MR. GORALSKI-We don't put any vehicles in front of the sign, no closer to the road than the sign? MR. BREWER-Okay. That's a good marker. MR. GORALSKI-This way, the enforcement people will be able to see, - 23 - "- also. MR. MARTIN-I was going to say. I would like you to cite some sort of landmark to make it easier for us. Setbacks from property lines are sometimes hard to find, but if we deal with a setback from the edge of the road, that's easier for us to work with, or from the sign, because the sign is. MR. BREWER-So it would be 40 feet, or the edge of the sign, 35 feet. MR. GORALSKI-It's scaled 35 feet. MR. BREWER-Okay. So, 35 feet from road. buffer do you want to put between Mr. display area? Okay, and what kind of a Johnson's house and your MR. MACEWAN-May I offer a suggestion? Beautification Committee. Leave that up to the MR. BREWER-No, we're going to put it in our motion before we give them approval. MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you, what I'd like to do put a row of, we can put, somebody suggested cedar. suggested Scotch Pine. is we can Somebody MR. MARTIN-TQey grow fast, and they keep their screening effect all year round. MR. GORALSKI-Cedars, I don't think is a big screen, because what happens is half of them will die out. They're very susceptible to disease. So, I'm just saying, so I don't think that's a good idea. What I'd like to do is kind of investigate a little more what the best species would be. Scotch Pine is probably a good one. MR. MARTIN-Well, the other thing is, they're very inexpensive, compared to anything else that was mentioned. Try some arborvitae that whole distance. MR. GORALSKI-Scotch Pine, I mean, if you need something tonight, Scotch Pine, I think, would be agreeable. MR. SCHACHNER-Why don't we say Scotch Pine or similar species approved by the Town Planner. MR. BREWER-That's fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-What are the other trees in there now? MR. GORALSKI-That is the existing vegetation. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. GORALSKI-There's pines. There's scrub oaks, birch. MRS. LABOMBARD-Deciduous and coniferous. MR. GORALSKI-Both. Yes. MR. MARTIN-But the whole point of screening is, it's only as good as the density in which it's planted. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. MARTIN-And the frequency. I think that should be agreed upon before you go away from here tonight. If you plant one every six feet, you're not going to have much of a screened effect. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I think Mark can remember, a long, long time - 24 - ',,- .- ago, when we had a problem up on Hummingbird Lane, and the motion was to put in some White Pines. Well, they got put in about 12 feet apart, and they were absolutely not effective at all. So that's a good point, Jim. MR. GORALSKI-You have a double edge sword here, because you put them close together and they're not going to grow. MR. MARTIN-And these a tree that grow, I think, 30 to 40 feet in height, and they grow very fast. MR. MACEWAN-Can't we just leave it in our motion, per your approval? I mean, if they come back with a plan that's not to your satisfaction. MR. BREWER-Why can't they stagger them up, remember like we did up, I don't want to mention any names, but. MR. MARTIN-That's what comes to mind as not a good plan. You mean Pickle Hill Road? That's not a good plan. MR. BREWER-Up in that area. here. If they put one here, one here, one MR. MARTIN-You mean stagger them. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Well, first of all, we would obviously stagger them. It wouldn't be a straight line. MR. MARTIN-I would say four feet is a safe. MR. GORALSKI-Well, four feet on center, they're going to be right on top of each other now. They're never going to grow. MR. STARK-Four feet from the outer branch. MR. SCHACHNER-That's going to change. That's going to vary. Our experience would be six feet on center. MR. GORALSKI-Six feet on center. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. BREWER-Six feet on center. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and now the next question is, how far along is that going to go? Is it going to be 50 feet off the road, or is it going to be, what's Mr. Johnson's setback of his house? MR. BREWER-How about if we, from where they put their equipment. It's not fair to make them go all the way to the road, from where they put their equipment to the 35 foot mark. MR. MARTIN-Thirty-five feet and back. MR. BREWER-Back to where their buffer is in the back. MR. MACEWAN-It would just be back to that corner property -line. MR. STARK-Divided by six, that's thirty trees. MR. MARTIN-And then the other question to all this stuff is, what height are we going to agree to here? I mean, how mature of a tree are we going to buy? If we're talking about a sapling, it could be years getting an effect out of it. MR. GORALSKI-Well, see, that's where we're trying to stand here and design a landscape here. If you buy a six foot tall tree, you're - 25 - ~" going to have a width of maybe five feet on that tree. You put them six feet on center, and you've got your screening now. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's what I'm saying. MR. BREWER-What do you suggest that you would like to put there, in height? MR. GORALSKI-Five to six foot, Scotch Pine, six feet on center. MR. BREWER-That's fine. MR. MARTIN-Up to 35 feet. Okay. Just so I know. MR. BREWER-I mean, if they make the offer to us, then they can't come back and say that they're too expensive. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I'm not offerinq anything. What I would like to do is go back and go through some of my reference material and figure out what the correct thing is to do. MR. MARTIN-If he could cite me a standard or some sort of, that would be fine with me. MR. SCHACHNER-That's why my initial suggestion was a screening plan of Scotch Pine or similar type as approved by the Town Planner. MR. MACEWAN-I agree with you. MR. GORALSKI-I mean, I'd hate to sit here and say this is going to work perfectly. I'm not going to say, off the top of my head, it is. MR. MARTIN-John knows I'll drag him to the site and we'll look at the trees. MR. SCHACHNER-That's right, and if that can't be fulfilled, that's a condition, we'll have to come back and explain it to the Town Planner. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. MARTIN-We're waiting on the perc test. MR. BREWER-Right. Okay. Is there anything else from anybody. MR. MACEWAN-You ~ going to tear down the existing house and garage? MR. SCHACHNER-As the site plan indicates. If for any reason that changes, I guess we would need a modification of our site plan. MR. MARTIN-Does that have a basement with it, Mark, that house? MR. GORALSKI-I believe it does, yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So that will be filled, obviously? MR. GORALSKI-That will be filled. Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-94 LOGGER'S EQUIPMENT, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: With the following conditions: That no equipment be closer to the road than the sign, which is 35 feet from the edge of the road. That a buffer planting to be approved by Jim Martin, for what would be the west property line of the, Johnson's property line, add the separator details to the drawing, and respond and make any - 26 - "-- --.-/ additions or corrections to Rist-Frost's engineering notes to the drawing, where they may apply, when they can do a perc test. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1994, by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-Did you do SEQRA on this? MR. BREWER-No, we didn't, Jim. read us through that, Craig? The Short Form. Do you want to RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-94, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the LOGGER'S EQUIPMENT, 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 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 March, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark. Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel - 27 - ~ MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 31-93 TYPE: UNLISTED NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: ROUTE 9/254 MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN - THE TBO AREA MODIFIED TO PROVIDE 12 PARKING SPACES ADJACENT TO THE TBO AREA, AND THE TBO HAS BEEN DOWNSIZED FROM 4,382 SQ. FT. THE ADJACENT GARDEN CENTER HAS INCREASED FROM 8~285 SQ. FT. TO APPROX. 10~816 SQ. FT. AND THE 16 PARKING SPACES O. THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE GARDEN ~ENTER HAVE BEEN REMOVED. EIGHT HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES HAVE BEEN RELOCATED TO THE STOREFRONT AREA. BEAUTIFICATION COMM. - 3/7/94 TAX MAP NO. 71-1-3, 5 LOT SIZE: 17.74 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 D(3) (a) [1] [a] [d] MICHAEL O'CONNOR AND BILL WHITE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HARLICKER-The parking calculations and the square footage summary table over there should be revised to reflect the modified site plan there. They're not in line with what's being proposed there. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 31-93 - Modification, National Realty & Development Corp., Meeting Date: March 22, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to change the TBO and garden center area of their approved site plan. The modifications involve enlarging the garden center by 2,531 square feet and reducing the size of the TBO by 788 square feet. Parking in the area will be decreased by 10 spaces from 24 to 14. Eight handicapped spaces are also to be relocated so they abut the sidewalk that is across the front of the building. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff offers the following comments on the proposed modifications: 1. Parking calculations need to be adjusted to reflect the change in the number of parking spaces. 2. The square footage of the building needs to be adjusted to reflect the modifications. 3. The access drive is to be reduced from a width of 24 feet adjacent to the garden center to 18 feet adjacent to the proposed parking for the TBO. Because of the truck traffic that will utilize the drive a width of 24 feet should be maintained. The proposed parking could be moved closer to the TBO in order to accomplish all this. 4. Access to the TBO is not shown on the site plan." MR. HARLICKER-Those are the four main concerns, I guess, ,that staff found with this. MR. BREWER-Okay, and Rist-Frost has comments. MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. I'll go through them briefly. The drain pipe detail, which basically looks like the meat of the infiltration trench design, as far as a good portion of it with the stone, (lost word) things of that nature, the three different spots that I found that it was detailed, there were three different capacities shown, if you worked out the numbers for the stone, and probably I used the number that was used for the calculation to get the trench lengths, the system of what the design was for. Again, most of the stormwater infiltration and storage volume for the system, a lot of it's based on the void volumes, the fact that the water can get into the pipe and get out of the pipe and get into the stone and get out of the stone, and that's the basis for the design. Because that's the basis for their design, it's supportive that sediment and related debris is prevented from entering the whole trench system. Otherwise, voids in the stone, in the soil could become clogged. There are a couple of ways to do that. One is to put in precautions and assurances that you don't use the drainage system - 28 - --./ until the whole system is, the surrounding area is currently stabilized. In other words, don't allow any stormwater runoff to get into this trench system until it's, essentially, paved, or firm enough where it doesn't carry any sediment with it. That's more of a construction comment, and, additionally, because of the type of drainage system that's shown here, sand use, although it certainly can't be eliminated, should certainly be minimized, because sand that falls in the parking lot, for whatever reason, obviously, if you're dumping it on for ice and snow it's going to fall in the parking lot, will eventually end up in the trench system, potentially causing the pores to become plugged. So, sand use being minimized, Number One, and Number Two is possibly taking steps in each one of the catch basins, and I think I address that later, to provide sumps for that. Another general comment regarding the trench system that they've got for the stormwater control is basically there's a water quality inlet it's called. They're essentially using a very long, about 150 feet, pipe, plus a structure as a water quality inlet, and in general, water quality inlets are designed to remove sediment and oils from reaching infiltration type of systems, in this case, the pipe, perforated pipes, with the gravel trenches. DEC recommends water quality inlets be placed up stream of the stormwater control devices, and it appears that this water quality inlet is really the last point in the whole stormwater system, and the suggestion is that they relocate their water quality inlet, Number One, up stream of their infiltration trench device, that whole drainage system that is now, I'm not sure if it's shown on the site plan, I believe it is, the revised one, that there's a new infiltration trench system down by the eastern edge of the property, and if they're going to use one, they ought to use it up stream of the system that needs to be prevented from having sediment build ups on it. That's the first comment for that, and the second one is that DEC guidelines essentially treat these water quality inlets as separate structures, and the book that they mention they use for a design, talk about basically one inlet for about one area, one acre of runoff area, with a permanent "pool" depth of four feet at each inlet, and it looks like you're trying to use one water quality inlet for the entire site, basing the size of