The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-01-17 ..---~_.- '-- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 1995 INDEX Subdivision No. 4-1993 (Cont'd Page 16) Subdivision No. 14-1994 FINAL STAGE subdivision No. 15-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE Resolution Acknowledging LEAD AGENCY STATUS Site Plan No. 1-95 subdivision No 2-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Site Plan No. 3-95 Site Plan No. 4-95 Referral From ZBA Area Variance No. 71-1994 Guido Passarelli Extension To File Craig Seeley, Charles Seeley, Glenn Batease Maureen Lynch Constance Langford Constance Langford Grace Roberts ;11 I, ,! ' 4. 5. 9. 18. 18. ,.¡ :', '27. 31. 36. 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. Walfred Associates Paula Peyton Fitz, Esq. 'J , Jeffrey & Debra Godnick '\, , f'i ,f.., 'I' :i; j "-" ....-' -,-- / -......z QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEET:IN,G :1 ! MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN TIMOTHY BREWER CATHERINE LABOMBARD JAMES OBERMAYER ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE STARK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI ELECTION OF OFFICERS MR. BREWER-We need a nomination for Chairman. MR. RUEL-I'd like to make a nomination, for several reasons. Number One, in spite of the Town Board's request to rotate Chairman, which we unanimously voted down, I nominate Tim Brewer. If the Town Board rejects it, so be it. We'll then have an opportunity to vote for someone else. Second, I feel that Tim Brewer has the experience and expertise to do the job effectively. He is tactful, polite, and diplomatic with both applicants and the public as well. That's my nomination. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO NOMINATE TIMOTHY BREWER AS CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, NOES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. MACEWAN-We need another nomination. MR. OBERMAYER-I'd like to make a nomination for Bob to be the Chairman. I feel that we do need a change. Tim has done a great job. He is going to be on the Town Planning Board for another six years, which I think is great for the Town. He has a lot of good input, but I think the Planning Board, it's nice to have a different Chairman, not that the Town Board says that, but I would like Bob to be the new Chairman. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO NOMINATE ROBERT PALING FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: - 1 - '- .-- Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel' ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR.. BREWER-Bob, it's yours. MR. PALING-Okay. We need a nomination for Vice Chairman. MR. RUEL-l'd like to nominate Craig MacEwan for Vice ChairMan. He's done a great job, and to continue in that position~ MOTION TO NOMINATE CRAIG MACEWAN AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF' THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by the' following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling MR. PALING-Do we have another nomination? MRS. LABOMBARD-I'd like to hold nominations, if until George Stark comes back from vacation. possible? Is, that allowed? it~s possible, Is that at all , , MR. PALING-Well, are you making a motion? you're making? Is that a motion MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I would like to make a motion, if it's at all possible to do that. MR. PALING-I don't know if it is. MR. BREWER-The Rules and Regulations say that you're supposed to do it at the organization meeting, cathy. MR. RUEL-Yes. them. If you postpone, you could have postponed all of MR. PALING-Mark, can you answer that question? been made that further vete be postponed; The motion has MR. SCHACHNER-My problem in answering the question is, I think there's a document that's the Planning Board By-laws or something li ke that. I don't have one of those, and I"ve never seen one of those. So I'd have to review that to answer the question. MR. BREWER-I've got it. right here. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's contained in there about the process used. MRS. LABOMBARD-My reason was I thought that this voting was going to be kind of a clear cut and dry unanimous typeófthing, and it's not. MR. MARTIN-As I recall, the only thing sUbmitted on to the Town Board is the approval, of thé Chairmanáhip. The other Officers, the Secretary and Vice Chairman, are strictly the vote of the Planning Board. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what ¡ thought~ - 2 - "'--' --....i '-..' --.-/ MR. SCHACHNER-I don't even see it, real quick. I see where it describes the offices. Wait a minute. Right here. Right up front. Yes. From my quick review, Jim's recollection appears to be correct. The first page of the Rules and Procedures of the Planning Board seems to indicate that, there are three Executive Officers, Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary, that the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Town Board for Chairman, but it then says, the Planning Board shall elect a Vice Chairman from its members and other officers as it deems necessary. As to when, again, unless somebody can point me elsewhere, I don't see where it says when this has to happen, and if it doesn't say when, then I would assume that. MR. MACEWAN-It says right in there, the annual meeting, the first meeti ng. IMR~ BRBWERTXhe ong~nizationa~ ,meetins:has always, been the. I 1M .- . 'J 1/'1 '~i I ;: : ~ ¡ ,~" .! 1:'" MR. MACEWAN-The first meeting of the year. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. What ¡ read is it says, shall annually designate, under officers. Maybe somewhere else it says something about an annual meeting. I don't see it, real quick, but again, I've never seen this document before. If yoU guys know it better than me, fine. MR. RUEL-Is there a date for Chairman? MR. SCHACHNER-There doesn't appear to be. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. Later on there is a Section. MR. MACEWAN-With all due respect, you should Chair this meeting tonight until the Town Board approves the Chairmanship. MR. BREWER-That's not the way we've always done it. We've always done it, when someone's elected, they take over. MR. OBERMAYER-That's the way we did it last year. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Later on, again, please bear with me. I've never seen this document before, :but later on in Page 4, there is a provision that says, annual meeting, the annual organizational meeting of the Board shall be the first regular meeting in the month of January of each year. So this is the annual m~eting, and now going back to Officers, it does not say, the Planning Board shall do this at the annual meeting. What it ~ say is the Planning Board shall annually make a recommendation to the Town Board, and then it says the Planning Board shall annually elect a Vice Chairman. MR. PALING-Well, would you want to try for another nomination? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I'd like to nominate Tim Chairman. That doesn't mean he's Chairman; but feel comfortable if he was second in the helm. Brewer for Vice I think I would MR. RUEL-Are you making a nomination? MRS. LABOMBARD-If we have to go ahead and complete this, then I would like to nominate Tim Brewer for Vice Chairman. MR. SCHACHNER-Just" so your record's clear, ,I'm not sit,ting here saying YOU have to do this tonight. I don't see that you have to do either one of them tonight, to be honest. MR. PALING-Well, I think we should at least try to do it. second nomination doesn't do it, theft maybe we better that. If the abandon - 3 - -- --- MR. RUEL-Well, 1'.1: l:seCt:olrid: th(!ji. AHi r igtit{~:'c; :'. . 'i,".}¡', t: MOTION TO NOMINATE TIMOTHY BREWER AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE OUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARQ, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel NOES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. BREWER-Three out of five. MR. PALING-Three out of five. Okay. All right~ nomination for Secretary. Then we need a MR. RUEL-I'd like to nominate Cathy LaBombard. MOTtON TO NOMINATE CATHERINE ~ABOMBARD AS SECRETARY' OF THE QI..,JEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Roger Ruel who, moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Rtiel. MT.Palins, Mr.'Obermayef"Mr. Brewei NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. of Old Business. Cathy, do you want to read us the first order APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 15, 1994: NONE I :¡ ..~ , ' I .. _ l.' I ! :'.~. j ;' \, J : " I'; t " J. /: ,I , November' 1''7, 19~4: i NONË!,1 i \." :, , , i '~~ I ..-¡ ; _._ : ,t; i 1 '1 ': ¡, i (',' ':'. 1\'; ',.' i , ' Ndvemberl ¡~$, 1994: ::Y;j~ONE' ' : " 1, .,' .. , /, ,-~' MOTION TO APPROVE Timothy Brewer who MacEwan: THE ABOVE SETS 9f1"'I':MINUTES, T'ntTòduced by moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig Dul y adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by thê' ¡ fól1òwi ng vote: AYES:' Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, 'Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling , " NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. Business? Do you want to read the first item of Old OLD BUSINES$: SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1993 GU~DO PASSARELLI BIRDSALL RD. APPROVED 22 (TWENTY-TWO) 10/19/93 WITH A 6 MONTH CONDITIONAL ROUND PONt> RD. & LOT SUBDIVISION ON APPROVAL (RESOLUTION ...,. 4 - "'-' ~' ',-, -/' ENCLOSED). NEEDS ADDITIONAL EXTENSION TO FILE. "MR .PALING-Wh,. dO$$'vhe".need this, do' ,we know?;, ¡ !.~'·-L :' ~ _! " ;,,'1 <) i ;--;t MR. HARLICKER-I wasn't involved in this. There's nothing in the file here that indicates why. I'm not sure why he needs, this needs an extension. MR. PALING-Okay. Does anyone have any background on it, know why he wants it? MR. OBERMAYER-I have no idea. MR. PALING-I don't, either, although shouldn't. He's not here. I don't know down. Yes. I'll entertain a motion. I don't know why why we should turn we it MR. RUEL-All right. I'll make a motion. MR. MACEWAN-Before we act on this, has Staff got any comments as to why he needs this extension? MR. H~RL¡CKER-I w~sn'~t.ld1nvolvedkiin,the conVElrsation, so' I 'mr not sure why he needs the extension. 't I' 'I i J: MR. MACEWAN-Did Jim talk to him? MR. HARLICKER-I assume that he did. Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Well,. lets, can we table this one, then, for a few minutes and move on to the next one, and come back to it when Jim comes bac k . MR. PALING-Is Jim coming back? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, he is. MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. Lets table it. MR. MACEWAN-That would be the wise thing to do. JT; ~ ., , MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to move on to the next one. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1994 BATEASE OWNERS: SAME AS BOOM & TWIN CHANNELS RD. PARCEL INTO TWO (2) LOTS OF 94 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2 SUBDIVISION REGULATæONS CRAIG SEELEY, ABOVE ZONE: PROPOSAL IS 7.157 EACH., LOT SIZE: CHARLES SEELEY, GLENN LI-1A LOCATION: BIG TO SUBDIVIDE A 14 ACRE CROSS REFERENCE: SP 33- +14 ACRES SECTION: ,¡ , ;'¡ " ! ':i" ! ¡;!,< GLENN BATEASE, BARBARA SEELEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 14-1994 FINAL STAGE, Craig See~eY, Charles Seeley, 'Glenn Batease, MeetinQDate: January 17, 1995, "The applicant has complied with the conditions set forth in the preliminary approval. The issue of the filling in of the stream on the lower portion of lot 2 is being addressed in a separate process. Since the conditions of the preliminary approval have been met, there does not appear to be any outstanding issues relating to final approval." MR. PALING-Now, refer you to the motion that was previously made on this, and, Scott, are you saying all the items of that motion have been complied with? There are five items on that~,' MR. RUSL-I;have some ¡questions about some' of the items.! ':-t I ';"-,ì ": :' ~ ; L 1; !.j !)~' ¡ 1', MR. PALING~Okay. I, : - 5 - -- MR. RUEL-Item Two, it says, filled area to be shown on the map. I couldn't find it. I don't see a separate section sðyi:.ng"fill. MR. PALING-Does that refer to the area to the northern extreme of the parking lot? I think that's the one you mean. MR. RUEL-Do you see it here? MR. PALING-Well, I think that is a separate issue, though. Did you want to address that, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-No. The strea~, it shows the fill area wh~re the, what I took to be the fill, where' the existing storage building is. I was under the assumption that that area there was the fill area, where the building is. MR. PALING-Right beyond the storage building. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, right. MR. HARLICKER-Then it drops off, and they've got the berm down below. MR. RUEL-Okay. It's not labeled as such. MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. MACEWAN-It was supposed to have been. MR. RUEL-It was supposed to have been, because it says here that the filled area is to be shown on the map, where the fill areas are, and it's not shown. MR. MACEWAN-There was a lengthy discussion regarding that, considering'what was beinQ filled there, and if it ever came back in the future, future site development, we' wanted that denoted on the map, as to where it was. MR. RUEL-And it isn't done. MR. PALING-No, it isn't. MR. RUEL-Okay, and I have another question~ The other question is Item Four. One of the items there, this plan is supposed to show water connections. I can't find them. I see all other, gas, electricJ telephone, cable~ undet~round utilities. I don't see water. I might have missed it. ·They well"e supposed to have that shown. MRS. SEELEY-The water's on there; MR. RUEL-Is it shown? MR. PALING-Where is it? Show us on the prints. MR. RUEL-Is that that "W"? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. It wasn't labeled water. MR. BATEASE-And it shows underground. I MR. RUEL-Yes. Like I water, and the filled right here? said, everything is spelled out, except areas, this is a'filled area, isn't it, MR. PALING-Yes. - 6 - "---"' ....-' --- '.../ MR. RUEL-Yes. That should have been shown, like a cross hatch or something like that. and then a legend saying, filled areas, wherever they might be. MR. BATEASE-All right. Well, here's the silt fence area, and there's the earthen dam. MR. RUEL-Yes, but this should be modified to reflect this. MR. PALING-We can make that a condition of the approval. MR. RUEL-As far as I'm concerned, everything e:lse was taken care of, that ¡can see on the map. MR. PALING-Does anyone else have comments? MR. BREWER-The only comment I have is, I wanted to know about ,the status of the other item that's in court, or whatever they're doing. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-I don't· know what the status is of, as far as the court case. MR. BREWER-I understand what you're saying. To me, I don't think it is a separate issue, because it's all still one piece of property right now, and I don't see how you're saying it's a separate issue. It's on the same piece of property, and the problem L have with it is, the Staff is saying it's a separate issue, and I don't think it is a separate issue. MR. HARLICKER-It's being addressed. The Town is addressing the issue. MR. BREWER-I just don't think it's a separate issue. I don't think you should say it's a separate issue. I think you should say, the other issue is being addressed, or something to that effect. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. RUEL-It's part of, right? MR. BREWER-It's part of. I don't know, I guess that~s my only comment. MR. PALING-Okay, but this isn't going to go by the board, though, because it is a matter of litigation, and so it isn't as. if it's going to be ignored. MR. BREWER-No. I just was curious as to the status of it. MR. HARLICKER-I haven't talked to Paul about it. I donJt know what the status is of the court case. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody know? what the status is? Mrs. Seeley, do you know MRS. SEELEY-Waiting for attorneys to hash this out. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. then. All right. We'll hear from the applicants, MRS. SEELEY-In what respect? MR. PALING-All right. Do applicants, then? I didn't we have any know whether you questions for had something the to - 7 - -- > ,tell us' 'first . ,Ii; ,,:J, ; ,.',1 " /fl ~ . -' I ,'¡ , ¡ ,", "I t "tV! '~ MRS. SEELEY-No. Everything~s pretty:clear on the map. MR. PALING-All right. Then, I guess we,can entertain a motion. MR. BREWER-Before you mak&,that, I 'want to Five be added to that resolution, from preliminary. The preli~inary motion, included in the final motion. make sure that Number the previous motion, that Number' Five be MR. RUEL-Okay. All right, and also the indication of the filled a'"eas. MR. PALING-Yes. That~s Item Number Two~ MR. RUEL-Yes. All right. MR. OBERMAYER-I just have one question. to Lot Two be maintained from Big Boom vehicle traffic for the machine shoþ? allowing, saying not accessing it means enter the property the other way? We're saying that access Road only. Is that just I mean, really you're not the applicant can't even MR. BREWER-I think we meant for business purposes. MR. PALING-He can only use Big Boom Road Tor vehicle access. MR. OBERMAYER-For business, the machine shop business. ,.! MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Why don't we mention that in the item. MR. RUEL-What do you mean? to say that access to Lot only. You want to modify Item Number Five, Two be maintained· from Big Boom Road MR. OBERMAYER-For business. MR. RUEL-For business purposes. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. I hope y6ù~re not making that too restr ictive. Why wouldn,'t you just leavé ·i t as it is? MR. BREWER-I don:'t know. The applicant agreed to it previously, when he got the preliminary. MR. PALING-Because 'now if you label it, business, that means something other than business would enter iÀto it. It's general now, and I think it covers eve~ything. MR, BREWER-! don't think the intention was that anybody ever went to read the minutes, that he couldn't go on his property from Twin Channels. The intention was made, and I think that was what we'd leave it. MR. PALING-I'd like to see it left as it is. MR. BREWER-I would~ too. MR. RUEL-Leave it as is? MR. PALING-Yes. i( , 'j: ; , . (, I (',¡ -; { D MR.'RUELWökay. :Ready? L "'d't;'" r ¡,',vI L ': "(J('¡!J : \ r·'1, .¥\ \ ", j k-l L;J ( ,! ::,,' , t,1 .'.; 'r .~~ ,:;' J '! ; i i "I '1 "ìtì1~[.' PALING>40kaY.. ~ ¡. ì__. ,; . t ,?() '\/ ¡:.' ! -f , , - 8 - ~ ~ ''"--, -..".../ MOTION TO APPROVE fINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1994 CRAIG SEELEY. CHARLES SEELEY. GLENN BATEA$E, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: As wr¡tten, with the following two conditions: One, that the filled areas to be shown on the map. Two, that access to Lot Two be maintained from Big ,Boom Road only. Whereas, the Town Planning final subdivision subdivide a 14 acre and Department is in receipt of application, file # 14-1994, to parcel into two 7 acre lots; Whereas, the above application, following: referenced dated 10/18/94 final subdivision consists of the 1. Sheet 1, Map and site plan for Seeley & ,Batease, revised 10/18/94; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentatio:n: 1. Staff notes, dated 1/17/95 Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment; and Whereas, any modification and terms contained in preliminary subdivision approval have complied with. the been Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve final subdivision plat for Craig Seeley, Charles Seeley, Glenn Batease file # 14-1994. Let it be further resolved, 1. That prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, all appropriate fees shall be paid and that within 60 days of the date of this resolution the applicant shall have the signed plat filed in the Office of the Clerk of Warren County. 