The URL can be used to link to this page

1994-05-19 -- ...../ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 19TH, 1 994 INDEX Subdivision No. 1-1994 Andrea Gray 1 . PRELIMINARY STAGE Site Plan No. 15-92 Queensbury United Methodist 3. Church Site Plan No. 8-94 Michael Barody 4. Site Plan No. 18-94 Connie & Will i am Gebo 8. Site Plan No. 19-94 Hugh Sinclair 17. Subdivision No. 3-1994 L. Rae Gi 11 is 19. Site Plan No. 17-94 Steven Solimanto 22. Site Plan No. 16-94 John J . Nigro/Taco Bell Corp. 35. RESOLUTION OF INTENT Columbia Development Group 48. 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. " ". · \...... J QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETINC MAY 19TH, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK, SECRETARY CATHERINE LABOMBARD ROGER RUEL . CRAIG MACEWAN ROBERT PALING MEMBERS ABSENT JAMES OBERMAYER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, BILL MACNAMARA TOWN PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED ANDREA CRA Y OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: S FR - 1 A LOCA T I ON : 563 BAY ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A 10.65 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LÒTS - LOT 1 WILL BE 1.041 ACRES, LOT 2 WILL BE 4.948 ACRES, AND LOT 3 WILL BE 4.664 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 60-1-12 LOT SIZE: 10.65 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ANDREA GRAY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 1-1994, Andrea Gray, Meeting Date: May 19, 1994, "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a 3 lot subdivision. The existing 10.65 acre parcel will be subdivided into lots of 1.041, 4.948 and 4.664 acres in size. The 1 acre lot will have an existing barn, which is utilized as a printing business, and the other 2 lots will be vacant. The property is zoned SFR-IA with frontage on Bay Road. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff concerns include the length of drive for lot 3. Staff spoke to the Fire Marshal and it was his opinion that emergency access could be addressed by ensuring that there is enough cleared space to allow access for emergency vehicles. The land is fairly level with a gentle slope to the rear. There is a drainage swale that traverses lot 3. Visibility whert leaving the site is also a concern. Bay Road, north of the site, is uphill and curves to the right, thereby, making it difficult to see southbound traffic from the site. It also appears that fill will be required to bring the driveways up to street level." (Due to tape problems, some discussion of this particular matter was lost) A LETTER WAS WRITTEN BY LARRY A. GRAY. IN·IT HE STATES: "I am also requesting a waiver to the subdivision regulations requiring construction details, clearing plan, grading and erosion control plan, and drainage report, as I am not doing any grading, clearing, or construction. Larry Gray" (This is attached to the Preliminary application). MR. BREWER-Okay. We've got a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-1994, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for - 1 - '- .-./ it~ adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before ANDREA GRAY, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department. of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. .~ 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impac.t 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 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have to do two separate motions, one for the waivers and one for the project itself, would you say? MR. HARLICKER-You could include it in the resolution, the waivers as requested in the letter. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Is it in the prepared resolution? MR. HARLICKER-No, it's not. MR. RUEL-You want a motion on, what, the SubdivIsion? MR. BREWER-On the Preliminary Stage on the subdivision, and also we can include another Whereas, a waiver be granted for, approval for the waivers, as per letter, be granted. Would somebody care to try that. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1994 ANDREA GRAY, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: - 2 - ~'''.~ ""-- ' .,-/ ~. At 563 Bay Road, resolution as written, with one modification, that the approval for the waiver, as per letter received, be granted. Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application, file It 1-1994, 10.65 acre parcel into 3 lots of 1 acre, 4.664 acres and 4.948 acres; and Whereas, the above referenced preliminary subdivision application dated 3/7/94 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, Map of subdivi~ion lands of Andrea Gray, dated 3/28/94; and Whereas, the documentation: 1. above file is supported with Staff notes, dated 4/19/94 the following Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/19/94 concerning the above subdivision; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and conunen t; and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision is subject to the following modifications and terms prior to submission of the plat in final form: Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve preliminary subdivision Andrea Gray, file It 1-1994. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer SITE PLAN NO. 15-92 TYPE: UNLISTED QUEENSBURY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: UR-IO LOCATION: 74 AVIATION ROAD REQUESTS MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLAN - ELIMINATION OF DRIVEWAY RUNNING ALONG EAST SIDE OF ADDITION AND REVISION OF LANDSCAPING PLANS. BEAUTIFICATION COMM. - 5/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 97- 2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 2.9 ACRES SECTION: 179-17 RALPH MARINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. Scott, do we have notes? MR. HARLICKER-Not really for this. MR. MARTIN-You have a Beautification Committee note, and it just says, "Approval of plans submitted." And they have, "'I believe, a specific notation on the second page to the type of plantings to be done under the asterisk. MR. BREWER-Okay. We don't need to do another SEQRA on this? MR. MARTIN-No. It's a modification to an approved site plan. MR. BREWER-No public hearing is scheduled. Board have any questions? Does anybody on the MR. PALING-I just have one. Will the circular driveway in front of the Church be affected by the elimination of the drive to the east? - 3 - "- '-./ MR. MARINO-That driveway that's circular now will stay just the way it is. The aligning of the other one actually makes it safer for that exit from that other end of the building. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-92 OUEENSBURY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: 74 Aviation Road, modifications to the approved site plan, elimination of driveway running along east side of addition and revision ·of landscaping plans, with the condition that the Beautification Committee items, as listed, be adhered to. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer " NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer SITE PLAN NO. 8-94 TYPE I MICHAEL BARODY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-IA, C.E.A. MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED SITE PLAN - FOR A 2ND STORY EXPANSION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND A GARAGE SEQRA: 3/15/94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/9/94, 5/11/94 TAX MAP NO. 41-1-8 LOT SIZE: 13,570 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16 J.H. ROTHERMEL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HARLICKER-A little background on this. When this was before the Board, I think it was last month, the application as it was presented then required a variance. It went before the Zoning Board, got a variance for some of what they wanted. They decided to revise their plans and came back with an enlarged structure without needing any variances at all. They constructed a second story addition, without expanding the first floor, and then also put on a 20 by 23 square foot garage. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 8-94, Michael Barody, Meeting Date: May 19, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a 22' x 23' second story addition to an existing house and a 20' x 23' garage. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A., the project is in compliance with the other requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located. In accordance with Section 179-38 B., the project was reviewed in order to determine if it is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, and it was found to be compatible with the zone in which it is to be located and should not be a burden on supporting public services. In accordance with Section 179-38 C., the proposal was reviewed regarding its impact on the highways. There was found to be no significant impact on the road system. In accordance with Section 179-38 D., the project was compared to the' relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. The 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 ar rangement of vehicular traf f ic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Traffic access will not be impac t ed by th is pro j ect. 3. The location, ar rangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Two - 4 - J '- enclosed parking spaces will be provided. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation walkway structures, control of intersections wi th vehicular traffic and overall pedes tr ian conveni ence; Pedes tr i an acces swill not be impacted by this project. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater runoff generated by this proj~ct 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 and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; 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 and/or 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 reviewed this application and it was approved. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anybody on questions? I'll open the public hearing. comment on this from the public? the Board that has any Is there anyone here to PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HARLICKER-I'd just like to mention that the neighbor who's name is Milne was in and looked at the plans, and he was the one who had problems with the initial expansion. He came in and looked at the modifications, and he said it was fine with him. He didn't have any problems with this. MR. BREWER-Okay. We have to do the SEQRA. MR. HARLICKER-You might want to go through the Short Form. MR. MARTIN-I think you should. I don't know that this was, it says previously submitted site plan, not approved. MR. HARLICKER-I think it was tabled. MR. BREWER-It's a Type action. So it has to be a Long Form. MR. MARTIN-If you have a substantial different plan before you, would go through the SEQRA form again. MR. BREWER-I don't think it can hurt us. MR. MACEWAN-Long or Short? MR. MARTIN-Long, because it's a Type I action. It's at the Board's discretion on this. MR. MACEWAN-Ready? MR. BREWER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SICNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-94, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its - 5 - '- --.-/ adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before MICHAEL BARODY, and the 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 ~ollowing 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. 11aving considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer MR. BREWER-Before we make a motion, I just want to ask you one que s t i on . Yo u are a war e t hat s tor mw ate r will be con t a i n e don sit e ? MR. ROTHERMEL-Yes, sir. MR. BREWER-And you don't show any rain gutters on here. how you propose to do it? Is that MR. ROTHERMEL-There's a drywell. MR. BREWER-The rain gutters will gather into a drywell? MR. ROTHERMEL-Gutters (lost word) drywell. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. ROTHERMEL-No. MR. BREWER-I mean, before the building is started? MR. ROTHERMEL-Right. MR. BREWER-Okay. - 6 - :, '" ,'~. ..-I '......./ MR . MART I N - You co u I d h a v e a con d i t ion t hat i t be s how non the building plan. That would probably be a more practical way to put it. I'll look for it when it comes through, because I'll see it. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFIED SITE PLAN NO. 8-94 MICHAEL BARODY, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: In accordance with site plan resolution as written. - Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file tt 8-94 for a 2nd story expansion of a single family home and a garage; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application dated 4/27/94 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, site plan survey, dated 5/1/94 2. Sheet 2, elevations, dated 5/3/94; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 5/19/94 Environmental Assessment form, dated 3/15/94; and following 2. Long Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/22/94 and 5/19/94 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queenshury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan # 8-94. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in t~is resolution. 4. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 5. The issuance of permi ts is condi tioned on compl iance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 6. The eaves troughs will be shown on the building plan for the stormwater to be contained on site, and location of the drywell. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer NEW BUSINESS: - - 7 - '-- --" SITE PLAN NO. 18-94 TYPE: UNLISTED CONNIE & WILLIAM GEBO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-IA LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 2 FAMILY DUPLEX. TAX MAP NO. 138-1-15 LOT SIZE: 85 X 100 SECTION: 179-19 CONNIE GEBO, PRESENT STAPP INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 18-94, Connie & William Gebo, Meeting Date: May 19, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a duplex on a 8,500 square foot parcel loca ted on Big Boom Road. The duplex is aI, 248 square foot 2 story structure with a parking area located in the rear. 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 r 0 ads y stem. I n a c cor d a n c e wit h S e c ti 0 n 1 79- 38 D., the pro j e c t was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The project is compatible for the area in which it is to be located, there is no lighting or signage shown on the plan. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Adequate parking area is shown in the rear of the duplex, Access to parking has to be clarified. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Parking is sufficient. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; This is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; All storffiwater drainage resulting from this project has to be retained on site. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; Municipal water is available and anon site septic system is proposed. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other sui table plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; No landscaping is shown on the plan. The applicant should indicate if any is proposed. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access is adequate and the existing hydrants will be utilized. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Erosion control measures will have to be in place during construction and until the site has been stabilized. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this appl ication." MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions about this? MRS. LABOMBARD-My question was just that, I was wondering how the accessibi Ii ty was going to be to the rear parking lot, and why they're not parking in the front. MR. BREWER-Okay, Connie, could you just identify yourself, please, for the record? MRS. GEBO-Conni e Gebo. You can pu t two dr i veways, one on each side, to get to the back (lost word). - 8 - j'., \....... ~. MRS. LABOMBARD-And a duplex, that means each side would have an upstairs and a downstairs. MR. BREWER-So you're going to have a driveway on both sides? MRS. GEBO-Yes, ten foot on both sides. MR. BREWER-Ten foot. It's not on a corner, is it? MR. MACEWAN-Well, it's kind of on a little bend right there. You're, what, maybe 100 feet from the bend. MR. PALING-What about setbacks? Am I reading this wrong, but the side setbacks. MR. BREWER-Have to equal 30. MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. ,. MR. BREWER-And I also had a question, Scott. afternoon about the septic having setbacks. asked you this MR. HARLICKER-Yes, and I didn't get a chance to look it up. believe it's 10 feet from the property line. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-It is? MRS. GEBO-Yes, I checked that. MR. BREWER-Okay. They're not a problem, then. MR. STARK-Did this go in front of the Beautification Conm1Ìttee at all? MR. BREWER-No. For a house, it wouldn't. MR. RUEL-Any landscaping proposed? MRS. GEBO-A lawn with shrubs, flowers, a gravel driveway. MR. RUEL-One on each side? All right. So you have no landscaping plan? MR. HARLICKER-Normally developments like this. it's not required for residential MR. MACEWAN-For the two driveways, you're going to have a driveway on either side, right, coming off Big Boom Road? MRS. GEBO-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Is the parking area for the duplex going to be separated, so that each side of it has its own private parking area, that you couldn't cut from one side to the other? MRS. GEBO-I had thought about putting a fence in the middle of it, but (lost word). MR. MACEWAN-I'm just wondering, for safety sake, whether it wouldn't be better just to have one driveway serve the two of them. For you, in the long run, it's less maintenance. MRS. GEBO-Right. MR. BREWER-Less expense. MR. MACEWAN-Less expense. How does everybody else feel about that? - 9 - '--' --./ MR. BREWER-It's not a bad idea. " MR. RUEL-Then they have no control on the amount of parking by each duplex, if you do that? MR. MACEWAN-You wouldn't have control if you had two driveways. MR. RUEL-Yes, if you have two driveways and a fence in the center of the parking area, then you have control. MR. MACEWAN-She's not saying that she's definitely going to have a fence in the middle, either. MR. RUEL-She said may have. MRS. LABOMBARD-In other words, Mrs. Gebo, were you originally planning to come in on either side and then having it maybe just the length of a, a little more than the length of a car on each side, and then having, and stopping the gravel right there, and then having maybe just grass in between, as a buffer? MR. BREWER-No. feet. Its how son the ma p, the wid tho f the h 0 use, 4 8 MRS. LABOMBARD-I didn't see the map. So then the whole back end's going to be gravel? MR. RUEL-Yes, it's all parking. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see. Well, I don't think that that would deter one unit from having their own parking, unless you did put a fence up. MR. MACEWAN-I think would prefer to see her have just one driveway, for winter, too. Snow removal would be easier if you didn't have it sectioned off between the two units. MRS. GEBO-I just thought it would easier. MR. MACEWAN-I'm thinking of it from the case of having another curb cut out there on the road. That's all. From a safety standpoint, I'd prefer to see just the one driveway. MRS. LABOMBARD-And they would come in through the back door, from a back door, from their cars? MRS. GEBO-:Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what I'm saying. MR. BREWER-Anything else from anybody? MR. BREWER-You don't have a problem with one driveway, then? MRS. GEBO-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-What way would you come in, from the north end or the south end? What do you think would be easier? I'm just thinking, most of the traffic would be coming in from the north, instead of going all the way to the south and· then coming back around. I don't know. What would be more practical? MR. BREWER-Let her decide. I mean, if we're going to restrict her to one driveway, let her decide what side she wants to put it on. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. here to comment on this project? Is there anybody - 10 - .-.-/ '-- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MIKE TOOMEY MR. TOOMEY-Members of the Board, my name is Mike Toomey. I'm here in opposition to the project. I represent the property owner, Marie Anable. Mrs. Anable transmitted that to me this afternoon. She lives in the Catskills. She's not able to be here this evening. She owns the property which is directly behind the subject property, Lot 16 and Lot 18, and also there's a larger parcel, 16.2. . The problem that Mrs. Anable has is that there's a roadway, an existing roadway, that goes into the property which is directly behind the subject Gebo property, where there is a house at the present time. That roadway is being used, has been used, for at least 31 years. I suppose by adverse possession. When Mr. and Mrs. Gebo purchased the property, by tax sale, the subject property, approximately two years ago, and indicated to Mrs. Anable that they were going to put a fence up there and terminate that access to the parcel behind the Gebo property, I had written a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Gebo that before they attempted to do that, they should contact an attorney, just so that they knew what they were getting into. I had no response back. There'-still is no fence there, and the people who live in that parcel, the house behind the Gebo property have continued to use that roadway. I guess the concern is that if the Board does grant this application, that the property behind the subject property be allowed to continue to use that roadway. The driveway, at the present time, is 19 feet wide. So, if you've got a piece of property that's 85 feet across, the road frontage, minus 19 feet, which is currently being used for driveway. MR. BREWER-Can you show me on the map where this house is here? I'd like to see where it is. MR. TOOMEY-Yes. Can I show you, this map might be easier. This is the subject property. This is where Mrs. Anable owns a house, owns this parcel here, and this parcel here, and this parcel here. MR. MACEWAN-Right here is the raised ranch, correct? MR. TOOMEY-No. The raised ranch is right here. m u I t i f am i 1 y, wit h t h r e e un its . Th i s is a MR. BREWER·-I-Iow in the hell do they ever get to £illY of these lots? MR. TOOMEY-This one here, this lot here, this is woods. here is woods. There is a new modular on this lot here. woods here. I think woods here and here. This lot Th i s is MR. BREWER--How do they get to this lot? MR. TOOMEY-It's woods right now, but there's access from here through to here. MR. BREWER-Slow down one second. here, the access? If there's access, what's this MR. TOOMEY-That's the access road, a dirt road. MR. BREWER-How wide is that? How old is this subdivision, if you can call it that? Jim, can you look at this? I don't understand. How can all these lots be made here, and not have any road access? This is the Gebo property. There's a modular there. This is a house on this lot. MR. TOOMEY-There's a raised ranch here, a split level. MR. BREWER-Okay. This is vacant. MR. TOOMEY-Correct. -- 11- "- ----' .. MR . BREW ER - A 11 ri g h t. The r e 's a n a c c e s she r e . Wed 0 n 't know how wide it is, but here, here, here, here, here, here, here, how, they don't have any road access, so how can they be lots? MR. MARTIN-Okay. My guess would be that they preexist zoning, or any requirements for subdivision. I don't know what the approximate ages on these lots are, but they couldn't be created today, obviously, like that. MR. BREWER-Who owns this? MR. TOOMEY-This is part of Gebo's, here. here, and this is part of Lot 16. There's 19 feet across MR. BREWER-So, eliminate this. This is their lot line. They own this right here. MR. TOOMEY-Right. MR. BREWER-So that 19 feet, Mrs. Anabl e' s dr i v ing through their land? MR. TOOMEY-That's correct. It has been, for at least 31 years. The prior owner, I have the, Rose Phillips is the prior owner of this property the Gebo property. She's here this evening. She currently resides back here, in one of Mrs. Anable's apartments, in this building here. This is an older house. MR. BREWER-So what you're saying is, you're in opposition to letting this lady build a house on her own land? MR. TOOMEY-In opposition to building a duplex there. MRS. LABOMBARD-But yet you use her land to get to their land? MR. TOOMEY-That's correct. MR. BREWER-He admittedly says that she owns this, and you just want permission to be able to go through their side yard? MR. MARTIN-Is there provision in the deed to this lot for right-of- way over this? MR. TOOMEY-I don't believe there is, but it's been used for 31 years. In speaking with Mrs. Phillips this afternoon, she indicates that at one time, about 12 years ago, she attempted to close off the roadway, and she was told by the Town and the Sheriff's Department that she couldn't do it. MR. SCHACHNER-Who's Mrs. Phillips, again, on the map? MR. TOOMEY-Mrs. Phillips, she used to actually own the subject property. She currently lives back here. MR. SCHACHNER-But she used to own that, right. MR. TOOMEY-She used to own that, yes. here, which burned. There used to be a house MR. SCHACHNER-But nobody's proposing to deny thet continuation of access, correct? MR. TOOMEY-Not at this time, no. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. PALING-Do you have access to this, this, and this, if you come in this way? MR. TOOMEY -They have acces s, bu t ther e is no, I gues s the road goes - 12 - ~. -/ to here, somewhere to here. The house is somewhere around here. What Mrs. Anable is telling me, it would be very expensive for her to have to cut down, to basically go through the woods and create a new road to get to the house over here. MR. PALING-And is this Anable here? MR. TOOMEY-This is Anable here, here, and here. MR. PALING-And does she own this? MR. MARTIN-Is there a provision for practical use of a property for a number of years? MR. SCHACHNER-There li, but I think I'm missing the point here, in that, nobody's proposing to do anything to that access, correct? MR. BREWER-Well, I don't know. We don't know if she is or not. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. TOOMEY-I guess one of the problems is, if you're going to put a duplex there, I'm not sure what's going to happen, as far as the setbacks. MR. BREWER-Yes, but that's almost like saying, before own mY land, the kids used to ride their motorcycles through there. Now I built my house there. They can't ride them through there. Is that fair to the kids? Or is it fair to me because I want to live there on my own property? MR. SCHACHNER-But the bottom line here is, similar to a recent case we had, if this person that Mr. Toomeý represents has access through this property, as a matter of law, because this person has used the property for a sufficient amount of time under a sufficient set of criteria, which we don't have any basis for knowing whether she has or hasn't, but I have no reason to disbelieve it, then nothing this Board says or does will remove that access. If that person doesn't have legal access as a result of either a deed or adverse possession, or prescriptive easement, or continued use or whatever, then nothing this Board does will g ran t t hat per son a c.c e s s, 0 k a y . It's are a I pro per t y i s sue, and i f his client has that access legally, then his client has that access legally, and we shouldn't get into it, in my opinion. MR. BREWER-Okay. All right. MR. TOOMEY-And I wasn't aware how much the Board was aware of it, what the access was here. MR. PALINC-I guess, then, I'd like to hear you re-phrase your objection, then, to clarify. MR. SCHACHNER-You should make sure you're doing this so that it's on your record, and the applicant can hear, and everything else. MR. BREWER-Yes. Would you go back to the table and just use the microphone, please. MR. TOOMEY-Yes. z 0 n i n g ma p 0 f Residential? I this have area. not had an opportunity Are we dealing with to look at the a Sin g 1 e F am i 1 y MR. BREWER-The zone is SR-IA, Suburban Residential One Acre. MR. TOOMEY-I guess, my client wouldn't necessarily have a with the project, as long as the roadway's not terminated. know if the applicant wants to stipulate, maybe they could same driveway into the parcel. problem I don't use the - 13 .- ~ -/ MR. BREWER-Okay. Let me ask the applicant if she has anything to say about that. MRS. GEBO-The roadway they're using is right across from where the house was before it burnt. I t burnt in 1985, and they haven't been driving over it for 31 years. You can see the cement slab there where they're driving right across. I have all prior use, before I purchased it. There's no right-of-ways. They didn't own that. I checked all of that out. I did write to Mrs. Anable to ask her to have her tenants move their swing set off my property. They had a sign in the tree out front. I asked them to remove that. Then I asked them to stop driving across it. I got a letter back from them, stating that they were going to take it by adverse access. I did send it to my attorney. I don't have a copy of the letter, but I did get my, or my attorney did respond and said that they could not take it through adverse access. That the existing property, held on the property, had only been down for, since 1985. That they had no right to drive across that land. MR. BREWER-Okay. What it shows on the Tax Map that we just looked at is her lot, and I'm addressing this to you, is her, lot, and then it shows, what is it, Connie, eight feet, if you're looking at her property, to the right of that, access to that back lot you're speaking of. Now, if you want to use that for your access, I mean, we h a v e not h i n g to say a b 0 uti t, but its how son the rna p t hat the r e is access to that property, and it's not across hers. MR. TOOMEY-Do you know how much of this section here Is driveway, at the present time? MRS. GEBO-A t the pr es en t time, (I os t wor d) becaus e they've been cutting right across there. ROSELYN PHILLIPS MRS. PHILLIPS-My name is Roselyn Phillips. used to own the property where she is now. I lived there for years, and then my husband and I both got disabled, and we took an apartment. We gave the land, and an acre of land, and the house to my husband's daughter, and the right-of-way, the driveway as you come in, where you come in, the way that cement is, that they're talking about, that's not where the house sat. The house sat almost directly in front of where that new house is on the corner. As you're coming in the driveway, on your left, there's a new house, right on the corner. It's a white, modular home. MR. TOOMEY-My reason for asking Mrs. Phillips up here, the driveway as it currently exists, going into this back lot. MRS. PHILLIPS-Yes, has been there. MR. TOOMEY-How many years have you been living in that area? MRS. PHILLIPS-I've been there for 26 years, and it was there long before that, because my mother-in-law lived in the back, where the house is now that used the access, and I lived there 26 years. I tried, I was (lost word) with my brother-in-law, when I lived in the front, because it was all dirt. My daughter, step-daughter, had tha t cement put in there for the dr i veway, when she 1 i ved there. MR. BREWER - Le ts not get into ar gumen ts her e. Lets ta I k to the Board, if we're going to address the Board on any issue. I think the map, Tax Map that we have in front of us shows that there is access to that property, and it's not on Mrs. Gebo's property, and I don't want to get in the middle of a dispute like we had last month, it seems like last month, but that you can take issue to. We're looking at a duplex on her property. There's nothing that says anything about it, from what we've seen. Lets talk about the d u pie x, 0 k a y . We un de r s tan d w her e you' r e com i n g from, and w hat - 14 - .. -.../ ""-, you've said, and I don't mean to cut you off, but I just .want to move on. MR. TOOMEY-I guess you're asking, does she have any problems with the duplex, as it's proposed, the structure. It meets with the requirements of the zoning, correct? MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. TOOMEY-Setbacks? MR. BREWER-They're all met. MR. TOOMEY-I don't know that Mrs. Anable actually has any standing to do anything about what's proposed. Her only concern is that it not cut off the ingress and egress. MR. BREWER-And I don't think it is, sir. I think the ingress and egress is stated on the Tax Map. She's using the wrong piece of property to go across. She should be further over. She should be to the right of their lot line, and there's an eight foot lane. Whether she has to clear that, or what she has to do to get back there, there's nothing we can do about that. MR. TOOMEY-I guess the only hardship to Mrs. Anable is that she's an elderly .lady that does not have much in the way of resources, and this is going to create a financial burden to her to have to clear the road into that property. MR. BREWER-Sir, wait a minute. Mrs. Anable says in this letter that she faxed to you that she doesn't live here. MR. TOOMEY-She lives in the Catskills. She owns the property. .. MR. BREWER-So how does she have a problem getting back there, if she doesn't live there? Her tenants do? MR. TOOMEY-Yes. Well, the problem would be, she's got to create a new road, and it's going to be expensive for her to do that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. GEBO-But it's all like little twigs and brush. I mean, it's not much to clear that out, to make a right--of--way back through there. I mean, there's no trees, or anything. MR. BREWER-All right. That is her concern. Okay. MR. MARTIN-Well, lets make a suggestion. Lets make sure we're not, Connie, would you have a problem with them utilizing a driveway for the duplex to access that property behind you? Lets first establish that. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. MRS. GEBO-Well, don't feel as though I should have to. MR. MARTIN-I know you don't have to, but would you have a problem with that? I mean, if you do, that's fine, just say it. MRS. GEBO-Well, I was goi ng to put a fence up, because when I go over to that property, myself. and look at what I've got there, the people who are Marie Anable's tenants, give me a gesture and things. MR. MACEWAN-I guess it would be safe to say, no. MR. TOOMEY-There's a single mother and two young kids. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, I just wanted to make sure we weren't looking by the obvious, here. - 15 - -..../. MR. BREWER-All right. Is there anything else, sir? Okay. Is there anyone else in the public who'd like to conmlent? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER--And we do have to do a SEQRA on this, Jim? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-94, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the CONNIE & WILLIAM GEBO, and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality 'Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE - 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant envfronmental 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. DIlly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to offer the motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-94 CONNIE & WILLIAM GEBO, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: As prepared, with the addition of a modification of a single access driveway to serve both sides of the duplex. - 16 - " ,.. y ...-- Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 18-94 to construct a duplex; and Whereas, the above mentioned 4/27/94 consists of the following: 4/27/94; and site plan application dated 1. Sheet 1, site plan, dated Whereas, the above file is supported with documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 5/19/94 Environmental Assessment form, dated 4/27/94; and the following 2. Short Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/19/94 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Plann.ing Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan #18-94. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 4. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 5. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: . AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer SITE PLAN NO. 19-94 TYPE: UNLISTED HUGH SINCLAIR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-IA LOCATION: CORINTH RD. &: CORNER OF MERRITT RD. TO USE AS EXISTS FOR SMALL OFFICES - SERVICEMASTER. TO ERECT FENCE AND PLACE HANDICAPPED PARKING SIGN AS REQUIRED BY A PREVIOUS SITE PLAN APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 55-92, SP 13-94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/11/94 TAX MAP NO. 146-1-10 LOT SIZE: .52 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 I~GH SINCLAIR, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay, Scott, do we have some notes? MR. HARLICKER-It seems to me that the only outstanding issue regarding this project, that's been before you numerous times, is the issue of the fence. It shows it going down, not the entire length of the property, but down to the other side of the, to the patio, and probably two-tl1irds of the way across the front of the property. - 17 - ........- MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And we have No County Impact, from the County. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any corrnnents from anybody on the Board? MR. STARK-When we were up there, we decided that we ought to ask for three more sections of fence. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-That's not a hardship, for the last two years. MRS. LABOMBARD-My sentiments are the same as George's. MR. BREWER-Mr. Sinclair, would you like to come up and talk to the Board for a minute? MR. SINCLAIR-I'm Hugh Sinclair, and we'll finish up the fence. MR. BREWER-You will? Can you give us a date by when you'll finish it? MR. SINCLAIR-By the end of the month. MR. BREWER-By the end of the month. Give yourself plenty of time. MRS. LABOMBARD-The end of the month is one week. MR. MARTIN-It's up to you guys. MR. MACEWAN--Enough fence to get to the property line. MR. BREWER -Thr ee weeks is p I en ty 0 f time, t hr ee weeks from today? Does that satisfy everybody? MR. STARK-Fine. MR. RUEL-How about a date? MR. MARTIN-What's three weeks from tomorrow? MR. RUEL-June 15th. MR. BREWER-That's four weeks. MR. MACEWAN-From tomorrow, it would be June 3rd, would be three weeks, right? MR. RUEL-June 3rd. MR. BREWER-June 3rd. Would somebody care to make a motion? Wait a minute, do we have to do another SEQRA on this? MR. MARTIN-No. same action. I just asked Mark that, not if it's regarding the MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-94 HUGH SINCLAIR, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To use as exists a small office for Service Master, and erect a fence to extend the full length of the property to the Halycon Industries property, and place handicapped parking sign as required by their previous site plan approval. The date to erect the fence the length of the property to extend to Halycon Industries by June 3rd, 1994. - 18 - ,", . ',,-, --- Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-The handicapped parking sign is up. We did see that. MR. RUEL-Okay. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. didn't for him, did I, Mr. Did I open the public hearing for, Sinclair? I MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. BREWER-How do we get out of that? MR. MARTIN-You just have to open the public hearing, and then reaffirm your motion. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. here to comment on that? Is there anyone PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we have to just reaffirm our motion and vote again. MR. SCHACHNER-That would be fine. MOTION TO REAFFIRM THE PREVIOUS ON SITE PLAN NO. SINCLAIR, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for seconded by Robert Paling: 19-94 HUGH its adoption, Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brew€r NOES: NONE . ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer SlJßDIVISION NO. 3-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED L. RAE GILLIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: EAST SIDE LOCKHART MT. RD. PROPOSAL I S FOR A TWO LOT SUBD I V I S ION. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 23--1-29.1, 29.21' LOT SIZE: t 23 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RICK MEATH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-1994 Preliminary Stage, L. Rae Gillis, Meeting Date: May 19, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The a p p I i can tis pro pas i n g to sub d i v ide a 8. 7 a c r e par c elf r om a 2 3 acre parcel. The proper ty is zoned RR-5A and is located on Lockhart Mountain Road. The 8.7 acre lot will be vacant and the remaining property has a house and two chicken coops on it. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The project complies with the lot requirements for the RR-5A zoning district. This is a simple two lot subdivision. The properties are not serviced by municipal water or sewer. The subdivision does not involve the construction of any - 19 - '---- -..-' new roads. Gi ven the size of the remaining parcel, future subdivision is possible. Since there does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this subdivision, staff can recorrunend prel iminary approval." MR. MARTIN-This normally would have met our two lot subdivision clause, but being in the APA, it brings it to the Board. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any questions? MR. RUEL-Yes. have a question. I see a map of survey, Lands of Rae Gillis, ,and we talk about 23 acres, but I can't see the 23 åcres. I see 8.7. MR. HARLICKER-The total of the whole. MR. RUEL-Yes, but I don't see it. This says here it's a survey of the Lands of L. Rae Gillis. Where are the 23 acres? MR. MEATH-The entire property is shown on this map. MR. RUEL-It's not shown on this map. MR. PALING-It's shown. MR. RUEL-The title indicates that it is, but it isn't. MR. PALING-Is the boundary up here? MR. MEATH-Yes, that's where it is. property. This whole thing is the MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. " MR. MACEWAN-I think a question we had when we were on site visits, is there a variance in existence up there that's being used currently for up there? MR. MEATH-I do not know the answer to that. I know there is an APA Permit for what the current use is. I do not know if there is, I assume there's a variance from the Town, but I don't know that for a fact. MR. BREWER-Sir, could you please just identify yourself for the record? MR. MEATH-My name is Rick Meath, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. MR. BREWER-Okay. You think that there is a variance for the trailer shop you're talking?' MR. MEATH-I believe that there is. I know there is an APA Permit, and I believe there is a Town variance. MR . MARTI N - I'm pre t t Y c e r t a i nth ere is, a Iso, be c a use was up there to see that shop, because their owner was thinking of an expansion, and I said that would require another variance, but we can make sure that's the case. I'm pretty sure there's one there myself. MR. BREWER-Okay. Final? Anythi ng else? Do you want an answer before MR. MACEWAN-Yes, would like that. MR. MARTI N - Yes. can h a vet hat for you. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thanks. -- 20 - -./ "---- MR. BREWER-I don't have any questions. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. We can do the SEQRA. MR. HARLICKER-The applicant submitted a Long Form with this. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-1994, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before L. RAE GILLIS, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Charrman 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 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer MR. BREWER-Were adequate notices given? MR. MARTIN-Hand them right in here. MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we have a prepared motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1994 L. RAE -- 21 -- '-- ---- GILLIS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application, rile It 3-1994, to subdivide a 23 acre parcel into two lots; and .. Whereas, the above referenced preliminary application, dated 4/5/94 consists of the following: survey map of land of Gillis, revised 3/11/94; and subdivision 1. Sheet 1, Whereas, the above file is supported with the documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 5/19/94 Environmental Assessment Form, dated 4/5/94; and following 2. Long Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/19/94 concerning the above subdivision; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment; and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision is subject to the following modifications and terms prior to submission of the plat in final form: Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve preliminary subdivision file n 3-1994. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ^BSENT: Mr. Obermayer SITE PLAN NO. 17-94 TYPE: UNLISTED STEVEN SOLIMANTO OWNER: TORRINGTON CONSTRUCTION ZONE: HC-IA, SR-IA LOCATION: RT. 149, EAST TO RT. 9L, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RT. 149 AND 9L. PREPARATION OF LAND FOR A FARMER'S MARKET ON A 3 ACRE PORTION OF A -I- 25 ACRE PARCEL . WARREN CO. P LANN I NG : 5/ 11 /94 TAX MAP NO. 5 1 - 1 - 7 LOT SIZE: 25 ACRES SECTION: 179-23, 179-19 PAT SOLIMANTO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 17-94, Steven Solimanto, Meeting Date: May 19, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to locate a farmer's market at the southwest corner of Route 149 and Ridge Road. The market wi 11 us·e approximately 3 acres of a 25 acre parcel. 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 - 22 - í .~ ,,--. '-..I was found to be no significant impact on the road system. In accordance with Section 179-38 D., the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E., of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The project should be compatible with the area in which it is located. No lighting is shown on the plan and the sign indicated on the plan will be subject to a separate permit. No permanent structures are proposed for the site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traf1ic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Access to the site will be from a curb cut to be placed opposite the existing entrance to Stewart's. The applicant has indicated that this is the preferred location by DOT. A letter from DOT confirming this has not been received as of this date. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off-street parking is adequate. The site plan shows room for mol' e than 60 spaces. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation walkway structures, control of intersections wi thvehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater drainage shall be retained on site. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; No water supply or sewage disposal facilities are proposed. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; Landscaping includes whiskey barrels with flowers planted in such a way that they delineate the vendor's area. 8. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Erosion control measures shall be in place during construction and until the site has been stabilized. RECOMMENOATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-It went to Warren County. conditions. They concur wi th local MR. BREWER-Okay. We do have a letter from Joanna M. Brunso. George, do you want to read that into the record? MR. STARK-Mr. James Martin, Town Planner of the Town of Queensbury, "Dear Jim: I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed development of the vacant parcel on the southwest corner of Route 149 and 9L, and have the following corrunents to make: 1. The proposed treatment of this site seems to indicate that several small vendors will be arriving on a regular basis to bring wares to sell. The Town may wish to consider a separate vendors entrance at the south of the parcel off Route 9L. 2. This appears to be a temporary development. Thus the applicant should consider permits for these access point(s) temporary. A new or more permanent development for this land should trigger a new site plan review by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board including a review of the appropriate access to this parcel. Thank you for the opportuni ty to review this proposed site plan for use by multiple vendors. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Joanna M. ßrunso Staff Director" MR. BREWER--A question I have, is this strictly going to be a Farmer's Market, or is it going to be other than a Farmer's Market? MRS. SOLIMANTO-I '01 Pat Solimanto. things, from fresh fruits and collectibles, to antiques. We're going to have a variety of vegetables, to (lost words) MR. BREWER-Okay. - 23 - '-""" MR. MACEWAN-Would it be safe to consider it more of a flea market than a f~rmer's market? MRS. SOLIMANTO-Well, would you consider a crafts? MR. MACEWAN-I've seen them at flea markets. That's why I wanted to get .YQ.Y.L input from that. MR. BREWER-It's kind of like LARAC. MRS. SOLIMANTO- I'm sure you' re going to have some sundries, but I'm particularly looking for staples and food, farm type of things. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does this plan need a driveway, or a curb cut permit, Jim, or driveway permits, or whatever? MR. MARTIN-I believe it will. There's going to be vehicles coming and leaving, coming to the site and leaving the site on a State route. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-They're usually issued through the Warrensburg Office of . DOT. MR. BREWER-Is that something preapproval that they should have, or not? MR. MARTIN-I know that you cannot be denied access to the site. So they're going to be issued permi ts at one point or another. DOT usually dictates that along State routes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Another question I have, why wouldn't you try to enter this property on Ridge Road, rather than on 149? You've got more road frontage. MRS. SOLIMANTO-The gentleman I spoke to, from the DOT, this is the ar ea t ha t he r econmlended . MR. BREWER-On 149? MRS. SOLIMANTO-Yes. MR. BREWER-But what if you were not to enter onto 149? I would like to see them exit on 9L. MR. BREWER-Why not enter and exist on Ridge Road? STEVEN SOLIMANTO MR. SOLIMANTO-You need a place to enter on 149, Stewart's driveway. That's where he suggested. down a little bit further. right across from I wanted to put it MR. BREWER-Okay. What are your hours of operation going to be? MR. SOLIMANTO-Seven o'clock in the morning until seven o'clock in the evening. I'm not certain on the hours. MR. BREW~R-Okay. How long are you going to operate there? MR. SOL IMANTO-We '11 be stay i ng ther e unt i 1 abou t December 1 s 1. MR. BREWER-December first? MRS. SOLIMANTO-We won't be open at that time, weather permitting. MR. BREWER-No. I mean, when do you anticipate to start, is what - 24 - "-' <-.,I I'm asking. MR. SOLIMANTO-I'd like to be open Memorial Day. MR. BREWER-Memorial Day. Seven a.m. to seven p.m. questions from anybody else? Okay. Any MR. PALING-Will you have any employees? MR. SOLIMANTO-No. It's going to be family run. MR. PALING-Family run. facilities. You're open disposal. I'm just wondering about bathroom 12 hours a day, but there's no sewage MR. SOLIMANTO-There's no sewage disposal. We can either make arrangements with Stewart's or put in port-a-potties. MR. BREWER-No. don't think you can put in port-a-potties. MR. SOLIMANTO-You can't put in port-a-potties? MR. MARTIN-They're not allowed anywhere in the Town, except on construction sites. MR. MACEWAN--I'm not totally crazy about that idea, with passing traffic trying to cross 149. MR. SOLIMANTO-Yes. had, originally, thought of porta-a-potties. MR. PALING-Shouldn't you have some kind of bathroom facilities there, with that kind of hours of operation, and the people coming and going? MR. BREWER-Well, you think about LARAC. I guess they close at five. They're there from, well, MR. PALING-It's a temporary business. are going to be there for 12 hours. They have no employees that don't know. MR. BREWER-Anything else? MR. RUEL-Is a separate permit required for this operation? MR. MARTIN-No. Due to the length of time, that's what kicked it to site plan. They originally came in looking for Transient Merchant, and due to the span of time, and the magnitude of it, it kicked it into a site plan review. MR. RUEL-So this is not necessarily temporary. It's a permanent thing? It doesn't have to be renewed next year, or anything like that? MR. MARTIN-No. You could make .it a, that's something you could condition, if you wanted to, make it a year to year thing. That's up to you, but there's no other permit required. If you were to approve this through your normal means, then it would be viewed as a permanent use, but you could condition it with an allowed time frame. MR. RUEL-It's used about, approximately, how many months, did you say? MR. ßREWER--From Memor i al Day to December. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Are you planning on Christmas tree sales as well? Is that what you're thinking? - 25 - ~- -.-/ MR. SOLIMANTO-No. MR. RUEL-That's almost a whole year. MR. STARK-Tim, if we conditioned it for a year, you could see how the traffic worked out and so on and so forth, and then maybe make it a permanent thing next year. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Now, you did indicate that DOT would have to grant them the right for a curb cut on 149. MR. MARTIN-Or 9L. They're both State roads. MR. RUEL-Yes. Well, will there be an access road on 9L, at the rear of the property? We were talking about it. MR. MACEWAN-If we stipulate it, there will be. MR. BREWER-] 'd rather see an entrance and exit right on Ridge Road, rather than 149. Cars pulling in and out of there I think is, it's close to a light. There's a lot of traffic there. I just think it would be a better idea to have tl1em enter and exit on Ridge Road. MR. RUEL-You would have entrance on 149 and exit on 9L? MR. BREWER-No, neither, enter and exit on Ridge, for safety sake. MRS. LABOMBARD-Except, what about catching the traffic, though? The main traffic is on 149, and people might decide, I'd like to stop there, and then they're like, my gosh, how do I go into this place? He'd have to put up another sign. MR. BREWER-You could put up a small sign with an arrow. I mean, if they want to get in there, they'll figure out how to get in there. MRS. SOLIMANTO-That might cause more problems. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think entering on practical. I agree with you. It is that Queensbury Country Club enough breath every time. 149, exiting dangerous. times, and on 9 Lis mo r e I've gone into I jus t Ii 0 I d my MR. BREWER-That's why I'm saying to enter and exit on Ridge Road. MRS. LABOMBARD-But I'm thinking as far as catching the traffic, too. MR. BREWER-There's enough site distance that you can see the whole piece of property from 149. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's true. I'll tell you, I don't want to get bogged down on that as much as, if you're going to have, I don't know, how many vendors in there, at your peak in the summer, would you think? MRS. SOLIMANTO-I don't know, something like (lost word) spots, 60 spaces there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, but lets just say you had 40 to 60 people that, not counting the customers, just the vendors, what are they going to use for bathroom facilities? I really have a problem with that. MRS. SOLIMANTO-Well, like he said, we would probably work out arrangements with Stewarts across the way. MRS. LABOMBARD-But that's something that you're not sure that Stewarts is going to want you to. That's a little worrisome to me. - 26 - "-- ."",. MR. STARK-I'd like to make it conditional for one year, and then next year we can review it, and then if there have been any problems, such as traffic entrances or exits, toilet problems or anything, we can address it at that point. MR. BREWER-Yes. I've got that written down to review it next April 1st. Make it a temporary item. MR. STARK-And then if permanent toilets are needed on the premises, if it's going good, fine. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-And then we'll know more about the traffic, too, next year. MR. BREWER-All right. the public hearing. Anybody else on the Board? Okay. I'll open Is there anyone here to speak on this issue? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN BOWMAN MR. BOWMAN-Yes. My name is John Bowman. We live, our property is adjacent to this parcel, to the west. Now, you said you were going to be open seven to seven? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. BOWMAN-How many days a week? MR. SOLIMANTO-About four days a week. MR. BOWMAN-Do you know how far your three acre parcel is from our property here to the west? MRS. SOLIMANTO-Is your house across from the logging company? Is there a logging building there? MR. BOWMAN-No. That would be here. That's next to Stewarts. We're further west, on the south side. MR. BREWER-Okay, John, cOIJld I ask you just to direct the questIons to the Board, and then, if need be, we can ask Mr. Solimanto. MR. ROWMAN-Yes. Okay. The first thing was, I wanted to know how ma n y day saw e e k, and h e an s w ere d t hat. 1st her ego i n g to be a buffer zone between this business and our property? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It looks like, on the site plan it shows that they've got about 220 feet, from where they're parkIng, is going to be to your property line. MR. BOWMAN-The other thing is, what's the ground construction? Is that going to remain dirt'! MR. SOLIMANTO-Grass. MR. BOWMAN-How are you going to keep the dust down, then? MR. BREWER-Okay. All right. Let him ask the Board, and then we'll get back to you with the question. You can address them. That would just make it shorter for everybody. Okay. MR. BOWMAN-How many vendors? Did I hear 60? MR. BREWER-Potentially 60 spots. MR. BOWMAN-How big are the spots? - 27 - - ..-/. MR. BREWER-We'll find out. MR. BOWMAN-Yes, that's all I wanted. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anyone else? ROBERT MARTINDALE MR. MARTINDALE-My name is Robert Martindale. How big are the spots going to be? MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets not get into an answer and question session. You ask the Board, and then we'll find out for you. MR. MARTINDALE-How big are the spots? MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTINDALE-The other thing is, we just went through a Corridor Study on Route 149. It hasn't been completed yet. They found that the traffic was very heavy on 149. Is that true? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTINDALE-Okay. I have to agree with Tim about the driveway being, come in on Route 9, or Ridge Road and to exit there, too. Then if somebody has to pullout, and, lets say wants to go west, the light is going to out. If somebody's in that driveway trying to get out, they're never going to get out, especially if you've got Stewarts right across the road. You've got Walker Supply right across the road. We've got George Ryan right across the road. That's going to be a nightmare to get in and out of there. I think that the driveway should be on Ridge Road. I think it's a good ide a to h a v e i t for aye a r, to see how i t go e s, but my ma i n con c ern is that we did just have a Route 149 Corridor Study, and it was not completed, and we don't know what's going on with that road. Why allow a curb cu t on tha t road when we don't know wha t 's going on with that road yet? And the Board should know, or, I know some people on the Board know that we wanted to do something similar to this fora year, have a zone change, and we've gone to various Boards, and they've used this Corridor Study as a means to say, well, we can't do anything right now, because the Corridor Study isn't completed. MR. BREWER-Bob, this isn't a zone change. MR. MARTtNDALE-I know, but what it's saying is, the Corridor Study is not completed, and you're thinking about putting a curb cut on there. MR. BREWER-This is an allowable use on that piece of property. MR. MARTINDALE-I don't have a problem with them using that property the way they want to use it. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTINDALE-They can do, I feel they should be able to do whatever they want, but I do think that the curb cut should be 011 Ridge Road, for everybody's safety. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? MR. MARTINDALE-Can I ask one question about 149? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. MARTINDALE-Have they, any new news on that? MR. HARLICKER-No. _. 28 - '-- ."", MR. BREWER-None that I'm aware of. MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess, Mr. Solimanto, it's up to you. You said four or five days a week? MR. SOLIMANTO-Yes. It's all new. MR. BREWER-I understand, and you don't want to commit yourself to any. MR. SOLIMANTO-I would hate like heck to say two, and wind up having six. MR. BREWER-So maximum is going to be seven, minimum's going to be two, right? MRS. LABOMBARD-But the weekend will be two of those days, definitely. MR. SOLIMANTO-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Well, I think it's only fair for our Boards, in order to give you a possible approval on this, is have some sort of definitive plans as to actually what you plan on doing, so that we can better judge whether we want to approve this or not. MR. SOLIMANTO-We know what we want to do. MR. MACEWAN-How many days will you want to do it in? MR. SOLIMANTO-How many days do I want to do it in? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, per week. MR. SOLIMANTO-I'd like to see it be successful seven days a week. I don't want to conmit myself to seven days a week. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, but you'd like to work up to that, eventually. MR. SOLIMANTO-I'd like to. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, then that's your max. MR. BREWER-If you fall short of that, nobody's going to hold you to say that you have to be open seven days a week. That's, I guess, what we're saying to you, but I don't want you to say that you're going to be open Saturday and Sunday, and then every week you're going to be open Monday through Sunday. I mean, that's not fair to say either. Is there going to be a buffer area around the property? MR. SOLIMANTO-On the side. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's also a fifty foot buffer required on the back of it, because it abuts a Residential zone. MR. BREWER-So there will be a buffer on the north side? MR. HARLICKER-On the southern side, opposite Route 149. MR. BREWER-All right, on the southern side. Okay. question was, how big of an area will the vendors have? you'll be selling space? The other I presume - 29 - '----- '-' MR. SOLIMANTO-We'll be selling space. It'll be large to begin with. If we get enough vendors, we'll cut it back, but I'd like to be able to have approximately about 20 by 10. MR. BREWER-And a maximum of 60 vendors? MR. SOLIMANTO-Yes. MR. STARK-Twenty by ten, Tim, is just the size of a vehicle. MR. BREWER-He's saying the sizes, George, not me. MR . STARK - 1st his i n add i t ion tot h eve h i c I e 0 C cup y i n g spa ceo r what? MR. SOLIMANTO-No. MR. BREWER-It will be a booth, like they have at LARAC. How about dust control? MR. SOLIMANTO--It's either going stone. There was grass there. it's been dug up. to be done wi th wood chips, or I wanted it all left grass, but MR. MARTIN-Has there been made provisions on the site for the v end 0 r s ? I w 0 u 1 d i ma gin e t hat you' reg 0 i n g to h a v e p e 0 pie s t a y i n g in motor homes and things I ike that, or, where are they s tor ing their things? MR. SOLIMANTO--In the evening? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Are they going to be permitted to stay on site in an RV? MR. SOLIMÀNTO-No. MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question similar to that. Could somebody bring in one of those little storage barns that is set on cement blocks and, lets say they decide they're going to rent a space for the entire season and then just put up a little storage barn on those cement blocks, and maybe keep things in there, so they don't have to bring them home with them every time, or will everything always be packed up at night and reset up in the morning again? MR. SOLIMANTO-I really wanted them to pack everything up and take it out. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. BREWER-So if someone rented the space for two weeks, or three weeks, you want them to pack up every single night and bring it home with them and then come back in the morning and set up again? MR. SOLIMANTO-That's what I (lost word). I wouldn't want to see a building out there, maybe some fixtures or something, but nothing like a building. MR. BREWER-Suppose they had one of these tent t~pe? MR. SOLIMANTO-I 'd want that packed up. MR. BREWER-You would? MR. SOLIMANTO-Yes. MR. BREWER-What do you mean by fixtures? MR. SOLIMANTO-A table, something. - 30 - :/ '----' "-"'" MR. BREWER-So the tent type structure would be considered a fixture? MRS. LABOMBARD-Like those awnings that ground, and they have a nice canopy top. down every night? they can stake into the You would want that taken MR. SOLIMANTO-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I guess the only concerns I'm having right at this point are the ~ays of operation, the number of days of operation, and I'd like to see it get nailed down to the hours of operation. MR. BREWER--He said seven a.m. to seven p.m. MRS. LABOMBARD-And eventually work up to seven days a week, if business is that good. MR. RUEL-Any lighting on the site? MR. SOLIMANTO-No. We have no lighting. It's just during daylight hours. MR. BREWER-So, naturally, then, the hours are going to decrease when the sun sets earlier. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Would you have a problem if part of the approval was that it be during the daylight hours, not dawn to dusk, but. MR. BREWER-Seven a.m. MR. RlJEL-If there's no light, they're not going to do a hell of a lot in the dark. MR. MACEWAN-Well, somebody could bring in portables, though. That's where my thoughts are going. MR. MARTIN-Is there going to be any temporary electricity brought to the site, generators running or anything like that? MR.SOLIMANTO-No. noise. I wouldn't want generators, because~they produce MR. MARTIN-That's why I asked. MR. BREWER-Let me ask you this, Mr. Solimanto. Are you going to have a set of regulations and rules that the people have to follow, because if you are, I'd like to see them, if it's at all possible. MR. SOLIMANTO-I would ask them to cooperate with anything that I ask them to do. MR. BREWER-You're not going to have any standards as to what people can do? MR. MARTIN-Is there a contract or lease that's going to be proposed for each site? MR. SOLIMANTO-No. MR. MACEWAN-Just kind of a handshake deal? MR. SOLIMANTO-Yes. That's the best kind of a deal. MR. MACEWAN-Sometimes. MR. BREWER-It just seems kind of vague to me. - 31 - ---.-/ MR. SOLIMANTO-This is usually, we've done things like this ourselves. We tell them what we're going to sell, and they accept us, and then we can sell there, and if we don't fall within the perimeters of what they want, then we have to (lost word). MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess what I'm asking you, do you have any kind of idea exactly what's going to be allowed and what's not going to be allowed? MR. SOLIMANTO-We wouldn't allow any profanity. MR. BREWER-No. I '£11 talking about type of vendors. MR. SOLIMANTO-Well, we would like to have it country, and antiques, mo s t I y . The re' Lib e a va r i e t y . MR. BREWER-I guess I just have a problem envisioning somebody with a bunch of antiques packing them up every single night and then going back there for any period of time. MR. STARK-People do that, though. MR. BREWER-Do they? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. STARK-Yes. MR. BREWER-If they're going to be there for a period of time? MR. STARK-Yes. They don't want to .Leave them there overnight, that's for sure. MR. BREWER-I just don't want to have a motion here that says that you're going to pack up everything and take it home every night, and then"have me drive by there in a month and say, gee, they're staying there every night. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now, what you've proposed sounds very nice and very tuned in to the environment and the aesthetics around you, with the candlemaking and the farmers market, and Craig brought up the flea ma r k e t con c e pt. T hat m i g h t be, well, you g 0 by fie a ma r k e t s , there's one that happens to be in Whitehall, outside the Chamber of Commerce building, and it's when you enter the Town, on a Sunday morning, and it's absolutely horrendous. It is such an eyesore. So, I'm just wondering if in order to fill your vending spots, would you start compromising your original plans to let 20 or 30 flea market people come in, and then they would overshadow the nice candlemaking, and the nice flower arrangement making, or the woodworking, that type of thing. See, that's why it would be nice if you had some kind of plans written down, and some kind of rules to give to the potential customers. MRS. SOLIMANTO-If we were to do anything like that, to keep that atmosphere, because I want that atmosphere, it means a lot to me, I would put it along the outside perimeters. MRS. LABOMBARD-So you would put the flea market people, where, again? MRS. SOLIMANTO-In the center. MRS. LABOMBARD-In the center, and have the nice, classier things around the outside. MRS. SOLIMANTO-The outside, you know, candlemaking and that type of thing. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. - 32 - · .. .. "---' -..I MR. BREWER-Well, I would like to know, before I gave my blessing on this, as to what kind of arrangement you're going to have for bathrooms, how much of the site are you going to cover for dust. I mean, are you just going to cover a small area, the whole thing? Are you going to plant grass? Are you going to put stone? Are you going to put chips? MR. SOLIMANTO-It's going to be vegetation, stone and chips. I want it to look nice. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but I want to know what you're going to vegetate, and what you're going to put stones down in. MRS. SOLIMANTO-The vegetation area would be where the vendors are. The parking would be the gravel, and then the DOT wants a paved driveway across from (lost word). MR. SOLIMANTO-We supplied the 10 feet. MR. BREWER-So you don't like the idea of in and out on Ridge, take it? MRS. SOLIMANTO-I wouldn't mind in on 149. acceptable, and out on Ridge. think that sounds MR. SOLIMANTO-In and out on Ridge. MR. BREWER-In and out on Ridge is what I'm suggesting. MRS. SOLIMANTO-But I think we're going to miss the flow on 149. MR. SOL IMANTO-Especially when they're in an eas ter I y di rection. When they finally get to see it, they won't be able to turn out. MR. BREWER-Okay. I've had mY say. Bob? MR. PALING-I have very serious reservations about the bathroom facilities. Just to repeat what I said, we're comparing this to LARAC. We're comparing this to LARAC, which I don't think is fair. LARAC is a two day, sort of a one shot, once a year deal. You're going into business on a permanent basis, and you're going to have a lot of people there, a lot of hours during the day, and over a long period of days, ånd I don't see how you can not have some kind of a (lost word). Well, I would like to see it. MR. STARK-Tim, that means a water supply line. out there. That means well. There's no water MR. BREWER-That means a well, yes. Roger? MR. RUEL-I have a problem with this application, in~ that I feel there are too many open items not yet resolved, and like standards and bathroom facilities, etc., things that we spoke about, and you have no operating procedure. I do have a problem with that. MR. BREWER-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I think I echo what everyone else has alr~ady said. and add to it, I would want a definitive days of operation, and hours of operation, nailed down, we want to know that. I'm not com for tab I e wit h ma y bet w 0, ma y be s eve n , i fit get s goo d , we'll have seven days a week. I want to know before we approve, exactly how many days you plan on being open, and what hours you plan on being in operation. MR. BREWER-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-I share the same feelings that everybody else has ex pre sse d so far , and ma i n I y t hat we need to h a v e an 0 v era 11 comprehensive use plan for the use of this property, so we're not - 33 - '~ -' surprised. MR. BREWER-George? MR. STARK-Maybe we could table it. I don't know whether they can answer all these questions in a week or not. They could come back next week, or else the first meeting of next month, with the answers to these questions. MR. BREWER-Do you think that's a possibility? If we table it, you can come back with some kind of a plan as to exactly what you're going to do? MR. STARK-By next week, and we'll put you on. MR. MARTIN-Why don't you make sure, if they want to write down, a compr ehens i ve lis t of your ques t ions, and then we revisit that same list, you know, have it written down. them can MR. BREWER-Do you want to do that, or do you think you know what they are?, MR. SOLIMANTO-Yes. 1 'd like to write down the questions. MR. BREWER-Okay. What I've got is, days per week, hours, show the buffer area, the issue of the dust, where you're going to put the vegetation, on the map, where you're going to put the wood chips, etc. YOH already told us the size of the areas for the vendors is 20 by 10, some kind of an arrangement for a bathroom facility. MR. RUEL-Entrance and exit. MR. BREWER-I'm still not so sure about the entrance onto 149. don't know how everybody else feels. MR. STARK-You said an exit. They're talking about an entrance. MR. BREWER-No, an entrance onto 149, exit onto 9. MR. STARK-The people would be coming in on 149, but they'd have to exit and enter also on Route 9L. So there'd be two entrances, one exit. MR. BREWER-I would check and see if there's any problem with curb cuts for that issue. I'd like something in writing if we could get it. Is there anything else I missed? MR. RUEL-What is it, a farmers market, flea market, or a vendor market? MR. SOLIMANTO-Farmers market. MR. MACEWAN-Will you have regulations to abide by for like a mimeographed sheet, these? some sort of written up rules and the vendors, that you'll hand them, and say, here's our rules, abide by MR. MARTIN-It could be a condition of this, if you want to require that to be handed out. MR; BREWER-Yes. I mean, you're not going into this blind. You must have some kind of an idea of what you're going to do, and what kind of standards you want to have for this. So maybe if we could get them on paper, it would make the Board feel a little bit easier. MR. RUEL-Yes. Good. MR. BREWER-Nothing else? I guess we need your consent to table. - 34 - ~ '-" ~ MR. SOLIMANTO-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 17-94 by Craig MacEwan who moved for its Ruel : STEVEN SOL I MANTO , Introduced adoption, seconded by Roger Un ti I 5/26/94. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer SITE PLAN NO. 16-94 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN J. NIGRO/TACO BELL CORP. OWNER: JOliN J. NIGRO/BERNARD C. ROGGE LOCATION: GLEN SQ. PLAZA, WEST SIDE OF NYS RT. 9 MODIFICATION OF SITE PLAN FOR EXISTING GLEN SQUARE PLAZA TO REMOVE EXISTING CARVEL BUILDING AND REPLACE IT WITH A SMALLER TACO BELL, ADD 800 SQ. FT. TO REAR OF EXISTING BANK, ADD 1 ,512 SQ. FT. TO REAR OF EX I ST I NG V IDEO STORE, REDUCE WIDTH OF EXISTING ClJRBCUTS AND INCREASE LANDSCAPED GREEN SPACE ALONG RT. 9 FRONTAGE. ALL LAND USES IN PC & MR ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMM. 5/9/94 WARREN CO. PLANNING - 5/11/94 TAX MAP NO. 99-2-1, 102-1-1 LOT SIZE: 11.19 ACRES SECTION 179-22, 179-18 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 16-94, John J. Nigro/Taco Bell Corp., Meeting Date: May 19, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing Carvel Ice Cream building and construct a 2,000 square foot Taco Bell Restaurant, un 800 square foot addition to the Chase Bank which will reopen as Troy Savings Bank and a 1,512 square foot addition to the Empire Video Building which will be reopened as Blockbuster Video. Realignment of accessways and reconfiguration of landscaped islands are part of this site plan. 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 is currently under review regarding its impact on the highways and a traffic study is being supplied." The traffic study has since been finished. "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 bui ldings, 1 ighting and signs; The proposed construction is compatible with the existing plaza. No new signage, other than wall signs, are proposed and any new lighting will be compatible with what is 'currently on site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Traffic access and flow are the major concerns relating to this project. Since Taco Bell and the bank are part of Glen Square, it would seem reasonable to internalize traffic flow, direct it to the two main plaza entrances and not have separate curb cuts for Taco Bell and the bank. This has been done in other --. 35 - '-- '-../ plazas such as Quaker Plaza. Access management is a problenl along Route 9; the elimination of the two curb cuts that service only one business each would be a step in the right direction, regarding access management. There is also a problem with vehicles entering the beverage center driveway and cutting across to the plaza. This is a dangerous situation and could be eliminated by retaining the existing grass area on the south side of the proposed parking area behind the video store. Access to this parking area would be from the southerly plaza entrance. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off- street parking is sufficient, but no loading area is shown for Taco Bell. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation walkway structures, control of intersections with veh i cu lar traff i c and overall pedes tr i an conveni ence; Pedestrian access could be improved by aligning the parking perpendicular to the buildings instead of parallel. 5. The adeql1acy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater will be reviewed by Rist-Frost. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The water supply will be reviewed by the Water Department and sewage will be reviewed by the Wastewater Department. Municipal water and sewer are available. 7. The adequacy, type and ar rangement of trees, shrubs, and other sui tabl e planting~, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or. noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; Conmlents of the Beautification Committee shall be incorporated. Efforts should be made to replant any existing trees that will have to be removed. There appears to be ample area to accomplish this. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and otller emergency zones and the provision of rire hydrants; Emergency access and hydrants are adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. This is not an issue. Erosion control measures shall be in place during construction and until the site has been stabilized. RECOMMENDATION: The main concerns relating to this project involve traffic and access flow, providing these issues can be resolved to the Board's satisfaction staff can reconmlend approval of this project." MR. HARLICKER-We've got a letter from DOT, regarding traffic access. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll read it in right now. This is a letter from William E. Logan. He is the Regional Traffic Engineer from DOT Region One down in Albany, and this is addressed to Dave Barlow, at Clough Harbour Associates, Regarding proposed Taco Bell, Route 9, Town of Queensbury. "Dear Mr. Barlow: Our connnents on the site plan reviewed in your May 18, 1994 meeting with Mark Kennedy are as follows: 1. The most southerly drive must be re-constructed to a 24' wid th wi th R== 34', x == 22.5, y = 32. All t ur n moves wi 11 be allowed. 2. The Chase Bank drive must be reconstructed to a 24' width with R=34', x = 22.5'. All turn moves will be allowed at this time. After two years or prior to construction of the Chase Bank, whichever comes first, an evaluation of the entrance will be prèpared as required by the town. 3. The proposed Taco Bell drive must provide a 14 foot or 16 foot wide entrance which will allow both rights and lefts in; a 14 foot or 16 foot wide entrance which will allow both rights and lefts in; a 14 or 16 foot wide exit which will allow rights out only and is separated by a four foot island. 4. We suggest you improve the alignment of the main circulation roadway through the site and that you consider using a 28' width rather than the 24' shown. If you have any questions on this, please call Mark Kennedy. Very truly yours, William E. Logan, Regional Traffic Engineer" I've got Mike Shaw's letter here. To Jim Martin, from Mike Shaw, date, May 10th, regarding Glen Square Plaza. modifications, "In reviewing the above mentioned, I have the following conments. 1. The proposed Taco Bell is to connect to the existing sanitary sewer line. When the Carvel building is demolished, the service line should be properly cut and - 36 - '-- -.../ capped. This will allow for a direct connection to the existing service lateral, there won't be a need for a saddle. (Detail 5; C- 3) 2. Exterior Grease Trap Detail (1, C-3). Tee Baffles should be on the outlet pipe only, the pipe extension should be 6-inches (6") from the bottom of the tank. 3. The interior plumbing of the Taco Bell should have a backwater valve, double-hand hole 'u' trap and vent. The specifications for these fixtures are available at this office. 4. The addition to the rear of the Chase Bank will possibly be over the service lateral. 5. The addition to the rear of the Empire Video will possibly be over the service lateral. If you have any questions on these comments, please call me at my office." And it's copied to Dave Barlow. MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have Warren County. MR. MARTIN-Warren County approved "a Site Plan Review for the modification of the site plan for the existing plaza to remove existing Carvel building and replace it with a smaller Taco Bell, add 800 sq. ft. to rear of existing bank, add 1512 sq. ft. to rear of video store, reduce curb cuts. COMMENTS: Applicant agreed to the following modifications: that there be no left turns from the Taco Bell onto Glen Street during peak traffic hours, bus stop will be located in the Plaza, if addition to Bank is constructed, the island wiLl be cut in half, sidewalks will be improved and placed along fulj frontage of Glen Street, crosswalks will be added and will not have individual parking signs denoting parking spaces. MR. BREWER-What happened to the "Over" on this, Jim? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, were there some comments that were left out by Warren County? MR. HARLICKER-No, I think that's probably a further description of the action. MR. MARTIN-That was just a further description of the action. That constitutes all their comments, and you have a letter there, the original letter from Joanna Brunso, which I believe would be superseded by today's letter from DOT, and then we have Rist- Frost's letter, which I'll leave to Bill to read his comments. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. A lot of these comments have been addressed in one way or another, either by the DOT or by the Water Department, or by Mike Shaw's comments. The first two comments just actually went towards parking, and the totals aren't on the sheet in front of me. I'm not going to pull it out, but the way that I looked at the Code requirements and what you guys had required, you looked like you were pretty heavy on parking. MR. LAPPER-We're going to go into the calculations. MR. MACNAMARA-Right. think you probably would want to, certainly, and that goes to the first note that says, even though they're less than 30 percent, they're existing, so that at least the y had to a tie a s t ma i n t a i nit, but t hat m i g h t get them mo r e toward 30 percent if they applied it to that. All right. Last note, the next one was scratched by the 75 foot setback. I missed the Travel Corridor Overlay. A simple note for the C-l asphalt median references. It was the wrong detail number. The next note, the DOT certainly covered. It was just a corrunent about numbers of curb cuts and the widths of the turning lane. Next comment went toward grease trap sizing. I don't know if you guys, what you guys used for water usage per patron, but it looked a litíle bit low, considering the numbers of seats that could possibly be there, plus d r i vet h r 0 ugh. As far as the s tor mw ate r r e ten t ion fa c i lit i e s , typically people would submit some kind of a calculation that'll say, what's the expected maximum flows on the site, and granted, it's a pretty heavy duty stormwater utility underground there. Just the same, it's usually nice to see some calculations toward it. The next set of notes has to do with typical building drains - 37 -- '- -- sewer details, which Mike Shaw went into, and the one's he didn't are there, and that aren't are here in the Code which you reference anyway. Grease trap details, usually you show some bedding, typical construction techniques, to make sure it goes in properly, doesn't move around. Lastly, some standard erosion and sediment control practices. It looked like you were a little light on the haybales and silt fences and things of that nature, and when you're disturbing whatever you're going to be disturbing. Those are the comments., Thanks. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, if it's okay with the Board, J'd like to give a general overview of the project, and then we can talk about each of the specific issues. " MR. BREWER-Can I ask just about one issue before we start? MR. LAPPER-Certainly. MR. BREWER-Is the Blockbuster going to be blue? MR. LAPPER-Only the awning of the Blockbuster. MR. BREWER-I just was compelled to ask that question. The awning will be blue. MR. LAPPER-The awning will be blue. That's their building will be a gray block, a light gray block. is now, where the entire Plaza is blue, it would building, and it will look a lot less intrusive. trademark. The Unlike where it just be the one MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-Will the other one be vacated then? MR. ßREWER-I don't think so. MR. LAPPER-Ultimately, yes. MR. PALING-Is the gray the current gray that you have on Quaker Road? MR. LAPPER-I think that's more white. MR. BREWER-Yes, it's white, I think, Bob. Okay. MR. PALING-So you're saying it's not the same as Quaker Road. It's gray, maybe a little more subdued? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Okay. For the record, my name's Jon Lapper from Lemery & Reid in Glens Falls. I'm here on behalf of John Nigro, who is the owner of the Plaza, and the purchaser of the, what's known as the Carvel parcel that's under contract and on approval to purchase that from the present owner. With me, from Clough Harbour, tonight, three engineers, one traffic engineer, and they'll be able to address issues when they arise, and John Nigro's here to answer questions. I guess, to start off with, we have an existing Center with some antiquated uses up front, along the travel corridor. John has owned the Plaza since the middle 80's. He's been trying to acquire the Carvel parcel for all that time. Because of the size and the location, it blocks people's view of the Plaza in the back, driving along Glen Street. It's 30 feet high and very close to Glen Street. As a result of that, people that are traveling, I think don't, they don't see the Plaza, and most people know what it is, but if it becomes a visual issue, if it makes it so that people - 38 - " .. "--' ~ don't use the signalized intersection, because they get past thJre before they see where they're going. Finally, the opportunity came to purchase that building, and what we've proposed is to remove the 3,000 square foot existing building, replace it with a much lower 2,000 square foot Taco Bell, which is approximately 18 feet high, and move it back 75 feet from the travel corridor, in accordance with the front setback of the overlay district. We've acquired two variances for that, one, because it doesn't comply with the rear setback, because there would be a 50 foot setback between a Commercial and a Residential zone, and, ironically, ,;the Plaza is z 0 n e d Res ide n t i a I , M u I t i - f am i I y Res ide n t i a I . Sot hat was a technical requirement for that variance that was granted by the ZBA. We also needed a Use Variance, because fastfood's not a permitted use in Plaza Commercial zone, and they felt, for good reasons, justifying a Use Variance, that this was appropriate. Both of those variances were unanimously granted, and both times they were at County Planning (lost words). I guess if I could just start out by explaining the changes that we're making here. One of the problems with the way the site operates now, and everyone is pretty familiar with this, because there is open access, because the paving is open between the various uses along Glen Street, cars can go from the video store, through the bank parking lot, through the Carvel, and at the same time cars from the Plaza that want to get to the light, or vice versa, it's sort of a free for all, span out in any direction to get to where you want. There's not a lot of control on site. By purchasing the Carvel parcel and redeveloping it the way that we propose, it adds significant controls. This whole area here is going to be a curbed, landscaped island. So that the Taco Bell site will be functioning fairly independently. The stacking, which is nine cars for the drive through, can only exit onto Glen Street here, or they have to come back to use the light, before they go into the Plaza, not to go into the Bank. MR. BREWER-And that will be right turns only, out? MR. LAPPER-Yes. This was the subject of much discussion with the Planning Department, and then with the County Planning Department, and finally, yesterday, with DOT, and DOT has the ultimate say, and what we arrived at as a solution was that that will be a right turn only, at all times. What the County had asked us for was restricting left turns during peak hours, and what DOT wanted was stronger than that, and we did was DOT asked. MR. MARTIN-Is that the location of the four foot island? MR. LAPPER-The four foot island is right here. That will prevent people from ever making a left turn, besides the sign, because the direction of the island. MR. MARTIN-I just want to make sure that the configuration of that curb establishes an acute angle to prevent that left turn, because I've seen where that's not done. Case in point in Town is the Burger King. People still can make the left turn out of there, because the angle's not. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Mark Kennedy gave us the profiles for all of these curb cuts. Part of what the engineers were furiously doing. all night to redesign the plan, was to incorporate the profiles. So that angle is right there. MR. MARTIN-So this reflects even the up to date? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That's the only copy we have for that, right? MR. LAPPER-No, we have copies for you. If you'd lik~ one now. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think that would be useful to the Board. - 39 - -<' MR. LAPPER-One of the other major goals of the redesign was to bring the green space up front. This was something that Jim Martin was very insistent ori, and John Nigro was very happy to provide, because it makes the Plaza look a whole lot better from the travel corridor. As a result of moving the Taco Bell back from what it was, approximately 30 feet from the right-of-way, down to 75 feet, we're able to add all of this green space. We've also reduced the size of the two big curb cuts, which was the Carvel and the Video Store, sÌgnificantly, which better controls traffic, but also significantly increases the green space up front. My other big change was internally, was to put planted curbed islands. Right now, nobody uses this, and this will get people channeled to get down to the uses along Glen Street, and also to get into the Plaza. This is all being added here, this curb, and then this aisle, which would also allow for greater stacking for the new signalized intersection. These are internal improvements that we think will be a big help. DOT asked us to increase the width from 24 to 28 feet, and we did that last night, and reflected that on a new plan. One of their other big changes was to reduce the size of the curb cut at the Video Store, and that added significant green space, also, from what's there now. We also removed parking spaces that were too close to the right-of-way, which are probably dangerous. Three spaces were eliminated, and this is all going to be green, in . front of the Video Store, and one space in front of the Bank, and then the drive through of the Bank was realigned, because right now it goes right up to Glen Street, and now it's going to be back, so that there's a normal turning radius, to let people make their turn out. Finally, for the Video Store, right now, everyone's probably pretty familiar with the operation of the Video Store. It's the old Rustler building. It still looks sort of like an old Rustler building. The door is up front. That encourages everybody to park in the back, along that side, or up front, right here, right by the road, to get to the most convenient, to the door. This is going to be completely gutted, closed, completely gutted during construction, and it's going to be reconfigured to look, really, predominantly like the one that's out there now, at the Quaker Road Plaza. The door's going to be on this side in the center. There's going to be a sidewalk along the whole side, which right now there's this little wooden thing, and it's just hard to get around. It's going to be covered, wi th an awning. In the back, there's going to be a sidewalk, and all of this, the parking is new, and there's curbed islands here, which will also control traffic. So it's not going to be a free for all. MR. BREWER-Are those islands going to be planted? MR. LAPPER-Yes, grass and trees. We think that, right now, the Video Store doesn't work real well. We think this is going to be a major improvement by relocating the door, and providing parking right there. MR. MACEWAN-Which side would be considered to be the main entrance to the store, the north side or the south side? MR. LAPPER-The north side. MR. MACEWAN-I'm looking at that jut on the back side. know if that was. didn't MR. LAPPER-That was part of the Rustler. That's just part of the building itself. So that's just staying there. It does look like a door, but it's not a door. That's actually the storage area. There's no access at all. If you look at the front, it's going to look just like at Quaker Plaza, with the glass on the short side and the glass all the way along the front. The same way out. We think that'll encourage people to park ill the back, or over here, and discðurage people from parking here. MR. BREWER-What you've done here, I've done it myself, probably everybody here has. When you pull in to the Video Store, that curb - 40 - '-, . - '>-' --..J that's there now, parked right along that curb. we can prevent that? Is there any way MR. LAPPER-There'd be no problem putting a sign up. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think, with this new curb cut he's putting in, you could physically do it anyway. If someone parked there, they'd block the entrance. MR. BREWER-How wide is it? MR. MACEWAN-You're looking at this, from here to here. MR. BREWER-It's 24 feet, isn't it? MR. MACEWAN-The old one is this one right here. . MR. BREWER-All right. So, we've got 24 feet, if someone put a car right here, is what I'm speaking to. MR. LAPPER-You're talking about right here? MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. LAPPER-We're reducing this to 24 feet, which is what DOT asked for yesterday, to have better control, just one lane in each direction. So that if you were parking there now, you'd really be blocking the entrance. MR. BREWER-Okay. So that pretty much prevents it. MR. LAPPER-But we can sign that also, a no parking. MR. BREWER-Signs are ugly to me. MR. LAPPER-Okay, but you'd be parking in the aisle. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I think that about covers the changes. MR. PALING-You have three exit/entrances there. Would you tell me, on each one of them, whether there's a left hand turn, and what hours, what's it going to be? MR. LAPPER-Okay. This was the subject of our lengthy discussions yesterday with DOT, and what they asked for, and what we came up with, agreed to, the biggest change is going to be at Taco Bell. There's never going to be a left turn there allowed, and if you h a vet hen e w ma p w h i c h s how s, w hat's up her e , you can see an island, and the curve of the island, that will be signed as well. So, that would prohibit left turns at any time. That's the first entrance. MR. MACEWAN-Jon, before you get too far, in the Taco Bell parking lot itself, is it, the parking lot pavement, going to be marked in such a way with flow arrows, so that people know which way the traffic is going to be circulating? Because I'm thinking about., if someone wanted to go through the drive through in Taco Bell, what's going to be the easiest ways and means for them to get back out and around to go back over to the light? Is it going to be marked so that they'll know the flow around through that parking lot? MR. LAPPER-We'll mark it with arrows, but in addition, what County Planning asked was that we put ~p a sign that encourages people to go back and use the light for left turns, and tells them that that light is available for left turns. That was something, when we were having left turns restricted during peak hour, that was reconunended. Now, when left turns are prohibited, it's really required to let people know that's what the light is for. We'll - 41 - \__/ have a sign at that drive through. MR. BREWER-Okay. So the first entrance to the site, there'll be no left turns, at any time. MR. LAPPER-The other two entrances, the next entrance, the Bank entrance, is not restricted. It's' right or left out, and right or left in. This was something that DOT was very comfortable with, but what they asked us to do was to increase the turning radius, so that people pulling through the drive through had some stacking room, and a 1 so a con v en i en t to ma k eat urn wit h 0 u t get tin gin tot h e lane where people are entering the site. That was a change that we made there. MR. BREWER-And how wide is the first one? MR. LAPPER-Sixteen and fourteen. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-One of the issues here is that the Taco Bell is very close to the signalized intersection and to the taper, for the turning lane, and for the turning lane, and that why left turns are. inappropriate, but when you get back to the Bank, you're really far from the signalized intersection. So that's not an issue. At the Video Store, we're also not restricted. That's one of the main entrances into the Plaza, but that was reduced 24 feet. That was what DOT required yesterday, for just that issue that you brought up, about parking, so that this could be one lane in and one lane out, but left turns are permitted. In our traffic report, traffic counts, traffic study show that there's really very few left turns out of both of these. That people do know about the signalized intersection. People use what's most convenient, and that's what's used. MR. PALING-There was reference, in something I read, to busy hours, no left turns during busy hours. Is that referring back up to the Taco Bell thing that you changed? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-I don't know how anybody could come up with that anyway. I don't know how anybody could determine the peak hours, and how does the enforcement work? MR. MARTIN-That's mY problem, is the enforcement of it. MR. BREWER-I mean, that's crazy to even think about that. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's taken away now. island, right? It's full time with the MR. LAP PER-Right. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any questions, Bob? MR. PAL¡NG-I have a parking question. appropriate time. It might not be the MR. BREW~R-Sure it is. MR. PALING-Would you please redo the table that you did on the or i gin a I p r i nt, t hat s tat est h e tot a I numb e r 0 f par kin g spa c est hat you're using for the whole complex. MR. MARTIN-You're saying you're buying into the Rist-Frost number, Jon? Are you in agreement with that? - 42 - ,,-' -.;. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We've reduced the number of parking spaces and increased the green space. What we were doing, the way we calculated, we were maxing out parking in order to comply, and based upon the Rist-Frost calculations we didn't need all the parking that we had. We still provided more than what Rist-Frost said is the minimum required. What it enabled us to do was remove this whole line of parking up here, which makes this a real ring road, which would make this much more convenient. You don't have to worry about people backing out into the drive here. That was the biggest change. MR. BREWER-So the parking is met? MR. LAPPER-Well, have more than that parking. MR. PALING-We've got your conments and Rist-Frost's comments, which are both fine, but would you mind redoing the that? Okay, and then that gives us really, what you're saying is the total. MR. RUEL-I don't have any specific questions, except that, a plan to eliminate all entrances and exits on Route 9. have a minute, you want to hear it? I have If you - MR. BREWER-Why not. MR. RUEL--Okay. Maybe this could be used in the future, because this is a major change. This is the light here, isn't it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Now it seems to me, if all this was blocked off, you had a light here, you had a road coming in, now if you have a road coming thJs way, then you could have access to each one of these, and you could turn around, and you could use this road to go in and out, and then you have a light. So you have no more problems, and turn all these off, and just say, in the future, you know, because this is pretty, a major change, but it would eliminate all of these curb cuts, and this, I don't know how much this area is used, but every time ~ been there, it's been practically empty, and this would be ideal for a nice wide road, with access to each one of these, and to go around, the same at the Bank. This one could be just a road, a double road to go in and out. It's just an idea. MR. LAPPER-r'd like to address that, in a number of different ways. The one big issue would be, we've thought about that. That's been suggested, and we considered. One of the big problems with that would be a capacity problem at the signalized intersection, because that intersection, now, serves the Grand Union and Albany Savings Bank, as well as a lot of the traffic that Rist-Frost, and it's just, it's not a big enough intersection, and there's not any more room there. In terms of traffic numbers, if all of the traffic were forced to do that, rather than using these different entrances, it would be a bottleneck, but there's also a real big business .reason, partly because this is an existing Plaza, and we' r e try i n g to ma k e the be s t, w h i c h wet h ink we are, wit h an existing situation, rather than completely designing this from scratch, but because of that, we've got tenants that are there now that have been there for many years, that have rights to use those curb cuts, and wouldn't give us their permission to fix the Plaza and do the other things that we want to do with our lease agreements. MR. BREWER-Are all three of these new tenants? Taco Bell's new, the new Bank, and Blockbuster's new. MR. MACEWAN-Blockbuster owns Empire. JOHN NIGRO MR. NIGRO-I'm John Nigro. Blockbuster purchased Empire in December - 43 - ~ MR. MACEWAN-No. I think it's a significant improvement over what's there right now. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it's terrific. MR. STARK-I think it's one of the best plans we've ever had come in front of the Board, period. I think it's been well thought out. Mr. Nigro's done his homework, and it's a real nice plan, as far as I'm concerned. MR. BREWER-Okày. public hearing. I'll echo that, and I guess we have to open a Is there anyone here to co~nent on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. We've got to do a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 16-94, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning JOHN J. NIGRO/TACO BELL CORP., 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 i~ unlisted in the Department of Env ironmental Conservation· Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of· the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer - 45 - # ",--. ..........".....,. of last year and assumed the lease. MR. BREWER-Okay. So you've got two out of three new tenants. MR. NIGRO-No. The Bank is also an existing tenant. Troy Savings Bank has under contract from Chase to purchase that, subject to the various banking department approvals, but they're buying it subject to a lease, assuming a lease. So there's really only one new tenant, which is Taco Bell. MR. BREWER-So to get back to the oriRinal question, why couldn't at least one curb cut be eliminated? I'm just asking a question. I'm hot insisting upon it. I'm asking. PETER CONNELLY MR. CONNELLY-Well, to answer your question, my name's Peter Co~nelly from Clough Harbour. What we tried to do was we tried to do a layout that would accomplish what the goals and objectives of the tenants are, and they want access out onto Route 9, Glen Street. What we tried to do is, as far as the internal circulation, internal layout, we tried to design it to encourage traffic to use the light as much as possible. So with the internal circulation that we've designed, controlled by curbed islands, by the no left turn out with Taco Bell, reducing the overall curb cuts with the curb cuts on Route 9, sliding the intersection down an additional 30 feet, as requested by the Board, we've tried to accomplish, and make the situation, from a traffic standpoint, and curb cuts out onto Route 9 better than what it is, and to eliminate a curb cut, it's difficult, in working with the tenants, pretty much tenant driven, as far as access and having the ability to have a c c e s sou t on to a ma j or h i g h way. It' s v e r y d iff i cui t to sell something other than that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Just because the buildings are existing, there's also circulation problems that it would cause, in each site. For ins tance, the mos t log i cal, or the one that's been propos ed the most to be cut off is the Bank, and the problem with that is that there isn't that much traffic peak hour. That's what our traffic study shows. That's not really where the issue is, but in order to do that,~ it would create havoc with the drive through, because people would then, they'd come through the drive througll, and without being able to exit there, they would then get caught up in the line of people waiting for the drive through. So that it would be an internal circulation problem. MR. RUEL-You could have two driveways. MR. LAPPER-There's really not that much space between the buildings, but beyond that, the real practical reason for us, what John Nigro is saying is that our hands are tied to some extent, only because, with existing leases, if the Bank comes in and says they're not going to buy into the plan, they have the right to say, we'll take it just the way it is here. We'll cosmetically alter the front of the Bank, and you can't do the Taco Bell, and you can't buy the Carvel. Increase the green space. They really have us tied up here, in terms of curb cuts. MR. RUEL-Yes. reasons. understand. These curb cuts· are for business MR. LAPPER-But we also think that we're taking major strides to improve the situation, and DOT is satisfied with this, and we've talked to Jim Martin in great detail. We're really improving it. It's just that this is as far as we can go to do the project and put the other improvements to the Town. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other questions, Craig? - 44 -- '-- ------ MR. BREWER-One thing I'd like to mention, if you don't have any objection, I would like to see that the green space and the improvements to the curb cuts be done before any CO is issued. Do you have a problem with that? MR. LAPPER-No. That's our intention. MR. BREWER-Before even any temporary CO is issued. MR. LAPPER-The one that I do want to discuss is that the Bank expansion probably will not happen right now, but the Taco Bell will go immediately,' and the Video Store will get started, and they'll both be done in the fall. We don't anticipate a problem. MR. BREWER-Because I'm going to ask the Board to make that a condition of this approval. MR. LAPPER-What I, this is going to get done all at once, in one project. Taco Bell will go pretty quickly, and Blockbuster, start to finish, get it done, landscaping. This is serious people that are just going to do it right. So we would be happy with that, but if something came up, and for some reason we did 95 percent of it and couldn't do something because of some situation, we'll come back to the Board and talk to you about it. MR. BREWER-Before the CO's are issued. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay, so I would ask whoever does the motion. MR. MARTIN-I'll give landscaping. You've acceptable. This will problems of, well, we expensive. ,~ you my standard, stock stuff about got a plan here now. This is fully be fully implemented. I don't want to hear costed this out and, boy, this is awful MR. LAPPER-With John Nigro, you don't have to worry about that. MR. MARTIN-I said it's my standard, stock comment. MR. LAPPER-I guess one thing that I'd just like to point out on that is that, if you look at the Plaza in the back, which a lot of, you don't notice it as much, because of the uses in front, but that Plaza is beautifully maintained. The curb islands, the landscaped islands are mowed. They've got a lease agreement with Niagara Mohawk to maintain the green space where their sign is (lost word) the Niagara Mohawk right-of-way, and that's planted with flowers and mowed kept very nicely, right by the signalized intersection. That's what is now in John's control. This will all be in his control, once this deal closes. MR. BREWER-And, again, it's not to single you out. That's going to be illY standard spiel. MR. LAPPER-Just one quick corrunent on it. Taco Bell has a corporate policy regarding landscaping, that they've already seen the quantities of materials, approved it. So that's guaranteed. MR. MARTIN-All right. That's reassuring, but nooetheless, we will be out there counting plants. MR. BREWER-Okay. So whoever makes a motion, would you please include that, the landscaping and the improvements to the plan be done even before any temporary CO is issued. MR. HARLICKER-Are you going to be able to use those four to six inch trees, in replacing them with something, two, two and a half inches. - 46 - '-- -.....,/ MR. LAPPER-The problem is, some of them are too big. We can't sit here and guarantee you, two or three we could maybe leave, but the res t 0 f them . Be for e you v 0 t e on t his, I' v e go t j us t one rea 11 y small issue. In the County Planning Board's conditions, we had agreed with them that this little island here that protects the people that are parking diagonally up that incline, what the County Planning Department and the Planning Board noticed was that people coming here using the island, this island, the location of this island, requires them to turn this way, and they had asked if we could cut it in half, so it makes this wider, and when we met with Mark Kennedy of DOT yesterday, he looked at this and said, hey, this is an internal circulation problem, issue, and not a DOT issue, but he suggested that we leave it the way it is. MR. BREWER-I concur with that. MR. LAPPER-He thought that it kept people going in the right direction, rather than toward the Video Store. It would require a majority plus one for you to overturn a condition, and we think that the County Planning Board was thinking, trying to help when they came up with that condition, but in talking with Mark Kennedy, it might be better to overturn that, if that would be part of the resolution. MR. BREWER-Well, if we just voted as a majority, it overrides it, correct, plus one. There's six of us. We can do it. Okay. MR. MARTIN-John, I'd like two copies of this site plan that we approve tonight for signature and stamping. You can do that, what, in a week? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-94 JOHN J. NIGRO/TACO BELL CORP., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: As in the prepared resolution, and also noted that all plantings and green space areas, and improvements to the curb cuts be completed before CO is issued, with plans received by one week from today. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 16-94 for construction of a Taco Bell, addition to an existing bank and addition to an existing video store; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application dated 4/27/94 consists of the following: - 1 . Sheet T 1 , cover sheet, dated 4/26/94 2. Sheet C 1 , layout plan, dated 4/26/94 3. Sheet C2, grading plan, dated 4/26/94 4. Sheet C3, utility plan, dated 4/26/94 5. Sheet C4, landscaping plan, dated 4/26/94 6. Sheet C5, striping plan, dated 4/26/94 7 . Sheet Dl , site details, dated 4/26/94 8. Sheet D2, site details, dated 4/26/94; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Engineering comments, dated 5/11/94 2. Traffic study, dated 5/94 3. Staff notes, dated 5/19/94 4. Letter from Joanna Brunso, GFTC, regarding traffic access, dated 5/13/94 5. Memo from Mike Shaw, Dept. of Wastewater, dated 5/10/94; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/19/94 concerning the - 47 - "- above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental fa c tor s f 0 u n din S e c ti 0 n I 7 9 -- 39 0 f t: h e Cod e 0 f the Tow n 0 f Queensbury (Zoning); and Whe~eas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan It 16-94. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant: agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 4. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 5. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and. continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacE~an, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer MR. BREWER-Okay. One more item, George? MR. STARK-No, we've got two more items, approval of the minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 8th, 1994: NONE March 31st, 1994: NONE April 6th, 1994: NONE April 19th, 1994: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MINUTES, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer MR . STARK - The n e x tor d e r 0 f bus i n e s s i s Res 0 I uti 0 n No. 1 2 - 1 9 9 4 , Resolution of Intent of the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury to be Lead Agency in Review of Site Plan application for Columbia Development Group. RESOLUT ION OF I NTENT OF TIlE PLANN I NG BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS FOR COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT GROUP - 48 - '.' , :~--- ~../ . RESOLUT ION NO. : 12 OF 1994 INTRODUCED BY: George Stark WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS, Columbia Development Group has submi tted an application f6r a site plan review in connection with a project known as or described as development of site and buildinK of a 116.400 sf of buildinK for new Native Textile facility, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coord i na ted rev i ew pr oces s as prov i ded under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review, process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Columbia Development Group. for a site plan review; 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired; 3) a lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer MR. BREWER-All right, and a little bit further on thät note, and, Betty, I don't know if you're going to like this or not, but that's I ife. We got a letter from Columbia Development Company. They want a submission of the EAF, which we did tonight, took lead agency status, but then they want us to have a meeting the 26th, send out public hearing notice, and a special meeting the week of June 6th for approval, and I said no, only because they haven't s u bm i t t e d the i rap p I i cat ion i n t i met 0 bee v en 0 n a 11 age n d a t his month, and it doesn't even give us time to go out and look at the site, and I think that's appropriate. MR. STARK-I agree. MR. BREWER-Just so you know. I'm letting everybody know what I've done. - 49 -- 'V~' -- MR. STARK-We'll acconmodate them, as much as we can. MR. BREWER-Yes, we'll acconul1odate them, but I don't think it.'s fair for them to come in here on the 19th of May and ask for an approval June 6th. It's not right. BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Don't look at me. They wanted the Town to make the application, and I said no. MR. BREWER-Well, I just, that's the reason we're saying no. I ~ean, because the next tl1ing you know, another developer is going to come in and want the same thing, and I don't think that's been the practice of this Board. MR. STARK-No, no. Anybody can come in and ask the same thing. MR. BREWER-Yes, and I don't think it's treated like any other applicant. Okay. else? r i gh t . So they'll be Has anybody got anything MR. MACEWAN-What's going on with Stewarts and Cool Beans? MR. BREWER-Stewarts is in. They'll be on your agenda in June. MR. MACEWAN-We heard they were going to be on in May? MR. , MAR TIN - No. it's here. The application is in. It's here. Guaranteed, MR. BREWER-And Gardentime is going to be in? MR. MARTIN-Yes, Gardentime is in. MR. BREWER-Cool Beans is going to be in? MR. MARTIN-That I haven't received yet. one. I don't know about that MR. BREWER-Can you find out, please? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Why is Cool Beans coming in? MR. STARK-The parallel parking? MR. MARTIN-Yes, the parallel parking, and we're getting perpendicular parking as a, just a matter of practice there. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not trying to stir the pot again, here, but along the lines of people following their site plan approvals, is Formula One Auto Body sticking with their recent approval? MR. MARTIN-As far as I know. I'll have to check up on that one. MR. STARK-Craig, in going by every night, just about, there is no parking on the south, no cars at all in the Hart's right-of-way. That's not to say that there might be one there.today. MR. BREWER-Weren't they going to reconfigure the front of that? MR. STARK-And there's no parking out by the road either. seen any there. haven't MR. MARTIN-I don't know that they can, because the perpendicular parking will extend into the right-of-way, I think, and that also would probably encourage backing out into the right-of-way, too, which is a matter of fact illegal. - 50 - ~ v MR. STARK-Which is fine, there's nothing blocking the right-of-way, though. I mean that parkIng that's out in the front, I hardly ever see any cars out there. - MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I've only been by it a couple of times and I've noticed a,humongous amount of cars there. MR. STARK-Well, you go by, what, during the day, more or less. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. STARK-But they're not in the right-of-way. talking, out in the front? What are you MR. MACEWAN-Well, I was trying to recollect the stacking that they were going to be doing on the north and the northeast side facing the building. MR. BREWER-Up in the back? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. They were going to do stuff in the back that I don't see anything out in back. They were going to do storage out there, right, in the fenced in area? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Plus they were also going to, there was something about facing north, which would have been parallel to Bay Road, toward the Harvest. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Wer e they no t go i ng to be ab I e to do that, and we turned them around so that everybody was facing the building? MR. STARK-I know they were painting the other night, and Phil called up, and they stopped right away. So ~ was happy. MR. MACEWAN-What's going on with Esther Cavanaugh? Have you heard from her? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. MACEWAN-And what about Bob Tyrer? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I know what you're talking about. Tyrer, as far as I'm concerned, he's lost his approval. MR. MACEWAN-Has he not made an effort to call you, to ask questions or anything like that? MR. MARTIN-Nothing. In my estimation, he has to reapply again. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. So both of them have to reapply. Has anybody got anything else? MR. PALING--Does anybody want to hear from mean highwater mark? Okay. '" MR. STARK-How do you ascertain it? MR. PALING-All right. I'll try to explain it the best I can, and the source of this is the Lake George Park Connnission. These are the ones that set it, and they tell me, unlike the mean highwater mark we might have been using, that they're using the one established 100 years or so ago at Roger's Rock, and this is 316.06, okay. So when you want to know the height of your dock, you start with the 316.06, and you call the Lake George Commission, - 51 - ',~-~ and you say, what is the height of the lake today, and they'll give you a number differing every day that you call. In the example that we used, he said, use three and a half feet, as if you called in, okay. Now you take the three and a half feet, and you add it to the 316.06, which you got from the Roger's Rock reference. You add those two together, 319.56, and then you take the difference between that number and the mean highwater mark that the Corps of Engineers, I believe, established, which is 320.2. All right. Now the difference between them is .64 feet. MR. MARTIN-You said, wait, that Roger's Rock was 316.06, right? MR. PALING-rorrect. MR. MARTIN-And the Army Corps is 320.2? MR. PALING-Correct. MR. MART~N-That's a difference of. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you've got to call up and add the height of the water, though. MR. STARK-You get today's figure. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. BREWER-Three and a half feet in there. MR. PALING-Wait a minute now. Add today's figure to the Roger's Rock reference, and tllen you take the difference between the two. Now if you take .64 you multiply it by 12, that's seven and five eighths inçhes, okay. Now, to get the height, to ·satisfy ever ybody, you take the wa t ermar k, plus s even and five e i gh ths inches, and you're there. That is the bottom. MR. MARTIN-You're going to be our mean highwater mark expert. MR. BREWER-But you can almost make those numbers work for you, mean, if you want to. MR. PALING-Well, highwater marks, no, I mean, you've got two es tab I i shed mean the Roger's Rock and the Corps of Engineers. MR. BREWER-But what I'm saying is, if an applicant comes in, and three and a half feet doesn't work for him, he can say, three feet, when I called. MR. MACEWAN-That's not true, because the way you can pin him down is ask, what day did call to get it. That number , you you s recorded. MR. PAL ING--Yes. MR. RUEL-How about ice? I-low do you take care of ice? MR. PALING-There's another remark he made which I thought was very worthwhile. He said, Lake George is a pretty steady lake. It doesn't vary more than about six inches. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I was going to say. I'm not surprised to see that. MR. PALING-Now the significance of this thing is that the gentleman that we had here, we turned him down, that was one of the points. I felt bad because I brought it up, and we thought it would cost him $200 bucks to find this out, and I asked him afterward. I said, how did you do it? He said he had a survey done, and I said, $200? And he said, no, $300, and maybe that's why the other guy didn't return my call. So, anyway, that's how you establish the mean highwater mark, and he said, by the way, he'll accept, the - 52 - .. \....-.