Loading...
1995-05-16 QUEENSBURY PL~NNING BoARD M~ET!NG: FIRST REGULAR MEETING I ' . " MAY 16, 1995 INDEX Resolution Acknowledging Lead Agency Status Resolution of Intent Site Plan No. 18-94 EXTENSION Site Plan No. 13-94 MODIFICATION Subdivision No. 5-87 MODIFICATION Site Plan No. 21-95 Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 2-95 Subdivision No. 7-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE j: ','.] iJJ,."tr ',,! Site Plan No. 25-95 RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION ITEM John & Lee Tabner Mr. & Mrs. Milford Lester Connie & William Gebo North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co. Cedar Court Anthony A. Canale : ,:1:. ¡; Rich Schermerhorn Rich Schermerhorn í! ~: . 1 , ' ;1 Kevin Quinn Jim Weller Nemer's on Quaker Road Jim Weller Barrett Auto Sales 1. 9. 10. 10. I' 15. :,22. 27. 31. 34. 43. 53. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND AR'E' SUBJECT TO' 'SOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (iF ANY) AND, WILL STATE' SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '--- --../ ~ ''---" QUEENSBURY PLANNING BO~RD Me:~T.~N.G FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 16, 1995 7:00 P.M. '! , MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN TIMOTHY BREWER JAMES OBERMAYER PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 21, 1995: NONE March 28, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21. 1995 AND MARCH 28. 1995, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, ~nded by Roger Ruel= Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel~ Mr. Paling NOES: NONE $~QRA R~SOLUTIO~: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN THE REVIEW OF SITE PLAN NO. 20-95 - JOHN & LEE TABNER. MR. HARLICKER-I've got a memo here from Sue Cipperly regarding these two projects. She just said, this is to me from Sue Cipperly. It's regarding the Tabner and Lester applications and it says that, "I spoke with Jim Hotaling of the Adirondack Park Agency regarding these two projects. He stated that neither of these would fall under the APA's jurisdiction for SEQRA involvement. So they are not an involved agency. This allows the Planning Board to proceed on the Tabner SEORA determination today and to have a public hearing next week. This would allow the Zoning Board to vote on their variance tomorrow, May 17th. The Planning Board should open the SEORA notification period tonight on Lester. The ZBA will likely defer to the Planning Board by resolution on May 17th. Since they are the only involved agencies, this would allow the Planning Board to make the SEORA determination next Thursday, so both Boards can vote on this in June. Mr. Hotaling has offered to meet with the Chairman of the two Boards, plus Planning Department staff, to go over the APA involvement in Oueensbury projects." And that all came about as a result of us trying to figure out a way to get by these 30 day waiting periods for these minor projects, and since they aren't interested in being an involved with agencies for SEORA, that means that it's, oftentimes, just between the two Boards, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board, just for lead agency status. MR. RUEL-So it doesn't affect anything, then? - 1 - .....- MR. HARLICKER-The gist of this is that, tonight, if the Board chooses, they can go through and do the .SEORA determination on Tabner. I believe you have a cOÞY of the Long Environmental Assessment Form for that project. MR. MACEWAN-How can we do a SEORA if we haven't made a site visit on it and we don't have any information in front of us? MR. BREWER-I don't even know what it is. MR. HARLICKER-AlI right. MR. STARK~Mr. Chairman, we did go to Tabner, up on Mason Road in Cleverdale, 20 foot by 7 foot addition to the rear of the home. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, we did. MR. MACEWAN-I don't have any information in my packet on it. MR. STARK~No, but we did visit it, though. MR. PALING-Yes, I remember it, but as an agenda item, it's not on tonight for any kind of review with the applicant, or any kind of a public hearing or anything like that. MR. HARLICKER-Right, well, you don't need to have, the public hearing goes along with the site plan review. MR. BREWER~We don't usually have a public hearing before we do a SEORA? MR. MACEWAN-We always have. MR. PALING-Yes. No. I don't think it's in order to go into any kind of a, to go ány fufther than what' it says that we're supposed to do tonight, and then if you're going to do it, we can put it on as a site plan review at th~ next meeting. Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's what it was on the schedule for anyway. I khow it was on there. Yes. You were on the schedule for next week, for site plan approval. MR. STARK-Public hearing and everything next week. MR. PALING-I think we're going to do exactly what the agenda calls for, and we'll take, arid it's on the schedule for next week, for site plan review. I think I'm saying that right, and then if some members of the Board haven't visited, it'll give them an opportunity to do so in the next week. You're Number Two on the agenda for next week, along with a public hearing. JOHN TABNER MR. TABNER-Mr. ChairMan, because we're here tonight because we were told to be here tonight in case you had any questions about the SEQRA, and I thought we'd get a negative declaration tonight. Do I understand, now, tomorrow night is the ZBA. We've already met with the ZBA once. We went to the Warren County Planning Commission. We were there twice. I just want to find out. Now if they don't ha0e the SEORA, can the ZBA act tomorrow night? MR. OBERMAYER-I think what the resolution is set for tonight is just for us to acknowledge lead agency. That's all we're here to do. MR. TABNER-I understand all of that, but I'm trying to find out how I can put a relatively minor addition on to my summer place, and what I seem to be (lost word). Tomorrow night is the ZBA. Okay. They can't act without a $EORA resolution, right? - 2 - ~ ~ ....../ '-- MR. PALING-That could be. MR. TABNER-That~s what ¡ understand. MR. MACEWAN-Have you been to the ZBA once before already? MR. TABNER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Why do you need to go back? MR. TABNER-Because they couldn't act, becaus. the WarYe~ County Planning Board had missed reviewing it in April.' They finally reviewed it in May and said there was no significance as far as the County was concerned. It was a local affair. So then we came back here. Now if we don't get a negative dec here tonight, the ZBA can't act tomorrow night, and then it's a week later. The ZBA is on a Wednesday night and you don't meet until Thursday night. MR. MACEWAN-Historically, when we get these lead agency acknowledgements, and they're handed to us, usually from the ZBA, and they want us to do a site plan rev~e~ as part of a variance that they may have granted you, they put it off onto this Board to do the site plan review of it. Historically, when we get these resolutions to do, it's just granting us the lead agency status for the review of that site plan and the SEORA rev~ew. We do the SEORA when we do the site plan. MR. TABNER-And what I'm saying is, I want to try to~ get ,this thing started some how or other, and if you don't do a SEORA resolution tonight, you're not going to meet again until a week from Thursday night, but the ZBA meets tomorrow night and next Wednesday. MR. OBERMAYER-Why do you have to go to the ZBA anyway? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. because usually when we get these resolutions, the ZBA's already made the determination. MR. TABNER-I need an area variance. problem. I have a side line setback MR. HARLICKER-The resolution before the Board toni9~t ,also includes the determination of significance according to SEORA. MR. BREWER-Is this advertised for a public hearing tonight? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. BREWER-Is it advertised for a public hearing next Thursdªy? MR. HARLICKER-For the site plan review. MR. BREWER-Then how can we jump the gun and do it tonight? MR. HARLICKER-Public hearings are not required for this portion of the SEORA. MR. BREWER-But plan, we have a do the SEQRA. befo)"e we have what I'm saying to you is, when we have a site public hearing for input, so that we can properly I don't know why we're rushing to do the SEORA a public hearing. MR. TABNER-You only need a public hearing if you have an EIS. MR. HARLICKER-Right. A public hearing is not required f9r a Long Environmental Assessment Form. . MR. TABNER-You don't need a public hearing on an EAF. - 3 - - MR. PALING-Mark, would you want to comment on this? Can we do a SEORA tonight without doing anything to the process that's gOing to knock it off or do something wrong? Because there will not be a public hearing tonight because it wasn't advertised. MR. SCHACHNER-You can if you want to. It's not been your practice to do that, but you can if you want to. The bottom line, I could sum this up, I think, in very nonlawyer like words. The applicant will potentially suffer a setback of time simply by virtue of the fact that we happen to have scheduled our second meeting of the month for a Thursd~y niÞht inst~ad of a Tuesday night. It's not the applicant's fault. It's not our fault. It's not your fault. It's not anybody's fault. It just happens that this month, for whatever reason, I don't remember the reason. MR. PALING-I think the availability of the room. MR. SCHACHNER-The room availability, right. That's all that's happening. It's an unusual aberrational situation that has not cropped up before and is not likely to arise again. It's simply by virtue of the fact of the change of schedule. MR. PALING"-Well, if it is that simple, and we're not violating anything or putting ourselves at risk, why can't we go ahead and do a SEQRA then? MR. BREWER-Well, I really even looked paperwork abòut it properly have any hea ring. just feel that, ànd maybe I'm wrong, I haven't at it that close, but I mean, I don't have any tonight and I think if we do a SEORA on it, input to do it, we should have a public MR. PALING-Well, okay, no, excuse me, because this is going to go on all night. Tim, I think that Mark has told us what to do in this situation. MR. SCHACHNER-I have? I haven't intended to. MR. PALING-You said that we could do a SEORA. MR. SCHACHNER-I've told you what you £Sn. You asked me whether you £Sn do certain things, and I said you could if you wanted. MR. PALING-All right, but you also said that we're any of the process, or we're not putting anything that's going to create a great problem. not damaging out of line MR. SCHACHNER-I guess what I'm concerned about, Bob, is I don't want to turn this into me recommending that this Board do something that's not what you usually do. Your typical practice has been, as Ti~ is suggestihg, to include public input into your SEQRA determinations, if for no other reason than to be able to answer the question about public controversy. That's not required by law. That's just been your practice. The question ¡ understood you to ask me was could you, meaning could you legally do the SEORA evaluation this evening, and the answer to that,is, yes, you can if you want. MR. STARK-Bob, I have a question for the applicant. MR. PALING-Go ahead. MR. STARK-The neighbors on either side of you, nobody's in opposition to this, are they? MR. TABNER-No. Bert Roberts is on one side and Jonathan Burger's on the other side, and we've talked to both of them and neither one of them has any opposition to this. - 4 - '--' ......... "-- - MR. STARK-I mean, do they plan on coming next week to speak on beha 1 f of t.!"ds? MR. TABNER-No, I don't think so. MR. STARK-Nobody's going to be here for the public hearing. MR. PALING~Well, okay. MR. MACEWAN-Bob, I just have a question for Staff. Scott, if the ZBA hasn't granted him his variance yet, why is this resolution in front of us to ask for us to be lead agency? MR. HARLICKER-That was already done. MR. MACEWAN-What was already done? MR. HARLICKER-The lead agency letter. This is, the time is passed and now you're declaring your desire. MR. MACEWAN-I'm confused. The ZBA usually asks us to be· lead agency when they've granted an approval for a variance of one kind or another, and as part of that granting of that variance, asks us to do the site plan review. Is that not right? MR. SCHACHNER-No. That is not right. The ZBA typically, 'it's not even accurate to say the ZBA asks this Board, but when both Boards have ju,· isdict,ion over a particular project, one of ,them typically acts as the lead agency. Typically, this Board, and that's appropriate, by the way, so that it happen$ before either Board has made it's ultimate decision on the application. , So the lead agency selection process typically occurs, and by law, is supposed to occur before the ZBA has issued any variances and before this Board has issued any site plan or subdivision approval. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. PALING-Well, why don't we move ahead, consensus of the Board as to whether we will or not, and if the majority says yes, fine. it. Roger, do you want to start? What's your then, and go on a do a SEORA tonight If no, we won't do opinion in this? MR. RUEL-Yes. I think we can do a SEQRA. MRS. LABOMBARD-I circumstances next it would put undue go for it. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I thin~ we can, too. I've been to the site. It was on our site plan review. I don't see why we can't. think we can. I think that, due to the week which were out of anyone's control, that hardship, and as long as it's legal, then lets MR. STARK-Yes, go ahead. MR. BREWER-I think we should wait for the benefit of public comment, and if need be, we could have a special meeting to do the site plan. MR. MACEWAN-No, I haven't seen the site yet. MR. BREWER-All right, but the majority of the Board has voted in favor of it, and the majority of the Board has been on the site also. So we'll go ahead, Jim, go ahead and do a SEQRA. MR. STARK-Well, resolution to be lead agency first, Bob. MR. PALIN~-Yes, okay. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS - 5 - IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MR. & MRS. JOHN TABNER RESOLUTION NO. 6-1995 INTRODUCED BY: James Obermayer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS, in connection with the variance and site plan review for M/M John Tabner, the Town of Oueensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other invòlved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Quesnsbòry Pla~ning Board being lead agent, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Oueensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEORA review, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has ,sufficient iDformation and determines the significance'of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows; 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not ~e required for the action, as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant environmental effect. BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and reguiations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. We're going to go "Will proposed action alter drainage flow water runoff?" ahead with the SEORA. or patterns or surface MR. RUEL-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, slightly. MR. OBERMAYER-Can it be mitigated? MR. RUEL-I hop~ so. I", ' MRS. LABOMBARD-And I'd like to see a roof plªn, a plan for the roof. - 6 - "- '-' --- MR. STARK""7That's next week at s;it~ pI an . ¡'", ." ,; , , q r,",; MRS. LABOMBARD-But that'll be next week, yes. MR. RUEL-That's site plan. MR. PALING-Lets just do the SEQRA. MR. OBERMAYER-"Is there or controversy related to the impacts?" is there likely to be any public potential adverse environmental MR. RUEL-Possibly, but we don't know. MR. OBERMAYER~There's no environmental impact. MR. RUEL-We haven't heard from the public. We don't know. How can you definitely say no? MR. OBERMAYER-There's no adverse environmental impacts, though. We just said no to everything. MR. PALING-We might hear from the public, but not from an environmental standpoint, I don't think. MR. BREWER-How do you know, unless you have a public hearing? MR. RUEL-There's no way of knowing that, is there? element of doubt? You can't? There's no MRS. LABOMBARD-There isn't. I don't think there is an element of doubt. MR. RUEL-It's a yes 6r no? MR. OBERMAYER-It's a yes or no. There's no maybes associated with this. MR. RUEL-Well, it seems to me that when you ask that question, and there hasn't been a hearing from the public, you can't positively say yes or no. That's all ~ saying. MR. PALING-What, environmentally, could 'be objected to? MR. RUEL~I don't know. I could wait for the public to hear about it. I don't know, personally. I visited the site, but I don't know. MRS. LABOMBARD-But we just enumerated any possible, all the possibilities. MR. RUEL-Well, we mentioned about the runoff water. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, that's because we haven't seen the slope and the design of the roof yet. MR. RUEL-That's right. don't know. So maybe the neighbors know something I MR. OBERMAYER-Can it be mitigated, though? MR. RUEL-Possibly. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. You're entitled to your opinion. MR. OBERMAYER-You're entitled to your opinion. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE R~SOLUTION NO. 20-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for - 7 - its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently befö~e the Planning Board an application for: JOHN & LEE TABNER, and 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 are~s of concern and having considered the criteria for det~~Mining whether a 'Þr6j~ct 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 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 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: MR. RUEL-I ju~t had a question. It has lake front property. Is there another agency involved here? You mentioned, in reading that, that there were ~o ¿ther agencie~. MR. OBERMAYER-No, because we're lead agency on tha~. understanding. "Is that co)"rect, Mark? " That's my MR. SCHACHNER-I have no idea if, there are other involved agencies. I think what Roger's sugge~tingL is that if it's a Lake George property, isn't there another agency, like for example, the Lake George Park Commission, involved. I don't, know what the project is, so I don't know if they are or are not. Is that what you're asking, Roger? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's what I thought. MR. TABNER-I don't think we need any permit from the Lake George Park Commission. MR. STARK-It's not a dock. isn't involved. So the Lake George Park Commission MR. PALING-It's not a dock. Yes, they're doing nothing on the shorel i ne. MR. RUEL-Just checking. - 8 - '-- ---" -../ '--, MR. PALING-Okay. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Pal i ng ,:,/ j ¡: NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. We'll see you at site plan. completed what we set out to do tonight. I believe we've MR. TABNER-Okay. Thank you. MR. RUEL-I have a question, sir. At site plan, could you have an elevation drawing, a side view of the building, so that we could see the roof slope? MR. TABNER-Yes. I'll see if we can't have Mr. Horning here for next Thursday night. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. We really would liké one, I think. MR. TABNER-Thank you very much. MR. PALING-All right, Cathy. Do you want to read the Lester one, please. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF A VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR MR. & MRS. MILFORD LESTER. MR. PALING-Okay. We've got a prepared resolution on this. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-And there is, we're just being asked to be the lead agency. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any questions by anybody on the Board on this one? This is just to be lead agency. Okay. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF Variance and Site Plan for M/M Milford Lester RESOLUTION NO.: 3 of 1995 iNTRODUCED BY: James Obermaver WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: George Stark WHEREAS, Mr~ & Mrs. MilforQ hester have submitted an application for a variance and site plan review in connection with a project known as or described as an ad9ition and renovation to existing su~mer residence on Lake George, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act ( SEORA ) , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT - 9 - -- RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action~~der SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning BOard hereby indicates its desire to be lead ageht for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Directót to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Mr. & Mrs. MIlford Lester; 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desifed; 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desire$ to be th~ lead agent for purposés of SEQRA review; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved the Executive Director shall also mail a explanation, together with copies resolution, the appiication, and the EAF I completed by the project, sþonsor, approþriate, the Draft EIS. agencies, letter of of this with Part or where Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBOmbard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE Ot-D BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 18-94 CONNIE & WILLIAM GEBO SITE PLAN APPROVED ON MAY 19, 1994. REQUEST IS FOR A 1 (ONE) YEAR EXTENSION. MR. PALING-I believe that it's just a case of financ¡al, a little bit of running out of money situation, and they've asked for a one year. So, is there any discussion, or would someone just like to make a motion? MR. RUEL-I'll make a motion. MR. PALING-All right. Go ahead. MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 18-94. PREVIOU~LY APPROVEQ ON MAY 19. 1994, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 16th of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 13-93 MODIFICATION TO APPROVED LEVEL AN AREA 200' X 160' APPROXIMATELY 150' X 125' NORTH OUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. SITE PLAN. REQUEST IS TO CLEAR AND TO BUILD A PARKING - TRAINING AREA OF WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE CLEARED AREA. EDWARD CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT - 10 - '- ...- ...-' '--" MR. PALING-Okay, and, Scott, what's your comments on this? STAFF INPUT: Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 13-93, North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Meeting Date: May 16, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to construct an additional parking area of 18,750 square feet increasing the amount of impermeable area by about 35%. The main issue relating to this modification is drainage and stormwater flow. This application has been sent to Rist- Frost for their comments." MR. HARLICKER-His letter of May 12th was included in the infprmation that you received in your packet. MR. PALING-Okay. They're not here. That should be read into the record. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. This is regarding North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company, Site Plan No. 13-93. "Dear Mr. Martin: We have reviewed the general layout of the modifications to the North QueensbuíY Volunteer Fire Department site, plan and noted the following items: No proposed grades are shown. Depending on how the bank is cleared and at what elevation the site is 'leveled' to, steep slopes could be created on the northeast side of the proposed improvements. Since the adjoining wooded lands appear to be on Fire Department property, all of which drains toward the proposed improvements, off-site erosion toward others' property is not likely happening. However, erosion and sediment control measures according to 'NY Guidelines for Urban Erosion & Sediment Control' should be practiçed on the down slope portion of the improvements. Note Qùeensbury's Zoning standard (179-64 A.(l)) limits slope to 30%. Some type ,of stormwater infiltration should be provided for the roughly 1/2 acre parking lot to be created, particularly if it will be paved. Depending on what training exercises are planned for the lot, some type of liquid contai nment devices or collection systems may be' appropr iate, if routine uses of fuels, oils, chemicals, or other hazardous materials could occur during training exercises, which could drain off the lot surface to surrounding lands. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, p.C. William F.MacNa~ara, P.E., PrQj~~~ Engineer" MR. CARR-My name is ~dwafd Carr fr6m ~orth Queensbury Fir~. MR. PALING-Okay. Have you seen these comments that Scott just read? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. PALING-You've seen them all? Okay. The paved area, the 125 by 150 is very print, but I don't understand where your looki ng at ,the pr i nt~1 MR. CARR-We're proposing to, basically, just clear that area. We didn't wish to clear any more than what we needed for the proposed. I have one question. clearly shown on the clearing area is by MR. PALING-According to this, you're going to cleaT an area that's 200 by 160, and within that, you'd have 150 by 125, and all you show on the print is the 150 by 125. You don't show the area around the paved area. So we don't know where it is you're clearing. MR. CARR-Well, i~l,wquld b~a perimete,r aroun;dth~,~~'yOU kno~, a little ;bi~ of lee~~y because yoU are goiD9 toi,have , ,to slop.esome banks, so you can~t hav,è trees right on the ediJ~ of. :th,e are~" and still create a sloped bank. We did try to situate it so we 'could maintain buffers between the present parking area and buffers - 11 - '- between the neighbors to the north. MR. PALING-It should be shown, so we know what we're looking at. MR. RUEL-The gentleman mentioned that, you will be clearing just the area of paved area? MR. PALING..;...No. MR. CARR-We aren't, well, at this point in time, we aren't planning on paving that area. We're planning on clearing and probably using lA stone and dust. The intent of the area is, Number One, the parking area is designed, the building has been a little bit inadequate for some of the public meetings that have been held there. MR. RUEL-It doesn't seem like there's anything inadequate about that building at all. MR. CARR-Well, we don't have room to fit the people that show up when the Town has zoning hearings. MR. RUEL-And you intend to use that area for training as well as? MR. CARR-As well as additional parking. MR. RUEL-And did you reply to this Rist-Frost comment about hazardous materials? MR. CARR-We won't be using hazardous materials. What is a location for, basically, pumping water, having trucks sitting there, tankers, dropping water, firemen practice with the pumps. MR. RUEL-I thought you would have used Belgian Block, you know, to be consistent with the structure. It would have been nice. MR. OBERMAYER-This was Roger's first see of the firehouse. That's why he's making these comments. MR. RUEL-Magnificent. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to put Stone Dust down, did you say? MR. CARR-That's lA Dust. MR. OBERMAYER-So, and then you're going to that, because really Stone Dust when it's the water's going to sit right on top. pump water out to compacted, actually, MR. CARR-That's a place to situate the truck and probably shoot the water off, the parking area. What it is is, rather than tear up the paved area, when you have trucks turning and maneuve,-ing, it digs into the blacktop. 1 Asian Dust, you can grade it off. MR. OBERMAYER-How much property does the Town of Queensbury or the Fire Department own? MR. CARR-The Fire Company owns about 27 acres there. MR. OBERMAYER-Twenty-seven acres. 'I guess I don't know enough about the difference, but does the Town of Queensbury, do they own that property, or does the Queensbury Fire Department own it? Are there two separate entities? MR. CARR-The Fire Company and the Rescue Squads are actually non profit corporations that contract with the Town to provide service. So the non profit corporation owns the property and the structure. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. - 12 - ~' ----/ MR. RUEL-If you intend to pave it, will it be necessary for him to come back on site review? MR. OBERMAYER-No, I don't think so. MR. CARR-Everything that, what we had discussed with Jim and Scott and John Goralski was, we presently have a collection gutter that runs around the present parking area. Everything that we do will be pitched down toward that which runs off into the retention basin, and based on the size of the retention basin from the site plan, they figured that would handle it with no problem. MR. PALING-And the effect on permeability is okay? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They've got 27 acres. MR. RUEL-Yes. They've got a lot of acreage. MR. PALING-Okay. What other comments do we have? MR. BREWER-The stormwater infiltration. MR. CARR-The aim is (lost word) retention basin that we presently have. MR. BREWER-Just one other thing. Guidelines for Urban Erosion and construction's being done? You will put New Sediment Control while York the MR. CARR-During any clearing and excavating. MR. BREWER-We can make that part of our motion. MR. CARR-Until we've established some type of ground cover. MR. PALING-What are you clearing? you're clearing out of there? How big are the trees .that MR. CARR-Most of them are rather small. MR. PALING-Diameter wise? MR. CARR-Anywhere from underbrush to six inch trees. MR. PALING-I don't think there's many, though, if I recall. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. It's pretty open up there. It's a beautiful building, let me tell you. MR. CARR-The original intent was to use the other cleared aiea, but the septic system ending up there, we can't do anything on top of that. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. How come you're not putting stone parallel to the existing parking lot, in case yOU' ever want to expand that? How come you're not doing that? I mean, it looks like you're creating a driveway back in this area. If you have trouble parking for the Firehouse, wouldn't it be more logical to put it parallel to the existing parking lot? MR. CARR-The overflow, if you notice, if you were up there, you'll notice that there is a bank that was created when they cut for that parking area. We figured if we had a short drive going up to it, this can actually be at an upper level, and we'd disturb less than if we tried to run it adjacent to the existing parking area. Plus, we think it looks nice up there. We warited to buffer between, we don't want a big wide open view. MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. Do you have stormwater, any stormwater - 13 - '~ '''-..,- collection on your parking lot right now? MR. CARR-Yes. There's a, I think it should be noted on the print there, there is a gutter that runs around the perimeter of the parking area, and into the retention basin. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't see it. MR. CARR-It's a little, fine dotted line. MR. OBERMAYER-I see the dotted line. MR. CARR·~Yes . MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. PALING-Now this is a modification. That's it, the dotted line? So we don't need a SEQRA. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's a prepared resolution for your review, but I'd just like to clarify something here. Are you going to get us revised plans showing the limits of clearing, how you're going to tie in the stone around the proposed parking area to the existing trench drains and you're going to put a note on here regarding erosion control measures, right? Okay. MR. PALING-Right. the clearing, the Okay. Erosion control, and you're going to delineate area that will be cleared, and stormwater. MR. OBERMAYER-Now as far as stormwater, we're not asking for a stormwater management plan or anything, right? MR. BREWER-No, just to show where it goes. MR. PALING-And, Tim, your point was during construction. MR. BREWER-Erosion control measures be put in place. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. All right. We have a resolution on this, I believe. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 13-93 NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, Introduced by James Oberffiayer who mov.ed for ,its adoption, seconded by Roger Rue,l: 1 ;, . < ' , ;, '~_ - i' ' "',' .~ ' ~' . ¡ ; , , As noted. That thel!pro'V ide' deta i led ,storm dral T\age, ; ~'nd that they del.i.nea~i t,t')~, ,ql~ared arêa~ and tha;1:¡.~h~y Þr,ovide' eroslon control äS,'dlctated by New York State .', Ë'I"oSlOn Control Standards dur.i ng cÇ>r)st~~ction. ,:,,' ' Whereas, the åpPlicant, ~ 'North Oµ:E:Hm'sbllry' 'Fire èömpany, is ; , !I' ' " '-, t ',," :," seeking modification to'a previously ápproved site plan for the Fire Station, Site Plan No. 13-93 and; Whereas, the modification involves construction of an additional parking area/training area and; , , Whereas, this modification will result in minor changes to the approved site plan and, therefore, no public hearing is required and; Whereas, there are no environmental different from those analyzed in the review. impacts significantly original environmental Whereas, previously approved conditions of the site plan will remain in place, and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, that the Town Planning Board, after conéldering the above, hereby move to approve, deny or - 14 - '---" ../ approve with conditions the modification to the North Queensbury Fire Company as shown on Map As Built 6/22/94 of North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. RUEL-The one item that should have been mentioned is the modification to the as built drawing. MR. PALING-No, that's subdivision, though, we're talking~ MR. RUEL-Well, this is an as built drawing, here~ all right, and we talked about modification. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but that would be included in the plat, right? MR. CARR-I would think so. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. RUEL-All right. MR. CARR-One question. Do you want me to bring the changes back to you or downstairs? MR. PALING-Downstairs. MR. BREWER-Shouldn't the stormwater be brought to Rist-Frost to make sure everything is okay? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It'll get sent off to Bill MacNamara for his review. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. CARR-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. , , SUBQ¡VISION NO. 5-87 MODIFICATION CEDAR COURT OWNER: LAD EN)ERPRISES ZO~E: SFR-1A LOCATION: W~~T SIDE OF BAY ROAD. 1.000 FT~ NORTH OF BL¡ND ROCK ROAD. MODlfICATiQN TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION HAS APPROVAL FOR 64 UNITS OF DUPLEXES AND FOURPLEXES WITH PHASE ONE APPROVAL FOR 38 UNITS. THE REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE DENSITY BY ELIMINATING ALL FOURPLEXES AND GOING WITH DUPLEXES ANþ THREEPLEXES R~DUCJ~G THE TOTAL, NU~BER OF UNITS TO 48. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-36 LÓT S¡ZE: +/- 17 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN MICHAELS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-87 Cedar Court, LAD Enterprises/The Michaels Group, Meeting Date: May 16, 1995 "The proposed modifications include replacing the original fourplexes with duplexes and threeplexes, and altering the lot lines to accommodate the new designs. The number of lots will increase from 18 to 21 while the number of units will decrease from 64 to 48. A drainage easement will be shifted slightly; a boundary line will be changed for a proposed common area; a 100 foot buffer will be in place along the western project boundary and a 25 foot buffer on the rear of lots 33 and 34. The new configuration will require the relocation of an existing drainage line and catch basin. Care should also be iakên in making sure - 15 - ..- '~ ~' that the placement of the utilities, transformers and water taps do not cònflict with the revised location of the buildings and dr i veways . " MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions of anybody so far? MR. RUEL-Yes. I have two maps here, two plans, the one revised April 26th, is that the latest one? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER~Right, r~vised April 26th. MR. RUEL-Is it necessary to show buffer zones on this plan? MR. PALING-Why wouldn't it be? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. I'm John Michaels from the Michaels Group. I'd just maybe identify some of the changes from the original plan. As some of you remember, this is similar to what we did at Dixon Heights about six months ago. We changed a lot of four unit townhouses to two units. What's happened over here is that since this was originally laid out, is the market has changed wheré the center units have become less desirable, and we're finding that more and more empty nesters are buying these type of townhouses, and what they want is they want the master bedroom on the main floor and, typically, that's a lot harder to do on a center unit, because (lost word) your master bedroom and your living room and all the rooms here on the main floor, the buildings get wider. So, as evidenced by this plan, this is the existing plan. It's not going up. Most of the buildings were designed as fourplex buildings, with four twin unit buildings on the way in, and the remainder of the project was all four unit buildings, and what we've done is we've entered into a contract to purchase the remaining lands, contingent on reapproval, to reduce the density to 48 total units in the project, from 64. The purpose is to go in with these twin townhomes wherever we can, we can get the master bedroom on the main floor. MR. OBERMAYER-What was your you call, the empty nesters? terminology referring to, what did I've never heard that terminology. MR. MICHAELS-Basically they're the people with the large home where the kids are gone. So the nest is empty, okay. So basically this is the revised layout. What we've done is, in conjunction with twin units, we do still end up with four, three unit buildings, but we go from a total of four center units. Before, half the project was center units. What we've done also is, previously, this green area here in back of these lots were people's lots, to actually increase the amount of green space that will be in the Homeowner's Association property, which gives us better control over it, especially since the retention basins back there, and the clear cutting, the more land that we, the Homeowner's Association, owns will be under that control. So we've increased the amount of green space that the Homeowner's Association will actually own, reduce the density pretty significantly. These units, though, do have a bigger footprint. MR. RUEL-What's the significance of the orange there? MR. MICHAELS-These are the proposed buildings. MR. RUEL-Because there are two over on the right that are not colored. MR. MICHAELS-Okay. permitted as twin per mi ts . That's right, because these were units,. and these presently have already building MR. RUEL-And they'll remain that way? - 16 - '-' -' ~ --~ MR. MICHAELS-Right. So there was no changes needed for that. Basically, the orange indicates the area required for change. MR. OBERMAYER-As far as the total floor square footage goes, is that increasing or decreasing. MR. MICHAELS-It depends on the unit. We have nothing under 1~000 square feet. MR. OBERMAYER-Overall on the whole project. MR. MICHAELS-Overall, a lot depends on what the people buy. For example, the first unit that was sold there, on the existing plan, was about 500 square feet bigger than (lost word) and it went for a sales price of $120,000 and previously the highest priced unit in there was somewhere in the 90's. MR. OBERMAYER-No. You mentioned that you're revising the total amount of units from 64 to 48. Now the total square footage, is that going to be less or more, in relation to the original approval? MR. MICHAELS-You mean of each building? Yes. footage of the building is less, because these or 300 square feet more, average. some were a some were a little bit more. You mean 64 wha t }'ou mea n? The total square probably average 2 little bit less and times 1400, is that MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I mean, you're saying that they're going to be larger, square footage wise, but you're putting less units. I mean, which is more? MR. MICHAELS-You're talking about floor square footage, too, because we have a (lost word) and areas like that. The actual living square footage, we'll probably average about two or three hundred square feet bigger than what's there. MR. PALING-But the total is less. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. The total will be ~ less, because each one we go over, you could build another six units, seven units. MR. OBERMAYER-So the total square footage is less than what you're doing now? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Is the square footage of any significance here? MR. OBERMAYER-Well, it's just building space'. If they're cutting down from three units to two units, but they're building those two units bigger than the original three units, then, yes, it ~ have significance. MR. PALING-If the total square footage were going up, I think it would be a concern, but the total square footage is going down. MR. RUEL-But they have side yard requirements and front yard requirements, setbacks. MR. OBERMAYER-I just want to get a density idea. They say that they're reducing density. MR. MICHAELS-That's a big part of Because when you have four units, you yard restrictions, and 30 foot total got to do that every two times now. it's just a lot more green space. why there's less units. only need the 10 foot side on one out of four. We've That's why we (lost word) - 17 - '--- -- MR. RUEL-How many apartments in that one building there? MR. MICHAELS-Two, this is a profile of what the buildings will 100 k like. MR. RUEL-And it's built to look like a single family house, almost? MR. MICHAELS-More than a townhouse, bút there is still two garages on each side. MR. RUEL-Yes. Are there two entrances there in the middle? MR. MICHAELS-No. What we do is we try to make it, put one entrance on the side and one on the front. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. MICHAELS-Depending on the configuration, so that it looks like there's one entrance, but they might both be on the side. MR. MACEWAN-The question I've got for you regarding the green spáce area. Is that going to be a no disturb, no cut area? MR. MICHAEL$-This area now serves as a joint disposal system, okay. So this is actually going to have a field in it. The other area will be no cut. MR. MACEWAN-And how will that be controlled? MR. MICHAELS-Through the Homeowner's Association. MR. MACEWAN-Okay, and will that also be shown, dimension wise, on the maps? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-There's no dimensions on that. asking. That's wh)i I'm MR. RUEL-Yes, it's not shown. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, that'll be a dimension there. Each person will be getting a deed to their lot, to their lot line and back over, but the project will include, for all the new homes, all their maintenance will be included. So even though you'll own your lot, the lawn will be mowed for you and the plowing will be done and shoveled. So no one here, is, going to be doing any maintenance. The benefit is we have these buildings, even though each one owns their own lot. They're going to get fertilized at the same time. They're going to get mowed the same time. So it will have a lot more uniform look, which we found, with townhouses, even if ybu have three people that really take care of their yard, just fertilizing it a two weeks differently, just changes the colors. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, it does. MR. MICHAELS-With the uniform maintenance, with think it's gOing to be. MR. OBERMAYER-Is that what you do up in Dixon? MR. MICHAELS-No. That project got started in the early 80's, before the maintenance thing came in. So this'll be our first project here with full maintenance, although we have done a number of them. MR. RUEL-So you know how many fences? No fences? - 18 - ~ -- --/ ~' MR. MICHAELS-There'll be one section or two sections between each unit that will have a privacy fence for their patio. MR. RUEL-That green area, now, whoever occupies that building, they're not allowed to do anything in that green area. MR. MICHAELS-No, no, they won't own that. MR. PALING-That's c~mon ground. MR. RUEL-They don't own it at all? MR. MICHAELS-Right. That's why we're increasing that. The old plan, they owned all the back, each unit, so we decided that that was way too far back. MR. BREWER-Are we going to have lot dimensions on these maps? LEON STEVES MR STEVES-Yes, absolutely. MR. BREWER-When will we have that? I just was curious as to the size requirements. MR. STEVES-I understand. They're zoned by density (lost word) UR-5 zone. MR. BREWER-UR-5. It says SFR-l. MR. STEVES-Present zoning. MR. BREWER-So the zone was changed from UR-5? MR. STEVES-UR-5. MR. BREWER-Is that right, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-I believe so, because this was done back in, what, '87, I think this was initially approved. MR. OBERMAYER-It's SFR-1A. MR. BREWER-The present zoning, but this zoning is UR-5. MR. MICHAELS-The way this is laid out is a total of 30 foot side yard on each side, a minimum of 10, and what happens here, because it's a townhousè and we don't know what unit's going to sell, until I build the building, we can'tcreally put the lot line on it, because the surveyo)- comes out and shoots the fire wall. .They split that eight inch fire wall down the middle, and it's a lot easier for us to lay it out later because I could never get the masons to build it ~hat W~y now. They'd be here for a lot of variances. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying is, this map that we looked at before, every lot has a dimension on it, 16,000, 15,000, 15,000. MR. STEVES-If I may address that, those are what we call great lots, or grand lots in the subdivision. Each of those grand lots on the old plan has been approved, would have been divided into four units. Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STEVES-And then four units would be based upon the footprint itself, and the projection (lost word) wall. MR. BREWER-All right. I'm with you. - 19 - MR. STEVES-And now today we're going to be doing the same thing, only doing it with threeplexes. I wanted to mention that, the green area, we do have a pump station in there. MR. OBERMAYER-Where is the pump station? MR. MICHAELS-Between 35 and 34. MR. OBERMAYER-And you pump over to the basin (lost word) green space? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. MICHAELS-That hasn't, (lost word) two feet, but that's what it was. MRS. LABOMBARD-I would just like to make a comment. If I can recall the original plans that you submitted last year, on the west side, those were parcels, left over parcels of frontage on Glen Lake, and I think the way that you've made that nice green buffer there is very nice. MR. MICHAELS-Okay. Well, I appreciate your comment, but we just bought this a couple of months ago. So, it must have been somebody else. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm thinking about something else. MR. MICHAELS-We'll take the compliment. MRS. LABOMBARD-Then I can't vote on this. Is this the on up on the hill, or the one below? MR. STEVES-It's right across the street. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I wasn't with you when we looked at it. It's not up on the hill. It's on the level. MR. MACEWAN-Cathy, this was in front of us last year for a modification requesting to go from. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, but it was a different owner. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, and they requested to go from quadplex to duplex or something. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Then I have the right piece of land. It's just there's a different owner involved. Yes, but if you take a look at the boundaries on the west there, and you walk in there a couple of hundred yards, you're going to hit Glen Lake, and I don't know if you're aware of that, but I think that that was good that you put that nice buffer there. Okay. MR. RUEL-Scott, you mentioned the buffer zones. Do those green areas correspond to? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. phone. That's what Leon explained to me over the MR. RUEL-Okay. Thanks. MR. PALING-All right. We'll open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to comment or has a question? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ,., I 'ROBERT HILLIS - 20 - ~' ~ ~ ~ MR. HILLIS-Robert Hillis. I was told by the original owner that he wasn't going to have any buildings on the north side of the road. Well, is this party going to have that now, buildings in there? MR. OBERMAYER-North side of what road, sir, Cedar Court? MR. HILLIS-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-There's three. MR. MICHAELS-Not for the first thousand feet, back fifteen hundred feet, nothing at the entrance. MR. HILLIS-Nothing at the entrance. MR. MICHAELS-The first one starts right across from the road. There won't be anything here, not to the front. MR. HILLIS-I see them measuring the other day, and I was wondering. MR. MICHAELS-Okay. When we put the sign in, we redid the sign. MR. HILLIS-I know you were looking where the corner lots, (lost word) to the corner, I don't think. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Do we need a SEQRA on this? MR. HARLICKER-No. There is a prepared resolution for your review. I'd like to make one comment please. The revised plat here is also going to involve the relocation of a catch basin and a drainage line, and I think the revised plan should reflect those changes. ' MR. STEVES-Yes. We have addressed it. We've shown it on the plan, drainage easement and retention basin. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. PALING-And is it on the plans now? MR. STEVES-We have shown the existing and we've shown the proposed. We intend to go to the Town Board to ask if they were relinquish the present easement and give them the new easement, and we intend to build a retention area at the end of the new easement. MR. OBERMAYER-Was the or igi nal retention pond" was that in the original site plan approval, the exact location? MR. STEVES-It's as shown there. MR. OBERMAYER-Nothing's changed there, right? MR. STEVES-Well, right now it goes through this building. MR. MICHAELS-Basically, we've taken the pipe and relocated it south. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to do the re~plution. " , MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87 - 21 - CEDAR COURT, Introduced by Ro~erRuel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As written, with the condition that the plans dated 4/26/95 show lQcation of catch basin Gand the drainage line that goes through the easement. Whereas, the applicant, Michaels Group, is seeking a modificat;.ion to a previously approved subdivision for t~dar Court, Sub. # 5-$7 Whereas, 'the modification involves replacing the· approved fourplexes with duplexes and threeplexes, increasing the number of great lots and.decreasing the number of units from 64 to'48 and; , Wh<'3Y.eås, this modification will result in mi.nor changes to the " apProved sUbdivision and a publiC hea.... ìng was 'held oD 5/16/95 a'nd; , ,) WheT eas , . , ¡. , ,.j theréc.re no ~~vi""onmentáI:imp~c~~ different fro~ f~ose analyzed in environmental review. significantly the original W./)er ea~,' previously approved cbnditions of , d,,' wilfremain in place, and the subdivision Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, that the Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to the modification to Cedar Court, subdivision . 5-87 as shown on the map showing proposed changes to Ceda.... Court made for the Michaels Development Group revised 4/26/95. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: MR. HARLICKER-The original drainage plans and grading plans show the location of that line going right where those houses are, and my suggestion is that they revise those drawings to show the new location once it's approved by the Town Board. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 21-95 TYPE: UNLISTED ANTHONY A. CANALE OWNERS: MARY JANE CANALE/WILLIAM P. CANALE ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 94 MAIN STREET PROPOSAL IS TO UTILIZE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (REAL ESTATE OFFICE). PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IS A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING - 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 134-2-4 LOT SIZE: .57 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 ANTHONY CANALE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 21-95, ANTHONY A. CANALE, Meeting Date: May 16, 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 it is in compliance. 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; No modifications to the site are proposed. He simply wants to utilize an existing house as office space for his realty business. The applicant is proposing a sign that will be subject - 22 - '-- ----../ --'" "--' 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; Traffic access is adequate. The existing driveway off of Rozelle Street will be utilized. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off-street parking is sufficient. the driveway provides room for 2 parking spaces. If more spaces are needed, there is ample room for them on the site. 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. There is a sidewalk that connects the driveway to the entrance of the hous~. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; This is not an issue. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; This is not an issue. 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; This is not an issue. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; This is not an issue. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. This is not an issue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff ; _ i. can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-They went to Warren County Planning Board, and they recommended approval. They voted for approval, and there's also a prepared resolution for your consideration. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. Any questions or comments so far? MR. BREWER-I've just got one question. How many employees do you plan on having there? MR. CANALE-Well, I have three salesmen, but they never come around. One is in South Carolina. One is in Corinth, and one is in Queensbury. MR. BREWER-So you'll have one person there probably? MR. CANALE-If any. It's not going to be an too active anyway, but the State requires you know, with a sign out front, visible from the the mailbox. You've got to comply with State active office, not have an office, you road and so on, and requirements, too. MR. RUEL-Do you prQpo:;¡e any add,i'trionql pa1"k¡ng area? MR~ CANA~E-Wel¡, th. pàrking.' lot was.240, feet deep. "Tnere's , plenty of , , MR. RUEL-Yes, where, would .it be, in 'pq,ck ,of tile, g,~ra,ge somewhere? MR. CANALE-Yes. There's almost an acre o~ land £here. MR. RUEL-But right now the parking area would be what, just in front of the garage? MR. CANALE-On Rozelle Street, and as Scott said, in front of the garage. Two spaces in front of ~he garage, and two or three cars can fit between Main Street and the garage, and then beyond we've got 240 feet on Rozelle Street. MR. RUEL-You can park on that road? It's a pretty narrow road. There's parking there? ~: " : " -- ¡ MR. CANALE-Not on"Main $treet. MR. HARLICKËR-Well, for a site plan review, you've got to show - 23 - that you have adequate pa)-king on site, and if the spaces provided for in the driveway are shown to be inadequate, like you said, there's plenty of room in back for him to put more parking in if it's needed. MR. OBERMAYER-You've got a lot of space there. ~ow long have YOU lived in the house? MR. CANALE-I don't live there. My nephew owns the property. He has no plans for the property now. So he uses the garage for storage and he's allowing me to use the house for an office. That's all, until he plans to do something with the property. MR. RUEL-Would Mr. Canale have to return if he paves an area behind the garage? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, he would. MR. RUEL-It's more than just getting a building permit? MR. HARLICKER-Right. He would come back in similar to what the fire station did tonight, fire company did. MR. RUEL-Yes. You'd have to decided to build additional flourished to that extent. come back before the parking area, if Board if you your business MR. CANALE-That's highly unlikely. MR. BREWER-Is he required to provide a handicapped parking space? It's just a question. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, he should. MR. BREWER-So he can mark that in the driveway? MR. HARLICKER-Correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. So do you have a problem doing that, providing the handicapped parking? MR. HARLICKER-You have to have a designated handicapped spot. MR. CANALE-We could do that, sure. As a matter of fact, the salesman that I might have is on crutches. MR. BREWER-Well~ it's just a requirement that's in the books. MR. CANALE-We can do that. MR. PALING-We can make that part of the motion we'll have, that you'll do that, designate it and identify it. MR. RUEL-If there are two parking areas, he's got to have a handicapped area? MR. BREWER-He's got an employee there, yes. That's part of the law. MR. RUEL-TwQ parking areas? MR. HARLICKER-You need one space, I believe, for every twenty five parking spaces. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know, but if he has two parking areas and one is a handicapped area, then he only has one parking area. MR. PALING-He's got at least two rear of the house, and one of handicapped. spaces, and the those could be one near the designated a - 24 - "-' '-" ',,-, ----- MR. RUEL-The two spaces you're talking about are the driveway in front of the garage. MR. PALING-Behind the house. MR. RUEL-Yes, in front of the garage, the entrance to the garage. If you mark one of those handicapped. MR. BREWER-Then he's going to have one. MR. RUËL-Then you only have one. MR. PALING-Yes. Then he can park behind the barn. MR. OBERMAYER~Yes. MR. RUEL-Then he has to come back? MR. BREWER-No, Roger. He just has to provide one handicapped parking place out of those two. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. BREWER-End of discussion. MR. OBERMAYER-One handicapped. One regular parking. MR. PALING-Which is what he's going to do. MR. RUEL-All right. I have a question about the handicapped area. Supposing you had a business that had one parking area. MR. PALING-You mean one parking space? MR. RUEL-Space, yes. MR. BREWER-It wouldn't be adequate. MR. RUEL-What happens to handicapped people? there. They can't park MR. PALING-You don't have enough parking space period. MR. STARK-Why don't we ask this at the end of the meeting? MR. PALING-Yes. I think we're, Mr. Canale has said he'll do what he's being asked to do. So, any othe)" comments from the Board? Okay. We'll open the public hearing on this then. Is there anyone here that would like to comment about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. We don't need a SEQRA. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's a Short Form. MR. PALING-Short Form? Okay. We'll do the Short Form. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to put a sign out front? MR. CANALE-I'd like to put a sign, yes. I've got to put a sign out there. I have a sign two by three, t~o feet high, three feet deep, wide, six square feet. It's mandated by the State. MR. PALING-That's a separate path of approval, though. - 25 - ~ MR. RUEL-Yes. That's got nothing to do with us. MR. OBERMAYËR-I was just curious, that's all. Okay. Here we go, the Environmental Assessment which we have to do. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 21-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the ANTHONY A. CANALE, and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State E~vironmental Quality Review Act and thé 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 ReQUl4tions for the State of New Yqrk, this Board fjnds that th~,~dtl~~~aboutto beundertak~h ibX..this B9~rd ~ill have no signlf'ic~'i'\'t: e.Dvíronmental effect, anQ the: 'C\hairman of the Pl¿:¡, nnI hg 'Board is,,, hereþ,y author izedto execute and sign and file a:?fI)<ilY be he6~$sary a stateme,rtf:of non-'significance or a negative declaration that maybe r~quired by law. , ' Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-95 ANTHONY A. CANALE, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As written, wit~ the cohdition that one of the two parking spaces is declared handicapped, and noted on the map. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file I 21-95 to locate a real estate office in an existing single family dwelling; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 4/21/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, Site Plan, dated 4/30/95; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/16/95 concerning - 26 - '--, -- '-- ~ 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 Cod~ of the Town of QMßensbury. (Zoning);, éWd Whereas, the Planning Board h~s con~¡dered the environmental factors found in' Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). Whereas, the requirements of th, State Environmental Quality Review A6t have be.n considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve s,ite plan' 21-95, ANTHONY CANALE. 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 Zoning Administrator 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 OrdJnance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Br~wer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 2-95 RICH SCHERMERHORN OWNER: RICHARD MACDONALD ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: MEADOWBROOK & CRONIN RDS. WETLAND PROPERTY INVOLVED: GF 19 PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 LOTS WHICH INVOLVES A 1.4 ACRE WETLAND. A SUBDIVISION IS CONSIDERED A REGULATED ACTIVITY RËQÜIRING A WETLAND PERMIT. CROSS REFERENCE: PETITION 1-94 SUBDIV. 7-1995 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-7.1, 7.3 LOT SIZE: 5.61 ACRES SECTION: 94-6 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, FW2-95, Rich Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: May 16, 1995 "The applicant requires a wetland permit because hs is 'conducti ng a regulated acti v i ty, subdivision of property, ., wi thi n 100 feet of a DEC flagged wetland. The subdivision itself should not have an impact on the wetland. The wetland will be included in a parcel that is to remain undeveloped, and there will be no development with 100 feet of the wetland as a condition of the 1"ezoni ng . II MR. STARK-I have a comment for Mr. Steves. comments from Rist-Frost? You've seen the MR. STEVES-Yes, I have. My name is Leon Steves, from Van Dusen and Steves, representing Richard Schermerhorn. MR. STARK-Could you address them, Mr. Steves? MR. STEVES-I'll be glad to. There's three items. The first - 27 - ---'-'------------- - - -- - - - -,----- '---'------- requires the engineer's/surveyor's seal to appear on the drawing. We don't like to place our seals on a map that is not approvable, any more thari you do. Once you find it approvable, we will be glad to seal it, because anyone can take our maps and file them. Two, a statement of intent according to (A183-9I) is required. I gave a copy of that to Scott tonight. I thought I had submitted that earlier for your packet. It's just a brief sentence saying that (lost word), and the FEMA study indicates the 100 year floods in this area are approximately at elevation 305 elevation. All lots are shown to be in FEMA "special flood hazard areas." As such, a Flood Hazard Development Permit per Oueensbury Code is required. We're well aware of that, and each house will require a pèrmit from Dave Hatin, the Building Inspector. MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, on previous applications, Rist-Frost engineering comments were read into the reoord. MR. PALING-All right. read them in please. We can do that. Scott, do you want to MR. HARLICKER-This is, regarding the Schermerhorn subdivision, Meadowbrook, Subdivision, it's the Preliminary Stage. It's Subdivision No. 7-1995. "We have reviewed the revised plans received May 9, 1995, with the following engineering comments: Required engineering/survey seals do not appear on qrawings Cl and C2. A Statement of Intent according to (A183-9I) is required. No SEQRA Report was included in submittal to Rist- Frost. FEMA study indicates 100 year floods in this area are at approximately 305 ft. elevation. All lots are shown to be in FEMA 'special flood hazard areas'. As such, a Flood Hazard Development Permit per Queensbury Code is required. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William F. MacNamara, P.E. Project Engineer" MR. PALING-Okay. What did you say about the SEORA report? MR. STEVES-That was done at the Town Board when we asked for the rezoning. MR. PALING~Okay. Are there any questions or comments by the Board? We'll open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here that would like to question or comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. OBERMAYER-You require a DEC wetlands permit in order to construct at all? MR. STEVES-My personal belief is, (lost word) determination mYself. them to make that determination application has been (lost word). no, we do not, but I'm not We've written to DEC and asked based upon the plans, and the MR. OBERMAYER-Any response? MR. STEVES-Only that they are reviewing it. It has to go through Regulatory Affairs first. The plans are the same plans as you have. We've delineated the DEC wetlands as they have them flagged. We came back 100 feet from that wetland and said no disturbance within that area. The limits of our construction will be outside of that area. We will flag it for Rich so that he doesn't enter into that at all. We don't know what more we can do. We don't feel that there's any reason to inf)"inge upon tha.t wetlands. MR. OBERMAYER-That 100 feet? - 28 - '"--, --- MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. OBERMAYER-The only reason you need a wetlands permit from us is because the lot extends into the 100 foot buffer? Is that correct? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. OBERMAYER-But then if the lot does, know what your setback is, that means. okay. I see. All right. and YOU have, I don't really, you're, well, MR. BREWER-The last meeting we had, Leon, wasn't there something you had to get from the attorney or something, deed restrictions, or am I confused? I thought you had to get a copy of something to give to our attorney for? RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, for the record. I believe it was at, I know it was at the Town Board that it was approved for the deed restrictions and the covenan~s. Yes. Everything we discussed (lost w6rd) and that was approved before the last meeting at the Town Board. MR. BREWER-And we have a copy of that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, you should, yes. MR. BREWER-You're right, we should, but dQ we? We do? Okay. MR. HARLICKER-I'm looking through the file now. MR. OBERMAYER-One other question. As far as, like, at your clearing plan, right here, this little Here's the 100 foot wetland. I'm looking slash l,i ne . MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So really you're right on the edge of the 100 foot wetland. MR. STEVES-Right on it. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I thi nk we've been down this: road, probably, about ten times already, haven't we? MR. STEVES-Yes. The only thi ng that I would, li ke ,to qiscuss ,.wi th the Board, that I haven't discussed with RicK. and m~ybe I should before I say anything. MR. OBERMAYER-Not a bad idea. MR. STEVES-It's been brought to my attention that the Town of Queensbury owns the parcel of land to the south of this property on Cronin Road. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. STEVES-Okay, plus a larger piece beyond that. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. STEVES-We intend to give this pond as open space to the Town, and it would probably be beneficial to everyone if a strip 25 or 30 feet wide off the west end of Lot 1 were included in that donation to the Town. So, with that, I think we'd like to change the map, reducing the size of Lot 1 to make the open space area that much larger for dedication to the Town. - 29 - MR. BREWER-Now, is that in reference to Recreation fees, Leon? MR. STEVES-That's been addressed by the Town. MR. RUEL-Are you donating this because it's under water, or what? MR. BRE~ER-Preity much. I¡ ! MR.STEVES~No, no. ! think it would be nice to Wi th the Tot4n . :Ówner~hÚL ' S.i nc~, they own a lot acro~s the$tr~et~ the; dàn cqme across and ha~e ',¡. " , ' .', own. '. have continuity right straight a :tie on their ., ,j MR. HARLICKER-As subdivisions have come up along different, particularly Clendon Brook and Halfway Brook, we've be~n trying to get lands dedicated along these stream corridors to provide a green space along these streams. MR. MACEWAN-It's good planning. MR. HARLICKER-I believe Garth Allen, the one on the opposite side of this Halfway Brook, is involved in this. Then several months ago, there was a three lot subdivision on the other side of Cronin that also dedicated land to the Town. I also believe they're working on getting some land from the Elks Club. There's also another interior parcel, down towards Quaker, that the Town has purchased. They've got a stretch up along through Hiland Park that is Town owned property. So slowly we're getting these stream corridors, green spaces along them. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, that's good. MR. PALING-But tonight we're looking at a wetlands ~eYmit. How are we going to incorporate this into what? MR. STEVES-Well, that's the next item on the agenda. MR. PALING-All right. So, okay. We'll get the wetlands permit done, and then come back to that in the next agenda item. All right. I think we're at that point, are we not? Is there a motion? Scott, there is no resolution on this? MR. HARLICKER-There was one in your packet last month. The only revision. I have revisions to that resolution would be for Sheet Cl, it should be Subdivision Site Plan revised 4/24/95. There should be an additional reference to some new Rist-Frost comments, dated 5/11/95, and a stormwater management plan, dated 4/28/95. Otherwise, the previous subdivision resolution. MR. PALING-Was this part of the previous resolution? MR. HARLICKER-No. The previous resolution was tabled. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. minute. Okay. Let me just look at this for a MR. RUEL-All right. I'll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Roger Ruel who adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: NO. 2-95 moved for RICH its With the conditions that Sheet C1 of the plans, dated 4/25 should be dated 4/25/95, and condition two, that the Rist-Frost comments dated 4/18/95 and 5/11/95 should be included and, item three, that the stormwater management plan dated 4/28/95 be submitted. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, - 30 - '--' ~' '- --'" Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RICH SCHERMERHORN OWNER: RICHARD MACDONALD ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: MEADOWBROOK AND CRONIN RDS. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.61 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 LOTS. FOUR LOTS FRONTING ON MEADOWBROOK ROAD WILL BE .46 ACRES AND 1 LOT FRONTING ON CRONIN ROAD WILL BE .74 ACRES. THERE WILL BE A 3.03 ACRE PARCEL ALONG HALFWAY BROOK RESÈRVED AS OPEN SPACE. CROSS REFERENCE: PETITION NO. 1-94 TAX MAP NO. 60- 2-7.1, 7.3 LOT SIZE: 5.61 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-The stormwater management report from Haanen Engineering, that was incorporated before, wasn't it? MR. HARLICKER-That was done, I believe, to address Rist-Frost's comments from the last meeting, wasn't it? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. All right. Are there any comments? None? I'll re-open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone that wishes to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-I have a question for the applicant. statement about seals on Cl and C2. There was a MR. STEVES-As the Board doesn't like to' stamp hasn't been approved yet, nor do \:i.ê. like to seal has not received approvable condition. anything that anything that MR. RUEL~Well, yes, but some of the sheets have it. wondering why some do and some don't. I'm just MR. STEVES-All the final sheets will have it on there. MR. RUEL-Thank you, sir. MR. STEVES-After the Chairman signs the plan, we make ten copies of that, his signature on it approving it, and has all seals on it, and we bring it back to the Town for distribution. MR. RUEL-You sign the mylar? MR. STEVES-Yes, he does. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't want to dwell on the past. The reaSOn that it was delayed last month until we left a site plan, the public hearing open, what was the reason for that? MR. STEVES-There were several en~ineering comments that, you wished addressed. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, and Rist-Frost has no comments on any of those engineering things? - 31 - MR. HARLICKER-Well, we've read in what his new comments are. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. RUEL-This letter covers the subdivision as well. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Well if there are no comments, we can proceed to make a motion. MR. STEVES-Is it acceptable to you (lost word) Lot 1? MR. PALING-Okay. This only involves Lot 1, 25 feet, did you say? MR. STEVES-Twenty-five or thirty feet, so that the pedestrian traffic cah get through there. MR. MACEWAN-Would you be in agreement? MR. STEVES-Well, (lost word) we hope to give the land to the Town anyway in lieu of Rec fees. MR. RUEL-It's not up to us to make the exceptions. MR. STEVES-We understand that. MR. BREWER-I thought that comes back to us. Don't we get recommendation for recreation fees for that or something? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. STEVES-You see how I've put it in here with a dog leg on it, so it widens out more back here by the pond. MR. PALING-Okay. Why do you stop at Lot 1? MR. STEVES-Well, because the pond is part of open space. MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. All right. Well, what do we do with this? We can't accept this. That's not our prerogative. MR. RUEL-Now what's the procedure for acceptance of a parcel like that? MR. PALING-We can't accept anything. MR. STEVES-No, no. I understand that. MR. PALING-Just the change in the plan. refused it, then where are we? Supposing the Town RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-Then we just have two accesses to the open space, that's all. MR. RUEL-Why don't we accept it the way it is, and then let them make the application to the Town. MR. PALING-Well, all we'd be accepting is a change on the print. MR. RUEL-No. I'm saying, why don't we accept it as is, without any changes. MR. MACEWAN-And then he'd have to come back for a modification. MR. RUEL-Yes, that's right. MR. MACEWAN-Why make him go through that added step? Why don't - 32 - '-- ...-' '--- -- we just let him, you know, change the lot line? My suggestion would be to find out from Scott as to what the width is that's on the Garth Allen side of the brook, which I think is 30 feet, do the same on this side. MR. BREWER-Yes, but doesn't he create another lot by doing that, Mark, if he puts a lot line down through there? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, basically, I haven't looked at the map. but I think what we're talking about here, here, lets look at the map. MR. PALING-And he's got a dog leg in that, Mark, too. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So there's already, it looks like a minor lot line adjustment, which could be made now or later. MR. HARLICKER-You're talking about shifting this, right? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-And then providing access out onto Cronin. MR. STEVES-We're doing this so that the open space here becomes a larger area, and the lot line reduces in size. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. STEVES-Now, we would have to go to the Town Board to get their approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. HARLICKER-So you're saying you'll come back with, your final plat will show that altered lot line, explain that to them. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. PALING-We can do it tonight. MR. RUEL-As a condition? MR. MACEWAN-As a conditions. We're to that open space. condition of what? We're not making any just allowing him to create another accessway MR. PALING-We're accepting a change in the print. MR. RUEL-The print has not been modified. MR. BREWER-He'll modify it. MR. HARLICKER-Right. His final plat will show the redesign of that open space area. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-I think it's a great idea. MR. BREWER-Leon, when you come back for final, just have it on the plan. MR. STEVES-I think you've got a packet already. If Scott will allow me, I'll try to enter the new ones into the packet you have for final. MR. BREWER-That would be fine. MR. STEVES-This was a last minute thought that came about one evening when I discovered the Town owned a lot across the road. - 33 - "- -- MR. PALING-Okay. Can we have a ~otion1 ' MR. RUEL-Well, if we make a motion, we have to have a write up on exactly what he intends to do here, fight? MR. OBERMAYER-No, just saying that he's going to adjust the plot plan. MR. STEVES-This is only Preliminary. MR. BREWER-Right. So that detail carl be taken care of between now and final. He'll address that on the map. MOTION TO ApPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1995 RICH SCH~RMERHOR~, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoptiori,~e60hded by Roger Ruel: . , The only condition be that they will mâke a lot line adjustment on Lot One, to reflect access to the open space, for final. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs~ LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, My. Ob~rmaye1-, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 25-95 TYPE: UNLISTED RECOMMENDATION KEVIN QUINN OWNER: NORTHEAST REALTY/JOSEPH BUÔNVIAGGIO ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9, FORMERLY SOUTHWEST TRADERS PROPOSAL IS FOR A TRANSIENT MERC~ANT MARKET TO ALLOW VENDORS AT AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREAÖN UPPER ROUTE 9 AT THE NORTrtERN BOUNDARY OF THE TOWN. THE PROPOSED MARKËT IS FOR SALE, OF HERCHANDISEAS50CIATED WITH AMERICADE.' WARREN CO. PLANNING:' 5)10/95 TAX MAP NO. 33-1- 3.3, 3.1, 3.2 LOT SIZE~' 1.43 ACRES SECTION: 160 GREG CANALE & NAOMI PALEETO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HARLICKER-This is before the Board for a recommendation, and what I did was I went through the same type of site plan review criteria that you would for a regular, formal site plan review, even though this is just a recommendation. MR. PALING-Well, if I read the regulations reg~rding these Transient Merchant Laws, there's nothing in there to do with what we d6. It just says there will 'be a site plah review. So we just take the normal site plan rules. MR. HARLICKER-Right. That's what I did. I compared it to the normal site plan criteria. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from staff, Site Plan No. 25-95, KEVIN QUINN, Meeting Date: May 16, 1995 "PROJECT' ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38A, Section 179-38B, Section 179-38C ánd to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and found that it is in compliance with the above. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. Location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; There are no new structures proposed for this site. The market will be comprised of vendors utilizing tents placed on the site temporarily. No new signage or lighting is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement - 34 - ',,-- - .../ surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular access appears to be adequate. The market will be accessed by three existing curb cuts. The possibility of eliminating the middle curb cut should be explored. This would reduce the number of conflicting turning motions coming into and leaving the site. By eliminating the middle cut there would be 150 feet between the two remaining access points. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The Zoning Code does not have parking requirements for outdoor retail sales. The American Planning Association's report on off- street parking requirements shows parking requirements ranging from 1 space for every 200 square feet of vendor area to 1 space for every 1,000 square feet of vendor area. It seems that a 1~easC)n<ilble ratio woµld ,.bein ,the ,1 space for every !;>OO square feet range; this would' require 21 "spaces. 4. The~èh~quaèy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circul~t1óri, ~alkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian cQnvenience; The applicant is proposing pa1-king in the middle of the vending area. This does not appear to be a safe situation for customers. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; This is a temporary situation and stormwater drainage should not be a problem. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The applicant should explain what they are going to use for restroom facilities for vendors. 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 maxi~µ~ r~tention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; Landscaping is not an issue. 8. The, adequacY of fi,re lanes and Óther' emergency zone$ and the provision, of, .fi re hydrants; Emergeòc;y ',access. :does n.õt" appear to be ,a problem. There wíll ,be 2: access points to the rear,of .tt:1e property-,.!<ept opeD f01; emergency use. , 9. The' adeRUacy' and ~1iji?F\ct of stqActures,. :roadWays ,~Ùld landscapi 119" in areas: ' " wi th 'susceptibility to "po'ndlríg, flooding and"';QT erosion. Thls does not appear to be, ,an issue. 'RECOMMENDATIdN: It seems that the main concerns are related to parking, tráffic access and restroom facilities. If these issues can be addressed to the Board's satisfaction, staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. PALING-And all we're being recommendation. asked to do is make a MR. HARLICKER-There's a prepared resolution, but that's not really applicable to what you're doing tonight. I got carried áway in writing the resolutions. This was sent up to Warren County Planning Board, and it came back with No County Impact. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. So we don't have to worry about the County. Okay, and I've talked about the Transient Merchant Law. MR. RUEL-Do we have to consider that? MR. PALING-Well, no, you don't. My earlier remarks were that, when you read through this, it has only to do with ¡¡censlng and fees, and that kind of thing and directs us to have a~ormal site plan review. So we don't do anything except go through a normal site plan review, and apply the rules t.haL are.appl icable. MR. RUEL-And then it's a recommendation to the Town Board, and they make the final decision. MR. PALING-Correct. MR. RUEL-Okay. Are we open for questions here? MR. PALING-Certainly. MR. CANALE-My name is 'Greg Canale. i'! I'm an attorney i~ Glens - 35 - Falls, and I represent the applicant. MS. PALEETO-Naomi Paleeto. I work for Northeast Realty. MR. RUEL-You expect to be open between what period, what months? MS. PALEETO-Our stores are open between May and October, possibly November, but we just want this for Americade, which I believe is six days, beginning. MR. RUEL-You're talking about May through November, is that it? MS. PALEETO-That's when the stores are open. for during the Americade. We don't want to vendors any other time. We just set up want this a ny other MR. HARLICKER-Well, this is before the Board under the new Transient Merchant Law. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know. sto)"es? You're talking about stores, existing MS. PALEETO-Yes. MR. RUEL-All right. tents? What we're talking about are temporary MS. PALEETO-Six days, during the Americade. MR. RUEL-To be in the front of these stores, right? MS. PALEETO-Yes. MR. RUEL-Along the road. MS. PALEETO-They're along the curb side, set 10 feet back, and also on the sides of the buildings. MR. RUEL-And what are the hours of operation? MS. PALEETO-Roughly between nine a.m. and nine p.m. stops when it begins to get dark. Usually it MR. RUEL-Yes. So do you propose any lighting? MS. PALEETO-We have lighting. I believe there are four different lights, street lights, regular street lights. Most of the vendors who want lighting, they usually bring their own, plug in. MR. RUEL-So their lighting will be like internal, inside the tent area or whatever? MS. PALEETO-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. Of course the question comes up with port-a-johns and parking. MS. PALEETO-Now, port-a-johns, my question was if the Town of Queensbury would let ~s have them, because I know the Town of Lake George will not let uS put them in there. MR. HARLICKER-No, the Town of Queensbury doesn't allow them, ei ther . MR. RUEL-No, they're not allowed in Queensbury. MS. PALEETO-Okay. Well, we do have a public restroom which we can let the vendors use. I mean, I'd prefer to have the port-a- johns. That way there the overflow from the public could also use them. - 36 - -' -/ "-- --' MR. RUEL-Some of the buildings have. MS. PALEETO-There's only two buildings that have restroqms. MR. RUEL-Are they in Queensbury or in Lake George? MS. PALEETO-One is in Lake George and one is in Queensbury. MR. HARLICKER-So those buildings will be open for use by the vendors? MS. PALEETO-Yes. MR. RUEL-And that would only be adequate for vendors. MS. PALEETO-Yes. MR. RUEL-And you have no facilities for public? MS. PALEETO-No, that's why I would like to have the port-a-johns, but no one will let us. MR. RUEL-Now, what do you propose for parking? MS. PALEETO-For parking we have, I mean, if you don't want us to park on Queensbury side, that's not a problem. We have more than enough adequate parking on the Lake George side. You also have to remember that a motorcycle takes up a half to a third of a vehicle. MR. RUEL-Well, you can't park on the road. MS. PALEETO-No, there's gravel all along the back of the buildings. You can look on the map, to the left side, all in the front and all in the back there's also a parking area by the TeePee, behind the TeePee. MR. RUEL-In back of there, there is a parking lot? MS. PALEETO-Yes. It's all graveled, laid out, gra~s and gravel. I mean, there's plenty of parking space. MR. RUEL-All right. Can I assume, then, you won't have any parking between the tent area and the buildings? MS. PALEETO-No, probably not. I put them on there to show that we do have the parking. MR. RUEL-Yes. dangerous. It's on here, but it seems like it's a bit MS. PALEETO-It would be too confusing and too hard for people to really pull in and out. MR. RUEL-Yes, because there'll be people in that area. MR. PALING-Could you put dates to the six days? MS. PALEETO-I believe, to be honest with you, I'm really not sure. I believe it's June 6th through 11th, or 6th to the 12th. I'm not sure of the exact dates. MR. PALING-I'd like to have those dates made part of any corrections we make, if you would. MR. BREWER-Mark, I have a question for you. When this, do we consider the whole thing, or do we just part that's in Queensbury? I mean, we have no right to block off an entrance in Lake George, do we? we conside)" consider the to tell them - 37 - MR. SCHACHNER-No. The answer is technically your jurisdiction is in Queensbury only. You can certainly, in making Judgements on what goes on in Queensbury, you don't have to sort of artificially pretend that you don't know what's going on in Lake George. You can take that into account, but your technical Jurisdiction is limited to Queensbury only. MR. RUEL-Where's the division for Lake George, after the Tepee? MS. PALEETO-It's actually right where the page separates. That's where the Town line is. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. PALING-With the Board's concurrence, how about we go down the engineering comments, go through them, and then come back and see if we have any further comments because Scott has hit on most of the areas that we're talking about. So lets, have you seen this before coming here, comments by Staff? Okay. MR. 08ERMAYER-Would you like a copy? MR. STARK-Bob, having lived up there, I'm probably more familiar with the area than the applicant, as to what goes on during Americade week, and what tents are set up and so on and so forth. I can answer a lot of these questions. MR. PALING~Okay. They're talking about the market will be comprised of vendors utilizing tent space, okay, I don't have a question on Item Number One. There's no new signage or lighting proposed. I don't think they need it. I don't know. MR. OBERMAYER-Were you guys set up in the same location last year? MR. CANALE-Yes. MR. 08ERMAYER-And you didn't have to go through this long transient application. MR. PALING-Item Number Two has to do with vehicular he's asked that the possibility of a middle curb eliminating the middle curb cut be éxplored. Who's that Queensbury's? traffic and cut should, property, is MR. HARLICKER-That would be the one on the Lake George. access to this area is through the Lake George property. is no proposed access to this vending area in the Queensbury. Their There Town of MR. PALING-And we can't really say anything. MS. PALEETO-If you're asking me to block off a cleared entrance or another entrance, one of the three, it doesn't bother me at all. MR. PALING-All right. It would be nice from a safety standpoint, if you would, but we can't ask you to. MS. PALEETO-Yes. That's not a problem. MR. PALING-All right. Good. MR. RUEL-All the curb cuts in Queensbury are closed off, right? MS. PALEETO-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Scott's comment, regarding parking, it seems that a reasonable ratio would be in one space for every five hundred square feet range. This would require twenty-one spaces. I think they have more than that. - 38 - ~ ..-- ",,"--, --- MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They have plenty of room for parking. MR. PALING-That's not a factor. Okay. Then the adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic and so on. Now, the parking in the middle of the vending area, that probably, I would think, but you've addressed that. MS. PALEETO-It probably won't be used, but I was requested tQ put it on, just to show that I did have some parking in the Town of Queensbur'>' . MR. BREWER-Can we request that it be eliminated from this drawing without a problem from the applicant? Eliminate parking between the proposed vending and the buildings, because people are going to be milling around through there. MR. RUEL-So you'll have to designate some new handicapped areas. MS. PALEETO-Well, actually what I did just today, was planning on putting one handicapped in front of each building. So I don't know if that makes a difference according to the map or not. MR. RUEL-In front of the building? MS. PALEETO-Yes. It was just something I decided to do.. MR. RUEL-This is just what we were talking about eliminating. MS. PALEETO-You wanted to eliminate all these? MR. RUEL-We want to eliminate all parking between vendor area and the building. MS. PALEETO-Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't realize, that's not a problem, because I have a brought four signs today to put in front of each building, and one handicapped for each building. MR. RUEL-Where would you place them? MS. PALEETO-One in front of each building. MR. CANALE-We would designate that the handicapped parking place. MR. RUEL-Elsewhere. MR. CANALE-On the northern side, on the Lake George side, obviously, according to what you would like US to do. We've agreed to do no parking between the vendors and the buildings. We'd certainly agree to that. So we'd put the handicapped parking four spots, probably somewhere in the Lake George, on the northern part of the property, and specifically as close to the vending areas as possible. MR. RUEL-Right, as close as possible to that area. Yes, that would be just about where the Tepee is, or just before that. MR. PALING-Okay. The next one I see is the restroom facilities, and you've said that you have them in two different buildings that you're going to utilize because you can't use the port-a- johns. Now what capacity does that give you? How many seats or whatever? MS. PALEETO-It's just a normal full bathroom. MR. PALING-Does that cause any problem for what they're going to have there, or do we have a spec on that? MR. HARLICKER-We don't restrooms are required outdoor vending. really have for, under standards for this Transient how many Merchant, - 39 - -' MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. Do vendor wanted to set up else? you remember one application where a at the corner of Quaker and somewhere MR. STARK-Yes, but that was about 40 vendors, Roger. you've got six vendors. This here MR. OBERMAYER-What do we want to do? Do we wa~t them to construct restrooms to accommodate for six days? MR. RUEL-This was a temporary thing, and we insisted that he have faci li ties. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You're talking about the one up on 149 and Ridge? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-That was going to be a permanent. MR. RUEL-Permanent? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. , MR. PALING-Y~s. That w~~ the fafmer~s mark~t. That was a different ballgame. Okay, and I guess that, Scott, they've answered, or the answer to the fire hydrants and the emergency access is answered to your satisfaction? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They've got two areas where they're going to keep clear. So you can get back to the rear of the buildings there. MR. PALING-Okay. Now we'll open it up, if anybody on the Board has got further questions. MR. HARLICKER-I'd just like to read in a letter. I spoke to Cliff Frais~r. He's the Zoning Officer up in Lake George, regarding this project, and he wrote back. "Dear Mr. Harlicker: Pursuant to our conversation on May 2, 1995 be advised that we do not allow porta johns or vending in the Town of Lake George. Therefore, any vending or use of porta johns on the above referenced property must be located on the Town of Queensbury side. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Cliff Fraiser, Enforcement Officer" During his phone conversation, he also indicated that, because there's retail sales on that property, they really can't prohibit people from utilizing that as a parking area. That was a concern that was brought up by the Town Board in their resolution referring this project to you. They wanted clarification from the Town of Lake George regarding parking, port-a-johns, and vending. He wouldn't put it in writing, but he said, verbally, that it's a retail use there. You can't prohibit people from parking there if it's a retail use, or they couldn't. MR. PALING-That's in Lake George. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Well, I don't think we can do anything about that. Okay. Any comments by anyone? MR. OBERMAYER-I have one comment that I'd like to make, and that really doesn't have anything to do with, probably, the applicant. It has to do with this who Transient Merchant, Transient Merchant markets. I can't believe that we make applicants, owners of businesses, go through this application fee. If the people that - 40 - '- '--,' '-.- -.../ own the property or the business want to bring in an outside transient to sit on their front curb and sell things, they have to go through this. It's crazy. M~. PALING-Okay. Jim, could we bring that up at the end of the meeting, okay, because we're not going to change anything right now. All right. We'll open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Now we have a resolution. MR. HARLICKER-It's not applicable to this, though. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. HARLICKER-This is Just a recommendation. MR. PALING-This is only a recommendation to the Town Board. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE 4~-95, Introduced by Roger seconded by George Stark: TOWN BOARD APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN NO. Ruel who moved for its adoption, With the recommendation of the 15 parking spaces between vendor and buildings be eliminated, and that five handicapped spaces be provided elsewhere. Consideration should be given to elimination of the central curb cut on Lake George property. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: MR. PALING-I think we ought to have in there that the operating hours will be from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and that they will be limited to six days of operation, approximately June 6th through June 11th. MR. RUEL-That is part of the Town Board ordinance. nothing to do with site plan application. That has MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. aren't we? We're just giving them a recommendation, MR. PALING-It's a recommendation only. MR. BREWER-Can I make a recommendation to the recommendation? MR. PALING-Why not? MR. BREWER-That we have the no parking between vendors and the buildings, the middle entrance be blocked, which they have no problem with. MR. PALING-That's not on our property. that. I don't think we can ask MR. BREWER-We can still recommend that that should happen, and that the port-a-Johns be taken off the map, indicate that they're not there. MS. PALEETO-I don't know if anybody received a revised map to scale? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I have one right here. , - 41 - MR. PALING-Yes. MS. PALEETO-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-There's no port-a-johns on it. MR. RUEL-Where are they? MR. HARLICKER-They aren't on the revised maps. MR. MACEWAN~eob, you might also want to keep in mind the location of the handièapþed sign~ i.s not' on, Town, ffroperty eit,hêr. MR. RUEL-No, it isn't. That's right. MR. BREWER-But we can still recommend that they do it, though. I mean, they don't have a problem with it, so I don't see any harm to that. MR. MACEWAN-If it becomes part of your recommendation, and the Town Board approves that, it becomes an enforcement problem. MR. PALING-We better drop that. Why don't we go back and make the resolution again, because if it's not on Queensbury property, think we're confusing the Town Board. MR. RUEL-The elimination of the and the buildings is part of eliminate the handicapped area. parking area between the vendor it, but when we do that, we MR. MACEWAN-But the Town Board, because this goes back to the Town Board again, and they can either accept or deny our recommendation, or they can accept our recommendation and put their own conditions on top of it, too, and George has got a good point. If they want to put conditions on it that they see fit to the project, let them do it. Because it's hard for us, I mean, you're asking us to make recommendations to this thing that don't affect Town property. I mean, should there become a problem up there during this time span that we need to send the Code Enforcement Officer up there to enforce something that we made as a recommendation that the Town approved, he can't enforce it because it's not on Town property. MR. RUEL-All right. MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, we're making a recommendation. They don't have to take our advice or not take our advice, and we just sat here and talked about this thing and we said to the applicant that we recommend that they eliminate the parking, eliminate the port~a-johns, block off this, and make adequate parking for handicapped at another place. If they don't want to do any of those things, that's fine, they don't have to, but that's what our discussion was, and I think they should know what our discussion was. MR. PALING-I agree with you to the extent that's what we recommend, but we've got to identify some of it as not being on our property, or else I think you used the right words when you came to handicapped, that we've eliminated the parking. There should be handicapped parking elsewhere, and then let the Town Board take it from there. MR. OBERMAYER-JUst use it as a general note. MR. PALING-And then do the same thing with the curb cut, and then I think you've got it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Don't confuse the word "recommend" with "stipulation". In other words, we're not going to pass a resolution and put it, it's just a recommendation. - 42 - '- -' -~- -...../ MR. RUEL-ükay. AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan DISCUSSION ITEM: 2. JIM WELLER DISCUSSION OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES OWNED BY NEMER'S ON QUAKER ROAD. JIM WELLER, PRESENT MR. PALING-This is just discussion. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I'd just like to make the Board aware that there are wetlands involved on this property, and the 100 foot setbacks come into play. Easements regarding NiMo for access and parking on their property should be looked at, and I just have a question showing what appear to be little circles. I'm not sure what they, is that an existing stone fence of some sort or something going across the middle of the plat? MR. PALING-Yes. I was going to ask. MR. HARLICKER-I guess the other thing is, the possibility of eliminating one of the access points and just using one access point, and a circular flow around the perimeter of the parking area there, I think, would piobably suffice. It's just a discussion item. This is more of a concept plan than anything else right now. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please? MR. WELLER-I'm Jim Weller, and it was at my request that we're here tonight. We thought that if we could bring you the concept of what we're trying to do on, Quaker Road, we might be able to discuss primarily three aspects of the project that ~ concerned with. One of them is the two curb cuts along Quaker Road. The other one is how we address the parking or retail inventory, as we call it, for the dealership, and finally the wetlands, and I'd just bring you up to date with any wetlands concerns or what have you. I have been de~ling with DEC and the Corps of Engineers on the wetlands issue, and they seem to be somewhat settled (lost word). I thirik our primary concern is our desire, in the development of the property and utilization of the property, is to put two curb cuts to Quaker Road. In talking with staff, there seems to be some resistance to that, and rather than develop a complete plan for utilization of the property, we thought it would be good to come here tonight and talk about the two entrances to Quaker Road. It's !.Ill:. understanding that it would be considered to be permitted in the Town of Queensbury to have two entrances on a parcel of land, with the only restriction that the two entrances be at least 150 feet apart. There seems to be a trend from staff that maybe the requirements should be a little more stringent than that. We don't know, necessarily, why. MR. BREWER-Why would you prefer two rather than one, Jim? MR. WELLER-Not only future development of the property, but access to the property. MR. PALING-Straighten out a point of confusion with me. It appears that you can't get to your property from Quaker Road without going across Niagara Mohawk? - 43 - '---' -, -;,. MR. WELLER-That's correct. MR. PALING-So you do, you get access from them, and then. STEVEN RIEGER MR. RIEGER-We have an access agreement with Niagara Mohawk. MR. HARLICKER-Does that access agreement also include utilizing the property for parking, or is it just an access agreement? MR. WELLER-The access agreement; the details of it are not yet in place, but the understanding is that the property will be made available for utilization. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. RIEGER-Niagara Mohawk regularly does that along Quaker Road. They lease property. MR. PALING-Where do you propose to have ~he two curb cuts? MR. WELLER-As they're indicated on the sketch. There's a sketch. That's the survey drawing. There's a sketch that goes with it. MR. RUEL-How many (lost word) are there between the curb cuts now? MR. HARLICKER-Is that sketch done to scale, Jim? MR. RUEL-It's one to twenty. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I'm kind of confused here. Hopefully my memory's pretty good, that when this project was in front of us for a rezoning request, one of the things that we discussed at great length was internalization of the entire property, with one entrance and access internally on the property. MR. RIEGER-My recollection was you asked us to look at that issue because of the concern by the Board of safety, ingress and egress off of Quaker Road. In talking about it at ~ end, we continue to believe that the safest way is to separate what will, hopefully, ultimately be war~house access in the back with large trucks going in to the far left of the project and retail traffic going in the right. MR. MACEWAN-Which brings me to my second question. Wasn't this entire parcel rezoned Highway Commercial. That's what it was in here for? How can they have warehousing in there? MR. RIEGER-Or whatever we do with the back. MR. MACEWAN-Well, you're alluding to the fact that's want to put back in there, warehousing, and if that's it's not allowed in this zone. what you the case, MR. RIEGER-Okay. Mr. MacEwan, we're not going to leave the remainder of the property vacant. It will be utilized for something. It's use will be vastly different than the dealership in the front of the property. MR. MACEWAN-Well, would you be coming back and asking for a rezoning request to put it back to Light Industrial? MR. RIEGER-No, not at this point, but whatever it is that we do back there, it will not be another auto dealership, because there's no frontage on the road. We're not going to be able to put an auto dealership back there. So it will be some other, at this point, Highway permitted use, but different thàn the auto dealership, which means it's clientele, it's customers will be - 44 - '---- -..--' ,:,.--- ."...- entirely different than ours. MR. MACEWAN-And what's the problem from not wanting to be able to internalize and having a nice thoroughfare through there,'off Quaker Road, the one entrance/exit off Quaker Road, and internalizing through the property. No matter what you do on the back portion of the property, why can't it b~ designed so that you can run traffic through there without having to' have a multiple entrance, exits? MR. HARLICKER-Almost put in some sort of boulevard type entrance to the site, you know, like a complex, a nice tree lined boulevard type entrance with a curb cut leading into the dealership, and then the rest of the, the access leading back to whatever you decide to put in the rear of the property. MR. RIEGER-With the unique topography of the parcel, if you're familiar with it, it's 10 to 15 feet above grade. It's very steep. It's very difficult to imagine an auto dealership with one entrance, where you're going to be dumping the public, using facilities in the back that are not our facilities into our property and rerouting them around, in addition to which, you'd help the site for the facility itself by having two accesses. MR. BREWER-Maybe the answer is a subdivision, have you thought of that? MR. PALING-I think we discussed that when we were in the zoning, to try to figure out the zoning on this thing, too. MR. RIEGER-I thought it was the Board's opinion at that time that they wanted the parcel to remain one. MR. BREWER-As I recall, I think the Board favored it all staying one zone, not necessarily remaining one piece of property, but remaining one zone, rather than have two zones on that piece of property. I think it was also our indication that we frowned upon the idea of warehouses and what not in the back by Windy Hill, so close to Windy Hill, because you could look, literally, from Windy Hill, into the property and see that property, and we thought that it would impose up¿n the people that live there now. MR. RIEGER-Well, whatever we would be doing with the rear of the parcel, we would obviously be coming back ,for that development. MR. BREWER-Agreed, but still, I think that was our strong fe~ling at that time, and I think most of us are all on the Board that were here when we went and looked at it. MR. MACEWAN-I think it's been the Board's practice, too, is development has occurred along Quaker Road, is try to limit all those site plans all the way down through there' to as few entrances and exits as possible. We just approved just one for Hertz there last year. That's one exit and entrance in there. MR. OBERMAYER-Garvey's one. MR. MACEWAN-The Plaza that's down on the corner, the triangle! is going to be one. MR. RIEGER-But just keep in mind the safety issue with respect to the topography. Because we',"e not Garveys. Garveys is like this and we're like this. MR. RUEL-I have a question about Quaker Road. shoulder along Quaker Road at that location? Is there a paved MR. BREWER-No, but I think that portion of the road is under considetation right now for being widened. - 45 - MR. STARK-It is going to be widened. MR. RUEL-To what? MR. RIEGER-If it's widened, it's going to further exacerbate the issue, ingress and egress out of one single road width. MR. RUEL-To what, to four lanes? MR. MACEWAN-I don't understand that. How would that make it more difficult? MR. RIEGER-What's the width that's going to be permitted, if it's going to one ingress and egress? MR. HARLICKER-It's probably going to be similar to what they have at the other side of Ridge, where it's two lanes going right into four lanes. MR. RIEGER-You're going to to stop, entering Quaker turning into the facility lane. have cars coming down and attempting Road, at a very steep angle, cars from both directions, into a single MR. HARLICKER-How are two curb cuts going to alter that fact? MR. RIEGER-Well, you're telling us that we should have one curb cut and internalize. That is going to severely restrict if not prevent developing the back. How we are we going to entice somebody, I can see one entrance and, method of ingress and egress for this facility, but then you're going to preclude us from doing anything in the back. MR. HARLICKER-Why? MR. RIEGER-How are we going to, because I think that, if you're looking at access like this, it's a matter of logic, if you're looking at it where it's very, very steep, to get in and out of this facility. MR. HARLICKER-Well, you put the access at an area where it's not real, real steep. MR. RIEGER-There isn't one. MR. HARLICKER-But then I'm still confused here. $0 you're saying no matter where you put access on this property, it's going to be steep? MR. RIEGER-I'm worried about the doubling up of the use of that ingress and egress of single point. MR. RU~L-You mention it's steep, 20 feet, a 20 foot difference between the road and property? MR. HARLICKER-You're showing grades on here of six percent and four point four percent on the accessways. So why couldn't you just utilize this one, the four point four, the one farthest to the east, expand on that a little, dress it up, and ~ake it, you know, design it in such a way that it could be utilized for the entire site, I don't see how it could be designed that way. MR. RIEGER-Okay. Well, Jim has spent a great deal of time looking at this. With the frontage that we've got, w~ didn't feel this would be a serious issue with the Board. MRS. LABOMBARD-It is a se,- ious issue, though. MR. STARK-To Mr. Nemer, Mr. Nemer, I'm concerned. Back then, originally, when we made our recommendation, the people that were - 46 - '--- ..-- '--' ..-' on the Board then really took a negative view of any development in the back. I think I speak for the rest of the Board, or the ones that were on the Board at that time, and we were very concerned about protecting Windy Hill. So if you want to do this with the idea of developing in the back, you'll have to come back to us anyway and I have know idea what could go up there. All I know is it's not going to be a warehouse. That's for sure. That was a real negative view back then, and I think it is now, too. So I understand your reasoning for wanting to put that back there and put something back there. I don't know, but then. PETER NEMER MR. NEMER-Well, what would you allow back there? What would you co ns i de)- to be? MR. STARK-I haven't the slightest idea. MR. PALING-Well, whatever the zoning would permit is what we'd consider, unless there was, but then we'd have to consider what the public might say as they turn~d out pretty good last time. MR. NEMER-So if there was som~thing in terms of an automobile retail, suppose there was a muffler shop back there or something else along those lines? MR. PALING-All right. If it's permitted within the zoning, then we would consider it, if it didn't have adverse impact on their neighborhood. MR. NEMER-And isn't there a tree line back there that would prevent anybody from seeing into that property? MR. OBERMAYER-I think it can be buffered, yes. MR. STARK-We drove up on top of Windy Hill, walked allover the property. I mean, I'm sure it could be buffered. MR. PALING-It'll be a sensitive issue, but I would think it could be correctable, because you want to make some use of that piece of land. MR. STARK-Is that what you were thinking, a muffler shop or transmission shop? MR. NEMER-Well, (lost word) in there a retail establishment. One of the problems is, as Jim said, the problem here is the steepness of this grade. It is a steep grade, and I'm afraid, in the winter time, that it's going to create a problem, especially if there's a lot of ice and snow, and it seems to me that if, you have traffic going from west to east, it would be ~asier for them to turn in on the right hand turn, and the traffic that's going the other way can make a left hand turn into a separate entrance. Otherwise, you could end up with a big bottleneck there, which could be a problem, especially if the~ widen the road. That becomes a situation as well. MR. MACEWAN-I believe when Quaker Road is going to be widened, it's going to be two lanes either direction with a middle turning lane. Is that not correct, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know about the middle turn lane. MR. STARK-You've got like a 10 or 12 foot shoulder. MR. BREWER-And I think we all learned a lesson about, can grades be declined. I think we all know that they can be taken down. MR. RIEGER-Tim, what grade grade can't be declin~d. could you decline? This grade? This It's not our property. It's Niagara - 47 - ----" ......... '- Mohawk's. MR. BREWER-You can't cut back that grade? MR. RIEGER-It'§ Niagara Mohawk's property. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but if you have an easement across it, okay, and you need access to it, I'm sure you can. MR. BREWER-Maybe it's not acceptable, that's safe. I don't know. MR. RIEGER-It's not our property to do. They're telling us exactly what we can and can't do, and they're nQt going to, I already approached Niagara Mohawk, and we willing to bear the expense of lowering the entire frontage, including all the main poles there, to try and get better site vision from the road, and they said, are yoU kidding? They wouldn't allow us to do it. So it's not up to us to tell them what we can and can't do on their property. They're providing us access across it only. MR. BREWER-So then maybe it's not a real useable piece of property. I don't know. MR. RIEGER-Well, we're entitled to use the property. entitled, it's economic development. We ' r e MR. BREWER-Economic development, but you also have to consider the safety and welfare of the Town of Queensbury, too. MR. STARK-Mr. Nemer, you asked what could be possibly considered. You're thinking, prbbably, of something in relationship to automotive, muffler shop, transmission shop, not a body shop though. MR. NEMER-I haven't thought in terms of a body shop, though. MR. STARK-Is that what you're idea was, a transmission, muffler? MR. NEMER-Yes, a retail establishment. I mean, anything that has to do with automotive maybe would be a good mix, or maybe, I don't know, I guess there's a car wash up there now, but maybe something along those lines. We just want that available for future development, obviously. I mean, this is a big piece of property. MR. STARK-What's the distance between the two curb cuts? MR. NEMER-Three hundred feet. MR. RIEGER-I believe it's 294. Fourteen and a half acres is much too much land to dedicate to one auto dealership. It's not economically feasible. That's why they're going to have to develop the rear portion, do something. Clearly, they'll do it within the bounds of whatever the Planning Board requires us tonight. MR. PALING-Why don't we suggest that we put the curb cuts aside, the accesses, aside for the moment, and lets talk about any other issues that we may have, that the Board may feel we should discuss. We'll come back to it, but lets see what other issues there may be. MR. RUEL-Do I see parking areas in the wetland area, in that corner? MR. PALING-No. MR. RIEGER-No. MR. RUEL-I'm trying to relate this one with this one. - 48 - "'--' ...- ...../ MR. RIEGER-The wetlands is at the bottom of that, on the other side of the lower access road. MR. PALING-Yes. this corner, and disappear? That would be in the other lot anyway. It's in what happens to the stone wall? It's going to MR. RIEGER-In the back? It's just from an old abandoned farm. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-I'm a little bit confused about having a retailer in the back, because, naturally, a retailer wants visibility, and if that's 294 between the two driveways? MR. RIEGER-That's my recollection. MR. BREWER-It's got to be over retailer ever going to be seen? even a good. 400 feet back here. How is a So I don't know if that use is MR. RIEGER-Something like an require high visibility. It thing. Empire Vision Center just needs a sign. that doesn't That type of MR. OBERMAYER-It could be an office complex. MR. PALING-It could be anything. MR. STARK-The two curb cuts, three hundred feet apart, but boy, you've got a 20 foot drop between. I'm talking about the drop. That's the only thing ¡ had. MR. OBERMAYER-Twenty feet's not bad, though, I mean, if you carry it over a certain distance. It levels off pretty good when you get up the hill. MR. PALING-Lets address the other two that the applicant brought up. He asked consideration of the subject, retail inventory and wetlands. Now,retail inventory, Tim, may be getting into what Y9u're thinking about. MR. WELLER-When I spoke about retail inventory, I'm talking about being able to put automobiles, new and used automobiles, outside of this building without having to follow all the particular regulations for a parking lot in a mall type setting. This is not. a parking lot where individual people are driving automobiles and parking them and going to a store to shop. This is a retail inventory area, and we'd like not to put all the islands and trees and all the rest of the things that make it difficult to move inventory around and plow driveways and this kind of thing. So we're hoping that you're not going to impose those particular regulations on this area of car storage. MR. BREWER-Do we have a right to waive that, Mark, those requirements, 6r don't we? MR. SCHACHNER-The Zoning Ordinance stuff, you don't. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then we don't have a right to waive them, Jim. MR. RIEGER-The opinion of Paul Dusek when we brought this up before was retail customers and our emploYees, where they would be coming and going, had to comply with the Town's minimum requirements, whatever they are, 10 by 20, 10 by 18, somewhere in that range, but with respect to bulk inventory, storage, that your Ordinance didn't cover that, and, therefore, we would be exempt from and compliance (lost word). MR. BREWER-I understand 100 percent and I agree 100 percent with - 49 - what you're saying. MR. RIEGER-We're trying to bring it up ahead of time and alert you to it. MR. PALING-Well, there must be something to what I'm hearing over here, because if I recall, looking at other automobil~ display lots, they don't conform to what we do. MR. BREWER-Agreed. MR. HARLICKER-I think what the Board's done in the past, with Barrett's also, you just delineate a storage area, and then you have a certqin area that meets the parking requirements for customer and employees with the 9 by 20 spaces. MR. PALING-Yes. I would think we could go along We've got employee and customer parking provided for, an automobile showroom, then we, should look automobile showroom lots. with that. and this is like other MR. BREWER-Yes. doing it legal. thi nk. Just have our attorney make sure that we're I mean, there's no problem with us, I don't MR. WELLER-I'd like very much to application, for next month. I'm to get all this paperwork done. and there's still some Corps of working on. We'll be back soon. come back in two weeks to make not sure we're going to be able There's still some DEC issues Engineers' issues that we're MR. PALING-Now the wetlands issue that you brought up, I assume we're primarily concerned with setback from the wetlands. MR. WELLER-The wetlands issue, we've had the wetlands re-flagged by DEC, and the flags picked up by the surveyor, and the new survey has been filed with DEC in Warrensburg, ~nd I just today received an apþroval letter that the survey is now responsive to what they flagged on the ground. So that's all been taken care of. Because I've met with the DEC people, gone over this conceptual plan, they don't see a particular problem. They'd like for us not to have any disturbance within 100 feet of the wetlands. This what they call the affected area of the wetlands. However, because of the way we're developing the property, the way (lost word) what we're trying to do here, they feel fairly, we'll have to apply for a permit, it would be a permitting process, but they feel fairly confident that a permit will be granted, and it will be issued. Now if the permit is not issued, this Board can't approve. MR. PALING-We can't do anything anyway. Whatever that final is will be shown on the prints that we can go by, yes. MR. WELLER-These drawings are also currently before the Corp of Engineers. We've asked the Corp of Engineers to give us a negative declaration. We don't have that back yet. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I don't think we're your problem on retail inventory of cars or on the wetlands thing. I don't think we're a problem here. Now we're going to go back to this subject, and I think we're getting to where these things get dragged out. How about going around the Board once and then maybe a second time. Just say what you think, and then we'll see what the consensus is. MR. LABOMBARD-Well, as I look at the top ingress, it starts at six percent, then it goes up to eight percent, and then, depending on which way you veer, it goes down to five point eight and five percent. So I think that that top one is almost, just wondering, I'd like to hear what Q.!dL engineer has to say about - 50 - -- ...-' --- ;.,.,/ that, and, however, the bottom one on the map is more viable. You see, it really is an issue, because we have been talked to and educated by Joanna Brunso, who is the DOT person in the area. MR. OBERMAYER-She's Glens Falls Transportation. MRS. LABOMBARD-And it's really something that I don't want to come back at us, and this whole issue of curb cuts is something that we really have to address, and maybe we should go back there again with this map and see, and I'd like to see what she has to say about it. Maybe they can come up with a viable option. I don't know. MR. RIEGER-Would it be helpful if we gathered some information to address it, from a traffic engineer, because the ingress and egress, from a transportation standpoint, is a concern to all of us. MR. PALING-That's a good suggestion. MR. RIEGER-We're not trying to be difficult, you know, from where ~ sit. MRS. LABOMBARD-And I don't want to be, either, except, this'll come right back on us like a. MR. PALING-You might be surprised. Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-This space between curb cuts, this is riot an ordinance, is it? MR. PALING-Yes, it is, but they're not violating that. They're way in excess of, there's 150 feet. No, they're nearly, around double that. MR. RUEL-Then what's the objection here? MR. PALING-Well. the issue is one curb cut versus two curb cuts, one being safer than two is the general exception. MR. RUEL-But, these two are legal, right? MR. PALING-Yes, sure. MR. HARLICKER-They meet about design, as opposed meet the requirements of distance goes. the Code requirement. We're talking to meeting the Code requirements. They the Zoning Code, as far as separation MR. RUEL-Well, there are exceptions to all the rules. I mean, if you look at this lot, you look at the wetlands area, you look at the situation with NiMo, you look at the grade, and the fact that it's a business, and it certainly would be a lot more viable if there was another entrance. I would favor the curb cuts as indicated here. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, because you are expressing future development, possibly, in the future, ten years, or whatever, five years, a year, in the back, I think it does make sense to have two curb cuts. I think, ,I'm wondering if there's more of a reason that you want the curb cut for the other, because it is an automobile dealership, and it is nice to have a curb cut right in front of the dealership. I mean, isn't that part of the reason, too? MR. RIEGER-You mean the way it's laid out here? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. RIEGER-Well, I think that's the best spot for the building on the parcel itself, it happens to coincide with the best locàtion. - 51 - '- ~~ They'll have the most inventory while they'll be entering on the property. MR. BREWER-I think one curb cut is preferred. I think if you think about not even using the westerly entrance, I think you could create an entrance down here where you have this bottom one to accommodate both lots. You could still have, like Scott said, a boulevard type entrance. You could accommodate the back lot. t'1aybe a subdivision's apPYopr late. Then YOI..l "cou'Id have accommodations for two lots. I think there ought to be some more thought given to the idea of nöt necessa1-ily having one right here where you've got it, and another one right here. Maybe one here and none here could accommodate the parcel. MR. WELLER-I will just say one thing about the boulevard, since Scott brought it up. DEC is going to look for minimum development across that affected area. MR. BREWER-So maybe that's another consideration that, maybe you only want one entrance over here. I think you have to look deeper than just seeing the lot and saying, well, here's a good place for one, here's a good place for one. r think if you think hard, Jim, and you're a smart man, you could come up with something to make it work. MR. WELLER-That's what I came up with. MR. MACEWAN-I'll reiterate what I said earlier. I think that the internalization, be it one entrance, exit, conceptually it's showing that the easterly portion of this parcel, that it can work. I don't think that the topography in the back portion of the lot is all that difficult to work with, in light of what we've seen other developers in recent times be able to do on their property. I'd be against two curb cuts. MR. PALING-You want one. MR. MACEWAN-One. MR. PALING-Yes. Generally, I edge toward one for a lot of reasons, mostly safety, and all of the lessons we've got from DOT, but I like Cathy's idea the best, of 90ing to DOT, Joanna Brunso, with your information, reviewing it with her, and then have her get a letter back to us with her recommendation concerning this. They've surprised us sometimes in what their reaction has been, but I still go a lot by, they're the experts, and that would be what I'd like to do, is what Cathy's suggesting is, go that step, and then let us consider it from there. How's t ha t ? MR. OBERMAYER-Joanna Brunso is not DOT. She is Glens Falls Transportation Concepts, okay, which is a total, separate entity of the Department of Transportation. MR. STARK-I'd get a letter from her, see what she thinks anyway. MR. OBERMAYER-But you will probably be required to have a permit from DOT, because this is a State. MR. MACEWAN-It's a County road, Jim. MR. HARLICKER-As a matter of course, when the application is submitted, we'll refer a copy of the site plan on to the Glens Falls Transportation Counsel, and they generally, in turn, refer it down to Albany for DOT comment. MR. PALING-Okay. with this, also? Will the Beautification Committee be involved MR. HARLICKER-Yes, they will. - 52 - --- ---" --- '..r" MR. PALING-It's a commercial project, so you might consider running it by them. They look at it, and then also give us a letter of recommendation on it. All right. I think we've probably run the subject out, this particular one. Any other comments? Now we don't need to do anything. This was just a discussion. So we can put this aside, and we can go on to the next one. JIM WELLER - TO CLARIFY CONDITIONS APPROVED FOR SITE PLAN NO. 32- 94 - BARRËTT AUTO SALES (SEE LETTER OF 5/1/95). ALSO, TO MODIFY SITE PLAN TO UTILIZE EXISTING CURB CUTS. JIM WELLER, PRESENT MR. WELLER-I'm Jim Weller, and with me is Bill Barrett, one of the owners. The primary reason that I guess we're here with these plans, the three drawings that were submitted were prepared with the intent to bring the last drawings that were submitted into compliance with what we believe the record shows that the Planning Board approval was. We want to be sure we're clear on drawings, before construction started on the job, that this is, in fact, what you last approved. MR. BREWER-Did we have anybody look them over, Scott, like engineering or anything? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Bill MacNamara was involved in this as well as Jim Martin. To the best of ~ knowledge, the plans that they submitted reflect the outcome of the meetings that you three had. MR. WELLER-It's my understanding, I went through the whole record, and it's my understanding that these drawings would be responsive to what you had approved. The plantings weren't correct. The drawings were never brought into that final state of revision. MR. BREWER-I was the here the day you were here with Jim going over them. MR. PALING-I don't feel comfortable giving a real strong recommendation. I'm not going to remember the detail of this that well. I don't think I can look at these prints and say. I'd certainly like to get staff and perhaps engineering comment, but, shoot, I don't remember that much detail about it. MR. MACEWAN-Well, this is only a discussion item anyway. We can't give them a formal approval on this. MR. PALING-True. MR. WELLER-Well, it was ~ understanding that we wou¡d get approval. I don't know why it was put on the agenda discussion item. I was lead to believe by Jim Martin tonight would be the final passage. final as a that MR. MACEWAN-Legally, we can't. MR. PALING-Yes. It's not on the agenda, and we're not prepared for it. MR. MACEWAN-It's not publicized on the agenda as being under review tonight. MR. OBERMAYER-And hopefully no one gave you any guarantees, ei ther . MR. WELLER-I don't think it's really under review. It's just a submittal of what you last approved, and I would agree with you that staff needs to say, yes, this is what the record shows that you have to prove, and these drawings are a reflection of that. - 53 - MR. PALING-I'd like to see what our motion, what the conditions of the motion were and get staff comments and review the prints, and then I'd feel that I could comment, but right now. MR. MACEWAN-Mark, in order for us to take action on this, shouldn't this have been published in the paper? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, to be honest, not necessarily, because, if I'm understanding this correctly, it's a previously approved site plan, and then the issue is whether there is anything materially different. As I understand it, I'm only doing this from the agenda. I have no background information about this any more than YOU all do, but the agenda says that the applicant seeks two things, one is to clarify certain conditions, and one is to modify the site plan to utilize existing curb cuts. If that clarification and that modification are just very minor details, then there's no requirement for any additional public hearing. There's no requirement for any additional public notice, and it doesn't have to be published anywhere. If those are material things, then that's a different story. I don't have a feel myself for it, although they don't, the way they're written, they don't sound Very significant, but either way, my impression is the Board is not properly equipped right now, as we sit here, to pass on any of this stuff anyway, and it is listed as a discussion item. You need input from staff anyway, it sounds like. MR. STARK-Scott, by next week, could you get us your comments, so we can approve it, possibly, by next Thursday? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I spoke with Bill MacNamara today, and this item came up, and he indicated that the only real change in this was that the building was shifted farther back on the property so they could comply with the 75 foot setback, and then they readjusted some of the dimensions on the green area, but the percentage didn't change. It was just minor alterations as to where the green area was located. MR. STARK-If you talked to Bill MacNamara, those were the only concerns he had, what's maybe on voting on it tonight, Bob, or changes? then, about it, and the big deal, then, just approving the MR. PALING-I really don't feel comfortable with it. What ¡ would like to see, and maybe I'm asking for too much, I'd like to read our motion, to see what the conditions were, and then have staff comment regarding Bill MacNamara and the motion that was made. MR. BREWER-Can I make a comment? I think what this all arrived from is, correct me if I'm wrong, you weren't on board when this project started, right? MR. WELLER-Not when this first plans were. MR. BREWER-I happened to come in to the Planning Office one day and Jim Weller was in the Office with Jim Martin. They asked me to come in, and I guess from what ¡ learned that day, that Jim took the job over, so to speak, looked at the prints, looked at the minutes, and our conditions, and went through things, this is what he did that day anyway when I was in there, and said, gee, this isn't wrong, I'll correct it, or is it something other than that. I think it was detail that Jim went through, on this plan, and corrected or moved things because they weren't right, and that was my impression of what he was doing that day, and now he's here, and everything is done, and saying, fellas, this is what you guys approved. It's all on paper, now can you approve it, and I agree with what you said earlier, Bob, is we should have our engineer make darn sure that it's right, and we can approve it next week without a problem, I think. - 54 - ,--,' ---~ .....,r" -- MR. STARK-Would a week's delay inhibit you that much? MR. WELLER-We'd like to get going as soon as possible. MR. PALING-We could get it on the program for next week, couldn't we? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I could forward copies of the plans that they submitted here to Bill MacNamara and he could look at them, compare them, get you copies of the original resolution. We can, hopefully, get all this stuff to you and incorporate it with the notes on Friday. MR. PALING-Could it just be that you and Jim sit down and review the review that they had, and just give us a staff comment letter that relates to the original motion and the details of it, and just giving us assurance that whatever it was in there, and tell us what it was, and how it's been corrected. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We could do that. MR. PALING-I don't think we have to involve 8ill MacNamara. SILL BARRETT MR. BARRETT-Mr. Brewer did comment that Mr. Weller, was contracted during the process of this whole thing. He picked up on, basically, some errors that were approved at a prior meeting, the setback requirement and this other thing. He did come in and say, you've got to do this and you've got to do that to get this thing properly executed, and that's how we got in front of you tonight. It's just a modification of the original approved plans, to comply with everything. MRS. LABOMBARD-If it's not on the agenda, how could we approve it? MR. WELLER-You already approved the site plan. MR. MACEWAN-It's approving a modification, that's all. MR. BREWER-We approved a site plan, here's ~ interpretation. We approved a site plan. Now, I don't even see a need for him back here. I mean, all the conditions that we asked him to do are on paper now. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see what you're saying. So then as long as he met them, then it's already done. That was the stipulation. MR. WELLER-I agree. I don't believe I should even be here. I staff should have looked at these drawings and said, yes, these are responsive to the Planning Board approval. MR. PALING-Yes. If there was a motion made, and you've prOV1Slons of the motion, and staff has said you have, don't even think you should be here. met the then I MR. BREWER-But, to be safe, why don't we just say, okay. now we're in a Catch-22. Do we say, lets check them? I mean, MR. PALING-Well, if staff wants to, well, we have set motions and going and said, if you do these things, you're okay. Submit them to staff, and if that's what happened in this case, let it be, and we won't enter ih to the decision, but if I'm going to vote on this. MR. HARLICKER-Normally, what happens is, if there's conditions put forth, or set forth in the resolution approving the site plan, they come in with revised plans. We compare them to the resolution, make sure the conditions are met. Once those - 55 - conditions are met, Jim puts his stamp on it, and they are ready to proceed with the building permit. MR. PALING-Good, but that doesn't involve us. MR. HARLICKER-That's the normal process. MR. PALING-Yes, that doesn't involve us. MR. HARLICKER-No, it does not. MR. MACEWAN-Well, how did they end up back here? MR. HARLICKER-I think part of it is also here, it's listed as a modified site plan to utilize existing curb cuts. MR. WELLER-That's the second issue. MR. HARLICKER-That might be the part that. MR. BREWER-All right. Well, then maybe if we do the curb cut issue next week, then we can make sure that everything was done. I'm not trying to delay you, but. MR. RUEL-Who placed this on the agenda? MR. PALING-Well, it was placed at staff meeting. I didn't happen to attend this one. MR. HARLICKER-I wasn't in on the conversations with this. So I can't answer that. MR. RUEL-Also, there's a reference to a letter dated 5/1. Do we have that? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, it's the ~over letter that was on for the maps. MR. PALING-No, this is just from Weller to Jim Martin. MR. WELLER-Yes. The 5/1 letter was a transmittal letter to send 14 copies of everything over here. MR. PALING-And that should have been in compliance with the motion, and been taken from there without our involvement. Lets go on to the last item, I think, that we're going to be involved with, here. Okay. Modify the plan to utilize existing curb cuts. Why don't you explain that to us? MR. WELLER-On May 8th, knowing I was going to be on the agenda here tonight before the Board, I sent a letter over to staff, Jim Martin, to ask the possibility of making modifications to the site plan to put two curb cuts on the Quaker Road. Being that there are two existing curb cuts on the property to Quaker Road that were permitted and constructed in accordance with the permit, the permit issued on October 3, 1984, and we would like to continue to utilize, with some improvements, those two preexisting permitted curb cuts on this property. MR. PALING-What were on the prints when !:i§. saw it? MR. HARLICKER-One. MR. WELLER-There was one curb cut on the, there was one curb cut shown on that print in front of you. MR. BREWER-What's wrong with the one that is on that print now? MR. WELLER-We would like, for better utilization of the property, to continue to use the two curb cuts. - 56 - '-" -..-/ -..-' -- MR. MACEWAN-How are two curb cuts going to better utilize your property? MR. WELLER-It gives you better flow from the Quaker Road. MR. MACEWAN-It also creates more of a safety hazard. MR. HARLICKER-I mean, you're going to have two curb cuts right next to each other. MR. MACEWAN-Keep in mind, it was approved in 1984, too. MR. WELLER-Well, we're not asking for something new. asking to continue to use what we already have. We ' r e MR. BREWER-Well, in a sense it is new, because it's new to this, that we approved. MR. PALING-Yes. sure is new. It's been approved as a single curb cut. It MR. STARK-What was the separation between the two curb cuts? I don't even know where the other curb cut is. MR. PALING-Well, what am I looking at here? There's one cut. Is it over here? It looks like I'm looking at two cuts her e . curb cU1-b MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, you are. MR. PALING-These are the two curb cuts? MR. WELLER-No, that's the neighbors'. There's a curb cut right here. MR. PALING-What would the distance between them be? MR. WELLER-Between this one and this one? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. WELLER-Well, this is 285 feet across the front. So it would be 250, plus or minus. MR. OBERMAYER-Who's neighbor? MR. WELLER-The car wash. MR. OBERMAYER-Doesn't the car wash have a road that runs to there? MR. STARK-All the way to the back. MR. HARLICKER-Would it be possible to utilize the curb cut that exists, you know, if you're concerned about a second point of ingress, could you utilize, work out an agreement with the car wash and use their access? MR. WELLER-There's two there now. Instead of having to tear one out. The request is can we use the two that we have there. MR. PALING-Scott, there's got to be 150 feet between curb cuts. That applies to the car wash, too. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-So this one to the car wash has to be 150 feet? Well that won't do it, then. MR. MACEWAN-Bob, I wanted to bring up a point. I think when we - 57 - discussed this oYiginal site plan, some of the things that we discussed in conversation was, how much of a traffic flow was going to be on this property, considering it was a rental car and truck rental place, and that the applicant's agent at the time said that thère wasn't going to be a high volume of traffic coming through. Somebody may come in and drop off a car or pick up a truck. It wasn't like you were going to have people coming in every 20 minutes or so. So I guess I'm kind of at a loss as to why you need to have the two accesses to the property. MR. BARRETT-One thing that was brought to my attention, there's a 150 foot minimum between curb cuts? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. BARRETT-I've got a property next to me that has a curb cut. So that kind of, it's a non-issue ~ow anyhow. MR. PALING-Yes, because you'd have to be 150 feet from that one also. Okay. We took care of that one. If I understand here the curb cut is not an issue. It reverts back to what it was before. MR. BARRETT-All that is, sir, is the setback was set back 10 more feet from what it was before. So that's the only other change. MR. PALING-What was set back? MR. BARRETT-The building. MR. PALING-The building setback. covered. Okay. Well, that can be i"1R. WELLER-No. of you show approval. I'm SOl'ry. the bu ildi ng The drawings that you have in front set back in accordance with your MR. PALING-Okay, the new way, the approved way. MR. WELLER-Right. MR. PALING-If I read if we're going to meeting, but that we back to us. the Board right, that we would like to get, cover this, we'll cover it at next week's are, it is okay with us if it doesn't come MR. MACEWAN-Based on the information that he's telling us now, that they're only making the drawings conform to what the resolution said, there's no need for them to come back. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. MACEWAN~And then it's just a matter of them now bringing the drawings in and get the plat signed. MR. PALING-And there is no curb c0t issue. Well, if that's the case, then we'll just let it go to that, unless you tell us different, and if there is an issue, that we'll try and accommódate them on the 25th. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Why would there be an issue, though? MR. HARLICKER-There shouldn't be. MR. PALING-As far as I know, there is none now. discussion. Thank you. End of - 58 - '--, ---./ --,,' - MR. STARK-Scott, looking at Neme)"s site plan, the elevation on Quaker Road that shows 198 feet. A mile down the' road, in Barrett, on Quaker Road, it shows the elevation 329 feet~ I'm just looking at the two maps that were submitted, and you're telling me Quaker Road drops 120 feet? I mean, you know, something's wrong here. I drops 131 feet exactly. MR. HARLICKER-They show it to be 329 feet on Quaker Road, 327 going up to 350 in the middle of their property. MR. STARK-Okay. Look at Nemer, and it shows feet. I'm looking at the line going across feet. Quaker Road Quaker Road, 198 198 MR. HARLICKER-Are you talking Nemer, right? I don't see where what you're talking about. about the car dealership you see 198 feet. I don't one, see MR. OBERMAYER-What he's saying is that the elevation shown on the one drawing is 329 and the other one's 198. MR. STARK-Something's wrong. MR. OBERMAYER-They just used a different benchmark. MR. PALING-Okay. Next on the agenda is, Scott, Item One, the discussion item, okay. MR. BREWER-Are we going over the changes tonight? MR. HARLICKER-If you want to. MR. BREWER-Do you want to do them next week, Thursday? MR. PALING-Why don't we do them tonight? MR. OBERMAYER-Didn't we just get the information tonight? MR. PALING-Well, it's a presentation by staff. MR. HARLICKER-You guys didn't get copies of the proposed changes included in your packets? MR. RUEL-I just got them. MR. MACEWAN-Scott, I got mine tonight. I'd rather take some time to )'ead it. MR. PALING-Are we talking about proposed amendment to the Zoning Code? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. This one you were supposed to take home and read, and comment on the 25th, next meeting. We'd like your comments at the next meeting on the 25th. The minutes of the meeting, which will contain our comments, will be given to the Town Board, for their use in this. We want everybody's comments at the next meeting, and the minutes of the meeting will be used, will be sent to the Town Board. All right. Now, one thing, did Jim tell you to talk about as built?' ' MR. HARLICKER-He did not mention it. MR. PALING-All right. Then let me talk just a short time about as built. As built only as it applies to subdivisions. It is required in the regulations that, I forget the number of days, that there's a provision that says you will have an as built print submitted and approved here so now we can through the new man, John. - 59 - ,-" MR. RUEL-At what stage? MR. PALING-After final stage. Do you know the number of days? MR. HARLICKER-No, I don't. MR. PALING-All right. We can clarify the period with which they have to submit it, but what brought this all up is we had, I guess it was Schermerhorn in, and we were going to make him have an as built print. I objected to it because we were doing it, if you will, on the fly, and we haven't been enforcing the rule. Now what we're going to do is tell every applicant that comes in with site plan from Day One, they will be required to have an as built drawing in accordance with the days that are in the regulation. So now we're not doing it on the fly. It's no surprise. MR. MACEWAN-That's 45 days? MR. PALING-I don't know, Craig, but whatever the number of days is, we'll clarify it next time, but anyone coming in, starting the site plan process, will be told that they must have an as built drawing finally in this, and it will be enforced to everybody. MR. MACEWAN-How will they be told? MR. PALING-By us. MR. MACEWAN-I know. Is it going to be on the application? I mean, certainly, we're going to forget. MR. PALING-No. What I was going to say was going to say was I thought that we should verbally tell them at every meeting for a while, until everybody's used, all we're doing is, we're not making any new rules. It's in existence, and all we're doing is saying, hey, we're enforcing the rules. MR. MACEWAN-But that's what L:.m. saying potential for us to slip and forget somewhere along the process. Is there in writing, whether it's part of the li ke that. is maybe there might be a to remind one applicant, some way that could be put application or something MR. RUEL-It is in there. MR. BREWER-Why shouldn't staff do it? Why should ~ do it? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-You guys give the applications out. MR. PALING-Well, no, staff is telling us we want as builts, and I agree with them, and it's in the law. MR. MACEWAN-Fine. When they get their application packets, there's a laundry list of things that's to be in there. Why can't it be included in that laundry list? MR. PALING-Would you consider highlighting it somehow, Scott, for a while, and we should tell them here, too. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Because it is being enforced where it wasn't being enforced before. MR. BREWER-It's not our bag. MR. PALING-Well, as a requirement of site plan review, yes, it - 60 - "--" '---" ~. '_. is. It's all part of that. MR. BREWER-But we have no enforcement powers whatsoever. MR. PALING-This is in the regulations. MR. BREWER-Bob, we do not, this Board does not have any powers whatsoever as far as enforcing regulations. MR. PALING-We are a municipal Board that is empowered to point out to people that that's what they've got, it's like anything within the regulations, Tim. If it's required, we probably want them to do it, but it hasn't been done for a long time, and this is only something that warns them that, hey, you've got to start doing this now. We've got the manpower to do it, to enforce it. That's why we're doing it. MR. OBERMAYER-How are you going to enforce an as built? I mean, they can p)"ovide you with the d)"awing, but how' are you going to verify? I'm not saying us. MR. HARLICKER-It's a matter of getting, having to go out, you do the as built, you take the as built, compare i£ to what was approved. If there's deviations from what was approved, you address them, and it's done at the staff level. Right now, John Goralski is the Enforcement Officer, and who's ever in that position in the future will be charged with going out, comparing the two, and then dealing with if there's any deviations from it. MR. PALING-It is also used in the site, that you do have an say, hey, you did fill in five to. So it's really got two good the future when someone as built on record, and feet where you weren't reasons for existence. modifies you can supposed MR. RUEL-And, initially, you talked about as builts for subdivision, and then later you talked about site. MR. PALING-This only applies to a subdivision, as far as I know. MR. RUEL-Okay, because you mentioned site several times. I guess you meant something else. MR. PALING-I meant only subdivision. MR. BREWER-Site plan should be as built also. Why wouldn't they be as built? MR. PALING-Well, I'll ask for clarification. applies to subdivisions. I know that it MR. RUEL-Does it apply to site? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know. MR. STARK-I have a question. Mark, any news on the lawsuit? MR. SCHACHNER-None. MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. I have a question. What about Great Escape? What's the deal with them. MR. STARK-That's what I'm talking about. You mean the mining. MR. BREWER-The mining. MR. HARLICKER-Last I heard, they submitted some documentation and it was up in Paul Dusek's Office for his review. I don't know what's come of that. - 61 - '.---- "..".,,"- MR. MACEWAN-You told us that last month. Could you find out and give us an update next Thursday, please? MR. HARLICKER-Will do. MR. BREWER-And what about Seeley, what's the outcome on that? MR. HARLICKER-I don't think there has been an outcome yet. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-And what about Mr. Threw here? MR. PALING-He's on the agenda next time. anything else? Does anyone have MR. RUEL-I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 62 -