2. The, applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned Qn compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995" by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Obermayer', Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy, do you want to read the next item. SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MAUREEN LYNCH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 57 1/2 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO FORMALLY SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY SUBDIVIDED BY DEED BUT DID NOT GO THROUGH - 9 - FORMAL PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. THE PROPERTY IS' 12.73 ACRES AND IS TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO 2 LOTS OF 8.35 ACRES AND 4.35 ACRES. APPLICANT IS DEEDED OWNER OF THE 8.35 ACRE LOT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 65-1994 TAX MAP NO. 55-1-7.1, 7.2 LOT SIZE: 12.73 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CHRISTOPHER AND MAUREEN LYNCH, PRESENT MR. PALING-Now this item was tabled by the Zoning Board. Has there been further action by them?'" MR. HARLICKËR-They revised the site plan, or the ¡subdivision, so it does~'t né'd a variance. MR. PALING-Okay. 'So that's off. We don"t have to have 'to worry about that. Okay. MR. RUEL-I have some questions. MR. PALING-Good. Go ahead. MR. RUEL-This is for the attorney. I was wondering if the attorney had read and okayed the contract of sale dated 12/29/94, and the addendum to the contract, dated thesa~e date. MR. SCHACHNER-If you mean t.b.i§.'attorney, I've not beén asked to do that, so I haven't done that. MR. RUEL-Scott, has anyone reviewed these documents? MR. BREWER-I think that"s the reason Roger, and the Town Attorney and their out, and I believe their contract is holding this up fro~ coming to us. that this wa~ held up, attorney did straighten it fine. That was what was MR. RUEL-Yes. How do I know that? MR. BREWER-Because it's on in co~munication'with Mrs. it. So it is fine. the agenda. Trust me. I know. I'm Lynch, with Jim, and with Paul about MR. RUEL-Okay.: All right. My other question has to do with the width of the driveway. That's a very long driveway with some very severe turns in it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I had a conversation with Kip Grant and they showed that this is, essentially, the only concern with this subdivision is the length of the driveway. It's about 1200 feet long, and they do have söme concern~ The longest hose that the Fire Department has is 600 feet.' So they're requesting that turnaround areas be provided along the driveway. The turns, the two 90 degreè turns are too sharp Ifor the fire apparatus to get back in there.' So that's a problem. We were þoing to get written concerns from the, not Kip, but the Fire Chief from Bay Ridge, probably this week. MR. BREWER-How can they provide that, though, Scott,' if that's the only property they own? MR. HARLICKER-I'm just saying, those were the concerns of the Fire Department. MR. RUEL-So this information has 'been submitted to the Fire Department, and we're waiting for their reply? MR. HARLICKER~Yes. ,What I've just toxd you was Kip's response to me today. He talked to them, showed th~m the plat, and he was going to get us something in writing. MR. RUEL-And their recommendation, then, should be reflected in '- 10 - ',---" --- ',,-- --- the revised plan~if n~qeß~~ry~r I.. : ¡' j" ";\1 /1 " , i'-' " INR.; :HARLICKEiR-Ye$:;' : ,1'" :( ,,,¡,! ',': .:¡I~!I'i' " ',' ' , "I' "l:ìl'! MR. PALING-Okay . Scott, I'm ,ªp:rry, ,'] , m·¡gKai n9 ¡in ¡the wrQng' order, here. Did you have any further Staff comments? MR. HARLICKER-That was the main one, was the fire access. MR. RUEL-Where would this turnaround be? One or several? MR. HARLICKER-What his scenario was is that they'd have to use two trucks. They'd drive on in, pull it out to the side, lay 600 feet of hose, drive another one in, lay another 600 feet of hose to get back to the house. Somewhere along the line there has to be a place where this truck can pull off and for the other apparatus to get by. MR. RUEL-That 25 foot section has to be widened, somewhere. MR. HARLICKER-Somewhere they've got to provide room for the fire apparatus to move. MR. RUEL-Yes. That makes sense, because it's pretty long. MR. PALING-Okay. Any others, Roger? MR. RUEL-No, that's all I had. Of course, we're back with that flag lot again. MR. PALING-That's not a flag lot. That's a crank lot. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you plan on usi ng the, new right of way for your driveway, or do you plan on using this existing gravel drive? MR. LYNCH-We plan on using an entirely new driveway. MR. OBERMAYER-Is there any plans, because really you can take this area and subdivide itA I mean, then, I can see it as being a real problem, with many homes in here and trying to access this site. It's not as bad for ~ home, but if you were to have multiple housing back there, I could see a real problem~ MR. BREWER-There's no way you could ever have multiple housing back there. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't think you could, either. MR. BREWER-There's no way, because they don't have road frontage, Jim. There's only one. 40 foot strip going back there, or 40 foot on Ridge Road. So if the other lots .don't have road, frontage, you can't subdivide ,it. That's a requirement of the subdivision Regulations. They don't have enough room for a public road. It's got to be 50 feet. MR. PALING-No. It's probably the last subdivision you're looking at is this. MR. RUEL-Yes. I do have another question. In the area of 7.48 acres, it indicates that after conveyance of ..502 acre parcel, is that the parcel down here, this lot, this rectangle? MR. LYNCH-That's the driveway that we're excavating .up. MR. RUEL-I see. Why is this shown on here, on the map, if is to be part of the parcel, of the 7.8. Why is the separated on there? Any reason? that .502 MR. LYNCH-None that ¡ can think of. - 11 - MR. BREWER-Where are you talking about, Roger? MR. PALING-At the' turn in the road there. MR. BREWER-What you're saying is, previously, that wasn't on the map,?, MR. RUEL-No~' It indicates here that, 7.81 acres~~and that says after conveyance of the .5, and yet the .5 is shown separate. MR. PALING-But that's, if coMes out to be 8.35, but is it shown the way :thàt separate lot. you add 7.848 to that, I assume that then you still have the question, why it is, because it's, í not goi ng 'to be a , MR. LYNCH-I think it~s shown there just for the' conveyance,' the deed conveyance that we're going to go through. We're picking up a certain square footage. In return for that, we're giving up a certain square footage. MR. RUËL-The 7.8 is-Garner? MR. LYNCH-That's ~. MR. PALING-And you own that property where the name of Garner is? MR. LYNCH-Garner now owns the 4.35 acre lot in the front with the house on it, and that will be 8.5 acre. MR. MACEWAN-Where the Board is going with this, there's a small rectangular piece down here where ~ou take t.he Corn~f on your right of way that's labelled down here as a little more than half an acre, and in parenthesis, under the area acreage on your main parcel, it says there, after conveyance of that acreage to this, they're trying to figure out, how does that tie in. Are you getting that now, or is that being conveyed to someone else? MR. LYNCH-We'reconveyingt.hat to' Dr. Gar'nér, in return for the land he's conveying to us. MR. ' MACEWAN-Does that ánswer your question? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Well, there are three lots, then, shown on this print. , MR. RUEL-That's right. MR. HARLICKER-So when Final comes through, you're going to strike that 220 foot? MR. LYNCH-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR~ RUEL-Those' lines will come'outJ those two lines. MR. MACEWAN-Just the one line will come out. MR. HARLICKER-The 220' foot li ne.: MR. PALING-The 220 foot line. It becomes part of the 4.0 acre. Okay. MR. RUEL-I have a question for the aþplicant. I'm ju~t wondering what the foundation is, built in 1985.' MR. MACEWAN-ThatJs t.hehouse that's in there. i MR. RUEL-Concretefoundation.' It doesn't" say anything about a '- 12 - ------ '..-" '-- .. '''w/ house. MR. MACEWAN-That's a house right there. That's a house there right now. MR. OBERMAYER-That's the owner of the property, the Garners. MR. BREWER-Scott, do you have the file here for this? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Can I see an old map, a previous map that was submitted for this? Now there's a lot there,. That means, to me, that it's a three lot subdivision. MR. HARLICKER-Well, it's going to be a lot line adjustment, to convey. MR. BREWER-This was the previous application. MR. HARLICKER-They can do a lot line adjustment and take 'a chunk out of here and add it to this lot. MR. SCHACHNER-For the purpose of? MR. BREWER-Previous, this was the previous application for a two lot subdivision. MR. SCHACHNER-And it was granted or not? MR. BREW~R-No, that's what we're doing now, and that map that we have now. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't understand what you mean by "previous" application? MR. BREWER-Well, this came in, and there was some differences with the Garners and the Lynchs, pkay. Now they've come in with this map here. Does that constitute a three lot subdivision? MR. HARLICKER-This line is going. That way, it's not going to exist. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not going to exist. MR. HARLICKER-So this lot will be shaped like this, and then you've got the rest of it like that. MR. BREWER-O ka y . ; MR. HARLICKER-I think that was just done in there for some sort, for deed or for. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, because otherwise that's a lot. MR. BREWER-So, for Final, that map should be adjusted, so that it doesn't show that lot. MR. PALING-So that will be one of the conditions of the motion. Okay. We've got, I think, two conditions of the motion, so far. Are there any other comments or questions? MR. RUEL-We have two conditions? MR. ,PALING-Yes. One is the safety access, and the other one is the lot lines. Okay. Are there anymore questions? MR. OBERMAYER-I guess I'd like ~o hear from the public, to see if Ned Crislip is here, because they're neighbors, and the roadway's going to go right behind their house. Did you talk to them at - 13 - ...._~ all? MR. LYNCH-We've 'talked witH them a fè~ times. We're going to be putting up a row (lost word) hedge, you know ~ t'íees. MR. OBERMAYER-You'll be putting a hedge, then? going right around his back yard. Because it is I, MRS. LA80MBARD~Well, he has that Bed and Breakfast business, and sometimes he has weddings there and all that, but I figured that if Ned wa~n't here, then iVerything'~f1ne. MRS. LYNCH-We had originally offered to share the a straIn of bushes or arborvitaes br something and continue to provide a screen, since they do yards. cost of getting that would grow enjoy the back MR. PALING-Okay. We'll open the public hearing on this. Is there anyone that would like to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED " MR. PALING-Now, do we need a SEQRA on this? MR. BREWER-Yes'~ Short Form. MR. HARLICKER-They submitted a Long Form. MR. MACEWAN-Why do you need to do the ~ Form? MR. MARTIN-That's what they to. That's all we have on file, only as a'Long Form. they'd have submitted a Part submitted. It's not file, and we have . W~ could'have d6~é I Short Form. that they need thef~ 'Part 1 on a Short' Form if RESOLUTION WHEN DETER~INATIONOF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO, 15-1994, Introduced by Rbger Rúel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEw~n: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before MAUREEN LYNCHJàr'ld the Planning Board an ~HEREAS,:; tti'í$ ¡t.'1ÅTht'ifig ,'Board hask;! £1èt!êrmi nê<rl(;t!R~t ' thepropôsed project and Planrling Board action is subjectH~.t1{~ev!J!ew!'lòt\a~rtthe State Environmental Quality Rèview Act, . NOW, THEREFORE, SE IT ¡ ; RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved.' 2. The following agencies are i~volved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Envi~onmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Havlng considered' and thoroUghly anaiyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and Kavinö considered the criteria - 14 - '- -.-' '"---,, --" 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 17th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Stark ¡ , MR. LYNCH-We are asking for Preliminary and Final toni~ht. , MR. RUEL-At the same time? , ,'" , , I MR. PALING-No. This is only for Preliminary. MR. RUEL-You skipped the Sketch one. You went directly to Preliminary, but you have to go to Final. MRS. LYNCH-We were advised we could ask. MR. RUEL-I don't know that you can do both. MR. BREWER-Well, typically, we do it in two steps, and, seeing how there are modifications that have got to be made to the map, I would say that we dQ it next week, when the map is corrected. MR. PALJ¡NG-Y,s .;"I,thi:T1k ¡ we',oTle¡90i.Í.ns¡ :to, t)~ve :to., MR. QSERMAYER-You can ,be on the, agenda next week. MR. BREWER-They're already on. MR. RUEL-So, I'll make a mqtion,., MQTION TO APPROVE ~RE~IMINARY STAGE SUßQ¡VISION NO. 15-1994 MAUB~EN M. LY~ÇH, Introduced by, Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Qbermayer: As written, with two conditions: One, that we must ,wait for a reading from the Fire Department as to the driveway, location of turnaround, curves, etc. Two, that the 220 foot lot line be deleted from the map. For the Final, these things should be done to the plan. Whereas, the Town P lar1J1Í ng Department, is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application, file . 15- 1994, and Whereas, the above application, following: referenced preliminary subdivision dated 10/25/95 consists of the 1. Sheet 1, Map of the Lands of Maureen Lynch, revised 12/22/94; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: - 15 - -" - 1. Staff 'notes; dated 1/17/95 2: Long EAF, dated 10/26/94 3. Contract of sale, dated 12/29/94 Whereas, a þublic hearing was held on 12/15/94 concerning the above subdivision; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been subnHtted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their' review and comment; and Whereas, the requirefuents of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and , , Whereas, the pröpbséd subdivision' is subject to 'the following modification and terms prior to submission of the'~lat in final form; , Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows: The To~n Planning Board, I after co~sidering the abo~e~ hereby, moves to '¡approve preliminary subdivision of Maureen Lynch, file # 15-1994. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MaèEwan, Mr~ ~uel, ¡ M1". Obermayer, Mr'. Pal i ng NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. BREWER-Okay. Bob, I'd like to just interrupt for a second, because I wanted to do this first, and Jim just finished wri~ing it. So I want to introduce this motion for Columbia. MR. PALING-We're all set here, though. Thank you. MR. BREWER""'It's just wr i tten. This" is a motion to deny èolumbia. Just get 'it out íof' the way is all I want'tö do; MR. PALING~Ok~y. Now this is not on the agenda. MR. BREWE~-No. I àsked for it to be, prior to. . MR. MACEWAN-This is something the Staff Attorney has been working on for the last couple of meetings for us. MR. BREWER-Right. I asked for it to be done when I was Chairman and asked to have it done tonight. . i ' HR. RUEL-Well,0why' can't we dbi this at t~eGí~nd?' Why hold up people that are here? MR. MACEWAN~It will t~ketwo seconds tddiscuss it. MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute. I'm not sure it's going to be that short a discussion, because aren'tiwe, 'You'r~'doing this because of the 45 rule, I believe. Okay. When does the 45 days expire? MR. BREWER-There's no 45 day rule in effect. MR. PALING-Well, isn't it past? MR. BREWER-The way we left it was, it was tabled, for them to submit by"[)ecember filing't:iate. 'They i did not 'submit. 'It was 01.:l:. feeling that I wanted to just get it out of the way and not hang " I _ 16 - ,--' --../ '- ~ over our heads, so I asked a motion to be drawn up. A motion was drawn up. I want to introduce it and just get it out of the way, is all I want to do. MR. PALING-Tim, this is a negative thin9~'i,I believe, and if it were to pass, do they have any recourse? Can they come back? MR. BREWER-No. They qan re-file, that's all. MR. PALING-When you say re-file~ re-apply? MR.: BREWER-Re-apply. Anybody can always sue µs. MR. PALING-No, no, no. I don't want it to go the sue route, but they can re~apply, J¡m, without penal~y? MR. MARTIN-Yes, withou~ penalty. MR. PALING-And so if th~y want to come in in a month, they can do it. Okay. I wanted to be clear of that in my own mind, but I'd like to hear other, Tim} I don't, think this can be done in a few seconds. I think we ought to put it off until the end, but lets do it tonight.. MR. BREWER-I don't understand why? We all agreed, unanimously, that they should file before the December deadline. MR. PALING-But I think there's a lot of questions on the mind of others, like there are in ~ mind, that aren't answered yet, and is there any reason why we can't do it at the end of the meeting? MR. BREWER-No. You can do it at the end. MR. PALING-We'll do it, but lets do it at the end of the meeting. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Wait a minute. Passarelli. We've got to go back to do Guido MR. MARTIN-Yes. The. ,reason for the extension on that was he was extending the water line, as you recall, down ROUDd Pond Road, and there were delays on that. I think, with both parties, I'm not really a party to details as to what happens with the water line extensions, but I know that was a primary reason for the delay. That was just recently approved, and they have. in fact, now been extending that water line. So that was the reason for the delay. MR. PALING-It seems like a good reason. Does he need six months to do it? MR. MARTIN-I would say six months would be sufficient, because he's already submitted his mylar. We're just, waiting for payment of the recreation fee. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions? From what date are we extending it? MR. MARTIN-It was approved on 10/19. MR. PALING-Well, then it wouldn't be June. It would be April, I would think. MR. RUEL-I was thinking six months from this date. MR. PALING-Six months from now or six months from then? MR. MARTIN-It was '93, and then it was six months from the n . - 17 - ~.... - . 'MR. P~LING~Should,:ithl:tt:, ;be "í~4~ ..iJ,:I' "1. i: L 'I: '/", ,,' , 11.:'" I," 1(; "~I:::") . L! '/~;JI'~ 1 " ;').; 'J-~):fAl,~,~ i¡; ',/l,:'!:~< J('rt :~'i J' )f'.'ri\R. ,'RUEL-sHôulch'¡,Þ£ltt, bê"'s'f)¿ m~:hH:!hs;ifrdWtCjwhéni\\)fH~¡ reques'tecl ¡the 'i::g~tensíbn?' ,>j'rlii'J L)f,/ii Ìf':'ìT' ii, \,' r i ~ ",:,j'," -'if ¡ j ,c, '';':'' ¡ ¡ ( -~ '~;.~ ,I'i ,",;1 f r! ~)~!"!,"i.' MR. PALING-Well, let me clar i fy' '; bhè' th:i hi;;!': .i Is!/!l'that'" 93 ~ or should it be '94, as written on the agenda? ,'. MR. MARTIN-I think it's '93. Yes, it's a '93 number. MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-It is '93. I remember that. MR. PALING~Ok~y. We're extending it from what dãte? " MR. MARTIN-I would say April 19, 1994. MR. PALING-Okay. Make it April instead of June. MR. RUEL-You said '94. Do you mean '95? ¡ , MR. MARTIN-I don't know if it matters what date it was, as long as you give ita date that it's extended to.'" MR. PALING-All right. Well, dó you w~rit'us to éx~e~d1t until June or April? MR. MARTIN~g~n~9wilf Be'~uff16ient~ ,;:,.¡¡ "..' j MR. PALING-All right. June? Make it June. You don't have any object to going until MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-They asked for a six month extension, and I would say from now until the end of June. ii, , MR. ; ~UËL-I}:t snou1ldi be'ftom the time théy request.' J ¡ :: I' <~/1('!'~,J~, :.t~ì.~.; _._J ¡·i(¡ ¡ , MR. MARTIN-It ðlways works out better if you do it· to 'the last day of the month. ! ,! ¡~ ; 1 MOTION TO EXT~ND S~BDIVISION NO, 4-1993 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by'Roger Ruelwho moved .¡tor Its adòption, s~conded by Timothy Brewer: .. Until June 30th, 1995. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brew~r, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan '¡I ABSËNT: Mr.igta.... k MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy. CO~STANCEL~NGFORD - RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LE:AÓiAGENCY STATUS IN'REVIEW'OFSITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR CON$TANCÈ't2ANGFORD. SITE PLAN NO. 1-95 TYPE I CONSTANCE LANGFORD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: FOLLOW ASSEMBLY PT. RD. TO CROSSOVER LANE, TURN LEFT, GO TO LAKE PARKWAY, TURN LEFT, GO TO DEAD END. HOUSE!S '2ND'FROM LAST ON DEADEND. PROPOSAL IS TO REMODEL EXISTING 3 BEDROOM SEASONAL HOME: REPLACE e' 'X 16' SECTioN' WITH 12'; X 3:2" ADDITION TO - 18 - -- '-.../ ''''"~ ~' PROVIDE HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE BEDROOM AND BATH ON MAIN FLOOR. RAISE ROOF TO PROVIDE SPACE FOR OTHER TWO BEDROOMS ON SECOND FLOOR., EXCAVAJE FpR BASEMENT UNDER ADDITION AND CRAWL SPACE UNDER EXISTING. SEQRA: 1/17/95 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 8-1-16 LOT SIZE: 15,680 SO. FT. SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 GEORGE AND CONSTANCE LANGFORD MR. HARLICKER-There's also a prepared resolution in here for acknowledging lead agency status. MR. PALING-Okay. Is this what we do now? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You do that first, and then you go through Part II of the Long Form EAF. MRS. LABOMBARD-What would you like me to read? MR. PALING-The site plan resolution. MR. HARLICKER-No. This is for Lead Agency Status. MR. PALING-All right. MR. BRE~ER-I'll introduce the resol~tion. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Si~~Plan ~ev¡ew for CONSTANCE LANGFORD RESOLUTION NO.; 1-1995 INTRODUCED BY: Timothy Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Cr~ig MacEwan WHEREAS, in qonnection with the siteplanre~iew application for CONSTANCE LANGFORD. the Town of Oueensbury Planning Board, by resolution, prev¡ou$ly authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEORA review, and 'f" \:" t ! Ici! ..oi i WHEREAS~ the Executive, Dir~ctor has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Oueensbury Planning Board being lead agent, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board herein determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEORA as follows; 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action, as the Planning Board has determined thAG tl1,[~ :wi II , b~., ~Q~igni f icant.¡~f,fect, Oíl: that :' ,i~p~nt¡irti,i,~di i envirolfllfental,' ef,fects will, opt I i be significant for the following reasons: i¡':,' ¡ ~nd ,:1' ..::" '1':' :(1 .;~,:! ,: ')!,¡¡; ,~', ! ¡ \, . !L,) ·',,1 '!. : 1 . ":1-"'''' ßE. I1: \FURTI;IER "If'; . .il. "1 J'., , (,,."'i ;.p"" -: '..I I" ' I' ! I , ¡ I ' i\ '1 ~ .,. ",. '- J ,.:¡ < i If', , ' . _! j "! I.'-~ ; ;' " , ' , ~~SOLVED, that th, 6xecut¡v~ Director is ,he~ebya~thorized - 19 - - -' to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. ï! ( , Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard~ Mr. BreW~r, Mr. MacEwan, :Mr~ RUe!, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling .:; NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark' '(I!d (,. ,¡ MR. HARLICKER-You have to go through' Part II of the Long Form EAF. oj' MR. BREWER-Shouldn't we go through the site plan first, take a loók at it anyway? j MR. HÂRLICKER-Yes. 'Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-95, Constance Langford, Meeting Date: January 17, 1995 IIPRO.;r~CT ANALYSIS: , Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with' Section 179-38 A.; Sectfon 179- 38B, Section 179-38C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section;179-39 and fóurid that the pioJect co~Þlie~ w~tW the ~bove sections: 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 compatil:Hlity of buildings, lighting and signs; The addition is at the rear of the building and should not impact compatibility; Li~hting and Signage are not an issue. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access' and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular tràff'ic'access :will not be impacted. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off- street parking "¡and ]:óading; Off, streetpârking will' not be impacted. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access . andcifculàtion, wallÌ:wåY struêtures'~ control of intersections with 'vehicular trafficandoveYall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access will not be impacted. 5. The adequacy and impact of stormwaterdrainâge facilities; Stormwater drainage will have to be controlled on site. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The existing house is seasonal with three bedrooms and one bath; the remodeled house will be year round¡~ith three bedrooms and a possible fourth along with two baths and a lavatory'. It is not clear if the existing system will be able to handle the potential increase in sewage and water use. 7. THe adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening' constituti'ng a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant'·s and adjoining 'lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance i ncludi ng replacement of dead plants; , Landscaping' :wi'1'l not be impacted by this project. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the' provision off fire 'hydrants; Emergency access will not be impacted. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscapfng~fn a~eas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Erosion control measures should be in place du~in~ cohsi~uètiorl ~nd until the site has been stabilized. RECO~I:1e:NQAT~ON:" The project's main impåct relates ,to viSUá1 impáct'a'nd watêr quality. The house has been enlarged from a seasonal one story house with finished attic space to a year round two story structure. This intensification of the use of' :the property could' also overload the ' e~isting septic system and, impactthé water quality of the lake. The applicant should pr6~ide additionà1 information on the - 20 - -- '--- ........ ,~, septic system." MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions on the Staff comments? MR. BREWER-I've got questions. MR. PALING-Welt a minute. Excuse me, Tim. Roger, go ahead. MR. RUEL-There is an additional bathroom, I understand. Is that correct? MR. PALING-Well, wait a minute. I asked if there were any questions on the Staff comments, is what I said. Okay. Do you have any questions for ,Staff? MR. RUEL-Yes, I do. Scott, are they adding a bathroom? MR. HARLICKER-What they're doing is they're, essentially, gutting out the existing structure. I'm not sure what's in there right now. I got that information from the building plans that were submitted. MR. RUEL-Yes. bathroom. " ' The reason I ask is if they're adding another .~ )":,' ;~.. d ; , ;'"': i ; MR., HARLICKER-I don't know what's in there right now. MR. PALING-We can find out. 1$ there someone from the applicant here? MR. RUEL-! don't know what, the aQequ~cy ,of tÞ~ septic, system is. , , ! MR. PALING-We can Jask. 11 MR ¡. .r1~RLICKER;Y~s,. ¡ -; ': , We don:~, either~ , JL MR. P~LING-Okay. D~ you want ~o as'k y~ur questi9n~, ',ROQetf I,¡ . , .!: ,.'1, ,I(';¡ ,í ; ¡ , I j' ,", Are you proposing a ~~FPn~ bathrop~? . '1 MR. RUEL-Yes. I " ,',..'I"'.,{.",!, ¡ , M~.,L~NGFORD~¡:m,G~Q~Qe LaDQfor~. TheJ~Wo. b.drooms will be moved , upstairs" ~nc;L ther~' II be a bathrocDm up the;r:e to accommodate. MR,. RUEI.;.-So"XQ\¡.I wi II add a.,bathroom.. th~n? MR. LANGFO~QrRi@ht~, MR. RUEL-All right. So the septic system, then, will have an extra bathroom to take car~ of. "f; MR. I,.f1\NGFQRrt'\Y~s, þl¡1t there's still the såme number of bedrooms. ! 1 ;~. : .i . 'I ¡ ~ " . I j " M~. I RU~L,.;-:Ye,.! YQu 've ,i~d~q~t~d, ¡¡ometh,j. ng like: ,100 ga IlQns:",. uflder 10Q :9êJ.lQT1S pe,17 <;iay, u~age, s~¡â$ons¡(.j ~)(; J .'1 .}Ii; .. .'! ,I MR. LANGfORD.,...Seasonal us~ge, ?O ,to:1,OO gatlQ,\1s. , ,'·'1, , . ;,' ,(" :MR.¡'RWEL:-~l¡1at I">.art"qt" the buil.cHng:,~as daroaged by fire? 'J , . r ¡ ¡ I .MR. kANGF9RD~~I¡1$t about ev~rythinQ. q! . j.' ! MR. RUEL-The, whole thing? , " ! ~~,:, i' MRS.. LANGFORD~The BUilding Inspector came up and said it ell had to go. MR. RUEL-You have just the shell. The only question I had is the bathrQom, and whether the septic system was adequate to handle the additional bathroom. That's all. ... 21 - "'-' MRS. LANGFORD-We;re not increasing the numbef of bedrooms. MR. HARLICKER-You've got a den shown downstairs. MRS. LANGFORD-Yes. That's for my therapeutic and laundry room. ! ' ' MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MRS. LANGFORD-I think the laundry is shown in there. know what else to call it. I didn't MR~'HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN~How high do you plan' on raising thê rOof line to put on the second floor? How' high wi II that be?' MR. LANGFORD-It's going to 6e a' salt box. Só in the front it will be out eight feet, and it goes back down to the back of the addition. MR. RUEL-How much higher is the building? MR. LANGFORD-It would be about another six feet. MR. MACEWAN-Six feet higher than what it ;, is now~ to the highest point? MR. LANGFORD-Yes. MR. PALING-We should have an elevation drawing on this, which I don't have. MR. RUEL-Yes. I don't have it either. So we can~t t~ll fro~the documents we have. MR. LANGFORD-I do have a drawing. I didn't bring it in. It's in the car, if you'd like me to get that. MR. PALING-Which shows an elevation? MR. LANGFORD-Right. MR. PALING-I think we'd like to see that. Yes. ~''-, ' MR. OBERMAYER-That would be great. MR. PALING-We can continue our questions, I think. Maybe Mrs. Langford can answer them. Go ahead. Tilm, you'had àquestion1 MR. BREWER-Yes. tank? Do' you knòw how big the septic; 'Is 'it, it's a MRS. LANGFORD-A thousand gallons, and it has, 1 think on the application it said how many fèêt'of lea¿hfield'wè'hàvè, on the plot plan. MR ~ MARTIN-Do youkn6w if the concrete, is it' concr'ète? '/ ' MRS. LANGFORD-Concrete. ';-., MR. BREWER-Is it old? MRS. LANGFORD-~t wa~ pu~chased, my dad built à house in 1951, and a whole new septic system was put in in 1975~ , ' MR: PALING-That~s 20 years old. MR. RUEL-Could somebody in Queensbury check out this septic system, see that' it's adequate?' ;, I ¡ ,I , ',,-' 22 - - --- \,/ '-../ MRS. LANGFORD-We have a five year permit. They've already been up there to check. MR. RUEL-It's been checked out? MRS. LANGFORD-Yes. MR. PALING-When was that? MRS. LANGFORD-Two years ago. MR. MARTIN-That was part of the Septic Inspection program, when it in place now, but they went a~o~nd in the Town for their age and their Lake George Park Commission was in place. It's no longer and checked, all these systems working condition. MR. RUEL~It was checked against the form~r building. MR. MARTIN-Yes, the current standards. MR. RUEL-Yes, but I'm talking about the current, proposed changes. MR. MARTIN-Well, it's sized by number of bedrooms. So if she's not increasing the number of bedrooms, then there would be no. MR. RUEL-They're not increasing the number of bedrooms? MR. PALING-No. MR. RUEL-So that takes care of it then? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Regardless of the number of bathrooms? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. RUEL-It goes by bedrooms only? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-You wouldn't have any problem with erosion control measures during construction, would you? MRS. LANGFORD-No, not at all. MR. BREWER~Hay bales and silt fence or ,whatever? MRS. LANGFORD-No. We have, hopefully, a local person has said he would oversee all this. He's extremely ecologically minded. MR. BREWER-Okay. problem with that. S9 if we put that into the motion, there~s no Okay. That's all I've got. MR. RUEL-Now if you make a of water would be running property. Now you have to amount of water, right? salt box, that means a heck of a lot off that roof onto the bac:k,of, the have adequate means of dispersing that MRS. LANGFORD-Right. MR. RUEL-It would go to the sides of the building and go forward? MRS. LANGFORD-We'll have gutters in the back, and down into stone areas, and then it'll disperse. much of a grade. Our lot is fairly level. it would go We,don't,have MR. RUEL-Yes. I was there, but I didn't know it was going to be a salt box. A salt box usually has a very large roof area which - 23 - -- would bring a lot of water down towards. MRS. LANGFORD-It wasn't going to be, originally. It> was going to be just the rbof, and th~n the ~oof on the additibn~ 'but then the designer told us we were going tohév~ a terrible ~n6w problem if we did that, because all the upper snow would fall on the lower roof, and the first loss was by fire. The' next one migh~ be by collapse. So he suggested we should do it that way. It wasn't wha~ I w~nted to do, but. : MR. OBERMAYER-Is the house going to remain a camp, or is it going to be year round? MRS. LANGFORD-It" II be, hopefully, loriger sea.son. Nô.i I can't live there because the facilities and my need to be here, therapy and things like that. We won't have it year round.' MR. OBERMAYER-Because I notice you're putting a" fòu~dation on it, and it does say it's going to be a year round home, and I was just curibus about the w~t~r.· What afe you goingitd 'do about, you get your water from the lake right now? " MRS. LANGFORD-Yes. We weren't planning on changing. MR. OBERMAYER-On putting iri a well¿ MRS. LANGFORD-We didn't feel we really needéd: it." 'For five months of the year it gets closed up. , MR. RUEL-Do you get drinking water from the lake? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MRS. LANGFORD-Yes, sir. 'MR~ RUEL-You 'drink that 'water? , , , , MRS. LANGFORD-We do. I'll tell you the one thing with it is make orange juice on Sunday'and drink You drink it right away, or you buy tHe stuff mixed in a carton. you don't do iftÓn Monday. that's already , , MR. OBERMAYER-What's the drywell used for? I see you have drywe II comi ng out. Is that for YOŒ~~'!:'w~sH!fn~V¡ ~n\achi!tie something? a or r ¡-'; "'if"f"! 'I MRS. LANGFORD-Yes. The washer and dryer. The washer and dryer will be moved over to the other side ',¡¿HC, ithe¡;hdtì$~;ft(H';i, and that'll probably, I assume, I don't know, go into the septic system, or another drywell. I'dori't r~all~ know:. To tell you the truth, I don't know what's the right thing to do. MR. RUEL-l,'1r., L~D$.;}f0'fQ.,may w~ see,..t/ì~,.p,l~n~? , -,r'; ¡ -, J"!'''; I, 'tl~; T I"" ;"Iil] ir'¡~!¡'\i -" ,.j V·I,j!-it,.: V¡(¡; ;i,., 1'1;, MR. LANGFORD-This is the existing. So this is going to raise here. This is the addition back here'~ If' /, Ok! ku; ¡; ¡'¡;;"; ,,- f': . " MR. PALING-What's the max to the peak? MR. LANGFORD- I measured 28 "féët>]i; :;1 ~WI(~ T -'1'1C MR. PALING-Twenty~eight. okay; That's fine. Okay. So YO(l"'re' nowhere near the, MR. MACEWAN-So the height of that's 99ing to be a heck of a lot more than six foot. MR. RUEL-Yes. This has got to be up higher. MR. LANGFORD-Now this porch here is e:dsti'ng, and it's below the ,,' --24 - '-" --" " ,-,,' existing roof line. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but I'm talking about the new roof line that you're putting on to create the salt box roof., That's what ¡ was worried about, the second floor, how hi9h thi3t was going up. MR. RUEL-It's going from here to here. MR. LANGFORD-It's an existing roof that goes up like this., and that's coming off, and this is going to be. MR. RUEL-You don't measure from here, Craig. MR. LANGFORD-This is a porch that's on th~re now. MR. RUEL-There is another roof over here. Remember? MR. MACEWAN-yesA MR. RUEL-Okay. So he's saying from that existing roof. MR. MACEWAN-From the peak of that t'oof to the peak of the roof is only six foot. . MR. RUEL-About six feet. It might be eight. MR. 8REWER-What's that; from grade? MR. LANGFORD-That's about 28 feet. MR. OBERMAYER-That's going to be a summer house? looking summer house. That's a nice MR. RUEL-It looks good. ., MRS. LABOMBARD-I like that better than what you were going to do. I like the roof line. originally MR. pALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there q~estions? We shoµld open the public hearing now,. anyone that would care to come forward and comment application? a ny, other Is ,there on this PUBL.,IC HEARING OPEN~D NO COMMENT PUBL.IC HEARING CLO~ED MR. PALING-We Beed . Long Form. MR. RUEL-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the CONSTANCE LANGFORD, and. Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the prop,psed project and Planning Board action is subject to review unde~ the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: ".. 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. - 25 - '- -' 2. ' The followi ng agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is u'Tllisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Ènvironmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. I 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having c~~sidered and thoroughly a~alyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria fo-r' determi ni ng whether a project has a significant environmental'impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.1 i of' 'thè Off icial 'tomÞi lation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the ð¢tion about(to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect ând 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 l~~. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, vote: by the following r·" AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark '!M~. ~8E:l>"M~ike ? 'mot.ion? ,U"¡ f'"' ;:: ,1,_': : !....1~· .'; i ~~:'¡ >,Iti _: t f. iI..·r .... L' ;:1' I ~ .'~ I, ,¡ ';;\"ï ;: ,: :"r",l': ,,:..¡~>!: ,,'1 'II f ,..;: IV 1 ':'o;¡", ~; ¡"Ie')" !("f ..",,~ ;.¡ ,.:~ {:~ "1 'j 1 j .:'.' 'n-, . ,ii, ¡ ('-::' r ('j':; .~ "''1'''-; MR .':"PALrN<3L..yes~:!" ( '~'.; iC) ~:C.:.I, T '-,:.1 : I' .I.,:. "'¡ -'I ; ,_~,~ (, r··1 ", r '_: , \ ~.) r (} "'.:: ~'-!!.,,·i(·. _~ T \,I{:'i . ~·¡(·,~'f .L\/J<~~J(::> ,I >l (:~-í) ,~ .J(~': .,.. C' '"1 (: '~·:1·:~,: As wr i tten, with the condïtfo'rVtnat New '(or k State Guideli nes for Erosion control measures be in place during construction. 1" ":J., ¡' , Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan 'apÞlication file # 1-95 'to remodel" and enlarge an existing seasonal' to a ye~r 'round home; and Whereas, the above mentioned site Þlan application, dated li'30/94~ consists of the.following: '< Whereas, 1. Sheet 1, site plan, undated'; and the above 'file i~ 'supported with the föllowing dOCLtmeh1tation: I " · ¡ Ii, rI1 ) ,1f'.'q"/1!"1 1. Ståff notes, dat~d 11.17/95; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 1/17/95 concerning the above proJ~ct~ a~~ Whereas, the ~lånni~g Bo~rd1}h~s determined thåt the proposål complies with the site plàn review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of 'the Code óf th. Town of'Q~eensburY'(Zorlirig); and Whereas, the Planning Board hasconsiderèd the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code óf the Town of OUeensbury (Zoriing); and - 26 - '-"' ...-' "-- ,,-/ Whereas, the requirement.s of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; ~nd Therefore, Let It Be :Resolved, as follows: 1. Th~ Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan # 1-95. 2. The Zoning Administrat.or is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Z.A. for his signature. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6,. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval pr ocess,. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED GRACE ROBERTS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: NORTH OF HAVILAND RD., EAST OF MASTER'S COMMON NORTH, WEST OF FAIRWAY CT. SUDIVISION. PROPOSAL IS FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF TWO (2) , '~~.'i(,~) :tT¡~WRÞ~1L.-gTS WJ:TH EX;¡¡ÃTI"'~I~TRl)ÇTURES ,ftND ACC~SS.. :,' GROSS REFE;:RENCE: AV .72~1994 TAX ,MftP NO. 46-1-7.1 LOT SIZE: 2.73 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARTI~ AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Note~ from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-1995 Preliminary Stage, Grace Robert$, Meeting Date: January 17, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.73 acre lot into two lots of 1 acre and 1.73 acres. The existing lot has two houses and accessory structures on it. The proposed subdivision will result in splitting the property so that each house is on its own lot; the 1.73 acre lot will also contain an exi$ting barn and sheds. On December 21, 1994 the subdivision received a variance for lot width. ·The applicant should indicate on the plat where the septic systems and wells are so that setþacks, can be determined. ~ECOMMENDATION: There does not appear to be problems associated with this proposed suþdivision and staff can recommend preliminary approval." MR. MARTIN-It should be noted that this would have been approved for a two lot subdivision, had it not been the need for the variance associated with the lot width for the driveways. Otherwise, this would have been a ~wo lot subdivision. MR. PALING-Okay, and this ha.' been approved by the Zoning Board? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, and we have someone here from the applicant? - 27 - -- MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Martin Auffredou. I'm an attorney for the Bartlett Pontiff Law Þirm in Glens Falls, New York, on behalf of the appli¿arit. Also with me tonight is Robert Singer, and he's back h.re. . My. Si~ger is Grace Robert's son-in-law, and the reason why he's here is, basically, if you have any questions of him. 