--- -...,/ homeowner or the dock owner, whoever does it, he'll accept it, if the figures are reasonable. It doesn't have to be done by a qualified engineer, or something like that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, and I have one thing before we go. Some of us are aware that the Wilson property on Walker Lane has a sign in front of it For Sale. - MR. MAR TIN - For' S a Ie. MRS. LABOMBARD-And it's, like, all approved, the land, and it's also been listed in the multiple listings since February 7th, the day after the. MR. MARTIN-I heard dissertation on this the other night at the Town Board meeting. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm sure you did. Was that Monday night? Right. So, are we going to do anything anymore about that? I mean, in other words, lets say the Valente's have issued, you know, they summoned the Wilson with some papers, and if he doesn't respond within 30 days, Jim, then the Valente's win by default. Is it possible that we could just rescind the whole motion? MR. MARTIN-Yes. would think so, right? MR. SC(Ü1CHNER-It's possible, but I'm not grasping why we'd want to do that. My advice would remain sort of what my advice has been all along on this, which is, we stay out of it. Our motion says something about, I think the condition that was finally imposed at the final motion was something along the lines of approval subject to proof of ownership through either a title insurance policy with affirmative representation about that ownership, or a court order affirming that ownership. I do understand, from one of the attorneys involved, that litigation has been conunenced. My prediction is very, very, just so you know, it's extraordinarily unusual for any litigation to be resolved by default. I don't expect that to happen, but I don't have any input into this, nor do I care, but either that condition's going to be fulfilled, or it's not going to be fulfilled. If there's a court order that affirms that ownership, then the condition is fulfilled and the approval stands. If there's a court order of any other sort, or no court order, and no title insurance policy, then the condition has not been fulfilled and your approval does not allow the applicant to build what the applicant wants to build. MR. BREWER-Within one year, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Or whatever your expiration, yes. Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-But the thing is, we really gave approval to this property contingent upon that one thing. MR. SCHACHNER-That's true. MRS. LABOMBARD-So the fact that it was, we also gave that approval, as far as I'm concerned, we were mislead. MR. SCHACHNER-In what respect? MRS. LABOMBARD-In the respect that he gave us all these plans about how he was going to build this, how Wilson himself was going to landscape it, and he sat right here and. MR. MART(N-In mY view, the plan does not go with the owner. The plan goes with the land, and that plan is in effect over that parcel for one year, with this proviso. Whatever come¡ in is bound by that plan to the letter. - 53 - -.. MR. SCHACHNER-That's exactly correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. So then if he doesn't unload that property in one year, it all goes back to nil. MR. SCHACHNER-Ownership, who owns the property is really not our legitimate concern,because zoning and planning deals with the land, not with the owner. The reason there's a one year provision is because the Zoning Ordinance, I think, right, says that a conditional approval lapses if. MR. BREW~R-AnY approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, any approval lapses unless exercised within a year. That's right. MR. MACEWAN-So, basically what he's saying, he's throwing in the towel? MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think he's throwing in the towel. He's got it for sale. I understand he paid, like, $28,000 for it and he's got it on the market for $112,000. MR. BREWER-Well, that shouldn't enter into the picture with us. Money shouldn't matter to us. Whether he paid $10 for it, and he sells it for $200,000, we shouldn't care. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree with you, but I think, see, since I've been on the Board, everybody that comes to us comes in good faith. They're going to build a high rise dock on Lake George, fine. They're going to do something with, parcel off some land, fine, but this guy came and said he was going to do all this stuff, and all this time he's got this land for sale in multiple listings since February 7th, and I just feel that it wasn't a good faith agreement. MR. MACEWAN-We've had other developers who've been in front of t.his Board and done the same thing. MRS. LABOMBARD-I've heard. MR. SCHACHNFR-Well, and also, somebody who comes for his dock a p pro val i s not say i n g, i n any way, s hap e, 0 r ma n n e r, t hat hew 0 n ' t turn around and sell the house the next day with the new dock. MRS. LABOMBARD-True. No, you're right, but I just think the way it was all handled. MR. RUEL-I have a question, think it was Gebo tonight, the d u pie x, now, w hen the a p p I i can t s u bm its a pia n , i sit ma n d at 0 r y that you have a plan showing the adjacent property, or just the piece of property that they're concerned with? Because all she had was just the one plan showing her property, and then, of course, the problem came up with the adjacent properties, but we never had that information. Does that have to be submitted at the time of application? MR. MARTIN-It's really the discretion of the Board. that's appropriate to have submitted. If you feel MR. RUEL-It's not automatic? MR. MARTIN-No, it's not automatic. MR. RUEL-It would have been very helpful, in this case. MR. BREWER-But she did show us a map. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know, but we didn't have it. .. - 54 - L-- . .....¡ MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-I thought maybe if it was a requirement, but if it isn't, how can we ask for it, before hand? MR. BREWER-You can, really. MR. MARTIN-I don't think it's unreasonable to table an application for that request. MR. RUEL-I se~. MR. MARTIN-I don't think that's an imposition. MR. RUEL-If you feel you have insufficient information. Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Betty, you're here. I talked to Carol Pulver the other day, about the Guido property on Route 9, and I guess I might have misunderstood something. I was under the impression that if a land is clear cut, that he really can't, he can't subdivide it, but, yet, can he still put, legally, can he put that little mall on it, without subdividing it first? MR. MARTIN-Yes. He could implement a site plan over that parcel. The only restrictions we have right now in any of our Codes regarding any clear cutting is a restriction on subdivision in the subdivision regulations, for a period of five years. MR. MACEWAN-But, yet, we could also deny him a site plan approval, too. MR. MARTIN-Yes, for whatever reasons. MR. BREWER-But you don't have the site plan ill front of us this month, anyway. MR. STARK-We've got the three lot subdivision, period, and then, plus the dentist office. MR. BREWER-The dentist office is not on the agenda this month. We pulled it. The subdivision is. MR. RUEL-Why doesn't Queensbury have an Ordinance on clear cutting? MR. MARTIN-That's a good question, but we're taking steps to remediate that. MR. RUEL-Yc~, because other communities have it, the size of the trees, how many trees you can cut down. MR. MARTIN-I've contacted the Department of State, and I've asked them to give me some sample copies of what they view as some good clear cutting provisions around the State, and we'll take a look at those and see what makes sense to have, and bring it before the Board for their consideration. MR. RUEL--Yes. it. have an Ordinance for that, if you want to look at MR. MARTIN-Do you? I'd love to see it. MR. RUEL-Yes. MRS. MONAHAN-Roger, the other problem we have is people creating very steep slopes, and Jim was also looking into. MR. MARTIN-Right. I'd like to incorporate it into one thing, for slopes, cutting and filling, in terms of, creation of slopes, alteration of slopes, excavation. - 55 - . .~..~ -... MRS. MONAHAN--Take a ride down Mannis Road some day and you'll see exactly what we're talking about. MR. RUEL"Soil movement. You have nothing on that, right? MR. MARTIN-Right, and we have some, right now the only thing it gets into is what's viewed as commercial excavation. It's the only way we really have to address it. What l would suggest is some sort of permit that's issued either by a Board or something like that for clcaring and excavation, you know, certain thresholds are tripped that require the permit, but in no case allow clear cutting. MR. PALING-Well, would we be violating something by letting the runoff water maybe drag dirt out illto the street and all, the way he's got that thing cut? MR. MARTIN-That's a concern, but there's been no evidence of that to date. If something like that did happen, then, yes, he'd be in trouble for that. MR. MACEWAN-George, tell them what you saw today. MR. STARK-Kay's Motel was emptying tlleir pool onto Route 9, okay, draining their pool today. Running down, running on his property, damming up on his property, overflowing from his property, bringing mud and debris and everything back out onto Route 9, and that other little, Round Pond. It was a mess, you know, the whole thing is a mess. MRS. MONAHAN-Why was Kay's Motel emptying their pool onto the road? MR. STARK-Because when you empty your pool, up and down, all the motels on Route 9, when they empty their pools, they just drain it right into the gutter, that's why. MR. MARTIN-They bring it down to a certain level, right? MR. STARK-No. A lot of times I empty the pool, I empty it right down, right on my property. It runs out on Route 9 and runs down the gutter and through the swales, and away it goes. MR. MARTI N - Sot h e fir s t t h i n g to con sid e r, wit h the sub d i vis ion is, the regulation is there about the clear cutting for five years. So the first thing to be considered is, he's requesting a waiver of that. MRS. MONAHAN-(lost word) and the municipality gets sued because of the con d i t ion 0 f the r 0 ad, t hat wed i d n 't ma k e t hat con d i t ion, and we've had lawsuits for sand and roads that we haven't. MRS. LABOMBARD-What if the Town Board thi nks di f f er en t1 y abou t thi s than the Town Planning Board? Now I don't know if that's a kosher type of thing to ask. MR. BREWER-The Town Planning Board stands on its own feet, and not what the Town Board does. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, that question. don't know if I was out of turn to ask MR. MACEWAN-The Town Board's not involved with this. Board that's going to be seeing this applicant, not the It's not like if he left our Board and we denied him, to the Town Board and ask for an approval. We're the Town Board. he could go MRS. LABOMBARD-I understand that. I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate. I'm just making a statement. MR. BREWER-Guido asked to have a meeting with myself, Jim Martin, - 56 - , , , ~. " I""..-' \..,/ Fred Champagne, and his engineer, and Fred Champagne said, no thank you. We don't have anything to do with it. The Planning Board, it's their decision, and I don't want to have anything to do with it. I mean, that's the stand that Fred took, and I did meet with him last night, and Jim, and his engineer. He's almost willing to do anything we ask him to do. I told him right up front that I can't speak for any member of the Board but myself. I just told him how l felt about it, about the amount of trees that he had submitted for a plan was not adequate for me. The curb cut issue was an issue that I was concerned about, and he said he's willing to put, to move the buffer 50 feet. I-Ie's willing to go back 75 feet, whatever we say, and I told him, meeting with me is not going to get you an approval or a disapproval. I told him that point blank. MR. MACEWAN-What was he hoping to accomplish Qy meeting with you? MR. BREWER-I think he was hoping to see what felt about it. MR. MACEWAN-Why didn't he ask to meet with the whole Board? MR. BREWER-I don't know. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not practical, to be honest, to meet with the whole Board, because then it's a public meeting. MR. MACEWAN-Well, on the other side of the coin, it kind of makes you wonder if maybe something isn't trying to be accomplished behind the scenes. I'm not suggesting for a moment that anything like that was going to happen, but in the public's eye it just kind of, it doesn't make it look too good. MR. MARTIN-My response back to that would be, is I'm one who has a lot of faith in my integrity, and I get my back up very quickly when people question that, and that goes for the public at large, as well. I hope the public realize what kind of person they have as a Zoning Administrator here, and I'm not cutting deals behind any back doors. MR. MACEWAN-But that's the area you could put yourself in, though, with the public. MR. BREWER-Yes, but, Craig, I think that you have to have a little bit of faith in the people that you're talking about. I mean, J've met with developers before. MR. MACEWAN-It's not that I don't have faith, Tim. I think that what Tom Nace asked of you and asked of Jim was totally out of the question and wrong yesterday. He should not have even come in here and asked you to sit down with him. MR. BREWER-Well, let me give you an example, was it any more wrong of the Town Board asking you to go to a meeting with Hudson Point, and nobody else on the Board? What's the difference? MR. MACEWAN-I don't know. There's a member of the Town Board. Ask them why. MR. BREWER-Okay, I mean, but you didn't have a problem going to that. So what the hell's the difference? I mean, I wasn't invited either. So there is no difference. MR. STARK-I think maybe he was just trying to get a feel for what the Board would, maybe the questions that we're going to ask next week and what we want, so on. MR. MARTIN-That question is asked of me. If it's asked once, it's asked a half a dozen times a day, and I almost get tired of saying, I can't speak for the Board. I'm only a Staff member. My contribution to this whole process is only as Staff. I say that, - 57 .- ,.-'- -- " " - and you say it, how many times is it asked of you? I mean, I say it every time I get a chance. Everybody always asks me, what are my chances? What are my chances of getting an approval? It's not my place. MR. BREWER-If you could go in there and talk to the guy, and he comes back and offers something that he wouldn't have, and it accomplishes him getting moved up a month or two months, then why not? MR. MACEWAN-Well, guess maybe I'm looking at it from the standpoint of considering the public outcry on this particular applicant and what's going on with this site. He knows that he's in a position where he's got a tough road a hoe right now. MR. BREWER-I told him that. MR. MACEWAN-And, I don't know, it just didn't set right with me that he asked that. MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, Craig, he came in here last fall and asked if there was any regulations, if he could go up there and cut the land, and he was told no. So he went up and cut the land, and they crucify the guy. There is no regulations. MR. MARTIN-It's a fact. He asked me. He said, Jim, is there any rules for clear cutting. I researched the Ordinance thoroughly, and the answer's no, there's not. I said, the only thing we have is the five year restriction on the subdivision, and he said, well, I'm not planning on subdividing it, so that won't be a problem. MR. MACEWAN-But now he is. MR. STARK-Now he can't subdivide it, period. MR. MARTIN-I saw dirt being pushed around there, but I don't know that I saw. I know there's gravel at that site, but I don't know how much. MR . BREWER-We II, tomor row, if you wan t to, we can take a ride up to, t his i s jus tin for ma t ion I' ve bee n to I d , go up to 1-1 era I d Square. There's a pile up there 75 feet tall. MR. RUEL-Everybody's complaining about that. Trucks and tractors are there all day long. It's like a factory over there. That's Guido Passarelli's stuff. That's his sand, and that's his topsoil, and he's moving it every day. MR. BREWER-Well, he's not moving it from Route 9, then, right now. So then we've got to look into that, then. MR. RUEL-Well, I'll tell you, the residents are up in arms about what's going on. MR. BREWER-Well, if the residents are up in arms, I mean, how come Jim does~'t know about it? MR. RUEL-There's no law against it. He's not violating anything. MR. BREWER-Yes, there is. MR. MARTIN-I can go look tomorrow. MR. RUEL-What law? Tell me about it. Is there a law? He's got a pile of sand, right, three stories high, a pile of topsoil, the same height. MR. MARTIN-The only thing 1 could cite him on is a nonconforming use for commercial excavation. - 58 - ~ ./ - '- f' ..... MR. BREWER-So there is a law. It's not native to the site. Is it native to the site? MR. RUEL-Yes, native to the site. MR. BREWER-Then there's nothing you can do about it. MR. RUEL-Th i saIl came f rom the sit e . The s and came excavating for foundation, and the topsoil came from the same He's s e III n g the top so i 1. He's s e III n g it. He had a s i f t e r for one year, whatever they have to sift the topsoil, and the level is beyond the threshold of pain. MR. BREWER-That's a commercial operation. That's mining. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's commercial excavation. MR. RUEL-Yes. It is. Can we do anything about it? from area. there noise MR. MARTIN-Yes. We can stop it. He'd have to get a Use Variance in order to continue that. MR. RUEL-How? MR. MARTIN-Just stop it, a court order, summons, court summons. MR. BREWER-Can you look into that tomorrow? - MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-I'd appreciate it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 59 -