that on the square footage that they use, if you go over an acre, per acre. That use of that particular water quality inlet isn't described in the manual that you reference for design, and I'm kind of curious where you got it, and if you can show us some information that shows that's applicable to that, to that point. The next thing is, I'm not sure if anybody's looked at the stormwater system set up here or not, but it's based on some hydraulics that have to be at certain overflow points that send stormwater flowing in one direction or the other, based on capacity of pipes and DOT requirements, what they apparently asked these fellows to do for stormwater at Route 9, and there's a Special Manhole #3 that's basically got some hydraulics associated with it, but that ought to be shown on the details sheet, so that it can be clearly understood, and certainly put in if these are going to be in the construction drawings, and certainly answer any questions on how it's supposed to be laid out. The next note is basically saying that, unless I'm reading the print wrong, it says it doesn't show any kind of silt fences or hay bale sediment control behind either the Diner that's the Route 9 side or any of the properties on the, I guess it would be the south side of the site, and. certainly, if in fact there could be runoff from the construction phase, they ought to be protected. Those properties look like they could be effected by runoff. They also use something called temporary a sediment trap for construction, for purposes, during the construction of the site, and it looks like they've got one of their temporary sediment traps located on top of a portion of their stormwater infiltration system on the eastern side. It just looks like, during the sequencing, it doesn't show how they're going to, which one they're going to take out first, or if they're going to build one on top of the other, which wouldn't be feasible. That might want to be a note on the construction sequencing. The next note is just minimal cover over gravity sewers. On various - 29 - '-" ¡ drawings in the package, there's different size storm sewer shown on the Route 9 as the main out-fall for the site. I found a couple of different size. I'm not really sure what size it's supposed to be. It's nice to have the pipe labeled correctly on all the drawings. Catch basin 5, which I believe is one of the one's out behind the site, isn't shown to have any kind of sump and trap as indicated for the other catch basins that drain to that infiltration trench on that south side, or the one that's on the back of the existing Ames store, which is going to protect the trench system. They ought to have a sump for that one as well. There's a storm sewer manhole behind the back of the Ames building that in their drainage report, which was a separate document that was prepared for the stormwater plan, talked about setting inverts and outlets of that storm manhole, so the runoff from the Ames group goes to the trench and does not go to the pipe that runs down toward Route 9, and it looks like, on the detail, they don't show the inverts the same as is proposed in their stormwater plan, that would ensure that all the water goes to the infiltration trench out back instead of down to Route 9. The last one's I think that Scott touched on some of these. The very last one talks about the eighteen foot width of the road behind the parking areas on the TBO. Just for general, smooth traffic purposes, it's suggested that that be twenty-four foot, or at least more closely matched with twenty-four foot than the garden center. There's some loading docks out behind the building they show as 11 feet, and going through your Code, it shows 12 feet's the minimum width. Lastly. they show some of the parking islands to be painted strips and not planted items, and the way I just read in the Code is that it's planted items, and required, parking aisles, and that may not be the case as far as this particular entrance, and if so, I just am reading the Code to say it is. That's all. MR. BREWER-Mr. O'Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Brewer, I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Li ttle and 0' Connor. I have Bill White, who's the engineer for Wal-Mart, to first address the report of Rist-Frost. MR. WHITE-Probably a lot of you are asking, why all the comments on drainage. We thought we had this taken care of, and they're really not related to the T.B.O. I wanted to explain to you why some of the revisions were made to the drainage system. After the Town's approval, and the Town Engineer's approval of the project, we were working with the New York State DOT, and the New York State DOT people asked us to further limit the drainage from the site, to a much greater degree than what the Town Engineer had required. We had designed it by Town standards where we didn't increase the runoff over what exists today, but the DOT said, well, we don't care. We think there's too much runoff coming from the site, as it exists, and we want you to cut it back to what we feel is a reasonable number. We went back and forth with DOT a couple of times on that, and finally just decided that, okay, lets add the additional storage that DOT's required. So we've added quite a bit of additional underground storage, which is what Bill commented on. Most of his comments on drainage relate to that additional underground storage that we've provided. I haven't had a chance to go through these in a lot of detail. We just received these by fax yesterday, but I did talk to an engineer in our office, and rather than trying to go through them point by point at this time, I'd just like to relay that I talked to the engineer in our office, and he thought that there was no problem addressing any of the comments that Rist-Frost has related to the drainage, and we would certainly be able to address anything that's any condition of the Town Planning Board. MR. BREWER-So, in other words, if we put a condition that all Rist- Frost comments be addressed, satisfactorily, then you don't have a problem with that? MR. WHITE-No. These are small technical details that I think can - 30 - '-- '--' ) '-' be worked out. There are some comments related to drainage that I'd like to talk with, or not related to drainage, that I'd like to discuss a little bit. MR. BREWER-I just have one question. You're going to eliminate how many parking spaces? MR. O'CONNOR-Basically, I don't think we're going to eliminate. We're going to have seven new ones, and I'm not sure where Scott got the elimination of fourteen. MR. HARLICKER-Well, on the old site plan, you've got sixteen, nineteen, twenty-four in that area over there, by the Tire, Brake, and Auto and the Garden Center, and the new plan shows, twelve, and two, is fourteen. MR. O'CONNOR-And there's an additional eight. MR. HARLICKER-And then you're picking up eight over there. So that's twenty-two new ones, and you had twenty-four before. So there's a slight decrease there. MR. MARTIN-Two. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-A net reduction of two. MR. HARLICKER-Of two. MR. MARTIN-How many did you pick up in the general lot, Mike, when you put the handicapped into the curb like that? MR. 0' CONNOR-On I y one. There was one, we didn't have, maybe we have a map. I'm not sure exactly (lost word), but there's one island here, all the islands in here now have thirty-three. I think on the prior map, one of those islands had thirty-two. There was an extra area in there to pick up carts out in the parking lot. MR. MARTIN-I see. MR. O'CONNOR-That has been eliminated. So we picked up one here. We picked up eight here, two here, which gives us eleven, and we've got twelve here, and we had sixteen here. So, there's four less, eleven. I think we gained seven, unless I'm misreading it. All the parking spots that we're adding here are out of paved areas or concrete areas. There's no decrease or increase in (lost word). MR. MARTIN-Right. I think there's actually some practical, positive effect of having the handicapped directly accessible to the building without crossing an aisle. MR. O'CONNOR-It was just something that Wal-Mart wanted to do, was to get it closer to the site, so that people would have access directly from the site, as opposed to going across a travel lane. This area, here, they changed the parking. We had parking over here, and they changed it so that it would be more directly related to the T.B.O., because what happens is people go into the T.B.O., leave their car to get something done, go into the store. They do the work, and try to park it in close proximity to the T.B.O. so that people don't have to come out and wander through the parking lot to see where the vehicle is parked. MR. BREWER-Is there an entrance into the store from the T.B.O.? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Okay. The doorways to the T.B.O. will be along this space here, will be along the south space. There will be six doorways for six individual stalls. MR. BREWER-And then there's kind of like a lounge, like Sears has, - 31 - -- '--' J or something like that? MR. WHITE-No. They don't have a lounge area. MR. BREWER-Not a lounge, but I mean, like a desk, where whoever's taking care of your car would write it up or whatever, and then they can go into the store. MR. WHITE-Yes, a little service area. MR. O'CONNOR-We can count and add to the map the exact numbers. I looked at the map, this map here shows 605 spots, as the total for Wal-Mart. I didn't add them all, but I think I'm at 607. I don't think I counted these two here. MR. MARTIN-And the Ames site remained unchanged, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Just so we're in synch, as to the size, the changes on the building, we changed or decreased the size of the T. B. O. building, structure itself, by 788 square feet. We did not increase the size of the structure for the Garden Center. We increased the size of the area that we propose as an open area, fenced in area. That is not part of the structure. The structure before on the Garden Center was 3520 feet, and it will remain 3520 feet. The open space changed from 5765 feet to 7296 feet. So, you've got a basic decrease in building on the whole site of 788 feet. MR. MARTIN-Just as a note, too, contacted by the Building Office. building permit on that new T.B.O. that or not. I guess on your old I think, Bill, you've been They need new detail for the I don't know if you're aware of plans, you gave them. MR. WHITE-On the architectural? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We don't have anything yet, I don't think, on that new T.B.O. MR. WHITE-On the T.B.P.? MR. MARTIN-Yes, whatever you call it. Why is it T.B.P. now? MR. WHITE-I don't know the answer to that. It serves the same function as the T.B.O. It's the next letter after "0", I guess. MR. BREWER-What's, Tire, Brake, and what? MR. WHITE-Tire, Battery. and Petroleum. It's still a T.B.O., but it's a different design, so they call it a ..T.B.P.... MR. O'CONNOR-The only question we have, on any of the comments, okay, and we'd like to have you consider this, is both Scott and Bill indicated that they have some question as to width of the drive area located, as it passes here to go to the back property. We show eighteen feet here, and, basically, we've got cars backing out of the T.B.P., T.B.O., whatever it was, out of the stalls here. That's why we left twenty-five feet in this area. Actually, these stalls are eighteen feet by striping, and twenty feet to comply with the Code. So you've got twenty feet per stall, and you've got a twenty-five foot back around area, and that's why we were crowding that driveway. We would like to be able to do that. We don't think that the traffic that's going to go behind the building is going to be that significant, that the eighteen feet would pose that much of a problem. MR. MARTIN-But aren't your, this is going to be, as I recall, a one - 32 - '- "'-' way delivery pattern for your trucks, right. entering from the southern most entrance, coming up along the southern property boundary and up the west side of the building. right? MR. WHITE-Right. MR. MARTIN-So, isn't that going to be a tough swing to make, though, for those trucks, those last two parking spots in that position? MR. WHITE-No, we actually, I have a sketch here that has a truck turning template on it, that shows it, and it was designed that way, so, for a WB7 vehicle, which is even larger than a normal delivery vehicle. MR. O'CONNOR-There is an open space behind these parking spots now. MR. BREWER-What's the problem with leaving it like it is, though, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, the staff has suggested that they want us to change it. MR. MARTIN-We want them to widen the drive aisle from eighteen feet to. MR. BREWER-What was it before? MR. O'CONNOR-It was twenty feet before. MR. BREWER-So why can't we leave it at twenty? What's the problem with leaving it at twenty? MR. O'CONNOR-Then we will submit something that shows this to be twenty, and this area between the end of the parking spot and the beginning of the T.B.O. will be twenty-three. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That gives you, still, a little extra room. MR. WHITE-The problem is, if we made it twenty-four, it would crowd too much the cars backing out of the T.B.O. area. So you wouldn't have adequate room to pullout of the T. B. O. The two feet, I think, we could eliminate that. It makes it a little tighter, but still in excess of the Code. MR. BREWER-Is that satisfactory to you? MR. MARTIN-Yes, because the Code drive aisles are twenty feet. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else from anybody? MR. MARTIN-Is there a date, Bill, by which you can respond to the Rist-Frost comments, so we could frame this in a little bit? MR. WHITE-Yes. I would say we'd be able to get them back some comments by the end of next week. Usually, these go back and forth once or twice. So, within a month, that would, if Rist-Frost can respond in a timely manner, we should be able to resolve all those successfully. MR. MARTIN-Is that all right with you, Bill? MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. MR. BREWER-By, when's your date? MR. WHITE-We'll say a month. MR. MARTIN-Do you want to say April 30th? - 33 - "'- ~ ~ MR. BREWER-That's fine. MR. WHITE-Why is there a need to have a time limit? MR. MARTIN-Well, I just like to frame it in, so we know what to look for, and we can get this issue beyond this. MR. WHITE-We want to get it resolved and get it done right away, too. We just, I hate to see, if it went to 31 days. MR. MACNAMARA-If these are the only comments that are in the next frame of reference, here, by all means, have at us. As soon as you get them, give me a holler. MR. WHITE-We're going to get right on them. MR. O'CONNOR-I also made the comment, on the last three bullets of the Rist-Frost letter, and that was that some of the spaces, front parking islands in the new T. B. O. parking islands are shown as painted strips, not planted islands, as required by your Code. We have not changed anything that was an island, and whatever we showed before was by painted strip. MR. MACNAMARA-I simply looked at what was over there, from the first viewpoint, being new, went to the Code book. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The next comment that you have is the loading space to the rear of the building as shown is eleven feet. The Code requires twelve feet. We did not change that. The space is twelve feet. It's striped at eleven. MR. MACNAMARA-I'm just reading, the Code says that a loading aisle needs to be twelve feet. I don't know if it says free space twelve feet. MR. O'CONNOR-The other spot, the other (lost word). We don't plan on changing those items. We think we comply. We did comply. MR. MARTIN-I don't have a problem with the painted strips in that area. MR. MACNAMARA-I just bring stuff up. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's fine. That's good. MR. BREWER-Okay. So if we make a motion stating that, the access drive to be reduced from twenty-four to twenty, and all Rist-Frost comments will be addressed by April. MR. MARTIN-I would word it, the access drive expanded from eighteen to twenty along the southern drive aisle. MR. BREWER-Okay. When do you plan to start? MR. WHITE-We'd still like to get started as soon as possible. I think, as everyone notes, there's been some problems with one of the tenants in the center. Hopefully, that's close to being resolved, but I think I can honestly that we're at least three or four months away from any potential start date, at this point. That doesn't mean we wouldn't like to start, maybe, a portion of some of the off site work. The sanitary sewer, we have some easements to get yet and the district has to be formally established, but if we can get the sewer started right away and, that lead into the real guts of the site work, then we'd like to get that work underway even sooner. So, maybe within a month or two we could even start a portion of this work, but really not get going on the site development work until, probably, three or four months, at best. MR. MARTIN-What's the expected construction period? - 34 - -- ~ MR. WHITE-Six to nine months. MR. MARTIN-When did you originally approve? I think it was August of '93. MR. HARLICKER-7/20/93. MR. WHITE-We'd like to extend that approval. MR. MARTIN-It's not necessary, in that, they've applied for a building permit. MR. BREWER-Even if it was so, if we gave them an approval of a modification tonight, you've got a year from tonight, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Technically, I think you do. MR. MARTIN-But. technically, they've taken action on their site plan by virtue of the fact they've submitted a building permit application. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-93 NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP., Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: For a modification to approved site plan, Number 31-93, with the following conditions: That all Rist-Frost' s comments will be addressed by April 30th, and the southern most drive be expanded from 18 to 20 feet. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. I think we've got one last item to discuss. We have a letter. DONNA GAGNON MS. GAGNON-I'm supposed to be Gary Kopp of Lamplighter Homes. MR. BREWER-Right. They were on the agenda last week, and didn't, weren't able to make it, and asked if they could come in and discuss something with us tonight. MS. GAGNON-He called me this morning and told me to show up. MR. BREWER-Okay. What can we help you with? MS. GAGNON-My name is Donna Gagnon, and I'm the applicant to, I think this is kind of preliminary, actually. Gary wanted me to come and get a feeling for where we were going before we proceed. Do you have, you don't have any? I'm sorry. He told me he, you don't even know why I'm here then, do you? MR. BREWER-No. MR. STARK-What do you want to do? MS. GAGNON-I have a 2.03 acre parcel of land at 194 Aviation Road, and right now it's a duplex, and I want to subdivide, create a back lot of one acre in size, and put a modular home back there. - 35 - '---' .,--. .J MR. PALING-Where is it located on Aviation? MS. GAGNON-194. It's just before Sylvan. MRS. LABOMBARD-On the south or the, what side of the road? MS. GAGNON-The south side. MR. PALING-Yes, I know where you mean. MRS. LABOMBARD-Just before Sylvan. MR. STARK-Do you know where Deeb lives? from Deeb. It's across the street MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I know. MS. GAGNON-Right now, it's a white flat house. Jeff Kelly owned it before me. MR. BREWER-What could be a landmark, that it's near? MRS. LABOMBARD-I know which house it is. It's got black trim. MS. GAGNON-No, it's got green trim. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, green trim. MS. GAGNON-There is one with black trim. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. There is one with black. You know the green cape on the corner of Sylvan and Aviation? There's a green cape. MS. GAGNON-There's one that's on, facing Sylvan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MS. GAGNON-I'm in back of that. Road. I'm the first house on Aviation MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. So, as you're approaching that green cape, you're the first house next to that cape on Aviation. MS. GAGNON-On the south side, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, okay. I know exactly where you mean. MR. BREWER-And this is the lot you want to put it on? MS. GAGNON-Yes. This is the existing lot right now that I have. It's kind of an oblong. MR. BREWER-How did you ever get a lot like that? MS. GAGNON-I don't know. That's how it was zoned. MRS. LABOMBARD-And you own the whole lot? MS. GAGNON-I own the lot, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-And you want to subdivide it into two lots, and live on one and sell the other? MS. GAGNON-No. I'm an owner occupied landlord right now, of a pre- existing duplex. What I want to do is stay on the property, but simply put a modular home up. MR. STARK-And then rent the other one out in the front? MS. GAGNON-Rent the other one out, yes. - 36 - --- "'--' '-.