'What I'd like to do is just, basically, state what we intend to use the property for. Grace is going to deed the one acre lot along with' the existing structure to Mr. Singer and her dau9hter. They're going to reside there. So the benefit toGr~c~ is bbviou~. 'She dets somewhat of a tax benefit by getting' rid of some of this property. She also has the advantage of having her daughter and son-in-law and her two grandchildren right next'door.Really, other than that, I don't have too much to say. We're not doing anything with the property. We'ré basicallj just drawing a line down the middle and we ask your approval~ MR. PALING-Okay. Questions? MR. RUEL-I've sot s"question. I'm looki n9 at this map,andt.his lot is shown, that'š this one here, ;~ight? MR. AUFFREDOU-It's right in the middle of the front. MR. RUEL-Yes, right here. Now this one ~hows 449.37 feet, and if I a,dd up your two rdtš'," it comes to 429.' MR. PALING-Four together. Yes. twentY'-nine if you add those twó nuòibers Where are yoU getting the other figure from? MR. RUEL-This one, 440.37. I.J MR. PALING-Okay. ; I, . . MR. AUFFREDOU-1 can't answer that. Other than, I think that Leon obtained, I'm not sure that' this is a Leon Steves map. I think he obtai ned this from another source. ' ,; , MR. HARLICKER-Like a tax map, it looks li'k~!l:',; ,;('11 I:"'! d. i. ¡'- MR. MARTIN-Tax maps are notor iously approximations. ; 'L,' ,!II) MR. AUFFREDOU-His survey shows the front~se; tRat:!'ll~'r'~fle¢t!ed on the right hand side. MR. OBERMAYER-Actually, you're missing this 10 feet right in here between these two poles. MR. RUEL-All right. Then I will assume that this sketch over here is the correct one. , I ,hf inl :('1"' ¡'i() :'¡', 1'151:)",'J 1'!;H¡d i,iI, ;.i i' MR. AUFFREDOU-That's, he did survey the property. ., ',' I : ':t; i !, ':,', 1> MR. RUEL-Because even the acreage', 'l!fkè, wh~t"have you got, :2.51 here, and you have 2.73. MR. AUFFREDOU-Two po i nt seven th:¡'éér~)¡ , ,/- MR. RUEL-Nothi~g'àgrees. MR. AUFFREDOU-Certainly, ~he~ we d+~w:up the dWéds~ what we're going to do is reflect the 1.73 acre lot and a 1 acre lot. We're going to go by Mr. steves description of the property. MR. RUEL-Now, Mr. Singer, his driveway, is that the dotted line shown on that property? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's the existing driveway. .'.' . MR. RUEL-It's existing? ',- 28 - "'--' ~ "--- ".-/ MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. MR. RUEL-I see, and the,' other driveway's also existing, right, the house and the barn? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. You've been asked to show the septic systems and wells on your print. I don't see them. MR. RUEL-When was that request~q? MR. PALING-It's in the Staff notes. MR. AUFFREDOU-I wasn't aware of that request. We can certainly do that for the Final. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You just have to make sure certain setbacks that septic systems have to be li nes . that there's from property MR. RUEL-So that's a condition that he must show these on a plat. MR. PALING-And that should be part of the motion. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. Should indicate on the plat where the sept~c systems and, wells are located. MR. AUFFREDOU-I believe we know the approximate location of those. That should not be a difficult test. MR. PALING-No. We'll just make it part of the motion, and we can carr~jit from there. If there's no other questions, we'll open the public hearing~ Is there anyone here that would like to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC.HEARING ,CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. SEQRA. Short Form? MR. MARTIN-Short Form. MR. RUEL-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-1995, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before GRACE ROBERTS, 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 - 29 - -- 3. The proposed actton'consideréd by this BOard is unlisted in the Department 9f Environmen~al Conservation Regulations imþlem~nti~g'the State E~virónmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of'Qùeensbury. ., '" . ' I . , , ' 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and, thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of0~nvir6nm~h~al ¿onc~rn and' having ¢ori~idered the crrteria for determining whether a project häs a sig~ifi¿ant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codês'{ Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board'wilf'have no si~nificant environmental effect and the Chairman of the , 1 "ØTI3 n'Ý)i ri~ B6à~Ci' :Iis' he~$bY '\:íUthot ized"to éx~cut;~~~d':;si!~n and , ''-"J -fir lÍ.f~' ~ª," mal' ,be, J necessàf~ ~ c $€~téme~',t ~bf j1Ç>n~~lt5ni f ið~~~~. 01" ;,; J>if 'Iå nesa~ívE!Jdétlarationtha£' mäy 6e ireqUîfèaJ 6Y"law I T .,H!~) ~ ¡ ~.' ; .":, ; {¡")!, ! ,;..1 IllI,"-·,..; I l a"; ::~i/'~.t·_¡,.· <! ': '- >, ¡-\ ,<.H l' f. ],J':ôi:J}:y '~doPted~dn:s("¡¡':îi'th day ;'of January' 199§t-i)by 'I th~' !f(jì.flfdWi ng , I ','''' ...." II,,':! " ,',,;," , i ~'II 'L' ¡ " "..,,1 ,,¡/,., 'I' ~ f' . '~j>: I(-~¡\,~ .',"\ ).1 , ¡" vote: ' , ,"'" ,",' "", ",' ii' , ,'-'" '," (, ' ' II'! '. ! ! t·.,·~; ¡ '~!~ ¡, ·_d.~.; í : )\1): '~('¡()l::; !."":; ': ; 1..: I· -¡,--) (T ';'1 J .~( ; IÄ'i'ËS-~' .. 'Mr'. .iQt:1~f~âYer ,{~fs. r t..:~BÓfubaY~',; ; Mr'; Ei~~w~:r;:n Hi:" tU.cEwår\'" 'M :14 ""'!' ¡1~i¡¿¡'1 ""J~jl·!~a\..i 'I "" ""WÌiI'~ '1',1, '!1.:">itiJr)'C1>jr:', i >" rf " , r .rc;ue:, ,'~ D:Z.f l"'al.LS'rl~',' Vi);" ,., ,',.'. '3'\' ; .:, ,(I~I q¡f. NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark ¡.J~ n·, . I;: ; MR. MACEWAN-Do you want a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PREL¡MI~ARY STAGE SUBDIVI$IPN'NO, 2-1995 GRACE ROBERTS, Introduced by ¡'Craig" MácEw,an' 'who moved 'for its adoption, sedOnded by j.mes Obermayer: ',' , , As written, with the' condition that the wells and septics be $hown on both lots'; .:j' , , iheTown'Planning Depatt~ent'is, in re~eipt of prerrfrltn~f~y-:¡¡¡gUbd.j:visib'n' 'aþplication, file ~ 2- 1995, to subdivide ~'2.73 'acre þarcel into two lots of 1.73 acres and 1.0 acres; and ,. , Whereas, Whereas, the above appitd~tion following: referenced preliminary subdivision dated 12/28/94 consists of the 1. Sheet t 1 !Survey map made for Grace Roberts, dated 11/15/94; and Whereas, the above file documentation: is supported with the following ., ii", 1. Staff notes, dated 1/17/95 , , Wherèas' ~ a public hearing was' held on '1/17/95 concerning the above subdl~lsion; and ·,'Ii- Whereas, the proposèd sùbdivision has been submittéd to the approþriate town departménts and outside agencies . " ,.J '," 'for their 'réview and cómme~t;and ¡',I! , Whereas, i the requirements' of' the State Environm~ntal Quálity Review Act'l1àve béen considered; and" " , Whereas, the prol;>òsed ,$ubdivisiorl is subject to the following modificat1ó~~ and terms prior to 'sub~is~ión of the plat in'fi~~l form: 'i _ 30 _ "--" ~ '--" .~ Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve preliminary subdivision for Grace Roberts, file # 2-1995. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Ob.rmayer, Mr. Paling NOE S : NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark SITE PLAN NO. 3-95 TYPE II WALFRED ASSOCIATES C/O MARK NEMITH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. ,EXISTING DOCKING FACILITY CONSISTING OF 1 - 20' X 33' L-SHAPED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK AND 1 - 40' X 33' E-SHAPED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCK TO BE REMODELED, TO CREATE 2 - 28 " X 33.' U-SHAPED CRIB AND BRIDGE DOCKS; DEMOLISH EXISTING BOATHOUSE; CONSTRUCT 2 - 16' X 32' (W/SKIRT) OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE. TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH SEPARAT~ SYSTEMS ARE ON THIS PROJECT SITE. WARREN CO. PLANNING - 1/11/95 LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 9-1-26 LOT SIZE: 1.48 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 3-95, Walfred Associates c/o Mark N.mi,th, Meet,i nE;f)~Pte: ,,!Janµary ;~?':,' ~~95" If The',:¡âPP¡ ipat~().I1 is proposing to modlfy two existing, docks, an L-shaped andpa E- shaped, into two U-shaped docks. The modification also inclúdes construction of an open sided boathouse. There does not appear to be any access to the top of the boathouse. The applicant is taking a non-conforming situation, E-shaped doc~s are not allowed unless there is 150 feet of frontage, and making it conforming. The modifications comply with the criteria listed in Section 179- 60 for docks and moorings. ~ECOMMENDATIQN: Staff can recommend approval of this site plan." MR. PALING-Okay, and we have the applicant represented. MR.'REHM-Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Walter Rehm, and I'm the attorney for the applicant. I also have with me tonight John Mason, who is the individual that prepared and filed the application on behalf of the Nemith family. This property has been in the Nemith family for some years, and is improved by two residences. There is currently a docking facility on the property, which is depicted on the application materials that have been provided you. That docking facility is currently nonconforming. The proposal is to make some changes in the docking facility to take this large facility and divide it into two separate docking facilities with two separate boathouses, open sided boathouses, with decks, and to bring the facility into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. It's really a fairly simple application. The propòsal is to somewhat reduce the impact of the docks and of the existing boathouses. The new open sided boathouses, plural, will be something between three and four feet 'lower tha~ the existing facility. The reason for this is that this is a, kind of a two family boathouse, and it has been the source of some difficulties among the two sides of the fa~~lies for some years, and everyone is in agreement that it would be good to modernize it and divide the boathouse, the existing boathouse docking facility into two separate facilities. We believe that it complies with all of the provisions of the Ordinance. We think that it is probably beneficial, from a planning point of view, and certainly from an aesthetic point of - 31 - view, to bring the facility into complianc.~ answer any questions that you might have~¡ We'd be happy to MR. PALING-Okay. The access to the top of the boath6use~ There doesn't appear to be any. MR. REHM~M~ybe I $houldlet Joh~ answer that. access. There's existing JOHN MASON MR. MASON-There's a large center stairwell that, if you came down towards the center of the dock, there's one set of 'stairs that goes up onto the boathouse. At completion, each boathouse will have it'$ o~~ set of stairs. That set of stairs could be loè~ted anywhere.' It could be located on the side. It's just a set of stairs ' MR. PALING..;.Okay. MR. RUEL-It's not shown on the map. MR. PALING-It's not shown here, but that's the way you're going to do it? MR. MASON-Historically, we don't show them. The only ,eason we don't show them is that frequently we end up in situations where there are trees. There are other thi ngs that,' 'after you get the boathouse up, you can see better how you can hide a set of stairs leading úp to it better, but we can certai~ly show ih~t on the print, if you'd like. MR. PALING-Okay. Do we need it to be shown? MR. MARTIN-Prom Out standpoint, I don't for it on a site plan. It'll be shown on the constructio~ print, but from OU( doesn't serve. " , " ' see any practical need the building!' plan', for stanqpoint, it really MR. PALING-Okay. I think we can let that pass, then. " MR. RUEL-Yes. I have a question for Staff, I guess" I've noticed on these boathouses a railing th~t they have on'top of them. It's pretty open. Aren't there some building codes as far as railings on decks on homes, that the openings1have' to be no larger than a certain di~ension? Does that apply, also, to these boathouses? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think, first of a¡l, in terms of the ~uilding Code, this would have to be recognized'as space th~t~s' going to be habitated by people. If that's the case, then, yes, there are standards for the width of the balistets ón the r~iling. MR. RUEL-Yes, but people go up héré, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. If it's recognized, and '1 t.hink .it will with the staircase and all that, the Building Dep~rtment;~ould recognize it as habitable space, so to sp~ak, and it would have to meet the standard for a railing. " MR. RUEL-Yes. You may have to ¿hangeYo~r r¡iling, acco~dingly. MR. REHM-It's kind of a trade off. You want to dòsomething that's less obtrusive as possible, in terms of (lost word). MR. RUEL-I know, but there are certain safety regulations that must be met. Small children' 'can't be fa'lling thYbugh tHese things, and that's the reason they have this regulation" I know it applies to t.òmes~ 'and' I dïdn't' know if it 'appliedi" to boathouses. - 32 - "'--' ~ ~ ~ MR. REHM-Well, suffice it to say that this will comply with whatever the regulations require. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I think as a broader issue, this is going to be a topic to discuss with the Comprehensive Land Use Committee, as they're updating their plan right now, about, as a broader, general issue, the use of these decks, or these roofs as decks, so to speak, from the aesthetic standpoint. I think that's ,going to be looked at. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-On this view right here, this this the type of roof you're going to put in? a flat roof? elevation view, is Is it going to be MR. MASON-Yes. Even the flat roofs can have a slant. MR. OBERMAYER-And then the rails are going to ~xtend up on this, right? MR. MASON-That's correct. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the height of your rails? MR. MASON-From where? MR. OBERMAYER-From the top of the roof~ three feet, forty-two inches? MR. MASON-Actually, less than (lost word). MR. PALING-How high is the overall measurement from the mean ,high water mark? MR. MASON-Well below what's limited by law. Well below. MR. PALING-Okay. specifically? Law is 14, I believe. What is it, MR. MASON-This one specifically? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MASON-It would probably be in the neighborhood of 13 feet, maybe even less. MR. PALING-Okay. It has to be less than 14. MR. MASON-That's correct. MR. PALING-All right. Anything else? MR. BREWER-yes. I just want to look at something for a minute. Who's property is tDis on? MR. PALING-It's a right angle lot. MR.,RUEL-It's on the lands of Walfred Associates. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-And there's how much water frontage on it? MR. R~HM-Two hundred and ten feet. M~. BREWER-So there's no question about th~ amount of dockage space that can be there then, square footage wise? - 33 - -- MR .REHM-'Weî 1, not only that, thi$ ~s a'n ex lsti nI'¡J dock Space. MR. BREWER-Right, but you're creatin~ somét;.hing otHer thartit is, Wal ter . MR. HARL I CKER- They' rea 11 owed two doç'ks.' , MR. BRE~ER-Okay. That was my only question. MR. OBERMAYER-I walked out on the top of the deck~ It was fAggy that day, but it'seemed much higher' than theothèr docks ar8und 'i t . , i /-. t MR. REHM"¡"'This deck would be ~bout'tftree existing deck. feet 'lower ( .1 than the MR. MASON::"rhis deck will' comparè JJi1:.h the ones on either' side of it. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, because I, did nbt~ce,standing higher than the othér'ones. MR. MASON-They originallY park 'the 'cabin crUiser there how. This will be, when these are built, th~~ will be:lower. : ." . . j MR. RUEL-Just for' 'mY information, what's that pipe, ~he'and a quarter inch pipe, 'd~ing in th~ middl~ of the roof? MR. BREW~R-A'flá~ pole, ma~be. , , MR. RUEL-It's shown on the map. MR. PALiNé-Whi6h drawi~9 åre yO~ O~? Ii, MR. RUEL-I'm just curious, one arid a quartêr inch piþe. i¡ ,¡'J 4, MR. PALINè~1n the last one. MR. MASON-Shówn on the CroSs sectlon¿ That's to allaw you the pull boats Up inside. There's a pipe that runs" down through the center of the rafters. It allows you to get a chain over the top of it. MR. RUEL-I see, to pull them in. MR. MASON-Lift them up. MR. RUEL-Thank you. The next time I see this, 'I'll know. MR. PALING-'Okay. I'll open the public héarirtg On this. Is there anyone here that cares to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 1i,')(),~ .]I/II'..:J(', ;:. ,1 JANE CAFFREY MRS. CAFFREY-My name is Jane Caffrey. I'm a resident of Assembly Point. I'm just down ,the road from the Nemith property, and I think that the plans as shown wil!;be an improvem~nt' ¿Ver what is there, but I have one' question. Knowing that there are 'two houses on the property that belong to two branch~s 6f the family, and knowing that the two families really go their separate ways, it's corlceivable, I ha~e heard in the Þast, that one'branch of the family was considering selling their prope~ty. S6'when I received this notice in the mail, I thought, is one branch wanting to sell their home and, therefore, h~ve ai seÞarate dock so that they could have a, dock with, their "home, because, ,you know:; ,i~ sët"ldJttlatthey ,h~Ve twdqhurlc!!t~d )a~d':¡§~mec'òdd~1í féêt of lake frontage. ùf course, theY have on~ 'hundred and twelve on one piece of property. Then they have ninety some on the other, '~- 34 - '--' -' ''-"' -....../ and those were combined previously to give them the allowance to build the docks they had there, bùt my question is, what if, and probably some day one branch of the family will want to sell their house, plus their dock, and in that case, there will be a problem because, now today I'm sure they can say, we're going to stay there forever, and our children and our grandchildren and so on, but the docks are only four feet from each other, and you have to be twenty feet from the edge of your property to have that. So in that case, it would not conform. MR. PALING-I'm afraid, though, that that wouldn't be within the jurisdiction of the Board to exercise any kind of judgement on, because we can't look beyond, we're a site plan review body, and I'm afraid there's no way for us to ¡ook into that kind of thing. I don't know what to tell you. MRS. CAFFREY-Well, so we just wait until the day comes, then? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think to shed some light on that, you have a density problem here, in that you have a 1.4 acre site, and the zoning on this, over this parcel, requires one acre minimum lots. So, in other words, for two lots to be created, they'd be noncpnforming, by definition, or at least on. of them would be. So, therefore, you're into a variance issue, even on ~hat, and then without' looking at it in detail, there might be road frontage issues or lot width issues, as well. There'd be a lot of problems, I think, with a subdivision llke that. MRS. CAFFREY-Well that's what, I mean we, concerned about, what would happen if they the property. as neighbors, were did try to break up MR. SCHACHNER-And that's not to say that it couldn't, that the attempt could not be made, no~- is it to say that that could never happen, but it a to say that there would be jurisdiction by, it sounds like, the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, as well as, perhaps, the Town Planning Board, both for the variances needed and the subdivision approval. So there would, presumably, be a public hearing opportunity to raise those concerns, and it'll be up to the Boards at those times decide whether it was appropriate or not. MRS. CAFFREY-So we'll hope, in the meantime, the family gets along and keeps the property. MR. RUEL-Right. MRS. CAFFREY-Thank you. MR. PALING~Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ,)1" MR. MARTIN-It's a Type II action. No SEQRA is needed on this. MR. PALING-So we don't need SEQRA. MR. BREWER-It's kind of funny, isn't it? Something right on the lake doesn't need a SEQRA, and some guy wants to build a deck, you QQ. need it. MR. PALING-So we can go right to a motion. our motion, then? Okay. Could we have MR. RUEL-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE S¡TE PLAN NO. 3-95 WALFR~D ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: - 35 - "-' -- As written. '! ! Whereas, the ToWM Planning 'Board is in ~eceipt of site plan applicat£b'~(f f 1\~1('#(!3-95 to remodel an ex isti ng doc k; and ' ~heteas , the above mentiöhéd site consists of the foll6wing~ ~ I.. plan' application, 1. Sh~~t 1, sitepl~n, dated 9/8/94; and 'Wt')éteas~ I th~:, aDb~e file issltþpóytedWi th the following ; i:' db6ûrhéhfi'atlon: · :"', hn h ,í' , -' j~! I ¡ '" ---",,', c : 1-7 t ,. 