Loading...
1995-06-27 ......- --- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 1995 INDEX Site Plan No. 32-93 (Cont'd on Pg. 60 ) Site Plan No. 33-95 Site Plan No. 34-95 Site Plan 1\10 . 26-95 Guido Passarelli John Hughes Ronald st. Germain Mr. & Mrs. Milford Lester Subdivision No. 9-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Marvin & Janet Hautala -~' 1. 10. 19. 26. 28. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~~ 30' qL ""J GøwJ.w.. \ 1--... ,?p 31.~q,> P 4'\ SS&¡,fc,vt L' (l ð~ ~ Cf ) 5G. (iO .....'----'- '-- ,-- ~' '-- QUEENSBURY PLA~NING,.BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES OBERMAYER, ACTING CHAIRMAN CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL CATHERINE LABOMBARD GEORGE STARK MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT PALING TII'10THY BREWER PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES Apr i 1 18, 1995: NONE Ap1" i 1 25, 1.995: NONE May 11 , 1995: ¡\lONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 18. 1995. APRIL 25. 1995~ AND MAY 11. 1995, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1.995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Obermayer NOES: I'''ONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 32-93 GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: MOUNT ROYAL PLAZA MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN TO ALTER BUILDING SHAPE AND REAR ACCESS DRIVE, RELOCATE PARKING ON SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING, ELIMINATE SEVERAL LANDSCAPED ISLANDS. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 70-1-9 HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz, representing the applicant. First, as an overview, this is the last stop on our process, before Mr. Passarelli can get his Certificate of Occupancy, and basically two things were needed. One was an Area Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the other was a modification to Mr. Passarelli's site plan. First we went to Queensbury Beautification, met with them, and they unanimously approved the site plan from an aesthetic and landscaping point of view. I would also note that they were quite pleased with the look of it, compared to most of the shopping centers in Queensbury. Then we went to the Warren County Planning Board, and they took no action on the project, and then we went to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, and they did grant the Area Variance that was needed, subject to conditions, and attached to the file notes that are - 1 - "-- there. Basically, what was involved was the Zoning Ordinance requires 30 percent of the site to be permeable. Mr. Passarelli had 22 percent, and the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the Area Variance, on the condition that some additional blacktop on the rear of the building be removed to create some greater permeability, and other than that, the issues that I understood were before us today, identified in my letter of May 31, at the meeting with Mr. Goralski, and picking up, a few moments ago, the notes to file, I see that there are a couple of other comments mentioned which I would, with all due respect, call nitpicking, we're talking about 40 feet to 37 feet, but one thing that's been a constant here in Queensbury, and I'm not criticizing your Planning Board. You volunteer your time. I know what it's like to volunteer your time. I've been on a board myself for 10 years. You don't get paid. You could be home with your families, but I don't think it's fair to put items in here and not alert the applicant. This has been going on for year after year after year. That's why I met with Mr. Goralski, to identify what the issues were, identified them over three weeks ago, and I said if there's anything additional, please let me know. So when do we find out about it? Five minutes to seven, nevertheless, we'll deal with it. MR. OBERMAYER-Can you be a little more specific on what nitpicking? Just keep in mind, okay, that there were a lot of issues that were out of conformance with the original planning approval, the original drawing. Now is that nitpicking or? MR. KRANTZ-I think some of it is, honestly, yes, with all due respect. Some of it isn't, but some of it is. My biggest concern is that if there are additional items, all I would ask is that the Planning Department just alert the applicant and the representatives prior to the meeting so that we can address them, positively, rather than argue over them. MR. MACEWAN-I need to understand something, Mr. Krantz. they additional items above and beyond what was approved Planning Board for this site plan? Were by the MR. KRANTZ-I haven't even had a chance to read them. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-That's why I met with John. I sat down with John and said, where does Mr. Passarelli's as built differ from, I sat down with him. I made notes, and I wrote back to him on May 31 saying, this is what I understand are the issues, how we're addressing each one. If there's anything additional, please let me know. As I very quickly tried to scan what I picked up, there are some additional items, and (lost word) myself. I haven't had a chance to study them, but it looks like there's some here that John didn't tell me about previously. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-All right. So with that preface, the first items were directional signs. John just mentioned to me that they weren't yet in place. As indicated in the letter, we're going to put them in as per the plans. We're not asking for any variation. John next asked about what he called an additional building, and does the Planning Board have the latest plans? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-I believe so. Maybe you should put a plan up there, just to make sure. I have a plan that has a lot of marked up red on it. MR. HARLICKER-The red where the changes, are the changes in the site plan, from the approved site plan. - 2 - '-" "---" ~ '-- MR. OBERMAYER-One is landscaping. This is landscaping. MR. KRANTZ-The additional building that John was referring to is back here, and you can see it better here, this painted little area where they're just housing the electric meters. That's all it is, rather than leaving them exposed. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-That was the, what John was referring to as the additional building. MR. OBERMAYER-When you say, something wooden around it, everything? building, is it just like a wooden, or does it have a roof on it and GUIDO PASSARELLI I'1R. PASSARELL I -. I make it look like the same thing as the building, siding, steel siding. i"1R. OBERMAYER-Where does your power come in? You say it's electric meteì"S? MR. PASSARELLI-Yes. The power's in the back. MR. KRANTZ-The original plan called for two dumpsters at the northwest and southwest corners of the property enclosed in some type of fencing. Mr. Passarelli agrees to do that. We're not asking for any variation there. The south side parking isn't the place where we're asking for the variation. The original plan called for the parking to be right up against the building. Mr. Passarelli just asks that the spaces be moved further south, and the reason for that is, when the cars were parked here during the winter, the snow and ice came slamming off these, the roof onto the cars, and we're not asking for one additional parking space, just relocating it to the south. Nobody had a problem with that, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals had no problem with that. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. What about maybe you should address the issue on the side here about the 10 feet, versus the 20 feet of pavement. Has that been addressed? The pavement comes out 10 feet from the property line, versus 20 feet shown on the drawing? MR. KRANTZ-Are yOU talking the south side? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That was one of property line should be 20 feet wide, and 10 feet wide, in the minutes that ~ have. the issues, the south the actual distance is MR. KRANTZ-This is news to me. This is my point. If we could have had this earlier, we could have addressed this 1n a positive IrJay. MR. OBERMAYER-On the south side, Guido, it says, the landscaping area on the south property line should be 20 feet wide and the actual distance is 10 feet. MR. PASSARELLI-Well, I didn't increase the paving. I'm here tonight, because I did increase the paving. That's why MR. KRANTZ-I'm trying to understand. Is it the location? MR. OBERMAYER-It says the width of the landscaping should have been 20 feet wide, and the actual distance. MR. HARLICKER-On landscaping strip. down to 10 feet. the approved plan, there was Now that you've expanded the a 20 foot pavement, it's - 3 - ',-, -' MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. KRANTZ-I think, again, it's because the parking is now going to be on the south side rather than the north side. MR. HARLICKER-Right, but maybe a means to mitigate that impact on the adjacent motel was to beef up the landscaping along that property line. MR. KRANTZ-I think trees, cedars were planted along that entire property Ii ne. MR. HARLICKER-But that was if there was going to be a 20 foot buffer. Now it's down to 10 feet. Maybe to allow you that deviation in 10 feet from the approved site plan, the applicant would agree to increase the buffering along there a little bit. MR. KRANTZ-If there's room. MR. PASSARELLI-There's no more room there, because there's existing trees we left there. There's a lot of big trees there. That property's well screened. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm just pointing it out. the letter here? Do you have a copy of MR. KRANTZ-I just got it. MR. OBERMAYER-You just got it? MR. HARLICKER-You just asked for it. Staff notes have always been available on the Friday before the meetings. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. KRANTZ-So, again, I don't know how we can reconcile what Planning's asking for and still have the parking. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. You want to move the parking to the other side of the property, just move it on the opposite side, but what about your aisle way? Won't that interfere? I mean, will you be driving right up against the building, then? MR. KRANTZ-No. MR. PASSARELLI-You can drive close to the building, yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Is traffic going to flow running against the building, because you're moving the spaces to the opposite side? MR. KRANTZ-Right. Obviously, these are just being reversed. MR. PASSARELLI-I paved more than I should have. Okay. I did extend this a little more than I should have. I paved the same thing in the back. That's the reason why I'm, that's the reason. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, I know that. MR. PASSARELLI-That's the variance I'm looking for. MR. OBERMAYER-Did you get the va,-iance? MR. KRANTZ-We already got the variance, yes. Unanimously. What the arrangement was, the conditions of the variance was that the seven foot strip of macadam be taken out on the back. All right. The question of the variance, again, which I mentioned earlier, is the Zoning Ordinance requires 30 percent. Mr. Passarelli paved more, so it came down to 22 percent. MR. MACEWAN-Why did he pave more? - 4 - '-' ---' --' -- MR. KRANTZ-Basically for trucks and delivery, and the original plan called for just a 12 foot wide road going on the northwest and south side of the buildings. It looked great on paper, but when it came time to actually construct, it was not sufficient to allow the trucks that are going to be making all the deliveries in the rear. MR. MACEWAN-Why didn't he, at that time, come back and ask for modification to the plan? MR. KRANTZ-He should have. He didn't realize he had a problem. MR. MACEWAN-He did when he went to pave it. You just told me he did. MR. KRANTZ-He didn't realize that he would need any further approval. We found that out when Guido asked for his Certificate of Occupancy. So what he ended up doing is he ended up spending more money to pave a wider area, not the area that's really seen by the public, but here and around back, and what the Zoning Board of Appeals required, in granting the variance, was to take out a seven foot wide strip of the asphalt drive in the back, and also put additional screening on this section here, which is one of the conditions. That's basically what it is. The next issue was the parking islands. Originally, which this plan doesn't show it, there was supposed to be some landscaped islands at the end, and the problem there is that the plows in the winter, covered with snow, they're just going to rip up the parking islands. Rather than being landscaped, Mr. Passarelli painted those islands. Many of you have been there. You'll see that they're painted. The Planning Board, Beautification, the County Planning Board, they didn't have any problem with it. They said that it made more sense. Also I'd like to make note that in terms of number of trees and shrubs and expense, what is there now exceeds what the plan calls for. MR. OBERMAYER-The place looks beautiful. I mean, the landscaping is beautiful, and it's a compliment to Mr. Passarelli. I mean, it is a beautiful place. MR. KRANTZ-But what is true is that you're not, the landscaping is not always exactly where it was, spread out the way it was originally. For example, where some was on the back and sides, that has been put more in the front where people can see it. Permeability. I think we addressed the permeability issue, and also the buffer zone. Again, there's nothing, under the Zoning Ordinance, required here, because this is a paper street, but in any event, so as not to go back, you know, through this process again, the Zoning Board of Appeals also granted a variance, this was in a gray area, one was required, rather than come back, they said they don't have a problem with that. It's heavily wooded and screened, and they gave us a variance, even though I don't think one was needed. So those were the items on my letter. In addition to that, would be anything else that was in these planning notes, which we'll gladly address one at a time. MR. HARLICKER-I'd just like to make note here, the items he called nitpicking, 60 feet is required by the Zoning Code for parking. You need 20 feet per space and 20 feet for an access aisle. So he's required 60 feet. The same with the 40 feet at the south end of the building, 37 is not 40 feet. He needs 40 feet per the Zoning Code. The same with the raised median at the entrance. The Zoning Code requires a barrier between the ingress and egress, and that raised median served that purpose. MR. KRANTZ-I think I've been misstated as to what I said was nitpicking and what I didn't say was nitpicking. I said some of the items are nitpicking. I didn't go down them by item. In my opinion, 40 feet versus 37 feet is nitpicking, and maybe other people disagree. - 5 - MR. HARLICKER-But 40 feet is required in the Zoning Code. MR. MACEWAN-But if that was required in the approval of the plan, how can that be nitpicking if we don't adhere to it? MR. KRANTZ-It's just, we're here to discuss it and come to a solution. I'm just giving you my opinion. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-That three feet, to me, is not a major item, but others can disagree. MR. SCHACHNER-Jim, just let me put this in a perspective. We don't really have to get into a philosophical debate on the three items Scott just referred to, as to whether they're nitpicky or not, because our hands are tied and your hands are tied. Those items are requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, not just requirements of the previously approved site plan. So I want to make sure that we're on the same legal page and perspective. This Board doesn't even have the authority to allow the site plan to be approved with the modifications on those three items, whether you want to or not, and I'm not suggesting you should or shouldn't. We have no authority over that. Those are Zoning Ordinance requirements that either have to be modifications to the site plan from the applicant to be in compliance with those things, or they require additional relief requests from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Our hands are tied on those issues. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Have you been to the Zoning Board? MR. KRANTZ-Yes. This is my point. What John told me is that the only variance we needed was the Area Variance that we applied for. That is exactly what happened. I said, if there's anything else that the Zoning Board of Appeals needs, Planning Board, please let me know, because we could have addressed any other variances that were required. MR. SCHACHNER-And I tell you that was only the permeability, was the only thing that was identified. MR. KRANTZ-That's the only thing I was told, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-And it's certainly true that, in theory at least, those things could have been addressed by the Zoning Board at the previous meeting. That seems unfortunate, but I just want to make sure we're clear that, legally, regardless of what we think about that situation, our hands are tied. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. KRANTZ-So, if we could maybe go down them. I think the first item is the missing raised concrete divider in the main entrance. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I hate to be this way, but I don't know if it's even worth us even pursuing this until you obtain a variance of some sort from the Zoning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Jim, or in fairness possible that the applicant could, with those three items, meet the requirements. the applicant's attorney right now is applicant about the ability to install divider. to the applicant, it's minor modifications on For example, I think conferring with the the raised concrete MR. KRANTZ-That's what I'm trying to do. MR. SCHACHNER-And if the raised concrete divider is installed, then that will satisfy the first of the three items, and again, just to make this clear, the Staff has identified six items in - 6 - '-" '....-" --' '- that paragraph that are not in compliance. Three of them come from the Zoning Ordinance. So we need to, they either need to be resolved through modification, or we have no authority to waive them. The other three are within your authority, because they're from the previously approved site plan. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. I guess the question ~ have is that the original plans met all of the Zoning requirements, true? So if you meet the original plans, to the setbacks and the dividers, I mean, is that what you're going to do, other than these other modifications that we have the, you know, to approve either nay or yes on? MR. KRANTZ-Well, that's what I'm trying to find out. The fact is that we were told that only one variance was needed, and that's what we obtained. MR. PASSARELLI-Every time you send somebody to an agency, somebody comes up with a different opinion. John was supposed to (lost words). Scott went there last week and I guess he found something else, after I've already been for a variance, which I don't think is fair. MR. OBERMAYER-I do sympathize with you. Believe me, because I hate to give you the run around and stuff, but if the original plan did meet all the zoning requirements, then, you say it's nitpicking, but why can't you just have the 40 feet, the three feet, and it'll save you a lot of headaches. That's what I'm saying, why not put the divider in, meet the original plan. MR. PASSARELLI-The divider will destroy the parking lot. destroy the parking lot, and, do you know something, it make sense, and I wish I could meet your people there and to them, to put a divider there, it's like barricading my lot. It just doesn't make sense. It will doesn't explain parking MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Maybe you should just go comments. See which ones we have left out on the don't drag this thing out all night. through the table, so we MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. The distance for spaces and access aisle in front of the building should be 60 feet, and the actual distance is 57 feet. We're talking, where, now, between the front of the building? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The original plan called for 60 feet. You've got, the scale is approximately 57. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. planning problem? Is that a zoning problem, or is that a MR. HARLICKER-That is one of the zoning problems. So that's a zoning problem. MR. SCHACHNER-The first three of the six are the Zoning Ordinance problems, and the last three are the site plan problems. MR. KRANTZ-The distance between the building and the edge of pavement at the south end of the building should be 40 feet, and the actual distance is 37 feet. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, which we just talked about, and that's a zoning problem. MR. KRANTZ-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And the rest aren't. MR. OBERMAYER-And the rest aren't. that a zoning problem? How about the divider, is - 7 - MR. HARLICKER-That's in the Zoning Code. MR. OBERMAYER-That's the ZonlOng Ord1°nance. So how are YOU gOl , ' ° ng to deal with all three of these? MR. PASSARELLI-Let all three of them go there at one time, instead of one at a time. Everybody gi.ves me a different lette1-', and it's crazy. MR. KRANTZ-I sat down with Mr. Goralski, to go down them item by item. Now we've got to go through this process back again. I'm not angry with xou. I'm just say, with planning. MR. MACEWAN-Gentlemen, with all due respect, had this site plan been built according to the plans that were approved by this Board, you wouldn't be sitting here right now. MR. PASSARELLI-If that was the case, I wouldn't be sitting here tonight. MR. KRANTZ-We know that. We're not arguing that. MR. MACEWAN-I think you're casting aspersions onto our Planning staff, that it's their fault for not telling you everything that's wrong with your site plan, and that is not fair. Had you done it the way it was supposed to be, you wouldn't be here. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Lets just not get into an argument, because I do apologize for what you hap to go through, but if we could have dealt with this issue beforehand, it would have been dealt with properly. If you can take care of these issues, then you don't have a zoning problem, okay, and they're not that big of issues to overcome, I wouldn't think. MR. PASSARELLI-Those dividers are a big issue, because they'll ruin my parking lot. It means I can't clean, snow removal. It's impossible to do everything else, at the entrance, as tight as it is right nO"'J. MR. OBERMAYER-I know you're for the CO. Is that what happy to set up a special thing a little bit faster. under a tight time frame, possibly, it is? I know L would be more than meeting with you to facilitate this MR. PASSAREtLI-Yes, but we have to go back to the Zoning Board, and I wish I knew the list of what I had to go back to, because I got my variance. Maybe everything else could have been done last Wednesday night. MR. KRANTZ-You say doesn't help us for took place. that these notes were done Friday. Friday going back to the Zoning Board that already MR. OBERMAYER-I sympathize with you, but the Board's hands are tied. Again, if things were built according to the drawing, then we wouldn't be in this issue. MR. HARLICKER-Does the Board have any problems with the other deviations from the approved site plan? MRS. LABOMBARD-I have no problems with the other modifications to be made. MR. OBERMAYER-I have no issue. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not happy about it, but I think there's some flexibility in there to compromise a little bit. MR. KRANTZ-So what we're down to is the three zoning issues, right, Mark, the concrete divider at the entrance, and the two - 8 - '---- -- ---- distance separations that should be, three feet shy in two directions, is how ¡ read it. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-Sixty's called for, we have fifty-seven, is what was built, and forty and we're thirty-seven. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. PASSARELLI-And John spent two days there before he gave me a letter. I mean, he did his job thoroughly. Somebody now picks up something else. Maybe it's not even there. This is what bugs me. John was there to check the plot plan thoroughly, and just last week, somebody else shows up, and oversees John, and maybe the corrections don't even need to be there. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I just have a question for the Staff. MR. HARLICKER-All three of us went over this with a scale, twice, to make sure we weren't in error. John, Sue and I, all three of us went over this, and we were all in agreement that he was short from the 60 feet. It might be 58, it might be 56. MR. KRANTZ-When did that meeting take place? MR. HARLICKER-When did we go out there? Probably Friday. MR. KRANTZ-After we went to the Zoning Board? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-See, I would like to make a comment regarding that. It's a shame that you guys didn't get out there prior to, because everybody was aware that they were going to the Zoning Board, and this Plaza's been here for a couple of months now. Why are we picking up all these things now? MR. HARLICKER-Because they go out and they check it before the CO now. I mean, with the number of deviations from the site plan, I don't think it's unrealistic to pick up one or two additional ones. MR. KRANTZ-Three out of the four variances that were needed were not identified. That's the reality. MR. OBERMAYER-But then again, if it was constructed to the original drawings, we wouldn't be mitigating this. MR. KRANTZ-You're right on that point. MR. STARK-Mr. Krantz, why don't you ask the Zoning Board for a special meeting to address this? MR. KRANTZ-They were extremely nice and accommodating to work out a solution. We were here quarter past midnight. Quarter past midnight, they were just wonderful for the Town of Queensbury, as far as I'm concerned. They didn't give us carte blanche. They gave us conditions, but to impose upon them again, we can ask. MR. STARK-That's a way out, and then if that would help, then come back to us for a special meeting. MR. KRANTZ-We also have to go back to the County Planning Board. We've got to do the whole thing over. That's a good suggestion, but it's not just the Town. We have to go back to the County Planning Board, and they don't hold special meetings. Thank you for the suggestion. MR. OBERMAYER-Again, whateve)" we can do to help facilitate you getting your CO, if we had more jurisdiction, we'd be more than - 9 - '--- happy to help you. MR. KRANTZ-I understand. Could we ask, I think it's extremely likely, because we're going to be leaving here in about 10 seconds, but if we're still here when the meeting's going on, if we have a different position on this, could we still be heard, maybe, later this evening, if we're still here? MR. OBERMAYER-I would be happy to leave. meeting on this tonight? Is there a public MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. I'd be happy to. MR. KRANTZ-Thank you very much. MR. OBERMAYER-Do we have to table this, Mark? Do we have to make a motion to table it? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I would. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 32-93 MODIFiCATION FOR GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 33-95 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN HUGHES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: NORTH SIDE BAYWOOD DRIVE OFF WEST SIDE BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,750 SQ. FT. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ARE A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMMa - 6/12/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING - 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-11.1, 11.11 LOT SIZE: 55,173 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-18 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 33-95, John Hughes, Meeting Date: June 27, 1995 "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 with the above sections. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of t!10 Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The use is compatible with the area. It is located in a professional office park adjacent to apartments and other office buildings. No elevations have been provided so compatibility of the building cannot be determined. No signage is proposed. Four pole mounted lights are proposed for the parking lot and two lights are to be located near the entrance. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The applicant is proposing a circular entrance with one way in on one side and ingress and egress on the other. This could be confusing and consideration should be given to have one access entrance only and the other exit only. Interior traffic flow appears to be adequate. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off street parking and loading are adequate. The code requires 32 parking spaces and 32 are provided. 4. The adequacy - 10 - '-' -----' """,/ -- and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; pedestrian access is adequate. The handicapped parking spaces are located adjacent to the main entrance. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; On site drainage will be handled with french drains on the edge of the parking area on the front end of the building. Design specifics will be reviewed by Rist Frost. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The project will be serviced by municipal water and an on site septic system. Design specifics will be reviewed by Rist-Frost. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; The applicant is proposing an extensive landscaping plan. However, several mature trees are to be removed. Consideration should be given to these trees. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access appears to be adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Erosion control measures should be in place during construction and until the site has been stabilized. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has the following recommendations: 1) The main entrances should be redesigned so that it is one way in and one way out to avoid confusion. 2) With slight modifications to the parking layout 3 large cherry trees could be saved. These trees provide shade for the adjacent property and would also shade this site. One of the features that makes some of the adjacent properties attractive is the preservation of mature trees." MR. HARLICKER-There's a letter from Tom Flaherty, indicating, "I've reviewed the above site plan and all infrastructure is in place in the subdivision. The applicant will proceed with normal application for water service." Warren County said "No County Impact", and then Bill MacNamara has engineering comments BILL MACNAMARA MR. MACNAMARA-Good evening. This site plan was initially compared with some subdivision plans we had in our office from a previous review, consistency. These notes have been briefly gone over with the applicant's engineer this afternoon. So I suspect he's going to be able to comment on all of them tonight. The initial subdivision plan, in regards to the stormwater berm along the rear of the property showed it extending north an additional distance than what was proposed here, and I believe that's going to be extended further. I think Tom will talk a little bit about the cross section, the width of that berm that wasn't shown on the plan that was noted. There were also some outstanding, as far as our own files, general responses to comments on some earlier subdivision stormwater related items that I think Tom will address tonight. We had a similar comment about the layout of the traffic flow and I think Tom is going to speak to that tonight. We noted that the Water Department might want to, the water service needs to be performed to Town standards. As far as grading and erosion control, there was some grading in one of the corners that was confusing. The berm insulation really wasn't shown, as far as, on the clearing plan as far as the width and the amount of trees that will be required. We just made a note that they ought to try and line the berm up to save as many trees as possible. There were some erosion and sediment control items approved during the subdivision stage that didn't show up on the site plan, silt fencing in particular, to the rear of the stormwater berm, between the berm and the brook. That was to be added. Lastly, regarding the sewage disposal system, it was a little confusing whether it was going to be a raised fill system or not, which has some slightly different requirements. Tom's - 11 - '-- -' going to clear those up. Essentially, those questions went to grades, depth of cover over the ground water, or mottling depth, also tapered distances or setbacks from the berm and the property line. Those are all of our comments. MR. OBERMAYER-Tom, you met all of those comments? You discussed them with Bill today? MR. MACNAMARA-We just generally discussed them. He was going to speak to them tonight. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. NACE-Yes. For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. With me is John Hughes. Okay. Let me work backwards from these comments. Okay. The berm that was shown here was part of the original subdivision plans. As Bill noted, that needs to be integrated into, we just showed it as a straight line. That will be integrated into our grading plans so that we show the applicant how that is to be constructed. I will do that. It will extend up into the area here where most of the drainage is coming around the northwest side of the building. We'll pick that up. We don't need to bring it all the way to the property line. We can bring it up far enough to get that drainage up. The swale will be just a very low foot and a half high berm with the top that's maybe three or four feet wide, and I'll show a detail of that. I had mistakenly thought that the detail was on the original subdivision plan. It was not. Bill had a point, when he was talking about the swale. The septic system is right in here. I will be moving that over a few feet, to separate that from the drainage swale a little better. The septic system is what they call a shallow trench system, which means the bottom of the absorption field is in the existing ground. So all you're doing is building up dirt over top of the system, and it doesn't have any impact on the percolation of the effluent into the ground. So that doesn't require the big tapers or large areas that a full mound system does. So we do have adequate space in here. It's just a matter of shifting over here. MR. OBERMAYER-How high would that be, Tom? elevation be raised? How high would the MR. NACE-Above existing grade? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. NACE-About two feet, max. The point Bill made, and also 5taff made, regarding circulation, we originally had this as one way in, here. The main entrance to the building is up on the northeast side, so that all of the patients will be parking in this area, coming in the front door, which is facing this way. This is just a Staff entrance, mostly for the doctors who will have this parking lot here. We made the in/out here, simply so that the doctors could get in quickly to their parking spots. I have no objection. I've talked to the applicant. He has no objection to closing that down so it is one way circulation all the way around the loop. 50 we will do that. MR. RUEL-I have a question. How many feet would you move the laterals, approximately? MR. NACE-On the septic? I looked at it this afternoon, about 15 feet. MR. RUEL-So you only have 20 feet between that and the parking. MR. NACE-Between the laterals and the parking? MR. RUEL-You'd be five feet away from the parking. - 12 - '-- --' --' '-- MR. NACE-Yes. MR. RUEL-From the French drains along the parking area. MR. NACE-Well, I think what you're looking at, do you have a plan in front of you? MR. RUEL-I'm looking at this here. MR. NACE-Right. It's 20 feet. That's (lost words). The first line is way out here. It's another 10 feet or so away. MR. RUEL-So you have about 30 feet. MR. NACE ··So we'll still have about 15 feet. MR. RUEL-You'll have 1.5 left over. Okay. Thank you. MR. NACE-Okay. We will show a silt fence across the back. I think that was the only major issue on drainage. Sewage I've covered. I think that pretty well sums up the changes we have to make to address Bill's comments. One last thing, the parking layout really is sort of to get the parking back away from the road, so it's not right out on the road, so that there's an area in here that can be landscaped, to buffer the parking from the road a little bit. It does mean that there's an apple tree, two apple trees and three cherry trees back here. The applicant has said he may try to move a couple of those trees, if he possibly can, but there's really. MR. HARLICKER-Well, I have one suggestion here for the 15 inch cherry tree right behind the garage. Do you really feel, are you going to utilize all 32 spaces? Are you going to need them? Because the Planning Board does have the ability to, if they can provide those spaces, you know, not actually pave them, but show they can be provided on site, they don't actually have to pave t.hem. MR. NACE-In actuality, those first spaces there will be the most utilized spaces. MR. HARLICKER-Those two right there where the cherry tree is? MR. NACE-Yes. They're the most convenient. MR. HARLICKER-If you could just take those two down to the other end, that would mean you could t.ree there. and shift them save that one MR. NACE-But remember, this it's fairly important that can get it. is, it's a doctor's office, parking, you have the parking as close as you MR. HARLICKER-You can save the one in front, the cherry tree in front, if you could shift that driveway, since it's only going to be one way, could you shift it down a little bit to the left, and save that tree out front? MR. NACE-Are you talking about that 12 inch cherry? MR. HARLICKER-No. The one right by the entrance. You could shift. that entrance-way to the left a little bit. You could save that cherry tree. MR. NACE-I think that will be saved. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. They do show it in the landscaping plan. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, but they don't show it to be saved, though. I mean, those would be nice assets to the site, and I think if you - 13 - '--' could save them. MR. NACE-Sure. Since we're narrowing this entrance here a little, I'll see if we can. MR. RUEL-So you will make that one way in and one way out? MR. NACE-This will be one way in and one way out. MR. RUEL-Okay. A question for Staff. about saving three cherry trees. You made a suggestion MR. HARLICKER-Those were the ones we were just talking about. MR. RUEL-Yes. Then do you have any ideas on alternate parking? MR. HARLICKER-Well, I suggested one. One alternative would be just to eliminate them, and if they need them at a later date, they could put them in. There's room at the other end of the parking lot, where the back out area is, on the right hand side, to put two spaces down there, just shift the parking lot that way, and eliminate those two spaces where the 15 inch cherry tree is, right behind the garage. You could save that cherry tree, save the one at the entrance. MR. RUEL-What's your reaction to that? MR. NACE-If the cherry trees were down here, I'd gladly say, lets live with 30 spaces instead of 32, but being a doctor's office, being the fact that you're going to have some invalid people that aren't necessarily handicapped, that won't be parking right at the first three handicapped spaces. I think it's important to have those spaces as close as we can get them. MR. RUEL-Does this plan meet all the requirements on the number of parking areas? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I think it's a nice plan. I think it'll look very nice, but it would be an extra asset to the site if they could save the trees, that's all. MR. RUEL-Yes, but I mean the number of parking areas is more than adequate. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. provided. Thirty-two are required and thirty-two are MR. RUEL-And the elimination of several for saving trees would be all right then? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. What I'd like to do now is open up the public hearing, and if we have any questions from the public, unless someone from the Staff would like to comment or comment after the public hearing. Okay. So does anybody have any comments from the public? Would they like to come up and speak on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. NACE-Okay. One of the things that John just looked at is this entrance to the parking. He didn't realize that this, the north entrance, northeast entrance is a one way in only, okay. what would the Board's reaction be if we shifted so that this north entrance was in and out, being to serve the patient parking, and the lower one was an out only? - 14 - '-' ---./' -.,.. '",---, MR. 08ERMAYER-I, personally, like that a lot better than, because I've noticed that myself, when you have it one way, because all the traffic will want to go out that way anyway. MR. RUEL-What would we have on the north end, in and out? MR. NACE-The north one would be in and out to serve the main flow, and the south one would be out only. So this one would just serve the doctors. This would really be the main entrance. MR. RUEL-It's reversing what we have here, essentially. MR. NACE-Exactly. MR. OBERMAYER-Would you increase the width of that, accommodate what you have on the bottom side there? would you make it that wider width? then, to I mean, MR. NACE-I'd have to work with the layout. those widths are, but (lost words). I'm not sure what MR. RUEL-You should reverse the north and south entrances, as far as width is concerned, because you have wider on the southern end and narrow on the north. Just reverse them. MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Since we're reversing the flow of traffic. MR. NACE-That's correct, and this would be an out only. The doctor's parking would come in and circle around and park, and come out he,"e. MR. 08ERMAYER-Okay, and you would conform to any zoning. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. OBERMAYER-Any comments from the Board? MR. MACEWAN-Regarding the reconfiguration of the entrance/exit, how would you mark it, with signage, paint the pavement? MR. NACE-Yes, it would be marked. marked Exit Only, and that's all have directional signs for the parking lot. The one on the south would be we need, really. We would also people exiting from the main MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. RUEL-It was mentioned, Rist-Frost, something about detention ponds, spillways. like that on that plan. I think, mentioned I don't see anything MR. NACE-I apologize. That's one item I didn't address, that Bill brought up. There was a letter, back in 1991, issued by Rist-Frost, after this was reviewed by the Board, for not this site, but the overall subdivision, that letter was addressed, I haven't been able to dig my old file out of the archives yet, but I'm sure that that was addressed at that time, and I Just have to find a copy of that letter and get it to Bill. MR. MACNAMARA-For your benefit, Roger, all the subdivision's runoff, as far as I could tell from looking at the original subdivision, flows essentially down toward the southwest area. There's a lot that, essentially, a back portion looks to be dedicated to stormwater management, and there were a number of comments that appear to be outstanding, which in many ways go to this sit'e plan, because it takes its ,"unoff. MR. RUEL-Can we bypass that for now? - 15 - ........ MR. MACNAMARA-Well, he believes that the comments have all been addressed, and I just, we don't have that in our file. MR. NACE-It's my recollection, because I was doing the drainage for the subdivision at that time, and it's my recollection that I answered that in a letter to Staff back in 1991. I simply have to dig out myoId file, and confirm that I did, and supply Bill with a copy of that letter. MR. RUEL-I think it would be advantageous information on your plan now, if possible. to have that MR. NACE-Well, it really doesn't deal with this site. with a stormwater detention basin that is on another you'll notice. It deals site, t.hat MR. RUEL-But can't you indicate the flow into certain areas? MR. NACE-This berm here is, and the soil is already indicat.ed, flowing in that direction, and that's what he's talking about. MR. RUEL-Yes. I don't have that.. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, you do. MR. RUEL-I have it? Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-Tom, what type of curbing are you going to put. around this? MR. NACE-On the parking? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. NACE-I presume, well, there is no curbing on the parking, I'm sorry, because it. drains off int.o. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. What about, like, the entrances. Will that be, what type of curbing will be on the entrances? MR. NACE-I don't. anticipate, curbing is just a, it's a place for t.he snow plow t.o run int.o trouble. MR. RUEL-So will there be modifications to save the ,cherry trees? Definitely, yes or no? MR. NACE-The one at the northeast entrance road, we will move the ent.rance road back a couple of feet to save that. MR. OBERMAYER-You'll try your best. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. RUEL-Revised parking area, right? MR. NACE-No, t.hat's just., we're revising the entrance road. That's all. The parking area stays as is. MR. OBERMAYER-The ent.rance-way is going t.o shift. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know that, but what's that got to do with saving cherry t.rees? MRS. LABOMBARD-You said revised parking. MR. RUEL-Yes. Well, t.here are cherry t.rees in the parking area. MR. NACE-No, these cherry trees, no. MR. RUEL-You're not. going to do anything about that? - 16 - ~ ---' ~ '-- MR. NACE-Other than the applicant's agreed that he will attempt, if the trees look saveable and transplantable, he will attempt to reutilize them. MR. RUEL-Yes. I'm just wondering if it should be part of the motion or not. MR. OBERMAYER-I know I wouldn't want it part of the motion. MR. RUEL-Okay. All right. MR. NACE-It's the one here that (lost words). MR. RUEL-Okay. You'll do your best. MR. MACEWAN-Has this been to Beautification? MR. OBERMAYER-Have you gotten your letter from Beautification on this, Tom? MR. NACE-Yes, we have. MR. MACEWAN-What we should do, when we do the resolution, just tie in whatever the Beautification approvals were with our resolution. MR. OBERMAYER-Do we have to do a Short Environmental form on this? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. We do have to do a SEQRA on this? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 33-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before JOHN HUGHES, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the state Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section - 17 - 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling MR. RUEL-Do you want a motion? MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-95 JOHN HUGHES, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: As written. with the modifications, to go along with the Beautification Committee approved drawing, and also to revise the egress and access to the site to conform with all zoning rules and regulations. That the north entrance will have an ingress and egress and that the south entrance will have just an egress from the site, that will conform to all local Queensbury Town Zoning and Ordinances, and that he'll meet all engineering comments on the letter dated June 20, 1995. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 33-95 to construct a 4,750 square foot professional office; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 5/30/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet C1, Site Plan & Utility Plan, dated 5/30/95 2. Sheet C2, Grading & Drainage Plan, dated 5/30/95 3. Sheet LA, Landscaping & Lighting Plan, dated 5/30/95 4. Sheet D1, Details, dated 5/30/95; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1 . 2. 3. Staff notes, dated 6/27/95 Engineering comments, dated Beautification Committee 6/12/95 6/20/95 comments, dated Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/27/95 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and - 18 - ---- ,--' '-/ --- Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve, site plan 33-95, JOHN HUGHES. 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 Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Obermayer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 34-95 TYPE: UNLISTED RONALD ST. GERMAIN OWNER: WILLIAM J. FOX ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: CORNER OF QUEENS BURY AVE. & DIX AVE. - PROPERTY IS EAST OF QUAKER REPAIR SHOP. USE OF VACANT AREA 122.62' FRONTAGE BY 190.69' LENGTH, TO RETAIL PRE- BUILT WOOD STORAGE BUILDINGS, LAWN FURNITURE, WOOD SWING SETS. RETAIL SALES IS A PERMITTED USE TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMMa - 6/12/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING - 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 111-5-1 LOT SIZE: 122.62' BY 190.69' SECTION: 179-24 RONALD ST. GERMAIN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 34-95, Ronald St. Germain, Meeting Date: June 27, 1995 "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 with the above sections. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; There are no permanent structures proposed. The area will be utilized as a retail area for storage sheds, swing sets and lawn furniture. This small scale retail operation is compatible with the mixed commercial residential character of the neighborhood. No new lighting is proposed. The proposed freestanding sign will be subject to a separate permit. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The applicant is proposing a single 12 foot wide access to the retail area from Dix Avenue. In order to allow for two way traffic the access should be widened. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The applicant expressed a desire to have a parking area for three or four cars. This seems reasonable and the parking area should be modified to accommodate four cars and meet the dimensional requirements. The parking lot will be gravel. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access should not be a problem. Customers will be able to go directly from their cars - 19 - -~ to the display area. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater drainage will not be an issue. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; No water or sewage facilities are proposed. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; No landscaping has been proposed. The site will be grubbed and kept mowed. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access is not an issue. A fire hydrant is located at the corner of Queensbury Avenue and Dix Avenue. 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 has some concern about providing a third access to this property from Dix Avenue. However, there does not appear to be an alternative to accessing this part of the property. The parking area will have to be redesigned to meet the requirements for parking spaces and access and the access should be wide enough to accommodate two way traffic." The County said No County Impact, and there's a prepared resolution for your consideration. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. ST. GERMAIN-My name's Ronald St. Germain. I'm the applicant. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Would you like to address the comments that the Staff has talked about? MR. ST. GERMAIN-Basically what the Staff said regarding of different storage structures, preassembled, no structures on the building. Driveway conforms to requirements. the sale permanent the zoning MR. HARLICKER-I mean, the parking lot know, you could accommodate four cars that's 40 by 40 feet, and they could for two cars, maybe make it. you could get by with, you there, with a gravel area widen the access to allow MR. MACEWAN-How many cars will it accommodate? MR. HARLICKER-That would accommodate four cars. MR. OBERMAYER-Can you take down that other plan, so that we don't get it confused with the other one. Thanks. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Staff. submitted to us by the applicant meet the Planning Board for drawing standards? Does this drawing requirements of the MR. HARLICKER-Yes. For this type of project, yes. MR. ST. GERMAIN-In addition to the driveway proposing right here for parking, (lost word) joining here with this Quaker Television Repair, there's also a huge large parking area, also. There is parking over this way. There's parking on the Quaker repairshop area also. There's a small building here. The proposed building right in this area, and overflow parking, if that ever was a condition, they could park in this whole area here. MR. STARK-What months of operation are you going to be running? MR. ST. GERMAIN-It's mostly a seasonal type business. winter time months, we'd be pretty much shut down. In the MR. RUEL-You'll be building these structures on that property? MR. ST. GERMAIN-No. They'll be preassembled, brought in with a - 20 - .- '--' --- '............ ''''--' tractor traile,". MR. 08ERMAYER-Where will the people have to pay for, you know, where are they going to, will there be someone there in a shed? MR. ST. GERMAIN-There'll be someone on a full scale basis, but there's call. Pick out what they want, and and they'll take care of it. there from time to time, not a phone number that they can then call the phone number, MR. OBERMAYER-I see. Okay. MR. RUEL-For my own edification, what is an Amish Shed? MR. ST. GERMAIN-An A~ish Shed is built by the Pennsylvania Dutch people down in their Amish, they're built in Lancaster. MR. RUEL-They have to build them? MR. ST. GERMAIN-Well, they build them. them. Their style of building. So their name goes on MR. RUEL-The Amish Sheds on Potter Road, is that your competitor? MR. ST. GERMAIN-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Tonight's a public hearing. So maybe, you know, unless anybody would like to just add some comments, maybe we can hear from the public. So the public meeting is open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAN HOGAN MR. HOGAN-My name is Dan Hogan, and I'm here later on with Garden Time and their application, and just note that there doesn't appear as if there's any setback requirement related to display sheds, and I believe that there's retail space there as well. MR. RUEL-Yes, 15 feet. MR. HOGAN-Is that the proposal, a 15 feet setback from the display a'"ea? MR. ST. GERMAIN-On the applicant forms, the proposal setback is shown on that map, not on that particular map up there. That's a general overview of the whole area. MR. HOGAN-It's just my understanding that if there's a display going on and there's a 15 foot setback for these nonpermanent sb"uctures. MR. OBERMAYER-Is that a comment or a question? MR. HOGAN-Well, the question is, is it a 15 foot setback for these displays of nonpermanent structures on a proposed plan? MR. RUEL-From a zoning standpoint? MR. HOGAN-No, on the plan itself. MR. RUEL-It's written on the plan. MR. HARLICKER-There isn't a set standard. We've been through this. There isn't a set setback requirement for temporary structures such as this. It's up to the Board's discretion as to what sort of setback they would like the applicant to meet. I took it as, he's going to have a display areas as shown on this plot plan, and that would indicate that those are probably at least 40 feet back from the front of the road. If the applicant - 21 - ~ is going to be displaying them in other areas, other than indicated on this plot plan, he should indicate that. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Why don't we just tie into a resolution that says it's feet. it into, if we going to be a approve this, minimum of 40 MRS. about LABOMBARD-From the front, from from the other boundaries? the road. Yes, but what MR. OBERMAYER-It's not necessary, according to Staff. Right? MR. HARLICKER-Well, it's up to the Board. It's at the Board's discretion. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, there's no Ordinance saying that they cannot do it? MR. HARLICKER-Correct. MR. RUEL-So the only condition we have, then, is the width of the driveway for the parking area? MR. OBERMAYER-If it's a concern. MR. RUEL-Didn't you mention that, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I think it's got to be 20 feet. MR. RUEL-What is it now on your plan, sir? MR. HARLICKER-He shows it to be about 12 feet. MR. ST. GERMAIN-Right now, it would be whatever is required for the parking area. If it was two way traffic, it will be wide enough for the two way traffic. MR. RUEL-What is the width? MR. ST. GERMAIN-I believe you said 20 feet is required for each parking space, and then the driveway would probably be 40, 40 wide, to accommodate them, getting them in. MR. HARLICKER-The zoning, at least if I'm reading this correct, does not indicate a minimum width. It says there shall be a maximum, a maximum of two lanes, 20 feet shall be permitted for each, but it doesn't indicate that there's a minimum. MR. RUEL-So, what are you saying, 40 feet? MR. HARLICKER-That's a maximum. There doesn't seem to be, I can't find in here, where it indicates a minimum width for an access drive. I would say, you know, probably 20 feet would be all right. In most cases, on a commercial site plan, generally a single access is anywhere from 24 to 30 feet wide. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, I hope for the applicant's sake that cars will be streaming in and out of there, buying sheds like crazy. MR. ST. GERMAIN-I don't think it's going to be that fast paced. MR. OBERMAYER-Would anybody else like to comment, from the public? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED . MR. OBERMAYER-Any comments from the Staff before we do a SEQRA? - 22 - "-"" --.../ '-.. MR. RUEL-Short or Long? MR. OBERMAYER-Short. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 34-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, theo3 application for: is presently before the RONALD ST. GERMAIN, 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: j''''¡OI''-IE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer ~~OES : NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling MR. OBERMAYER-The only question I have, does the applicant require Warren County approval to have an access onto Dix Avenue? Does he need a permit from the~? MR. HARLICKER-He claims that there was already a drive there. There was a house there at one time. MR. ST. GERMAIN-It was most likely a one car driveway at one time, when there was a house at that site. MR. HARLICKER-So he would have to contact the County, and ensure that that's a valid curb cut. .' MR. OBERMAYER-Right. You would need to get approval. MR. HARLICKER-It may require a new curb cut because he's going - 23 - ~ from residential to commercial. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. County, sir, to get to the site. Exactly. So you'll need to go to Warren an approval from them, regarding the access MR. MACEWAN-It's Just basically trying to obtain a permit from the Highway Department, the County Highway Department. It's not going back to the planning Board. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Board, but we'll put we will. You won't have to go back to that possibly into our motion, the Planning saying that MR. MACEWAN-What did we determine the width of his driveway was going to be, 20 feet? MR. OBERMAYER-We didn't. MR. HARLICKER-You've got to decide. MR. MACEWAN-You did make mention that you said you anticipate tractor trailer deliveries? MR. ST. GERMAIN-That would be the way they're delivered, yes. MR. MACEWAN-What's our general rule of thumb to allow for trailers? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. How is there? That's a pretty big a wider driveway than just park out on the street. he going to get a tractor trailer in turning radius. You're going to need what you're proposing. They can't MR. ST. GERMAIN-No. We're either going to have them back in or drive in, either way, and there would be no curbing. If Warren County doesn't require curbing to get in there, the tractor trailer wouldn't have too much of a problem getting in there. They could also, off more on the site, on this side right here, and from there I could take them in with a front end loader. MR. HARLICKER-Drop them off behind the repair place there? MR. ST. GERMAIN-Right here. MR. MACEWAN-That would make more sense. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That sounds like a good idea. MR. MACEWAN-I'll tell you, I'm not crazy about seeing a tractor trailer trying to back in off of Dix Avenue. MR. HARLICKER-Then why don't you make that a condition of approval. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I think that's, you don't have a problem with that? MR. ST. GERMAIN-No, I don't have a problem with that. MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's a good suggestion. MR. ST. GERMAIN-But they do back in all the time on this site right here, if they have to drop in a delivery. MR. MACEWAN-In the Quaker It's just that the way restrictions for entrance trailer backing out very property. T.V. Repair area. Yes, that's fine. your site is going to be, and the to it, I'm not envisioning a tractor easily off Dix Avenue into your - 24 - ',- ----' ,......,/ '''---' MR. OBERMAYER-Right by the light, and the other one was, if you don't mind, we'd like to put the setback to store your buildings 40 feet from the road, because that conforms with the Ordinance. MR. HARLICKER-There's nothing in the Ordinance that says to be 40 feet. What I said is if you look at the plot has indicated on here that there be about, you know, his of swing sets and squares are set back about 40 feet prope)-ty line. it 'f:3 got plan, it drawings from the MR. MACEWAN-If we say 40 feet, that's certainly going to give him enough room, and it'll give some direction and guidance as to where we want things. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you have a problem with that, 40 feet off of Dix Avenue? MR. ST. GERMAIN-If we were a hair less of that, or more, I'm not sure what it will exactly be with the parking spaces and everything, but if we were just a hair less than that, three feet or something like that, we'd be no part on the? MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know. with that before. So, would feet okay? 30 feet? Don't ask me. We've had problems you like 35 feet? I mean, is 40 MR. ST. GERMAIN-Thirty feet is fine. Very good, thank you. MR. HARLICKER-I have one thing to add. He should also modify his parking area so he can meet the dimensional requirements, which lS a 20 foot, nine by twenty foot spaces and twenty foot access aisle. So if he has indicated on there a 40 by 40 foot parking area, that would accommodate four cars. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So you can mark that on the drawing, sir, and also indicate the setback on the drawing, when you resubmit it? He has to resubmit an approved drawing anyway, because we have to sign it. So if yOU could mark that on your drawing, that would simplify things also. MR. ST. GERMAIN-No problem. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-95 RONALD ST. GERMAIN, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: As written. With the following conditions: Driveways will meet Queensbury Zoning requirements and Warren County approval for the driveways on Dix Avenue. Two, the storage buildings will be set back 30 feet from Dix Avenue. Three, revise the drawings accordingly, and also revise the parking area so that the parking spaces are 9 by 20, and that the delivery of merchandise be via the Quaker Repair Shop loading zone, off of Queensbury Road. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 34-95 to use a vacant area to retail wood storage buildings, lawn furniture and s¡..Ji ng sets; a, nd Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 5/31/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, Site Plan, undated; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 6/27/95 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/27/95 concerning - 25 - '--- the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors outlined in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan 34-95, RONALD ST. GERMAIN. 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 forth in this resolution. The conditions shall be noted The issuance of permits is compliance and continued Zoning Ordinance and site process. conditions set 5. 6. on the map. conditioned on compliance with plan approval Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. übermayer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 26-95 MR. & MRS. MILFORD LESTER TYPE I OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: BAY PARKWAY ASSEMBLY PT., WHEN ROAD TURNS SOUTH INTO LAKE PARKWAY THE RESIDENCE IS ON RIGHT. ADDITION AND RENOVATION TO EXISTING SUMMER RESIDENCE. ANY EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A C.E.A. REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 21-1995 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-15 LOT SIZE: .42 ACRES SECTION: 179-79F RICHARD PARKER & MILFORD LESTER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-95, Mr. & Mrs. Milford Lester, Meeting Date: June 27, 1995 "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 with the above sections. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The proposed addition will be compatible with the site. No new lighting or signage is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; This is not an issue. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; This is not an issue. 4. The adequacy and arrangement - 26 - ,--' --../' '--- of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; This is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The additional stormwater runoff generated by this project will have to be contained on site. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; As long as the existing septic system is functioning, there is no requirement to upgrade the system. 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; No new landscaping is proposed. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provisions of fire hydrants; This will not be impacted by this project. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Erosion control measures should be in place during construction and until the site has been stabilized. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application." This project was also subject to a, I believe it was just a shoreline setback variance, and that was approved by the Zoning Board last month. The SEQRA process was done prior to the Zoning Board decision. So that's all been taken care of, and Warren County reviewed this and said there was No County Impact. MR. PARKER-My name is Richard Parker. I'm the architect for Mr. Lester. MR. LESTER-I'm Milford Lester. MR. OBERMAYER-I guess there really wasn't too many comments, were there? Is this going to be an all year round residence? MR. LESTER-No. MR. OBERMAYER-Maybe we should just open it up to the public. public hearing is open, if anybody would like to comment. up and say a few words. The Come PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. OBERMAYER-I have just a question. Was it difficult to obtain a variance, because you're so close to the lake? I have a camp and I'm going to go through the same thing. So, I'm wondering if I'm going to have a hard time getting a variance. MR. PARKER-Only the paper work, and the time. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-And project by project here. it depends on the project. It's done on a basis. There aren't any generalizations given MR. OBERMAYER-Then I have no questions. Would anybody like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-95 MR. & MRS. MILFORD LESTER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Sta'rk: As w)- i tten. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan - 27 - application file # 26-95 to construct an addition to a residence; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 4/19/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, Site Plan, dated 4/24/95; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 6/27/95 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/27/95 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan 26-95, MR. & MRS. MILFORD LESTER. 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 Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Obermayer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MARVIN & JANET HAUTALA OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: PART OF CLINE MEADOW DEV. LOCATED ON WEST SIDE OF MEADOWBROOK RD., SOUTH OF QUAKER RD. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 15.66 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 10.55 ACRES AND 4.91 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 8-1989, FWl-89, FW3-95 TAX MAP NO. 108-1- 4.1 LOT SIZE: 15.66 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it was tabled last week. MR. STARK-The public hearing was left open. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the public hearing was left open. - 28 - '"--,, ---,' MRS. LABOMBARD-It was left open. Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-Why was it left open? MR. HARLICKER-It was because last week, if you recall, you were just dealing with the Wetlands Permit. They hadn't been able to do Preliminary because they didn't get the mailings sent out in time. There's also the question of SEQRA. You weren't able to do, in order to properly do the environmental review for this project, you have to take the wetlands and the Subdivision into consideration, and you weren't able to do that at last week's meeting because you weren't considering the Preliminary subdivision. MR. OBERMAYER-But we're not scheduled to do the SEQRA tonight? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-We are. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you can't make any decision on anything, Wetlands Permit or Preliminary Subdivision, until you accomplish the SEQRA review. So last week the difficulty was that there was a minor procedural hangup, in terms of the mailings, that prevented the Preliminary Subdivision from being considered. Presumably, that's been taken care of, and the Preliminary subdivision and the Wetlands, I think, are both on for tonight. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RICHARDS-That's ffiZ understanding. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, mine, too. MR. STARK-It's just the Preliminary tonight, Scott, right? MR. HARLICKER-Well, he had asked, last week, to do both, and it was kind of left up in the air. It was depending on what sort of outstanding issues there were, if any, after Preliminary. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, maybe we ought to just take it one step at a time, for right now. MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. My name is John Richards. I'm the Attorney for the applicants, Marvin & Janet Hautala, and, yes, this is my understanding this is a public hearing tonight for the subdivision application. I wasn't aware that we had held the public hearing open for the Wetlands. I'm not sure it makes much difference anyway, but we're here tonight. At the meeting on the 20th, Jim had asked that we submit more detailed plats in full compliance with the Preliminary and Final plat sections in the Ordinance, and Scott was good enough to fax me some information that we needed last week. We had our surveyors working until the 11th hour, literally, until about late this afternoon. I have them here. Obviously, you haven't seen them yet. Before I submit them to you, I just wanted to mention a couple of things and make sure everyone understands what we're asking for. I notice two of the Board members are here tonight, but were not here before. This is an application to divide one lot of the existing Cline Meadow Development, one lot that happens to be very large, to create two lots, both of which will still comply with all of the size requirements of the Town. One of those lots, the 10 acre, roughly the 10 acre parcel, is presently improved by a single family residence, and the approximately 4 acre parcel is vacant. There are wetlands on a large part of the 4 acre parcel, as well as a portion of the 10 acre parcel, and the Wetlands Permit was obtained by the developer, who is not the Hautala's, obviously, it's Girard, when they built the Cline Meadow Development. What I want to make abundantly clear to everyone tonight is we are not seeking any permission to do any - 29 - --- -- site alteration of any kind. This is strictly a paper subdivision approval request. There are no development plans. There are no construction projects in the works. There are no filling plans right now, and we're being 100 percent open and above board on this. We're strictly asking to be able to retain, for the present, to retain a four acre lot because the house parcel is under a contract to sale, which I'm going to talk about a little more in a minute. Now I've looked at the Staff comments and I've had a number of discussions with Scott and Jim, and as I read them, their concern is about buildability, whether yoU could put a single family residence on there. This property may never be built upon. I'm talking, now, about the 4 acre parcel, the lot we would create. It may never be built upon or we may even want to keep the flexibility to acquire some adjacent property. Scott alludes to one adjacent piece, but there are others. Acquire some adjacent property so that we wouldn't have any problems with setback requirements from the existing wetlands. We can get into a lot of the legalistic aspects of setbacks and what are we asking for. I'm trying to think of a practical way that we can address the concerns that have been raised and move ahead with these things, and what L would suggest tonight, and I've discussed this with the Hautala's, why don't you approve us, but condition your approval on a requirement that any construction cannot take place unless it obtains site plan review before this Board. That would seem to address any concerns about potential impacts on wetlands or adjacent areas. MR. OBERMAYER-I think you'd have to do that anyway. MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. STARK-That was Tim's concern last week. MR. RICHARDS-Yes. Tim had mentioned that. Scott mentions that in the comments. I think he's mistaken. I would respectfully submit that he's mistaken, that we don't need a site plan review for the driveway. There's a specific exemption, but we're saying, put the whole thing up to site plan review, and that way, if you feel there's an impact at that time, or your successors, if construction's even proposed, you get another look at it from that standpoint, and I might add, if it involved alteration to the wetlands, we need a wetlands permit to begin with. So we're going into this with our eyes open, as would any successive owner of the property also have their eyes open. The reason why this came about, and I really feel the Board should know this, and why we're approaching it in this time table. The Hautala's first thought about putting their property up for sale, and possibly dividing it, roughly, in one third, two thirds ratio. Back in the fall, they got a letter from Scott, which I'll submit to the Board, and Scott properly said that the property is subdividable, pursuant to the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations, and he's entirely right, and we proceeded on that basis. Then in the spring, when they had a potential buyer, and they were doing negotiations with him, Mrs. Hautala went in to see Jim, and specifically went through this again, do I need Board subdivision approval to do this or can I just get the Administrative two lot subdivision approval, and was told that she would not need Planning Board approval. She went and approved and signed, they both did, a contract, to sell the house and the ten acre parcel, and then received a letter from Jim, and I'm not being critical. It L",¡as in good fait.h, saying, well, you do need Board appro\ial. So all of a sudden, what became, we t.hought was a fairly routine approach to selling the property, all of a sudden we have the hammer of Board approval over our heads, and we're trying to comply with everything you want. Understand that this whole area and this subdivision has been thoroughly mapped, reviewed, public hearings. There's many review of this area. This is nothing new. This is not a first impression type arrangement before this Board. I would point out a couple of things that we discussed last week, which is, Nurnbe," One, only the Town of Queensbun' - 30 - ---- --/ wetlands Regulations seem to deem a two lot subdivision worthy of review. The state doesn't. The Army Corp of Engineers, the Federal Government don't even bother. They don't deem it important enough to even review for wetlands aspects. Also, the only reason we're here, from a subdivision standpoint, is because this is a preexisting, previously approved subdivision. If this were a two lot area somewhere else that had never come before this Board, we wouldn't have to come before the Board either. So, with that kind of background, I do have the plans. I do have the return slips. We did not reach everyone. Some people did not pick up the mail. We've got just about everyone on here. Some 90 letters went out, Certified, and the property's been properly posted. We have both a proposed final and a proposed preliminary plat, which I'd be certainly be glad to submit to the Board and to Scott, however you want to handle it, but we're here requesting your assistance, because we'd like to be able to comply with our contract, because we are under the gun, and we feel this has absolutely no detrimental aspects, because it has no on-site alteration whatsoever. You're not approving any of that tonight. MR. RUEL-I understand that this apparently meets the requirements for subdivision. Secondly, your opening statements indicated that you had no intentions to do anything with the building on this property. My question is, why are you subdividing it? MR. RICHARDS-Well, for the very reason I just said. They want to retain the flexibility, with this parcel, either to combine it with an adjacent parcel if they did plan to do any construction. Someone else might be interested in buying this property, for whatever reason. They want to retain that, and they thought they had retained that right earlier, and we're not asking for any immediate approvals now. MR. RUEL-At the last meeting, we had asked you to indicate on the plan the setbacks for wetlands, etc. I guess you've done that now. MR. RICHARDS-It's done. It's all here. MR. RUEL-All right. Now, Scott, did you review this? MR. HARLICKER-I haven't seen it. MR. RICHARDS-He hasn't seen it. I just got this. I would say this, that it was shown on the previously filed subdivision map for this area. There's nothing new here. MR. RUEL-Well, the reason I ask is that, it seemed to me at the last meeting that there was some question as to whether there was enough land to build something, and that would be determined by the setback and the wetlands. MR. RICHARDS-Right now, if anyone wanted to build, as Scott says, it would be difficult to comply with all the setback requirements under the existing lot. MR. RUEL-Difficult or impossible? MR. HARLICKER-There's a stretch on that lot that's about 35 feet wide, where you could put a building in and not require a \lariance. MR. OBERMAYER-But we could always make that part of the motion, if we get that far, okay, to incorporate that they have to come before us for site plan approval, for any development on the property. MR. RUEL-That was a question at the last meeting. - 31 - ~ MR. OBERMAYER-And the applicant mentioned that they would not have any issue at all with that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Just to clarify, so that we're not caught in a situation where we're trying to impose jurisdiction that we would not otherwise have, it's my understanding that the applicant has offered to, as a proposed condition of approval, with the applicant's full consent, that that condition would be imposed. Am I correct? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. That clarifies it. MR. RICHARDS-We're really not asking for anything extraordinary here. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. What I'd like to do is just open up the public hearing for the people to comment on this project, and I'm sure the people sitting over here and over here are for or against. So maybe I'd like to hear the people against the project first, or have comments. MR. RICHARDS-I'd like to reserve a chance to address the Board when the public has had a chance. MR. OBERMAYER-No problem. You'll get plenty of chance to talk. MR. RICHARDS-The one direction from me, he have no plans to put a t. ha t . thing that the surveyor did, without any put. a proposed house on the parcel. We proposed house. I just want to emphasize MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. I'm ready, from either or. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS BOCKO MRS. BOCKO-I came here last week, and I guess there's a few people who weren't here. I'm Chris Bocko, and I live on Wilson street. There's just a few things that popped into my mind. There was a mention that this piece of property was talked about a number of years ago, and maps were drawn, and all of that is true, but at that time, there was a lot of opposit.ion from our neighborhood and this development of this land, and again, we were told at t.hat time that this would be a single lot, and that was it, and since then, four or five years have gone by, and now it's changing. As I mentioned last. week, and it. was addressed, that piece of land, the 4.9 acres, is not a buildable lot. For all intents and purposes, there's 35 some odd feet., but. there's not a lot that can be built in that. My feeling is, he talked about. adjacent properties t.hat could be bought up and then added to that. There is a lot of commercial property on that end of Everts, and I'm wondering if that's the direction that. we're heading. I don't know if you've seen that site, but it has changed, since the homes have been built.. The wetlands, it was a Class II, it's now a Class I, and I think they have changed their configuration. They're a little larger and a little different. A couple of things that came to mind, though, quickly. I know that. the Queensbury Board, there's one thing I'm not clear of. Now you're a regulatory authority for the? MR. OBERMAYER-The Town of Queensbury. We're just a Planning Board. We don't write regulations or anything like that. MRS. BOCKO-But if you're going to subdivide, if any building were to be done, that has to go through DEC. You don't regulate that. MR. STARK-No. - 32 - ----' --/ '--' MR. OBERMAYER-I think Mark can comment on that. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want me to? MRS. BOCKO-It would help me, just to understand a little more about it. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. There are different agencies that have different types of jurisdiction over different types of proposals, but what's currently proposed, as L understand it, as counsel to the Planning Board, is a subdivision that would not involve any construction or disturbance or fill activities, if that's true, then it's my understanding that DEC would not have any jurisdiction, because all that's being proposed is a paper or real property transaction. If there are construction or disturbance or fill activities that are some day proposed in a DEC regulated wetland or within a 100 foot buffer zone from a DEC regulated wetland, than whoever is proposing to do those activities needs a permit from DEC to do that. Does that answer your question? MRS. BOCKO..-',¡,'es. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MRS. BOCKO-My guess is, too, I know that you were asked to vote on this tonight. I don't know how you can vote on something that you just now received, but that's just my personal opinion. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we really got it last week, but the outlines of the wetlands really weren't that lucid on the original plans, but this is a lot better. So it's really not, that shouldn't be an issue. MRS. BOCKO-Okay. I guess I don't have anything else to say. I just think that the cart has been put before the horse in splitting the land or making the deal, and I'm glad to hear that they're willing to put a stipulation in about the building, but you guys won't be here in a few years. It's going to be a new Board, just like you weren't here five years ago when we all sat down here and talked about this, this same piece of property. MR. MACEWAN-I'll be here until the Year 2002, with any luck. MRS. BOCKO-Well, I'm glad. There'll be some continuity. It just seems like the same old same old. Here we are again. There's just a lot of unanswered questions here, but I realize that they have that right, but I'd like to know more, being as I'm'in the neighborhood and am affected. MR. STARK-What more did you want to know? MRS. BOCKO-I'd like to know, One, if the property is split the way it exists, where would the entrance and exit be? Would it be on Everts? Would Cline be extended? MR. STARK-There's no building proposed. MRS. BOCKO-I know, but I'm just saying. It's just that later on down the line. MR. STARK-Then it would have to come for site plan reVlew. MR. OBERMAYER-Not necessarily. It doesn't necessarily have to come, unless it's something that we add. MR. STARK-Ask that we stipulate it. MRS. LABOMBARD-But I see where she's years ago, she was told it wouldn't coming from, though. Five even gl:?t to this stage, and - 33 - -- now, five mon? }"ears years later, it's at down the line. this stage. So, lets say, five MR. STARK-They have a right to do this. MR. LABOMBARD-No. The thing is, everything is complying with the law, but I know just where you're coming from as far as, when you're environmentally speaking. It's just a matter of time, we're going to have something. It just takes time. MRS. BOCKO-There's a lot of (lost word) that are back there, and it's a nice little area, and since the houses have been built, we hear more traffic and noise from Quaker, and it's just. MRS. LABOMBARD-Progress. MRS. BOCKO-And just the whole thought of more trees to build a home, in future years to come, or what bot her some. com i ng dOI;J n ha\/e you, is MR. RUEL-I have a question for you. Earlier you mentioned that you had heard that when it was subdivided and that became one complete lot that it would remain as one lot. Can you expand on that? Where did you hear this? MRS. BOCKO-I guess it was back in '89, HUD had come in, and they wanted to build a 40 or 60 unit apartment complex back there on this lot, and at that time, it was not a good idea, and that went on for weeks and months, and it was talked about and HUD finally pulled out, and then I think it was Girard then came in, and he was the land owner at that time and was trying to sell the land, I guess, to HUD, and then that fell through, and then he had a buyer for this, and there were a lot of meetings at that time, and they were told, I don't know exactly by whom, that this was the end of the line. ~1R. RUEL-Yes. meet i ng, 0)- do Is this just a statement by someone there at the you know whether this was documented? MRS. BOCKO-That I don't know. MR. RUEL-Well, if it's documented as one lot. ~1F<S. BOCKO- I'll let her spea k . MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Thank you. MR. RUEL-Okay. It's not important. TERRY' RYAN MRS. RYAN-Hi. I'm Terry Ryan. I'm from 35 Meadowbrook Road, and back in 1989, when Kerry Girard was proposing his subdivision, it was supposed to be left as one large estate, and it was supposed to keep in with the rural look of the community, and it's also considered a watershed. I believe that, we all have wet basins there, and as you take away our wetlands, our basins get a little bit wetter, and this is primarily wetland, and it's supposed to be one large lot, and I remember that, and that was back in '89, and I believe they pretty much promised us that, and that's why I think I'm kind shocked that we're back here again, and I think that there's a lot of people behind me that are a litt.le surprised, too, and that's the only comment I have to make t.onight. MR. OBERMAYER-Great. Thank you. JOSEPH DEMEO MR. DEMEO-Good evening. My name is Joseph DeMeo. I live at 18 - 34 - ~' -./ - Sargent Street in the Ridgedale section. I was part of that hearing back in 1989, and the stipulation then was that there would be seven house lots set up, one of them being this one that leads off Meadowbrook. The question was raised earlier, who's for and who's against. Frankly, I don't know enough about the project to be able to decide. Do you mind if I take a look at that map? MRS. LABOMBARD-Go ahead, Joe. MR. DEMEO-So here's Meadowbrook. This is that alley. Now is all this land surrounding the house? MR. OBERMAYER-We have to remember that he's not looking to subdivide the property, I mean, he's not looking to construct anything on the property. He's just subdividing it into two lots. There's no plan of construction right now. MR. DEMEO-Okay. acres? Where are the five acres? Is this the five MR. 08ERMAYER-Yes. MR. DEMEO-So it's all of this and this? MR. 08ERMAYER-Right. MR. DEMEO-I see. This is the end of our street, extension of Cline Avenue. Well, from a personal viewpoint, I see no problem in splitting up the land in order to help these people go through with their plans to sell the land to somebody else, as long as we're given the opportunity, at some point in the future, of coming back, if and when somebody decides that they want to change that configuration so sharply that we're going to be personally affected by it, but right now, just splitting the land into two pieces, no problem. DON ADELMANN MR. ADELMANN-Yes. Just a couple of comments. My name is Don Adelmann. I'm at 22 Wilson Street in Glens Falls, and I question whether the Cline Avenue Extension to Everts is part of this property or not. I can't tell that from the map. Can you tell me whether that land that's owned by Queensbury, which goes from the existing Cline, to Everts Avenue, is that part of this map? Is that part of anything we're talking about? MR. HARLICKER-It abuts the property, but it's not part of the subdivision. MR. ADELMANN-It's not part of the property. That was considered wetland. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Looking at the map, the wetland appears to extend across that, where that undeveloped street is. MR. ADELMANN-That was considered wetland, at the time we talked about this last. That's not going to be changed by whatever is done with this subdivision. That is still wetland? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. ADELMANN-It is still Number One wetland as far as ENCON is concerned. Do you agree with that? MR. HARLICKER-I believe so. I don't know exactly what Class it is. MR. ADELMANN-Well, it went from Class II to Class I, recently. - 35 - '- MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I know DEC, in the last year, redrew many of their wetlands maps. I don't know if this specific wetland was changed or not. MR. ADELMANN-It was changed. It was made more severe. MR. HARLICKER-AlI right. MR. ADELMANN-It was made a I instead of a II, and my concern is that I don't really want Cline Avenue extended to Everts, if it's wetland, and I don't want anybody building on the perceived sale of 4.9 acres, or whatever it is, if it is not going to conform with the wetland Class I status. Can you agree that this is a concern? Is anybody going to say yes or no? MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm sorry. I was engrossed in looking at this map. I didn't quite hear your statement. I apologize. MR. ADELMANN-Okay. I'll say it again. ENCON says that that land is a Class I wetland. MR. STARK-Not all of it. MR. ADELi'1ANI\ -I''''¡ot.<J, ~>Jould you tell me t.<Jhat's not Class I? MR. STARK-It's marked on the map right up there. house on that land. There's a 35 foot corridor build on there. You can build a that you could MR. ADELMANN-But you've got a 100 foot setback from the wetland, right? You've got 35 feet more to build a house on? MR. STARK-No. You've got 35 feet. That house is buildable right now, but they're not asking for that. They're just asking for a subdivision. No construction plans whatsoever. MR. ADELMANN-You're not making me feel comfortable, though. MR. MACEWAN-Scott, could you take a minute and interpret this map, please? Because the way I'm reading this map, on the parcel that's the 4.91 acres, it looks like the 100 foot buffer goes through the top portion of the house, so that this house, this proposed house on this site, would not meet the setback requirements for the wetlands. MR. HARLICKER-It would require a DEC permit. The 100 foot wetlands buffer is not a setback requirement. It's an adjacent area under wetland regulations, and any activity, almost any activity, in that 100 foot adjacent area would require a wetlands permit from DEC and one from the Town. MR. MACEWAN-Doesn't the Town have Ordinances for setbacks? MR. HARLICKER-Right. That 75 foot shoreline setback is in the Town Zoning Code. MR. SCHACHNER-And just to add to that, I'm sorry to interrupt, Craig, but note that the plan itself includes the note, right underneath that, that says a permit from DEC would be required. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I just wanted to be sure on that 100 foot going through the proposed developable area of the lot. MR. HARLICKER-Right. It's not a setback. It's an area that would require a permit from both the Town and DEC. MR. ADELMANN-As it stands the ground, until the DEC right now, nobody can drive a stake in says so, that it's okay. - 36 - '- ---- ....../ MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know about a stake, or not. MR. ADELMANN-Well, that's what DEC says. MR. OBERMAYER-No one can construct. MR. RUEL-We're not talking about construction, are we? MRS. LABOMBARD-You couldn't set off any boundary markers of where you're going to set a foundation, no. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know whether someone can go in there, I imagine they could go in there and survey the property. I don't know what to tell you. MR. ADELMANN-Okay. You're telling me, though, the Everts Avenue right-of-way, that's owned by Queensbury, is part of the DEC wetlands area and cannot be built on, or couldn't be constructed on, as far as a road is concerned. MR. HARLICKER-The DEC wetlands extends across that undeveloped ~3t)·eet.. MR. RICHARDS-That's not on our property. We're not asking for anyt.hing, in any event., and cert.ainly not on propert.y we don't even own. MR. HARLICKER-Right.. MR. ADELMANN-That's all I need. Thank you. MR. RUEL-So, legally, he could build a house on that property? MR. OBERMAYER-No, not without a DEC permit MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Sir, would you like a copy of the plan to take with you? MR. ADELMANN-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-The property that. you're talking about is out of the area t.hat. t.he applicant is looking to divide. Would anybody else like to comment from the public, please? TOM MCGRAt.J MR. MCGRAW-My name's Tom McGraw, and I live on 21 Wilson Street. Probably 25 years ago I bought. this property there. It was a nice quiet neighborhood. Now it's still quiet. It's still nice. It.'s a nice place to live. Five houses have been built down there now, I think, and even though it's still nice and quiet, a nice place to live, there's still a couple of times a night, or during the day, that this place is like the Indianapolis Speedway, and I think everybody's concerned, and, John, you said that this isn't part of your deal, but everybody is concerned about the continuation of Cline Avenue. That was answered. My problem now is this SFR-20, Single Family Residence, and these gentlemen over here Just answered that. That can be changed with Board approval, and that scares us. MR. SCHACHNER-Not this Board. The Town Board. MR. MCGRAW-No, no, but you said it can be done. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, it can be done. - 37 - ---- MR. MCGRAW-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-And it's been done before, not to misguide you. MR. MCGRAW-Even with wetlands and everything else in there? ~1R. OBER~1,,~WER-I don't knolrJ about that. MR. MCGRAW-I'm like Mr. Adelmann. uncomfortable with the whole thing. Everybody has to live somewhere. I'm just a little I have no objection. MR. MACEWAN-I've got a question for staff. If this, indeed, is zoned over there SFR-20, how can we approve a subdivision that won't meet the regulations? MR. HARLICKER-As far as? MR. MACEWAN-If it's zoned SFR-20, right? MR. HARLICKER-Twenty thousand square feet, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-What regulation won't it meet? MR. MACEWAN-Never mind. I answered my own question. Move on. SHARON MOYNIHAN MRS. MOYNIHAN-I'm Sharon Moynihan and I live at 9 Cline Avenue, Lot Number Five. So we're actually the closest, I think, to the property that you're speaking of, and it's not, I can understand someone trying to sell their property and possibly dividing it, but we're planning on staying there, and the reason we primarily bought there was because of exactly the way it is, and I think for the people that like it the way it is, and they're planning on staying, that's asking a lot for someone who's going to be moving, to have changes made that we're not comfortable with, not for what's going to be happening now, but what could be happening three years, five years, or Step Number Two, or whatever might come ne~o(t. MR. 08ERMAYER-Thank you. TIM HAGEN MR. HAGEN-My name is Tim Hagen, and I'm a realtor with Realty USA representing the owner of Lot 6, Lot 6 on the north side abuts the subject property, and also on the west, and the owner of that property still wants to keep that zoning as SFR-20, and also to the character of the land, including all the wetlands. He doesn't want to disturb any of that land at all. That's my only concer n . MR. HARLICKER-Are you acting as a representative for this property owner? Do you have that authority? MR. HAGEN-Yes, I am. MR. HARLICKER-Would that property owner consider a lot line adjustment, and instead of creating this 4.91 acre a separate lot, incorporating this as part of Lot Number 6? MR. HAGEN-He wants to keep it as a Single Family Residential development. MR. HARLICKER-I agree with that, but instead of having a separate lot, have you talked to the Hautala's about incorporating the proposed Lot 78, into part of Lot 6, making Lot 6, essentially, probably, what, about a 6 acre parcel. - 38 - --- <~ ---/ MR. HAGEN-No. They haven't approached the owner or myself. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. HAGEN-We want to keep the character of the property up there as a Single Family development. MR. HARLICKER-Right, but my question was, and you answered it, would the owner of that property consider just incorporating the 4.91 acre lot as part of Lot 6? That would solve a lot of problems. MRS. MOYNIHAN-Excuse me, but wouldn't that create the same problem for that property? MR. HARLICKER-Lot 6 is a buildable lot. There would be plenty of room on Lot 6, still, to put a house. Whereas, Lot 78, as a stand alone lot, it's got just a sliver up at the top corner with which to put a house. MRS. MOYNIHAN-Sharon Moynihan. Wouldn't that, then, make the same scenario as what we're speaking of here, that would be increasing the size of the lot that would be Lot 6, and for all intents and purposes, it would be pretty much what they have there, a large piece of property that someone might be interested in making smaller. MR. 08ERMAYER-I don't know what that would buy you, either, Scott. MR. HARLICKER-Well, it would enable the current to get their smaller lot, and it would make Lot 6 brought up a good point. Maybe somewhere down owner of Lot 6 would say, well, I don't want this I want to subdivide it off, too. property owners bigger, but she the line, the wetland ei th(H . MR. 08ERMAYER-Right. Okay. GLEN"~ SCHI\1EIDER MR. SCHNEIDER-Yes. My name is Glenn Schneider, and my father-in- law owns property on Everts Avenue, across from me at 31 Everts Avenue, and I'm just trying to understand what the problem is with these pieces of property, as to that undeveloped street that the Town of Queensbury owns. How does that affect what they want to do on this property back here? MR. HARLICKER-It doesn't. Me; i"'\. 08ERMAYER-It doesn't. MR. MACEWAN-Currently that undeveloped street's nothing more than a Town designated right-of-way. Should they ever decide to put a street in there, they'll put a street in there. MR. SCHNEIDER-So that street can be developed? MR. MACEWAN-It could be, yes. MR. SCHNEIDER-And what I need to know, also, is what is the square footage zoning for single family houses in that particular area? MR. MACEWAN-Square footage as far as the house size? MR. SCHNEIDER-As far as the lot size. MR. 08ERMAYER-Twenty thousand square feet, which is a half acre, less than a half acre. - 39 - -- ....,..-' MR. SCHNEIDER-So there is half acre zoning back there, with the exception of where you're butting into the wetlands? MR. OBERMAYER-My understanding, I'm wrong, but the whole lot is restrictions of your certain wetlands, but the entire lot is and, Mark, you can correct me if SFR-20. You still would have the setbacks, 100 feet from the zoned to develop SFR-20. MR. SCHNEIDER-Well, as somebody who is most likely going to inherit the land from my father-in-law, the houses that are there, we would certainly think that that would be a nice idea to subdivide that property, and also, we'd like to know why it couldn't even be subdivided further, if that's what they chose to do with it. MR. OBERMAYER-Because you're restricted by wetlands, not to say you couldn't obtain a permit from New York State DEC. You are required to be a certain distance from the wetland. MR. SCHNEIDER-It just seems to me in that area, that area does need to be developed, and it does need to have some more homes, especially for the people who do own the land that should be developed. I don't think that a lot of blockage should stand in the way, when everybody else seems to have their home, and if you have that property, you should be allowed to subdivide it and build as you please. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, development. Again, property into two lots. right this is now, sir, there's just subdividing no the planned piece of MR. SCHNEIDER-Correct, and I've heard opposition that, well, if you do that, what's to say that somebody can't build out there. Well, why shouldn't they be allowed to? I mean, we are on record here, wanted to say, well, why shouldn't they be allowed to, if they choose to sell it to anybody. If I chose to buy that lot, why shouldn't I be allowed to build on that lot? I mean, as land goes up here, you should be allowed to do that, as long as you meet the requirements that are necessary, and that's it. Thank '/ou. MR. OBERMAYER-Comment well taken. Thank you. Would anybody else like to comment? MR. DEMEO-I'd like to come back, if I may. He made a comment that concerns me a little bit. He said that Queensbury has a right-of-way over the land that's now considered the extension of Cline to Everts, and whether it is a wetland or not, Queensbury can develop it if they wish. Is that true? MR. MACEWAN-I wouldn't want to be the one to answer that question. That would be something that the Town Board would take up, not this Board. MR. DEMEO-Queensbury can negate the designation made by ENCON? MR. MACEWAN-Sir, I never said that. All I said was that the Town currently has a right-of-way through there, for an undeveloped road, which primarily the reason for the right-of-way is for the sewer district that runs through there. My personal opinion, I don't think the Town has any intentions of developing that into a road. MR. DEMEO-No. I didn't say, intention. You're saying they have the right to do it? MR. OBERMAYER-Sir. They own the property. Whatever procedures they would have to take, you know, they do own the property. Whether they would develop it or not, who knows, but, you know, it's just like any other development. - 40 - ---' ......... ~ MR. DEMEO-So in three years we have to come back again? MR. OBERMAYER-I have no idea. That's not part subdivision. Would anybody else like to comment? of the MR. RUEL-How do you gain access to this house? MR. RICHARDS-We're not proposing a house. MR. STARK-There's no house. MR. RUEL-Well, it's shown there as a house. MRS. LABOMBARD-Roger's talking about the proposed house on Lot 7B. MR. RUEL-I can't see a driveway. I don't see anything. MR. STARK-Roger, they have no proposal, according to the applicant. They don't want that on there. MR. MACEWAN-I think Roger's asked a very fair statement, because our own Subdivision Regulations touch upon that very, our Subdivision Regulations say, and that's 183-1-B, and it says, it's declared to be the policy of the Planning Board to consider lands, subdivision plats for residential, industrial, commercial uses as part of the plan for orderly, efficient, economical development of the Town. This means, among other things, that the land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it be used safely for building purposes, without danger to health or peril from fire, flood or other menace, and it goes on to cite a whole bunch of other things. MR. RUEL-Yes, but I think it's a problem that you can't gain access to the house. MR. MACEWAN-Well, that's part determine whether a subdivision on. of our review process, of land is feasible to that l-Je be built MR. RUEL-That's part of subdivision approval. MR. MACEWAN-That's correct. MR. HARLICKER-That's what we're going through tonight. MR. OBERMAYER-That's what we're going through. In fact, we've got to do a SEQRA on this, too. MR. RUEL-I know. MRS. LABOMBARD-May I make a comment? This is not unlike what we went through last November. with Native Textiles. MR. MACEWAN-Absolutely. It's the same scenario, and we have to take that into consideration. MRS. LABOMBARD-Exactly. MR. RUEL-If no one can show me access to this proposed house, as far as I'm concerned, it does not meet the requirements for subdivision, from safety, fire, whatever. It doesn't. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. What I'd like to do, Scott, is I'd like to read the letters into it, and then we can get to opinions, and then ~.¡e Ci,;;\\l ask the applicant vJhat he thinks, and then ~' e can P)" oceed . DEBRA Rm,JELL - 41 - MRS. ROWELL-One of the letters is mine. something? Could I just say MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. That would be great. That way you'd save Scott from reading it. MRS. ROWELL-I'm Debra Rowell from 7 Cline Avenue, that's Lot 4. We recently built one of the newest houses on the street, and, basically, in my letter my concerns were whether or not the subdivision would contribute to extension of Cline Avenue. That's not something that we would be in favor of. It would change the nature of the neighborhood that we bought into, for the fact that it is a quiet area, and it also would most likely affect the wetlands and the wildlife up there, and we would not support that. That's basically it. MR. OBERMAYER-We keep on hearing the issue about the undeveloped street. What I would recommend to everybody, because it is a concern of the neighborhood, is that you go to the Town Board and express your concerns with the Town Board, because, really, they are the only ones that really have Jurisdiction over that. So, you know, you'd probably get a lot more bang for your buck if you do that, because we have no control over that. MRS. ROWELL-Well, I really wasn't aware of what the whole process W¿.i\s. MR. OBERMAYER-No, I know. I'm Just telling you, I wish I'd done that on llli:::. street, because now I have a road down there, too. MR. RUEL-The applicant is proposing a house, and he doesn't even know if the street will be extended? 1'1R. ST ARK -t~o , he's not proposing a house. MR. OBERMA\'ER-He ' s not proposing a hou~3e , Rog. MR. RUEL-I see something over there, it says, proposed house. MR. STARK-That's not supposed to be on the map. MR. OBERMAYER-That's a tactical error. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's not enhancing the applicant's case at all. MR. OBERMAYER-No, it's not. MR. RUEL-He's looking for a subdivision because, apparently, he wants to do something with this land, and he doesn't even know if Everts Avenue will ever be completed, and if it isn't completed, there's no access to his property. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Scott, can you read the letters in, please. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. This is a record of a phone conversation from an Elizabeth Lordy, 47 Meadowbrook Road, Pam Whiting of the Planning Office. She has a question because of a wetland issue. A Mr. Guerrie property abutts the Hautala property, was denied a building permit to build a house a few years ago. Why are they allowing a subdivision with the same situation (potential building on a wetland area). Why not allow Mr. Guerrie to build also! And this is from Sherry Yattaw, Listing Agent for Fitzgerald Realty, "The above property was on the market for over a year with substantial price reductions. Prospective buyers looking at the property were more interested in the house alone than the house with the acreage. I was asked more than once by prospective buyers if the Hautalas would divide the property in order that they could purchase a home at a lesser price. After almost a year on the market, we received a contract of sale. The negotiated sale price was far below the asking price for this - 42 - -- --' property. A land concession was agreed upon by Seller and Buyer. Mr. Martin of the Planning Board told the Seller there would be no problem for the division of land. I do hope that this land division can be executed for both Seller and Buyer. Respectfully your s, Sher ry Yat tat,.J Br 0 ker Associate" This is fr om Mi ke Regan, "I want to express my total opposition to the proposed subdivision of the property owned by the Hautalas within the Cline Meadow Development. I purchased my land in the Development based on the 7 parcels of land that were originally reviewed and passed by the planning board in 1989. I felt this subdivision would be the most environmentally friendly way to utilize the land without compromising what little is left of the wetlands in the immediate area. Having lived in the area most of my life I have seen the area next to Duke concrete filled in 20-25 years ago, the property where 1-5 of Cline Meadow development are situated filled with the urban renewal remains of the city of Glens Falls, and more recently, the property behind Queensbury Motors filled in. Each time more wetlands are destroyed and basements surrounding are flooded even more. Freshwater wetlands play a vital role in the environment and are once again under attack allover the United States. The actions will haunt future generations for the rest of time. It's time to save what little is left on Everts avenue. I also have a financial stake in the outcome of this subdivision, when I bought my piece of Cline Meadow Development I did so because I was afforded a buffer zone of trees and swamp areas. It was not the case that there happened to be vacant land next to mine, rather it was part of a planned development. The two parcels that had the most property had the most active areas of wetlands, they also were sold at very affordable prices to compensate for the lack of use. If you open the door to more division because one property owner feels he can make more money you will only taking it out of the pockets of the people who purchased land, many very recently, under the assumption that the original guidelines and restrictions would be upheld. I urge the board to reject this proposal in no uncertain terms! Thank you. Mike Regan Owner of Lot 1, Cline Avenue" This is from Andre and Christina Demers, "Although we cannot attend this important meeting concerning our neighborhood, we feel an obligation to contribute to this matter. We live directly across from Marvin and Janet Hautala's property on Meadowbrook Road. We feel that in no way would this subdivision have a negative effect on this neighborhood. Our view will not change. We will still see the wild flower border down the driveway, as well as the well maintained house and property. We wholeheartedly approve of this subdivision. Thank you, Andre and Christina Demers" And that's it for the letters. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. What I'd like to do now is just, I guess we can hear from the applicant. Would anybody else like to say anything else, before I close the public hearing? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. OBERMAYER-Now, would the applicant just like to comment on a few of the things? MR. RICHARDS-Yes, just briefly. Scott had also asked for a letter, waivers, in connection with submission of the plat, and I just wanted to submit that as requested, plus that letter that Scott had properly sent, as I say, back in the fall. I just want to make sure we're keeping focus on what's being asked for and what is involved, and Mr. Ruel, I'm going to ask if I can address some of your comments directly. First of all, there's been a lot of concern, which we're sympathetic with. Unfortunately, there's also a lot of misinformation that we've heard tonight, and I want to straighten that out. First off, Cline Avenue is not on this property. We're not asking for anything with respect to Cline Avenue. I haven't checked the title. I doubt very much whether we have any rights whatsoever over Cline Avenue. It's not in the picture. So anyone who's here because they're concerned about - 43 - '--' Cline Avenue can rest assured that it's not involved. We don't have any rights over that. MR. RUEL-I don't see Cline Avenue up there at all. MR. RICHARDS-Cline Avenue is, I guess it right, and then it says undeveloped street. anything on Cline Avenue. Okay. shows there on the We're not asking for MR. RUEL-I was talking about Everts. MR. RICHARDS-Well, I'm going to turn, now, to Everts. Everts is a public road. We have frontage on a public road. The proposed house, as I said at the outset, was something the surveyor put on, I assume to illustrate setbacks. We're not asking to build a house. We have no present intention. We may never have any intention to put a house on there. If there's construction, years from now, who knows. It might be in combination with adjacent property to the west, so that any house, if it were built, would in all likelihood not be in that location. So we're not asking for that. Okay. I want to, finally, stress, the Staff, as I said at the outset, is concerned about buildability. Mr. MacEwan read some sections of the Ordinance about buildability. It's my strong feeling that if this lot is deemed absolutely unbuildable, and if this is not a residential lot, I don't think this Board even has jurisdiction over it, because I think you're very limited in what areas you can approve subdivisions, but without even getting into that, here we are. We're here. We're submitting ourselves to jurisdiction. We're saying any improvements in that parcel, we, or whoever is proposing it, can come back and all these concerns that the residents have voiced will be addressed in great detail when there is, in fact, something proposed. All we're saying is, let us draw the line. Let us keep the property that we expected to keep, and then we'll deal with that, if and when there's something that's proposed, but to say that we can't sell our own property, or divide it, when it complies with the existing Zoning Ordinance, is really unfair, and we're ready to address, at some future time, or some future owner can address all the concerns, legitimate, and maybe some that are based on misinformation tonight, all those can be addressed in detail when it's more appropriate. It's not appropriate tonight. They're not a factor. MR. OBERMAYER-Thank you very much. questions, comments? Does anybody have any MR. RUEL-I stand on my original comments. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I'd like to make a comment. I just have a comment to make. I really sympathize. It must be kind of tough to have a piece of property that has so much controversy to it, at this time, and I think the longer we thrash this out, I'm getting more doubts in my mind. I mean, I can put myself in your shoes. I had a piece of property in Bedford Close that had an underground river running through it, and that was it. I had to do something about it, because I wasn't going to be able to sell that property. So I had to make the best use of that land, and put a house on it, and make modifications to the land before L could build on it. I do think that, I want to be accommodating to you, but I really don't believe that the land that is going to be subdivided is of such character that it can be used safely for building purposes at this time. When I say safely, I mean, in respect to the environment, and I know that this is just a, I know that all you want to do is to make two lots out of it, but I also know, down the line, that this is just the first step in a process that is going to, that the final end is going to be one that maybe five years from now or ten years from now, people will be kicking themselves and say, why did they start, why did they let it go, back in 1995, to begin with? So, at this point, if I - 44 - '--" ~ '.-- '-"'" vote no, I think I can refer to and back my reason, back my choice up in my book right here. Like I say, the more we thrash this out, the more I am starting to have a lot of doubts about whether or not subdividing it is the right thing to do. I'm just being honest with you. You asked for my comment, and I'm giving it to you. MR. RICHARDS-And I appreciate that, being forthright, and I think, actually, you have to put your rationale for your decisions, in any event, whatever the Board decides, but if you've got concerns about environmental integrity, and the Hautalas certainly do, too. No one's anti-wetlands. If you've got those concerns, when the issue is even appropriate, when there's something planned, if there's something planned, all those concerns can be addressed. Why deny the Hautalas the right to sell their property when they meet the zoning requirements, if they're not doing anything at this time that in any way impacts on any aspect of the wetlands? All the concerns can be addressed. All the people, if in fact something is proposed five years from now, there's extensive requirements that must be met in any site plan review, which we're voluntarily saying, lets put a condition on there, and you can address them at that time, intelligently, rather than kind of dealing with something that may never occur here. Here we are. That's all we're asking is let us divide it, and if something happens in the future, you can go through the whole thing in any way you'd like, and if we can't, or some other person, can't prove that their proposal meets the site plan review requirements, you can deny it. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. George has a question for Mark. MR. STARK-Roger, will you listen to this, to my question to Mark? Do they have a legal right to subdivide this property, right now? MR. SCHACHNER-George, I don't think that question is answerable with a yes or no. Because a portion of the property or the entire property was part of a previous subdivision, they do fall within the subdivision regulation requirement that they comply with the subdivision regulations and appear before the Planning Board seeking approval. As the applicant's attorney pointed out, I think at the outset tonight, if this property were not a part of a previously approved subdivision, they wouldn't even need Planning Board approval for the proposed subdivision because they would be under, what I call, the administrative two lot subdivision, which Jim Martin could issue on his own, but I don't think there's a yes, no answer to your question. I mean, they meet zoning requirements, in terms of acreage and area and things like that, but they do fall within the Planning Board subdivision regulations. So that means that yoU have to apply your subdivision regulations criteria and it's up to you to decide whether or not they have a legal right to subdivide or not, whether they meet those criteria. It's not really a question answerable with a yes or no. MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-I guess one that's hanging over me, and I think it's more protocol than anything else. In the very beginning you mentioned that the notices were sent out and you received most of the notices back? MR. RICHARDS-We have, quick count, I think there's about 12 that we haven't got the returns yet on. It doesn't mean that it won't be in the mail tomorrow. They were mailed timely. I can assure you that. ~1R. i'1ACEWAN-Wher e does that fall in OU'f process? MR. HAF~LICKER~·I the applicant think, you know, we got this many back. I think has made a good faith effort to contact the - 45 - --- ,,¿ property owners. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I just didn't know if there was something in the procedures. MR. RICHARDS-We mailed everything, and as a matter of fact, I think that the Town also mailed identical notices last week for the wetlands. MR. OBERMAYER-Scott, on the norm, do you usually the? I wouldn't think everybody sends them back. get back Do the'y?, all MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. OBERMAYER-No, I wouldn't think so. MR. RICHARDS-We've done everything we can do. MR. MACEWAN-I guess two other comments that you made during your presentation, that are kind of haunting me right at the moment, the first comment that you made was regarding the property itself and it's ability to be built on, and your comment that you made, you said that no filling plans were going on right now, which, to me, lose that, you're not totally ruling out filling a portion of it, if you get the right permits, to put up a house on it, and the other comment that you made was, we may never have the intention to build, and I think the key word is "may", there. So whøn a part of Q..Id.L re\/iøw process, t.he position I'm taking that we are looking at this as bøing, for all practical purposes, falling under t.he regulations to be a buildable lot. Whether you obtain the propør permits that you nøed to do it is a big part of this course of review, and our course of review says there's much criteria that wø have to look at when approving a subdivision, making sure it meets the regulations of subdivisions of the Town that we're to be following in our review procøss, and I'll bø very honest with you. I see things in this particular lot, the four acre lot, that does not meet the requirements that we need to look for in 183-1. I don't see it there. MR. RICHARDS-Well, I'm not going to sit herø, because I don't know, and because the Hautalas don't know, and tell you that this is a forever wild piece and there'll never be a proposal to do anything whatsoever on any portion of it. It's not all wetlands. I'm also not going to tell you that it may never be combined with an adjacent piece, so that all the setbacks ~ combined, are complied with without any variance requirements or permit requirements from anyone. That's all possible, and no one could tell you that about any piece of property as to what, forever, is going to happen to it. All we're saying is, if there's a concern, and there clearly is, both from your standpoint and some comments from the public. If there's a concern, well, then, let us do this. It's not going to affect one thing, and when, and if anything is ever proposed. MR. MACEWAN-I don't feel comfortable with that. I won't feel comfortable, my position would be I would not pass an approval for a subdivision with the contingency that you come back in front of this Board for site plan review, because that, by its Ol.-Jn Board's admission, in !ill::'.. mind, is saying that, well, ~>Je agree that there's potential that the property could be built on, but in order for you to build it and develop it to our expectations, you have to come back in front of this Board in site plan review. I don't take that position. I don't think the parcel is buildable. MR. RICHARDS-But you see what you're doing, if you take that position, that you have to havø an absolute guarantee, I guøss, that there's never ever going to be something on it. You're precluding us from ever trying to, lets say, combine that with an adjacent piece. - 46 - -- --' MR. MACEWAN-If you came in with another plan, I would openly look at that plan, but I'm looking at the plan that's in front of me now. MR. RICHARDS-But if we're not allowed to subdivide it, you've effectively precluded that. MR. MACEWAN-No, I haven't. If you come in with another plan that has another option on it, of linking it up with another parcel, that's a whole new plan. That's a whole new project. MR. RICHARDS-But if we're not able obviously, that's an impossibility. ownership rights here, too. to separate this piece, There are certain private MR. MACEWAN-No, no. If you come in with another plan that shows us, that's attached to another lot that is either buildable or currently has a building on it, then I think that's a whole new project that needs to be looked at in a different way. MR. RICHARDS-We don't have any plans to build anything. MR. MACEWAN-Right. me nOlrJ. So I'm going by the plan that's in front of MR. RICHARDS-But there is no plan to build there. MR. MACEWAN-You're right. You may be saying that, but my book has to say that it is feasible to be built on. That's the criteria that we use in this book, and it has to meet emergency. It has to meet, just everything that I read off in here to you, and I don't think that this parcel meets it. MR. OBERMAYER-My comment is that the applicant has made every effort to include in our vote or whatever that they would come before us if any subdivision of the property were to go on. If they were to, not subdivide. If they were to build on the property, they would be more than willing to come in, in front of the Planning Department, for approval of that. MR. RICHARDS-Absolutely. MR. OBERMAYER-And applicant, he just reasons. to put any, to penalize, lets say, the wants to subdivide his property for personal MR. HARLICKER-I'm not saying it's impossible to keep track of something like this administratively, but it would be very difficult to keep track of this condition administratively. MR. OBERMAYER-Why can't they write it on the plat? MR. RICHARDS-We could mark it on the plat. MR. HARLICKER-Well, when a person submits a building permit for this particular lot, he won't submit this site plan. He'll submit a scaled drawing with the outlines of this property line on it, with a proposed building site and a building permit and construction plans. That's what we will get, eight years down the line, when somebody who owns this property comes in to put a house on it. Like I say, we cannot keep track of this administratively. I'm saying it would be difficult to do that. MR. RICHARDS-We would be happy to put it on the plat or to file a declaration of restriction affecting this property, so that that could never happen, Scott. MR. HARLICKER-We don't get copies of that. MR. RICHARDS-Yes, but it's on public record. It's on file. No - 47 - one would do anything with that, because they'd cross the re~;3tr iction. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RICHARDS-If your concern is tracking that condition, that can easily be addressed. It can be addressed two ways, both of which we're happy to do. MR. HARLICKER-I'd also like to offer, you know, I haven't gotten a chance to put Staff comments on the record, yet, and I'd like a chance to outline some of the highlights, here. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-1995 Preliminary Stage, Man..lÍn & Janet Hautala,_Meeting Date: June 27, 1995 "The proposed two lot subdivision involves a significant wetland. The proposed lot 7-A is 10.55 acres in area and has ample room for development, in fact it has a house on it. The proposed lot 7-8, like the larger lot, meets all the dimensional requirements of the zone in which it is located. However, from a planning perspective, even though lot 7-8 will meet the dimensional requirements, it is not sensitive to the limitations imposed by the wetlands; development would be entirely within the 100 foot area adjacent to the wetland. Development in the original subdivision, which was sensitive to the wetlands, took place almost entirely outside the adjacent area. Development would also be difficult because of the size of the building envelope which is limited to slightly more than 30 feet wide. Because of the 75 foot setback requirement from the wetland and 15 foot side YZHd setback," I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's difficult to put a house in when you've only got 30 feet to play \>Jith. "a variance would mostlY' likely be needed to place a house on this lot. Access to this lot would require site plan review according to Section 179-608.(4) which regulates fill and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a wetland. Because of the sensitive nature of the wetlands and the lack of developable area on lot 7- B staff recommends denial of this subdivision. An alternative, if the applicant is looking to reduce the size of lot 7-A and the associated wetland, would be to incorporate the proposed lot 7-B as par t of lot 6 of the or igi nal Cl i ne IYleadow subdivision." MR. HARLICKER-Access to this lot could require site plan review according to Section 179-608 (4), which regulates fill and hard surfacing within 50 feet of a wetland. MR. RICHARDS-8y the waY', I'd like to correct that. That's not correct. If you look at that same Section and, Mark, maybe you \>Jant to check may'be I'm misreading it. It Sa)lS the'(e's an exception for a drivewaY'. Now none of that is proposed. MR. HARLICKER-Private driveways crossing a exempted from this Section. This isn't There's no stream involved here. stream Bre further crossing a stream. MR. RICHARDS-If we're going to get into the nuances of the definition, boy we could be here all night. MR. HARLICKER-I think that's plain. If you have a stream and you want to put your driveway across it, you culvert and put your driveway on it. You don't need site plan review. MR.. RICHARDS-It doesn't matter, because we're ready to submit to a site plan review. MR. 08ERMAYER-OkaY'. We're not going down the road too good, here. Is that it, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That's the sum of the Staff Notes. - 48 - ----- '- --./ MR. OBERMAYER-In listening to some of the other Board's comments, things aren't looking too rosy for you. MR. RICHARDS-Well, I appreciate your being up front. I think you're applying the wrong standards, and I think there's nothing we're doing that's impacting this property. MR. 08ERMAYER-Mark, the next step is the SECRA, right? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Long one? MR. HARLICKER-It's an Unlisted Action, so it's probably the Short f01"m. MR. RICHARDS-We submitted a Short. MR. SCHACHNER-A Short will suffice. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Short form. MR. RUEL-"Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. MACEI,.JAt+-'(es. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Explain briefly. MR. RICHARDS-I disagree with that. All we're saying is the drawing of the line. There's nothing on the property. MR. RUEL-I don't think he should participate in the SEQRA. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Please. MR. STARK-Who said, yes? Okay. have anything to do with that. would have something to do with on that. Well, the subdivision doesn't If it was buildable, then it it. Ask Mark for clarification MR. RUEL-This SEQRA has to do with subdivision. MR. HARLICKER-It's the subdivision and the wetlands permit, is what you're discussing here. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not sure it's a legal issue, but I have to say that I don't understand, I mean, the proposed action, Scott is correct, is both the wetlands permit and the subdivision. The wetlands permit is required because under one of the nuances of the Town of Queensbury law is that, even a subdivision, a paper transaction, in a wetlands, requires a wetlands permit, but as far as the action that's proposed, I have to say, I don't understand how it will have one of the impacts that whoever answered yes said yes, in that the only action that is proposed is a obtaining a wetlands permit and carving out, carving out may not be the right word, but dividing a parcel of property into two. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-I changed my answer to, no. MR. RUEL-You don't even want to mention DEC? - 49 - MR. I"IACEWAN-·No. I'1R. FWEL"··"Could action result in adverse effects associated with a community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use, or intensity of land or other natural resources?" I"IR. MACEWAN-No. MR. RUEL-I've got a no here? MR. MACEWAN-You've got a no. MR. RUEL-Okay. Next. "Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action." MR. MACEWAN-That's a Yr.:.c:' ""...., . MRS. LABOMBARD-I say yes on that. MR. RUEL-I need a brief explanation. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, because it says "subsequent development". In other words, I feel the reason this is being subdivided is for some purpose down the line, which isn't just to sit there for the next 100 years the way it is. MR. RUEL-Okay. development. So I'll say, yes, based on subsequent MR. OBERMAYER-I think you have to. MR. RUEL-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MRS. LABOMBARD-To potential yes. MR. STARK-This is only a subdivision, though, Cath. MR. RUEL-If yes, explain briefly. MR. STARK-He's just drawing a paper line. MRS. LABOMBARD-But the there's no environmental word there impacts. is "potential". Ri ght nOvJ MR. STARK-That's all we're considering, right now. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right now there isn't. but the word is "potential" environmental impacts as a result of subdividing this. That's the V,Jay I'm i nteì"pì"eti ng this. MR. RUEL-And the answer is yes. with no explanation. MR. OBERMAYER-I believe it's yes, also. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don't see the big issue here because, rightly or wrongly, regardless of what anybody thinks of it, there clearly is controversy about potential environmental impacts. I think that's not a question. I don't think you need to emphasize the word "potential". I think you need to emphasize the word "controversy", and I would say that there is some controversy about it, based on the response at the public heaì" i ng . MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. RUEL-All right. Now, we subsequent development, etc. had a yes on C5, the growth, Now I need, we have to determine - 50 - '~ ---' --/ .