1995-01-24
'-,...
QUEENSBURY PLAN~ING BOARD: MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEET!ING
JANUARY 24, 1995
INDEX
: '1' 1
Subdivision No. 2-1995 Grace Roberts 10.
FINAL STAGE
subdivision No. 15-1994 Maureen Lynch 12.
FINAL STAGE
subdivision No. 18-1994 McDonald's Corp. 17.
PRELIMINARY STAGE
L,'; 'l·'--
Resolution Acknowledging Charles Freihofer, III 27.
Lead Agency Status
Site Plan No. 2-95 Charles Freihofer, III "I 27.
Site Plan No. 6-95 Mike HaY~$' :0& ¡: 32.
Rich Schermerhorn
;}: -:
Site Plan No. 7-95 Don Maynard 41.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
'--'
-../
.....J
QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 24, 1995
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY
CRAIG MACEWAN
ROGER RUEL
ROBERT PALING
JAMES OBERMAYER
MEMBERS ABSENT
GEORGE STARK
PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER
PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. PALING-We were asked to be here a few minutes
Schachner is going to review, as I understand,
election that was held at the last meeting.
early. Mark
the recent
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Basically, some questions came up, I guess,
after the elections of officers, and I was asked to look into
whether the voting had been improper, in terms of the numbers of
votes, and I, myself, have to confess to the Board that you all
acted so quickly, and Jim Martin's not here to join me in this
comment, but Jim and I turned to each other and honestly said to
each other we didn't know what had happened and who had voted for
what, but after reviewing the minutes, it appears that there's a
simple problem with two of the officers' elections that occurred,
and that is that, as you know, we need four members of the Board
in order to support any resolution, recommendation, any decision,
for this Board to act, it needs four members to vote in a certain
direction, either way, to approve or deny something, and it
appears that the only vote that had the support, the only motion
that had the support of four members was the motion for Cathy to
be Secretary, which passed by a vote in favor, zero against, and
one abstention. That's the only vote that appears, from the
Draft minutes, assuming that the Draft minutes are correct, to
have been done by four person majority vote. So it's my
recommendation that you reconsider the issues of Chairman and
Vice Chairman so that you can get, hopefully, get a
recommendation to the Town Board on the first, and on the second
make your ~ appointment by a majority of four.
MR. MACEWAN-Does everyone who was present that night have to be
accounted for in the voting process, whether they vote yes, no,
or abstain?
MR. SCHACHNER-They should be, yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Well, on Cathy's there was no recording of her
casting a vote one way or the other or abstaining.
MR. SCHACHNER-If the Draft minutes are correct, I believe you're
correct, but I also think it doesn't matter, because four votes
were in support anyway.
MR. OBERMAYER-There wasn't four votes for Bob?
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-I've got to be honest, Jim. Like I said, I had
- 1 -
->w
trouble following the action fast and furious, but the Draft
minutes indicate three in favor, and you all have to, obviously,
correct me if the Draft minutes are incorrect.
MR. RUEL-So where do we go from here?
MR. SCHACHNER-I would just reconsider' it and hopefully get four
people to vote in favor of some resolution.
MR. RUEL-And if it's still the same?
MR. OBERMAYER-We'll have to wait until George comes back.
MR. SCHACHNER-Possibly. By the way, just so the Board knows, I
also conferred with the Town Attorney about this this afternoon,
because I thought since one of the actions we're trying to take
is a recommendation to the Town Bòard, and since he's the legal
advisor to the ¡own Board, I thought it made sense to confer with
him, and he agreed one hundred percent. He said any action taken
by this Board, of any kind, has to have the majority of four
people voting in favor of it, of any type of action.
MR. RUEL-And the Town Board passes on the Chairman only?
MR. SCHACHNER-That's my understanding, yes.
MR. RUEL-Not all three positions?
MR. SCHACHNER-That's my understanding, correct.
MR. RUEL-So, Mr. Chairman, what do you want to,do?
MR. PALING-Well, from a eersonal standpoint, what am I going to
do, go against legal counsel? I don't think that's.
MR. RUEL-Well, what's he recommending?
MR. PALING-Well, he's recommending, I think, that we vote again,
if I read you right?
MR. SCHACHNER-If possible, I'm recommending that we try to come
up with a recommendation that four people support.
MR. PALING-You didn't say have a re-election.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Then I think we should wait for George.
MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I'm not sure I follow the distinction.
MR. PALING-Well, I ,thought
evidentally you're not saying
a consensus from the Board to
them, or whatever.
you asked us to re-vote, but
that. You're just saying you want
confirm the elections or overturn
MR. SCHACHNER-In order to get a consensus of four or more, you
have to vote, where four votes are recorded.
MR. OBERMAYER-You have to re-vote.
MR. BREWER-We have to have new motions.
MR. RUEL-Okay. Lets start, then.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Wait a minute. Can't we wait until George comes?
Do we have to do it tonight?
MR. SCHACHNER-The ~y-law~ say that You were supposed to do it at
your organizational meeting, which was last week, but it's !:!l:t.
opinion, as I stated last week~ that if you can't come up with a
recommendation supported by four, at the organizational meeting,
- 2 -
"---'
"
,......~_.
--.-/
I don't have any problem with putting it off to some time when
you can.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Then I propose that we put this off until George
Stark gets back, and until maybe we all can get together and
discuss this logically and amicably, and then propose a candidate
that four out of seven people would be very comfortable with.
MR. RUEL-Are you saying the last election was illogical?
MR. BREWER-Yes, it was, because we did it so fast.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It totally unnerved me.
MR. BREWER-And I would just like to say one thing. That, after
the meeting, I think during the meeting, and this is just my
opinion, from being here and reading the minutes and discussing
things with whomever during the week, I think we all acted not in
the best interest of the Töwn. I think there was actions taken
for interest of certain people or other people, and I think what
happens is a disgrace to this Board, and I've never seen anything
like it in five years that I've been here, and I hope I never see
anything like it again. I think what Cathy said it right. I
think we should all get together, talk, and I think if we do all
get together, that constitutes a meeting, because there'd be more
than a quorum here, correct me if I'm wrong, and talk about it.
There were accusations made that three or four people got
together and made up their mind as to what was going to happen.
It didn't happen. That was the impression L got, from
conversations ¡ had with people, and I've told other members of
the Board. I don't think it was right, and my position is I
think we should wait until all seven of us are here, also,
because I'm not going to partake in any kind of this nonsense
that happened. I think we're here for a purpose, to serve the
people òf the Town of Queensbury, not our own purposes or any
friends purposes or any other Board's purpose. I think we're
here to serve the people that are sitting out there, and if
somebody here doesn't believe that, then they shouldn't be here.
That's ~ position. So, with that said, we'll go on with the
meeting, or do whatever anybody else wants.
MR. PALING-Well, I'd just like to say something, though, Tim. I
think that's a bit strong.
MR. BREWER-I don't think so, Bob. I told you that's ~ opinion.
MR. PALING-Well, let me say something. I don't think there was
any kind of collusion, of getting together, or anything like
you're intimating, and you and I have discussed this separately
and I told you that then. I'll tell you that now, and although ¡
was unnerved, also, by last week's election, and I'm willing to
let it go so we have a full quorum, I don't think it's right to,
unless you want to be very specific, to chastise other members of
the Board in the general way that you did.
MR. BREWER-I didn't say any particular name, Bob, and I'm just
telling you what has been said to me, even through this week,
even, you and I had a discussion at your home last Thursday, and
we talked about it, and there's nothing wrong with that, and from
phone calls that I've had and people that I've talked to, not
even on this Board, and I won't say their names because it's not
relevant, but that's what it appeared to be, and I'm just stating
what other people have told me and what ¡ felt, and I told you
that last week, and if nobody likes my opinion, then that's life.
I mean, that's just my opinion. I don't know what anybody else's
opinion is, and I think we should discuss it like civilized human
beings, and not like a bunch of ten year olds. That's all I'm
saying. I've been through elections before that necessarily
didn't go unanimous or didn't go five, two. We've had many votes
on one nomination, and we've voted as many as five times on one
- 3 -
'.
nomination. So it's not uncommon that things don't just happen
like that, and there's nothing wrong with that, and I don't have
any problem with anybody running the meeting or being the
Chairperson, but I just think the way it happened last week was
unexcusable,. If anybody else has got anything to say, go right
ahead and say it.
MR. RUEL-I can't see the need for a separate meeting to discuss
this, because what, in fact, we're saying, then, is that someone
will c.hange their vote, and, on what basis I don't know. So I
really don't see the need for a separate meeting. I think that
we should follow and have a vote, and if it's still a tie vote,
then maybe it should be left up to the Town Board to make the
dec ision.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's a good assessment, Roger.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So you mean vote now, or wait until?
MR. RUEL-Yes. I think we should get this over with. What is the
sense of a meeting? What's going to happen at a meeting? Hey,
you didn't vote for me. Why didn't you vote for me? I don't
understand that.
MR. BREWER-No. I think what Cathy's sayiné, and stop me any time
you want, and what I'm saying is, if the full Board is here, and
it's, there can't be a tie, essentially.
MR. RUEL-If the full Board is here.
for another month.
We won't have a full Board
MR. BREWER-Not necessarily a month. George will be back in a
week, probably, or whatever.
MR. RUEL-He said February.
MR. BREWER-He won't be here for January. I presume he's coming
back early in February, and if George isn't back early in
February, we'll do it at the February meeting. I don't care
either way, because I'm not going to participate. So it doesn't
make any difference to me. You guys want to decide, you decide
what you want to do.
MR. PALING-What do you mean you're not going to participate?
MR. BREWER-I'm fed up with it right up to my ears, and I'm not
going to participate in the vote, whether it be me Chairman or
you Chairman or whomever Chairman, I'm not going to be part of
the vote. I'll take that stand right now, and that's the way I'm
going to stay, and that's my decision, and I'm not changing it.
MR. RUEL-Well, then we have to have George.
MR. BREWER-Pretty much, unless you five can decide.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, then it would have to be four out of five.
MR. BREWER-Or the Town Board can decide. That's how strongly I
feel about it. I think the whole thing started when we had that
meeting in December about the Town Board trying to make a
decision for us, and I think that stirred things up, to begin
with, and that's why I feel the way I feel.
MR. RUEL-Well, I don't think that's valid, because we were
unanimous in our vote, in saying that the Town Board had no right
to tell us to change Chairman.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But that doesn't mean that we still didn't feel
- 4 -
-----
'-'
-....../
like a change would be good.
MR. BREWER-I agree with you, Cathy.
MRS. LABOMBARD-We just felt that they're authorizing that kind of
a move on us.
MR. RUEL-No authorization is required to change Chairman.
MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, then I'm using the wrong word. The
fact that they even suggested that was kind of annoying to us.
Lets put it that way, but that doesn't mean that we still can't
say, well, we still would like a change, but we just would rather
come up with that on our own, instead of having the Town Board
tell us that.
MR. PALING-Let me make a suggestion, then. Why don't we call for
a new election on the Wednesday that we do the site review, or
whatever day we do site review, have an election on that day, and
lets hope we get seven members there.
MR. RUEL-I thought this was supposed to be an open, at a meeting.
You can't have it.
MR. PALING-I can't do that?
MR. RUEL-No. So make it the first meeting in February.
MR. BREWER-Or, why don't we do this. Why don't we leave word
with George's home, and when he gets back, have him contact us.
We know he's back, we can set a meeting up.
MR. PALING-Can we call a Special Meeting and do it?
MR. BREWER-Sure.
MR. PALING-And how long does it take us to do that?
MR. BREWER-Three days.
MR. PALING-Because
anybody any good.
in town, we set a
set a date, have a
the lapsed time, here, weeks, doesn't do
All right. Then lets make it, when George is
date, and then whoever can come comes, but we
meeting, and have an election.
