Loading...
1995-10-24 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 1995 ¡NPEX Site Plan No. 53-95 Tax Map No. 61-1-26 , > Anthony Ricciardelli 2. Richard Eggleston 10. Michael Cantanucci 11. Site Plan No. 55-95 Tax Map No. 59-1-1.6 Site Plan No. 59-95 Tax Map No. 6-3-17, 18, 32, 15.3 Site Plan No. 58-95 Tax Map No. 73-1-4 P.C. Management Co. 28. ;, , " Site Plan No. 60-95 14-1-9.2 Robert & Mary O'Brien 45. ¡!.. ¡. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISI,ONS WILL APPEAR ON, THE FQL.LOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '-' ---- '-.,-' ",..,/ --'\ I' , (Queensbury PIa nni rig Board Me'èti rlg , 10124/95) , .', QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEEflNG SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY JAMES OBERMAYER ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK TIMOTHY BREWER MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN~MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. PALING-There's been quite a few changes. First on the agenda, from last week, will be Ricciardelli, followed by Eggleston, and then the Kristensen applicant will not appear tonight. That'll be taken up at a later date. So that's out. Cantanucci is in. Seale is out, and it'll be taken up later, at a later date. P.C. Management and Robert and Mary O'Brien are on the schedule, which will follow. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. One thing we if there's anyone here on the Kristensen application application, because it was noticed as a public believe those people should be heard. should do is or the Seale hearing, I MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone here foi Kristensen or the Seale application? MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, how are you going to handle those two applications? Are they just going to be put off, and then the public hearings will be re-advertised, or are you going to open public hearings and continue them? I think the Board has to decide how you're going to deal with that issue. MR. PALING-Okay. It's my understanding that they are both going to be back before the Board. MR. SCHACHNER-In the relatively near future? MR. PALING-Yes, and then we should open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. SCHACHNER-If you want to avoid re-advertising, that would be the way to do it. MR. PALING-Well, I would think so. Okay. MR. BREWER-Do we have to have consent of the applicant? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. PALING-Yes, but it would be a tabling. Is that right? MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, no. We don't have to get hung up on semantics, but you'd be leaving the public hearing open. Until a public hearing is closed, not only don't you have an obligation, - 1 - ',,-- (Queensbury PIa nni Fig Board Meeti nQ, 10/24/95) you have no right to make a decision until a public h~~rin.9 is closed. So for as long as a public hearing is open, the matter is continuing. MR. . PALING,-Okay ~ MR. BREWER-Is there. a spe<;::if,Lb reason why they're not golng to be heard tonight?'" , , . MR. GORALSKI-Kr .i'~ten~en"'is not goi ng to b'ê heard tonight beçause there were somè complications' ,at, the, Zoni ng Boa'rd o{ Appeals ." So they haven't received their variance yet", and Seale, they didn't wi thc;lraw the ap'p.q,cat ion. I guess they' 'requested, to be tabled " ' . , . l ¡, I for one. month on both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. I'm not sure what . the reas,9n is, and as far as Richard Eggleston, Richard Eggleston is here tonight to addresi his situation~' MR. PALINGTÄll right. Ricciarqelli, Cathy. ! " ' ; I . Then !' we'll gO ahead and, start with , SITE PLAN NO. 53-95 TYPE: UNLISTED ANTHONY RICCIARDÈLLI OWNER: ANTHONY & CAROL RICCIARDELLI ZONE: MR-5 ,LOCAT.ION: ,MR- 5 LOCATION: CORNER OF Gt,..ENWQOD AVE'. AND WÊ$TWOODNEAR QUEENSBURY RACKET CLUB AND ACR(j)SS . FROM 9UEENSBURY TOWN COURT. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 40' WIDE BY 68' LONG ONE STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING ONE .STORY RESIDENCE. ENTIRE STRUCTURE TO BE USED AS A PROFESSIONAL·OFFICE. .ALL USES IN THE MR-5, ZONE: ARE, SUBJECT TO SITE' PLAN REV'I,EW. ' BE~UTiFICAT¡ON ,COMM.: '10/9/95,' WARREN co. PLANNING: 10/11/95 .tAX MAP ~O. 61-1-26 LOT SIZE: .537 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 . ANTHONY RICCIARDELLI, PRESENT , , ¡ I" ,MRS. 'LABOMBARD-Th~' ~ùblic" heaT i Og was last 't.:J'eek, and' it has been left open. MR. PALING-Okay. John? , , MR. GORALSKI-We've received quite a bi~ of additi~nal information over the pas,t. week. The engin~e)-,in9 i nfo,\mation regardi ng the stormwater management ,plan wasre'viewed by ,Ff1st-Frost, and I believe that Bill can address that. The other major issue was the landscaping plan, the buffering of the parkin~ area,,,,Mr. Ricciardelli and M)". Rist a)~e here, and I believe they have copies of the .landscapi ng. plan that they can hand ou;t, to d" the Board. The landscaping plan for buffering of the parking ~rea looks ade,qL¡.ate. I guess I would recommend that . there also be some type of shrubbery planted along side of the Westwood side of the building.' I don't think that's shown on this plan. they're calling for some Canadian Hemlocks. ~aybe I'~ say four ,or .five Canadian Hemlocks along the side of the building to break up the elevation along Westwood Dr,ive" would probably be appr:'9priate,. MR. BREWER-Are you ,saying more on the Westwood Drive side, John? , '.,' i , I· \ ' , MR. GORALSKI-Well, it looks like what they did was they provided act;.ually a very nice landscaping plan around the ,parking lot a)"ea, but the area along the addition doesn't appear to have any kind of buffering from the road. So you're going to have a very la)"ge building there that's not broken up by any type of landscaping that I can see. Aside from that, it looks like they've addressed all of the concerns. MR~ PALING-Okay. MR.. RUEL-Does this landscaping 'plan tak,e into consic;leration the area where parking 11 and 12 used to be? - 2 - ---- -.../ '---' ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. GORALSKI-It appears that, they are. Is that correct? MR. RICCIARDELLI-That's correct. I'm Tony Ricciardelli. The landscaping plan that we have submitted tonight really is just trying to address the concerns that were expressed at the last meeting, relative to b4ffering the parking area. Our plan that we submitted at the làst meetins indicated that there would be plantings all around the building. We hadn't worked out, and we still haven't worked out, a detail as to what those plantings will be, but they were on the plan that we submitted last week. So this plan, and you'll also note that this particular plan doesn't address really the landscaping on the east side, which would be the border with Dr. Wescott, but I have had meetings with Dr. Wescott. I do have a copy of a letter from him. The oniy reason that we haven't really worked out a detailed plan is because he's not really prepared, at this point in time, to tell me exactly what he wants to do. He has some shrubbery there. He has a maple that is kind of dying, and he just wanted to leave it that we would get together and mutually work out something, but qef;ini~~IY t~ere will b~ ~~!~:ntings,a,ll arou~d the building. 'j "','; t.· (',', ',. ,.' . .I!· J ; I ", ' ,¡ '('I ':.~ " .;: ,MR .~ r~IR:~\'Ie:~!"70 k~,Y ~ MJ; ;:' RJc,ci a, r dell i ~ la,~'~ )~ E?e k we '~r:ant,~''':asR'êd~þc>ut~he. .~esïdents a,,~kihg't'hl$ ~o 't,ry,irl"~(<:f,~rng t'o. 'be 9ørm'~d, 'planti ng~r: . " 'MR'C·::RIC'I'ÂRDEL-LI:Y'~~.:, "tiT' definftéî.:YlsYgotng to." be:.bermed. t1al~~~!