1. Staff 'notes, date~, 1/17/95; ðn9, ; I:r - Wflgreð$':: a publ 'ièi.r'H~~t i ngwa~"'1\êlè;:l;on!"1/117~~'bbncerni ng 'i:' ':"i"" the above;;~:þY6:3~èt;a'tJd, bf1J;,:'j ;,If " r~!:,' í :,' ( \,' ~¡ J t , ...J .}:8" f 'f'1 j: 'Whêfes$ , t.f1~fí:' P:~~nn1:n§J, ' 'BOå«f h~~: ;'.' ~C9tetmi ned", thrir", the ""Þrôþosa'I cornÞiiesJJit:h" th~"') slte'J:Håiii review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the' todé"bf'the t6f.Jn' of QUéên~bûr+: (Zbhífn9"'; and " i (1 ¡-: (¡ '; 11'f J ! ()'í -t . ()'~,. ,_I":>(;'~ ! ::' , . ,,( J i~ ¡ , , ,','î I' .'1 Whereas, the Planni ng' ," Bò~fì::l ¡ ( ,'h~$ ,ii ¡êeMsidðféd' the ,- : , I ênVi fôt.tn~·rltal;:~fa¿£orš ¡;,¡ttbUìJ1t:1 î~P Section 179-39 of ; , ' :, },?e f co~e ?: t~?,T~W'~j'; ?f..?~~~nsb~~~:( t~ni n9~; and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental ',: 1 ,,:: Qt,HHlty Revi~wrjAbtt.r'háQe beên;8ortsidèYédf{"Þihd:': ! ¡: "r ;:~'f'¡ ,,", :- ' . I"; ":<~ " :, 'j 1 t.}il i ¿:,:"'2bn E J ,. ~._: ; ¡ i J: ¡ ~ J (-~ f -,1 j,' !;:~ , , ''Th~Y.~foré';'L~t 'ît B~'!R~sb't!\)ed á$tfb~lows:: r:, 'ii', t : ,.>,:'"'d~.:.~ r.:. i ~ "j , -; "'. .i .'; Ç-¡' ,.rPJ,C; J )( ¡',¡'d "J!': -~- ¡,'; ¡ ¡. ~Î¡ , ' '. 1. ' Thei'. Tawn;" pffan\ì!ri!;ì Bô~tCii: !"afte'Ì"" consider i ng the 'above, hereby móve to' approve site þlan # 3-95. Th~ %b~ing'Ädminist~ator is hereby authorized ;t6 r sIgn thèåbo0g Y~fer\èhceâÞ'làt ~ ., " 3.' ¡ Tt1~', ~pplican;t sharl present, 'the above I " 'refere~ted, s'fte ,pia!, tb J thé ,:t',A.' 'fô't his s'Í§n'atùYé. ' , ,h'I"" ,/ ""',,, 4. 'The applicant a~reesi ; to the condl tions set forth in this resolUtion. 'i'n i, ,;, ',.' J Th~ co~ditions shall0bè noted on the máp~ Th~issu~nce.of permits is conditioned on cômplianc~ ~~d continued' compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. : , (^~"; ~. , , , J,! f-",) , :'1 , ! " 5. 6. Duly adopted 'this vote: 17th day of January, 1995, , by the fOllowing AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. RUel, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling , ' NOE S : NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark SITE PLAN NO. 4-95 TYPE I PAULA PEYTON FITZ, ESQ. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: VACANT PROPERTY ON BIRDSALL RD., PINE TREE BUFFER ZONE ON LE~T SIDE, SU~VEY STAKES PRESENT. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF THE APPROVED AREA VARIANCE FOR THIS PRQJECT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 35-1994 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/11/95 'TAX MAP NO. - 40-1~i9.4 LOT SIZE: .66 ACRES SEÇTION: 179-16, 179-79 , , DAN DOHERTY AND JOHN GORALSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT "- 36 - ~ ~ -..../ STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 4-95, Paula Peyton Fitz, Meeting Date: January 17, 1995 "PROJECT ANALYSIS; Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A, Section 179- 38B, Section 179-38C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and found thqt the project complies with the above sections: 1. This application received variances for road frontage, side yard setbacks, shoreline setbacks and lot width. Site Plan review was requited as a condition of approval. 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 compatibility does not appear to be an issue. However, the applicant states that the house will be two stories but does not indicate the height of the building. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Traffic access is not an issue. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off street parking and loading is not an'issue. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, contr61 of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater drainage i$, being reviewed by Ri$t-Frost. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; Sewage disposal and water supplY,is being reviewed by Rist-Frost. 7. The adèquacy, 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 maiDtenance including replacement of dead plants; The line of pine trees on the west side of the property line will provide a screened buffer. It is not clear as to how much existing vegetation will be removed. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and emergency zones and the provision of flre hydrants; Emergency access does not appear to be an issue. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Erosion control is a concern and is addressed in Rist-Frost comments. RECOMMENDATION: It appears that the main concerns relating to this project involve erosion control, stormwater runoff and sewage disposal. If these items are addressed to the Board's satisfaction, staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. PALING-Okay, and we have the applicant represented. MR. DOHERTY-Yes. My name is Dan Doherty, an attorney I represent Paul Peyt6n Fitz, the applicant, and ~lso John from Dick Jones and Associates, who's going to engineering questions the Board may have. in Albany. with me is answer any MR. PALING-Okay. to see that again. Have you got the elevation drawing? I'd like We've got another one here. Tha~k you. MR. RUEL-While we're waiting, I reviewed the application for site plan review. I think it was an excellent job, the type written part '¡i!. I ,it ¡ r, ¡ ¡ ,MR. DQHERTY-Thqnk you, sir.,:, "i! , t ' I' , "j , ' I " 1 ' ~. MR. RUEL':"Nlce.' :;,well written. Clear. MOè,'nisspe~led wprds., " : ,"', -1" ~R~ DOHERTY-You'~e being kind. ï -~ ( . ¡,, , , MR. PALING-We get into a little controversy ourselves on this. You call it a two story home. - 37 - -- ,r'" MR. DOHERTY-Correct. MR. PALING-I think a basement is a story of a therefore, be called~ in this case, especially full wall exposure, a three story home. ' MR. DOHERTY-I guess you could go for that interpretation, then. , home 'and would, where you have MR.PAL!NG-Notthat it makes any diffèrence. It still comes;down to the height and how'it looks and it's'placed ànd that kirid of thing. ' , MR. DOHERTY-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any questìons? MR. MARTIN-Bob, did you read in the Rl~t~Frost commé~t*?' ,J . ¡ ~ MR. PALING-No. I did not. MR. ~ÄRTIN-We hå~e Bill here tonight, i~ case there's any. I'll read these in? MR.PALINé-Yes, please. MR. MARTIM-Reg~rding ~itz residence, Site Plan No. 4-95, "bear Mr. Martin: Wehave'reviewed the ~bove'site' pla~s received January 6, 1995 ~ndhaJe the followih~ engineering cOmments: GRADINß/EROSIONCONTROL/Sì'ORMWATER. Si'1i;.. ,and :haybale' fences should be installed according' to NY$" Gu!dél1:nesfor Urbè¡m'ErOsion and Sediment Control Manual, and should 'e~tend across entire lot along lake. Sediment runoff should also be prevented from entering adjoining lots. No management of increased stormw~ter runoff is proposed; some type(s) of infiltration devices should be proposed for the driveway and roof r~nóff. SEWAGE'DISPOSAL Since potable well location is down slope from absorption field, 200 ft. separation is required by ordinance, unless all surface runoff from absorption field can be directed away from the general area of the well. Depth to seasonal high groundwâter must be >4 ft. for conventional absorption trenches. Design shown requires perc rate of (10 miri~tes/in~~. ! Te~t'results should be submitted to verify both. The leachfield area should remain undisturbed during constr~ctio~tof the house (piling backfill from excavation there may reduceperc rates).. Z9NING It is not clear how much of the 50 ft. combined side lot setback requirement, if any, was waived; 30 ft. total is proposed. Please call 'if you have any questions,. . Very truly yours, RIST- FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William F. MacNamar~, P.E. Project Engineer" I think, in terms of the Zoning, that was taken care of with the variance. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And the Warren County Planning Board approved. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. DOHERTY-Would you like me to addtès~ the~? MR. PALING-Yes, please. MR. DOHERTY-Okay. First, I'd addfess th~ height! of th~ building a little bit. The grade changes so that, from the road, this will appear to be a two story building. The grade changes about eight feet, so it will be a two story building from that side of 1 , .' the road. I, ¡,' MR. GORALSKI-Going on through, Bill's comments, I Just' got involved in this project last week, and have'had time to 'do a quick calculation on some of these things. The erosion control -'38 - "--' ' -' -- measures should be done according to the New York State Guidelines, and they can be done. There should be a hay bale dike along the shoreline. There should be silt fence along with that hay bale. There should also be silt fence along the sides of the lot, where drainage will take place. As far as stormwater management is concerned, calculations show that in order to control the increase in, runoff, two thi ngs should be added to the plån. One is a stone trench along the down slope side of the driveway. We've done calculations to size that, and in order to control runoff from the roof, we would propose to use gutters and down spouts to a 415 by 6 foot diameter drywell. I also have the calculations for that that I can give to Bill for him to review. Sewage disposal systems. We've done a perc test, just this weekend, and we designed a septic system that fits on the site, and the perc test, meets all the requirements, and the septic system will meet all the requirements. Once again, that information, would be submitted to Bill for his review. As far as the depth to seasonal' 'high groundwater, unfortunately, the Ordinance requires that the test pit for testing season~l high groundwater be dug between March and June. So, we did dig a test pit and look for signs of high groundwater, mottling, that type of thing, and we dug down to about five feet to find it. However, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Code, what Ms. Fitz is going to have to do is, when they go for building permit, before that gets issued, put a septic system in. They will have to go out and dig a test pit and, nine times out of ten, the Building Inspector will make himself available to observe that. As far as placing backfill on the area of the leachfield, that is not is¡T\e~~~~aTY tq>'~9t,hat, as lo~g as the appropriate stormwater measures have been used and erosion control measures are used. MR. ,BREWER-How big,is the septic system, John? MR~ ~ORALSKI-It's five laterals, fifty feet each. MR. BREWER-The tank is how big? MR. GORALSKI-One thousand gallons. MR. BREWER-Is that adequate for this house? MR. GORALSKI-It's a three bedroom house. I MR. RUEL-What's the material of the proposed driveway? MR. GORALSKI-We've done the stormwater calculations assuming that someday it will be paved. MR. DOHERTY-At present, it's gravel. MR. GORALSKI-In order to be conservative in our stormwater calculations, we assumed that eventually someday it may possibly be paved. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. BREWER-You sajd how many square feet the house is? MR. DOHERTY-Twenty-three hundred, I believe. MR. PALING~Twenty-three hundred is how many stories? MR. BREWER-Two. MR. PALING-Two stories. MR. BREWER-They're showing 1306 on the ground floor. They don't show a figure for the second floor. - 39 - '- -- y MR. DOH~RTY-The second floor ~äS'~ust a~bund 1,000. '¡ MR. RUEL-And how maDY bedrooms? MR. DOHERTY-Three: The cénter 'part is 'all oÞe'n'. you're not getting the same corresponding upstairs. That's why MR. B~EWER-Okay. MR. PALING-Give me those numbers again? One thousand square feet in the second floor, and whät are the others? MR. BREWER"'-1306. MR. RUEL-1306 on the first floor. MR. PALING-On the first floor, and the lowér l~vel? MR. DÔHERTY-The basement? That would be 1300 alsO. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL~Everything but the gara~e, right? MR. éORALSKI-We're up at 1300'. , ! ' MR. DOHERTY-It's not going to be livin~ area at al~, just the design, which you saw ¿n the elevation was to k~~p it dorisistent. That's why the windows and doors were carried dónsta~tly. MR. PALING-Okay, but you've established it's a th~ee' bedroom house. So, yes, I'm not questioning that. MR. RUEL-If we consider this to be a three story house, the garage is on the second story? MR. GORALSKI-Theoretically, yes. MR. DOHERTY-I guess if you look at it that way; t iSht', buC:you enter the garage off the road, that's the l~vel YOU're ,~~~ MR. MARTIN-John, what was going to be proposed for stormwater on ¡ a permanent basis? MR. GORALSKI-A~ infiltration t~ench alÓ'n~ the :èide of the d,-iveway, which will be the, along the east side of the driveway there will be an infiltration trench that runs along that easter 1 y side and then runs back to' the ßUi idi ng"~ and 'as faY as the building itself is concerned, thèr~ will b~ gutters and down spouts all directed ,to a four foot deep by six foot diameter drywell with a stone envelÇ>pe around :it. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and what's the density ,of the trench going to be? MR. GORALSKI-It's a two by two trench, with" a 12 inch diam'eter perforated pipe. MR. MARTIN-Oké:).Y. MR. GORALSKI-Both qf fabric. those will be surrounded, by a geo-textile 1 MR. MARTIN-Detailing on that. ~,ill be supplied? MR. GORALSKI-I have that with all the calculations. MR. PALING-Bill, is this okay? Does everything seem all right to you? i '- 40 - ',--", ---- \.., ,> \'" '.......,/ MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. We discussed this by phone a numbø~ of qays ago, those measures. MR. RUEL-Just a question for Staff. Why are there so many questions about the Valenti property adjacent to it, letters and everything else?, MR. DOHERTY-There's some concern as to the location of the septic on the next door neighbors. MR. RUEL-You never found it, did you? MR. DOHERTY-The Building Department was unable to locate it. Apparently, there's no records of anything that took place before 1960. MR. RUEL-Does the owner know? MR. DOHERTY-The owner is in New Jersey, but based on the owner's comments at the Variance, I don't think he's going to be too cooperative here. MR. RUEL-Your well is right in the corner there. Right? MR. GORALSKI-Well, what we've done is moved the well to the other side of the property, so that we don't have to worry about it. MR. RUEL-In case, right? Yes. I thought the well was up in the upper right hand corner? MR. DOHERTY-It was originally. MR. RUEL-You moved it? MR. DOHERTY-Well, there was a subsequent. MR. RUEL-It was up here. MR. DOHERTY-Correct. MR. RUEL-In case the septic system. MR. DOHERTY-Exactly. MR~ RUEL-If you don't know where it is, then move it as far .way as possible. MR. DOHERTY-Right, and this is a vacant beach lot where we know there's no septic or well on it. MR. RUEL-What about the proximity to:thelake? it's right next to the lake, the well. It looks like MR. DOHERTY-Yes. I think it's six feet, or five feet. MR. RUEL-That's good? MR. DOHERTY-You'd have to ask John. MR. GORALSKI-There is no regulation, as far as the. MR. OBERMAYER-The location of the well to the lake? MR. BREWER-It doesn't make any difference. People in Lake George have pipes going out to the middle of the lake to get water. MR. RUEL-So you get a little filtering of the lake water, right? MR. DOHERTY-I guess. - 41 - '--- -- ~/ MR. OBERMAYER-It's'goins;¡ to be a shallow well. MR. RUEL-From an en9ineering .t~rid~oint, there's no? , MR. MACNAMARA-No. That's pretty common" actually, an infiltrat~on gallery essentially. It's a well point. MR. RUE~~So will your pl~n be modified to show the newlQcation of the well? ,'; ¡ 1.' MR. GÓRALSkI~Yes. What I'm going to do i~ I will put together all the documentation and I can submit it to the Town for Bill's review. MR. MACNAMARA-One thing to add about that well location is you want to grade it so the runoff frOm the (lost word} goes to' the other s~de. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. What we'll have to do is gràde the side, so that the water is runni ng away, f'"om west to east" so 'that it's not running towards the well. ' MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, he'll have next go around. Right? to make these changes on the I' ¡oJ¡ ~(;( i ,;1-,1::') !'. :.'~.~! .:'.': MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-And the engineering comments will have to be picked up? MR. PÄLING~Y~~, w.ri, it would b~~icked up in"the motion. MR. RUEL~We'll make it a coridition of the motion? MR. PALING-Yes, the Rist-Frost compliance, and'I think maybe with special note for the new well locat'iòn and gradin9'~ ¡ MR. RUEL-You want to méntion thégrading1 MR. PALING-Well, I don't think it's mentioned in the}' MR. GORALSKI-That's part of the Rist-~iöst c6mments. MR. PALING-It is part of it? Ok~y. it, fine." All r1ght.' ~f it's p~rt of ,.. ¡ MR. RUEL-You'll change the propo~ed ~ontour lines accordin9ly? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. , I will change the grading to (lost word) the surface runoff is running away from the welL MR. RUEL-Well, that's part of stormwater drainåge, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-Well, it's actually part of 'the first comm~nt on the sewage disposa~. , , MR. MACNAMARA-It's really a $ewage disposal issue. ßasically, there, in case the system ever fails, 'YÔÚ don't have sewage running towards your drinking water well. It's, really not a stormwater i~sue. MR. OBERMAY~R-Of course you're moving the well to the other side of the property? Is it goin~tobe the ri9htdist~nce from 'the septic tank? " i MR. GORALSKI-I beli,eve"it;s 104 feet. .¡ I MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions? MR. MACEWAN-I don't have so much a question'. concern. I was wondering if maybe. with I thirfk maybe a the applicant's - 42 - ,"--" -...-' '." ...........' permission, maybe we table this for one week to give the majority of us who haven't seen the site an opportunity to go look at it. We tried to 90 see it on Saturday, but we couldn't get down the hill. WelL actually we got down the hill, but we couldn't get back ~ the hill. MR. PALING-There's just two of us, we got to see it today. We couldn't get in there Saturday. Yes. I think we can go ahead with the public hearing, though, and go ahead with the public hearing and do everything, and then if that's the will of the Board, lets, can we delay that until after we have the public hearing? MR. MACEWAN-I'm just raising the concern now, that's all. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions? MR. BREWER-You can open the public hearing and just leave it open. MR. PALING-Yes. Right. Okay. All right. Lets open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JANE BARTIS MRS. BARTIS-My name is Jane Bartis, and'I live on Birdsall Road during the summer, and I share the beach lot, which is next door to this property, and I came to the last hearing where Mr. Doherty talked about the well maintained road leading into that property, and I asked him what road he took, because' I really wanted to take it. My concern is that, a number of years ago, I came to a number of he~rings on this very same lot, and at that time, Mr. Coeowned the lot, and he was finally granted a variance, but the variance stipulated the size of the structure that could be put on the lot, and I don't think that it was 23,000 square feet. MR. RUEL-Twenty three hUDdred. MRS. BARTIS-Also, my main concern is that I want to make sure that the lake isnòt contaminated by a structure that's being put on it. That's all I have to say. Thank you. MR. RUEL-Was this a variance that indicated the size of the home? MR. DOHERTY-No, not on this present application. MRS. BARTIS-On Mr. Coe's. MR. PALING-Yes, the one she's referring to. MR. RUEL-Well, what bearing does that have on this application? MR. DOHERTY-It, in my opinion, has ~ bearing. MR. BREWER-Does it have any bearing on it, Mark? There wouldn't be any bearing unless it was in the deed, would there? MR. SCHACHNER-Well. you know, zoning runs with the land. So a variance previously granted could have some bearing on it, depending upon how it's worded. I'd be more comfortable looking at the variance decision itself, but my guess is that variance decision related to a different application, which I take it was not fulfilled. MR. DOHERTY-It wa~ never acted upon. - 43 - - MR. SCHACHNER-I would ~uess was not fulfilled, and if th~t's true, then it's probably lapsed a long, long time ago, and it's probably moot at this point, but I can't really ~ay without looking at the variance decision itself. That's mY~UéSs. MR. RUEL-Why was thé varian~e requested initially1 MR. DOHERTY-The previous owner? also. He wanted to build a house, I,' MR.'RUEL-And they limited the size of the hóusè1 MR. DOHERTY-I don't, I reviewed that ~aria~ce,and I never saw that stipulation at all. MR. BREWER-Do you h~ve a cöpy of that varia~ce, ~a'am? MRS. BARTIS-No. I haven't received a copy of anything~ MR. MARTIN-We have it r i~ht here. 