MR. RUEL-Does this have to be published?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Yes, and what we can do, when he comes back, we can
call Pam, have her let the press know, and then it'll be
advertised and we can do whatever we're going to do.
MR. RUEL-Fine. I like that.
eff ect?
So, do you want a motion to that
MR. BREWER-I don't think we need a motion.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know what you're motion would say.
MR. PALING-We have a consensus.
MR. OBERMAYER-Now, though, Cathy is still the Secretary, though,
right? You're the only one that got four votes.
MR. PALING-Mark, has the election been voided?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it hasn't been voided, but again, and this
all happened very quickly, and I've never seen this type of issue
arise before a Planning Board, and it doesn't matter, by the way,
- 5 -
who runs the meeting, in terms of the legality of your decision.
No one's going to challenge something based on, you know, what
different member running the meeting,. but, technically, I think
)'OU were all aware even before last week, that the Chairmanship,
technically, does not change until the Town Board has enacted a
resolution. So it doesn't really matter who you designate as
Chairperson to run a meeting in any particular time, but as a
matter of law, even if all seven of you vote for one person to be
Chairperson, that person is not officially the Chairperson until
the Town Board enacts a resolution so stating.
MR. RUEL-But this re-election would be just for Chairman and Vice
Chairman, correct?
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MR. BREWER~So we'll continue with the meeting.
MR. RUEL-Is that it? Who's Chairman, here?
MR. MACEWAN-Mr. Brewer's still Chairman.
MR. BREWER-Okay. It doesn't make any difference, but lets just
get on with the meeting. Cathy, do you want to read the first
item.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
November 15, 1994: NONE
November 17, 1994: NONE
November 29, 1994: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 15TH.
~, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its
seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
17TH. AND
adoption,
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer
NOES: 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 LEFT SIDE, SURVEY 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 PROJECT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV
35-1994 WARREN CO. PLANNING 1/11/95 TAX MAP NO. - 40-1-19.4
LOT SIZE: .66 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79
DANIEL DOHERTY, JOHN GORALSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. BREWER-Scott, we got a fax. Do you think we oU9ht to read
that in, or not?
MR. HARLICKER-If I remember correctly, the engineering concerns
have been addressed. Thére's a letter in here dated the 20th,
- 6 -
'--'
"-""
----/
from Rist-Frost, indicating that they reviewed the additional
information of the above site plan received January 20,1995, and
our previous engineering comments have been addressed. So the
engineering concerns have been addressed, and it seems to me the
main reason it wasn't voted on last week was because a number of
the Board members hadn't seen the site.
MR. BREWER-Yes. Did everybody get a chance to see it?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And I
question here. When
were planted, were
dwelling?
have a couple of questions. I just have a
I was walking along the site, and the stakes
those stakes for the four corners of this
MR. DOHERTY-No. I'm the attorney, Daniel L. Doherty, Albany, New
York. They were the, if you look at the site plan, it's the one
stake that's at the front of the deck, the other stake's at the
other front, and then all the way back to the garage makes the
final.
MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what I said. That's what I said to Jim, I
think these are for the front. The front ones were for the deck.
MR. GORALSKI-I doesn't follow, they aren't the corners of the
foundation. They're just a square area.
MR. MACEWAN-The stakes that were along the garage, on the right
hand property were, like, the farthest property lot line? Is
that what they would have been? There were some stakes, if
you're standing, looking toward the lake, the property that was
on the right, that gentleman's garage, about two feet off his
garage there was a series of stakes through there.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes, that's the property.
MR. MACEWAN-That's the property. On the opposite side of the
lot, along that hedg'e of evergreen, white pi nes that were planted
there, that's the other side of the property line.
MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Yes.
line.
He's pretty close to your property
MR. DOHERTY-3.2 feet, I think.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I know I'm a little remiss on this, but when was
that variance? I don't remember. I know I read it. When was
that variance granted.
MR. DOHERTY-September or October of '94.
MRS. LABOMBARD~And~ obviously, there wasn't any opposition from
Mr. Valente.
MR. DOHERTY-He spoke at the meetings, but the Board voted
unanimously for the variance.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, there are so many dwellings along that side
and around the lake that are very close to each other.
MR. DOHERTY-Correct.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. There are. The driveway, is that going to be
stone or asphalt?
MR. GORALSKI-Stone. It's going to be a gravel driveway now.
We've done the stormwater management plan as if there would some
- 7 -
".~
,-,"'_../"
day may have a safety factor there, but right now it's planned on
being gravel.
MR. OBERMAYER-Because there is a little bit
existing road down toward the house a little
get some water sheeting that way.
of.pitch off the
bit, so you could
MR. GORALSKI-Right. That is going to have to be graded.
MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, will this gentleman have an opportunity to
respond to Rist-Frost?
MR. BREWER-All engineering comments are done.
MR. PALING-They've been met.
MR. BREWER-Any other questions?
MR. MACEWAN-A question to be put on the record. Did we leave the
public hearin~ open?'
MR. BREWER-I think the public hearing was closed, and the
attorney asked that if, well, it doesn't make any difference. We
can re-open it if there is somebody here to comment. Is there
anybody here that would like to comment on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Okay. We have to do~SEQRA. This is Long?
MR. MACEWAN-Long.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 4-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan:
WHEREAS, there
application for:
is presently before the
PAULA PEYTON-FITZ, and
Planning
Board
an
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Type I in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas
of environmental concern and having considered the criteria
for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
- 8 -
'",,---,
....<-
-.../
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 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling,
Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
MR. BREWER-Okay. We need a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-95 PAULA PEYTON-FITZ,
Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Craig MacEwan:
As written.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan
application file I 4-95 to construct a single
family house; and
Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated
12/19/94 consists of the following:
1. Sheet 1, site plan, dated 12/15/94; and
2. Sheet 2, existing and proposed contours,
revised 12/15/94; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documentation:
1. Staff notes, dated 1/17/95; and
2. Engineering comments, dated 1/10/95
3. Long EAF, dated 12/19/94; and
Whereas, a public hearing was held 1/17/95 concerning the
above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the
proposal complies with the site plan review
standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of
the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the
environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of
the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered; and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering
the above, hereby move to approve site plan I
4"'95.
2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized
to sign the above referenced plat.
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.
- 9 -
-"
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
p'"ocess.
Dul y adopted this 24th day of, January, 1995, by the followi ng
vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Obermayer,
Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1995 FINAL 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.
SUBDIVISION. PROPOSAL IS FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF TWO
(2) ONE (1) + ACRE LOTS WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES AND ACCESS.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV # 72-1994 TAX MAP NO. 46-1-7.1 LOT SIZE:
2.73 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-1995 Final Stage, Grace
Roberts, Meeting Date: January 24, 1995 "The applicant has
complied with the conditions of preliminary approval", which was
showing the septic systems on that, and the wells, it's Town
water, "and staff can recommend final approval of this
subdivision."
MR. BREWER-Okay. Any further questions from anybody on the
Board? Any comment from the applicant?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Martin Auffredou, from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart
and Rhodes, on behalf of the applicant, Grace Roberts. If
there's no questions, we'd seek your approval.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPR0VE FINAL STAGE SUapIVISION NO. 2-1995 GRACE
ROBERTS, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by James Obermayer:
As written.
Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of final
subdivision application, file # 2-1995, to subdivide a
2.73 acre lot into two lots of 1.73 and 1 acre each; and
Whereas, the above referenced final subdivision application
dated 12/28/94 consists of the following:
1. Sheet 1, map of a survey made for Grace Roberts,
revised 1/18/95; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documentation:
1. Staff notes, dated 1/24/95; and
Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the
appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their
review and comment; and
'- 10 -
---
--
--
---../
Whereas, the modifications and terms contained in the
preliminary subdivision approval have been complied with.
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby
move to approve final subdivision plat, GRACE ROBERTS, # 2-
1995.
Let it be further resolved,
1.
the
That prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of
Planning Board all appropriate fees shall be paid and
within 60 days of the date of this resolution the
shall have the signed plat filed in the Office of
Warren County.
that
appl ica nt
the Clerk of
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 on compliance and
continued comþliance with the Zoning Ordinance and
subdivision regulations.
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
MR. BREWER-Scott, can I make one comment? Maybe it's not a good
comment, maybe it is. When we approve a motion that's written,
and we just say, as written, can we identify these motions
somehow, so that, if we just say, as written, how does anybody
know what's written, unless they're numbered? Do you follow what
I'm saying?
MR. RUEL-Yes. They're not numbered.
MR. BREWER-Like' if we number this One, the next one, Two, Three,
Four, Five, right down the line, Resolution Number One, as
written.
MR. HARLICKER-Couldn't you just refer to the application number
in the resolution?
MR. RUEL-The application number is in there.
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. BREWER-The application
Resolution No., maybe the
resolution.
number is in there, but if we say,
4-1992 could be the number of the
MR. HARLICKER-Right. Okay.
MR. BREWER-Do you see what I'm saying?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-Tim, as long as you're on the topic, whenever you
- 11 -
say, approve as written, all the draft resolutions that Staff
prepares, have the words in them "hereby move to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny". I mean, if you want to get
technical and start numbering them, I would also suggest you
indicate that, each time you're approving, and striking
conditionally approve or deny, or if you're conditionally
approving, so state.
MR. BREWER-Okay. It's just I have a thing about things not being
numbered. So if you ever go to look for it, you don't know where
it is.
MR. RUEL-If it's an unconditional approval, is there any need to
indicate that?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, when you say, adopt the resolution as
written, look in your resolution. You're going to find in there
it says, approve, conditionally approve, or deny. So,
technically, if you're adopting, I'm being a little technical
here, but as long as Tim is bringing up the point of
housekeeping, when you adopt a resolution as written, the
resolution says that we, hereby approve, conditionally or deny
application whateve1", and that's, obviously, not what you're
doing. So I'm suggesting you strike whichever language is
inapplicable.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Next item, Cathy.
SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1994 FINAL 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 FORMAL
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. THE PROPERTY IS 12.73 ACRES ANDIS 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 LYNCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 15-1994 Final Stage, Maureen
Lynch, Meeting Date: January 24, 1995 "The applicant has to
modify the final plat to incorporate the conditions set forth in
the January 17, 1995 preliminary approval of the plat. The
concerns raised in the January 18, 1995 letter from the Bay Ridge
Fire Chi~f have to be addressed and the 220 foot lot line has to
be removed. When these conditions are met, staff can recommend
final approval of this plat."
MR. HARLICKER-I believe the new
that has been removed, but the
Fire Chief's letter, have not
been shown on the plat. The
won't have a problem with that,
on the plat yet.
maps have the 220 foot lot line
other items we raised, about the
been addressed yet, or have not
applicant has indicated that he
but they just haven't been placed
MR. BREWER-Okay. So the plat can't be signed until those
modifications are met?
MR. HARLICKER-Correct.
MR. MACEWAN-Has the Fire Chief made comments?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. One was that they have, it's an 1800, or 1200
foot long driveway, and they would like a turn off area so they
can bring the hose in on the one truck, pull off to the side of
- 12 -
'--'
'"-'"
~.......
--</
the driveway, and allow the rest of the vehicles to get by.
MR. MACEWAN-How big of a turn off do they need?
MR. HARLICKER-Probably, I would guess about 12 foot wide by
probably 130 feet long, enough to just pull off to the side. We
were awaiting, or the Fire Chief was awaiting information from
the manufacturer of the new fire truck that they're getting on
the turning radius. So that can't be placed on there yet until
they get the information from the manufacturer, and there were
also to put in a turn around area up near the house, so the
trucks, once they get in there, could turn around and drive out,
instead of backing out.
MR. RUEL-So there are two areas then, right? The turn around
area and an area where they can just park their fire apparatus.