-....... whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise significant. Each affect should be assessed in connection with its setting, urban or rural, probability of occurring, duration', irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. They're looking for whether the C5 item was substantial, large, important or otherwise significant, and if it's one of those, if it's identified as potentially large or significant. MR. STARK-Can it be mitigated though, Rog? What are you talking about? MRS. LABOMBARD-The fifth statement, where we said growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action, and we said yes, but we have to first answer, is this a substantial, a large or an important or a significant impact. i'1R. tell STARK-Okay. Tell us what's being planned, if it's a large, or small. and then we can MR. OBERMAYER-I'd say important. That kind of covers everything. MR. STARK-Okay. So what's being planned, then we can judge whether it's important or not. Right? You have no idea what's being planned. MR. HARLICKER-Well, I think, up in C5, it says, growth, subsequent.. .likely to be induced. I think a likely development of this site might be a single family dwelling. So it might be safe to say that when you're going through Part III here, use the impacts of a single family house as a criteria for the likelihood of future development of this parcel. MR. RUEL-Yes. It says that you have to check. I have to check an item here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which may occur. MR. STARK-Okay. If he builds a single family house on that property, could it be mitigated, with proper planning? MRS. LABOMBARD-Sure. MR. RUEL-This doesn't say anything about mitigation. MRS. LABOMBARD-It doesn't say that. MR. RUEL-There's no mitigation involved here. It's just a statement. That's all. It doesn't ask you, can it be rectified or not. MRS. LABOMBARD-We didn't say it was large or significant. We said it was important. So don't check that box. MR. RUEL-No, I won't. Based on the information and analysis above and supporting documentation, the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, and provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination. I need help from the barrister. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. Basically, what you have to do is evaluate, you only identified one potentially adverse impact, and that was in Item C5, you identified a potential adverse impact as a result of possible subsequent development that yoU felt is likely to be induced by the proposed subdivision. You now have to evaluate that potential subsequent development and decide whether it is potentially large or significantly adverse. If it is, you then have to check the top box, and you then have to require the preparation of the Long form Environmental Assessment Form, or an Environmental Impact Statement. If you decide that the potential environmental impact or the potential adverse - 51 - impact that you identified on Item C5 is not potentially large or significant, then yoU can check the second box, which is your standard SECRA negative declaration that you often check. Does that make sense? MR. RUELw-\"es. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. RUEL-So I guess it's the second one, then. only indicates potentially large or significant, C5, but rather the instructions on Part III. The first whe~- eas C5, box not MRS. LABOMBARD-He just explained it. that, Roger. He just went through all MR. RUEL-All right. So it's the second one. MR. OBERMAYER-Will not result in any significant environmental impacts or provide, and that's it. adver~3e MR. RUEL-Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation. MR. SCHACHNER-All right, but I want your records to be clear. If you're going to make a motion for SEQRA negative declaration, which is the second box, then I take it that your determination, or part of, if anyone is making a motion for a negative declaration, then I think that that motion should indicate the Board's determination that the item checked off in C5, in your opinion, is not potentially large or significant adverse impact, if that's how you feel. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, because we just felt it was important. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. RUEL-And the Board, then, is saying that it's not a potentially large or significant adverse. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, that's what we're saying. We're saying, on C5, that we feel that it's not. MRS. LABOMBARD-We just feel it's important. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. environmental impact. It v.JOn't be a significant adverse MRS. LABOMBARD-But it's important enough to be addressed. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, if that's how you feel. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. That's how I feel. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's how I feel. MR. MACEWAN-I don't know if I feel that way. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you feel more significantly adverse? MR. MACEWAN-It could potentially be. I mean, road, if the house was decided to be built on required a lot of fill on this parcel, it impact that entire site, because we know happen in order to put a house on it. requirements now. if it was, down the that parcel, and it could significantly that would have to It doesn't meet the MR. OBERMAYER-George? r1R. STARK-l\lo. - 52 - '-'- MR. OBERMAYER-Rog? It's going to come down to a vote. I know that. MR. RUEL-Yes. Well, you know, I listened to what he said, but the instructions indicated that, and I hate to repeat it, but bear wi U'¡ me. MR. OBERMAYER-It's either they go for a full environmental impact fo'em. MR. RUEL-Yes, but we said on C5, we said yes, subsequent development. Then the instructions indicated that we must determine whether it is, listen, substantial, large, important, or significant, right? Four items. Now we go to the first box, and the first box only mentions tl;JO items, large or significant. It doesn't say anything about important. It doesn't say anything about substantial. MR. SCHACHNER-I think, generally speaking, the thrust of the SEQRA Regulation is that those terms are considered to be somewhat synonymous. Quite frankly in, I don't know, many hundreds of SEQRA proceedings that I've been involved in, this is the first time I'm aware that anyone has tried to distinguish among those adjectives. Generally speaking, people think of those adjectives as synonymous. MR. RUEL-It should be re-written. This is very poorly written. 1'1RS. LABOi'1BARD-Well, that was ffi.Z. first inclination wl'''len I really' thought about those four words. I said, what are we playing here? But maybe important is enough to just let it stand out that it's not that much of an adverse, you know, really negative thing. MR. SCHACHNER-My own position, as your counsel, is I'm not smart enough to see any distinction between those four adjectives, and as I said, I would, I'm just guesstimating that I've been involved in, maybe, I don't know, literally hundreds of SEQRA proceedings, that I've never heard anyone try to pick among those four adjectives as to prescribe different meanings to them. I know we have teachers here, and I'm not a teacher. MR. RUEl-Excuse me, sir. You've never had to deal with a writer. MR. SCHACHNER-And writers. That's right. MR. OBERMAYER-Cathy, what are you saying, that you want a full environmental impact statement? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. HARLICKER-Assessment Form, not an Impact Statement. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, there is a middle of the road, here. MRS. lABOMBARD-I took a look at those four words and I thought, you know, he's the lawyer. He must know a lot more about this than I do. So, I'm like, well, lets decide on one of those words, guys. We came up VJith "important". MR. RUEL-I go along with Craig. about the first box, right? I assume that you're talking MR. STARK-So what are you saying, Rog? We go through a long form right now then, or what? MR. OBERMAYER-Environmental Assessment, Long form? MR. RUEl,-Yes. - 53 - '- MR. STARK-Okay. Long Form. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, hold it. Wait a second. Is that what, we need an agreement here. MRS. LABOMBARD-If those words are synonymous, then we'll go for the Long Form. MR. SCHACHNER-I just want to point out to the Board that if you want to go through the Long Form or full EAF, then I think, typically, when Board's make that decision, after having first received a Short Form, they then give the applicant the opportunity to fill out Part I of the Long Form, because you don't have the completed Part I of the Long Form. ¡"IR. SCHACHNER··Right. That's true, and, in Ul.L opinion, 'lOll should not proceed to Part II of a Long Form until you have a fully completed Part I of the Long Form. MR. RUEL-From the applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't have to be, but that's certainly the easiest. MRS. LABOMBARD-Should we poll the Board? MR. RUEL-Fine. The Long Form. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, the Long Form. MR. OBERMAYER-I feel that we don't need the Long Form. that we're just, you know, going through another step. I feel MR. STARK-No, we don't need the Long Form. MR. MACEWAN-The Long Form. MR. OBERMAYER-You heard our recommendation, what does the applicant, what would YOU like to do? MR. RICHARDS-The applicant respectfully submits that, with some great restraint, that the Short Form certainly addresses the concerns for what we're asking for. I think, again, we're wrapping into this very specific application all the unknown potentials that you see maybe asked for down the line. I don't think the form asks for that. We certainly aren't asking for it. If and when anything is proposed, they come back, whether it's us, someone else, whether it's never done, and any kind of Long Form research you want can certainly be submitted to your successors or yourselves and properly evaluated. With all due respect, to ask for that this evening is, L think, entirely inappropriate. MR. OBERMAYER-So, are you refusing to withdraw your? MR. RICHARDS-You asked for my comments. Those are my comments. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Now I'm going to ask, what are you going to do? MR. RUEL-It's not up to him, is it? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, it lS. He needs to agree to take his application back. Is that true, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-No. I don't understand what you're saying, Jim. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, I mean, if he's going to do the Full Environmental Assessment, if that's what we're asking. - 54 - '- "'--" ---- -- i'1R. SCHACHNER-Well, the applicant doesn't have to do the Part I. I mean, the Board or the Staff could try to take a stab at it. Typically, if the Board is going to require a Full EAF, and in fact, let me back up a step. I don't believe there's a legal requirement that you have Part I completed. You could try to answer Part II, based on the existing Part I on the Short Form EAF. In my experience, that's unusual, and most situations in which I've been involved, in which the Short Form has not been deemed sufficient by the lead agency, which has then decided to go to the Long Form, applicants have taken it upon themselves to prepare the Long· Form Part I, but I'm not suggesting that we have the authority to force the applicant to prepare Part I, and I'm not suggesting that we should force the applicant to prepare Part 1. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm not forcing them. MR. SCHACHNER-But, I mean, that option should certainly be available. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. RUEL-Well, what's the determination, as far as the Board's concerned? MR. OBERMAYER-The determination is that they voted three to two that there would be a Long Form. MR. SCHACHNER-Wait a minute. vote. I didn't hear any motion in any MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. There wasn't a motion. MRS. LABOMBARD-We just polled the Board. MR. SCHACHNER-And just so you know, a vote of three to two is not a vote of this body. So I didn't hear any motion. I didn't hear any vote. I heard a lot of discussion, and you don't have, in any vote that comes up with less than four members voting in a certain direction is not a binding vote of this body. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Let me make this recommendation to you. Could we have, would everybody be in agreement to possibly have another meeting, so that other Board members, there's two other missing Board members that aren't present here that will be present, hopefully Bob will be back from Alaska, and Tim, I'm not sure where Tim is, but in order, then we could possibly move this vote along. MR. RICHARDS-Well, I would say that we would agree to that. Is there a possibility for a special meeting? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I think there's definitely a possibility for a special meeting. MR. RICHARDS-And how soon can we have that? MRS. LABOMBARD-Whenever. I'm flexible. MR. STARK-No. Bob's gone for three weeks. He won't be until the middle of July. 50, I mean, it can't be before middle of July, and that's when the regular meeting is. back the MR. RUEL-Why do you need more Board members? MR. OBERMAYER-Because we don't have enough votes. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, if it goes anything, because you need four. but three ~.Jon' t . three to Because two, it doesn't mean we have a quorum now, - 55 - -- MR. STARK-John, the Chairman will not be back until the middle of July. The first meeting isn't until the third week in July. It's not going to. MR. RICHARDS-Fine. Give us the first regular meeting in July. We'll be here, and you want to have, how, what are we looking for at that meeting? Do you want more data from us for the, in the event the four decide to go with a Long Form? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, because it is up in the air, still/ MR. RICHARDS-All right. We'll be here the first regular meeting in July. MR. MACEWAN-What can we do to re-open the public hearing and leave it open, because I think it's fair the neighbors should be involved and allowed to come to this next meeting. MR. SCHACHNER-Make a motion to that effect. MOTION TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LEAVE IT LEFT OPEN UNTIL OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING WITH THIS APPLICANT, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer NOES: Mr. Stark ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling MR. MACEWAN-Thank you, Jim. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Thank you for your time. MR. OBERMAYER-Thank you. MR. RUEL-Do we need to table? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Would you mind if I table? MR. RICHARDS-No, that would be fine. MR. OBERMAYER-Thank you very much. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE MARVIN & JANET HAUTALA, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Tabled until the first meeting in July. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer NOES: ¡'>JONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 30-94 GARDEN TIME OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 191 QUAKER ROAD MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN NO. 30-94 TO ALLOW FOR GENERAL STORAGE AND DISPLAY OF SHEDS, GAZEBOS, ETC. AND THE ELIMINATION OF THE PARKING AND LOADING AREA, DRIVEWAY, LANDSCAPING, OFFICE/STORE AND PAVER WALKWAY. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.62 DAN HOGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBERMAYER-They asked to come back tonight and talk to us, I - 56 - '--- ~ '--' ---- guess last week. A site plan was approved. the site plan was approved. The modification to MR. HOGAN-A site plan was approved last year, which was 30-94, and this is an application to modify that site plan. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, but wasn't there a modification last week? I wasn't here last week. MR. STARK-No, there was not. week. He just left and came back this MR. HARLICKER-No. He got approved. modification last week. You approved his MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That's what I thought. modification last week for a certain setback. You approved the MR. HARLICKER-He's back this week with a modification to that modification. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, because you were not happy with the setback, is my understanding. MR. HOGAN-Right. We had a meeting with the Staff, and at that meeting which was, Friday, I think there was a consensus between the Staff and Garden time. I'm Dan Hogan, and I'm also with Fred Troelstra here from Garden Time. The meeting was Friday with the Staff, and it was discussed at that meeting to modify the setback for the temporary structures as you see on the proposed site plan before you. This would be a 15 foot setback from the property line, that would perimeter the entire triangle of the lot that's in question here. MR. RUEL-Instead of what? MR. HOGAN-The original site plan which was submitted, 30-94, last year, had a 50 foot setback, but that property envisioned Garden Time's acquisition of that lot. For reasons that are probably outside of the perimeters of our discussion here, we've been unable to purchase that property from Earltown. Therefore, we can't put our permanent improvements on there. We're utilizing this space merely to display some of the sheds, and we'd like to keep them there, with the caveat and modification that we have 15 foot setbacks, and realign the sheds so they're a little bit more aesthetically pleasing to the public. MR. OBERMAYER-Is this your property? MR. HOGAN-It is not. MR. STARK-He's trying to buy it. MR. HOGAN-We're under contract with Earltown. They are having problems getting their permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. There's a wetlands issue that's arisen. MR. RUEL-Just to back off, their original plan showed a very ambitious. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I remember that. MR. RUEL-Okay, and since they haven't been able to purchase this land, or whatever, or negotiate with the owner, they're reverting back to this, until such time as they can negotiate something, and then put some improvements in the land. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, but do we have the capability to approve a site plan if they don't own the property, though? - 57 - ----,' -- MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. They have authorized agent. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. HOGAN-And they have a license, if you will. I don't think there's an existing lease. They have a license to occupy that 2:pace. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. HOGAN-So what they're attempting to do is not make the capital investment until they've acquired the property, but to utilize the space. I think there have been a complaint or complaints given to the Town as to the way that these sheds are structured. We've agreed to realign them so that, you know, you see the first line which is a dotted line called the shed line. We would put the structures parallel to that line, and then beyond it they would be perpendicular. So it would be a little bit more aesthetic. So that if people drive by, they don't. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. They're kind of scattered allover the place. MR. RUEL-Yes. Would you explain the drive lanes? FFŒD TROELSTRA MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. The idea behind this plot that you have in front of you, Roger, is to orient the sheds parallel, as Dan had mentioned, along the east Quaker Service Road, and then beyond that first line, there will be the perpendicular orientation of those buildings, drive lanes in between so that I can get the tractor trailer back there. I can get my forklift back there, and I can get my (lost word). MR. RUEL-The drive lanes are for you, not for customers? MR. TROELSTRA-That is correct. MR. RUEL-And then you have here, drive lane, with a couple of arrows. What's that? MR. TROELSTRA-Well, if you're looking, specifically, at that area, those two shed lines terminate in that particular area right there where that jog is, that dog leg is, is my best access. So I'm trying to be as accurate as possible. MR. STARK-Mr. Troelstra, what's the distance from including the little buffer, the service road, and foot? What distance are you talking? Quaker Road, then the 15 MR. TROELSTRA-It is well beyond the 100 feet. This is the scale. One is forty. Well beyond. MR. OBERMAYER-How do you set the sheds and gazebos out on the lawn there? I mean, you can get a fork truck up on there? MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, I do. MR. OBERMAYER-You don't have a problem with getting it stuck? Because e\/e1"y time I've seen fork trucks, they alwa)is get stuck on grass and mud. MR. TROELSTRA-No. MR. HOGAN-Just for purposes, maybe put it in scale to the St. Germain request, this parcel is merely for display only. It's not a retail space. So it's not as if customers are going to be driving in and out of those lanes. That's not the intent. As a - 58 - '- -----" '- -- matter of fact, the intent is to get customers across the street into Garden Time to look at the displays and do the retail purchase of those items on that side of the road, and merely it's a storage and a facility for picking up and delivering once somebody does acquire one of these units. MR. OBERMAYER-It's always nice to look at the shed, though, you're going to buy. I mean, if I go buy a shed, you know, I'm going to look at it. I'm not going to buy it from across the street when it's right across the street. I'm going to go across t.he st ì- eet . MR. HOGAN-No. It's displayed on the Garden Time side, is what we're trying to get at. MR. RUEL-He's got samples. He's got regular samples, regular buildings on his property over here. MR. STARK-Anything he's got here, is over here. MR. RUEL-We went through that last week. Service Road, is that a road at all? This East Quaker MRS. LABOMBARD-It is. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, it's a road. MRS. LABOMBARD-I went back this week, and, as far as I was concerned, I thought about my comments last week, and I acted a little bit, I think, hastily. I think Tim's and my concern, at the end, was parking. Now, when I stopped this past week, I just parked right there on that little East Quaker Service Road, just kind of, that's out of the way. I~obody thinks you're interfering with anything. I don't know if it's legal to do that. MR. TROELSTRA-Were you in line waiting to park there? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. OBERMAYER-But that's not necessarily the point, though, because down the road, okay, we grant this, okay, and you don't provide any additional off street parking, down the road, if Earltown were ever to develop the other property, then, where's your parking? Then it becomes an issue. MR. RUEL-I believe the applicant indicated earlier, at the other meeting, that there'd be no necessity for parking. MR. STARK-Jim, once he gets title to the property, he'll make his permanent, you know, improvements to it, that will include parking in here. MR. TROELSTRA-Correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, he can't make, put anything in there, he doesn't o~.¡n. MR. RUEL-He just stores his sheds and gazebos there. MR. TROELSTRA-I'd like to clarify, too, my agreement with Earltown is such, just to stage buildings there. They do not want me to sell the buildings in that area. They do not want me to do anything else but to stage buildings there, at this point. They don't want any improvements. They don't want any. MR. HOGAN-Quid pro quo is that they mow the lawn and they keep it somewhat. MR. TROELSTRA-That's exactly it. We're trying to make Earltown's property saleable by mowing it. - 59 - --... MR. 08ERMAYER-Sure. Okay. I have no questions on it. All right. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-Do you need a motion? MR. OBERMAYER-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. TIME, I nt ì"oduced b," ,James Obeì"ma'/er who moved for seconded by Roger Ruel: 30-94 GARDEN its adopt.ion, As indicated on Site Plan drawing dated 6/5/95, for Garden Time on Quaker Road. Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, 1'1r. Oberma>'er NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling (Site Plan No. 32-93 Guido Passarelli Cont'd) MR.OBERMAYER-Mr. Passarelli, I believe, would like t.o come up and talk to us. MR. SCHACHNER-Why don't you re-open consideration and discussion of the application. MR. 08ERMAYER-Okay. Did we have a public hearing on this? l"iF\. :<RANTZ-No. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. We didn't. I just wanted to make sure that we're not. doing anything that's. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. So you're going to, the three items there, the 37 footer. MR. KRANTZ-First of all, we're not going to get it settled t.onight., because Guido is dead set against that. concret.e barrier in the entrance/exit. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-Guido's going to spend more than $500 that it would approximately cost t.o put t.hat. in. To get the variance, assuming he gets it, it's not a question of money, because it would be cheaper just to agree to do it, he thinks it's dumb. So we're going to go back to the Zoning Board, but we do have questions on the two other variances that we were told were necessary. The first one was because there's supposed to be 60 feet from that front wall to the end of that parking, as I understand it, right, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-Okay. dm'-Jn those whi te against? Now, within that area, is Guido kind of concrete bumpers where allolrJed to put the tiì"es go up MR. HARLICKER-Within the 20 foot? - 60 - '---- --.-/ ,¿ ---- MR. KRANTZ-For example, lets say this is the pillars, those white pillars in front. They're setting into that wall, all right, and then you would have asphalt starting at the base of that wall and having one lane of parking, the aisle, we had the other lane of parking is supposed to be 60 feet from the base of that wall to the end of the parking. MR. HARLICKER-So you want to say, can the measurements be taken from? MR. KRANTZ-No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that, can those, typically, a lot of times you see those white kind of concrete. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. KRANTZ-See if you could put those in, and you would still measure from here, okay. I think what was an unintentional mistake made by the Planning Department, we went back to measure it. There is 60 feet there, well, the one we measured was 59 feet 11 inches. What Guido did is, instead of putting those in, there's a low wall with permeable stone in it that the front of the car goes over, just like it would those barriers, and the measurement from there to there, the one we did, was 59 feet 11 inches. MR. HARLICKER-Close enough. MR. KRANTZ-All right. So I think that was just an unintentional mistake from where it was measured. MR. 08ERMAYER-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-Now the second one, as I understand to be 40 feet of pavement, Scott, on the south, car and then 20 feet for the road. there's supposed 20 feet for the MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. KRANTZ-And you said there was 37 feet. MR. HARLICKER-Well, this was between, on the frontage along Route 9, those four spaces at the end of the L. MR. KRANTZ-It's not here you were talking about? MR. HARLICKER-No. Right on the front of the building. MR. KRANTZ-We measured something different, then. MR. HARLICKER-Right on the front, there's a number of spaces, right in there, those parking spaces, that area right there. There's, like, nine or ten spaces along there. MR. KRANTZ-Okay. I thought we read it was to the south. MR. HARLICKER-And that distance there. MR. KRANTZ-All right. Well, Guido and I didn't go back and measure that because we misunderstood the Staff comment. It said the south end of the building. So we took the south end of the building to mean the south end of the building. We measured here, and there's 40 feet of road. It's just shifted five feet over to the south. That's all, but you're saying, now, the question is over here. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. same low stone area It might be the same situation. thøre? Is there the MR. KRANTZ-Do you have that same low area there, Guido, do you recall? That lower planting wall, did that exist there? - 61 - - '- --... GUIDO PASSARELLI MR. PASSARELLI-It's still there. ¡VIR. KRANTZ-The make sure that divider. same thing. IrJe just need If that's the case, I just want to the one variance on that concrete MR. MACEWAN-To maybe just double check it, could Staff go out there tomorrow and remeasure and agree that's what they've got there? I've been up there several times, and there is that. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, there is. MR. HARLICKER-I'm apprehensive to make a zoning determination that you can measure from, count the stone area overhang as part of the parking space. That's a tight call, and I just don't feel comfortable making a determination. I don't know if I have the authority to make that determination. MR. PASSARELLI-If I don't put that bumper there, the car's going to hit the wall. MR. OBERMAYER-The flower boxes, those beautiful flower boxes. They are beautiful. I think we need to, I'd just like to make a comment regarding these one feet and two feet. I mean, it's true that we have to go, you know, by the plans, but when you're building a complex this size and magnitude, to hold someone to one foot and two foot is really quite unfeasible. MR. HARLICKER-The come back to that is maybe it shouldn't have been built quite so tightly to that site. You should allow yourself some flexibility for situations like this. MR. KRANTZ-Now we're getting to the larger, philosophical question, but if we can put the bumpers down, which is what I asked for before, and if we don't have to measure from the bumpers, because the front of the car overhangs, what is the difference between that and what Guido has built, which is exactly what he's built there. MR. HARLICKER-These aren't bumpers. It's a permanent part of the building. MR. KRANTZ-But what's the difference? MR. HARLICKER-I'm just zoning determination. zoning determination. saying, I don't I'm not comfortable have the authority making that to make that MR. KRANTZ-Who does? MR. HARLICKER-Jim Martin does. MR. MACEWAN-We can't go up there as a Board and discuss anything on the r3i te. MR. PASSARELLI-I've tried my best to do the world, and I didn't commit any crime. It just went through planning, and now just two days with something else which doesn't even exist. best job in the bugs me, because I ago they come up i'm. STARK-I' d go to the To~'.)n Boa'rd and cornplai n to them about it.. MR. OBERMAYER-I would. MR. PASSARELLI-The Town Board (lost word). It's cost me a ton of money to go ahead and do things that. MR. STARK-I would complain to the Town Board. MR. KRANTZ-What's ironic is I think many of you have said how - 62 - '----' - ~ -- nice the plaza looks, and look at the grief we're going through for the nicest looking plaza in the area, and stuff like the Blockbust.er. MR. HARLICKER-Wait guys because you approved. a minute. Don't make us out to be didn't build your site plan as the the bad pla n was MR. KRANTZ-What I'm suggesting is that errors were made, with the zealousness, to put this under a microscope, that you if you took other projects in the Town of Queensbury and put it to the same test, I don't know this for a fact, but if you took ot.her projects in the Town of Queensbury, put it to the same test by going through, item by item in the Code, I'll bet you an ice cream that there'll be several that'll not only have violations that didn't meet exactly the plan, but. probably a lot more than this one, a lot more than a foot or two feet. That's what I'm saying. If you want to be this strict, fine. All I'm saying is be consistent.. Be fair. That's all I'm saying. MR. MACEWAN-If you find, to your profession, you find some site plans that were approved by this Board, that do not meet what were approved by this Board. by all means, bring it to our attention and we'll make sure it's corrected right away. MR. KRANTZ-I see things, the building across the road, how they screwed that up in measuring the setback for it, the Prudential building. They screwed up in how they figured the setback. That wouldn't be that close to Bay Road. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Well, we could go on and on. MR. KRANTZ-So Guido has to meet Jim tomorrow on the issue of, that these planters are, these low planters are any significantly different than the bumper, as far as maintaining the 60 feet. MR. PASSARELlI-I try to keep the place as nice as possible. MR. HARLICKER-We're not saying it's not, but he's been building in this Town for a decade, now. He knows the procedures. He knows when he modifies something, nine times out of ten, you've got to come back before the Planning Board and get their approval. MR. OBERMAYER-Scott, George would like to make a comment. MR. STARK-Scott, what people, I think, are mostly upset about is when somebody goes to Jim, and he says they don't need something, as the case of Dave Kenny, and then the day that the stuff is ready to be delivered, he (lost word), wait, you do need something now. That's ~..¡hat people get mad about, when they get t.wo different answers. Dave Kenny was told he didn't need a site plan appro\/al. Then he ~..¡as told he does nøed one after he signed the contract. MR. HARLICKER-He was never in a phone conversation. I am exactly doing. told that. I t ~.Jas never It was discussed briefly presented as, this is what MR. STARK-Guido was told he didn't need one, and now he's told he does. MR. KRANTZ-Exactly. MR. HARLICKER-You're looking at to 50 violations on it, and to because we went. out and took a. a site plan with probably close say that wø pickød up three more MR. PASSARELlI-Yøs, but you did it after I already all my paperwork, my expense. If you had done the ~..¡ent through job the first - 63 - "-~ - time, I would have asked. MR. HARLICKER-If you would have done the job the first time, you wouldn't be here. MR. PASSARELLI-I did the job right. MR. HARLICKER-You didn't. MR. 08ERMAYER-Okay. Lets end it now, guys, okay. I think we've taken this a little bit too far. Why don't you guys just sit down for one more minute, and what are you asking, how can the Planning Board help you, with the Planning Staff, to move on? MR. PASSARELLI-You went there and looked at the job? MR. OBERMAYER-I thought the place looked great. I mean, I'm not, you kno~>J, but. MR. PASSARELLI-That small curb I built in the front, instead of buying those bumpers, where the car hits. MR. STARK-What are you going to do now, Howard? MR. KRANTZ-Well, I guess we have to speak to Jim. There's more impervious area, everything in that box, there's not macadam under that, it's pervious. MR. HARLICKER-It makes sense to count that as a parking space, but I'm not in a position to say, go ahead and do that. MR. 08ERMAYER-Okay. What we can do is we can ask the Zoning Administrator, Jim, to go out to, the Planning Board will, to go out to the site and verify any discrepancies that we have, and to give you a clear understanding of what needs to obtain a variance, and what doesn't, as far as the original site plan. MR. KRANTZ-You're talking about possibly more than these three? MR. 08ERMAYER-No, I have no idea. MRS. LABOMBARD-You've already eliminated. MR. SCHACHNER-No. The issue is we're not sure if we've eliminated the two, because it involves a some what of a judgement call as to how this particular measurement is taken, and I think Scott's correct to the extent that does involve a decision as to how that measurement is taken. That decision, the only person who really has the initial authority to make that decision is the Zoning Administrator. We've only got one of them, and that's Jim. MR. 08ERMAYER-Okay. I am making a formal request that Jim go out to the site, preferably as soon as possible, so that the applicant understands exactly what is required, so that he can move on and obtain his CO. MR. STARK-Regardless, you still have to go back to the Zoning Board for that entrance. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. You know that, but before you do that, hopefully, Jim will be able to point out any other, if there are any, I don't know if there are, discrepancies. I don't know if there are. I'm just stating that, regarding the zoning. I think tha.t's the fairest thing that ~ can do. Right? MR. KRANTZ-If Jim says that we have, essentially, 60 feet? MR. OBERMAYER-Then, fine. - 64 - ;' '~' '-"'" ~ --- MR. KRANTZ-So we just need the one variance, the concrete ban" ier . MR. OBERMAYER-Right, then great. MR. KRANTZ-And another question, we did one measurement from the base of the wall. It was 59 feet 11 inches. I'd like to know, if that is typically, ~.,¡ithin an inch 0)" two, measud,ng from the (.oJall. MR. PASSARELLI-Instead of 60 inches. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think that's the position that this Board can take the position and answer that question. That has to come f)"om Jim. MR. OBERMAYER-It'll come from Jim, but, speaking, if the Town of Queensbury is stuff, then something needs to be done. you know, personally pulling that kind of MR. SCHACHNER-None of that is this Board's decision. MR. OBERMAYER-It's not. I'm just speaking, personally. That's my personal opinion. MR. KRANTZ-Thank you for hearing us. MR. OBERMAYER-So now we will table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 32-93 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Sta'( k: Duly adopted this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling MR. OBERMAYER-Thank you very much. things. The next meeting in July is have site meetings on the 13th, which Bob just left me a couple of July 18th, and that we will 1~3 Thursday. MR. HARLICKER-The cut off date is get an application in tomorrow, to get on the July agenda. You might want to just include the variance for the parking distance. If you don't need it, fine, but include it in your application, just to cover yourself. MR. KRANTZ-But if we went to the Zoning Board, after, do we need to go to the first meeting or the second meeting, here, at the Planning Board? MR. HARLICKER-The second. MR. KRANTZ-The second, right, because we'd miss by a day. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. KRANTZ-Okay. Thank you. MR. HARLICKER-There's one item left here. Rich Schermerhorn just has a letter here. At the Planning Board's earliest convenience, he would like to be on a workshop discussion for possible modification to Cross Roads Office Phase II subdivision. What he wants to do is, instead of putting office buildings back there, he wants to put in a senior citizens complex, the Prudential Subdivision, across the street, right by where they put the C)"edi t Union. - 65 - - -' '- MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's a great idea. MR. HARLICKER-I think it put him on for, like, discussion item. is, the too, and he'll be in, I suggest we first meeting next month, as a MR. OBERMAYER-Is it just the first meeting? MR. HARLICKER-Well, he'd be in for, he said at the Board's earliest convenience. I would say. MR. MACEWAN-He's Just looking to discuss something. MR. HARLICKER-Right. He hasn't formally submitted anything yet. MR. OBERMAYER-Great, the next meeting. MR. SCHACHNER-George just asked a really good question, though. MR. STARK-Is that an allowed use? MR. HARLICKER-It's MR-5. Yes. ~partments are allowed. MR. OBERMAYER-Great. MR. RUEL-One comment, and I listened to it tonight, that had to do with Guido Passarelli and Staff, and I'm wondering, apparently, there are at least six violations, three of them seem to be ZBA types. MR. HARLICKER-Count the red marks on your map. MR. RUEL-Three of them were ZBA types, and Staff knew that, right, when the applicant came in? MR. HARLICKER-No. We got this late. I was looking at it last week, and I sat down with a scale and I measured the distance across the parking lot, from what looked like the front of the building to the back of the parking lot. On the original site plan, it showed 60 feet. On the as built you've got here, it shows to be 57 feet. MR. RUEL-That's not an accurate way of that's beside the point, but apparently three of them being ZBA types. doing it you didn't anyway, but know about MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. RUEL-Okay. Then you've answered my question, because if you had known this, I was wondering, why was the applicant here tonight? MR. HARLICKER-Because he could modify his site plan so he didn't have to do that. He could take out that stone and he'd have the space. He could put his divider in, as he's shown on his approved plan, and he wouldn't need a variance for the barrier between the ingress and egress either. Those weren't items that necessarily had to go to the Zoning Board. With modifications to what he has as built there, he could have eliminated that need to go to the. MR. RUEL-Did you know about this one item to go to ZBA before the applicant was sent here? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. RUEL-Oka)i. bøing built? I'\ ext item. You know where the Red Lobster is MR. HARLICKER-Yes. - 66 - /', '~ ---./ · t"'" .......... MR. RUEL-Who the heck designed that parking area? You could get killed in theõ-e. MR. STARK-You did. MR. HARLICKER-The Planning Board did. appõ- oved it. The Planning Board MR. RUEL-It's terrible. It's a maze and, boy, I'm telling you, cars come real close in there. MR. STARK-Roger, we agreed that they guys would come in to the right, and go around. MR. RUEL-They've got a driveway there that when you go off the driveway, it's like going off a 10 foot curb. MR. MACEWAN-It's not finished yet, Roger. MR. RUEL-AlI right. The Planning Board was responsible for the terrible parking area. Anyway. Those are two comments. I've got a question. All these meetings have been going on for years and years here, big developments, a lot of homes being built, a lot of people coming in. I never heard a word about schools. How do schools fit into this, Planning? When you have a development of 100 homes, there could be 50 kids going to school. MR. MACEWAN-Roger, ever time you do a SEQRA, you are talking about schools. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, Impact on community services. MR. MACEWAN-Every single time. MR. RUEL-Every time we voted, no impact. MR. MACEWAN-Because you didn't feel it was a concern. MR. RUEL-I didn't even know it had to do with schools. MR. MACEWAN-It means community service emergency. It means for public utilities. for your fire and It means for schools. MR. RUEL-Yes. I recognize that, but schools were never brought up, and how many building permits are we letting out a year? MR. OBERMAYER-So what do you want to do? Do you want to ask an applicant what he plans on doing with the schools? MR. RUEL-No. What I'm saying subdivision, and he proposes 50 impact on the schools. is, a homes. man comes in That, to me, with has a an MR. MACEWAN-Roger, I can remember that when we were dealing with Hudson pointe, Queensbury School was actively participating in tha.t PUD. MR. RUEL-Okay. That's good, but I ha.ven't seen them participate in any other developments. i'1R. HARLICKER--See, that IrJas goi ng to be lD..l::.. comment. Passarelli came in with 134 dwelling units, and it just. Guido MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but as far as, just to amplify Craig's comment, which I'm real thrilled to hear him say, because obviously whenever people pay attention to SEQRA, that makes my job easier. In Item Number 18, in your Long Form Environmental Assessment Form, which you do over ever single large project, specifically says. as one of the examples, development will create a demand for additional community services, and you read - 67 - "- \ , j ...~(' '-' ../ '.... these things, I know, very, very closely, and you read the next words in parenthesis, e.g., which is latin for, for example, schools, police and fire. So just like Craig says, whenever you do a Long Form EAF and you look at the impact on growth and character of community or neighborhood, one of the things you should be looking at is impact on schools. MR. RUEL-You've answered my question, admirably. MR. STARK-Mark, where do we stand with Tommy Wages and the mining permit, what's going on there? MR. SCHACHNER-I can't answer that question because I have nothing to do wi th it. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-That's been referred, as I understand it from Jim, and I think he reported this last time, that's been referred to Paul Dusek. So I haven't the faintest idea. MR. HARLICKER-Paul's been on vacation and Jim is on vacation. MR. MACEWAN-This is another classic example of Guido doing what Guido wants to do and then trying to remedy a problem afterwards, on the record. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. I'd like to close the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Obermayer, Acting Chairman - 68 -