The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-07-18 ~ -- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUL Y 18, 1995 INDEX Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 3-95 (Cont'd on Page 61) Marvin & Janet Hautala 1 . Subdivision No. 9-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE (Cont'd on Page 61) Marvin & Janet Hautala L site Plan No. 35-95 site Plan No. 37-95 Dave & Chr is Stewart 3. Mary E. Shearer 19. East Coast Tire & Service 22. Frank Adamo, Jr. 30. Colgate Phillips Estatel 5L Leigh Beeman Site Plan No. 36-95 Site Plan No. 38-95 subdivision No. 8-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJËCT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ',,-, -..-/ '- ......;' QUEENSBURY PLANNING. BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 18, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL JAMES OBERMAYER CRAIG MACEWAN TIMOTHY BREWER MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE STARK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 16, 1995: NONE May 25, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES DATED 5/16 AND 5/25, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Stark OLD BUSINESS: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-95 MARVIN & JANET HAUTALA OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: PART OF CLINE MEADOW DEV., ON WEST SIDE OF MEADOWBROOK RD., SOUTH OF QUAKER RD. WETLAND PROPERTY INVOLVED: GF-19 PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 15.66 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS WHICH INVOLVES A DEC REGULATED WETLAND. A SUBDIVISION IS CONSIDERED A REGULATED ACTIVITY REQUIRING A WETLAND PERMIT. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 8-1989, FW1- 89 SUB. 9-1995 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 15.66 SECTION: WETLANDS REGULATIONS MRS. LABOMBARD-The public hearing that was scheduled for June 20th was left open. MR. PALING-Okay. There were two of us absent at that meeting, but there's six of us here tonight. So I trust that we can bring this to a conclusion, and I've read the minutes of the last meeting and feel pretty much up to date on this. Tim, are yOU okay, too, you'll be voting on it? MR. BREWER-Yes. I was here the first meeting. - 1 - -- ~ MR. PALING-Right, but we both missed the last meeting. Okay. Now I'm goi n'g to make a recommendation, and wi th the concurrence of the Board, in an effort to move this along so there won't be a lot of delays. There seemed to be two questions left over from the last meeting. One was, in the SEQRA process, should we use the Long or the Short Form, and that has yet to be decided. We'll have to decide that tonight, and then on6ethat's decided, we'll have to decide, if it's a Long Form, who's responsible for filling it out, be it the applicant or the Town. Okay. I think those are the two basic items left. MR. BREWER-Well, I think, on the SEQRA, we always do part II. Part I, is'that the question? MR. PALING-Yes, Part I. MR. OBERMAYER-What happened, Tim, is they filled out the Short Form and we couldn~t reach an agreement. MR. BREWER-Yes, I read the minutes, but I thought it was, they were going to fill out Part I, as I read the minutes. MR. MART:IN-The applicant is always responsible for Part I . MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Well then is it Part II that's left OPe o? . ; !.::) , ; ,MR. BREWE,R-Yes. . ¡¡, . . !~. , MR. PALIN,G~All r i,9ht': '. ;r.qÿn :w:~ 're~:a,Ik~ nè ßbóut't,0~~~,;:L:q:T)~ò' w~ll, first we've got to' decld~ ,Long <;>1", ,S1ort,F,or,ro.,., If ,1 t 'sl,..:QI)~ Form, it's goi'ng to be pait' II;t,hát w,ehå'1l~ ~c{:,dec.i'de 'wh,?:..~~,;;~oing to db the'f î 11 i ng . ' ' . ' . . ;. , .¡. MR. BREWER-Well, we do Þ~}t 11 anyway. about that, Bob. So there's 'no question MR. MARTIN-You need Part I to be completed. That gives you the information on which you go through your review of Part II as Lead Agent. You're responsible for the second p~rt, but you can't undertake that until you have all thè informatlon from Part I completed. MR. PALING-But Part I, then, it can't be completed, based upon what I read in th~ minutes, MR. HARLICKER-It's not done yet determined that it's requiyed yet. the last meeting. because the You reached ";1 Board hasn't a stalemate at MR~ PALING~~kay. We~ije ~ot to determine that first, and then I bel ievé,'1 f I read the' mi nutéš rtght.,· ther'Ef's still' a question as to who should complete the Part j. MR. MARTIN-No. ,MR. 'SCHACt:i~ER-rhet~ sholtldn'y, be apy' que~t;~pn }iboU't' that. MR. MARTIN-No. MR. PALING-All rignt. Then how about Part II? MR.'$CHACHt'lER-r'hersámè answer~ MR. PALING-All right, then we have to decide one question. MR. HÄ~LICKER-w~ethef a Long Fórm,¡~ f~quired or not. . ' . .'. ¡ ,' , ." , MR. PÄLING-~ight. okay~ Thèn ~hat I sug~est~h~t we do is that - 2 - '''--" .......... -- -- we first have Staff comment, then re-open the public hearing and let it be comÞI~ted 6n thi~ matter, and then ask the applicant to make briefcomment.s: The Board will make brief comments. , MR. HARLICKER-The applicant is not present at the moment. I do~·t ~ee him in the audience. MR. PALING-All right. Then lets put this at the end of the meeting, then. Okay. I assumed they were here. I should have asked in the first place. MR. MACEWAN-I guess the question I've got, just for formality, did the applicant not know that they were back on tonight? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They were here about the meeting. MR. MACEWÄN~Were they awar~ that they were the first item on the age nda? MR. HARLICKER~I don't know. MR. MARTIN-I'm not sure about the placement, but they were aware that they're on the'm'eeting tonight. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 35-95 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVE & CHRIS STEWART OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RR-5A',LOCATION: WEST MT. RD. TO CLENDON BROOK, AFT~R 4TH HOUSE ON RIéHT, TµRN LEFT INTO DRIVEWAY, PROJECT IS ON THE RIG~T. APPLICANT PROPOSËS TO ,HAVE A DOG KENNEL (SOUNDPROOF) FOR BREEDING AND BOARDING. A DOG KËNNEL IS A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. APA TAX MAP NO. 123- 1-37.23 LOT SIZE: 8.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-15 DAVE & CHRIS STEWART, PRESENT MRS. STEWART-Chris Stewart MR. STEWART-I'm,Dave. Stewart. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-95, Dave & Chris Stewart, Meeting Date: July 18, 1995 "Staff has revi~wed 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 com~liance with the above sections. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38E of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, d~sign and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; Exact dimensions of the proposed kennel are not known; however, the dimensions shown on the plot plan indicate that the kennel will be larger than the existing house. The height of the kennel is not known. 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; The applicant will utilize the existing gravel driveway. The driveway is narrow and confusing. There is a fork .in the drive and access to the house is not indicated. The drive is not wide enough for two cars to pass. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Ther~is no parking shown on the plat. There does not appear to be very much room for parking. Further explanation regarding parking is needed. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access will not be a problem. - 3 - 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater drainage should not be a problem. There is sufficient area on site to handle the runoff generated by the new structure. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The applicant will utilize the existing well and on site septic 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 provisiori of fire hydrants; Emergency access will be via the existing driveway. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and lanqscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/òr erosion. This is not an issue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has several concerns that need to be addressed. The driveway is narrow and it does not appear that it can accommodate two vehicles. Further clarification is needed regarding parking." MR. PALING-Okay. Have you had a chance to see the Staff comments, or is this the first time you've heard them? Because you'll be asked, tonight, to comment on these different items, questions that they've raised. Does anybody on the Böard have a question that they want to talk about first? MR. MACEWAN-Accessibility. MR. PALING-Accessibility. The road is narrow, thinking if there ever were two vehicles coming in opposite directions, somebody's got to back up. If one's an emergency vehicle, it could create a heck of a problem. MR. STEWART-Basically it's been our driveway for 15 years. There's two houses in there. We've.n.ver really had a problem. There are areas that I could clear for passing areas. There's two areas there now where I've pulled off to the side to let somebody by. I can easily clear more by taking down some trees. MR. PALING-You're running a business now. So it is going to be looked at a bit different than I think just your personal driveway. Because you would, I assume, hope to 'have customers. Not a bunch of them, but you'll have customers coming back and forth up there. MR. HARLICKER-What's the size of the facility? How many dogs are you looking to keep up there, or animals? MRS. STEWART-I have 13. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Thirteen kennels? MRS. STEWART-No. I have 13 dogs. MR. BREWER-How many kennels for rent? MRS. STEWART-There would probably be two or three. MR. OBERMAYER-You have 13 dogs right now? MRS. STEWART-Basically, I'm looking to get housing for them in the winter, and to make it soundproof so that they don't bother the neighbors, but I want to have a couple of extra kennels so that I can board out to, like, customers that I've sold dogs to, so that I could help to pay for the kennel building. MR. BREWER-I was up there today, and if you've got 13 dogs, I didn't see one. - 4 - '-' ~ '-' -" MRS. STEWART-Well, they're in a f~nce. MR. STEWART-They're out bel')ind the \1ouse. , ,J, '. I:' ,", I.' ,I . , ' MR. PA,LING-We didn't ~ee them, but we c0'1,19, ~,them. MR. 'RUEL-Ican't 'te{l'ftom the 'plan ,exact 'could you descr ibe'thls ' ,kennel.' How"high lÓ9K,llke?, . How is if"Þu'Ìlt? " " I( -; ',,' . 1;« détails on the kennel. ts' it?" What' does it ~ , j .,.': " ":'MRS~:~tEWt;\~T-Well, ~t's' going¡to be, b,as¡cally, a garage package, ath.ree 6ârgarage. " . MR. ÖßE'RMAYER':'Xs , .', . ,.,.¡ "'," " commercléÜ? t'h!s ar,ea j; I zoned . '; 'I for, , is ; '.\ t~istonsid~red . " , " ;" i MR. HARLICKER-Well, kennels are allowed in the Rural Residential. MR. RUEL-Which one? MRS. STEWART-This oDe, but without the doors. MR. RUEL-This is a garage. MRS. STEWART-Right. I'm going to build a garage. MR. RUEL-It doesn't say that here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, nO, that's what the structure'~ going to look like. MR. RUEL-That's what it's going to look like. It's going to look like a two or three car garage. MRS~ STEWART-Right, without the doors. , , MR. RUEL-A screen on the front? MRS. STEWART-No. It's going to be all boards. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's góing to be a building, and then you walk into it, and then each kennel is off a hallway. MR. RUEL-What about a run. Is there going to be a run ~omewhere, an open area? MRS. STEWART-Around the outside, I'm going to have like a run so I can let them out. See, there'd be little pens tQ put them in. MR. RUEL-And where's outside? outside, too. You've got to keep the qogs MRS. STEWART-Outside, I'd have like a run over here. MR. RUEL-Around the perimeter of the building? How many feet? , MRS. STEWART-I'd have like three of them, 10 feet out. MR. RUEL-I see. pr oof . You know, you mentioned that this was sound MR. PALING-I've got a question for Staff on thi. one. What is it we're b~ing àsked to approve here? We don't have'a ~ite plan. MR. HARI,..ICKER-Yes, it's right here. MR. PALING-Okay. Is that building shown on the plan? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, it is, proposed kennel. - 5 - -- MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-And they're seeking site plan approval for a dog kennel. MR. PALING-I didn't get a print. MR. RUEL-Yes, 'here it is. MR. PALING-Okay. All Yight. Setbacks are not a problem, and what is tha height of the building going to be? Is it orie story? MRS. STEWART-Yes. MR. PALING-It isn't going to violate'any height. MR. MARTIN-If there were any violations to the zoning, it wouldn't be before this Board. MR. RUEL-No, it meets all the Codes, apparently, without the door, open. MRS. STEWART-It's going to be all boarded up. MR. STEWART-It would be solid. There wouldn't bé any overhead doors. We're using that type of package without the overhead doors. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, here's the floor plan. There's just going to be two entrances, two doors, an entry and probably this to the run in the back, see t~e little foyer, and then you go down the corridor and the pens are 'on either side. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-This is the information I was trying to get to, Bob. MR. OBERMAYER-Do they need a permit from the Department of Health for this? MR. MARTIN-I'm not sure about that. I don't think so. MR. HARLICKER-I wouldn't think so. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, I mean, you're going to have dog dooM MR. BREWER-Probably something to do with, there's got to be some sort of standards, I would say. I mean, i~ they're going to do it, I'm sure they know what. Do you have to have a license to do it? MRS. STEWART-No. I have a kennel license. MR. BREWER~Then that's probably all they need. MR. MACEWAN~Is there any kind have to gO through, like the something for this? of permitting process that you'd State Agricultural Department or MRS. STEWART-Not that I know of. MR. PALING-Okay. If they don't, then I don't think ~ should be concerned with it. MR. MARTIN-I could pose the question to the Animal Control Officer. She would know. MR. BREWER-Yes, maybe before you give her the CO or whatever. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I can ask her. - 6 - '" --, '-"'" ..../ MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-If we were to approve this tonjght, Jim, and she thought that business was doing so well, in a year or two she wanted to expand her kennel, does she come back in front here for modification to the site plan that was approved, or could she just, if she wanted to add on to it and put more kennels on, is it just a matter of going through a building permit process? MR. MARTIN-No. If she were to physically add on to the struc~ur~, it would require further review by this Board, and then the other option is, in the past, like for car sales, for examples. If you set parameters on the number of ,cars present, if you were to set a parameter on the number of dogs at anyone time, that would be another limitation that she would be bound to uphold. Then if she wanted to increase, she'd have to come back to you to do it. MR. PALING-You'd be limited to one dog per kennel here. So you can have 12 dogs, is that what's there? Okay. So that limit would come into that. MRS. STEWART-I have thirteen. MRS. LABOMBARD-You ,'ve, got thirteen. MR. OBERMAYER-This is zoned Rural Route 5? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-I thought you were a¡low.d only one, would this be considered a principal building, though? MR. MARTIN-No. This is a site plan review use. It's not a principal permitted use. This is a site plan use listed in that district, and you can refer to the definition of kennel also, is in the Code. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. RUEL-I have another question. sound proof this structure? Now how do you propose to MRS. STEWART-With insulation, insulate the walls. MR. RUEL-And the ceiling. MRS. STEWART-Right. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Is it going to be heated? MRS. STEWART-Probabl,y if it is, it would be with a wood stove. MR. STEWART-I don't think, initially, we're goin~ to need it. The dogs generate their own heat when they're together. MR. RUEL-I have another question. This is a question for Staff. Is there a minimum distance between the kennel and,th~ well? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. MARTIN-Not that I'm aware of, anyhow. is the method of collection and disposal speak? I'll say that. What of the waste, so to MRS. STEWART-Well, I collect it and put it in a plasti~ garbage - 7 - pail and then bring it to the dump. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So it's taken from the site. MR. PALING-Okay. How often do you do that? MRS. STEWART-Every day. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Chris, I'd like to ask a question concerning the vehicular traffic access here. If You're raising the dogs, and probably, my speculation is, I'm just, I'm not asking a question. I'm kind of answering something that's in my mind here, stating something that's on my mind. If somebody wants to come up and see a dog, they would call you first. In other words, they would kind of make an appointment, so you wouldn't have all kinds of traffic coming in and out, where people drive up, and, you know, you're doing a retail type of business. It's all on appointment only~ basically. MRS. STEWART-Right. MR. MARTIN-What types of dogs are they, by the way? MRS. STEWART-They're collies. MRS. LABOMBARD~So then the parking, probably, isn't a factor, if that's the case. I mean, it would seem like you would have to have room for a couple of cars, and also room for a~emergency, in case you had somebody in there and there was a fire and people could get out and the fire truck could get in, or whatever. MRS. STEWART-There was supposed to be like three parking spaces in front of the building, where there are no pens. There's going to bè parkin9 spaces. MRS. LABOMBARD-When we were up there, you know where that little shelter is now, in the front there? MRS. STEWART-The wood shed? MRS. LABOMBA~D-Yes, right. The wood shed. Is thðt basic~lly where it's going to be? You're going to clear all that out? MRS. STEWART-No. It's going to be out in the woòds. MR. PALING-On the same side of the street, but back further? MRS. STEWART~Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-In other words, where that wood shed is, we're going to go? MRS. STEWART-Yes. I had it all staked out, but it was just back a little ways. MR. STEWART-In other words, if you're standing in front of our house, facing out toward the wood shed, you go right past the wood shed into the woods probably another 50, 60 feet before it's started. MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you have to cut a road in there? MR. STEWART-I will have to put one in, as well as clear the area. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to ventilate the building at all I know, with this severe hot weather. How do you plan on 'keeping the air circulating through the building so the dogs don't? - 8 - " .' ---- -- -.I MRS. STEWART-There's windows. There's a couple of windows in each end, and we've got a fan, a big fan. MR. PALING-You won't have any doggy day care, so called. You're going to do it for breeding and boarding of your own or other dogs? MRS. STEWART-No. I just did my own dogs. MR. PALING-Just your own, and boarding? MRS. STEWART-I might board a few, like when I sell puppies, sometimeiihey want me to watch their dogs. MR. PALING-But that isn't your major business. The board~ng is secondary to the breeding end of the business? MRS. STEWART-Yes. MR. PALING-And no normal day care type of thing. looking at problems of access, noise, parking and far. I think we're a permit, so MR. MACEWAN-If the Board was to ask you to wide the entire length of your driveway to accommodate traffic going two ways, do you have the room and the wherewithal to do that? MR. STEWART-I would, have to check. That's a common deeded road. MR. MACEWAN-It is a common deeded road. Okay. MR. STEWART-My sister-in-law part of it's on her property. to both. owns the property next door, and Part of it's on mine. It's deeded MR. MACEWAN-My concerns that 1 have is the fact that you want to, even on a limited basis, turn this into a business where you are goi ng to have the, publ ic comi rig in. Through,your own admis~ion, you're talking about the heat source for this ke~nel is to be a wood stove. My concern is to be able to get fire apparatus in on that road, and right now, you can't do it, easily. MR. STEWART-They've been there, when we gutted the kitchen. We have had a fire, and we had a lot of fire trucks there. MR. MACEWAN-Did theY have a difficult time getting in? MR. STEWART-It took them about seven minutes to get there, and they must have had six trucks in there when I got home. They did get in there. I mean, I don't know as I Cqn, without getting permission from them, widen it to two car lengths, but I can take down trees to wide~ it in certain areas, to make it more accessible. There's one spot on the road where you come in, you probably can't see it this time of year, that on either side is wet, and there's a c;ulvert under there. It's probably 60, 70 feet off the main road. For instance, right there, I wouldn't be able to widen it to that extent. MR. MACEWAN-How wide do you think you could get it at that point? MR. STEWART-That one point, probably not an awful lot w~der, in that one spot. That's the only spot I have on the road where I have a culvert. MR. RUEL-Craig, do you feel that the road is too narrow for fire apparatus? MR. MACEWAN-That and just, you know, two way traffic in and out, yes. - 9 - .....' MR. RUEL-Well, you don't need two way traffic for fire apparatus, right? MR. MACEWAN~No, but you are turning it into a business, and business can, you know, inherently expand. MR. RUEL-Because if it's just emergency equipment and fire apparatus, we can have that checked out. MR. PALING~We'd have that some kind of a the Planning. to make it part of any approval, though, sketch plan would be submitted to us, or to MR. BREWER-We do have a standard for that ahyway. I think if we could get the building dimensions on this plan, would be satisfactory to me, but I think, with 12 kennels, and she owns 13 dogs, I don't think you're going to have a lot of activity as far as cars in and out, in and out, in ànd out, and I think, on that road, to make it wide enough for two lane traffic I think is ridiculous. There's enough places on that road to pu~l off if a car, I'm just kind of correlating between the amount of traffic they're going to have, and the length of that road. To widen that to two lanes would be crazy, I think, to ask them. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not asking her to, Tim. MR. BREWER-I'm not saying th~t you are. adequate. If somebody had to pull off think there's plenty of room. I just think the road is and let a car go by, I MR. RUEL~How long is that road, approximately? MR. STEWART-To the house from the road, it's probably (lost wo r d ) . MR. PALING-I'd like to hear from the public on this. I'm thinking in terms of noise, and then we can come back and get specific on; I've got access, noise, parking and permit as the items that we're going to have to cover. We'~l open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone herêthàt would like to speak about this, for or against? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JEFF INGLEE MR. INGLEE-My name is Jeff Inglee. I live on Tuthill Road, on the top of West Mountain. Members of the Board, Dave and Chris, nothing against Chris and Dave. They're very hardworking folks, and I admire them 100 percent. I do have some concerns over this project, though. Where they're proposing to put this dog kennel, as the crow flies, will probably be about 150 yards from my back door. NoW I think this whole project has probably transpired because of my complaints to these folks pertaining to the noise. Myself, personally, I've been up there for 15, almost 20 years. I've invested ever nickel I could come up with to b~y a piece of this tranquility in this idyllic mount setting, along with a lot of other folks that live on Tuthill Road. I know for sure that I'm not only speaking for myself. I'm speaking for other folks that do live up there that have not been presented with a notice of this meeting. For the last four years or so, I have been troubled by this constant' scenarib of barking dogs. Personally, they could raise elephants down there for all L care, as long as I can't hear them. A couple of things do concern me, though about this project. I'm a 'businessman myself. When they invest thousands of dollars, and it will cost thousand~ .of dollars to orchestrate this project in a proper manner, the main concern here that you're going to have to justify this eXpense somehow, and what does that mean? That means more dogs, and more dogs mean more parking. Needless to say, if the project is put - 10 - ~ -- v ,,~- together as they're proposing to do, with the outside runs~ so much for the philosophy of soundproof. Now this is a residential area. It's a very idyllic residential area that provides a lot of peace and quiet, which I know a lot of folks that live up there really, really do enjoy. Now, cOnSequently, if there's some way that the Tow~ of Queensbury, the Board members, if you feel that you're going to approve this. project, if you could monitor the so called soundproofing ,theory of this project, by all means, approve it, but I don't feel that any people that live up there that have spent a lot of mODey, that pay a tremendous amount of taxes up there~ should be subjected to the noise that's going to be generated by the dogs. There, again, if you invest a lot of money, you have to get that money out, and' that means expansion, that means more dogs and more dogs mean more barking, and that's my only concern on this project. the same as 'a lot of other folks that live up ther~, on the mountain. If they can assure us that we ar~ not going to have to listen to the barking dogs, I have no objections whatsoever. but there again, once you start implicatirig outside ,kennels, outside runs, so much ~or the soundproofing theory. Again, once you start . gett~ng into 90 degree temperatures, you have to have windows, you have to have doors, you h~ve to have your dogs 6utside~ and needless to say, there again, ther~ goes the soundproofing theory. MR. PALING-Excuse me, sir. Would it be practical to ask the Dog Officer to assess the situation in regard to'noise. She gets enough of those complaints. Would it be pQssible, in response to this request, to have her assess it and give us an opinion about the noise? I .' MR. MARTIN-Sure. She might have something she could tell you. MR. OBERMAYER-Has she been UP there? MR. MARTIN-No. No, I don't think so. MR. INGLEE-I, at thi~ point, , have not called her. I try to handle things very ,diplomatically. I have called Dave and Chris on several occasiqns. the last few summers I have actually had to close my windows in my house, in the middle of the summer, to keep from hearing their dogs. Now, there again, up on West Mountain, I don't know if you've been up th~re. You're in a five acre zone UP there, which , consequently, giy~s, Us a lot 9fpeace and quiet. The only disturbance over thel~st f~w years"{~ that the constant scenario, and there again~ collies, if yoU know collies, if a chipmunk runs across the road or across the back yard, they all go berserk, and that's my only concern with this project. MR. PALING....Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Jeff, when you go up Clendon Brook, and when you take a left to go on Tuthill, where the burned down house is with just the chimney standing. Now as you're going UP the mountain, are you on the down side of the road? MR. INGLEE-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now~ do you have to go up as far as Beames and that doctor? Isn't there a doctor? MR. INGLEE-No. If xou take a left onto Tuthill Road from Clendon Brook, you have Dr. .Paul's place, which is first, anq then the second place down is my place, which, there again, as the crow flies, down over the hill through the woods. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because I was trying to visualize it, how far in we were when were in Stewarts. MR. INGLEE-If you go to my back lot, it adjoins Dave & Chris' - 11 - ---.- / property which, there again, if you paced it off, it's about 150 yards to my back door, where they're property lines are, through the woods. I mean, it looks like it's a lot farther than that, but if you pace it off through the woods, there's not a great distance there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I'm thinking, 150 yards, that's one and a half football fields, but with all the trees, that's not a good enough buffer? MR. INGLEE-There's not a big area between their property line and my property line. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, and where the kennel's goin~ to be, is that on the? MR. INGLEE-Well, I haven't seen the plot plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because, see, that's the thing. What I'm at, if we're dealing with five acres, here, and it's from your house to their border, maybe it's another from the border of theif property to th~ir kennel. getting 150 yards 150 yards MR. INGLEE~Yes. What I'm saying to you is that the area up there is very tranquil. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know. I go to work that way every day. MR. INGLEE-Yes, well, consequently, some of the neighbors down at the end of Tuthill Road, at the corner of Luzerne Mountain Road and Tuthill Road have also expressed a concern about this with me personally. MRS. LABOMBARD-A~d they've heard the dogs all the way up there? MR. INGLEE-Absolutely. of the mountain. You can hear them all the way to the top MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I was just trying to come up with another 150 yards, and with all those trees, maybe, but if they can hear them now. MR. OBERMAYER~The lots are actually very narrow, but they're deep lots. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. You're right. I haven't seen a plan in a long time. MR. PALING-I think your point is well made. MR. INGLEE-If the Board can assure us that they will kind of look over this project, as far as the soundproofing, ~onitor this thing, if they would, if in fact they're goin~ to approve this project, then, fine, but my biggest concern, along with a lot of other folks that live up there and pay tax up there, is the soundproofing aspect. MRS. LABOMBARD-We understand. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Bob, I don't know how, if we, it's kind of a tough thing to do. How can we monitor it, unless we apProv~ it. MR. PALING-Well, there's got to be a condition, or else we'd have to table it, but lets see if there's anyone, is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak on this? MARILYN SMITH MRS. SMITH-Good evening. My name Tuthill Road, right across from is Marilyn Smith. Mr. Inglee. I 1 ive I live on higher in - 12 - ~ ~ '- v elevation than he lives, aDd as we all know, heat and sound rises. I have"heard the dogs bark, but not any more than his own dogs~ At least th~y, try to take care of their animals. They keep them contained. Jeff does not. We have calleQ the dog warden many times on him. He's also had some (lost word) parties down there. We've had to call. So it's not always dogs that cause sound problems. It's also sometimes the neighbors. I feel that Chris and Dave are trying very hard to do the best they can for their neighbors and themselves, and I'm wholeheartedly and 100 percent behind them, and I think whatever they do is an improvement, and I think they have a right to have a kennel and raise their dogs.' They love them dearly, and they're trying to do the best they can, and I think some of this is a little petty, and I just wanted to let you know how I feel about it. MR. PALING-Thank you. KARA BEAMES MRS. BEAMES-Hi. MY,name is Kara Beames and I live on Tuthill Road, and I'm adjacent_ also, to the property, and we have a lot of trees in between'us. 'We didn't clear out our five acres of land. So I don't hear the dogs. They're not a problem to me, and I have heard Jeff complain about the dogs, and he has called, and as I feel als¿ that she is trying, she has the kennel. She has the dogs. She's only trying to improve it. She's trying to get abuilding to .self~contain them and take care of them, so that they're not out barking all the time. I've never had any of her dogs in my yard, and I can't, say that for other neighbors, and as for other neighbors, I do know that if there were concerns, ~heyjd be here. Everyone knew that this was goin~ on. I mean, we may be acres apart, but we're well informed and we speak and see each other often. I can't say anything else. As for the access ,to her driveway in her yard, there is, when you go in, I mean, you'd have to look, but there's a lot of turn offs where ~heycan, and I can vouch for the fire trucks. There: was at least six when her kitchen was ablaze, in her yard, and they didn't have any problems going in and out. MR. MACEWAN-How far are you from the proposed site? guess? Take a MRS. BEAMES-I'm adjacent to it, and I'm right next to Jeff. I'm side by side with him. So, I'm just as close as he is. MR. MACEWAN-So thrQugh the woods, you're 150, 200 yards to the woods? MRS. BEAMES-I would say it's farther. I don't th~nk it's that close, but I know I'm just as close. I just think this is orily a plus. If anybody has any kind of concerns or anything, I mean, it's just, she's already got the dogs, and she's already got, you know..lf she follows the Codes for the building, even a little bit is" better than nqne at all. MR. PALING-Okay. . Thank you. Is there anyone else? MR. INGLEE-Very brief. First off, Marilyn, this personal vendetta against me. This meeting does not me. It does not pertain to my dogs. is nQt a pertain to MR. PALING-Sir, please address any remarks you have to the Board, not to the audience. MR. INGLEE-Okay. ThísBoard meeting was set forth to address the Stewart's project, not to hammer on Jeff Inglee, and I just wanted to clear that up with her. Consequently, I restate, I have no problem with this project. I'm not trying to stop this project. What I'm trying to do is make sure that nobody.that lives up there, whether it's myself or any other members that - 13 - have not been sent sure that they're bar ki ng dçgs. I nothing. a notice of this meeting on Tuthill Road, make not going to be hampered by the sounds of have no problem with this project, Marilyn, MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. On the item of notice, does someone from Staff want to comment on that? MR. MARTIN-They~re mailed within 500 f~et, but oftentimes it may not reach down the entire length of the road, obviously, or something like that. So they're mailed to meet the requirement, but they may not meet the whole length of Tuthill Road. When you're dealing with five acre lots, you~re not hitting a lot of people. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak from the public? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. I think we maybe ought to dIscuss this a little bit more before we call for a motion or a vo~e. MR. MACEWAN-I have another question to ask the applicant, please. Will there be water, electric hooked to this? MR. STEWART-I could say one thing, just to addrèss oné of the things that Jeff gid say. True, there will be outsid'ê runs, but the idea of the outside run is that you can let one or two dogs out at a time. MRS. STEWART-Right now, they're all out together and some of them fight. MR. STEWART-They're all out, and I agree with him. If there's a gun shot, if somebody's hunting, or something like that, they all tend to bark at the same time, and that's when he hears thëm. MRS. STEWART-Or else when I go out to feed them, they'll start to bar k. MR. STEWART-The idea of the time and exercise, and then others out. The idea is not the run at the same time and run is to let one or bring those back in to let all thirteen leave them there all two out at a and let some of them out on day. MR. RUEL-I have a question before SEQRA, it's a question for Staff. Does QueensbuíY have an Ordinance for constant barking dogs? Do they have a noise level Ordinance? MR. MA~TIN-No. The 'Animal Control regulation is basically a nuisance dog. If there's a complaint, Colleen will go up and respond, and if it is a recurring situation, then it could result in a court summons. MR. RUEL-And the complaint is a writte~ complaint bya neighbor. Is that it? MR. MARTIN-We're respond, even, to a verbal complaint, .and if it takes court action, I think there has to be a writténcomplaint, if it turns into a court situation, but we'll respond to a verbal complaint, and like I said, if it's a recurring situation, we ask for a written complaint and we'll pursue it in ·court. Colleen also has the ability to write her own court appearance ticket also. So if ~he sees a violation òr ~itnesses it, she can be the complainant and issue the summons. ' MR. RUEL-Who handles this, the Dog Control Officer? MR. MARTIN-Yes. - 14 - '...... -.. --..-'" --..-" MR. RUEL-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-So place a call. or afternoon. I encourage anybody who has a recurring problem, We~re usually there that day, if not that morning MR. MACEWAN-Som~thing else that, you kpow, d0ring our process here you guys have brought it up in youf Staff Notes, bui we've never really talked about ~t, is what kind of parking is req~ired for this site? MR. HARLICKËR~There aren't any standards for. MR. MARTIN-We obviously have no standards in our Code, and when we've run into that problem in the past, the Board has usually worked out an"arrangement with the applicant. MR. BREWER-The only parking requirements we have is for retail? ,"; . f "-",:t-; ',:': 'i; MR. MARTIN-No. There's other things in there. There's office, but this is obviously none of the uses listed in that,. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. 'MACEWAN-What does Staff' recommend we do. for' par ki ng? MR. MARTIN-I think the point is well 12, 13 dogs. It's usually scheduled customervis1tation do you usually customers there at the same time? taken that yoU have, what, appointments. What kind of have? Do you ever have two MRS. STEWART~Once in a while, I have two of them. MR. MARTIN-I would say a maximum accommodation of two cars. MR. PALING-Two orthTee parking spaces, and I think you've got room in the front of the house for, like, three spaces, haven't you? MRS. STEWART~I was going to have, like, the area in front of the kennel would be cleared out for. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-That's wide enough for three cars. MR. BREWER-How big is the building? Can we get that on the map? MR. PALING-I think I know what I feel maybe as to what Tim is going to say, that we need another sketch or plan on this thing that would show the size of the building, the runs themselves, the parking, and also one that would. MRS. STEWART-I have one up there, but there's no parking on it. MR. PALING-Okay, aryd one that would show any widening ,of the road in spots. So that' we'd know, specifically, what you were going to do, and this might not have to be submitted to us. MR. OBERMAYER-Why do you need to have all that? MR. BREWER-Is that the size of the building, 44 by 56, or are those the setbacks? MRS. STEWART-No, that's including the outside run, 28 by 36, is the building, and then 16 foot runs. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see, the way it's drawn here, the runs are around the perimeter of the building. - 15 - ~ MRS. STEWART-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, we really do need something more specific. See, I was thinking the dimensions of the building were larger than the house, the floor plan of the house. MR. PALING-Well, if it showed the kennel itself and the runs and the building, then I think we'd be okay. MR. OBERMAYER-It shows the kennel right there. MR. PALING-This doesn't include the runs. MRS. STEWART-No. There wasn't enough room on that paper. MR. BREWER-Well, why don't we do this, Bob. If we're going to go through the SEQRA, give this an approval, why don't we give them a period of time whére they can come back and just submit the map, the picture of the building and the runs on it, rather than have them come back next month or next week, or whatever. MR. RUEL-You mean after the approval? MR. BREWER-We building is. can specify what we want. We know what size the All we want is a picture of it on the plot. MR. PALING-Including the runs. MR. BREWER-Including the runs. MR. PALING-And I'd like to see them ,just show where the parking is going to be, and then I think, alsò. MR. BREWER-Unless you ~ant to have the~ come back next week. It doesn't make any difference. MR. PALING-Yes. I think, also, I would like to see where the, you said you could widen the road in a couple of places, that might enhance the access to it, in case two vehicles would meet, and you could do that without much trouble. I'd like to see that done. I'll have to see what the rest of the Board thinks. M~S. LABOMBARD-But does that mean on ~ property or the road that he shares joiritly with, is that Brower, with the neighbor? See are you talking about the road that he's going to be cutting in to go from where he is now up to the new building, Bob, or are you talking about the road that's coming in that he shares jointly? MR. PALING-Coming in, yes. That's what I thought you indicated you could widen in a couple of places. MR. STEWART-There's a few spots that are already pretty much open, all I'd have to do is, a tree here or there (lost word) three or four spots on the way in. That's basically the way it's been for 15 years. If I gave my sister-in-law coming in, I could pull off. MR. PALING-Y,s. Would you be willing topu~ thqse , . ~ '. _ - - - , _:' 1'1. I ¡, '. _ ; -: " !' ,,' that you"d havè,just' so we'd know when:! they âre? then someone asked that we might check on ~he perfT!:it.~ MR. OBERMAYER-Department of Health permit. on ,a sketch Okay, and I ;' MR. PALING-Just make sure J:.hat's i n, ,~rder;,,~ MR. BREWER-Well, we're going to check with the Animal Control Office, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes, I'll do that. - 16 - '.. '-' ,--",' --' MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Then do you want to gQ to the SEQRA on this? And then I think we're heading to tabling it, perhaps, with your consent. MR. OBERMAYER-Why are you going to table it? MR. PALING-When the sketch comes back. MR. MACEWAN-I don't see any reason we need to table it. MR. OBERMAYER-Why can't we just approve it, that they're going to modify the plat and they'll submit it on the plat, the final drawing. MR. PALING-All right. Lets try to do it that way. MR. BREWER-I see what You'r~ sayinQ, but I see what ~ saying, too. I mean, would there be a big deal if we have them come back next week, to the applicant, or is it? MR. PALING-Well, if it's something we agree on, and Staff could review it, that's okay with me. MR. BREWER-That's fine with me, too, but I mean, you're asking them to show on the map ~o you can see where they're going to widen the road, but you're never going to see it. So why ask them to do it? MR. PALING-It would be part of their submittal for part of the approval. MR. BREWER-But I think th~re'~ adequate places on the road right now. They don't need to show them. I mean, when I went in there today, I specifically looked, and there was at least a half a dozen places you could pull off on either side. MR. PALING-And all we're saying is just put them on a print. MRS. LABOMBARD-You mean those pull off places on the print? MR. PALING",:,Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Not indicate where he's ~oing to cut trees down? If he already has six pull off spots along the i6ad~ then he really doesn't need to indicate where he's going to' cut any trees down, because he doesn't need to cut any treès down. MR. PALING-Well, he's sketch, they're part committed to ke~p them. MR. MACEWAN-I feel comfortable in what the applicant's stated, as far as emergency access., I mean, if the fire department's already been up there with six trucks, that's good enough for me. committed to them. of the site plan When they're on approval, and the he's MR. PALING-It'll be the consensus of the Board, then, on that, and that can be part of the motion. I think we've had enough discussion. We'll go ahead with the SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHËN DETERMINATION OF NOSIGN¡FICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 35-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the DAVE & CHRIS STEWART, 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, - 17 - _/ 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 appl icant. Assessment Form has been completed by the , ' 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 i~ 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 18th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think we're ready to entertain a motion. MR. RUEL-Yes. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-95 DAVE & CHRIS STEWART, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: To have a dog kennel for breeding and boarding, with the following"GqDd,itions: ,1;hat you s¡how tt"¡e,bu¡lding size ~nd the runs aro.ur!~ t;n,e bu,¡~çfing on ',the plé:ln~ That you" ,denote the par ki nQ areas! , to i ndiê¡ate a "'1 nilT)~m of t-wo par k~ng 'àrea$.'i That th~ 'Animal. C,o,Tit rOIOf'f,icèr, "loo'k" i Tito "",hether, " the' ,State Ag,~ icul t4~~t ' D'ë~artment'has~' Pérmï tti Ti~", p)·Ç>èe~~, for ,'k¡~nr¡els. That these detalls to be submltted to the planning Staff on or before 8/1/95. . Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: MR. PALING-Do you want the widening of the road? MR. BREWER-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't think that what he's proposing is widening the road. MR. PALING-No, I'm sorry. Do you want what Roger said? MRS. LABÖMBARClAIl Rogêr'~s saying' is;tha'f he's'going'fo show the existing parts of the road where, like Tim said, there is six places. - 18 - '-'" -' ............. '- MR. PALING-Okay. Do you agree with what Roger said? Do YOU want it? MRS. LA80MBARD-I think it's not going to hurt. Yes. MR. MACEWAN-No, not necessary. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't think it's necessary. MR. PALING-No. I Qon't it is either. Now, are something in there about the noise situation con6urrence of the dog offic.r? MR. BREWER-If we're goirig to allow this, and there's a complaint or a problem with noise, then the neighbors or whoever's bothered by it has to call, or could call the Animal Control Offi¿er, make a complaint, and she can monitor it. I don't think we should do the monitoring. we going to put and asking the MR. PALING-There's and we don't really of potential noise. officer. no violation of zoning or anything else here, have a right to turn them down on the basis So then we'd better drop that about the dog MR. MARTIN-I think the point is well taken. If the dogs are already in existence at the site, outside, havirig them indoors is likely only going to help. MR. PALING-Yes, especially when they're all together now. MR. MACEWAN-The only thing we were going to ask of the Animal Control Officer was to look into whether there's an agricultural, State Agric~ltural Department has a permitting process for the kennels. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We'll look into that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Should that be in the motion? MR. MARTIN-Yes. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, tt'í. B,' e~lf!r, Mr. Pa li ng ''', NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark SITE PLAN NO. 36-95 TYPE: UNLISTED MARY E. SHEARER OWNER: J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR. ZONE: UR~io LOCATION: QUEENSBURY ARMS APT. COMPL~X PROPOSAL IS TO OPERATE A HAIR SALON. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE INCIDENTAL TO A RESIDENTIAL USE IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO' SITE pLAN REVIEW. TAX MAP NO. 78~1-20 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES SËCTION: 179-18 MARY ELLEN SHEARER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 36-95, Mary Shearer, Meeting Date: July 18, 1995 "Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38A, 179-38~, 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 179-38E of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, sizes, design and general site compatibility of building, lighting and signs; No riew construction is proposed; the applicant will utilize an existing office that was formally used as a rental office for the apartment complex. No new lighting or signage is proposed. 2. - 19 - The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Access to the building will be via the existing driveway that services the apar~ment complex. Access is adequate. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; There are four parking spaces shown on the plot plan which should be adequate for the proposed use. One of the spaces should be signed and sized to meet requirements for handicapped parking. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; This is an existing building; stormwater drainage will not be impacted by this proposal. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The property is serviced by municipal water and the building has its own septic system. The applicant should show that the existing system can aQequately handle the discharge from the proposed hair salon. 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 emeigency zones and the provision of fire hydTants; Emergency access is adequate. No changes are proposed. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with $usceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. This is not an issue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application." MRS. SHEARER-Mary Ellen Shearer. MR. PALING-Okay. time? Any comments by the Board at this point in MR. RUEL-I want to know the width of the drivew~y. shown here on the plan. It's not MR. PALING-Okay. It's an existing driveway. MR. RUEL-The scale indicates it's apÞroximately 10 feet, but is that the width? MRS. SHEARER-If I had to guess, ! would say yes. MR. PALING-I remember it as a little bit wider than that. I would have guessed it would be wider than that. MR. RUEL-It shows 10 feet here. MRS. SHEARER-The driveway goes to the parking area, from Manor Drive, and each square is like 10 feet, if I'm correct. So I think I counted them (lost word) from Manor Drive. MR. PALING-Okay. Scott, I thought that, memory tells me the driveway was plenty wide. Do you have that same? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It services the apartment complex. MRS. SHEARER-There's also another driveway that goes off the parking lot, to the left, where you see the blue car in the picture, is for maintenance, which goes to the next building and back out onto Manor Drive again. So there's two. MR. PALING-Okay. If that's a real hang up, we can get it clarified, but from looking át it, it was plenty wide. MR. RUEL-You show a dry well, that's just for water, just - 20 - ----- ---- " ..... -- liquids? -'.,.'" I,,' ~R$. SHEARER-Yes.· MR. pBERMAYE~-Do you p¡~n on putting a sign up somewhere? 'MRS. SHEARER-I hope to have a éign inside'the window t~at 'Jould be adeq~ate, othef than just a small sign at the end of the driveway that leads to the p~rking area that just sa~s, Hair Salon, with:,an arrow. MR. 'RUEL-Well~, they have tog~t ,al'perf11itf9r that anyway. MRS. SHEARER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Rlght. MR. MACEWAN-Is she subject to a permit for that because that's on private property? MR. MARTIN-She'. torrect. The $lg~ in the ~indQw is and the' di rec;i~ton~¡ sign' out' front is not 'subJect provid~d it's 'W'nder 'four, sql:lar~ feet. permissible, to a peymit, I, " ",',. j , " ,¡ J; :'f, MR. P~I,..ING-Åre youw~lli'ng,to äesignatE~ o'né of the parklng' sp'åces fo~handicapped? Af¥ y00 ~llling to ta~e care of that? MRS. SH~ARER-Xes. ~R. RUËL-And t~~·width.h~~,~q1ÞP different for a handicapped. MRS. SHEARER-Yes. It has to be. MR. RUEL-Yes, because here you have 10 feet on each one. MR. MARTIN-I think it's a five foot aisle on the one side for accessibility. MRS. SHEARER-Yes. MR. RUEL-I have a question. You mentioned septic system, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Well, a lot of times if a septic system is gea'"ed for normal septic uses, when you start introducing the chemicals associated with the hair salon, sometimes that affects the operation of the septic system, it doesn't operate quite as well. MR. RUEL-Is there a bathroom in that salon? MRS. SHEARER-Yes, there is. MR. RUEL-So you need a septic system for that, right? MR. HARLICKER-Right. It services that building, but right now there's not the amount of chemicals going down the drain into that septic system that there will be once she starts washing people's hair and doing perms and all the rest of that. MR. MARTIN-Is that a stand alone septic system for that one building? MRS. SHEARER-I believe so, yes. MR. MACEWAN-How many stations will you have? MRS. SHEARER-Just one. MR. MACEWAN-I can't imagine the usage is going to be very high. MRS. SHEARER-One person at a time. - 21 - --- MR. MARTIN-And if it's, it if backs up~ then you've got to get it pumped, get it fixed. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Will you be using that storage area? MRS. SHEARER-No. I have one little corner inside of the salon that would be storage. MR. RUEL-So you're just using the section marked "B". MRS. SHEARER-Right. , ,storage. Exactly. A and C are for the complex MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other questions or comments on this? There's a public hearing on this. Lets open the public hearing now. Is there anyone here that would like to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now is a SEQRA required on this? Yes, it's unlisted. Okay. Lets do a SEQRA. , , " RESOLl)TION' WtlEN, þ£;TERMINATION' QF NO '-.', '.' , .. .', ,.. .. "...., :.., .. _, ;, ,., I; {--" " i '. ~~§OLUTIONNO.)36-95, ,Intro~ucedby ~ts adoptidn, .~~pnde4'by,Ç~therihe '.. f' , .. - '.; , S~GN!FtCANC£; IS MADE , :11 I, ,\ James Obèrmayer who ,moved for Í-~B'omb'a r d : ' '" WH~REAS, there, is p1"<'fsently b~fQre' the Planning Board an applicatiori for: MARY E. SHEARER, arid WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to revi~w under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, , ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The foJlowing agencies are inv01Jed: NONE 'I',· ,.1 3. The pr9PÓšed açtion considered by this ~oard is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation .Regulations ._ ~,' , ' ,'.. .. . : .. "...'..:.',. .. '.. " .. ~ ...... ._ ! < , .: ;,:; ,. ..' " I .. i~plement1ng the State'Envltonmental Qual1ty Revlew Act and the regulatio,Ds of" t.he Town of, Queensbury. 4. An Environmental . Assessment Form has' been' .,; completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly ~n~lyzedthe relevant areas 'of envitonmental concern and having cqnsidered the criteria for determining whether a 'pröject has a significant environmental impact as tne'same is set forth in Section 617 . i 1 .., of 'the Of'fI¿ial Compi lation of Codes, Rules and Regulationsfor_~he State of New york, this,Board finds,that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no ~igni ficqnt environmental ,ef'fect and the Chairman of the Plann~Dg" [3oard is hereby' aù(hbt,,Í:zed to execute and s'lgn and file as ma~ b~ nece~sary'a statement of non-significance or - 22 - -- -' "- --' a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Unless there's further questions or comment, I'll entertain a motion regarding this. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-95 MARY~. SHEARER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: To operate a hair salon, with the condition that a handicapped parking area be designated, adjacent to the building, with signage at the site. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 1995, by the following ,~Qte: , ' , AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer~ Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark SITE PLAN, NO. 37,-95, TYPE: ,UNLI$TED EA$T C,QA$T, TIRE &.,' SE~\lICE OWNER: GLENCOL' PRÖPER'rIESZONE:' HC-1A LOCATION: 97 QUAKER ROAD, BORDERING QUEENSBURY MOTORS TO THE EAST ~ÇRQS$THe;,,~OAD FROM QUAKER FORD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A TIRE & AUTOSERVIèÈ CENTER. AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/10/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-36 ,LPT SIZE: .843 ACRES SECTION 179-2311 ) NICK DENOVA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 37-95, East Coast Tire & Service, Meeting Date: July 18, 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 Sectio~179-38E of the Zoning Code: 1. Location, arrangement, size" design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and $~gns; The proposal is to utilize the existing structure; no new~i~nage or lighting is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access aDd circulation, including intersectipns, road, widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traff~c controls; The proposal will utiliz~ the two existing driveways on Quaker Road. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The applicant indicates a dumpstèr and a tire storage area in the back of the building but no access is shown. The proposal will utilize the existing parking lot and layout. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage fåcilities; The project will not alter existing drainag~ facilities; 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The property is serviced by municipal water and sewer. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a - 23 - 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. The applicant will be meeting with the Beautification Committee. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants;. There is a fire hydrant adjacent to the property on Quaker Road. 9 The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways ~nd la~dscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, floodi~g and/or erosion. This does not appear to be a problem. RECOMMENDATION: Providing the applicant provides adequate access to the rear of the building, staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-Warren County said No County Impact. MR. PALING-Okay. We have a Beautification Committee on this one. Okay. There are three items on the Beautification Committee. They've requested a planter with shrubs in front of the window. MR. DENOVA-My name is Nick DeNova, owner of East Coast Tire & Service. MR. PALING-A planter with shrubs in front of the window. Number Two is dumpster in back of the building will be fenced in. Number Three, tires in back corner that go to trash plant will be removed once a week. Did y00 know of these, and you concur? MR. DENOVA-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. That's the Beautification Committee. Then that can be considered. MR. DENOVA-I just want to make note, the planter is existing. MR. PALING-Okay, the planter with the shrubs in front of the window? MR. DENOVA-That's correct. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Any comments? MR. OBERMAYER-Where do you plan on storing all the old tires? MR. DENOVA-Do you have the drawing? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I see you have it, but what kind of area? I mean, is there going to be a big pile of them or? MR. DENOVA-I probably figure anywhere between 40 to 60, because not everybody that comes in leaves tires, and we're going to be making a run to the burn plant once a week. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. DENOVA-I have a medium size dumpster. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. RUEL-What is the approximate distance between the two entrances or exits? MR. DENOVA-Of the building or the parking lot? MR. RUEL-No, the parking. It says entrance here. MR. DENOVA-The entrances are 24 feet wide. The building is 90, so I would say about 80 feet. MR. PALING-And those are existing accesses that you've got there. - 24 - - -...../ '- --,' MR,. DENOVA-That is correct. MR. PALINGi'7yes. ,["¡ MR. RUe:L-So if they're existing, our criteria for spacing does not apÞly? MR. PAL¡NG~No~ no. I didn't ,~~y,¡t doesn't apply. I'm Just 'noting'that they âre existing." They hav~ been there'. ' I guess they could be¿.h&'ri~ed, but,' Scott, what is the distance between accesses? What' is that requirement? MR. HARLICKER-These are existing curb cuts. We were also discussing the possibility of eliminating one of those curb cuts. I think the Board should consider that option also. MR. DENOVA-I'd like to add something that those entrances are not on the property. They're owned by Warre~ County. MR. BREWER-Still, we could ask you to close it off, close one of them off. MR. PALING-We're being requested by Department of Transportation to keep curb cuts to a minimum, access, and when a building like this comes in, we'd like to have it all done with one access or one curb cut, and then the County agrees with that, too, It wouldn't be in the way of that. How would you feel if it was limited to one entrance? Would that cause you a problem? MR. DENOVA-None whatsoever. MR. PALING-Good. MR. OBERMAYER-I would imagine you'd rather cut off the one, you know, where you ~oD't have access to the side of the build¡ng. It's pretty tight over there. That would be the one~ MR. DENOVA-Yes, that would be on the east. MR. MARTIN-Is there a culvert under each of these entrances? MR. DENOVA-Yes, and again, those entrances are not on the property. They're owned by the County. I would say that the property line ends right at the end of the paved areas, and those entrances are (lost words) the paved area. MR. HARLICKER-You had a survey of that property. Do you have it with you? MR. DENOVA-Yes. MR. PALING--Bob, he could still put a curb or something across that one. MR. MARTIN-Or a fence. MR. BREWER-Whatever. MRS. LABOMBARD-Put some dirt down and grow grass. MR. OBERMAYER-This isn't really that busy on the road, though, is it? MRS. LABOMBARD-It's Quaker. MR. PALING-It sure is. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question on one of the entrances, the one - 25 - - that's the east one. Does that service the adjacent property at all? There's no adjacent road that connects? MR. DENOVA-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I remembe~ going there, and it was something I took a mental picture and I wanted to. MR. DENOVA-It's probably 10 feet east of that, it goes to that little strip mall. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. So, that's right, the strip mall is on the left. Yes, so there's no way that they could use that to get into there? MR. DENOVA-That's correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's right. MR. RUEL-Properties on both sides of your are occupied? MR. DENOVA-Yes. MR. RUEL-And do you have any idea where th~ curb cuts might be for these properties, on both sides? MR. DENOVA-In relation to what? MR. BREWER-I can explain .that to you, Roger. side is within 20 feet, and this one here is Queensbury Motors is right here. This one on this the same, because MRS. LABOMBARD-And this is that little strip mall where the pool place. MR. PALING-Lets make sure we all understand what YOU're talking about. You're saying 20 foot on either side? MR. RUEL-Yes, so it doesn't matter. MR. BREWER-That's maximum. MR. RUEL-If it was 100 on one side and 20 would have a bèaring on ,our determination should select. on the other, then it as to which one we MR. PALING-All right. Well, that would be to his discretion, then, as to which one he might want to close. I have a question on the print. At that corner of the building, which would be the west corner of the building, is that four feet from. the property line that I'm looking at? MR. DENOVA-That's correct. MR. PALING-That's an existing condition? MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's right. MR. PALING-And which driveway would yOU close, if you had? MR. HARLICKER-Well, if you'd like the rest of the Board to take a look at that. MR. MARTIN-That's a survey of the site showing County ownership of property. He's right. The went through with the widening of Quaker Road width through there. the extent of the County owns, they and bought extra MR. PALING-And this width that we see here, this must be from here. - 26 - -- ...- '- ~' MR. MARTIN-This is the property line right here. The County owns right to here. MR. OBERMAYER-So he sits back pretty nice. MR. PALING-And so he want:::; to" would block of ~ access and use this one. MR. OBERMAYER-Which would be gOQd. MR. RUEL-What's this, a gas pump island? MR. PALING-Yes. Is there a gas pump island? MR. DENOVA-No. MR. PALING-That doesn't exist. MR. DENOVA-If I had the option to eliminate one, I would want to eliminate the west. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. That's where the building is against the property line, too, that same side. M~. DENOVA-Yes. I don't know how that would look. I think that would look terrible if the pavement remained in existence. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. MR. DENOVA-And I don't have the power to remove it don't own the property. I think that would be deterrent, as far as looks go. because we more of a MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. Can anything be done about that? MR. MARTIN-We can approach the County about that, to see what could be done. I agree, it would be better to remove the asphalt in the culvert. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I would find it hard-pressed that the County would spend funds to go out there and do that. MR. MARTIN-They might issue you a permit to allow ~ to do it. MR. DENOVA-I really don.'t want to. MR. MARTIN-I don't think it would be all that expensive, but I imagine they'd issue. MR. MACEWAN-At the very least, maybe you'll just leave what the curb cuts left in there, and you can just sod it over, if the County would let him do that. MR. MARTIN-I think they'd issue a work permit to remove the asphalt in the culvert, yes, and sod it over, or whatever, MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, and leave the culvert there, though, just put grass over it. MR. DENOVA-That culvert's deep. You can't remove the culvert. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, the applicant's willing to give up one access to his property. MR. MARTIN-How about removal of the asphalt and just seed it over? - 27 - - MR. OBERMAYER-Would you do that? MR. DENOVA-Sure, if I have to. MR. PALING-Okay. Why can't we request that the County do it, and if they don't, then we'll ask the applicant to do it. MR. MACEWAN-Boy, you're really pushing it, the County to do that. MR. MARTIN-You've never talked to Roger Gebo, have you? MR. PALING-No, but I don't want to tell him that we'll ask the applicant to do it if he won't. I just want to ask him outright, as if that's the only avenue there is. MR. from were seed MARTIN-I think what you would need the County to conduct work in their to require them to fence it off and it, then that would be it. is you'd need a permit right-of-way, and if you tear up the asphalt and MR. PALING-And would they do it? MR. MARTIN-No, ~ wouldn't,"with their approval. MR. PALING-Well, I guess I understood what you said. Okay. MR. DENOVA-I think if that happens, I think they're going to, it's going to get more involved than something that simple. I mean, there's a lot of grades there. They've got the culvert in there. They've got the angle, I'm sure, for proper drainage. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I don't think there's any way they're going to let you go into the culvert. MR. MARTIN-No, no. I say, leave the culvert, but just remove the asphalt, establish some grass, and be done with it. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Could we ask the County to do it? MR. MARTIN-The County will, I would imagine, issue a work permit to have him do it, but I doubt if thêy' will do it. MR. PALING-If that's what they do, so be it. MRS. LABOMBARD-But c~n't we ask them, just the same. It'~ not going to hurt. MR. BREWER-Cathy, stick them if they'll do it. your head out the window and just That's what'$ going to happen. ask MR. MARTIN-I think if he fences that off and seeds it over. MR. RUEL-I think since the Planning Board request~d, we should all chip in and do it. MR. PALING-Okay. Jim, are you telling us that th~re's no way the County's going to do it? MR. MARTIN-I don't believe so. MR. DENOVA-Can I~sk somèthing? it? I didn't quite get that. , Whðt was the' purpos'e of ,-emov i ng MR. MARTIN-Well, the purpose of removing it is we've had requests from DOT for the Town to begin undertaking what they refer to as access management, ~nd we ruT)" into a l<;>t of dángerous traffic patterns when you háve drive~~y access þoints that are as close as you see up and down Quaker Road. So, what we try and do, when an applicant comes in on a reuse of a building like this, is trying to improve the situation by eliminating the number of curb - 28 - '-- ........-Y '- --" cuts, and that way we have safer ingress and egress of traffic. When you have these driveways so close. you get a lot of crossing patterns. People turning left and right, and it makes for a dangerous situation, especially on a what now, when that driveway permit was allowed, that was a two lane road, and since that's been widened, now, to a five lane road. MR. DENOVA-As I'm thinking about this, it could present more of a problem, because I get tractor trailer loads of tires, and with one entrance, he's going to have a hard time. MR. PALING-Turning around. MR. DENOVA-That's only 40 feet wide, from the front of the building to the edge of. MR. PALING-Yes, these are existing curb cuts, and we've got an awful lot of hairy areas h~re. I'm leaning towards let it go as it is. MR. MARTIN-Well, it's meant to be practical. I mean, we're ,not supposed to bury our heads in the sand and just do this in every instance either. I mean, if it makes more sense. MR. DENOVA-I'm having a hard time, I really am. loads of tires, once a month. I get trailer MR. PALING-Okay. MR. DENOVA-I just thought of that as I was sitting here. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm glad you thought of it. We'd hate to create a hardship for you on something like that. MR. .DENOVA-If the,driveway was bigger and the buildings were set back~it wouldn't matter. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, or if you had access on both sides of bui ldi ng. MR. DENOVA-Yes. You could drive, back up to one of the bays and just drive right out. MR. PALING-All right. Then all other a~pects of the Staff comments have been met and the Beautification Committee requests have been met. In this case, there's got to be a public hearing on this. There's a public hearing on this scheduled for tonight. Does anyone on the Board have any other questions or comments? No questions or comments. We'll open the hearing to the public. Is there anyone here that would care to comment about this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Lets do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE R~SOLUTION NO. 37-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning EAST COAST TIRE & SERVICES, and Boar.d an WHEREAS, project this Plann1ng Board has determined that the proposed and Planning Board action is subject to review under the - 29 - --- 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 Depart~~nt of EM vir on mental Conservation Regulations implemênti ng the 5tate Énvi ronmental 'Ouð.ll ty Review'" Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appl icant ~ 5. Having considered ~nd thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of en~iionMental ~òncern and having,con~idered the criteria fordetèrmiriiné whether a p~6jéct has a significant envi n:>nme'ntal imþ~c't as tbe same is set fQrth in Section 617.1iof th~~O~~idi~1 Cbmpil~tion òf Code~, Rules and Regulations for 'thê 'state of New Yor~, this 3oard find$ that the action about to be undertaken bý thisBoªrd will have no significant environmental effect and the th~i;~án' of the Planning Board is'hereby authorized 'to execute and sign, and file as may be nec~ssary a statement ofnon-signific~h¿~ or â negativ~ de~laration that may b$;reqµ~red by law. Du 1 y ad~Pted' ,~his 18th, day of Jul);'" 1995~ ,bý the, fóllowi'ng ,vote: AYES: Mr. Bre~Jer, Mr. Ma6Ëwan', Mr. Oßér'mayer, Mrs. Laé8robard" Mr~ Ruel~ Mr, Paling ,"" NOES: NONE .Ii ABSENT: Mr. Stark MOT ¡ON TO APPROVE SItE PLAN NO. 37-95 ~A~t~20A~Y'Tr~E & SERVICE, Introduced by Roge,- Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: At 97 Quaker Road, for a tire and auto service center, with the condition that the applicant will meet the requirements of the Beautification Committee. Duly adopted this 18th day of Jùly, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark SITE PLAN NO. 38-95 FRANK ADAMO, JR. OWNER: ,SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: NORTH ON ASSEMBLY PT. RD., SECOND HOUSE NORTH OF SUNSET LANE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE STORY HOUSE, INCLUDING ENCLOSED EXTERIOR STAIRS. EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 8-5-21 LOT SIZE: .24 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 ALBERT BOCCIA, REPRESENTING APpLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. the Warren County Planning, there was No County Impact. Am I remembering right? - 30 - -' '"'-'" '- ..-' MR. RUEL-That's correct. MR. PALING-Okay. On that we're okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 38-95, Frank Adamo, Jr., Meeting Date: July 18, 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 179-38E of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site co~patibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The second story addition would be compatible with'the two adjacent houses and would not be out of character for the neighborhood. 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; Traffic access will not be impacted by this project. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; This is not an issue. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; This is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; This project will not impact stormwater runoff. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The project will not impact existing water or sewer facilities. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual andlor 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 provision of fire hydrants; The project will not impact emergency services. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. During construction proper erosion control measures should be in place. RECOMMENQATIQt'J: Staff ,c;:an r€!commend" approv.;:l! Qft,his application. ". , , ' MR. PALING-Okay. please. Would you identify yourselves for the record, FRANK ADAMO, JR. MR. ADAMO-My name is Frank Adamo, Jr. MR. BOCCIA-And my name is Albert Boccia. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. Any comments or questions? MR. RUEL-I just have one question. On the plan it says the Adamo property. Is that Lot 21, or 21 and 22? II.:' M~. ÂDAMQ:"'~ust21~ ' MR. BOCCrA-Tw~nty~one. !.. ,- . ,..,. .' I , , J:."; MR. ,R~~~7Jd~t 211 :~qk~y~ MR. 1~~L~~~-cika~~" You;vè ~dt quite a j~b ahead of That·s a majof project to 'Þutthat second $tdfy"bn, You,ö"Q,.,this. it apPears. MR. ADAMO-Yes, it's a significant project. We'd have to do some alterations that need to be done on the first floor, but we're not going to change anything. We're going to change some one use, firm up the foundation in certain areas, and the second story will be carried by steel girders which will be supported by - 31 - -.. lally columns, that's all. MR. PALING-What's the end height of the building going to be? MR. BOCCIA-It would be no more than 24 feet, well, no more than 26 feet. MR. PALING-No more than 26 feet. MR. BOCCIA-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-You don't have an elevation of it, do you, of the proposed building, house? MR. BOCCIA-No. MR. OBERMAYER-It would be nice to see it. MR. RUEL-What are you looking for, elevation? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes, it would be interesting. MR. ADAMO-We will have elevations when we apply for our building permit. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. ADAMO-We were told to proceed this w~y. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. No. I guess this .is the right way. MR. ADAMO-We started about 18 months ago. In the interim, my wife passed away. So we were sidetracked, but now we're back on track. MR. HARLICKER-Excuse me. submitted, ther~ were some Are they still accurate? When the application was originally elevations submitted along with it. MR. BOCCIA-Existing elevations. MR. HARLICKER-There's no proposed on heYe? MR. BOCCIA-No. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. All right. MR. RUEL-We were looking for the proposed. MR. PALING-Okay. If there are no 'comments, there's a public hearing on this for tonight. MR. RUEL-Just one question here, looking at the top view, I see this roof structure on the proposed second story, is at, what 45 degrees to the bottom structure? MR. BOCCIA-Yes. MR. RUEL-AII right. Is that just the roof or is that the roof and the second story? MR. BOCCIA-That's the addition, the new addition, the second stO)-y addi tion. MR. RUEL-That's the second story, with the roof on an an~le like that. Okay, and it's cut off in the back, even. - 32 - '--' ~ '-- --' MR. BOCCIA-Correct. MR. RUEL-Because it shows a couple of lines goiQg out there. MR. BOCCIA-Are you alluding to a cantilever? couple of lines are going to be on the back? You're saying a MR. RUEL-Yes, on the plan here. I didn't know whether that meant that the roof line was going to continue or whether it just? MR. BOCCIA-It's what is called on an erasure on the vellum that doesn't completely erase. The printer picks it up. You can't see it with your own eye, but the printer picks it up. MR. RUEL-It wasn't a very good erasure. MR. OBERMAYER-Which way is the ridge going to run on this, on the roof? I'm sorry I just can't pick it out. Which direction? MR. BOCCIA-Existing now, it's a hip roof. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I know existing, but the new? MR. BOCCIA-We're going to try to put a hip roof on the top. It's only one roof. MR. RUEL-You should have put the lines on the roof line to indicate a hip roof. MR. BOCCIA-We'll have those on the plan for building permit. MR. RUEL-Yes, but if it had been on here, then it would be a lot clearer. Okay. Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-What kind of siding are you going to put on the house? MR. ADAMO-Probably wood shingles. MR. PALING-All right. If there are no other questions or comments, we can come back to this. There's a public hearing on this for tonight. So I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to comment on this application? MR. MARTIN-You have a letter for the record, too, to read in, after the public hearing. MR. PALING-All right. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRANK DILLON MR. DILLON-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Frank Dillon, and I'm the owner of, the property that abuts Mr. Adamo's to the south, also the owner of property that abuts his property to the west. I've submitted written opposition, and I wasn't sure that I could be present today, but I am. I've reviewed the Article XI of your nonconforming uses and structures, and it has to do, of course, with your setbacks and minimum setbacks and such, but first off, I would like to object to the structure which you want to have as the enclosed stairway, because right now the setback. from the street is supposed to be 30 feet, and according to the old CC and R's of the Shore Colony we built at 20 feet, and he is at 20 feet, as is shown on his plat map. Yet he is now going to reduce that by as much as five or ten feet by building a structure out in front of the house, and I object to that, and at the same time, I would recommend that if this group does approve, that it order the stairway enclosure to be adjusted in some other way so that it - 33 - would fit within the 20 feet setback. The other one I object to is the fact that there's an error in the plan here. ! have enclosed, in my written objection, the survey of 15 years ago, when I built the property adjacent to this, and his property is 3.19 feet from the property line, not four and a half feet. So we do have variations in here, and he ~as in compliance with the property line at the time, and now he is, that which was five feet, and now he's even mote so, and I would like to point out to the Board that with the 3.19 feet on the south side, and five feet on the north side, by his own doings, he has closed off any access to the back of this property for any building, any septic tank repair work. He has no area to enter the property, other than five feet on the north side, and so that is that point. So those are the two basic points, in addition to what I have prepared in writing, and which will most likely be read into the record. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-I just have a question for you, sir. The setbacks, that's all existing now though, right? MR. DILLON-The setback, as he is showing on his plan, is four and a half feet, and I'm telling you that it is in error, and it should be 3.19 feet. MR. OBERMAYER-But it's an existing house. That's there. MR. DILLON-The existing house is set back that much. MR. PALING-And he's not makin~ it construction. It's going to still be. worse with this new MR. DILLON-He's not making it worse, but as I pointed out, there's no way he can bring construction equipment in. He can not bring in repair equipment for his septic fields or what have you. He is increasing the size of his house, ,and I don't know how he's going to conform to the septic requirements. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else who would like to comment? KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-Mr. Chàirman, members of the Board, my name's Kelly Carte, and this is my brother Chris Carte. Our family owns the camp that is immediately to the north of Mr. Adamo's property. We'd like to object to this also, on several grounds. Setbacks. I'd like to address those first, because Mr. Dillon has already talked about thòse. Not only does the property not conform to the setbacks, existing setbacks from the street, but it also doesn't conform to the setbacks from the lake. There's a 75 foot setback now for ,new property from the lake. Part of the addition, as Mr. Dillon pointed out, part of the addition the applicant is proposing would put the building even closer to the road and to the lake, by variously, four, five, six feet, depending on how far out they go with their, there's no dimensions on the thing that I have here to their enclosed stairway, but it dQes come closer. The side setbacks, we didn't have the time to find a s~rvey map of our property, with regard to the five feet on the lake, but I seriously doubt that that is five feet on that side also. It's probably more like three feet, and as was pointed out by Mr. Dillon, there is no access to the back yard except by foot traffic along the side of the house. The other point that I would like to bring up is the septic system. We're acutely aware of your requirements for this, because we just tore down the camp that was there on our property and built a new one, and had to comply with the 75 feet, with the 30 feet, with 20 feet on the side of the property, with the 100 feet from our well for our septic system, with 100 feet from the lake for our septic system, all these requirements which we met. - 34 - "--' ---- "- -- In doing this proposed addition, the applicant is adding a fourth bedroom and a second bedroom to an exi$ting septic system that is woefully inadequate for the preserit use by today's standards, and we have a three bedroom house that we had to put in 240 or 50 feet of leachfield for three b$drooms. He is going to end up with four bedrooms, and he has, by this drawing here, maybe 40 feet to the leachfield. The topography of the land is uphill. From the back of this house is slopes uphill. You cannot get a gravity fed system, or septic system, I mean, if you want to go out another 100 feet with a leachfield, you cannot feed it ~ith a gravity fed system because it is uphill, and there's a requirement that the septic system be no more than 12 inches, I think, under the top of the ground. It can't be real deep. 50 you can't bury it 20 feet in the ground and go out here like this. This septic system now is, again, there's no dimensions, but approximately 20 or 25 feet from his side lot line, adjacent to us. It is also about 20 feet from our well. When we put the well in, we had to divide the distance between our septic system that's existing and his property in the back wherè his septic system was, and we split the distance and put our well here. Now we're talking about putting, if the requirement is such that he has to add to his septic system, which is our understanding, if you increase your bedrooms and your bathrooms and all this kind of stuff, we had to do it. If he has to add to it, he is going to come even close~ to our well with the septic system. The third point that I'd like to bring up is the steps. I have some pictures here to show you. It's not a major point, but it is such that when we bought the camp, it was a two story over a garage, the same as it is now. We tore down the old one and built a new one, but the existing camp was, although smaller, had a garage and two floors~ with upstairs bedrooms and windows, and we had a view to the front, you know, to the north and to the south, and I'll show you pictures, to the southwest, over the top of the applicant's house, somewhat obscured by a couple of pine trees that were there at the time, but in doing the new house, we've taken the pine trees down, and we have the view that was existing when we bought the property. Now we're talking about a negating of that view, coming in, we'll be completely blocked by this addition to a nonconforming structure with all the other things. I mean, it's one thing if someone conforms with all the regulations and laws and builds a structure that blocks someone else's view, block our view. There's nothing I can say about that. We knew that going into it, but to allow a nonconforming addition to something like this, and to ruin something that is obviously one of the reasons why people pay money to be up on the lake, does not seem to be in keeping with the spirit of the law here. If you'd like, I'll submit these pictures here, and I'll, I made a quick note on the back of them as to what they are. There was one other point that I'd like to make. I don't have the figures here, and Mr. Dillon had looked this up, now. Apparently, I don't know what the law's requirements are, but there's a certain amount of square footage in addition that could be added on to an existing structure, but how does it enter into it when the existing structure há$ already been added on to two or three times in the Past? I mean, apparently, this house was built a certain size, was added on to in noncompliance with the Shore Colony regulations and even as it seems from the survey map in, noncompliance with the five foot setback at that' point in time, in adding these structures on to the left, putting on a porch a~d then enclosing thé porch for more, and then taking that whole thing and saying this is the basi$ for our square foot calculations, to have 900 square feet or 50 percent more, whatever is allowed. I don't know whether that's the correct way of doing this or not MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anything elsé? MR. CARTE-No, that's it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would - 35 - like to speak about this matter? Okay. If no one else would like to speak, then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Some legitimate points have been raised there, and maybe we can just go down them, and if I've left any out. MR. MARTIN-Can we read in the letter though, first, Bob? MR. PALING-Yes, I'm sorry. MR. MARTIN-To the Queensbury Planning Board. "Dear Sirs: We, FRANCIS J. DILLON, JR. and MARJORIE C. DILLON, are owners of the land that abuts Applicant's property on the South, and FRANCIS J. DILLON, JR. is the owner of the property that abuts the applicant's property on the West. We are opposed to the site plan on two separate accou~ts. FIRST: The plan is in error as the side setback on the South side is 3.19 feet instead of the 4.5 feet a~ indicated in the application. (See attached survey). The plan also indicates a 5 foot setback on the North side. The subject prop~rty was improved in 1958. At that time the two rooms on the South side were not built. A small porch was later added, subsequently enlarged and then enclosed. In computing the 1,800 square feet as indicated in the application the addition is included and forms a base for the 900 square feet proposed addition. Because of the previous addition which violated the Shore Colony C.C. & Rs and also the setbacks ordered by the Town of Queensbury, the applicant deprived himself of access to his back yard by any vehicle. His only access now is the 5 feet on the North side of his house, and the 3 feet on the South side. As this Board is reviewing the site plan it must of necessity include the total site to make a determination of the appropriateness of the proposed addition. How will building materials be added to the site, how will building equipment enter and exit the area in the rear of the house? The access problem must be faced now. Based on the above, this Board should deny the Application. SECOND: The applicant requests permission to enclose an entry way of 84 square feet in the front of the property. Note that the front setback is now 20 feet according to the plan. If such a structure is added it will extend another ten feet toward the road resulting in a setback of only ten feet instead of the required 30 feet. With a small 'change to the plan the entry could be shifted so that it stays within 20 feet setback of the house. Thus it could be turned so that it enters under the existing porch. Access to the house for the past 37 years has not required an enclosed structure as proposed. We request that if this Board approves the Site Plan that approval not include the enclosed structure for the entryway as shown on the plan. Very truly yours, FRANCIS J. DILLON, JR. MARJORIE DILLON" MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other letters or what not? MR. MARTIN-That's it. MR. PALING-Maybe the next thing to do is ask Staff for comments regarding the septic system, not only access to 'doing anything to it, but the capacity of it with the addition. MR. MARTIN-The septic system, and I'm not the person to ask for a final determination. Dave Hatin would be the person, but it's my understanding that the treatment of this is that if you have an existing structure and you have a working system. even if you add to the structure, as long as 90u don't have a failing system, then the system is allowed to continue. At the time the system ~ fail, it will then be required to come up to today's standards. Even in the event of adding bedrooms or something like that, as long as the system is working and not failing, it's allowed to continue. - 36 - "'--" - "--- --- MR. PALING-The house, and it's probably nothing repair the septic got a problem. access is very limited, on both sides of the only five foot on one. In advance, there's we can do, but when the day comes he's got to system, he's got to update it or ~hatever. he's MR. MARTIN-When was the last addition made to this structure? MR. ADAMO-The house was built in approximately 1958, and it was built as measured, and if it has a 3.19 side yard on one side and a 5.0 side yard on the other side, the south side or the north side, these are the existing block measurements from when the house was built in 1958. In 1958, on the 3.1 side, there was a garage, a one car garage, with a deck on top of the garage, a deck that you could come out of the house with and go on to the deck. That deck was enclosed in 1968, and that deck has a porch room and a bedroom that Mr. Dillon can look into from his house. That was completed in 1968, within the same confines of the side yard and the existing 3.19 side. ' MR. MACEWAN-But that side yard measurement of 3.19 side yard boundary line, to the block wall of the correct? is from the foundation, MR. ADAMO-Right. Al put down in his drawing approximately 4.5 because the Building Department wants the approximate, and we did not have a survey at that particular time when we submittedcthese plans, but it's been there since 1958. The footings have been there and the blocks have been there. MR. MACEWAN-If your septic system should fail, how do you access the back yárd? MR. ADAMO-Well, I'll go into that. First of all, we have a 1,000 gallon septic system that was r~done approximately five years, seven years ago, by Frank Bushey. It was redone when we took out our existing 500 tin box and we put in a concrete box of 1,000. MR. PALING-How did the trucks get in? MR. ADAMO-They got in through the back. property, I think, with permission at existing easement on that property that has to repair the water line. I don't easement would be able to be utilized if health situation with the septic system. goes across Mr. Dillon's property, and I feet wide, and that's in the Town, and surveys. The septic system is a 1,000 The !eaching field are more than 75 feet We crossed Mr. Dillon's that time. There's an the Tòwn of Queensbury know if that existing there was a damage to a That existing easement think it's at least 15 it should be on their gallon concrete septic. wide. MR. PALING-And what year was that done? I'm sorry? MR. ADAMO-I would guess in the last seven years. When we made this proposal, we went to the Building Department and I think it was Mr. Hatin and we asked them about the septic system, and we asked them what had to be done, and we got all the go aheads. That's why we went through with all these plans and everything. As far ~s the septic system; if we had to have it pumped out, we can pump it out, both sides, and run the hoses up through both sides. We're talking about catastrophe. Also, I want everybody to understand, while we utilized this house, lets say from '69 to until '80 on kind of a summer basis, since we were teachers and my children were young. In the last six years, we haven't utilized it, except being a summer camp,and that's what we hope it's still going to be ~ summer camp. What I'm looking for is some comfort so I can get away from my now adult kids and their kids, and up into my own room and have my own bathroom. That's all we want. We're sorry if we blocked off Mr. Carte's view of the marina down at 9L. We're very upset about that, but we don't - 37 - block off his view of Bolton Landing, and it's not to block anybody's view. All we'd like is a bathroom, and a conforming use now, when he nonconforming use, ladies and gentlemen, virtually Assembly Point is nonconforming use, because we years ago. our intention bedroom and a keeps saying every house on were built 30 MR. PALING~It's existing. There's no dispute on that. MR. ADAMO-And second of all, as far as the enclosed stairway goes, if you look at your plans, and we don't have a copy of the plans with us, the existing stairway, which we have doubts about. We went to talk to the Planning Department about it, because the existing stairway now goes out maybe, at it's closest, eight feet from the property line, because it's a front concrete stairway that goes up and onto a platform and into the front of the house, and it's probably on the plans. If we put in this enclosed stairway, it's right up against the house. We will then knock down the existing stairway that goes 12 or 13 feet in front of the house, and we'll go up, and we'll just have (lost word) and you'll be up against the house right to that first platform. MR. MACEWAN-But the difference between those two is the first one that you're talking about, you're existing situation, is more considerate of walkway steps to get to it. What you're now proposing to do is enclosing part of the building. So you're actually extending the footprint of the building. MR. ADAMO-Okay. If worse comes to worse, we'll keep the existing still. It's no problem with us. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's the only problem I see here, and this came in when I was on vacation. That enclosed stairway, as I see it right now, the existing edge of the deck, is it here, that's off the front. Is it 16 feet, from the edge of the road, Assembly Point Road? See off the southeast corner of the house, there's a deck that extends there, apparently, see it says existing first floor wood deck? MR. ADAMO-That's a cantilevered wood deck. MR. MARTIN-Right. So that's subject to the setback, and that's at 16 feet. As I see it, the enclosed stairway. MR. ADAMO-Would be within the confines of the wood deck. We would have to cut away a piece of that wood deck, but I think the enclosed stairway is ugly. That's an architect's dream, and I would just as soon be happy to keep the present stairs. MR. MARTIN-That's the only thing I can see that would violate the setback, as it juts out beyond the existing footprint of the house. MR. RUEL-Jim, is an open stairway part of the structure? MR. MARTIN-Anything that has elevatión, cantilevered deck, a part of the main structure. MR. RUEL-He's talking about an enclosed stairway. MR. MARTIN-Enclosed stairway, as part of the house, it would be subject to the setback. Anything that has mass and elevation on the property. MR. RUEL-Stairs are part of the principal structure? MR. MARTIN-Once you begin to rise out of the ground with a structure, it's subject to zoning. That's what zoning's intended to regulate. That's why, like for ex~mple, an at grade concrete patio is not subject to a setback or a driveway is not subject to - 38 - ~ '--' '--- ---- a setback. It's at grade and you can't see it as you look across the plane of the property, but any time you have a deck, shed, anything like that that has elevation, then that's subject to the zoning. What I'm saying is if he wants to pursue this enclosed staircase as shown on this plan, I was not here at the time, I would say that would be subject to a variance. MR. PALING-Okay, or else he's got to move back, within the deck. MR. MARTIN-And stay within the existing floor plan of the existing structure. MR. OBERMAYER-Or he can leave what he has. MR. ADAMO-May I ask a question? stairway, just leave it all, and presently, is that okay? If we use remove that the stairway enclosed I have MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-You're within the envelope of the building, yes. MR. ADAMO-Then I'd agree to that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I would just love to see one of those elevations, the front elevation. MR. HARLICKER-They're existing. It's what you saw when you went out there. MR. MARTIN-We only have the existing elevations. MR. HARLICKER-I thought we had proposed, but we don't. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. RUEL-It's very unusual, architecturally. I'm wondering what it looks like when you get the second story. MR. ADAMO-Well, I'd like it to look as conservative and as much like the house I have now as possible. I just have to chain the architect to the map table. MR. OBERMAYER-What is the reason for turning the addition 45 degrees to the existing house? MR. ADAMO-View. I'd like to see Dome Island. see the marina. I don't want to MRS. LABOMBARD-I have another question. You said the existing dwelling has a hip roof. That picture didn't look like a hip roof to me. That's what I don't understand. MR. ADAMO-That picture you saw of Mr. Carte, we have a hip roof. The side you're looking at is a flat side and then two sides, and then there's a garage where they covered the garage, there's another modified hip roof on that side. I did the roof myself, so I know it's a hip roof. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I'm just saying that those pictures, it just looked like a regular gabled roof. MR. ADAMO-We're proposing to put a hip roof on top of the existing room, the new room. MR. BREWER-I would just like to see elevations, too. this is terrible. I mean, MR. RUEL-It wouldn't do any good to There's nothing we can do about it. see an elevation drawing. We can't dictate how this - 39 - '- structure shall be built. MR. MACEWAN-Why not? MR. RUEL-I mean, if he wants to put it 45 degrees, he can do it. MR. BREWER-I don't care about the 45 degrees. I would just like to see what it looks like. I mean, could you tell that that's a house, without really knowing, Roger? MR. MARTIN-You're saying from the lowest point of the grade, the highest point of the house is going to be 24 feet? MR. PALING-No less than 26 is what I thought. MR. MARTIN-Twenty-six feet, because I just want to make sure we're understanding the same approach to the measurement here. The lowest point on the grade, around the structure, to the highest point on the house, is 26 feet. MR. HARLICKER-So the lowest grade is in front, where the garage entry is. That's what it's measured from. MR. BREWER-He's talking ground floor, is what he's talking about. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. When you measure elevation, it,'s taken from the lowest grade. For instance, we see these houses with a walkout basement facing the lake. Elevation is measured essentially from the bottom of the basement floor, up to the top of the roof. So, in this case, it would be measured from the entry level of the garage to the top of the roof. MR. ADAMO-But the entry level of the garage just leads to the garage. It doesn't lead to the house. MR. HARLICKER-Well, that's where the lowest grade is. That's where it's measured from. MR. RUEL-Well, it would be more than 24 feet. MRS. LABOMBARD-Three floors is 24 feet. MR. RUEL-No, it's more than that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, yes, with the floor joists. MR. HARLICKER-When you see these houses that are coming before you for site plan review, and they get them at variances also, generally, when you've got a walkout basement, a first floor and a second floor, they are pushing the maximum height allowed. MR. PALING-And that's what we're trying to clarify. MR. MACEWAN-I think I'm quickly I'd like to see an elevation of approval on it. getting into the position where this thing before I'd render an MR. MARTIN-On the existing elevation it shows the height of the structure, from the bottom of the garage to the top of the roof, at 18 feet 8 inches. So how much more is this addition going to add in height over your existing? MR. BOCCIA-We'd be adding an additional 8 feet 9 inches, or 8 feet 8 inches, and then, depending on the pitch of the roof, or if it's a flat roof, it would determine the ultimate height. MR. MARTIN-Well, I just simply want to know how high is it going to be to the ridge line? How much are you going to add to the ridge line? - 40 - ',,-, --- .'-.,,-- --- MR. BOCCIA-Well, it could be, the actual rise could be four feet to six feet. Basically, it's a design issue. MR. MARTIN-Right. adding to the top from the existing line? I'll ask it one more time. How much are we of the ridge line, over the existing structure, ridge line we have now to the proposed ridge MR. BOCCIA-Approximately 12 feet. MR. ADAMO-Ten to twelve feet. MR. MARTIN-All right. So you're looking at 28 to 30 feet. MR. HARLICKER-And the height limit is 35 feet. MR. BREWER-Now where are ~ measuring from, Jim? Are you measuring from down here, or are you measuring from up here? MR. MARTIN-No, down there. MR. PALING-You're measuring from the bottom of the basement floor. MR. HARLICKER-Lowest grade. MR. PALING-Lets just clarify, for the record, how you're measuring it and get compliance if they're within the. MR. MARTIN-We measured from the lowest point, the lowest grade on the lot, and that would be at the entrance to the garage door here. All right. So we're looking at, it indicates a height here from that point to the height of the existing ridge line, today's ridge line, 18 feet 8 inches. They're indicating they're going to add 8 to 10 feet on top of the existing structure. So that would give us a total of 26 to 28 feet 8 inches. MR. OBERMAYER-And 35 is the. MR. RUEL-So there's no problem there. MR. PALING-And you agree with Jim's arithematic? MR. BOCCIA-Yes, we would be within the Code. MR. PALING-So you're going to be under 30 feet? MR. BOCCIA-Easily. MR. PALING-Yes, but you've got to tell us, how high are you going to be? MR. ADAMO-Under 30 feet. MR. PALING-We're going tó get elevations from here on in. MR. ADAMO-We're going to submit all the elevations with the building permit. We're also going to submit detail prints. MR. MARTIN-Well, you have to understand, and I say this to people all the time, you're not building out in Kansas. You're building in the shores of Lake George. It's a whole different ball game, believe me. It's a whole different world, and you're not building out in the middle of a field. These are all issues that are relevant in this municipality. MR. ADAMO-I would like to say one thing, as an aside. I just went to contract to buy the house two houses to the south of me, Ben Brown's house. We'te in contract now, and I'm going to buy that house. If I had any intention of not living here, and - 41 - "-- loving Lake wouldn't be commercially. kid will have house, and I want. MR. BREWER-I'd George, as I've done for the last 35 years, I going into this project. I'm not doing it I'm doing it to leave to my kids. Okay. So one one house and the other kid will have the other just want a room with a bathroom. That's all I kind of like to see some elevations. MR. PALING-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-I don't want to see any elevations, but, frankly, I think that, architecturally, it is somewhat a little bizarre. Somewhat nonconforming with, perhaps, most of the buildings in the area. I know that we can't dictate to you just how to build it. You can make it octagon. You can make it circular, you know, all sorts of things, but, I, frankly, think it would have looked a lot better if the walls had been parallel with the existing structure. That's my only comment. MR. PALING-Okay. That's sort of an aside of that. I don't agree, but that's all right. Cathy? Yes. Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think that, as far as the stairs go, that has been resolved. You're not going to, we're not going to do any stairs, and this issue of the property line. I think Mr. Dillon has a good point there. If it's really four and a half feet, then it should be four and a half feet on the map, and sometimes it's not a bad idea to update our survey and our stakes, just for keeping good neighbors. good relationships with our neighbors, and I had a very difficult time, when I was presented with this, because I could picture your place in my mind, and then when I saw this, I was totally disheveled, as far as what I was looking at. I wish, in the future, if the applicants do have something that's a little more visually accurate, I'm sure it's accurate the way it is, but something that I can perceive. MR. MARTIN-I want to remind you, now, don't feel pressured to approve something, if you don't feel comfortable with the level of information you have tonight. Don't feel like you're obligated to approve an application on the first try. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, Jim, and these are the things that are on my mind. Maybe an updated survey map wouldn't be a bad idea, for all people involved, and I would like, to be honest with you, I would like to see an elevation. MR. RUEL-It won't help. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know, but I'd still like to see it. MR. PALING-Okay. Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Maybe this will help ease everybody's mind, or head us in the right direction. Our zoning book says that criteria for review of Type I, Type II Site Plans, which this is a Type I Site Plan. It has to fall under the requirements that are needed in 179-38, and in that Section it says, Section D, the project would not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historical or other suggestions in it. So for my peace of mind, I want to see an elevation of this thing and what it's going to look like, how it's going to impact the rest of the neighborhood, befo)"e I would render any kind of approval for this. The thing is that with people up there all along the lake front, nine out of ten people buy their property up there for one thing and one thing alone, that's to see the beauty of the lake and be able to see it, and when you have neighbors who are going to impact an addition, or undertake a project that could affect your aesthetic view of the lake that you spent a great deal of money to purchase, I think if I was in that situation, I would like to see some sort of compromise come - 42 - ',- -- -- around so that you can try to please everybody. Through the applicant's own admission, he's settin9 this thing at a 45 degree angle so he can see upwards, up north of the lake, without giving consideration to his Deighbors, and I really don't think that's fair, and we have it right here in the book that says that's one of the criteria we have to look at. MR. OBERMAYER-I, myself, don't see any issue with what the applicant has submitted. Even though the existing structure is nonconforming, there's really nothing that we can do to correct that situation as of now. A lot of the camps up there actually are nonconforming, as we have mentioned. A lot of them, probably the corners don't necessarily even sit on their own property line. I've seen those types of situations also. So, to mé, the applicant just wants to build an extension on top of his house. He is going to conform to all the zoning regulations, by height restrictions. If he wants to turn it 45 degrees so he gets a view of the lake, I think he's entitled to because he's the owner of the property. That's how I feel about it. MR. PALING-Okay. I have no quarrel with the addition being at 45 de9rees to the rest of the house, but I do have question as to what the final picture's going to look like. You can have it any degree you want, but if it's a structure such that it doesn't comply or conform with the neighborhood, then we have the right or the obligation to question it and perhaps ask you to change it. So I would like to see an elevation of this, and I assume it'll be at a 45 degree angle, and pleasing to the eye, and not in contradiction with the general architecture of the neighborhood, but I think you're all set to go, in my mind, with the exception, I'd like to see an elevation, a final of the building, myself. MR. BREWER-Can I ask the applicant tó tell me, you're Lot 21? MR. ADAMO-Yes. MR. BREWER-Which way does Lot 20, and I guess that would be 23, maybe. What way do they face? Does Lot 20 face the lake? Is that the gentlemen that spoke first? Is that his lot? MR. ADAMO-The gentlemen who spoke first owns 20 and the lot next to 20, and he owns the Lot 22. MR. BREWER-He owns lot 20 and the corner lot? MR. ADAMO-Yes, I think so. MR. BREWER-Which way do those houses face? Honeysuckle Lane, or do they face the lake? Do they face MR. ADAMO-They face Honeysuckle Lane and they face Sunset Lane. MR. BREWER-Okay. The other thing I wanted to know is, we're going to have him give us elevations, that's all well and good, but how are we going to know what you can see and what he's going to block and what he's not going to block? How are we going to know that? MR. PALING-Well, I think that you can tell just by the, just from what we've got here we can tell that, and that second story blends, I think, with the rest of the neighborhood, because at least one of yoUr neighborhood is two story now, and it doesn't seem that their primary views are being affected. Maybe a secondary or third view is, but not the primary, and so I just, I'd like to see an elevation. MR. BREWER-I would like to see one, also, but I'm just wond~ring how we're going to know what it blocks and what it doesn't block. - 43 - -- MR. OBERMAYER-Is everybody agreeing that we need to see an elevation, or have we reached an agreement on that? MR. ADAMO-We are not looking to block anybody's view. MR. PALING-Well, all they could do is submit an elevation, and we've been to visit it. We're going to have to'make a judgement. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's fine. MR. MARTIN-In the past, it has been able to, like I remember some attorneys have made presentations before the Board on lakeshore properties. They'll show lines of vision from neighboring properties, so you can project the line of view. MR. MACEWAN-We did one over on Brayton Lane. MR. BREWER-Exactly. I guess ~y point was how are we going to get those points of view? MR. MARTIN-Well, y00 have to plot the neighboring structures on each side, and then show a straight line angle, like from a corner of somebody's deck or front step, or their picture window or something like that, and see, you know, at what point does this cross the line of vision. MR. OBERMAYER-So what happens if he does cross a line of vision? Are we going to tell the gentleman that he can't build a second story addition onto his summer home? MR. MARTIN-No. Maybe you propose some modification. know, until you see it. I don't MR. PALING-Can't we do that, after having looked at the lot? MR. MACEWAN-Isn't there one on Brayton Lane up there in Cleverdale, about two years ago where that happened? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We get them more with variances. MR. RUEL-It seems that most of the Board has requested elevation view, and once you receive that, what will you do with this? MR. PALING-In my mind, what I'm doing is to see if that building looks like it's in conformance, generally speaking, with the rest of the neighborhood, the way the neighborhood is. MR. MARTIN-If that was a concern, something you might request, then, is for pictures of several houses up and down the route, to see how it blends. MR. PALING-Okay, but we've also visited up there, Jim, and I've got a pretty good idea what it looks like, what is there. MR. MARTIN-Okay. As long as you have a frame of reference. MR. RUEL-And if you look at this elevation and.you determine that it, in fact, does not agree with the neighborhood, then you're going to ask the applicant to change his plan? MR. PALING-Change his design, if it were that far off, sure. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-I doubt it'll be that way. MR. BOCCIA-I'd different phone Department and elevation, and I like calls visit could to mention something here. On three to the Building Department and the Zoning here, I asked if I needed a proposed tell you the names of the people who told - 44 - "-- -- / ~, me no. So, we're here tonight, after waiting a. long time to get approval, and now it sounds like we're in trouble because of these people who are major people in the Building Department and Zoning Department, told us ~ to present a proposed elevation, just to present the elevations of the existing, just to present proposed plan, and existing plan. The point is that we were willing to do this, but were told it was not required. MR. PALING-I hear what saying not to do it, before, and have asked make an elevation. you're saying. I can't visualize someone because we have been in this situation for elevation and the applicant's had to MR. ADAMO-One of the reasons was we came in thinking we needed a variance or two variances, and we went through it and we went through it again, visiting at the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. They told us we didn't need a variance because of the amount of the addition and because of the cantilevering in the front that little tiny deck whi¿h went out less than one foot. We met wi th all the requi rements that~ they gave us, and we did the plans over several times, and we've come here with plans that were recommended from the Building Department and whoever else we talked to. MR. BOCCIA-We sat down in preview meeting and there were no objections. It was looked at by the Building and Codes Department, and it was looked at by the Zoning Department here, and there were no objections. As a matter of fact, they said approval. MR. PALING-Okay. What you're saying may well be. However, what Craig has read to you earlier is also, it's the Town Ordinance, and it's what we're obligated to go by, regardless of what may have happened. I'm sorry if anything did. MR. MARTIN-Well, I want to say something here as a Staff person. We don't look into a crystal ball and know what six or seven individuals on a Zoning Board or Planning Board are going to want to see. That's why this Board exists. We do our best to tell every applicant that comes in our office what may be expected and what is required. , Now if ,these six people see a particular application and want some further information, they're the decision makers. We're not, and they're entitled to do that, and the Town shouldn't be made to feel like we're being unreasonable hère, if some people on this Planning Board want a little extra information. I can't see every piece of information that's going to be necessary in every application. MR. OBERMAYER-I'd just like to make a comment also, though, that the Planning Office did send a notice to file that the second story, the location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs, Item Number One, "the second story addition would be compatible with the two adjacent houses and would not be out of character for the neighborhood. No new lighting or signage is proposed." And that was a note to file that the Planning Staff has submitted. MR. HARlICKER-That's Staff comments. MR. BREWER-That's his comment, though. opinion. That's not our opinion. I mean, that's his MR. RUEL--Yes. Naturally that's the what he's going to put down. MR. PALING-Let me ask a question. We have another meeting, a week from tonight. Could you have an elevation drawing done prior to that meeting that could be submitted? Is this okay, that we could put you back on, just table this, with your permission, get a look at the elevation, and then decide on it next week? - 45 - -- - MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I think dealing with Lake George, doesn't mean that we would I think that's it all in a you're doomed. the bottom line here is, again, wè're and just because it's not required, not like some additional information. nutshell, and that doesn't mean that MR. MACEWAN-I think it should also be clear to the applicant that this is not a pick on you scenario. In our review process over a number of applications we've had from people up around the lake, we've have, in past practice on some occasions have asked people to modify their site plans to help lessen obstruction of views from neighboring properties. That's not to say that this is what our decision will be or we'll even arrive at that. What we're asking for is just an elevation so that we can see and we can compare our notes. That's all we're asking for. MR. MARTIN-The comment cannot be taken lightly enough that I see this all the time, people undertaking development on the lakeshore get very frustrated, but I'm telling you it's a whole different ball game. There's a lot more standards. There's a lot more scrutiny, by the nature of the area, the property values that are involved. It just becomes a much more intensely scrutinized project, and that's just the way it is. MR. MACEWAN-Off the top of my head, I can think of three applications in the last year and a half that elevation has become a factor in building up around the lake. Two were over on Brayton Lane, and one was over on Assembly Point. MR. RUEL-I have asked for them repeatedly, and I was told it's not necessary. MR. PALING-We'll put anything else that elevation? on the top, elevation drawing. Is there the rest of the Board wants besides an MR. RUEL-I just have one comment for Mr. Adamo, a plan that perhaps we could even eliminate this elevation plan. If you agree to build a structure with parallel lines with the bottom structure, instead of having it on a 45 degree angle, and then built yourself a gabl~ or a picture window out front, a bay window, that Would give you the views that you're looking for at both angles. MR. OBERMAYER-That's conforming, but according to your taste, okay, Roger. MR. RUEL-No, I'm not talking about taste. views. He was looking for MR. ADAMO-I'll tell you what I'm looking for, and we've been doing this for over two years. First of all, my father has owned this property since 1958. We have lived in this house since 1969. I have lived in this house. Prior to that, my father and Mrs. Lawson back here owned that house jointly from 1959 to 1969, when I took it from my father. I'm looking for a room, a bathroom and a deck where I can finish out the twilight of my life. I am not looking to embarrass anybody. I'm not looking to block anybody. I love Lake George. I've been coming here since 1954, and I want to continue to come here. I was a City Councilman in Yonkers for 12 years. I was on the Zoning Board for 15 years. I know all kinds of situations. I want to conform. I want as easy as possible to meet all the requirements and the specifications. That's why we've gone through this project for two years. Now if it looks, like we're going to get tied up for another couple of months, I just want to get in before the snows. MR. PALING-Okay. Roger, you have rendered your opinion. - 46 - '-- -- ~ ~- MR. RUEL-AII I'm saying is that if he built something that would conform with the first story, okay, then there probably would be no need for everyone requesting an elevation plan. MR. BREWER-But he didn't, Roger. I would also, Bob, like some view lines, if we could get them. MR. PALING-OkàY. One more time, lets go around once, okay. MR. BREWER-Elevation and the view lines. MR. PALING-Elevation and the view lines you're asking for. Okay. MR. RUEL-No elevation, because even if I have an elevation, I'm going to look at it and it's at 45 degrees, and apparently there's nothing I can do about it. So there it is. That's it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I~m not going to say anything. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't want to see anything. I'm satisfied with what the applicant has' submitted. MR. MACEWAN~I'd concur with Tim. MR. PALING-Okay. I'm in favor of elevation only. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm already down for that. MR. PALING-You want elevations. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I thought we were adding on to our comments p,-eviously. MR. PALING-Okay. Where I think it's headed is that we're going to ask for an elevation. We're going to table it and ask for an elevation. We'll put you on for next week, but we must have your permission to table this motion. Now, if you want, we can put it to a motion, or you can comment on that. MR. BOCCIA-Well, it's logistics. I have a vacation coming up. I'll have to do some juggling before I would know if I can, in fact, do the drawing and be here. When I face architectural review boards, it's a totally different can of beans than what you people are into, because most of these people are professionals trained to evaluate architecture, but the amount of work that it would take, I have to evaluate it. MR. ADAMO-We'll be here next Wednesday night. MR. BREWER-Tuesday. MR. PALING-Do you give us permission to table this? MR. ADAMO-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-One other thing. We've got to have at least a day to see this elevation before, I don't want to walk in here Tuesday night at 7 o'clock and see it. Maybe you do. I don't. Maybe Monday could we get it? Is that a problem if we got it Monday and got it delivered, Jim? MR. MARTIN-We can deliver it. MR. PALING-Could you get it to us Monday? MR. OBERMAYER-We're not asking you, I don't think, for all architectural details. We would just like an outline of what it looks like. - 47 - " --' MR. BOCCIA-All right. That's good. What would you like to see? What are you looking to see? MRS. LABOMBARD-We don't need the blueprints. We just need an architectural's rendering of the design, I mean of the elevation. MR. BOCCIA-Because this is a highly opinionated circumstance. MR. RUEL~Not a rendering, just a sketch. MR. HARLICKER-Excuse me. This is what he submitted for existing. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I think that would be fine. MR. PALING-This is fine. That kind of thing, just an outline drawing, and we know what kind of roof you've got. We know what the dimensions are. We know where the windows are, that kind of thing. MR. HARLICKER-Something similar to what was done with the existing. MR. OBERMAYER-A nice conceptual drawing. MR. BOCCIA-All right. So we'll settle with a simple line drawing, no color shadings? MR. BREWER-No. We don't need colo)- and all that. MR. BOCCIA-And just the front elevation? MRS. LABOMBARD-No, we've got to have the side elevations if you're dealing with a 45 degree angle structure. MR. BREWER-Yes, front and side. MR. RUEL-The side's going to look just like the front. MRS. LABOMBARD-Roger, you don't know. You haven't seen it. MR. PALING-We need a drawing like that, but it's got to show us the side view also. MR. BREWER-And, for what it's worth, view lines. MR. BOCCIA-By Monday I can't (lost word). MR. PALING-Okay. I don't want, two only asked for that, so I'm going to leave it out. MR. BOCCIA-I think that, since you're only going to see the front of the house, and a front elevation will reveal the element of the 45 degrees quite adequately. You will see everything that's there. It's just going to be slightly shortened. MR. OBERMAYER-Is that okay with YOu guys? MR. BREWER-Front and side. MR. MACEWAN-Why? If and the addition's 45, addition. you're showing a front you're going to see view of the house, two sides of the MR. OBERMAYER-Right. You're going to see it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Well, that's what I wanted to make sure. MR. RUEL-The side view would be the same, no different. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't want you to think I'm being picky, because - 48 - '-' -- ',,-- ,,,,,,/' we had, I just want to say this. We had a situation where we had a piece of lakefront property on an area lake, and we got into the whole septic system. They were expanding the place, tripling, well, doubling it's size anyway, and they were, the septic field and the septic system was adequate for the basic minimum, and when the person came back with his second drawings, and he didn't have to do this, he was thinking into the future, and this person upgraded the septic system, even though he didn't have to. So being a lake resident myself, I could have gotten on that issue. Hel-e you're doing all this renovation and you have a minimum septic system on other Codes that were past Çodes. I mean, we could have gotten on that. So I don't want you to think that we're nitpicking on this. I mean, the lake is a wonderful lake, and I think that, 10 years from now, 15 years from now, I would hate to have our successors look back and say, boy, that Board of 1995, they really let some things slip, and that's where we're staying. MR. ADAMO-Well, I don't think you have to worry about that, because I love the lake as much as you do, and I also know that even if we got it turned down with a variance, we would go to court and we'd win our case in court. Now we don't want any aggravation, because I hate lawyers as much as I hate architects. All I want is a bedroom with a bathroom. I don't want any lawyers. I don't want any architects. I hate them all. If this guy doesn't have it done next week, you won't see him. MR. PALING-Before the motion goes, I'd like to say, the public hearing, we're going to re-open the public hearing, so that people can return. They've got to have , a chance to comment on what the structure looks like. MR. MARTIN-So you're going to leave it open, leaving it open? MR. PALING-I closed it, but I'm going to re-open it. public hearing is re-opened. So the MR. BOCCIA-This is a problem. We're talking aesthetics here. I mean, it's philosophical. You could be bringing people from anywhere to decide what is architecture and what isn't architecture. I ~ould walk around that neighborhood and really turn up a storm. MR. PALING-I don't think you'll find us that picky. MR. BOCCIA-Okay then, if that's the case, then, fine. MR. ADAMO-The public hearing should be closed. It should be closed. It was closed. MR. BOCCIA-I don't need a public hearing, people coming in taking pot shots, that they don't understand. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree with you, there. hearing should be closed. I think the public MR. PALING-All right. The public hearing is re-opened. MR. ADAMO-I took a trip up here of 230 miles to be up in this area tonight. I don't want to come up to a hearing and then another public hearing two weeks from now, not for one bedroom and one bathroom. I'd rather leave it at the hands of others. I mean, a public hearing was held. Everybody who could avail themselves, availed themselves, and when people complain about a side yard that was there for 30 some years, another side yard that was there for 30 some years, inadequate reading of the plans, to discuss the enclosed stairway. We're willing to do everything possible, but I'm not going to perpetuate my own misery and go on for public hearing after public hearing after public hearing. I have a feeling about public hearings, having - 49 - ..- -- sat in a million of them. I think the public hearing should be first. Then the comments by all the people and the members of the Board should come second, but I go along with whatever the procedure is. However, I don't want the public hearing to be re- opened. It's not my recommendation. MR. PALING-All right. I'm going to poll the Board. MR. MACEWAN-Leave it open. Boa)"d, Bob. You don't even have to poll the MR. OBERMAYER-I don't see any reason to open it again. Everybody has had comments on it. MR. BREWER-I think it's only fair, that the practice of this Board is if t~e pu~lic is here,and they ~ant to ~pe8k, ~e have an obI igation,tp listen to them. , MR. PALING-So ~òG~re ~~ying, re-open ,it? II'" MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-No, don't re-open it. We had it tonight. MRS. LABOMBARD-I abstain. MR. PALING-I say re-open it. MR. BREWER-Bob, I would just like to add one other point. We're sitting here a~ Board members tonight, asking for something to look at that we're not sure ourselves about. The people that live there haven't seen it, either. MR. PALING-I agree with you. That's why we're re-opening the public hearing. Th~ public hearing is re-opened. PUBLIC HËARING OPEN MR. SCHACHNER-It's moot now, but in my opinion, that's very appropriate for one simple reason, and that is that you've asked the applicant to provide additional information in support of the application, and as a general rule, if you've asked for additional information, especially if that information could be deemed material information, which I think you're asking for an elevation because you feel it could be material, then it's very appropriate to allow the public the opportunity to comment on the additional information. MR. PALING-And I think we should ask anybody that's going to comment to be reasonable, and your comments should really be based on the changes, not on setbacks or what we've already discussed. MR. SCHACHNER-You can ask the public comments, to the extent possible, to be appropriate to the additional information you've requested, but it's very appropriate to allow that public comment. MR. PALING-Okay. So the public hearing is re-opened. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 38-95 FRANK ADAMO. JR., Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 1995, by the following vöte: MR. SCHACHNER-And, technically, what you're going to do is continue the public hearing. MR. PALING-All right, yes, and the public hearing will be - 50 - '-- -' ---, "'--, continued. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Ruel ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. You'll be on next week. first, if at all possible. We will put you on MR. ADAMO-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I COLGATE PHILLIPS ESTATE/LEIGH BEEMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR- lA, C.E.A., APA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 12.68 ACRE LOT INTO 4, 1 ACRE LOTS AND ONE 8.57 LOT WITH RESIDENCE TO BE RETAINED BY OWNER. TAX MAP NO. 12-3-27 LOT SIZE: 12.68 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN CAFFREY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No'. 8-1995 Preliminary Stage, Colgate Phillips Estate/Leigh Beeman, Meeting Date: July 18, 1995 "This is a simple 4 lot subdivision with a remaining 8.27 acre lot. The four new lots will all access off of Hillman Road. The rear yard setback will be maintainéd as a 20 foot vegetated buffer. The remaining 8.27 acre lot will remain as it is. The applicant has indicated that there are no immediate plans for future development or subdivision of the larger parcel. Each lot will be serviced by on site septic and water. The one acre lots meet the dimensional requirements of the zoning cQde .nd would be in character with the existing lot sizes in the area. The proposed subdivision will have minimal impact on the road system and even though it is zoned waterfront residential, the subdivision should not have an impact on the lake." MR. PALING-Okay. What other communication do we have on this? Coulter & McCormack. Have you got this Coulter & McCormack letter? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, there were a couple of letters that were part of the application. MR. PALING-Okay. Should they be read into the public record? MR. HARLICKER-They aren't really public comment. The first one. Okay. We could read them. "At sketch plan review, Scott Harlicker of your office inquired about my plans for the remainder of the property. The property is currently owned Jointly by myself and the estate of my late father, Dr. Colgate Phillips, of which I am the executor. Following approval of the subdivision, it is my intention to convey the estates interest of the remaining 8.27 acre lot, which includes the existing dwellings and accessory structures. I have no plans, at this time, to sell the property or further subdivide it., It is anticipated that the aréa between the present develo~ed~rei and the four proposed new lots would act as a buffer area, and would not preclude the possibility of later sale of all or part of the property. Also, as we stated at the sketch plan review meeting, the four proposed lots will have no lake access rights whatsoever. Pursuant to, A183-47 of the Town Code, I request a waiver of the requirements for a clearing plan, a grading plan, an erosion control plan and drainage report. As shown on the map and the proposed covenants and restrictions, clearing of the - 51 - '-- existing brush will be prohibited within 20 feet of the rear line of the property. However, the vegetation is virtually all brush and there are few, if any, substantial trees on the property. The remainder of the lots will presumably be cleared by the purchasers for construction of the dwellings and septic systems, as well as lawn areas. I do not intend to undertake any such development or clearing myself. Four lots will be sold to individuals who will construct the dwellings. Regarding the grading, erosion control and drainage plans, these do not seem to be necessary on the site. As shown on the subdivision map, the site is essentially flat, and to the extent that it does slope, it slopes away from Cleverdale Road and Hillman Road, so that drainage would be contained on the property. At their closest point, the new lots are approximately 340 feet from Lake George. It can be assumed that the runoff leaving the site, if any, would all be percolated into the ground long before it reached the lake or any nearby residences. No new roads will be constructed. I'm open to suggestions from the,Board and the Planning Staff as to conditions that might be imposed on the lot that would further reduce the need for drainage facilities. Accordingly, it is my opinion and that of Tom McCormack of Coulter & McCormack, and my attorney, John W. Caffrey, that this particular plat ,meets the requirements of Section 183-47, that there are ~pecial circumstances, and that meeting these requirements is not required in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare. Sincerely, Leigh Beeman" And the other attachment is just a proposed list of the covenants and restrictions. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MRS. BEEMAN-I'm Leigh Beeman. MR. CAFFREY-I'm John Caffrey. MR. PALING-Okay. Scott, erosion, drainage, clearing that? their and so request about a on, how do you waiver for feel about MR. HARLICKER-I don't have a problem with that. MR. PALING-You don't have a problem with that. Okay. All right. What kind of questions have you got? MR. RUEL-With the proposed covenants and restrictions, Items 7 and 11 are identical. MR. CAFFREY-We can remove one of them. MR. RUEL-Just a question for the Chairman. and restrictions be part of this? Will the covenants MR. MACEWAN-Yes. Part of the approval? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-We have in the past. MR. OBERMAYER-It's probably going to be part of the deed, anyway. MR. RUEL-If it's part of the deed, then it doesn't have to be part of the. MR. MARTIN-It can be either way, as far as I understand it. Right, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, or both, often both. MR. RUEL-Or both? Okay. - 52 - '",--, -- ,-.,/' "- MR. MARTIN-If there's covenants and restrictions, we usually staple them to the plat in the office. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, we've done that in the past. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. I don't have any question on this, either one. We have a will require a, you said Type I. Do comments you'd like to pass on? We seem here. particular comments or public hearing, and this you have any particular to be moving right along MR. CAFFREY-Not unless you have questions. We basically outlined it when we were here for sketch plan. So unless there's any further questions. When the hearing's completed, we'll respond to any questions. MR. PALING-All right, then we'll open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL GAZELY MR. GAZELY-My name is Bill 'Gazely, and I live on Hillman Road. First of all, I'd like to say how delighted I am to have heard all these laudatory expressions for our beautiful Lake George, and this is where I am concerned, and I think I heard most of what you said in that letter, but I didn't hear it all, but I heard some of it, in reference to the drainage, and the runoff, and the fact that the runoff would stay on those four lots. Well, I have to tell you, my land is immediately west of the four lots, and it goes, four, three, two, one up to Cleverdale Road. I have to have a sump pump in my basement. In the spring time, it's on some times as much as six weeks, constantly, because the drainage is coming down off the ridge up there, depending on how much snow we get in the winter, of course, and I can't, it's hard for me to believe that those one acre lots are going to be able to absorb all that, especially if you're taking four acres of heavy brush and several number of trees, and I would like some assurance that the removal of all that brush and those trees is not going to increase the amount of drainage that's going to come flowing down. I think that's about, that's my main concern. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Where does most of the water come from? MR. GAZELY--It's off the ridge on the other side, on the east side of Cleverdale Road. Snow accumulates up there and it runs down toward the lake, and it's going to run right across his properties, too. I've had to put in a 1,000 gallon cement drywell toward the lake from where my house is. My house is not on the lake directly. The pipe lead from this trap in the corner of the basement, where the tile goes around for the surface water, well I guess it's groundwater, and it would collect in there, and I had a couple of inches of water in the basement. So that's when I got a sump pump. Put the sump pump in there. Still had trouble pumping out. Got this 1,000 gallon drywell put in, running pipe down and they ran a hose down, and everything ran right down in there, and the next spring, th~ water was backing up. That's how high the water table is. The water was pumping right into my cellar. MR. MACEWAN-This was after last winter? MR. GAZELY-No, the winter before. I didn't have to use it at all, Last winter, this past spring, but I solved the problem by - 53 - -' capping the damn thing. It doesn't take any water out, but it doesn't pump a whole lot of water in my cellar. MR. OBERMAYER-There's a lot of clay up there, isn't there? MR. GAZELY-That's a good point. It's clay and shale. I kind of wondered about the water supply. I talked to Leigh. I tried to drill a well. We went down over 500 feet. We didn't get any more than 10 gallons a minute, and we're as high in coliform count. MR. OBERMAYER-You know what they're proposing to put raised beds, I guess, for even the septic system. what the letter said, because of the clay. in, like Isn't that MR. RUEL-Yes, they had a problem. MR. OBERMAYER-A problem with the percolation rate ground. So it's probably surface, probably a hard pan that runs right on top of the hard pan. going into the (lost word') and MR. GAZELY-You ought to try to dig a hole. MR. OBERMAYER-I know. MR. GAZELY-Or plow a garden. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. GAZELY-Okay. MR. PALING-Yes. Thank you. Anyone else? JULIA BARBER MRS. BARBER-I'm Julia Barber, and unfortunately, I'm hard anything they said about where lots, where they were going explaining that to me? and I live next to the Phillips, of hearing. So I didn't hear they were going to take the extra to put them. Would you mind MR. PALING-We can show you. What street is she on? MRS. BARBER-Hillman Road. MR. CAFFREY-It's the one Shuttenhelm. These lots you. that shows on are over here. the lot as Lot They're not even 39, near MRS. BARBER-Thank you. MR. PALING-You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, sir, would you like to come up? ART BUCKLEY MR. BUCKLEY-My name's Art Buckley, and I live at the base of Hillman Road, as it comes down Cleverdale Road, and I was flooded out completely. Now I've got an eight foot basement, that's eight foot high and it runs 39 by 34, and I had three feet of water in that basement, twice in one night! It overwhelmed by drainage system because the drainage up there is completely and totally inadequate. It was worse then that it is now, but we've finally got the department up here, and that night, at two o'clock in the morning, with his road crew, and putting in a ten or twelve inch drainage pipe, but at that time, the drain, the catch basin, which by the way is half on my property without my permission, overflooded. We had a lot of rain, but water came down off those hills, just bubbled right up out of the catch basin, and it was that high coming out of the catch basin. They - 54 - '-" -- ~ "---" were digging a trench across there at that time to put underground electrical service into my home. The water worked it's way down through there, unde,'neath the footings, and flooded out my þasement. Now they put in a drainage system, it goes right out into my basin where we s~im, and where we take our drinking water, our domestic water. No one will change it. No one will even listen to me, and I sit right down, just below Takundewide, and that was a primary problem. The original (lost word) that we had there, one spring, we had a foot of water inside the can, and it filled, underneath the camp, 18 inches, and put a foot of mud, left a foot of mud inside the door. The water system is completely inadequate. I don't know what the devil (lost word) is going to do about it, but anything comes down that hill, or off those mountains, off that hill east of Cleverdale Road, will wind up in my basement or in my yard. MR. PALING-Sir, could you show us where you are on the map, please. MR. BUCKLEY-Well, does it show Hillman Road? Well, I live on the southwest corner. MR. PALING-Okay. You're off this print. MRS. LABOMBARD-Then you're on this side of the road, over here, that's not on the map. Here's Gazely. MR. BUCKLEY-This is Temkins? Well, that's their water system. Okay. Then, who is this right here? MR. PALING-Estelle Stewart. MR. BUCKLEY-Well, I live right over here. This is Hillman Road over here. I'm on this side over here. Now, there's a catch basin here. Half of it's on my property, and it goes from there across the road. Then it runs parallel to the road, into another catch basin, then it comes diagonally across the road into another catch basin, and it empties out into my swimming area. MRS. LABOMBARD-Did you have all this water this year? MR. BUCKLEY-Two years ago. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, spring of '94. MR. BUCKLEY-I lost a $3500 freezer, refrigerator in the basement, my electric furnace, oil burner. I lost that. I lost four electric tools. MRS. LABOMBARD-So you had all this terrible water, spring of '94. How were you in the spring of '93, and the rest of the years? MR. BUCKLEY-Well, I've had a sump pump working. It worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I have water that cOhtinually flows underneath my basement 24 hours a day, up until recently, and the three springs on my property have gone dry. I have three springs on my property, and all that empties right into my basin, my swimming basin right here. I mean, if you cut those trees out of there, you cut that brush out of there, I'll be inundated. MRS. LABOMBARD-But there's not that many trees. There's is a lot of brush, but there aren't many trees. MR. BUCKLEY-The brush is even better than the trees, because a tree will only hold so much water. MR. RUEL-They wouldn't be cutting everything down. percent. Probably 30 MR. BUCKLEY-Well, 30 percent would put me in one heck of a fix. - 55 - - - I can tell you right now. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. BUCKLEY-You're welcome. STUART TEMKIN MR. TEMKIN-Stuart Temkin. I'm Art Buckley's neighbor, just this end of Hillman Road, or that part of Hillman Road. I'm just part year, I'm here six months of the year. It seems to me that several people here have suggested that there'$ a real water problem. Bill Gazely just said it, and these are year round residents, and one of the measurements that you have is the environmental impact, and it seems to me that before this could be approved, somebody should do a study to see where this water's going to go when trees are removed, when 30 percent of the trees are removed, and have an impact study to see how we can better handle that. Now, I have no problem letting someone get the best use of their property, but not at somebody else's expense. So, can you ask for, or I don't know what the procedure is to get an impact study, an independent impact study. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. like to comment on this? Is there anyone else that ~ould KATHLEEN ENGLAND MRS. ENGLAND-Kathleen England, Hillman Road. I concur completely with both Mr. Temkin and Mr. Gazely and Mr. Buckley. We have had water problems. We tried to put a septic system in. It was unbelievable, and finally we had to hire an engineer to design one for us, and mostly it was drainage from the mountain that's behind Cleverdale country road, and we are clay, shale, and most of the water that goes into the basin goes down over toward the lot, the Buckleys, and comes right into Lake George, Any time we have a storm, it drains right down. It's unbelievable. It goes right into Lake George. It's shocking, and I think the Town should be aware of what is happening there, and now to take any more brush or, I don't know what, trees, or anything that would keep the water from coming, we'll be inundated along that lake, and the lake will be inundated, by storm. I mean, what will happen? Something has to be done, if there is property to be developed, I don't care how many acres or whatever, something has to be done about the drainage. Drainage will not be percolated on any lot behind the Gazely's, between Cleverdale country road and the Gazely property. Thank you. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mrs. England, may I ask you a question? When you had the engineer design your system, is it working well? Is it adequate? MRS. ENGLAND-The system? Yes. It's a mound. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now, my question is, have any of yoU," neighbors had an engineer come in and do their systems for them? MRS. ENGLAND-I believe, yes. Jeff Smith, who the Temkins bought, yes. I think, when this was already designed, but the expense wa outrageous. I mean, $26,000 for a mound is crazy, and now to have to have developments behind us and all is outrageous, and to have all this coming into the lake, and now you're saying all this drainage will be percolated on the lot. I wrote that down, because you're 240 feet from the lake, since the property is level or even with, it's not right. Somebody has to come in and look at this property, an environmental engineer or something. MRS. LABOMBARD-Can I give you a little fact. I understand your concern. I just read this in the Post Star, in the past couple of weeks, because everybody's worried about the drought, that the - 56 - --- ---- ,--,' '--- area that drains the Lake George basin is five times larger an area than the lake itself, and that's why there wasn't too much of a concern, because one inch of rain in our area can cause the level of the lake to go up four to five inches. That's what, I mean, the lake is drained by an incredible large area. I'm aware of that. So your point's well taken. MRS. ENGLAND-Yes. MR. PALING-Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. Then the public hearing will be closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-I think, would Staff want to comment on any of what we've just been hearing? MR. OBERMAYER-Are there any engineering comments or anything? MR. MARTIN-I think the Board has a couple of options available to it. You could have a drainage report done. You could refer this application on to Rist-Frost, and the other thing that might be appropriate here is to have some deep test pits dug, and have them looked at by a Soil Engineer to see if you run into any mottling or anything like that, and see what we see for a, it's the worst time of the year to be digging test pits, especially in this current year, but a Soil Scientist could tell you what the seasonal high groundwater has been, due to mottling and soil and that type of thing. So there have been, I know, waivers requested for these types of things, but in this particular case, it might be warranted to send this off to Rist-Frost and have that type of work done. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. CAFFREY-I wish some of the people who had been commenting could see the plans. Maybe they went to the Town and saw them or not, but if you look at the contours on the property, first of all you see that this part is virtually flat and, second of all, most of the people who were talking, who said they've had flooding in their basement, are located where they would not be affected by the drainage from this site. The drainage generally flows northwesterly, and does not flow, in any respect at all, toward, I think it's Mr. Buckley, nor toward the Temkin property, and not even toward the England property. It generally goes across the remaining property of the applicant's and also the Peters' property. MR. MACEWAN-Where do you base the information on that the drainage moves in a northwesterly direc~ion? MR. CAFFREY-If you look at the contours, you have to assume that water's going to flow downhill, and I'm not an engineer, but. MR. OBERMAYER-It depends on what the borings, if yOU had soil borings dohe and test pits, groundwater. You're not ~ure of what elevation shale is at. MR. CAFFREY-What they're talking about, though, sounds like surface water runoff coming off the roads, which is the Town's problem, and the problem area is to the east, and not necessarily anything that's going to be affected by this property here. Second of all, it's not as if we're going to pave these lots, okay. When you replace trees and such with grass, it's not really going to affect the drainage at all, the percolation. As far as soil tests, there is a letter in your file from Coulter & McCormack. They have done soil tests, and everywhere, once you get down to two or three feet, you hit clay, and I think it's virtually an impermeable (lost word), but above that, the upper layer of the soil, the top 14 inches or so, is a dark brown, - 57 - - loamy soil, and has what I think are fairly high perc rates. Maybe your Staff can look at that and tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe that, for the most part, the rain that falls on this site will percolate on these lots into that upper layer of the soil, and then proceed through the soils, just as it always did. I don't think that it's going to cause any drainage or runoff onto these other properties. I think if you were going to pave these and put in a parking lot, I'd be very concerned if I were the Peters' property or (lost words) but these are going to be houses with d,-iveways and mostly lawn, and based on the soil test from Coulter & McCormack, I think it's just going to percolate back pretty much on the sites, and it's not steep. So it's going to tend to move slowly and percolate in rather than run right off, and I don't think that this is going to contribute to the problems that these people have been having. Maybe your Staff has, certainly, some background on these types of issues, but I don't think it will be a problem. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question to Staff. We're talking about 45,000 square foot lots, approximately, but what about that 10 percent, what I read in the paper ab6ut the 10 percent, the dwelling that can be constructed isn't supposed to be, in other words, would we allow a monster dwelling on one of these lots, like 4500 square feet? MR. MARTIN-The proposal that's currently being looked at is setting up a floor area ratio that would, right now it's at 10 percent total floor area of all buildings on the site, the ratio to the lot area. So, in this case, if you have, essentially, one acre lots, you're looking at 4300 square feet of overall building area. That's area in the garage, sheds, first and second floors of the dwelling, all that, a total. MRS. LABOMBARD-But that's counting the garage, too, which could be 800 square feet. MR. MARTIN-I think it would be warranted to take, you know, in my view, to take a more detailed view of this, have a drainage report done, have Rist-Frost look at it, because the drainage report will take into account how much of the area is going to be vegetated, what type of soils there are, an estimated or assumed amount for building area, and that'll all be considered at a drainage report. That's what it does, and you'll see what the effect will be. The other thing that might be a good idea is to indicate some special grading, maybe some berming around the edge of the property here between the properties to the west and that type of thing, stipulate eaves trenches at the 'eaves to catch water off the roof. There's all sorts of things that can be done here that aren't very expensive but will give us a better picture of what we're looking at here and also the practical, straightforward ways to mitigate any potential for impact to neighboring properties. MR. OBERMAYER-Wouldn't that be like a stormwater Management plan, what we would want to look at, too? MR. MARTIN-Right. There's some practical things that can be done, berming of the site, berming or raised mounds along the edge of the property so water cannot drain off the site, and it could be done in an aesthetically pleasing way. I mean, you can grass the area or plant it. Those are all things that could be done, and should be looked at, I would think. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now who would initiate an EIS? MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't know that you're talking about an EIS. I mean, I think there's a lot of investigation that can be done and work here that would be short of an EIS. I think a drainage report. There may be some deep test pit tests, review by a Soil Engineer, all those types of things may be appropriate. - S'~- --. -- ~ ~... MR. MACEWAN-When you forward this information on, if we should decide to do that, and send it off to Bill MacNamara, does he also receive a copy of the minutes of the meetin~, so that he can kind of see what the concerns are from the neighborhood? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We could furnish him that, yes. That would be no problem. Because, see, as standard practice, when subdivisions involve five or fewer lots, we don't usually send them off, trying to, they're generally not an issue, these types of things, but I think in this particular case, you may have some extenuating circumstances here. I mean, we're trying to keep the cost down to the applicant, but on the other hand, we want to make sure we do a thorough review. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we all feel about the same, regarding this. Let me ask one other question. Now, lets say that we refer this to Rist-Frost and this is done. Is there any other questions that we have? I think all of the questions that were raised will be the Bill MacNamara kind of things ~o answer. I didn't detect anything beyond that, and I don't see anything, in my own mind, beyond that, either. MR. 08ERMAYER-It'll be nice to be able to see on the map a little more detail on where the culverts do exist, just so we can get a flavor for the stormwater management. MR. MARTIN-The people are right. I've seen this area. There's a series of, I think it's five catch basins that are interconnected along Hillman Road here to the south, and the one does ultimately drain directly into the lake. By the way, that was requested by Mrs. Locke years ago. There was a big war, I understand, about having that pipe installed to the lake, but it was done at her request, and those are all interconnected, and the funny thing about these things is there's one right there on the corDer, right next to the Temkins' septic mound. It's a perforated catch basin. So probably, I wouldn't want to drink the water out of ~ catch basin. I'll tell you that. MR. PALING-All right. Well, then I think what we're looking at is tabling this motion. MR. MARTIN-It's up to the Board, but those would be my suggestions. MR. MACEWAN-Fine. MR. OBERMAYER-I'd like to see a Stormwater Plan. MR. PALING-Management Plan, right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I think the four different areas that Jim mentioned were excellent, drainage report, a special grading, stormwater management, maybe suggesting berming, anything like that, but we have to get a report first. Yes. MR. RUEL-I'd go along with Jim's comments. MR. BREWER-D~'ainage report first, and then we can have some kind of a landscape or stormwater control plan. MR. PALING-Could they not be done at the same time? MR. BREWER-Well, depending on what the drainage report tells you. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The drainage report will tell you what you're going to be running into. MR. BREWER-What you have to do, and then the applicant can come up with some kind of a plan to control the water, not necessarily solve the problems that are existing there, but the problems he - 59 - ''--'-' may create. MR. OBERMAYER-We don't want to him contributing to any additional problems. MR. MACEWAN-Have him put in his Tepo~t ~ome t" b I - sugges lons a out, to alleviate any potential problems. MR. MARTIN-John, in fairness, called last week and wanted to know if there were Staff concerns, and had I known there was going to be this level of, I would have told you then, and give you a little leg up on it. I apologize for that. He asked, for this very reason. I apologize for not giving you more notice on this. MR. CAFFREY-You want us to have someone prepare a plan to then be reviewed by Rist-Frost? MR. MARTIN-Yes, a drainage plan. MR. CAFFREY-And it may show that there's no need for anything, but if it is shown, then you want proposals? MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-I would also, I know, I see Coulter & McCormack went down three feet. I think it might be appropriate to go a little farther. MR. CAFFREY-I don't think it can be done. MR. MARTIN-How do you propose digging a basement, then? MR. CAFFREY-From what Coulter tells me. MR. MARTIN-Are these going to be homes with basements? MR. CAFFREY-That's the buyer's problem if they want a basement. MR. MARTIN-Because usually we try and dig a hole to the depth of the footing, so we know what we're running into. MR. CAFFREY-That means hiring a backhoe. MR. MARTIN-I know that. MR. MACEWAN-Based on that comment that he just made, I wouldn't be willing to approve a subdivision that leaves it up to buyer beware. I would want to see something stipulated that says if it's not doable to put a basement in, or if it looks like there's going to be a problem, that the houses be built on a slab. MR. MARTIN-See, what I'm looking for is some confirmation of, what types of soil types are we running into and is there, in fact, an impermeable clay layer there that isn't going to permit percolation beyond a certain point. MR. CAFFREY-Clost words) by digging down by hand. MR. BREWER-At a minimum, you should go down four feet. If he pours a slab, he's got to have footers, right? Right? MR. MARTIN-Right. feet. You've got to have a frost wall about four MR. OBERMAYER-You know what would be nice to see also is the existing, the new elevation of the proposed houses, and see where they sit in relation to the lots. MR. MARTIN-That's true. elevation. It wouldn't hurt to have a finished - 60 - '- -' ..