MR. BREWER-Can I make comment to that? How can we designate, or
ask Mr. Lynch to designate, any particular spot where the fire
truck can stop? We have no idea, if there's ever a fire, where
it's going to be.
MR. HARLICKER-Well, you've got to figure, if it's going to be at
the house, I'm guessing that's what they were referring to, you
run a line in halfway, 600 feet, which is about, after the first
90 degree turn, somewhere between that turn and the final turn
that leads back to the house, somewhere along that stretch, put a
turn off area.
MR. BREWER-I understand exactly what you're saying, but I guess
what ~saying is, if there's a fire, is anybody going to object
to a fire truck going in there and putting a fire out? I don't
think so.
MR. MACEWAN-But if the fire truck can't get in there, there's a
problem.
MR. HARLICKER-The most hose I think they have on those trucks is,
I think Kip said 800 feet. So they can't just run one hose all
the way back in.
MR. BREWER-He wants a cleared out spot then?
MR. HARLICKER-Right, where they can actually pullout of the way.
MR. MACEWAN-What we talked about was one truck going in, all the
way in, and then another one going in halfway, and setting up
like a relay system.
MR. RUEL-Yes, a parking spot, that's all.
MR. HARLICKER-A parking spot.
MR. RUEL-Yes, but he has to find out the length of the new
apparatus? Is that it?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes, in order to determine the turning radius.
MR. RUEL-I see.
MR. MACEWAN-Well, how do we deal with that as an after the fact
kind of thing? If we find out the turning radius is more on the
fire truck than what's allowed currently on the plat, or on the
property, how do we adjust it to accommodate future needs?
MR. HARLICKER-I guess ~ method might be to give them
conditional approval and let the Fire Chief actually sign off on
the plat saying that he's satisfied.
MR. MACEWAN-Would that be fair for you?
- 13 -
".....
MR. LYNCH-Actually, we've addressed, I think, all points. One,
the driveway is 25 feet long the entire length and it's all flat
ground with no obstructions. So the pull off point actually
exists as we speak. It's suggested that we draw a line down the
middle just to make it a little bit more apparent. We have the
turning radiuses, the only obstruction would be one tree which
we're more than willing to cut down if we have to, and as far as
the turnaround at the house, it was suggested that we do get a
conditional tonight with the idea of the Fire Chief signing off
on a, CO.
MR. MACEWAN-Well, he would be signing off on the plat, not the
CO. Is that correct?
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. LYNCH-On the plat.
MR. RUEL-Are you suggesting that the 25 foot width is adequate
for two pieces of fire apparatus?
MR. LYNCH-In fact, it is.
MR. RUEL-Then why are we talking about this parking area?
MR. HARLICKER-They need an area to pull off. Is the whole 25
foot wide going to be a clear stretch all the way?
MR. LYNCH-It is, as we speak.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Then that would allow room for them to turn
off.
MR. RUEL-Then the Fire Chief will review that?
MR. HARLICKER-I would recommend that you get him to sign off on
it.
MR. RUEL-Make sure he knows about the 25 foot, then, and then we
can eliminate that parking area.
MR. HARLICKER-Well, as long as
adequately address any fire that
would be satisfied with that.
he's satisfied that they can
might happen to that house, I
MR. RUEL-Okay, and while I have you, is there anything in the
Ordinance on turnaround for fire apparatus?
MR. HARLICKER-No, there isn't.
MR. RUEL-Nothing?
MR. HARLICKER-No.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Well, I think that's just because of the length of the
driveway, they're concerned with it. Okay. Is there any other
comments or questions?
MR. PALING-What is
Appeals? Are you
something pending?
the status of this with the ZO'ning
through there, or is that, have
Board of
you got
MR. LYNCH-No. I have nothing pending.
MR. PALING.,..And they have appröved it?
MR. LYNCH-Well, actually, there's no need for a variance. We
have adequate frontage.
- 14 -
,-,'
--
MR. PALING-They didn't, wasn't this reviewed by the ZBA?
MR. HARLICKER-No. It wasn't. Well, it started that way because
they didn't have any lot frontage.
MR. PALING-It started, but it pulled back?
MR. HARLICKER-They've since reached an agreement with Dr.
Gardner, and they've gotten the frontage on the Town Road, the 40
feet.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-Wasn't there a concern on the radius, the turning
radius, around those bends.
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. OBERMAYER-Has that been addressed?
MR. HARLICKER-They haven't found out from the manufacturer yet
what the turning radius is of this new truck is yet.
MR. BREWER-They've got to wait and find out.
MR. LYNCH-The thing is, we have talked to the other property
owner and basically we're looking at (lost word).
MR. OBERMAYER-You will be using the existing driveway?
MR. LYNCH-Yes, we're talking with him. He has the same problem
we have, if they have to jump fire line up, so he could use our
driveway and park a fire truck in there and use that to get to
the other house, and like I say, there'd be unconditional use of
either of our lands for anything for any type of emergencies such
as that.
MR. OBERMAYER-It's going to be a stone driveway?
MR. LYNCH-Gravel.
MR. RUEL-Is this a shared driveway?
MR. LYNCH-Not really. We're going to have our own, there may, as
we speak right now, no, no shared driveway. I may grant him a
right-of-way across some of my land, but as we speak right now,
it's separate lots, separate driveways, but again, as far as
emergency vehicles, the two driveways would come almost
coincident with each other, and it would give you a very wide
angle of turn.
MR. BREWER-I think it'll be better served if the Fire Chief goes
right out there and looks. Okay. Any other questions? The
public hearing was left open. Is there anyone here that wishes
to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Okay. We just need a motion.
MR. RUEL-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1994
LYNCH, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its
seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
MAUREEN
adoption,
- 15 -
'-
-
With the condition that the plat be modified based on the
findings of both the emergency and fire chiefs, as to the
tur naround radius a.nd' tine dr .i:veway alignment.
'...·1
':I!(
Whereas ,:the Town Planni ng'Department is in rèceipt of final
subdivisiönapplicatión, file "* 1!:H'1994, to subdivide a
"12.73 acre.I;o,t into 2 ,lots of 8.35 acres and 4.35 aCYes ; and
I:
Whereas, the above referenced final subdivision application
dated 10/26/94 consists of the following:
1. Sheet 1, map of Lands of Maureen Lynch, revised 12/
22/94; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documéntation:
1. Staff notes, dated 1/24/95; and
2. Letter from Fire Chief of Bay Ridge Fire Co., dated
1/18/95
Whereas, the proposed subdivision
appropriate town departments and
review and comment; and
has been submitted to the
outside agencies for their
Whereas, the modifications and terms contained in the
preliminary subdivision approval have been complied with.
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby
move to conditionally approve final subdivision plat,
Maureen Lynch, file "* 15-1994.
Let it be further resolved,
1. The 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 on compliance and
continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and
subdivision regulations.
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, My. Paling,
Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
MR. LYNCH-Just basically have the Fire Chief sign off?
MR. BREWER-Exactly.
MR. MACEWAN-That's correct.
MR. LYNCH-Okay, but we can get the building permit right away?
- 16 -
'--'
-...../
.-'"
""--.;'"
MR. BREWER-Yes, you can.
SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
MCDONALD'S CORP. OWNER: EDWIN KING ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION:
EAST OF EXISTING KING FUEL SERVICE STATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF
DIX AVENUE AND QUAKER RD. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.39 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.808 AND 1.581 ACRES TO CONSTRUCT A
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. TAX MAP NO.
110-1-3.3 LOT SIZE: 3.39 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIV. REGULATIONS
ED BEALER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT PRESENT
MR. BREWER-Okay, Scott.
MR. HARLICKER-The only new information that they've submitted
since the last meeting was the traffic study. So staff didn't
really revise the notes from last time. It seemed to me that the
main issue was regarding access to the sight, one curb cut versus
two curb cuts. That was, I think, the main concern, at least at
the Preliminary Stage, which you're at now.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Are there any questions or comments from
anybody on the Board?
MR. OBERMAYER-Scott, did you submit this to Ms. Brunso?
MR. HARLICKER-I believe it was.
personally, send these out.
I'm not certain.
I didn't,
MR. BEALER-I hand delivered that myself to Joanna.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Did she comment?
MR. HARLICKER-I don't believe so.
MR. BREWER-Anything else, Jim?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Basically, the study, can you just give me a
little synopsis on the finding of the study regarding making a
left hand turn? I did read it. It appears that it's okay to do
that, because you have various time lapses in between the cars.
MR. BEALER-That's right. Actually, Brian O'Rourke, the Engineer
who did the traffic study, he is here, and maybe I could let him
spea k .
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Great.
BRIAN O'ROURKE
MR. O'ROURKE-Good evening, Ladies and Gentleman. My name is
Brian O'Rourke. I'm an Engineer with a firm called Nardo
Associates, which is a Consulting Engineering firm located in
White Plains, New York. I conducted a Field Study on January 6th
and 7th, where we studied traffic passing in front of the
proposed site on Dix Avenue.
MR. PALING-I'm sorry, January when?
MR. O'ROURKE-Sixth and Seventh, sir, a Friday and a Saturday.
The reason we select those time periods is those are the periods
of maximum utilization of a McDonald's type of a site, Friday
afternoon at lunch time generally is their busiest period, with
Saturday also being their busiest period. We studied the a.m.
peak hour, the p.m. peak hour, along with the lunch periods,
between 11:30 and 1:30, for both Friday and Saturday, and the
analysis, as you pointed out, also calculates the number of
safety gaps that would be available for traffic turning out of
- 17 -
-'
the site during these different time periods. In the particular
studies that you have, I think that information is located on the
table on Page 3 and Page 4. The significance of those gaps that
are referred to is for left turning vehicles out of the site. We
did not identify specific gap lanes or the available gaps for
left turns going in because that is approximately double the
amount. The most difficult movement is out of the site, because
it needs to have a gap for both directions of traffic. So this
number here represents the time period in which the number of
times within a particular hour, identified between 7:30 and 8:30
a.m., for example, or whatever, that 117 gaps were available, of
a length of 6.5 seconds or greater, where an individual does not
travel in front of the proposed site entrance a~ea.
MR. OBERMAYER-For example, over an hour period of time, you had
117 gaps. What's that? How long do they have to wait for them?
MR. O'ROURKE-Well, it's not quite
number of available times within
arose, of at least 6.5 seconds.
the waiting. It's just
that hour period that
the
a gap
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
MR. O'ROURKE-And the average duration of those gaps was 14.8
seconds. All I do is I take the number of gaps, times the time
that I cumulatively add up for each gap, like sometimes a gap
might be 30 seconds. It might be 10 seconds. It might be 6.8
seconds, and I add those up. I cumulate the gap time and then I
divide it by the number of gaps there are.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. I notice, here, it says that the gap's less
than six and a half seconds.
MR. O'ROURKE-I disregard. There are more of those.
MR. OBERMAYER-If there's a lot of those,
bring your average duration down, though,
low ones?
though, wouldn't that
if you have a lot of
MR. O'ROURKE-Yes. From traffic (lost word) it really doesn't
provide you with information that's of value to you, because I
would also increase this high number of gaps, but certainly the
duration goes down. What I'm looking for, what I'm trying to
examine is, how easily someone could egress from a particular
site. As you point out, even though there are gaps, say, below
six seconds. Obviously, there's going to be gaps below six
seconds, the turning movement from the left turn into the site
probably only requires maybe four and a half, possibly five
seconds at the most, so that there's a lot more of those gaps
available for people attempting to ingress the site, but since
we've studied the worst conditions in the.traffic study, and we
present the data that would indicate to you what would it be like
for somebody trying to exit the site. Well, at least, according
to Q..YL studies, there's 117 in the mor ni ng, 122, at lunch time,
and 99 from the p.m. peak. That would be at least of the
duration of 6.5 seconds. All of the counts were at least 6.5
seconds or greater.