-' MR. MACEWAN-It will be a single family home that you will put up? MS. GAGNON-Yes, it would. MR. PALING-What's the access to the new home, just a driveway? MS. GAGNON-There are two pre-existing driveways right now. MR. PALING-Yes. MS. GAGNON-I just propose to extend one of them into the back. MR. BREWER-Why would she have to come to us for a two lot subdivision? MR. MARTIN-Is this something that needs a variance? recall. I can't MS. GAGNON-I believe, Gary had said that the problem was that there was a 300 foot. MR. MARTIN-You came to see me about this last summer. MS. GAGNON-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-It's all coming back to me now. MS. GAGNON-And then I went to see him, and he said that this is where we should start. So here we are. MRS. LABOMBARD-Who's Gary? MS. GAGNON-Gary Kopp, f~om Lamplighter Homes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because you're going to buy it from him? MS. GAGNON-Exactly. He was going to be my agent, but like I said, he was called on an emergency. So, I'm the person purchasing the land. MR. MARTIN-The other thing is that they need double the lot width, because it's an arterial road, not unless you have a shared driveway. MR. BREWER-That's creating a flag shaped lot. MR. MARTIN-I know that, but our Ordinance does that by design almost. MR. MACEWAN-But she is going to have a shared driveway? MR. HARLICKER-No. There's going to be separate driveways, right? MR. MACEWAN-No. She said she's going to extend the driveway. MR. MARTIN-You're going to have a shared driveway. MS. GAGNON-Yes. There are two existing driveways now. I'm not putting anymore driveways on the road at all. I'm just extending that one. MRS. LABOMBARD-Donna, do you live up there now? MS. GAGNON-Yes, I do. I'm the owner of the parcel. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. MARTIN-What's the zoning over the parcel? Do you remember? MS. GAGNON-How is it zoned? It's, I believe, Single Residence, SR- - 37 - '-' --- ~ 1. MR. HARLICKER-SR-1A, probably. MR. MARTIN-She's probably SR, and you have a duplex on their now you said that you were going to keep, on one lot. MS. GAGNON-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Then you're going to create a new lot for a single family home. MS. GAGNON-Right. MR. BREWER-The lot is exactly two acres now, and you're just going to split it right down the middle? MS. GAGNON-2.03. MR. MACEWAN-And extend the driveway access to that back lot. MR. MARTIN-Well, then that removes the need for double the lot width, and if it's SR-1 acre zoning, you'd need a lot, average lot width of 150 feet. MS. GAGNON-He said that that might be one of the problems. I have 144.18 feet. MR. BREWER-Jim, how is that not creating a driveway? I mean, the house that's there now is how far off the road? MR. MARTIN-It's not that far off the road, as I recall. MS. GAGNON-Well, within 50 feet. MR. BREWER-Okay, and the house that she's proposing to put there is how many feet? MS. GAGNON-Well, that's to be determined at this point. It's back in the woods, essentially. MR. BREWER-How far, about? MS. GAGNON-Four hundred, five hundred feet. MR. BREWER-Four hundred feet. So how can that not be creating a driveway? MR. MARTIN-Well, you're going to utilize your existing curb cut, right? MS. GAGNON-Correct. MR. MARTIN-And it's going to extend in one direction to the duplex and serve that, right? MS. GAGNON-As it does now, yes. MR. MARTIN-And then it's going to branch off from there and also go back to this new home. MS. GAGNON-It's going to continue on. MR. MARTIN-Right. As long as she only utilizes the one curb cut, then that's not a new driveway. MR. BREWER-Okay. So the driveway's going to be on your property or somebody else's property? MS. GAGNON-No, my property. It is now. - 38 - '-- .-./ ~ ,_/ MR. MACEWAN-She's going to continue and remain to own both parcels. MS. GAGNON-Yes. I'm not suggesting I sell. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I would think that you'd want to, at this point, you'd want to put in the deed some sort of provision for easement of access over each lot, because you won't, forever, be owning them as one owner. So, you want to ensure that that rear lot has got access on over, through the existing curb cut, if that's the plan. MR. BREWER-Right. MS. GAGNON-Which would just be a right-of-way, essentially, down that? MR. MARTIN-Well, that's a legal or surveying question. You'd need language to that effect, but if you're not meeting the lot width, that would kick you out of the two lot subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-But she falls under the minimum of 150 foot, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. She needs a variance for lot width, and then she'd come to you for a subdivision. MR. BREWER-A two lot subdivision, she doesn't have to come to us, does she? MR. MARTIN-Only if it meets all applicab~e zoning codes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Behind you, is that Cardinale Court? MS. GAGNON-Yes. Well, yes, it is, actually. MR. MARTIN-If it doesn't meet zoning, Tim, it's got to come to you. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That's why they were suggested to come in here. MR. BREWER-There's no other way to do it, though, if she wants to do it. MR. MARTIN-There's no other way you can get that 150 foot width, on an average? You're saying your average lot width is 144 feet? MS. GAGNON-That's what my, that's what the tax map said. MR. MARTIN-Are you saying the frontage? MS. GAGNON-Yes, frontage. MR. MARTIN-No. It's average lot width. So, frontage has nothing to do with it. The minimum frontage on the road is 40 feet. Average lot width refers to the width of the lot at various intervals. You do an average. MS. GAGNON-Right. MR. MARTIN-I can't believe that with, how many acres is that total? MS. GAGNON-It's 2.03. MR. MARTIN-And the resulting lots would be basically an acre each? MS. GAGNON-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-You should have a pretty good shot at getting that average lot width of 150 feet, average, now. MS. GAGNON-Yes. I don't see a problem. I don't have a scale or anything. So, this is sort of not to scale. - 39 - '-- -.-' '~ MR. MARTIN-Yes. Even as a two lot subdivision, we're going to need to see some sort of scaled drawing. MS. GAGNON-Is the tax map adequate, or should I just have it surveyed? MR. MARTIN-I would recommend that you have it surveyed. Although I don't believe the two lot subdivision clause requires a survey, I would recommend it. Although I can't require it, I would recommend it, because it's always good to have an official survey of the property known. MS. GAGNON-I think Mr. Kopp's feeling is to, again, get the feeling of the Board, and see if we should proceed or not, and I apologize for you not knowing anything about this. MR. STARK-Say she went to Leon Steves and had him survey the place, he could establish the average lot size. It's probably over 150 square feet, and just come to us for a two lot subdivision then. MR. MARTIN-Well, you wouldn't even have to come to this Board. If it qualifies for the two lot subdivision, that can be handled in the Office, and that's it, it's approved. MS. GAGNON-Okay. MR. STARK-I would contact Steves, or somebody, to survey it. MR. MARTIN-I think, given the configuration, I think it would be wise to do that, because there's some funny lines that have got to be run in there. MS. GAGNON-Okay. MR. BREWER-How would that work, though, I mean, if she's going to have to put some kind of an easement? You're going to own both lots? MS. GAGNON-Yes. MR. BREWER-Own both homes. MS. GAGNON-Correct. MR. BREWER-But they're going to be two different lots. MS. GAGNON-Do they have to be two different lots? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. You're creating a new one. MS. GAGNON-I'm creating a new one. Okay. MR. BREWER-Well, ultimately, she has to have some kind of a subdivision, if she's got two acres and two homes. You can only have one principal building on. MR. MARTIN-Well, principal buildings in residential zones, there shall be no more than one principal building in a residential zone on any lot less than two acres in size. Subdivision approval shall be required for more than one principal building on such lot, which shall not be granted if the zoning district maximum density is not met. Now, this has been interpreted to mean, in the past, if you have in excess of two acres, then you can have two principal buildings on a lot without a subdivision. MS. GAGNON-Which seems to be the case. MR. BREWER-What Section are you in, Jim? MR. MARTIN-I'm on 179-12C(5). - 40 - --- ,-' .---- MR. MACEWAN-But for her own benefit, for the future, if she ever decided to sell one parcel, it would be beneficial to you, I would think, to go ahead, get it surveyed, get it documented, so you can come in for a two lot subdivision, so you have everything done legally and done right, now, instead of, ten years down the road decide now you're going to sell the house. MS. GAGNON-Right. MR. MARTIN-And the other thing is, before you position the new house on the lot, you do as Craig says. Then you'll know that you have a potentially conforming lot. You can always sell either lot without any sort of further action, but I think, the way ~ read this you could technically have two houses on that lot, without any subdivision. MS. GAGNON-That, I guess, was my question in the beginning. I didn't know if that was a. MR. BREWER-But then if you ever went to sell one of those, how would she ever do that? MR. MARTIN-They'd have to be sold as one lot, without, then you'd need a subdivision if you wanted to just sell one. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, or she'd have to come back to us, down the road, and say that she wants to do a two lot subdivision, then if she hasn't got the footprint of the house set right, she could be up the creek because she'd have to go get a variance. MR. MARTIN-Right. She'd need a variance. MR. MACEWAN-So if she does all her ground work now, she's not going to have any problems in the future. MR. BREWER-So, technically, if I wanted to, if I had, my lot's two and a half acres, I could put another house on my lot? MR. MACEWAN-Right, but if you didn't set the other house in the right spot, and ten years down the road you wanted to subdivide that. MR. MARTIN-Providing you were in the right density. Like, in her case, the density is one house per acre. If you were in three acre zoning, then you couldn't do it. MS. GAGNON-Well, if this is fine for construction purposes and things like that. I just bought the property. I have no, never say never, but I don't plan on selling it for quite some time. Is it wise to just proceed with my plans? MR. MACEWAN-If you're asking me what I would do if I were in your shoes? I'd spend the money. I'd get it surveyed. I'd have it documented correctly, so that in case you ever decided to sell, down the road, that the house is going to be situated on the newly created lot where it's supposed to be, because if it isn't, you've got to come back and, hopefully, obtain a variance from the ZBA, and you might not get it, and you might be stuck with having two houses on one lot, and have to sell it at that. For the minimal amount of money it's going to cost you to get it surveyed, it would be well worth it for the piece of mind. That's one person's opinion, though. MR. MARTIN-Is everybody ready for the meeting on the thirty-first? MR. BREWER-Is that all you needed? MS. GAGNON-I guess so. I'm as lost as you are. I'm ~ lost than you are. - 41 - -- '-- MR. BREWER-No. You can put that house on there, but you're going to end up, potentially, not being able to sell it without getting a variance. MS. GAGNON-To sell it as a subdivided lot. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MS. GAGNON-So, I could proceed. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-So, everybody feels comfortable enough to go into that meeting? I just want to make sure. MRS LABOMBARD-Not right now I don't. I haven't done my homework. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, if there's any questions at any time between now and the thirty-first, stop in. MRS. LABOMBARD-Can I call? MR. MARTIN-Yes, you can call. MR. BREWER-I had a question. MR. MARTIN-Questions are directed to Scott. I've recused myself because I live on that road. So I have not been involved. MR. MACEWAN-But you helped establish the study. How could you not be involved? MR. MARTIN-He wrote it, he and Arlyne. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would you just explain something to me, Jim, right now. Answer this question. This is before my time, on the Sign Ordinance, would you explain a little bit about what the Sign Ordinance originally was and exactly what it is now, and was there really that much difference in the change? MR. MARTIN-No. There's been two primary changes made to the Sign Ordinance in the last year. The first related to temporary signs. Temporary signs, in the original Ordinance, there were no provisions for a limitation on the number of permits that could be given, and there were some loose restrictions on type of signs that represented a temporary sign, and on the size, and the new regulations provide what constitutes a temporary sign, and, more importantly, lays out a limitation as to the number of permits that can be issued in a year. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's the number of permits to, not the same individual, but to all the individuals that apply? MR. MARTIN-No, to the same individual. MRS. LABOMBARD-To the same individual. MR. MARTIN-Because the problem we were having is people were essentially establishing a permanent sign via a temporary sign, just continually renewing a temporary sign permit, which used to run for 30 days. They'd do it 12 months in a row, and, therefore, you'd essentially have a permanent temporary sign. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see. more? So now there's no such thing as that any MR. MARTIN-No. Now there's a limitation. The permit runs, now, 12 days, and I think there's a limitation on, I think it's five renewals in a year, or, it's 60 days total. So, that's what it was settled at for temporary signs, and I also revised the fee schedule a little bit, because we reduced the term of the permits now from 30 days to 12. So the permit fee went from 35 to 10. - 42 - -.. -" -- ..-r MRS. LABOMBARD-And the size of the sign? MR. MARTIN-The size is strictly limited, now, to 32 square feet, and it can't be a sandwich board style sign, you know, a (lost word) style. That's specifically eliminated now. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, in other words, you've made it more aesthetic. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We tried to address some of the concerns that were primarily coming from along Route 9, with the CD sales and all that type of thing. I mean, I was even getting complaints from people who lived in Glens Falls about how the signs looked. Then the other thing that was most recently done was shopping center signs were clarified, and the big change there was tenant listings were not allowed on plaza signs in the past. It was just the name of the name of the plaza, and there was some question as to whether that was constitutionally acceptable, because you're not supposed to dictate what somebody says on a sign. You can dictate size, placement and that type of thing, but you're not really allowed, it's a freedom of speech question, but the primary reason for only the plaza name being on there, in the original Ordinance, was there was a safety concern about if we had too many tenant listings on shopping center signs, the lettering would get so small that you'd create a problem with traffic and so on. So, to meet both problems, a clause was put in that tenant listings can be put on, but there's a general provision that lettering on a plaza sign now has to be a minimum of six inches in height, or in size. So, we got some standards from some sign contractors that that is a letter that is visible from 50 feet by a car going 30 miles an hour. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-So those are the two primary changes that were made, and essentially the business complex sign, the size and all that, remained unchanged. MR. BREWER-Do you know what's going on with Dexter? MR. MARTIN-As far as ~ know, they're dead. I understand that the design of the structure was not conducive to any retailers going in there. Nobody liked the design. They couldn't get it rented out. MR. BREWER-So it's a dead issue. MR. MARTIN-It probably wouldn't hurt to see when the last extension was given, or approval. I think the year's run out, though. MR. BREWER-All right. Di Palma, has Paul made a decision on that? MR. MARTIN-The more people who call the better. The more people who call him and ask him the better. I ask him twice a week. MR. BREWER-Okay. I just want to make one statement. Next month we will have an attorney. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Paul Dusek called me this afternoon and said that they did make a resolution last night and hired Mark Schachner. MR. MARTIN-Through June on a trial basis. MR. BREWER-Trial basis. I presume if it works out all right, then they're going to keep him. MR. MARTIN-Yes. They've allocated $5,000. MR. MACEWAN-My question is, when we approved the Cool Beans site, wasn't it one of the stipulations to the site plan approval, that the parking be parallel for like six or seven cars, or whatever the - 43 - "- - '- amount was, to Western Avenue? MR. BREWER-Seven cars. MR. MACEWAN-They are parking perpendicular and have been since they've opened, and I've seen as many as fifteen cars parked there. MR. BREWER-Yes. That's right. I noticed that myself. MR. MACEWAN-I bring that to your attention, to go out there. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. We will certainly do that. MR. BREWER-They are, that's the only way they've ever parked. MR. MACEWAN-And the reason why that came to my attention, I was coming out of Shop N' Save one Sunday after one of the last big snow storms we had, and you could not get down Western Avenue, because they were stuck right out. It was one lane of traffic, and it was a real bottleneck there. MRS. LABOMBARD-That had nothing to do with all those high snow banks and all that mess? MR. MACEWAN-It doesn't matter. MR. BREWER-Somebody came around that corner and knocked part of that retaining wall down, the berm. MR. MARTIN-We haven't done a final on that yet. MR. MACEWAN-I've seen as many as fifteen, and they average right around, on a weekend, on a Sunday morning, they'll average probably eight to nine cars there. MR. BREWER-Yes. There was only going to be, I think, if I remember, it was seven cars there. MR. MACEWAN-I don't even think it was that many, to tell you the truth. MR. BREWER-Yes, it was. It was three, there was three like this, and then there was three over next door, I think. MR. MACEWAN-Well, it just goes hand and hand, the next question would be, is how many patrons do they have in there, because if that's the case, then that's not what they said they were going to have when they got their approval either, because they were only going to have, like, three tables, and there was only enough counter space for, what, four or five people to sit at the counter. MR. BREWER-Yes, but then that brings us right back to the same si tuation as we had down here at Formula One. What do you do, close the guy down because he's got too much business? MR. MACEWAN-No. You bring them in to compliance, just like he did. We worked out a deal that was happy for everybody. I mean, what it's doing is telling us that this Board has absolutely no power to make our site plans stick. What would be the purpose of anyone wanting to bother to come in here to get approval for something? MR. BREWER-No, I agree with you. We don't enforce it, but, I mean, there's no other place for him to get any parking, Craig. MR. MACEWAN-With diplomacy, you can get things enforced and things corrected. MR. MARTIN-The main thing to remember with enforcement is, we don't have police power like you can go in and immediately. - 44 - "-' -- ~ -- MR. MACEWAN-No. I didn't mean it that way. Here was a situation wi th Formula One Autobody that he didn't comply with what was approved for him. We brought him back in here. We worked out something. MR. MARTIN-I agree with you. Yes. MR. MACEWAN-We'll probably have to do the same thing with these guys. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I agree with you. MR. MACEWAN-But to just ignore it and let him do what he wants to do, that's wrong, too. MR. MARTIN-No, no. That won't happen. I can assure you that. It's just sometimes it does take some time. Hugh Sinclair is coming in next month. MR. MACEWAN-And Stewarts is coming in, when, next month? MR. MARTIN-Yes. So, I mean, it takes time, but it gets done. It just requires, you've got to stay after them. You've got to stay on top of it. MR. BREWER-Is there anything else from anybody? On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 45 -