't, 'IJ MRS. BARTIS-He was turned down a number of times. ,I , MR. BREWER-How long have you owned the property? MRS. BARTIS-Three years. MR. BREWER-Then thé,' \Jar iance is moot, t'hen. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. It seems pretty clear thai, variance must, we're looking for the decision, but, presuming it was not within the last year, 18 months, or whatever the regulation is, it's expired. ¡ ¡"; , MR. BREWER-She's own the property for three and a~halT Years. So I would say not. MR. SCHACHNER-It sounds like it's e~pifed a~d moot. MR. RUEL-So we don"t even havè to co'hsider that. . t j f' MR. OBERMAYER-No. MR. BREWER-You can if you want to. reasoning. You can look at their MR. MARTIN-It was originally approved, the December 28, 1988, and then the Fitz variance October 19, 1994. Coe variance was apprOved was in MR. SCHACHNER-So as a result, what I'm saying variance expirèd, and it's irrelevðnt~ is that the Coe MR. RUEL-Since it has no relevance to this just ignore it and go on. application, we'll :'¡ , , MR. PALING-I would think so. MR. DOHERTY-I believe that's an ,extraneous i$sue that doesn't have any impact on the present applicafion. · MR. PALING-Okay. Is there a~yone else that would lik,!iocomment on this application from the public? Okay. I'll 610se the public hearing. t.., PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. Do we need a SEQRA on this? , ' MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The Long Form. '¡'- 44 - ',-, --" '- ---" MR. MACEWAN-Bob, how can we do a SEQRA if we haven't seen the si te? MR. RUEL-Why not? MR. PALING-Well, what Craig's point is, there's only two of us that have seen the site, and the rest don't feel qualified to comment on SEQRA. MR. MACEWAN-No. That's ~ position. I'm not speaking for everybody on the Board. It's just been ~ personal practice, if I haven't seen a site, I won't go through a SEORA process or lend approval or disapproval to a site plan application. MR. PALING-All right. Could I poll the Board on this issue, especially those who have not bee~ to the site, how you feel about doing a SEORA and proceeding with this application? MR. OBERMAYER-That's a good question, Bob. I guess I would ask the applicant, do they mind waiting another week for us to review this? MR. PALING-We can put it on next Tuesday's agenda, I believe. MR. OBERMAYER-Would that create a problem? I apologize for not being able to get there. MR. DOHERTY-There could be somewhat of a qifficulty, where I'm an Albany attorney, and Ms. Fitz lives in Loud6~ville, which is just outsid~ of Albany. So, it is an hour away, I understand your position. MR. BREWER-Mr. Goralski's more than qualified to handle this. MR. DOHERTY-Naturally, I would like to get it done tonight, but whatever the Board would prefer. MR. PALING-All right. Cathy, how about you? MR. MACEWAN-That's been my personal protocol. I've never done that, and I'm not singling out your application. Any application that I've partaken in on this Board, if I haven't seen the site, I just don't vote on it. I don't act on it. MR. DOHERTY-Well, let me just interject, as far as the public hearing is, that's closed. Correct? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. DOHERTY-And that it we re-appear next week, it remains closed? MR. MACEWAN-That's correct. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. BREWER-In the past, if you close it, I would leave it open, in case there is any comment. MR. PALING-Well, it's been closed. Now the question, should we re-open it. MR. RUEL-It all depends whether we go through the SEQRA, no? MR. BREWER-It's dead wrong, in ~ opinion. MR. DOHERTY-But I believe the law states you give the initial notice. The hearing's open and then it's closed. It remains - 45 - - -- closed. MR. BREWER-I can tell you, the practice two years, I can only speak for that. there was ever a public hearing opened wanted to comment, I always accommodated of the Board in thé last I was Chairman, and if and' ¡ closed, it" someone them and let the~ speak. MR. DOHERTY-I believe that may have been in violation, also. MR. BREWER-Is it a violation, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely not. That's not a violation. It's!!!.l:: opinion, and I'm quite certain this is correct, that you're not obligated to re-open. you're not obligated to re-notice, but it's definitely 'not a 'violation to accept 'additional public comment if you wish to do so. MR. PALING-Then we máy go ahead and ac6ept public 6d~~ent next week, if it goes that way, but léts finiéh polling the ébard. Wê've heard frotn Jim. Cathy, how do yOU feel? ' MRS. LABOMBARD-First of all, after béin~ ón this Board for a year, this is the way I interpreted what Tim ~duld do as Chairman. He would clos~ the public hearing, and then if the matter arose the followih~ sessiori that we met, he woQld say to the people, we had a public hearing last week, but I will accept any comments from the people here, and I was always under the impression that, that's fine. They can ,speak , but whatever they had to say, I don't know how much credibilït~ot Howmuc~ we 'took it to heart, because the public hearing, had officially been closed the week before. Now that is the way ¡ percelved' it,' 'but I could be completely wrong. ' MR. BREWËR-I thi nkwhat, . you m~9ht haVe he'atd roe say, Cathy ,:- if there wasn't a publ1c h~aring schedu~ed,'1 would, ultimately, any time say, there is no p~bllc he~rirlg schedUled. If anybody would like to comment, they're more than welcome to. I never said that I would. ' ' MR. PALING-We're getting a60uple of issues here. Ca~hy; the question is, how do you feel about the voting witho~t going, hav i ng not been to the job site?' " MRS. LABOMBA~D-All right. 'I feel like'this. Fir~t of 'ail, is my going down to see the sIte, we cóulå'n't get in, obvioUsly. I was out doing something or other when you started this topic. We couldn't get downt'h'ere:,i Is mY"!90i ng down there actually going to alter the plans or change this whole procèss1 I dón't know if it's going to make that much of a difference. I've been to homes on Birdsall Road on the lake, and it looks prettygobd on the plans, as far as ~,concerned. Yes. I have no problem with it. I don't feel that I ~eWd to visit the site at thi~ point. MR. PALING..:..Okay. Tim, ýou visited the siite.' MR. BREWER-I visited the site, but on the contrary, I think a site visit's important. What the hell do we sþènd our time on saturday morning's going to site visits for if you can look at a mapjud9é by it? I think it's important that ~verybody 9Ö on site visits. MR. PALING-All right, and, Crai~,you feel the same way. Roger? MR. RUEL-No. It's been mz experience, in most of the applications in that area, that, as far as SEORA's concerned, we haven't found anything that indicated that there was a proþlem, 'as'far as SEQRA was c6ncerfted, visitirtg'or riot visiting the~lte, and so I feel very comfortable to go ahead with the SEQRA without actually going there, since most of the questions have no application at all, or very little. - 46 - '---' ------ .-......-.- -../ MR. PALING-All right. We're kind of split on the issue. For those that wish they ~ at the site, that didn't get at the site, there's only two. MR. OBERMAYER-Cathy and I. MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-However, if the Board feels that strongly about not acting upon it until we d.Q. go to visit, and I realize what that says, then I have no problem with holding it up another week. I just don't want to give an undue hardship to the applicant. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. He has shown that everything looks good on paper, as Tim said, but. MR. PALING-Okay. This question has, obviously, never come up, and I'm a little uneasy with it. So I'm going to suggest that we go ahead, and I apologize to the applicant, but less postpone it for a week, so we're sure of ourselves, and give those that have not had the opportunity and opportunity to visit th~ site, and we'll table it and just take it up again next week. MR. GORALSKI-First item on the agenda? MR. PALING-I don't see why not. Sure. MR. OBERMAYER-That's fair. Sure. MR. DOHERTY-Now, do you want us to have the finalized drawings in place, or what's going to happen? MR. MARTIN-I would prefer that. I would prefer to have the finalized drawings with all the conditions that were discussed tonight, prior to the next meeting night. MR. PALING-All right. Now does anyone else on the Board have any questions about this, so the applicant doesn't come back and face new questions, I think is the problem they're looking at. MR. RUEL-So, do we need two motions, or? MR. PALING-No. I don't think we need two motions. Jim, do you guys down there have any questions about this applicant? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I do. place, in the spring? When is the construction going to take MR. DOHERTY-Correct. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So you do have enough time, then. MR. BREWER-It's staked out, anyway, where the, I p)'esume that's what the stakes were. MR. DOHERTY-They are. MR. OBERMAYER-You're not going to start excavating until the spring, right? MR. DOHERTY-Right, end of March, early April. schedule. That's the time MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. PALING-All right, and the prints w,ill be in final form for this, then? MR. DOHERTY-Yes. - 47 - MR. MARTIN-And can we have them by Friday at 4 o'clock? MR. GORALSKI-I'll do my best. MR. PAL~NG-OkaY. The Friday at 4 O'clock. motion to table. prints will be in the' Planning 'Office by Then I think we can go ahead to have a MR. MACEWAN-YoU just need the applicant·s'consent. , MR. DOHERTY~We·d consent to that~ agenda for next Tu~~day. We are Number One on the MR. PALING-Numero Uno. MR. OBERMAYER-We didn't vote. MR. PALING~Someone make a mot~on to table It. MOTION TO TABLE SITE p'~AN NO. 4-95 PAULA P~YTON FITZ. ESQ., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved fo~ 1t~ adopti6n, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Until next Tuesday, the 24th's meeting. Duly adopted this vote: 17th day of Janu~ry, 1995, by the following I . AYES: 'Mr. Obermayer ~ M'rs.' LaBombard ~Mr. ï~3rewer , Mr. MacEwan, Mr.' RU$l, My. paling '., '¡'. NOE S : NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark REFE~RAL FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APþEALS AREA VARIANCE NO. 71- 19941. JEFFREY & 'DEBRA GODN'1CK REFERRED TO PLANNING BOARD FOR INPUT REGARDING ON SITE DRAINAGE, PERMEABILITY, VIS~BILITY FROM THE LAKE, ETC. MR. PALING-Okay. So we have to makè comment tonight, but not ~eèèssarily decide on anything, as I $e~ it. MR~' RÚËL-What:are we supposed to do, write a letter? MR. PALING-We·~egot' to sind our comments. Lets see where it ends'uþ a~d we~lr decide'~~at we have to do. MR. RUEL-But that's what they're 'looking for, right? The Zoning Board's looking for our comments? MR. PALING-Yes, regarding those' It~ms~ MR. MARTIN-This is rather a unique sitUi3tion. ' I think what the Zoning Board is looking for is a recomméndation fYom this Board as to the site plan aspects of this project.' MR. PALING--Okay. MR. HARLICKER-All right. I, STAFF INPUT Notes from staff, Rèferral0fröm the Zoning Board, jeffrey & Debra Godnick, Meeting Date: January '17', 1995 "Th'ís project is currently before the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances to shoreline setback and garage size. It was refei~ed 'to the Board for input regarding drainage, permeability and visibility. The engineering concerns, drainage, sew~ge and ÞerMe~6ility are addressed in the Rist-Frost letter dated 1/10/95. Because of the - 48 - '"--" --../ '-' ----- building's height, approximately 35 feet, and bulk, approximately 5,900 square feet, the house will have an adverse visual impact when seen from the lake and adjacent properties. The structure's proximity to the lake, 45 feet, and the removal of a number of large trees will magnify the visual impact. When viewed from the lake, the house will appear as a three story 35 foot high structure that is 55 feet wide." The purpose of the Waterfront Residential Zone, as stated in the Zoning Code, is to provide adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline. "RECOMMENDATION: The proposed house is completely out of character with the neighboring properties, and will dwarf any house along that part of the lake. Some alternative designs that would reduce the height and bulk of the proposed house, so that the negative visual impacts would be reduced, should be presented. " MR. PALING-Okay. You're the applicant. Do you have anything to tell us, or do you just want us to proceed? ," it· MR. MARTIN-Do you want us to' read 'in the Rist-Frost letter first? MR. PALING-I'm sorry. Excuse me. Yes. The Rist-Frost should be next. MR. MARTIN-Okay. This is dated January 10th, regarding Area Variance No. 71-1994, Jeffrey & Debra Godnick, "Dear Mr. Martin: Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the Site Plans - Proposed Variance drawing, along with the stormwater runoff calculations, received January 4, 1995. We have the following engineering comments: 1. If possible, the portion of existing water line in the lake should be considered for reuse (to minimize in-lake disturbance). If not, steps to prevent excessive shore area disturbance are recommended. The proposed water line should be 25 feet from the house sewer. 2. The on site disposal system for the existing structtLrr¡,e (an ¡,i4,~sumed. f:¡e~sonaluseq~~p') <is a, series of holding tanks with 3,000 gallon capacity. The 'Town sewer ordinance requireS a 3,500 gallon capacity for a three bedroom usage, with a series of tank level alarms (it is not known if an alarm system is installed or proposed). Although the ordinance prohibits holding tanks for year round permanent use, it allows continuing use of a proper~y functioning pre-existing system, provided no changes to it are proposed. 3. The applicant should show the measures proposed for sediment, and erosion controi during construction and prior to site stabilization, to prevent sediment discharges to lake or adjoining property. 4. The applicant is proposing to infiltrate the additional runoff caused by the difference in impermeable area of the existing site vs. the proposed site. (The percolation rate used for drywell design should be noted as either an actual test result or an estimate.)' However, due to the proposed removal of a number of trees in the immediate vicinity of the house and driveway, it would be appropriate to design for additional runoff, control (foliage increases the effective permeability of gro~nd surfaces). The method and direction of roof runoff discharges should be indicated. Planning Staff has indicated they and the Board will examine the Zoning Board's general concern of the project visibility. We can also, if desired, review that aspect of the project, but would need additional site data and a site visit to properly comment. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST- FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William F. MacNamara, P.E." MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anything that you wanted to tell us, or do you just want us to proceed? JEFFREY GODNICK MR. GODNICK-Just proceed. - 49 - -' MR. PALING-Okay. Do we have any questions or comments? MR. BREWER~We talked about it for a second today. The permeability is, what, right now, with this house on the lot? MR. HARLICKER-I'm not sure what It, i$' now, . but we checked it out. MR. BR!WER-Is it shown ¿h the applica~ion? MR. HARLICKER-We didn't get a regulär site plán apÞlic~tion. It's,a referral. MR. BRE~ER-Okay. Bill, doyoµ knoW ~hat ~he perme~~ility is? BILL MACNAMARA MR. MACNAMARA-You're talking about the amount of cov~rage, as far as going to the green space, that's the ques~iory you're asking? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. I calculated that qut to be about 67 percent, and I useq a scale, arid I \.4as fairly e'>táct. ' , ,,' MR. HARLICKER-Right noW, or is tha~ wÌtf1' the new housé? MR. MACNAMARA-No. That's right now, and I und~r~t~ndthat 65 percent is the minimum. MR. HARLICKER-Right. ·;t', MR. MACNÀMARA-So, I saw that MR. RUEL-That'~ with a solid as meeti ng it.' .' -' '; , concrete driveway? MR~ MACNAMARA-Yes, and I'll be glad to do that again for you. MR. I3R.EWER-No, you don't have to. I ~gess what I'm say i ng'is, if ~heY'é~er wanted to put, a storage shed6rgazebo or anything on their'p~oÞer~y, does that eliminate þermeability? , ,,', MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. So then, if they want to þut a gazebo on there, they've got two percent of their land to do it. They want to put a storage shed, it.'s going to . elltn'inate'ïilôre.' I think, ln my opinion, 'it's oVeruse o,f' t.he lot. $e¢6ndlY, I would thin'k that the septic syaiemthät the~'re þròpds1ng ,td üse, the óld septic system, I thilJ~' they should 'install ,completely, a new seÞtic system, to m~et· today's 'curYent stahdárds, not utilize what is there. In my opinion, it's only ~ opinion, that I just think ,that there's too much on too little land" in that sensitive of an 'area.' I, .'. MR. PALING-How many bedroom~ in the hoúse? MR. GODNICK-Three. f. MR. PALING-Threé bedrooms~ That lS a bedrooms. I think we're all struggling house relative to the size of the lot in do you have any alternative plans, or anything? . . bi~ hdusi for three with the size 'of the the neighborhood, and, are you ¿onsid~ring MR. GODNICK-We've considered several different plans, but the problem is, to spread the house out, to do a one sto'r'yh8use; it consumes too much land. MR. PALING-You couldn't do it. - 50 - '-' -.-/ "-- -..-' MR. GODNICK-It's too expensive to build it. MR. MARTIN-Has there been any consideration given to simply a reductiqR in the square footage, then? MR. GODNICK-A reduction in square footage is fine. The problem is where the extra square footage is, is in the basement, which we're not utilizing at this t~me. That's for future expansion as our family grows. We're looking for one. We live on the lake now, and we're taking our existing house, the space that we have, and basically we're duplicating it. We're not adding any extra square footage except for the basement. It happens to be a walkout basement. If it wasn't on a hill, on a hill slot, we wouldn't have that basement, and the square footage wouldn't be nearly as large. DEBRA GODNICK MRS. GODNICK-The basement, you have to be careful how you use it. You can't put that many liveable rooms toward the back of the building, because it's a hillside. There's no windows. MR. MACEWAN-The house that's on there now, is that the one you're replacing, that you say is equivalent to the size that you want to put on there now, minus the basement? MR. GODNICK-No. We live, presently, up the lake. MR. PALING-Yes. You're talking a house on a different location. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. Okay. I want to be sure we're comparing apples and apples, here. For Staff, does the septic system conform with the setbacks for this new proposed house? MR. MARTIN-No. That's why it's in for an Area Variance. MR. MACEWAN-Even property line setbacks? I mean, part of the variance that they,~re getting, is it for property line setbacks as well? I mean, does the septic system, as it sets on that site right now, conform with Code? Twenty feet from the road, fifteen feet off the house. ' , . MR. MACNAMARA-I believe it does. I'll check it again. If you want to give me that, MR. GODNICK-The house that we're doing here is part of, the gentleman that owned it owns the Glenmore Lodge on Glen Lake. He converted this house into like a bed and breakfast. The whole downstairs is all bedrooms and baths. There's actually five rooms that he used to rent out, and they redid the septic systems to meet that use. MR. MACEWAN-But the difference is, the house is a much smaller house on a lot with the setbacks, and you don't know how old that septic system is, and if it met Code. MR. GODNICK-It was designed for five bedrooms to be rented out. MR. OBERMAYER-But the septic system is going to be evaluated, you said, right? MR. MACNAMARA-Ye.