MR. MACEWAN-Are you saying an average
six seconds is an adequate amount of
site?
gap in time of less than
time to exit out of that
MR. O'ROURKE-I'm sorry.
MR. BREWER-Just the opposite.
MR. MACEWAN-Just the opposite. Okay. I want to be sure I've got
that right.
MR. O'ROURKE-I'm saying it takes a minimum of 6.5 seconds to
- 18 -
"'-"'
'......-'
~~
egress the site, under safe conditions.
three and a half seconds. That's jack
safe maneuver.
I mean, people do it in
rabbeting. It's not a
MR. RUEL-Recent advertising for McDonald's has indicated they
have a new Monster Mac. Does this traffic study take that into
consideration?
MR. O'ROURKE-Obviously, it isn't.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Are there any other questions?
MR. RUEL-The only comment ¡ have is, all traffic studies, the
appendix, to me, is absolutely useless, but the conclusions are
there, written in english, but the appendix.
MR. O'ROURKE-In my attempt to present information for you, I
enclosed the data that I obtained from the County on the traffic
counts on Dix Avenue, and I tried to present that, as you could
see what the trip generation time periods were and compare there,
but unfortunately I'm just starting to get my graphics on the
computer I'm working on. I didn't get the symbols that indicate
which is which. So if I could point those out to you, the top
number, which is the triangular shape, Page 12. The symbol
that's a triangle identifies the Dix Avenue traffic. If you look
down in the box below, it has Dix Avenue volume, okay, and the
second is the total number of trips.
MR. OBERMAYER-The "Y" access, what's that, 700 vehicles per hour
or something like that?
MR. O'ROURKE-Yes, that's correct. That's is the maximum amount.
MR. RUEL-What's that, at 7 p.m.?
MR. O'ROURKE-Approximately 5, that's inaccurate. I think that's
an error. I think the maximum ¡ got was around 600, about 5 and
6.
MR. RUEL-Five to six, yes, and you have 700 at 7.
MR. O'ROURKE-As I said, I think that's an error in the graphic
presentation.
MR. RUEL-And there's no legend, right?
MR. O'ROURKE-The legend is wrong, too. Yes. I didn't put in the
boxes, but as I said, the triangle represents the traffic on Dix
Avenue. The square represents the total trips generated by the
site, and the diamond represents what we refer to as new trips.
Those would be trips that would be coming to the site, like
people who work there, or people who have just the interest in
going to Mc Donald's and going home again. Generally, about 70
percent of the people who go to Mc Donald's are passerby's who
are already on the road there.
MR. PALING-So 30 percent are ~ trips, you're saying?
MR. O'ROURKE-Approximately.
MR. OBERMAYER-People who make a special trip there.
MRS. LABOMBARD-He said 70 percent of them were the passersby.
MR. O'ROURKE-Yes, right.
MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, I would like to
future, if at all possible, if we could get
explain to us some of the hieroglyphics
because every time we get these traffic
suggest, in the near
a traffic engineer to
in these documents,
studies. I'm kind of
- 19 -
--'
lost on some of the calculations.
MR. HARLICKER-I don't understand why she hasn't, her initial
comments on the 14th were that.
MR. MACEWAN-Is this Joanna Brunso?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. This was back on the 14th of December. They
felt that it was important to talk about access to the entire
t1-iangula1- parcel beforre we look at the Mc Donald's site plan.
If this issue is discussed prior to subdivision, with the
probable uses in mind, we can provide suggestions which will
lessen traffic impacts on the area, and that the site plan should
show the entire parcel and existing or planned driveways across
each of the three streets so that we could see the relationship
of this site to the opposing properties. Why they haven't
commented on it since they gave them the traffic study, I can't
address that.
MR. MACEWAN-But she would have gotten this at Preliminary, too,
right, an opportunity to review this when the Preliminary
application was sent in?
MR. BREWER-This was just sent in since last month.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-When it came in here at Preliminary, and we tabled so
he could do this and meet with Joanna.
MR. MACEWAN-So, last month, did she get a copy of this to review?
MR. HARLICKER-This was the 9th, so when did they get it, the
10t,h?
MR. BEALER-I delivered it to Joanna's office, she wasn't there,
but I delivered it to her office on the 12th, and I brought it up
here on the 13th.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay. So they've had a copy. They've had time to
look at it. I don't know why they haven't.
MR. MACEWAN-I was confused by what you were saying. I got the
impression she said she'd like to comment on it but needs to see
the information.
MR. HARLICKER-Well, yes. That's what they said on the 14th.
They had the original, the 14th of December.
MR. BREWER-Right. So why don't we do this? Why don't we have
Scott call her tomorrow. We're going to be back for Final next
month. If she's got any comments, get them to us by the time we
get our packets for Final, that's all.
MR. HARLICKER-All right.
MR. BREWER-And we can always do it, or deal with it at Final.
MR. PALING-Yes. I think the issue is going to be one versus two
curb cuts, and I hope that she's going to address that and give
us some guidance along those lines.
MR. BEALER-I've got a couple of comments on that. My name is Ed
Bealer, and I'm a Project Manager with Mc Donald's. The original
site plan that got submitted had the building set back 59 feet.
Actually the latest one I submitted, we have a revised site plan
where we have the building, now, set back 81 feet. That was done
for a couple of reasons.
MR. BREWER-This is 50, that I've got.
- 20 -
"--'
''---"
MR. BEALER-Well, it was discussed at the subdivision point, but
the actual site plan.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but this shouldn't be taken into consideration
for this subdivision. That's a different item all together.
MR. BEALER-Increasing the setback of the building, what that
would allow is that if, in the future, we were to tie into an
access road on the side, our building is already set back far
enough so that it could easily be accomplished.
MR. RUEL-Are the adjacent properties occupied?
MR. BREWER-Now isn't that a comment in the last month that we
talked about?
MR. HARLICKER-Should they have one curb cut servicing both
parcels.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. BEALER-I had a conversation with Jim Martin, and we don't
have a problem with tying in, in the future, into an access road.
Obviously, there's nothing planned for that other parcel at this
time. So to build something right now, we feel it's not the
right thing to do. However, we set our building back far enough
so that we could tie into an access road in the future when it,
in fact, is developed. We've spoken to Mr. King. He doesn't
have a problem with that arrangement.
MR. HARLICKER-What do you mean by tying
eliminating the curb cut that you get now
curb cut servicing both parcels?
in? Are you saying
and just having one
MR. BEALER-We would agree to, right, eliminating our curb cut, in
the future, and tying in to an access road, when someone else
comes in, in the future.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes, when that corner piece gets developed.
MR. BREWER-We'll see this at site plan, right?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes, but I think it's important to address access
now, during, before they get the lots. We ran into the same
thing with Passarelli. Once they get two lots, it's difficult to
say, no, you can't access that property.
MR. BREWER-I agree, and I think there's one thing that ¡ noticed
in his summary here, that we all should take notice of. It says,
Number Five, it will not create undue hardship on the adjacent
roadway system. Grant it, this particular project won't, but
what happens with the next lot, the next lot, and the next lot.
So I think that, we have to keep that in mind.
MR. OBERMAYER-There's only one more lot, right?
MR. BREWER-What about across the street?
MR. MACEWAN-Across the street, that entire acreage is all for
sale right now. There's, like, 14 acres in there.
MR. BREWER-Down the road, I mean, if somebody came in
those people money for their houses and wanted to do
development, it's going to have an impact totally.
the fewer curb cuts we get, the better off we are.
and offered
some kind of
So I think
MR. OBERMAYER-Your site plan does show one. Is that what you're
proposing?
MR. BEALER-Our site plan, right now, would have one curb cut into
- 21 -
it.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, that's what I thought. Right.
MR. BEALER-That we moved our building back far enough so that if
and when this parcel got developed, we could close off this curb
cut here. There'd be one common curb cut here. People could
access into our site. Before~ with our building setback, only 50
feet, this turning movement wouldn't work very well.
MR. RUEL-The access road would be up there?
MR. BEALER-Right.
MR. BREWER-The curb cut you're proposing.
MR. BEALER-Would be on the adjacent property, but, no, Mr. King
doesn't have a problem with working out some agreements with us.
MR. BREWER-We should have that on paper before we approve this,
though, I think.
MR. MACEWAN-Definitely.
MR. BEALER-We don't have a problem, if we could do Preliminary
and then we could give that, do it in time for Final.
MR. BREWER-Yes. Exactly. That's fine.
MR. OBERMAYER-It's probably difficult for Mc Donald's, though, to
show an access point on property they don't own, though, or are
leasing?
MR. BREWER-Right. That's why, if we had it from the owner,
that's why I want to ask Mark.
MR. PALING-I'm a little confused, here. Eighty-one, your eight-
one feet s~tback refers to here, doesn't it? Over here?
MR. BEALER-See, here's an 81 foot, from the front property line.
MR. PALING-Here? Okay.
MR. BREWER-What he's proposing is this curb cut, at present, if,
in fact, some time, this property is developed, he'll close this
off and have a curb cut here, and provide access to his parcel
and the other parcel, the other problem being is, this curb cut's
on the next piece of property, and my suggestion would be,
shouldn't we get something in writing from the owner of the
property?
MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. No question, because my question was
going to be, do they own both properties, and they don't.
MR. BREWER-No. They don't.
MR. BEALER-And I would say this would be contingent upon the
Planning Board. Whoever comes in with the next application, I
don't know if they want to develop. (Lost word) that layout,
then we'd be all set up for it, would be contingent upon the
Planning Board wanting that to take place, in the future,
depending on what the applicant is for that piece of property.
MR. MACEWAN-Question for Staff. Under that proposal, how does it
become a tracking problem for the Planning Department to track
down five, seven, ten, fifteen years from now, if that next
parcel decides to get developed, what was conditioned on
disapproval?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
- 22 -
"--
---
'-
"-'"
MR. MACEWAN-I think it would be ~ position, seeing you taking
your time to answer that, it's a difficult problem.
MR. HARLICKER-It's going to be tough, yes.
MR. MACEWAN-I think ~ position would be that I would prefer that
the applicant be held to one curb cut, and if the future parcel
is developed, then they can come in as a co-applicant at that
time, and then we can re-address a different curb cut situation,
if it's going to help internal traffic.
MR. BREWER-I agree with the one curb cut. Why couldn't we
discuss the option of the other curb cut at site plan, and then
if it happens, we can get a written agreement from the owner, to
do it that way?
MR. MACEWAN-Just for the very reason I just stated. It becomes a
management tracking problem for the Planning Staff.
MR. BREWER-No. I'm saying, we don't even discuss that now.
Limit them to one curb cut right now.
MR. MACEWAN-That's what ¡ said, yes.
MR. BREWER-Yes, and I said I
other option appears at their
make arrangements for it, but
say i ng?
agree with that, and then if that
site plan, we can discuss it, and
not now. Do you follow what I'm
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I'm in agreement with you. Just one curb cut
for now.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-That's fine with me, yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-You'll still have a curb cut going in to King Fuel,
right?
MR. BEALER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-How come you're not going to access Highland
Avenue, though?
MR. BEALER-We just don't see where there's really that much
traffic on Highland, where people are going to want to access our
site from there, and people (lost word) exiting out to Highland
from our site, because of the access to King Fuel. They can get
over to Quaker (lost word).
MR. OBERMAYER-How come you're not utilizing the whole lot?
MR. BEALER-We are, in a sense, because that whole property in the
back, that's for our septic system.
MR. OBERMAYER-That's right.
MR. BEALER-And the back from the Health Department, (lost word)
approved the design of the septic system.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I see. Okay. Right.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other comments or questions? Okay. We
opened the public hearing. I think we had some comments from
some people. It was left open. Is there anyone here who would
like to comment on this?