---" v MR. CAFFREY-Elevation of what? MR. PALING-The proposed houses. MR. CAFFREY-We're not going to build them. MR. RUEL-This is subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-He's just looking to subdivide to sell. MR. CAFFREY-Even if you require certain measures, we would not build them. They would individual homeowners to install that when houses, and the Staff would make sure, when building permit, they comply with that. stormwater control be the duty of the they build their they come in for MR. MARTIN-What I'm looking for, before they leave here tonight, in fairness to them, because like I said, he was good enough to ask last week, and I want to make sure he has one list, comprehensive list, and we don't piecemeal this, in terms of the requested information. MR. CAFFREY-I understand what he's asking for, unless you have something else. MR. MARTIN-I just want to make sure he's clear so it's a one time back thing. MR. PALING-All right. Just go through it one more time, so we all understand, there's no mis-communication. MR. MARTIN-A drainage report, and I think that's going to take into consideration an assumed number for building size, amount of lot clearing and soil types, and then proposed stormwater mitigation measures, berming, eave trenches. MR. BREWER-If so required. MR. MARTIN-That would have to be shown on the plat as a requirement of development. MRS. LABOMBARD-If it was needed. MR. OBERMAYER-How to mitigate driveways necessarily dumping in to Hillman. MR. MARTIN-And I'd like Rist-Frost's impression of the soil analysis that's been done to date is adequate or not. MR. PALING-Okay. Then do you agree that we can table this? We should put a date on the tabling. You're going to need a little time on this, though. That can't be next week. MR. MARTIN-I would doubt it. MR. RUEL-That's a lot of work. MR. CAFFREY-You meet August 15th? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And then if things go well, you could have the final the following week. MR. PALING-Okay, and that's our first meeting in August. What date do you need them by? MR. MARTIN-Well, the submission date is July 26th, but I'll work with you on that if you need a couple of days. - 61 - "'--'.- MR. BREWER-As long as we get them with our first packet, first set of packets. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, so we've got time to review them. MR. MARTIN-And I would advise, Mark, to leave the public hearing open on this, right? MR. PALING-Yes. We'll leave the public hearing open. Okay. Is there any other comments from the applicant? Okay. I'll take one more comment from the public, if you would, please. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED ESTELLE TEMKIN MRS. TEMKIN-I'm Estelle Temkin, and I wondered whether or not you could furnish those on the Board with a map, or a topography of the area? MR. BREWER-We have it. MR. PALING¡We have that here. MRS. TEMKIN-Does it actual'lY show the mountain and the road up on Cleverdale Road and then our development? Because our road goes straight down and it slopes down toward Lake George. The lots appear flat. However, the road itself slopes down, and that's why all the houses are (lost words). MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. There's really no topography on the road. MR. MARTIN-I think Jim's comment is well taken, that it would be good to have a proposed elevation on the houses, and the elevation of the road side. I think we have the elevation of the road side, it appears. MR. HARLICKER-You're talking about first floor elevation, not an elevation showing the type of. MR. CAFFREY-When you an elevation, you mean? MR. 08ERMAYER~Floor slab. MR. CAFFRËY-Not the type of elevation you asked the other guy? MR. MARTIN-No. We're talking about at what point will the first floor of the house be built at, the finished floor elevation, like we did in Sherman Pines. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. CAFFREY-Of the slab? MR. OBERMAYER-No, I know what YOU want. You want the elevation of the l·oad. MRS. TEMKIN-The road, across Cleverdale Road, showing the mountain, because that's the source of the water supply. MR. CAFFREY-That's not our. MR. PALING-I think that's going beyond anything that this Board can do. MR. MARTIN-I don't think this subdivision is going to contribute to that. - 62 - .- ..... '--- -..../ -:---,d MR. BREWER-The only thing we can make him mitigate is something he causes. We can't make him fix the problems that are already there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because the mountain can also be detrimental to these four lots that they're proposing. MR. PALING-We'll have to limit it to the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-I'll tell you what I would suggest you do, though. The Town is going to be doing a Stormwater Management Plan for the entire lakeshore area, and the result of that plan is going to be identification of the 10 most severe stormwater problems in our area of the lakeshore, and this has got to rank right up there, and this is for the Planning Board, too. There w¡llþe a meeting coming up in August. at the No~th Queensbury Firehouse. and we're looking for input from the public on that. There'll be notices in the Cleverdale store and things, ánd I welcome everybody to come to that. MR. PALING-All right. Do we need a motion on this, to it okay with you if we table this? All right. entertain a motion to table this until the meeting 15th. It has to be to us for the regular review. table? Is Then I'll on August MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1995 COLGATE PHILLIPS ESTATE/LEIGH BEEMAN, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To be continued the stormwater PIa nni ng Staff regular review. at the August 15th meeting, and that submittal of management and drainage report will be to the so that the Board can have it in time for a Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. (Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 3-95 & Subdivision No. 9-1995 Preliminary Stage both for Marvin & Janet Hautala Cont'd) MR. HARLICKER-I guess the question, now, is what are you going to do with the Hautala application? MR. MACEWAN-Where are they? MR. HARLICKER-They aren't here. MR. PALING-Can we do it without them being present? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you can if you want. You can. There's no requirement that an applicant be present. Typically, I think this Board and most Boards afford them the opportunity to be present, but this is rather unusual. in that Staff says they knew they were on the agenda. Nobody's here. Nobody's received any phone calls, letters or anything else. You can go forward without them, or you can table it without their presence, if you 1 i ke. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think we should go for it. I think they've been here for the last two meetings, and they know that it was very controversial, and there was a lot at stake tonight. - 63 - MR. MACEWAN-What happens if we take no action on this? Do they have to go back through the application process allover again? MR. SCHACHNER-If you take no action tonight? MR. MACEWAN-If we just decide not to even hear it, or do anything with it? If~e decide not to make a motion <;:>n it, if ~e decide not, to table the thing, if w~ just pr~tend it .ßever showed up hère, what happens to it? ' , MR. SCHACHNER-I would advise against that, solely because it's on your agenda, and I think something should be done with it, but, technically, nothing would happen, because on tonight's agenda, they have a Freshwater Wetlands Permit, which does not get granted by default if you don't make a decision. They have a Preliminary Subdivision application, which could get granted by default, if you didn't make a decision, but it wouldn't happen tonight. It would not happen until at least, at the very earliest, 62 days from the close of the public hearing, and I don't believe the public hearing has been closed yet. MR. OBERMAYER-No, we left it open. MR. PALING-It's left open. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So if the public hearing's still open, no action tonight would not jeopardize our position at all, would not give anybody any approval or anything else like that. MR. MACEWAN-We put this off for a week for a couple of more members to come, right, and also was there some extra information that they were going to supply the Board? MR. BREWER-I don't mean to interrupt you, but from what I read in the minutes, were you waited for the other members to come to decide whether we were going to make them do a Long Form? MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. BREWER-And I think, ~ position would be, lets make a motion. We'd have to do a Long Form and present it to them and we'll review it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree with that. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You could at least get off the dime on that one. MR. SCHACHNER-And you certainly can do that. requirement that they be present. There is no MR. PALING-Yes. I agree with Tim. I came to the same conclusion, and that's what, That's what we ought to do. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but do ~ do the Long Form, though? MR. SCHACHNER-We do Part II, but they'd have to do Part I, and they haven't supplied us with Part I, as far as I know. MR. BREWER-Only, I think, because we haven't told them to, Craig. MR. SCHACHNE~-Yes, right. MR. OBERMAYER-We haven't told them. MR. MACEWAN-Can we put a motion together to ask them to do a Long Form for both of these? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it would be one Long Form, because it's one SEQRA review for the entire action. - 64 - .. - j ¡,. '-' ~' - --.../ MR. PALING-Okay, and that covers both the? MR. SCHACHNER-Subdivision and the Wetlands Permit. MR. MACEWAN-I'll make a motion on that, if everybody's in agreement with it. MOTION TO REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT. MARVIN AND JANET HAUTALA. PREPARE A LONG FORM EAF FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1995 AND THE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-95, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay, and the public hearing is still open on this. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. last meeting. As I recall, you had left it open at the MR. MARTIN-What I'll do is, Scott, could you call John Richards tomorrow? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-We'll call the agent and inform him of your request and ask that they be here next time. MR. MACEWAN-I'm curious as to why they didn't come here this time. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but I think as far as asking them to be here next time, it seems to me you'd want to leave that up to them. I don't care. It's up to you all, but I don't think that the Town has to push them on the timing, is what I'm saying MR. MARTIN-All right. August? So you're saying put them off until MR. SCHACHNER-I'm saying, if they submit the EAF by. MR. MACEWAN-At this point, I'm in favor, personally, of just making the request of them, having them submit it when they submit it, and get on the next available agenda. MR. MARTIN-It would be the first one in August, at this point. MR. BREWER-What about re-notification or anything? MR. MARTIN-No, it's left open. So it's not necessary. MR. BREWER-Why don't we call some of the neighbors and just let them know, though, only because there was concern. MR. SCHACHNER-And the other thing is, if too many months go by, then I don't think it's appropriate just to have the thing left open without re-notification, but we're not there yet. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I will do an informal, we'll call a couple of neighbors and tell them that it's. MR. PALING-And let me clarify another point. I'm settled on the Freshwater Wetlands. Now how about the Preliminary stage, if this goes on ad infinitum or whatever? What happens with the - 65 - .....-- Preliminary stage of this? MR. SCHACHNER-The clock is not running., The typical concern we would have would be whether there would be a default approval for failure to act, but the clock is not running on that until, let me just triple check this here, but I'm 99 percent certain that the clock on that doesn't start to run until the public hearing's been held and closed. So as long as it's not closed, that clock's not running, and lets just refer to the Subdivision Reg's and find the actual provision. MR. MACEWAN-I've got three~things, all directed toward Staff, I guess. When we dealt with the burying of stumps, over in Sherman Pines, is that where it was, Ammirati's subdivision, flooding problems over there. It was kind of determined that that was a significant cause to the problems. ' MR. MARTIN-Queensbury Forest. MR. MACEWAN-Queensbury Forest. There you go. Was there any determination as far as anything put into the Codes that said that you couldn't do that any more, or was there anything? MR. MARTIN-As it stands right now, it's not permissible in a subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-It's not permissible in a subdivision. MR. MARTIN-It comes right out and says it. Now, the extent of it in the Zoning Code is, it's language that you can't bury organic material to the point where it causes an erosion problem or something like that. So, in terms of a regular lot in Town, you could, to the point that it doesn't cause any problems. You're not supposed to import any. That's a given in either case. MR. MACEWAN-Let me ask you this. Hudson pointe, the borrow pit. They're filling it in. They're now filling it in with whole trees and stumps, and they are going to build on that. MR. MARTIN-My understanding is that's a staging area for those. Those are being just stored there. Th~y're ground up and trucked off. MR. MACEWAN-You might want to keep your eyes on that one. MR. MARTIN-We're watching it. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-We asked John Michaels about it, and he says they're just storing them to the point where he has a significant amount to truck away, and we've asked that he refrain from doing that, because it's an attractive nuisance to the trail system. MR. MACEWAN-I just didn't want to see a repeat of Queensbury Forest. MR. MARTIN-I'm all for that. MR. MACEWAN-Secondly, it seems there's been a real good track record, of late, of pointing fingers to you guys for saying, you didn't tell us we had to supply that information. How come we have to find out about it now? A way to get around that. On your applications here, the ones that they sign that say they know they can be nailed with a $1,000 engineering fee and all that sort of stuff, maybe you ought to just put a clause in there that says that the applicant also understands that either Board may request additional information during the review process. It gets YOU off the hook, puts the burden on us, and it's up front that they know they could be asked for it. I mean, you know, - 66 - l·I\'<¡o"" ~ ~ :.-/ it's in the zoning book. It's in there that we can ask for any information we're looking for, but the average person who walks through the door looking for an application of some kind or another doesn't know that, and I think it'll clear the air right up front. MR. MARTIN-We must get asked, I don't know how many times in a given week, what's the Board going to think about this? Is the Board going to approve this? I don't know what to say. It's not my position to say. That's what the Board's there fo)". MR. MACEWAN-And my third contention was that I happened to read the ZBA'sminutes from the Guido Passarelli, Mount Royal Plaza, and to say that I am thè "PH word is an understatement. I, personally, after talking with Sue Cipperly and reading the minutes, trying to understand where that Board and some of the other members come from in making their decisions, it seems like we're kind of like in a tug of war situation here. We make a site plan, we approve a site plan. The site plan gets violated, the applicant goes to the ZBA, gets the necessary variance to continue on. One of the key things that kept bugging me when I was reading those minutes, and I don't remember who the Board member was, but he kept referring to having "punitive" measures, punishing the applicant, and I don't think that's what the situation any of us were talking about to begin with. So I'm kind of wondering, would it be a good idea if we got together with you guys, with the ZBA and our Board and had a workshop together, so that we could understand how we operate and where we're coming from when we approve a site plan, and better understand thei 1" thi nki ng when they want to. give a val" iance, and how ~ go about giving a variance. MR. MARTIN-I have no problem with that. I mean, we're all on the same team here. I think it would be a good idea if you guys maybe came together on a, I don't know, twice a year basis or something like that, or whatever was sufficient, just to keep a line of communication open. MR. MACEWAN-I've been sitting on this Board three and a half years now, and we've never sat down with the ZBA for anything. MR. MARTIN-We had one meeting, when L was on, and I think over that type of thing, but it should be done more often. I know Bob and I and Fred Carvin meet on a, like a little adhoc group that Fred Carvin requested to go through the Zoning Code and look for improvements that could be made, and that type of thing, but I think it would be a good idea if all three parties came together. MR. MACEWAN-Did anybody else have an opportunity to read the minutes from that? MR. PALING-I wish I had read the Passarelli minutes. I haven't had time yet. I think Craig has got a good suggestion. It's got to have an agenda, when we do that, you know, good constructive subjects that will lead to good dialogue, that kind of thing. I think it's an excellent idea. MR. MARTIN-The Zoning Board meets tomorrow night. by them and tell them you're interested. I can run it MR. PALING-We could even bring it up at our next meeting, Jim. MR. MARTIN-If you want to discuss an agenda for that meeting at your next meeting. Maybe we could hold it in August or September. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I'd like to have a workshop session with them. I mean, that's ~ opinion. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. - 67 - -- ~ -- MR. OBERMAYER-I think if we do, though, we definitely need to have an agenda, though, so that we just don't go in there. and just talk about our differences. I think we need to have an agenda of what we're going to discuss. MR. PALING-This group Jim refers to is meeting August 3rd, is our next meeting~ and we could maybe tip Carvin off to it, and try to come up with an agenda at our August 3rd meeting. I could give him a call if you want, or you could, whichever. MR. MARTIN-You can call him. MR. PALING-And.what I would ask, in line with this suggestion, do you have any suggestions for matters to be discuss~d? MR. MACEWAN-Right off the top of my head, the Passarelli site plan. I mean, there was one where we gave certain conditions to approve this site plan. Upon doing it, he went and did things other than what he was approved to do. He came back in. He didn't like the responses he was getting from us, and he went to the Z8A and got a variance. MR. RUEL-Well, Craig, do you think that the ZBA knew that these were violations? MR. MACEWAN-They knew that members looked upon it, you that particular thing. he had violated, but some of the have to read the minutes regarding MR. RUEL-If they knew that there were violations, that's one thing, but if they didn't know, and in all honesty granted a variance because he needed to move something, there's nothing wrong with that. MR. HARLICKER-Roger, they had the same map you had showing all the different violations. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Bob, for what it's worth, I think it's an excellent suggestion, meaning the getting together, but I think you should try to stay a little more generic in your discussions. I think if you end up focusing on specific, literally, specific applications, by name, then you're going to run into a situation where those individual applicants and their representatives will also want to participate in the meeting and have their voice be heard and all that. I think that, it's a good idea. I think you can accomplish the same goal by staying generic, even if people know what example you're talking about, just try not to be too specific, in terms of names. MR. MARTIN-If that is the case, you want to try to nip in the bud right now before it happens again. MR. MACEWAN-Like I say, I'm referring to it in a generic basis, looking at it from the position that if we approve the site plan, I don't want to see an applicant gO to the ZBA a month after we approve a plan and say, gee, I can't do this, now will you give me a variance to get away from these things that, you know, that we try to instill in a project. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I want to say, too, that the Town's made quite an investment, recently, in enforcement. We now have a full time person that does nothing but that, and I think it's gotten a lot better, myself. It's certainly been nice to have that capacity there, and if you're going to have this process, at some point you've got to stick to your guns. MR. MACEWAN-Per my request that individual be here next week, as a discussion item. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I think that's on the agenda. - 68 - .,-, ..-' .-../' '...- MR. OBERMAYER-But isn't what Guido did, though, wasn't he really going by the zoning regulatory requirements that we created ourself? I mean, he went back to the Zoning Board to get a variance. Isn't that the proper channel when you do run into a situation like that, though? MR. MARTIN-There's always standards for that relief goes out with an approved by about 11 percent, that mechanisms for relief, but there's to be granted, too, and when somebody site plan and violates the permeability wasn't a whoops. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, there's an overkill, so to speak, but to say, you know, an applicant would never go back and get a variance for somethi ng that they have constructed. I mean, that's·, agai n, that shouldn't be the case necessarily. Guido definitely got carried away with all his, I mean, they were circled in red, there must have been twenty of them. MR. RUEL-That's probably because it always was that way until we got the new enforcement officer. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, it probably was. MR. HARLICKER-I think what happens, too, is when an applicant or developer comes in, he maximizes the development on that site. Unless you build it exactly as shown, there is no margin for error, and that's a problem. MR. MARTIN-That's another thing, you know, to bear in mind. When you're looking at these site plans, just because a 60,000 square foot building may fit, it may not be the best plan for that, and it's not like yoU can say, well, here in black and white it says I'm entitled to 60,000 square feet, so that's what I get. There are other considerations that come into play that maybe ~ou back off from that a little bit. It's not just because it's right out to the letter of the law that I'm able to do this. There are other considerations that come into play. MR. PALING-Okay. I'll give Fred Carvin a call, tell him, and I agree with you, Mark, completely, keep this generic, and tell him what the purpose of it is, and then we'll discuss it further August 3rd at our meeting, and see if we can come up with an agenda, and maYbe a date to have, at least one of these meetings, and see what happens. Good suggestion, and if you'd give me specific cases, I'll make them generic when I talk to FYed. MR. BREWER-Jim, the other thing is, the signs for site visits. I didn't see any today. MR. MACEWAN-I haven't seen any in a couple of months. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. BREWER-We should make them put them out. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robe1" t Pa 1 i ng ,Cha i rma n - 69 -