~ To answer your first question about, does the septic system meet the setbacks for the property, according to the Appendix A in the Queensbury Ordinance, yes, it does. MR_ MACEWAN-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-All right. MR. MACNAMARA-To answer ~ question, as far as evaluating the - 51 - septic system. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, is it sized 'proper ly, , submit some engineering data? MR. MACNAMARA·Those are in the notes, and 'I think it's Note Four, possibly'.' 'Basically what is says is if there'~ a slightly 'smaller than what the Ordinance wouid n:~quife', if yoU, will. ' MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Right. It requires 3500, not 3,000. I MR. MACNAMARA-Right', and there's other wording in there. MR. MARTIN-When I was referring to sm&ller square footage, even, okay, w~ t~ké' out the ba~~lTìent, wé'ré talkiri~abbJt a hbuse that's roughly about 3,000 square: feet on a lot:that's 19,000 feet. I just, you know, it strikes me as th~re's; some fairly large size rooMs, then, in a thre~ bedroom house, that 3,000 sqUare feet. I just thi nk thére maY 'be' way~' that those could be pared back, if we're talking about âlt~rn'átive design. MR. PALING-You, mean to pare báck tiie'building si1:e to make it more compatible with th~ neighborhood? MR. MARTIN·Right. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Are there camps right next door? Is that what's, are they year round homes on both sides? I didn't have a chance to look at this. MR. GODNICK-There is a caffiþ on the' left side of it, faci ng the lake on the' left. On the right side is a year round, which they're plan~ing to re-do that' and make it substantially larger, too. theyire all becoming year round. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, right. MRS. LABOMBARD-The building, as you're facihg, we ~~nt, walked down, and facing the dwelling that's there. I have a couple of questioDs. First of all, how wide is the front of your house going to be? MR. GODNICK-Fifty-five, ! believe. MR. BREWER-Fifty-foGr.' MRS. LA80MBARD·Fifty-four. Okay, and we kind 6f estimated what's there is a good forty feet. So ,we were trying' to make comparisons, visually. Okay, and the lot itself, the frontage you have~ run. those fiQures by me agåin. It's 133, okåy. So, '" ' , , \ you've got 40 feet 'on each' side. See, I have no 'problem with that, and also, another thing in yoûr favor is that the hóuse to the ri~ht, a~ you're facing the d~~11ing that's there, the one, the camp, now tha~js built into the hill, instead of a liveable area, the. basement is storage. Tha~ is quite a large place. 'f MR. GODNICK-léngthwise, yes. It*ll be equally as high as ours. , ! MRS. LABOMBARD-I' t~ought so. I think, ~h~n 1 plans, those little rough plans that you, have, the width that gives'me the problem, it's how far the road. looked at the to me, it's not bðCk it goes to MR. GODNICK-Well, it's the L-Shape of the drive. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. 'Okay. All right, a~d wéréallY had a big concern about the stormwater runoff. . ' ~ -52 - '-' -../ '-----.. - MR. GODNICK-I believe it's all been taken care of. MRS. LABOMBARD-And that's all been taken care of. MR. MACNAMARA-Well, what's transpired is I've discussed these comments, the day that I faxed them to the applicant's engineer, who had indicated that, yes, there was additional room. He could put some additiona¡ amounts in, and it's a matter of him showing it on a drawing. ' MR. GODNICK-Which I guess he had (lost word). It was my understanding, they ,talked to them, and they had everything worked out, and he was going to add that on to the prints. MRS. LABOMBARD-I can't buy the nonconformity argument. I mean, as far as I'm,concerned, there's a lot of homes on Glen Lake, now that are starting to, people are buying up. They're starting to renovate them. They're starting to improve tremendously upon the property, and if you want to go conformity, you can say, well, we're just going to keep these old 1928 camps the way they are. So, I mean, in that regard, I disagree with that statement. I think that, you're right, that down the line you're going to see both places on either side of you perking themselves up, and I think that if all the engineering is okay, I have no problem with the place at all. I think it's gorgeous, and I think it will enhance the value of the property of the people around you. MR. PALING-Any other comments? MR. MACEWAN-I think ¡ would concur with Staff comments. MR. BREWER-I think there's room for an alternate design. They're showing three bedrooms, but they talked, a minute ago, about the bottom, possibly, being living spape in the future, when their family grows. So that's going to increase, possibly, a potential one or two bedrooms. Then the septic doesn't meet the size of the house. I think it's just too big for too small of a piece of land. MR. PALING-A public hearing is not part of tonight's activity, right? MR. MARTIN-Not in the context of this. It's a referral. MR. PALING-And we've got to bear in mind that whatever we would recommend, that when this is up for a public hearing, could have quite an influence on whatever the Board would say. MR. MARTIN-I would strongly suggest that the engineering comments be completely addressed before this is referred back to the Zoning Board, that this Board feel comfortable with those engineering approaches that are being taken. What I'm saying is, I wouldn't refer this back to the Zoning Board, as like a half complete review, even though it is a referral. I think the engineering comments should be fully addressed. That's the reason why the Zoning Board sent it over here. MR. PALING-Yes. I would agree with that, and I also have suspicion, I think I agree with Tim, in regard to the septic system, in a house with this kind of square footage, with a possible addition to it ,later on, meaning bedrooms. MR. GODNICK-We wouldn't be adding additional bedrooms. It's just a family' room. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACNAMARA-Do you guys understand what they're showing as a septic system, and the way ¡ understand it is, help me out if I'm wrong here, is that it's actually a holding tank system. It's - 53 - "-..-.'" -- not actually a subsurf~ce disposal sys't~m. That's the way that it appears to be shown. MR. MACEWAN-Three, 1,000 Sållon;'holdi'ng tanks? MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. The increase in use, and whatever volume issues are associated with this, fall'upòn the ~ÞPlicant in increased pump oútè. It's not an issue of' no grbund Water clearance. I don't know if there's any alarms or not. MR. BREWER-I think not. I think that was part of the discussion we had today. I think it should be ~t least upgraded to today's standards. That's where I'm coming from. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I think Tim's got a good point there. I think for your own, here you've got this unbelieVably b¿autfful home, and you want to, I think if you're going to put all that kind of money into a 'house, just' from !:!)Y experiences With building and living on Lake GeorQe, that you would want a State of the Art. ' , MR. GODNICK-Yes. I've got absolutelY no problém with that. MRS~ LA~OMBARD-And one that YOù, ten years, now, if you're state of life changes, that that. fifteen years from it will accommodate MR. GODN¡CK~Th~t's fine. It was just brought up to me before that, ~ather ihan getting into a whole other issue, leave the septic. It's existinis and it's working, and I would just as soon, while we're dbirig ihe exca~.ting, put anew system in. I don't really want all the landscapin~ ~nd, five years down the road, dig i~'µp. , " MR. BREWER-Exactly. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's true. MR. OBERMAYER-If it's required for you to put a new one in. I'm not sure if thè eri~ineering co~~eriis, maybe it's justÞuEting in high level alarm~, as they mentioned, you know, just so that there is an'indication. MR. BREWER-I guess the,way ¡ look at ~t ¡s, Jim, if that was a bear piece of property right now, and he went in to build that house, what wóuld'he have to Þut i~,today, as a s~ptic system for that house? That's; what I would be haþpy with. ' , > MRS. LABOMBARD-See, that. I thought the engin,ering would, address all " , MR. 08ERMAYER-But we're not sure, Tim, that the holding tank$ .ren't sized prôp~rly, whether the existing system,' the~ might additional ta'nk or',somethin9 like that. MR. BREWER-It's possible. Whátever" the:ën~l neer says. these holding tanks, but we'ren6t sure be 'able' :to add an MR. OBERMAYER-We don't necèssarily want to just incur an extra cost on the applicant. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-What the situation would be is that if this were a blank piece of property with ~ ,new, ye~r round home being placed on it, a holding ta~k system would nó~ b~ acceptable. MR. BREWER-I woù.td say, br ins it to' tòday's standards. comment, and if they can't' do that, then they have to size of the house doWn. ' That's my brins the ';,. '- 54 - -- ..........- -...,-/ MR. MACEWAN-Holding tanks up along Glen Lake were designed for seasonal operation. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-That's the only time they're permitted, and then I thi nk. MR. MACEWAN-He should have a conforming septic system, then, if that's what he, you know, if it gets that far. MR. MARTIN-Bill, holding tanks are permitted only when? For seasonal uses? MR. MACNAMARA-Right. It says a use of a holding tank will be considered on a case by case basis. MR. MARTIN-By who? MR. MACNAMARA-By some type of a Town body. MR. MARTIN-The Town Board of Health. MR. MACNAMARA-That could be. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, because this is not in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-Bob, I think you have a number of issues, here, that require some further investigation. I think we should get a reading of the Code, Septic Code, from Dave Hatin, in terms of, you know, would this be acceptable to use this holding tank system with a brand new house. I mean, we're tearing down every aspect of the house and rebuilding the house completely. MR. GODNICK-I talked to Dave. That's what he recommended, leaving it. He's the one that made the recommendation. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to get that clarified. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think he fully understands the situation. MR. MARTIN-That's why I want ~o get clarification. MRS. LABOMBARD-Don't throw a party with 100 people. know. You never MR. PALING~Okay. We'll have to get that clarified, and I think you should tell him, I think the Board is of the opinion that it should be brought UP to today's standards, and if there's any doubt, that it should be re-done. ' MR. MACNAMARA-Just let me throw in one thing here. Today's standards, I think what you're referring to is the volume capacity. Right now it's 3,000 gallons, and three bedrqoms, OueensbufY, and you'd have to read the wording, but I believe it's they strongly suggest assuming a seven day pump out rate, that you have 3500 gallons. Lets assume that 3500 gallons is the right number. Then you'd need an additional 500 gallons of storage capacity, is what we're talking about. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I disagree. I think, when ¡ mean conforming system, I mean an in-ground infiltration system, not holding tanks. This is not a seasonal use. MR. BREWER-Exactly. Going from a camp to a full time house. MR. SCHACHNER-Part of the problem here is we have somewhat inconsistent provisions, and the provisions are not part of the Zoning Ordinance, by the way. They're part of Town Sewage Disposal Ordinance. So I think there are people like Dave Hatin, and perhaps even the Town Board acting as the Board of Health that have input into this decision, because it's not part of the - 55 - -- Zoning Ordinance, but the prOV1Slons that Bill's referring to~ in oþposite order of ,how they appear, one of them 1'"efers to pre- existing holdlD9 taoks, and, in'E,!ssenc~, ~ays you can continue to use pre-existing holding tan~è ~s long as there's not a problem. I'm paraphrasing. 'ElsewHeré,'as I think Jim Is referrÎng to, it says that you can't use holding tanks, other than for seasonal use, basically. MR. PALING-Then we'd at least want Dave Hatin to review this. MR. MARTIN-And maybe even the Town Board of Health. MR. PALING-Okay, and the Board of Health. MR. MARTIN-Because! think these are important issues. these ére, potentially, prebedent ~etting in natbre, and' lot of these, with two lakes in our community, we see these septic issues relati~g to dwellings on the lake. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, a nd the uir timate decision may rest' on the phrase, and the Section about holding tanks says that holding tanks aYe not, they're 'reviewed on a case by;caèe ba~~s. Then it say~~ hbwever~ they won't be all¿wed f¿r yeàr róund usage on a permanent basis, except for replacement of existing systems, which presumablY this would be, when no other alternative will meet existing design standards., so, agai~, that~s oþ0±ousl~ an engineér'.ín~ ' câll, whether other alternati0es:'wlll meet design standards or not. So I think all pOints are well taken. I mean, we s~e a á lot of MR. MARTIN-I know in the past, when that is the case, ,that case has to be made ;to the Board of Health. MR. SCHACHNER-A~ opþbsed to this' Board or the ZBA. Yes. Well, that makes sense becaltse that's the 130ard that Implements the Sewage'Disposal Ordi~~nce. ' MR. PALING-Yes. All right. We're looking, so far, at two basic items. One is the engineering comments and the second is the septic system With the things we talked about. Wh~t additional cOmments do we have?' . MR. BREWER-l ha~e nO other comme~ts. MR. PALING-Okay. Is it, I'm just wondering, lets just say that tHe septic system was through the Board of Health and through Dave Hatin, and it was ok'ý~ ' Årid lets séy all of Rist-Þrost's comments were met and agreed by, is the Board willing to just indicate to the, applicant 'how they would feel, stilL about this house going ori the' property,' hó~ w~ wbuld each feel, whether it should or shouldn't go as it has been submitted? I think that's part of what the ZBA is looking for from us. ' , , MR: BREWER~I, per~orlally, thi~~ it's too big fbf the size of the lot, . MR. OBERMAYER-I feel that the sIze ,is okay~ I agree with Cathy. It's really increasing the val~e of 'the neighborhood. ; ~ ì; .' " MR. PALING-And, Cathy; youjre sa~ing it~~ okay with yo~? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. It's fine. I just have my concern 'from the septic system. I'd like what you say. , MR. MACEWAN-I think the house is too big for the parcel. MR. q.r~ RUEL-If all the requi1'"eme~t~ that you mentioned a moment ago met, I feel that the house can be built on that lot. ¡ "II ' '; !""" jl, PALING-I think I, basically~ go ðl~ng with thinking the house be bui 1 t on the lot, because I thi n'k other houses might be MR. can - 56 - '--' --../' '--. - built that way. t90, and there are situations on the lake today which would reflect the one that we're looking at now, but, I want to think about it. I want to get public comments on this, neighbors and that kind of thing, and what the Board, in this opinion just given, has no relationship to what the final vote or decision would be, but I just wanted to get for you how the fee ling is now. MR. BREWER-I think that's the going to have something to do they're asking for our input. what they're going to do. wrong statement, because it is with what the ZBA says, because So it does have some bearing on MR. PALING-Well, yes. Okay. What we'd be telling the ZBA is that if all of the criteria were met, we would feel in favor of letting them go ahead with the house as submitted, but that's got to include the septic system and the engineering comments. MR. BREWER-But that's the point, Bob. The criteria isn't met because they're in for a variance. MR. PALING-Well, they've got to ,be met before it goes to the ZBA, is my understanding, that what we would have in our motion must be answered before the ZBA hears it again~ MR. BREWER-Agreed, but if we were to look at this as a site plan, we couldn't look at it as a site plan because it doesn't meet the criteria. Therefore, it has to go to the ZBA. So that's why I'm saying it's too big. MR. PALING-Well, I think we're saying, Number One, we want comments on the septic system from the Board of Health, and from Dave Hatin's group, is one. Number Two, we want all of the Rist- Frost Engineering comments complied with, or some kind of a meeting of the minds made. If that com~s out satisfactorily, then it would be referred to the ZBA. That's what ¡ understand this would be. MR. BREWER-Maybe I were to, so to septic system, as wer e go i ng in, standards. that's what YOU guys are saying., I'm saying, if speak, give this my blessing, I would want a though that was a virgin piece of land and they building that house" to accommodate today's MR. PALING-Well, if Dave Hatin's group blessed it, and the Board of Health blessed it, you would still go against it? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, because it's a year round residence, and I don't thiDk a year round residence should have a holding tank. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. PALING-Well, when they do it? aren't they going to consider that Aren't they going to consider that? i n the i r , MR. BREWER-I don't know. I don't know what they're going to consider. I just think that that size of a house is capable of adding at least two or three more bedrooms. So, a system that's not adequate for it now, I don't see why we should approve, or say that we would approve, unless they put a State of the Art system in right now. MR. PALING-All right, and I think that the numbers, Tim, of the Board are against what you're saying. MR. BREWER-That's fine, but that's ~ opinion. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, wait a minute. Don't misconstrue what ¡ said, though. I mentioned that, and I thought, we're not talking about, we're talking about apples and oranges, then. When you - 57 - said that the engineering would 'go, IW~s under the imprèssion that ~he septic syste~ that they would okay would be the one that would be good enough 'to service a h6~se of that~ize, and if a holding tank; you can'~ use a hO~ding tank for a year round 'residence, why would thè engineersoka~ a holding tank system? MR. 'PALING-Well, 'why would th~~e two departments, ,you know, not hav~ the sa~e criteria ~hat ¥ou~~e 9?t? '" MRS. LABOMBARD~I don't know. :' : .' MR. PALING~I ~ould think they would at least haVe that much, perhaps more than we do. MRS. LABOMBARD-I would hope so. MR. PALING"';And to co~e back business, and som~t1Ü ng that we're asking,th~M'èpe6itically, on a sþe~ffic 'Job, with very specif'ic comments,' and thât's their I would assume' that they'l'l come back with would ~e acceptãb1e. ' MR'~ BREWER-Ask' them to justify the séPtic systeM to the house. That's ~hat: ¡ 'would ask. MRS. LA8ÓMBA~D~that'sia 'good ,way tç phrase it. MR. RUEL-Isn't that what they normally do? MR. OBERMAYER-Ì would imagìne~ right? I wóuld hope so. MR. RUEL...;t don't think yo~ have to ask thet,i do you? MR. BREWER-Why wouldn't you have to ~sk'it? house that's there now. The ~~ptic system housè, which lS'what? It says 'an existing is suitable for that " MRS. LABOMBARD~But they're going to 'tear that house down and bui Id a ne\.;' one. MR. BREWER-They're completely eliminating' the' house, and they're g9ing to usewh~t~s there ,fôr,$omethin~ that's less than' what they're putting th~re now, Rbg~r., ' MR. RUEL-Yes, I know, but someone's going to go look at it and , , I check it out, and see that it meets the re~uirements for the new house, no? MR. MACEWAN-How do you know' \,.\¡hat.'s even under the ground, really? MR. BREWER-I don't know that. assume. That's what I'm asking. Don't MR. RUEL-That's one of the çond~tions. < " MR. PALING-Jim, yoùwbuld communlc~te with these two groups, right, Da~e Hatin'~ group ari~Ythe B6é~d of Health? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-And you're hear i ng what the cOncern' 'of the Board is, about this, and can you commun1c~te that to him? MR. MARTIN-Sure. MR. PALING-And in that kind of depth, so that, when they come back with an answer, we might even ask ~ to come here, that they will be able to answer questions suc~ as are being raised h her e . MR. MARTIN-Yes. The' other thi ng Mar k is lookins;j' through Ü:t the - 58 - '"---,, ---- '"---,, -../ referral section of the Ordinance, under which this was done. MR~ SCHACHNER-My only concern is that 30 days don't go by. The Zoning Board could act. We don't have any Zoning Board members here~ My concern only is that the Zoning Board could act, after 30 days from their, once 30 days have gone by after they've referred it to you, whether they have your advisory recommendation or not, they can act, if they wish to, and my only concern is that, if you want that input, your input to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, it might be appropriate for you to request the Zoning Board of Appeals not to do that, if that's how you feel, and they don't have to abide by that request either. MR. PALING-Request them not to act accomplished. until this has been MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I'm kind of sort of following up on a comment you made earlier, Bob, that it's important that we all und~rstand, and that the app,licants understand, that this exercise is advisory. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the entity that has this decision pending before them, and that's all, I'm re-emphasizing, I think, what you said earlier, and I'm also indicating that the referral section of the Ordinance, which is Section 179-89, says that the Zoning Board of Appeals could act, once 30 days have gone by from them having referred this to you, whether they have your input or not. I'm just making sure you're aware of that. MR. PALING-OkaY. Well, lets get our input to them very clearly, and our communication with Jim the same way, and take it from there. Now has this got to be in the form of a motion, or just, what do we do? I think I know what we want to do, but what form do we put it in? Do we write a letter? MR. SCHACHNER-The Section of the Zoning Ordinance merely refers to a recommendation. A recommendation, to mz mind, and I think it's been the practice of this Board, if possible, has been done by motion, so that it's what I would call a formal recommendation. I'm also aware of instances where this Board was unable to reach a consensus and, therefore, was unable to make formal recomme~dations. So I guess what I'm saying is, if you can make a motion with a recommendation, that would probably be helpful, and if you can't, then you can't. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MARTIN-In any event, we will pass along the minutes of this proceeding, and all accompanying documentation to the Zoning Board for their review prior to their convening this application. MR. PALING-And we'll try to get a motion to go along with what Mark is saying. MR. RUEL-I had a question. I don't want to revive a dead horse, here, but it doesn't seem to me that wh~t the ZBA was looking for was a debate on the septic system. :Let me see if I have this right. They turned this over to us, and we are supposed to review this as though it was a new site plan application, and we are to consider that variances were, in fact, granted, or will be? Is that the premise? MR. PALING-Well, it was referred to the Board for input regarding drainage, permeability and visibility, and the engineering concerns, drainage, sewage and permeability, and so forth. MR. MACEWAN-And etc. MR. PALING-Yes. I think we're addressing what they want. MR. BREWER-Nobody else said anything about permeability. I told - 59 - '~ you how ¡ felt about it. permeability if they. They're not going to meet the MR. RUEL-You said 67 percent, didn-t ydu? MR. BREWER-Yes, but if they put a gazebo or a storage shed on the building, then there goes your two percent. MR. RUEL-I know, but can we anticipate that they' 'wi 11 do this? MR. BREWER....Why couldn't we"anticipate it? 'theY're anticipating growth in their family. That's why they're building such a big house. So I think we should be able to assume. MR. RUEL-Well, in site plari application, would we be concerned with the size of the house on the lot? MR. BREWER-We would be concerned with the perm~aþ~~itx on the lot. Yes. MR. RUEL-Would we be concerned~bout the size of the'houseori:the lot? MR. BREWER-Yes, if it was that close to, the permeabi 1 i ty, I would be. Surer. MR. RUEL-How close is it? MR. BREWER-It's within two percent, Roger. MR. PALING-Yes, 65 versus 67. MR. RUEL-I thought he said ~5. ' MR. BREWER-No. MR. PALING-No. requirement. It's 67 percent, which is two percent over 'the 'j ì' MR. RUEL-Okay. If he put: in a gravel dT-ivewa,y, instead of paved, then permeability would go uÞ:another,w'hat, 10,15 percent, and there'd be: no problem'. ' ' MR. PALING-Maybe Bill would comment on, that. If they put in a gravel driveway, how would the 'permeability be'éffect~d?' MR. BREWER-It'$'still impermeable. l' , MR. HARLICKER-It doesn't change. MR. MARTIN-Gravel is termed to be impermeable. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. RUEL-It's not? MR. MARTIN-No. It never has been. MR. BREWER-Try pouring water through a stone, Roger. do it. MR. MACNAMARA-I guess I want tò remind you of Lèo's Lóbster House that came through, that I wa~ ~ctuèlly pretty firm against ~rying to have him u~e a 1.0 yunOfT r~te for the gravel driveway. As it turns out, he didn't have to use that. I don't even know if that's his final thing or not yet. You can't MR. MARTIN-I've been associated with this Boètd since August 1990, and it's never been looked, it's always been, gravel is impermeable surfa.ce. i, I "" , '- 60 - "-- ~ \._--' --,,' MR. MACNAMARA-We highly suggest that, because down the road it could be paved. MR. MARTIN-With the resulting rain and compaction from vehicles, over time, gravel driveways will have the same effect on permeable area as a paved driveway. MR. RUEL-Then the water will just lay in the driveway there? It won't go anywhere? MR. MARTIN-You'll have sheet r~noff. gravel driveway. I experience it on ~ MR. MACNAMARA-Unless it's maintained yearly, and it's kept with a fresh new coat of gravel and all that good stuff. MR. RUEL-Okay. It was just an idea. MR. MARTIN-And that's for your consider impermeable surfaces on before you. If gravel is proposed what have you, that's impermeable it. future consideration, as you all your site plans you see for side walks, for driveways, surface area as we interpret MR. RUEL-I'm just wondering if there's anything that could be done on this plan to alleviate this permeability? MR. BREWER-There is, reduce the size of the house. MR. RUEL-Well, take out some side walks or whatever you have in there. MR. PALING-Because I don't think there is a walk. If they make it gravel, then they haven't gone anyplace. MR. MARTIN-I think what the Zoning Board was looking for is that the Zoning Board is not well equipped or dQes not typically look at technical aspects of a development, where this ~oard does. You commonly get engineering comments. You look at permeability, stormwater management devices, design. You look at septic system design. These are th~ngs that they do not typically get involved with, and they were looking for your input on those technical matters, as it relates to this application. MR. PALING-Okay. What's the name of Dave Hatin's Department? MR. MARTIN-It's Building and Codes. Community Development. He's within our office of MR. PALING-All right. Is it agreeable with the Board if I try to make a motion here covering everything we've said? Do you want me to try it? MR. RUEL-Yes. Fine. BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Could I ask a question first? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. MONAHAN-When you looked at this site, and we have a purpose for WaterfrQnt Residential. Do you know the purpose in our Ordinance? Did you consider the neighbors on the other side of the road and their vlew shed, and what is going to happen to their aesthetics of the lake? MR. PALING-Well, yes and no. MRS. MONAHAN-I'm talking about, not on the iake side, but the - 61 - ~-' -- side across the road. Did you 0isua1ize yourielf in their livingroom, as to what the effect would be? MR. RUEL-We did that. MR. PALING-A~d we've cautioned the apÞlicants, Betty, that this is what's gQing to þe in the public hearing, and that, I think, we're kind of putting off to the side t¿ se¿ wHat the public does actually say. MR. BREWER-We're not gOing to hav¡ é public heát1ng, are we? MR. PALING~If'there's a site' pian review, there'll be a public hea ring. MR. BREWER-There won't be a site plan review. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. There is nd site plan review of this. MR. MACEWAN-It's never coming back here. MR. SCHACHNER-That's one of the reasons, I'm suspecting, I wasn't there, obviously, but in all likelihood, o~e of thé r~asons that the Zoning Board of Appeals has ask~d for our, or this Board's, input is because this is not a site plan review use. It's an allowed use as of right'. It·s a singl¿ famil~ residence. The Zoning Board of Appeals is entertaining some variance requests on the single fâm1ly residence and is 'seeking this Board's advisory, non binding advisory recommendation, typically for the issue Jim mentioned, principally, which is the :ZBA'S nôt :used,' to dealing with technical' 'issues, as much as this 'Soard is, ahd does not typically get Rist-Frost technical comments and Staff technical comments to the same level that this Board does, but it's not something that comes back here for site plan revieW, and it's not sorrtethi ng that comes back here for publ ic hear i n~. The' Zoni ng Board of Appeals has a public hearing, but this Board does not. MR. RUEL-That's right. There's'no site plan review.' MR. BREWER-O~ce it's gone from here, it's gone, bec~us~ it's an allowed use in that zone. MR. SCHACHNER~Coríect. MR. PALING-Are you saying it the ZBA approved it?' just becomes a building permit if ," MR. BREWER-Yes. MR~ SCHACHNER-In essence, Yes, because' it's not, this is not a use that requires site plan approval. MR. 'PA~':rNG"One òfthe inPDtsthat, 'J v~.¡1y mLl¿h~ânte8 ~ b~fbre""I'd make Jp JmY'~i nd: f'1 nal1y 'rs '>Ißtil:)'1 i¿f1!lf\þüi "~nd' iackfn~' . it I .\,....'.¡,', ,', "j'-', r'.·, "-1"1""1 .~A;"",:' ~~'"' ,I~i' ~ '" '( /,,) !. f ...:' don't. ',"" ," """'''''''': ,,¡"', " MR. BREWER-The ZBA minutes. MR. SCHACHNER-And' there have beenrneeting$ that I've been , , , ¡ familiar with in the past' wherebecauée people have, yoU k~ow, came t6 speak on applications, the Board allowed their inpQt, and yO~ could certainly 'do that. Mr; Tucker's here. t don't k~ow if he has' anyfnput on this, but the bottom Ii ne:'fs, ðS some of the members are'såying, it's not a public hèating issue before this Board. It's not subject to site plan approval. It's in a use that's allowed as of right, si~gle famil~'rèsidence in that zone. MR. PALING-Okay. I ~ssum~d wrong. I assumed that we were going to get this back a'S a site plan review." That;s why I indicated ear 1 ier thàtour vote would be i nf luenced by' that. - 62 - ''"---' "---'" ~- --" MR. OBERMAYER-Bob, there will be a Zonin~ Board public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. BREWER-It has been to the ZBA and they referred it to us. That is why the ZBA minutes were given to us to look at. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but I'm guessing that the ZBA has not had the public hearing yet. Do you know if that's right? MR. PALING-Then that's got to be a fourth item on the proposal, that we are seeing this without the benefit of a public hearing, and that can hav~ a ~ effect on what you're thinking. MR. RUEL-Well, we're consultants to the ZBA. MR. BREWER-No. They want to know the detail~d information of what we wou¡d be concerned with, does it meet our approval or doesn't it. Basically, that's what they're asking. MR. RUEL-That's right. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, they're going to have a public meeting, thoùgh, Bob. We're not, but the Zoning Board. MR. PALING-That's what we can put in here, though. MR. OBERMAYER-That we recommend that they listen to the public. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the Zoning public hearing on the variance haven't already. Board, by law, request, and they has to have a, will, if they MR. MACEWAN-But h~s point before he cast approval or was saying. is, he wanted to get public input disapproval of this. That's what he MR. RUEL-We're not passing approval or disapproval. MR. OBERMAYER-We're not passing approval. recommendation. We're giving a MR. MACEWAN-No, no, no, Bob's position on this, whether he wanted to send along a blessing to the ZBA. MR. RUEL-We aren't approving it or disapproving it, okay_ MR. MACEWAN-I know that, Roger. MR. PALING-Well, let me try, anyway, for a motion, all right. Okay. MOTIQN FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1994 JEFFREY & DEB~~ GOD~¡CK. REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. THAT THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION BE MADE, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Item Number One, that the septic system be reviewed by the Building and Codes Department and the Board of Health; that Jim Martin will convey to each of these Boards the strong and detailed feelings of the Planning Board in regard to the acceptability of the present septic system to a home of this size. Item Number Two, Rist-Frost Engineering comments must be met to the satisfaction of Rist-Frost and the Staff. Permeability at the present time on this lot is 67 percent, 2 percent over allowable. The Board questions that this permeability will last in the event that any modifications in the form of additional buildings are added to this property. Item Number Four, the Planning Board is making this recommendation without a public hearing, and feels that if they were to vote on - 63 - - something like this, that they would need the input from a public hearing, and recommends strongly that the Zoning Board of Appeals allow a comþlete public hearing on the sUbject. Duly adopted this 17th dáy of JanuarY, 1995,' by the following vote: MR. BREWER-I w,ould·.. just make one cçmment, that if this came into here right \"low, and I had to vote on . it, I would vote no. I would like yoö tofput that in the ~otion, in your recommendation. I wouldn't vote yes on this application as it exists today, without modifications, one Board member anyway. I agree with the comments that Bob has made, but what I'm saying is,' if we had to vote on this plan right here, right now, my recommendation would be, deny it, without modifications. . MR. PALING-All right~ but there's a sÞlitfeeIing on the Board. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, there's a split feeling. MR. RUEL-I don't think that should even be mentioned. MR. PALING-Yes~ unless you want it. MR. BREWER-I want it. MR. RUEL-That's not what they asked us. That's not what they asked for. Why don't we respond to what they asked for. They didn't ask for whether we would vote for it or ~bt.' , MR. PALING-I don't think we really need it, Tim. MR. BREWER-We~l, they'll read it in the minutes, Bob. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think Tim has a good point, that if we were to vote on the plan exactly the way it has been presented to us tonight, if, hypothetically, that without modifications, probably would decline it. ' MR. PALING-Okay. We have a second. AYES: MY. Oberfuayer, Mrs. LaBOmbard, Mr. Brewef'~ Mr. Ruel; Mr. Paling NOES: MY. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. BREWER~Now, Bob, could I ask ,you about this' now? Could I introdu~e this motion? Do yoû w~~£ to read this, Jim, and I'll introduce it, and if somebody wants to second it, fine. MR. PALING-May we have a discussion in regard to that? MR. MARTIN~You have to get a motion made and seconded. MR. MACEWAN-It should just be done that Tim's going to introduce it. Jim's going to translate, it, and someone will second it. MOTION ON SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1994 COLUMBIA OUEEN~BURY GROUP, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, secÒnded by Craig MacEwan: Whereas, the T9wn of Queensbury Planning Board has had before it for consideration a two lot subdivision submitted by Columbi~ Queensbury Group, Subdivisio~'No. 1¿~1994; and Wher éa$ , the Town thoroughly of Queensbury PlanniMg Board has reviewed the SUbdivision plat of the - 64 - '-' ---' '- -./ aforementioned Subdivision; and Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board has held a public hearing on the aforementioned Subdivision, after proper notification to the adjoining property owners and to the public at large; and Whereas, the Subdivision made to the Planning Board in regard to the aforementioned Subdivision failed to adequately ,address concerns relating to safe and adequate access to the lots to be created; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board denies subdivision No. 16-1994, as submitted by Columbia Queensbury Group, as it is not in keeping with the stated policies of the Town Subdivision Regulations, which call for orderly and efficient development, which will allow for safe use of the property without danger to health, the peril from fire, and will facilitate safe and efficient access for traffic and fire protection facilities and equipment. Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: MR. PALING-Wait a minute. I asked, before you said anything, if we could have a discussion about this. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, I'll introduce it anyway. MR. RUEL-I need a translation. english. MR. BREWER-Basically, Roger, what it is, I'll explain it. Columbia Group came in to subdivide the property where Native Textiles is going, okay. We had discussion with them. We told them we wanted to modify or show us in detail, access to the second parcel, okay. They didn't do that. Paul sent à letter to them, which w~s agreed to by this Board last month, or the ,month before, to submit the detailed plan, or whatever plan' they were going to submit to us, by December 29th, or whatever day the final date was to re-apply. They did not do that. Therefore, to get this off our backs, I made a motion to deny it. I'd like that to be put in MR. MARTIN-My only concern, from a Staff's point of view, is we had no information on it that was ever submitted showing adequate access over the ravine to the second lot, and that's why there's a language in here relating to access for fire protection equipment and so on. MR. RUEL-So this is a motion to deny that? MR. BREWER-Right, because they never brought back any information in two months. MR. RUEL-If we just let it sit, what would happen? MR. PALING-They'd get approved, don't they? '." " 'í', MRS. LABOMBARD-They'd get it, after 60 days, isn't it? MR. BREWER-No. There's a clause in the letter that Paul wrote to the Columbia Group that waives the 45 day, but I guess what I'm saying is, they haven't brought anything back in three months. If they're never going to bring anything back, why not get it off the books and get it out of our hair? They still have the option to re-apply for the subdivision, no prejudice against anything - 65 - '~ - '- like that, just all. t6 end the problem we have with them. " That's MR. MACEWAN-If formally brings to a conclusion thai application. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. PALING-Yes. The only concern I had was that we were somehow cutting them off in the future. MR. MACEWAN-No. You're not cutting them off. MR. MARTIN-No. I think it's incumbent upon this Board, it's one of the basic reasons why you exist, is that you look at subdivisions and site plans to ensure the public health, safety and welfare is maintained, and if you have applications before you where that's not the case, then the regulations are written in such a way that you have opportunity to deny those applications. MR. RUEL-Were these people notified that we will, in fact, do this? MR. MARTIN-They'll be notified when the resolution is passed. MR. PALING-You said there's a note in the letter that said they couldn't do it anyway. MR. BREWER-No. There's a note in the letter to supply us the information if they want to do it. They did not supply the information. Therefore, I think we should just end it. MR. PALING-No, I have no objection. MR. OBERMAYER-That sounds good to me. AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anymore business before the Board? MR. SCHACHNER-Only if you want a litigation update on that Queensbury Great Escape case, and if you do, then I would suggest that be done in Executive Session. MR. PALING-I do want the update. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING LITIGATION, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Duly adopted this 17th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: ~". - 66 - "-- -..-I ~ -..../ AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman " , - 67 -