- 23 -
---
-'
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Okay. It's Unlisted. So we've got to do the SEQRA.
MR. OBERMAYER-Nice job on the traffic study, anyway.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think that the applicant has accurately described
the project as construction of a Mc Donald's restaurant on the
site, or something to that effect, in Part I. How have they
described it?
MR. BREWER-I don't have their copy.
MR. SCHACHNER-Staff's copy says, under Description of Action, in
Part I prepared by the applicant, construction Me Donald's
restaurant and related site improvements. So I guess what I'm
suggesting is that under SEQRA, the project in its entirety
should be considered, and the Description of Action should be
modified to read, subdivision of, what is it, a two lot
subdivision, and a two lot subdivision including construction of
a Mc Donald's restaurant and related site improvements on one
lot.
MR. BREWER-Well, how can we do that when we haven't discussed the
details of the Mc Donald's.
MR. RUEL-This is Preliminary.
MR. SCHACHNER-It's Preliminary subdivision, but under SEQRA,
you're supposed to look at the whole project. I mean, that's why
the traffic study, that's, presumably, one of the reasons you
sought the traffic study.
MR. RUEL-Shouldn't we do that at the next meeting, when we have
the information on the site plan?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it's up to you when you do it, but the point
is, you can't make a decision on subdivision Q.L site plan until
you comply with SEQRA, and under SEQRA, the applicant has
correctly identified the proposed action as construction of a Mc
Donald's restaurant and related site improvements.
MR. BREWER-So
for site plan
do SEQRA?
it would be proper, then, to get all the details
and have our engineer just look at them before we
MR. SCHACHNER-I think any other way it's what's called, I don't
know if you're heard the term.
MR. BREWER-Segmentation?
MR. SCHACHNER-Exactly. That's exactly right.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So then w&'re forced into that.
MR. SCHACHNER-And if the applicant has so, I mean, I don't know
if this is exactly what the applicant has in mind, but the
applicant has accurately described the project on that SEQRA Part
1.
MR. BREWER-So that means that we're going to ask the applicant to
submit all the detail work for his site plan?
MR. SCHACHNER-Whatever you feel is necessary to make your SEQRA
determination.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. What they've given us is okay.
- 24 -
',--
---
--/
MR. SCHACHNER-Right.
MR. RUEL-No, but do we have enough information to go through
this? That's the point.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that's exactly the point.
MR. MACEWAN-As he has it worded in the application, no.
MR. OBERMAYER-Well, ask a couple of questions, and we'll find
out.
MR. HARLICKER-If you have concerns, you could ask the applicant,
address them to him, and if you're happy with his answer.
MR. BREWER-Our engineer has not looked at his septic.
MR. MACEWAN-Stormwater management or anything like that.
MR. BEALER-The stormwater report has been submitted.
letter from the Health Department.
I have a
MR. OBERMAYER-We don't have any engineering comments.
MR. BREWER-No, but that's what I'm
engineer would comment on those items
subdivision. So he wouldn't have any
subdivision.
saying. Normally,
in site plan, not
comment on them,
OU1"
in
for
MR. RUEL-Why can't this be done at the next meeting?
MR. MACEWAN-Can we do this tonight for a SEQRA for just the
subdivision, eliminate the site plan, and when the site plan
comes in, do a SEQRA for the site plan?
MR. SCHACHNER-That's basically the definition of segmentation,
and that's what's frowned upon. It's prohibited. It's not flat
out prohibited, but the SEQRA Regulations, and I can read you the
exact language if you want.
MR. MACEWAN-I believe you.
MR. BREWER-So what's an easy way out of this, Mark?
MR. RUEL-Suppose we went through here and there were no impacts
at all, it would be fine.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but we don't know, though, Roger.
MR. RUEL-I know, but suppose when we go through that, we get an
impact. Do you want him to stop and then put it off until the
next?
MR. MACEWAN-No, because the probability is you're going to go
through and you're going to have no impacts, but you can't really
come up with that conclusion unless you have all the information
in front of you to go through.
MR. RUEL-So why don't we just put it off until the next meeting?
MR. BREWER-Because he probably doesn't want us to keep putting it
off, putting it off, putting it off.
MR. BEALER-Back on the 13th I submitted, I believe, the site plan
application, and I do have the stormwater analysis report, septic
system drawings.
MR. BREWER-But again, our engineer would not look at that until
- 25 -
-
~~
the site plan was in front of him. This is just subdivision. So
he wouldn't look at those items, to give us comment for the
SEQRA.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, except, I don't mean to interrupt, Tim, but
from what I'm understanding, the applicant is saying he has
submitted all this information. Presumably it's currently in our
files. It either has, or shortly will be, referred to Rist-
Frost, I as~úm~.~
MR. HARLICKER-They would have to come back next month for Final
approval and Site Plan.
MR. MACEWAN-Could we, between now and then, have Rist-Frost
)-ev iew?
MR. HARLICKER-That's what I was going to suggest, come back next
month. Do Preliminary approval the first, and then do Final the
second meeting, and then after that go on to Site Plan, after
Final.
MR. OBERMAYER-We might have a Special Meeting to vote.
could schedule i tthen, if they have the information.
Maybe we
MR. HARLICKER-We' ll, you've got two meeti ngs next month, and the>'
could have Preliminary approval, or go before the Board for
Preliminary approval the first meeting, come back the following
meeting, thé second meeting, for Final approv:Sl and iSite Plan
review.
MR. RUEL-And :the SEQR'A.
, ;
MR. HARLICKER-Well, SEORA would be done the first mee~ihg. So,
you know, in reality it wouldn't hold them up at all, if that's
what you're concerned about.
MR. MACEWAN-Is that acceptable to you? I mean, we need to have
our Town Engineer review your application for a Site Plan, in
order to do the SEQRA.
MR. HARLICKERrYes,. Normally what happens, the engineer doesn't
actually get the site plan stuff until farther along in the
process. This is kind of a unique situation here.
MR. BEALER-That's fine.
MR. OBERMAYER-Scott, you'll make it a point to make sure that?
MR. HARLICKER-I'll call him tomorrow.
MR. SCHACHNER-It would be February 21st, just
information.
for your
MR. BREWER-Okay. So we need the applicant's approval to table,
or consent.
MR. BEALER-Please.
MR. HARLICKER-I'd like one commént. Have 'you formally submitted
Final subdivision application? I don't believe I've seen it yet.
MR. BEALER-No,
preliminai-y to
tomorrow.
I haven't. I thought I had
incorporate 8:'TI\Y comments, or, I can
to wait for
subm i,t F i na 1
MR. HARLICKER-Do it up, because that's our cut off date.
MR. BREWER-We're going to table,this, and .is there necessity for
a waiver or anything so he can file, Mark, foY Final?
MR. SCHACHNER-Only if there's something in the, Planning Board
- 26 -
~,
....-
'--..'
rules that says he can't apply for Final until you have, no, I
think you're okay.
MR. HARLICKER-For instance, Roberts submitted both Preliminary
and Final at the same time.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So we need a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1994
MCDONALD'S CORP., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel:
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling,
Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
CHARLES FREIHOFER, III RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY
STATUS IN THE REVIEW OF SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR CHARLES
FREIHOFER, III.
SITE PLAN NO. 2-95 TYPE I CHARLES FREIHOFER, III OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-3A, C.E.A. LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 1500'
NORTH OF LOCKHART MT. RD. ON RT. 9L, LAKE SIDE. SIGN - "ROCK
BOTTOM". PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A SCREENED PORCH/DECK AREA
OVER A PROPOSED ENCLOSED STORAGE AREA ON EAST SIDE OF RESIDENCE.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 60-1994 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 1/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 2-1-3 LOT SIZE: 1.2 ACRES
SECTION: 179-16, 179-79
JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 2-95, Charles Freihofer, III,
Meeting Date: January 24, 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 that the project complies
with the above sections: The project was compared to the
following the 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; It appears
that the deck will not impact the compatibility of the site. No
new lighting or signs are proposed. 2. The adequacy and
arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation,
including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers
and traffic controls; Vehicula)- traffic will not be impacted.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-
street parking and loading; Off street parking will not be
impacted. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic
access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic an overall pedestrian
convenience; Pedestrian access will not be impacted. 5. The
adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Any additional
stormwater runoff will have to be controlled on site. 6. The
adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; Water
supply and sewage disposal will not be impacted. 7. The
adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other
suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a
visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining
lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and
maintenance including replacement of dead plants; Landscaping
will not be impacted. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other
emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency
- 27 -
--
../
of property.
They felt as though it was reasonable.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
Thank you.
MR. OBERMAYER-What size is the lot next to them, you know, that's
forever wild, so to speak?
MR. ROULIER-The lot is actually an irregularly shaped lot.
There's approximately 75 feet up on the road, is a triangular
piece. Each side, the side of Mr. Freihofer's property that
adjoins that has 355 feet. The north side of that property is
approximately 375 feet, and the total linear footage on Lake
George is approximately 125 feet.
MR. RUEL-This is a very large home. Are you sure it's a one
family house?
MR. ROULIER-Absolutely.
MR. RUEL-It's about the size of an aircraft hanger.
MR. ROULIER-Actually, it is a good size home. There's
approximately 5,000 square feet of livingroom in the house
itself, but because of the design of the house and the terracing
of the house, it appears that the size of the garage, it actually
seems to be larger than it actually is.
MR. RUEL-What are you adding, another 400?
MR. ROULIER-We're adding approximately 413 square feet.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-It's a beautiful home. It really is.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? I guess we'll
open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Okay. We need a motion to accept Lead Agency status.
RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS
IN CONNECTION WITH Site Plan Review for
CHARLES FREIHOFER. III
RESOLUTION NO.; 2-1995
INTRODUCED BY: Timothy Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY:
Craig MacEwan
WHEREAS, in connection with the site plan review application
for CHARLES FREIHOFER. III, the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive
Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the
Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and
WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that
involved agencies have been notified and have consented
Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent,
other
to the
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby
- 29 -
'--
"--"
'".,
-....../
access will not be impacted. 9. The adequacy and impact of
structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with
susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Erosion
control measures shall be in place during construction and until
the site has been stabilized. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can
recommend approval of this application."
MR. HARLICKER-Warren County said No County Impact.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Any questions or comments?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Where you're putting the porch and the deck,
you really don't get a view of the lake from there. Do you plan
on taU ng those trees dOl,01n so )lOU get a view of the lake?
MR. ROULIER-No. We will not be taking down any additional trees.
Mr. Freihofer and the neighbor two doors removed from him
purchased that lot, for the sole purpose of having no one ever
build on that piece of property, and, really, it's Just that they
want to enjoy the beauty of the lake.
MR. BREWER-It's noticeable they need a little bit of room there.
MR. PALING-I think when you get up that high you do have a good
view, but we viewed it from the ground. I don't think you do,
but up, when you get up onto the deck, I think you might see a
lot more of the lake than you do from the ground.
MR. ROULIER-Okay. There would be nominal views, because, in the
foyer of the house, if you notice that, there's some glass on the
back of that, and, as you look out that, you do get definite
views. It's not designed specifically for, or intended so that
they can view the lake.
MR. RUEL-I notice that you applied for a variance. What is that
var lance fo)-?
MR. ROULIER-Okay. It IrJas a side line variance.
MR. RUEL -F 0)- ten foot?
MR. ROULIER-For ten feet.
MR. RUEL-And that's where you propose to build?
MR. ROULIER-That's correct. What we will be doing, we will be
building up to the ten foot mark of the property line, and one of
the when I explained to the variance board how Mr. Freihofer had
purchased this property alóng with the adjoining neighbors, and
what their intentions, the variance board, subsequently, granted
the va)- ia nce .
MR. RUEL-So you bought this property as a buffer zone? Is that
it?
MR. ROULIER-The man that I represent did.
MR. RUEL-It's Just a wooded area that will remain that way?
MR. ROULIER-That's correct. Their intention is to donate the
building rights over to the Nature Conservancy, so that no one
will ever build on that, and they're cUTrently in the process of
having attorneys prepare trust funds that will insure that the
property will be maintained for the future.
MR. RUEL-And because of this great beneficial donation here, the
Zoning Board allowed you a ten foot setback, side yard?
MR. ROULIER-I don't think it was the benefit, per se, but because
it'll have no impact on any other parties building on that piece
- 28 -
-'
...--
recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby
determines that it has sufficient information and determines the
significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows;
1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required
for the action, as the Planning Board has determined
that there will be no significant effect or that
identified environmental effects will not be
significant.
RESOLVËD. that the Ëxecut'ive' ,Director ,f'5 he'reby authorized
to give such notifications and make such filings as may be
required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes,
Rules and Regulations of the State of New York.
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Obermayer,
Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
MR. BREWER-Okay. SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 2-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan:
WHEREAS, there
application for:
is presently before the Planning
CHARLES FREIHOFER. III, and
Board
an
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No fedeTal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Type I in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
imþleme~ting the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas
of environmental conceTn and having considered the criteria
fOT 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
- 30 -
'-....-
.......
'....,/
file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
MR. BREWER-Okay. We need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-95 CHARLES FREIHOFER. III,
Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Craig MacEwan:
As written.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of
site plan application file # 2-95 to construct a
screen porch and deck; and
Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated
12/1/94, consists of the following:
1. Sheet 1, site plan, dated 10/26/94; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documentation:
1. Staff notes, dated 1/24/95; and
2. Warren Co. Planning Bd. res., dated 1/11/95
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 1/24/95 concerning the
above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal
complies with the site plan review standards and
requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental
factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered; and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the
above, hereby move to approve site plan # 2-95.
2. The Zoning Administrator 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 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vote:
- 31 -
--
AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
SITE PLAN NO. 6-95 TYPE: UNLISTED MIKE HAYES & RICH
SCHERMERHORN OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: $FR"';';lA/L.I-1A
LOCATION: WEST ON SHERMAN AVE., LEFT ON NORTHWAY LANE. PROPERTY
PARALLEL TO NORTHWAY. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT NINE (9) SELF-
STORAGE BUILDINGS RANGING FROM 2,740 SQ. FT. IN AREA TO 4,110 SQ.
FT. ALL LAND USES IN LI-1A ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN
REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMMa - 1/9/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING:
1/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 116-1-1 LOT SIZE: 3.93 ACRES SECTION:
179-20, 179-26
RICH SCHERMERHORN & MIKE HAYES, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6-95, Mike Hayes & Rich
Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: January 24, 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 that the project complies
t.>Ji th the above 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 compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; This
proposed storage facility has 26,030 square feet of storage area
divided between 9 buildings. The buildings appear to be single
story prefabricated metal structures. The color of the buildings
is not provided. An 8 foot high chain link is proposed around
the facility. Four pole mounted lights are to be erected. They
should be positioned in such a way that they do not shine on to
the adjacent residential properties. Signage is subject to a
separate permit. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular
traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road
widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The
access to the site appears to be an extension of Northway Lane.
There is a gate proposed to control access to the site but it is
not clear if the gate will be left open or if there will be an
attendant to open and close it. The 25 foot wide access aisles
provide enough room for cars and pickups but larger vehicles will
have a difficult time maneuvering. 3. The location,
arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and
loading; According to the Zoning Code storage facilities require
1 space for every 1,000 square feet; this project requires 27
spaces and none are shown on the site plan. The wide aisles
would allow for one vehicle to park in front of the storage space
and still have room for another to pass. It is difficult to see
how the one space for 1,000 square feet of storage space parking
requirement for general warehouses is applicable to this type of
mini-warehouse facility. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of
pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall
pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access should not be a
problem because people will park in front of the storage space
they are renting. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage
facilities; Stormwater drainage will be reviewed by Rist-Frost.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities;
The site is serviced by municipal water and no sewage disposal
facility is proposed. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of
trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the
applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention
of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of
dead plants; Landscaping is proposed for the front to screen it
from Sherman Road and the nearby residences. The screening will
- 32 -
'-
----"
"'-,
----"
consist of eastern white pines planted across the front; existing
trees will remain along the Northway and east property line. 8.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the
provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access appears to be
adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways,
and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding
and/or erosion. Erosion control measures should be in place
during construction and until the site has been stabilized.
RECOMMENDATION: This use is one of the less intense uses allowed
i'n the light industrial zone and should'not have a significant
impact on the area. With clarificatLon of access control,
lighting, parking and circulation staff can recommend approval of
this application."
MR. HARLICKER-Warren County approved it without conditions, and
it was also reviewed by the Beautification Committee, and the
motion was made to approve it.
MR. BREWER-Do you have a layout of where they're going to be on
that piece of land? I don't have a map to show that. I see what
they are, but I don't know where they are.
MR. OBERMAYER-I thought I had mine, but I can't find mine either.
MR. BREWER-I've got it. Okay. Any comments?
MR. PALING-Are you saying that the Northway lane ends where the
driveway begins?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-For the record, I'm Rich Schermerhorn. The road
that you see very lightly outlined, that's where Northway Lane
ends.
MR. PALING-Okay. It ends on the property, so to speak.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. As a matter of fact, the Town road is
accessed on (lost word), about 100 feet or so, roughly.
MR. PALING-Shouldn't you have a 40 foot access onto that?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don't follow you, a 40 foot access?
MR. PALING-Onto the road, from the driveway.
MR. RUEL-Instead of, what, 25?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. BREWER-No, it's pre-existing, Bob, the lot.
MR. PALING-What difference does that make?
MR. BREWER-Because it's already existing. He's not subdividing.
The only thing that that pertains to is subdivision.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. RUEL-You have two detention ponds, right?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. RUEL-I only see one. Where's the other one?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-One in the front and one in the rear.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The one on the rear is shown, but there's
nothing on the plot plan.
MR. PALING-Nothing on the front.
- 33 -
../
MR. RUEL-I only see one.
MR. HARLICKER-Unless you've made revised plans.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-This may be the revision that Jim did with some
of the Staff comments.
MR. RUEL-Is this a different one? Okay. I don't have that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We made a revision yesterday because of Rist-
Frost. So I'll leave those.
MR. RUEL-I have another question. You have four pole lights?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. RUEL-It behooves you to be damn sure they don't shine on the
Northway.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
well.
We addressed that at Warren County, as
MR. RUEL-Because they're right next to it, and travelling along
the Northway, and many other highways, many times these lots have
pole lights and they shine right in your eyes as you're driving
along.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. It's very heavily treed along the Northway,
and the lights ª-l:.§. going to be projected toward the center of the
property, and we limited it to only four as well, just so we
wouldn't have to worry about that.
MR. RUEL-Yes, and away from the residential area as well?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Exactly. As a matter of fact, this is well
behind the residential areas.
MR. RUEL-All right, and this is some information for the engineer
that prepared this, that there's a statement here that all
driveways will be crushed stone, to maximize permeability.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. RUEL-Well, I learned last week that crushed stone does
nothing for permeability. Zero. So you can tell the engineers
to strike that out. It does nothing. I thought crushed stone or
gravel would allow the water to go through. I was told water
doesn't go through. So it's no benefit for permeability. It's
no reduction in the permeability or increase in permeability.
MR. MACEWAN-For calculation purposes.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The reason, that's because after it gets
compacted it doesn't percolate down through.
MR. RUEL-All right.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But real, true rocks together lets the water go
through, because I did it, from experience.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, aren't you a little, being so close to the
landfill that's currently capped, aren't you a little concerned
about any leachate or anything like that on the property?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, yes we are, and that's why we figured this
would be the best use for the property, because there is no
- 34 -
'-'
"'--
-..-/
water, no sewer, no offices. It's just a drop off site, more or
less, for storage. No one's going to be living there. So, I
mean, I think we're reducing the amount of risk that would ever
take place if something ~ to happen there.
MR. RUEL-And these are concrete slabs sitting on the surface.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-They're what they call an Alaskan slab.
MR. RUEL-Like right on top.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, right on top.
MR. OBERMAYER-Does the Department of Transportation have any
plans on making this an exit off of the Northway at all? Because
this would definitely interfere with that. Do you know that?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. I believe it's the master plan for DOT, I
believe they call it, it is on the master plan that an exit, the
State, when they built the Northway, they did take portions of
the land, so if they had to put an exit in, they could. We're
not saying one's going to go in. Who knows, but there's been no
talk of it. We won't interfere with them, no.
MR. OBERMAYER-Are you sure?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, because they, as a matter of fact, if you
look at the fence line, if you were to go over there, they
already took the amount of property that they need to make an off
ramp.
MR. OBERMAYER-They did?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-That explains why the parcel is triangular cut.
MR. RUEL-This is for a possible exit ramp?
MR. OBERMAYER-Well, I mean, it's a great place, really, to have
an exit and entrance.
MR. RUEL-There was talk about it, a year or so ago.
MR. BREWER-Well, I think if the State wants to put one there.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We hope they do.
MR. BREWER-Pretty much they will.
MR. PALING-I have a question for Staff. Is there any problem
with that driveway going across the residential zone?
MR. HARLICKER-No, because
industrial area there, and
buffer between the two.
the use is going on in the light
they do provide the 50 foot screened
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. HARLICKER-I'd just like to ask, how are you going to address
access to here? How's it going to be controlled, to the site?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, we're going to just have hours from seven
to seven, lock the gate up at night.
MR. HARLICKER-So are you going to open it up at seven in the
morning and come back?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Seven a.m. in the morning and then lock it at 7
p.m. at night. That's the easiest way to control it.
- 35 -
'-
,-
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-Is that an electronic mechanism, or will someone
manually go over and do it?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. We'll manually do it for now and see how
the budget is. Maybe that will be something we'll add.
MR. OBERMAYER-Like you're going to have a moving truck, for
example. Those are the type of people that will be using this,
right? How are they going to, they're going to drive in
frontwards, and then how are they going to get out of there? It
doesn't appear like you have enough turning radius around the
ends to get back out?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, the plan that I just handed up front is
revised. So that there is more turning radius. That was Rist-
Frost's comments.
MR. RUEL-It was changed.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Truthfully, we arrived at our figures for widths
and lengths and things like that from other mini storage areas
from here to Albany, and they all seemed to average, actually, a
lot of them averaged less than 25 feet in width. The breaks in
between the buildings were not meant for automobiles or anything
like that.
MR. OBERMAYER-Now do you access it from both sides, or just one
side?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-You'll be able to access it from both sides.
MR. OBERMAYER-What's the height in these buildings?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think eight f,eet is the maximum. I have a
picture. They're pretty similar, well, I can give you a
photocopy. They're pretty similar to the ones that are built
around here. Some will be ten by ten. Some can be ten by
bJenties.
MR. BREWER-Similar to the ones behind Midas?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, very similar.
Glens Falls.
Maybe self-storage, South
MR. OBERMAYER-What color are they going to be?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We're going to try to keep them toned down, if
we can.
MR. OBERMAYER-All right.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Probably like a tan color, almond, something
like that.
MR. RUEL-These are metal buildings?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-All metal.
Cold storage.
There's no electricity to them.
MR. OBERMAYER-Is the slab going to be elevated, I imagine?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I have a diagram.
MR. OBERMAYER-So that you don't have water running in and out of
the garage door.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-An Alaskan slab, basically, is on grade, and you
elevate it maybe 12 inches, and maybe just put a little pitch,
- 36 -
"--'
'.........'
-'
four to six inches of pitch, just to your driveway, and that's
about it. I have a diagram I can show you.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Because I knew somebody that stored her furniture
while she was building a house, in this type of building, and
there was flooding and everything was ruined.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But there's probably decent drainage here, and
it's sandy.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. That's another reason. It's awfully,
awfully sandy, and we've dug test holes, and I had a report from
Charlie Main when we bought the property, four years ago, and
there was no signs of mottling, and, gee, we dug like 18 feet in
the ground, and the State, as a matter of fact, has done, and Van
Dusen, I believe, has records of this, when we bought it, we the
concerns with contamination and stuff. There's an aquifer, I
believe they call it, and it flows toward AMG, and I guess it's
60 feet below the existing grade now. So, I mean, drainage
doesn't seem to be an issue here at all.
MR. OBERMAYER-Did you do any, did you have any test wells done
when you bought the property?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Charlie Main did the soil test on it,
signs of mottling, and then we checked with the State Department,
and there's test holes that were actually done right in the back
of the property. As a matter of fact, they're done all around
the whole County.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I'm sure they are.
wells.
Right. I know AMG has
MR. RUEL-So the Rist-Frost engineering comments were addressed.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
public hearing.
Anything else? Okay. I guess we'll open the
Is there anyone here to comment on this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
THEA BURT
MRS. BURT-I'm Mrs. Burt. We are residents on that road, and our
concern, as he said, with the exit going through there, it comes
right up to our property.
CLARENCE BURT, SR.
MR. BURT-It cuts it right off. So they've had to move over on
our property. Now, he was the Assessor. He lived on County Line
Road. Do you remember what his name was? Because when they put
the Northway in, we had to come up here and straighten out, they
changed the taxes around, and he said, now that property is no
good to anybody but you because it's a peak right there. So we
had (lost word) from the State so they could get a road in. They
bought our right-of-way out, and they told us that they had
something like a couple of months to move our house, and I said,
what do you mean, move my house? I said, I'll come in the other
way. Now Riccardelli owned the property to the east, and he told
me that I could put a d,-iveway in on his property, and cut across
to my house, but he wouldn't sell it. He said, you can use it if
you want. So when they put the road in, they swung it right
around the corner, and if the fence had have come straight across
from my property, there wouldn't have been a road there. So
that's what I'm trying to find out, if they put that Northway in
there, that ramp, how are they going to get into that property
without cutting over onto me?
- 37 -
'-
MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know.
MR. BURT-Now I have nothing against what they want to put in, no
problem whatsoever, and as long as, for me, I know they can get
through, but whoever owns the property after me.
MR. MACEWAN-When you refer to "they", when "they" put in the
road, who is "they"?
MR. BURT-The access, the Northway. Now they were going to put in
a north (lost word) just on the south way, to get on and get off
there.
MR. BREWER-Well, I think if the State ever decides to put an exit
there, they're going to.
MR. BURT-The own all that land. They took it. They've got it on
both sides. They've got all the land.
MR. BREWER-Mark, can you help
happens if they decide to do
accommodations for?
us [;Ji th this?
something?
What typicall¡t
Would they make
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, yes and no. tlz experience is, yes. They try
to make accommodations for existing accesses. If they can't
succeed in that, then they sometimes take property and then they
have to ~ for the taking.
MR. BURT-But they've already got it. This land comes right
across. So that ramp would come down, but instead of coming
across this road, they run that fence right straight up through
to Sherman Avenue. Since they put the new fence in, they come up
here, and they come back this way, and over to the bridge. So
they then go straight up. So you can't get off of here from
where that fence used to be, so the bridge, because they could
climb over it to get on the Northway, because that's an eight
foot fence there now. Instead of coming this point right here,
because this is !:!l:i.. prOpel"ty, right thl"Ough here.
MR. BREWER-I think, sir, when that time comes, I think we have to
worry about it. I don't know if there's anything ~ can do about
it.
MR. BURT-As I say, now they were talking about it, early the
spring, that they were going to put a ramp on and off of the
Nor thwa,y .
MR. OBERMAYER-Maybe it's worth having comment from DOT on it,
though.
MR. BURT-To take some of it off of the Corinth Road. So you
could come down Sherman Avenue, from the mountain and swing onto
the Northway going south, like they come up the Northway and
swing off and get on Sherman Avenue. So that would cut a lot of,
because there's a lot of traffic on Sherman Avenue.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, there is.
MR. MACEWAN-When we had that meeting with Joanna Brunso, and she
gave us that report that the Glens Falls Transportation Council
put together, and in that report was long term, short term goals
of the Council, and some of the monies that were appropriated,
there was nothing in that book, that report, even remotely
dealing with a possible exit being built on Sherman Avenue.
MR. BURT-Because they've got it all.
MR. BREWER-Yes. They own the land, but they projected five year,
seven year, ten year and fifteen year plans.
- 38 -
"--"
"--"
'---'
-..I
MR. MACEWAN-There was no money appropriated.
MR. BREWER-That's not in the plans for the next fifteen years.
I'm not saying things can't change.
MR. BURT-But you didn't hear anything about the talk?
MR. BREWER-I was at the meeting that I think you're talking
about, and there was conversation about it, but I don't think the
State said that they were going to do it in the next five years,
or whatever, but there's nothing this Board can do about that.
If they build it, they'll build it.
MR. BURT-But as I say, they can take and put it in. As far as
I'm there, they' )-e not going to have any trouble.
MR. BREWER-That's their risk.
MR. BURT-Yes, but if they put that ramp in, they're going to cut
that road off.
MR. BREWER-I agree with you, but I don't know what we can do,
other than to ask the State.
MR. BURT-If they want to take a chance on it, because as I say,
we have no.
MR. BREWER-We can ask the state, I mean, if it's a concern, but.
MR. BURT-Of course you know the way they WO)- k .
MR. BREWER-Yes. They may say they're going to do it next year,
and then ten years from now decide to do it. I can't answer for
them. We can find out, if you want us to.
MR. BURT-Well, no. I've asked different ones around, like the
surveyors up there, and I just don't get any answers.
MR. BREWER-That's typical. It's government.
MR. BURT-As I say, I see no trouble with it. As far as the water
table, it's low. Now on the end of our property, the City had to
buy it and clean it up years ago, because the Queensbury owned
the main one, and as it began filling up, it went over the bank,
and the lot that's extended on ours, there's quite a dip down in
there. So they bought the land off of Walter Farmer, and then
they dug a hole there. It's got to be a good 50 feet deep, and
they put the dirt down to the Murray Street playground. They had
a big (lost word) that would take it down. They had a bull dozer
that was pushing the dirt over, and that's as deep as that was in
there, 50 feet, to the ground, and they're, what, 20 to 30 feet
higher (lost word) but it settles. Drainage is all right, and as
far as what they want to put in there, I don't see any problem
whatsoever with it.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you very much.
who'd like to comment?
Is there anyone else
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Okay. We can do a SEQRA. The Short Form for this.
MR. HARLICKER-What I'd recommend, too, is in the resolution, just
refer to the new revised date on that plan. The resolution has
the old date on it.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 6-9~, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan:
- 39 -
'-
WHEREAS, there
application for:
is presently before the Planning
MIKE HAYES & RICH SCHERMERHORN, and
Board
an
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas
of environmental concern and having considered the criteria
for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that
the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling,
Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
MR. BREWER-We have a motion prepared.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-95 ':Mli<EHAYES & RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Craig :'MacEwan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by James Obérmayer:
As written, with the revisioh to Item One for Sheet 1, Map
dated 1/23/95, the one used.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan
application file I 6-95 to construct nine self
storage buildings; and
Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated
12/27/94, consists of th~ following:
1. Sheet 1, site plan, dated 12/14/95; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documentation:
1.
2.
Staff notes, dated 1/24/95; and
Engineer comment from Rist-Frost
1/13/95
dated
- 40 -
"---"
~
',---,
--..I
3. Warren Co. Planning Bd. res. dated 1/11/95
4. Beautification Comma res. dated 1/9/95
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 1/24/95 concerning
the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the
proposal complies with the site plan review
standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of
the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the
environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of
the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered; and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering
the above, hereby move to approve site plan #
6-95.
2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized
to sign the above referenced plat.
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
process.
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Obermayer,
Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
SITE PLAN NO. 7-95 TYPE: UNLISTED DON MAYNARD OWNERS: DON
MAYNARD & PHILLIP WHITTEMORE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 302 BAY
ROAD AT INTERSECTION WITH CRONIN ROAD. PROPOSAL IS TO RENOVATE
EXISTING 3,960 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE.
ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW.
BEAUTIFICATION COMMa - 1/9/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/11/95 TAX
MAP NO. 61-1-38.1 LOT SIZE: .83 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
D( 3 )( b )[18]
JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-95, Don Maynard, Meeting Date:
January 24, 1995 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the
project for compliance with Section 179-38A, Section 179-38B,
Section 179-38C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section
179-39 and found that the project complies with the above
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 compatibility of
buildings, lighting and signs; The project involves renovating
an existing building, last use was a restaurant, to a
professional office. There will be some modifications to the
- 41 -
exterior. The proposed use is compatible with the adjacent uses
and the project includes general improvements to the site. New
lighting includes a single 16 foot high light in the rear parking
area. A sign is proposed for the front and is subject to a
separate permit. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular
traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road
widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The
applicant is proposing a single 20 foot wide driveway aligned
with the Cronin Road intersection. The Zoning Code requires that
the ingress and egress be separated by a physical barrier which
is not shown on the plan. It is not clear how the internal
traffic circulation will work. It appears that traffic entering
the site should be directed to the right and theì"e should be one
way flow around the building." I spoke with the applicant today,
or the applicant's representative, Mr. Miller, and he indicated
that that's how it will be. It will be one way around the north
side of the building. "If that is the case, direction signs
should be placed at the entrance. 3. The location, arrangement,
appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading;
The off street parking is located to the rear of the building.
The proposed 26 spaces comply with the Zoning Code requirements.
There are several parking spaces that are located adjacent to the
entrance; it will be difficult to see incoming traffic from the
spaces closest to the entrance. 4. The adequacy and arrangement
of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall
pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The
adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The applicant will
utilize the existing drainage which slopes away from the building
to the drainage swales on the north and south property line. 6.
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The
applicant will utilize the existing water and sewage facilities.
The building is serviced by Town water and sewer. 7. The
adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other
suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a
visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining
lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and
maintenance including replacement of dead plants; The applicant
is proposing extensive landscaping across the front of the
property and will utilize existing trees along the north and
south property lines. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other
emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency
access appears to be adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of
structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with
susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion.___Erosion
control measures shall be in place during construction and until
the site has been stabilized. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes
that the project will be a big improvement over what is currently
there and recommends approval of this application."
MR. HARLICKER-Warren County has "No County Impact", and
Beautification Committee, no one representing the applicant was
at the meeting. I believe there was some confusion there.
There's also a prepared site plan resolution for your
consideì"ation.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Any questions or comments from anybody on the
Board?
MR. RUEL-Yes, I've got a couple. On that parking, Staff has
indicated that some of the parking near the entrance may be a bit
dangerous, in that the cars would have to back into the traffic
coming in, and the other comment I have is that it might be
better to eliminate these parking areas, since you have more than
adequate parking area. Don't you?
MR. MILLER-Yes, we do.
MR. RUEL-Yes, because this was a restaurant, right, and it had
more parking than you will need.
- 42 -
',--,
-../
"--
...--
MR. MILLER-Well, it did. My name's Jim Miller. I'm a Landscape
Architect. There was more parking than we would need. However,
I don't think that the way it was striped and laid out would meet
the existing Code. So by coming up with a better layout, we
ended up needing a fair amount of the asphalt, but all the
asphalt in the front, there's over 5,000 square foot of asphalt,
would be the removed.
MR. RUEL-Yes, I see that, for a lawn area?
MR. MILLER-Right.
MR. RUEL-Yes, but wouldn't it be better if the handicapped
parking area was in the back by the entry?
MR. MILLER-Well, the main visitor entry is on the north side. Do
you see where that concrete ramp is there? That's the main
entrance that comes into the reception area. So those spaces to
the right right there would be for any visitors coming in, and
the handicapped spot, there's a requirement for that entry way
for visitor parking.
MR. RUEL-What is that entry in the rear?
MR. MILLER-Well, as a matter of fact, that changed. That would
be an emergency exit or an employee exit. That actually changed.
That is now on the north side of the building, near the rear.
There's two employee entrances. There's one, the existing one on
the south, and then there'll be one that will just be an
emergency exit, that'll exit onto the driveway on the north side.
The early plan, it would exit off the rear, but there's some
internal modifications to the plan.
MR. RUEL-You have some lights in the parking lot, right?
MR. MILLER-Right now there's, the two lights on the north and the
south side of the building are flood lights that are mounted on
the building, that light the accessways. There's also door~ay,
wall mounted lights at each of the entrances, and the proposed
light was in the rear of the lot, in other words, to be a pole
light to light the parking lot.
MR. RUEL-What would be the hours of operation that these lights
would be on, the parking lot lights?
PHILLIP WHITTEMORE
MR. WHITTEMORE-The only time we're open in the evening is during
tax season.
MR. RUEL-8ut it's not 24 hours?
MR. WHITTEMORE-No, no, no. It's, like, 8, 9 o'clock.
MR. OBERMAYER-It's going to be a CPA's office?
MR. WHITTEMORE-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Now the entrance, do you propose to have circulation
around the building on a counterclockwise direction?
MR. MILLER-Yes, that was the idea.
driveway, it could work either way,
would enter and go counterclockwise,
being to the right by that doorway.
Actually, with the 20 foot
but we intended that you
with the visitor parking
MR. RUEL-Right, and shouldn't you have some signs indicating
that?
MR. MILLER-Well, that was a lot of the comments, and what we
- 43 -
''"'-''
'-
discussed and suggested, at the point of that island we're
creating in front of the building.
MR. RUEL-Right, you could put a sign right there.
MR. MILLER-We could put a wall sign that would say, keep right or
visitor parking to the right.
MR. RUEL-Or, no entrance, or something, yes.
Beautification Committee was involved in this?
Okay.
The
MR. MILLER-There was a misunderstanding and no one ended up going
to the meeting. So apparently they didn't review it.
MR. RUEL-Because you have such an elegant plant list, and nice
pictures of vegetation and everything.
MR. MILLER-It wouldn't have been a problem.
MR. OBERMAYER-It's a nice looking building anyway. I'm glad to
see someone that's going to go in there and maybe stay a while.
MR. MACEWAN-What kind of modifications are you going to be making
to the building?
MR. WHITTEMORE-Did you want to look at the plans here?
MR. MACEWAN-Love to.
MR. MILLER-That's just the floor plan. That doesn't show the
elevation.
MR. WHITTEMORE-You mean as far as the outside?
MR. RUEL-Exterior.
MR. WHITTEMORE-Well, we're not going to change the height of the
building. Maybe put a siding of brick on the front.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Is this for just one company that's going in?
MR. WHITTEMORE-Yes, for my office. Well, there's three partners.
There's 13 people.
MR. HARLICKER-You also own this back parcel. Are you going to
have any plans on tying this all together here, put another
office building back there or anything like that?
MR. WHITTEMORE-Well, Don was ohecking in to that.
MR. HARLICKER-Right now.
MR. WHITTEMORE-There's no intentions for ~ to do that.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
MR. WHITTEMORE-That was something that, because we bought that
back piece, we bought the land behind us, we originally bought
that because we were going to put the septic in there then (lost
word) having problems, and then the septic came in.
MR. HARLICKER-It just seems to be a good spot. You could put all
the parking right in the middle between the two buildings. It
would work out pretty good.
MR. RUEL-Scott, who fills out the application completeness
checklist? It's blank.
MR. HARLICKER-That's just a Staff thing that we do.
- 44 -
..........
------
.........
MR. RUEL-Because all the other applications have them filled out,
but this one is blank.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
necessary.
Sometimes the applicant does.
It's not
MR. PALING-Is that a new entrance, or are you utilizing the old
one?
MR. MILLER-To the building or to the site?
MR. PALING-From Bay Road.
MR. MILLER-Actually, the entire property now is paved all the way
from the trees. We show new trees, show on the south, all the
way to almost the property line. So now there's probably about
80 or 90 feet wide of pavement all the way to Bay Road, and we're
going to be removing that and narrowing it down just to that one
driveway.
MR. PALING-Okay. Will you have curbing on the driveway?
MR. MILLER-No. We didn't show curbing.
MR. PALING-Okay, but it is a new one. That's all right.
MR. MILLER-What we're probably going to do, most of the pavement
here, existing, is going to be hatched and prepared to be
striped, but mostly the existing pavement's going to be soft cut
and removed and topsoil brought in and planted there.
MR. PALING-Make it a good looking site.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. It looks good.
MR. MACEWAN-A big improvement.
MR. BREWER-Anything else?
MR. MILLER-I have one question. One of the comments was the
requirement for the divided driveway, but the Code doesn't
specify how that has to be handled. Can that be simply a painted
division and widen the driveway, or, it's existing pavement now.
That's why I raise the question.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
chec k .
I think it's a physical barrier.
Let me
MR. OBERMAYER-Is that a requirement?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It says there shall be a physical barrier
separating the ingress and egress area of the access point.
MR. MILLER-So there would have to be, it's like a concrete
island?
MR. HARLICKER-That's what ~ would say, yes, some sort of.
MR. OBERMAYER-Flowers, curb, maybe.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other questions from anybody?
guess I've got to open the public hearing.
Okay.
I
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-We can do the SEQRA.
- 45 -
'-'
----'
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 7-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its
adoption, seconded by James Obermayer:
I,.JHEREAS, there
application for:
is presently before
DON MAYNARD, and
the
Planning
Board
an
WHEREAS, this Planning ,Board häs deterrni ned that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject ,to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant a'íeas
of environmental concern and having considered the criteria
for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that
the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vot,e:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling,
Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
MR. BREWER-We need a motion.
MR. HARLICKER-I just want to say, on this prepared resolution, so
you're going to submit a revised plan showing some sort of, on
the second "Whereas", where it says the dated for the site plan,
there, you might want to change that date. This is what we go by
when we go back and check things up, to, I don't know, could you
give us a revision date that it would be dated?
MR. MILLER-I could put tomorrow's date on it.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-What about going back in front of the Beautification?
MR. RUEL-Is that necessary?
MR. BREWER-I think that plan's adequate.
- 46 -
'---"
~ ---"
..~
'-....,;
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I do, too.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
MR. RUEL-All right. Should I make a motion?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-95 DON MAYNARD, Introduced by
Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine
LaBombard:
As written, with the revision dated of 1/25/95.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of
site plan application file # 7-95 to renovate an
existing building for professional office use; and
Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application consists
of the following:
1. Sheet 1, site plan, dated 12/27/94; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documentation:
1. Staff notes, dated 1/24/95; and
2. Warren Co. Planning Bd. res. dated 1/11/95
3. Beautification Comma res. dated 1/9/95
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 1/24/95 concerning the
above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal
complies with the site plan review standards and
requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental
factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered; and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the
above, hereby move to approve site plan # 7-95.
2. The Zoning Administrator 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
process.
Duly adopted this 24th day of January, 1995, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Obermayer,
Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
- 47 -
--
ABSENT: Mr. Stark
MR. BREWER-Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER-I'd like to make one last comment, just to make sure
there's no confusion. The title of the plan saY$ 302 Bay Road,
and it's 312. I just want to make sure you're approving the
right property.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else that anybody wanted to
discuss?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's one last item here that Jim wanted
you to discuss. You got a letter from the Lake George Park
Commission, regarding the Nemith dock you reviewed last month.
Well, as far as their review is concerned, they're considering
this a Type I action, and we received a letter from them, similar
to what ~ send out, regarding Lead Agency status. They want to
be Lead Agency for the SEQRA for their review.
MR. BREWER-Why are there two SEQRA's required?
MR. HARLICKER-Well, they're doing their permitting process.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, we didn't do a SEQRA review.
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-The Planning Board, or the Planning Staff took the
position that it was a Type II Action, and a Type II Action,
under SEQRA, means that there doesn't need to be SEQRA review.
So it's not that there are two SEQRA reviews. We didn't do one.
They're going to do one.
MR. MACEWAN-I can't understand the logic behind that.
can't.
I really
MR. SCHACHNER-They determined it's a Type I Action because the
Lake George Park Commission takes the position that any activity,
any construction activity of any type within the Lake George Park
basin, within X number of feet of the shore, I don't remember how
big it is, or maybe it's the whole Park, is a Type I Action. So,
basically, whenever the Lake George Park Commission takes
jurisdiction over any type of activity, literally anything, it
considers,it a Type I Action. Staff takes the position that it's
a Type II Action because there's an item in the Type II list, in
the SEQRA Regulations, that, although it doesn't expressly
mention docks, what it does say is construction or placement of
minor structures which are accessory or appurtenant to existing
facilities, and it then gives a list of examples, say, including,
and then there's a list of examples, and although that list
doesn't include docks, it doesn't say that those a1-e the only
things it includes, and the SEQRA Handbook, which I think you're
all familiar with, has discussion in there that says in it that
that list should include docks. So, therefore, it's ŒJ.L::..
understanding that Staff takes the position that docks, even if
they're on Lake George, doesn't matter, are, therefore, Type II
Actions, and if something is a Type II Action, obviously, there's
no SEQRA review.
MR. MACEWAN-It doesn't make sense to me. I mean, anything with
any kind of construction, right on the lake, like that, I don't
understand why we don't go through the process and review it.
Really. It just, it's common sense.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, to be honest, I didn't know that this was
staff's position until just last week, I guess, and I was
confused by it myself, and Scott explained it to me, and I
understand that, I mean, that position, and I'm not saying
whether I agree or disagree, but I understand that it's a
- 48 -
.~
'-
-.-'"
.-
position that, if the Town's comfortable with, I don't have a
problem with it. I mean, it's not the position that most towns
on Lake George take, and the reason is, they just go by the Type
II list itself, and they don't go by the Handbook.
MR. MACEWAN-Why do ~ need to acknowledge lead status to them, if
we determined that we don't need to do a SEQRA?
MR. SCHACHNER-We don't. You're correct.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. If we don't respond to them, just like when
we send stuff out to APA, and we don't get anything back within
the 30 days, that just means that we're not interested.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you're absolutely correct about that.
MR. HARLICKER-I think Jim just wanted to make you guys aware of
what's going on.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else?
MRS. LABOMBARD-What about Godnicks? When is that tabled until?
MR. BREWER-I don't know that Godnicks will ever come back to us.
MR. HARLICKER-No. I spoke
it looks like the Godnicks
They're going to take off
lower, and they're going to
That's all I know.
with, Jim mentioned to me today that
are going to modify their proposal.
the third story to make the house
look into reducing the size of it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So they're going to take off the third story, in
other words, just build it into the hill and have the bottom,
basement, originally, and then the next one.
MR. HARLICKER-And the floor above it, and get rid of that third
floor.
MR. RUEL-When are the next meetings?
MR. BREWER-Site visits the 18th.
MR. OBERMAYER-Is that a Saturday?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-It should be our last one, Jim.
MR. BREWER-Our last Saturday. Saturday the 18th at 10 o'clock,
and then the regular meetings are the 21st and the 28th, and I'll
have Pam call George's home tomorrow. When he gets back in town,
and get in contact with everybody and set up another meeting.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Timothy Brewer, Chairman
- 49 -