>¡r shouîd . rat !j$"a-M'd~ . ,R~st,\i.a'ddT7:sS"this~ ,b,ut, ',thEf phiriting 'scnème' calls for the 'pilant beds'tö beràised áBout eTght, inches, is what the lan'dscaper há~ tol!d 'rlI'e'; biJt beybnd that, ith'~re is a fairly significant existing berm on the north side of' the property, and then along Westwood Drive, our intent was to berm that with the ground for approximately a foot~ I believe, and then berm it with the plant bed about another ei~ht inches, not a major berm, but enough to stop drainage~rom going on to Westwood Dr i ve . tal ked ~':i!öf' Mr. 'be' benned. Is I MR. PALING-You'd have 18 inches off the ground, then, from the ground up on that one side. Okay. MR. RUEL-On the north side you have a hedge. These are going to be four feet apart. Will that be solid? MR. RICCIARDELLI-Eventually. They grow faitly rapidly. MR. RUEL-The first couple of years there won't be any. Right? MR. GORALSKI-At four feet on center, you'd probably have two feet, eighteen inches to two feet between each shrub. MR. RUEL-It's not solid, but it eventually will be. MR. BREWER-It will be in a couple of years~ MR. GORALSKI-I would say within two to three years, it'll be fairly solid. MR. RICCIARDELLI-That's exactly what the landscaper told me. Within two to three years, you'll have a solid hedge. MR. RU~L-If it were three feet apart, that would be asking too much? MR. GORALSKI-Well, you don't, unfortunately when you're planting shrubs that are this small and these shrubs can grow to be 15, 16 feet tall, you don't want to put them too close together, because if you crowd them, you won't allow for the root growth, and you could kill the shrubs. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Me~ting 10/24/95) MR. RUEL-Okay. I'm f,)ot a landsc~pef. ,I~ll buy, it. MR. PALING-In the parking lot, could you tell me the dimension of the spaces and the drive aisle b~tween? BYRON RIST MR. RIST-Byron Rist. The spaces are nine feet w,ide and twenty feet long. The drive aisle has 24 feet between spaces, and the drive from Glenwoo~¡into the parking lot is 20 f~et w~de. MR. PALING-Thank you, and we appreciate it. you've got. i,n there goes a lç:>ng. way to par ki n,9 lot~:, lets say" Glad to h'ea1' it. . MR~ RUEL-!he runoff ~ater? ~pu'~~ got the eaves are trench piped to the catch basins, right, fpr tþe new building? : I '" That extra four feet ma~e,that a friendly MR. RICCIARDELLI-That's correct. MR. RUEL-And how do you take care of the old building? It's not connected? MR. RIST-TheY are connected, b~t as Iunderstan~ that 'we ha0e to take care of the increase in' imperm'eable area~ and ~hat',s what we1ve addressed. MR. RUEL-So the existi n:~ wa.s all right. So 'i t remai ns that ¡...¡ay. MR. kIST-Right. The existing hasn't been a problem, and we'll assume that it won't be. ' MR. RUEL-I see. !' :,·1 MR. GORALSKI-Bill MacNamara is here, and he has reviewed all "this stuff, if you'd like him to comment. MR. PALING-Okay~ Bill, do you have some comments? BILL·MACNAMA~A MR. MAC~AMARA-The only item that was outstanding from la.st week, we were ~acki ng is the i nformat ion, on, sto1'mwater:' cÌis<;:harg~ and volumes and quantities and drywells and trenches, and since that point, ,Sandy has :!i?uþm,itted ,~nformation that,,'show~ that the increased runoff from the new building as well as the parking lot can be handled on site, basically in two large shallow dry~~lls. They're going to b~ parked in the, park¡ng area 04t back. The only note we. added to this, SandY, was that th.rewasn't any elevations spotted f0'lf ;t;he, rims or' for, theoiu,tsi~e edge of the parking lot. We just noted the somewhat obvious comment that the drywells need to be low enough so that no water overtops the parking area edges:before it ¡makes"t,he ,dryltJells, ,and you've alread~ ~oyched 'on ~ha~with th~ þerm qo~men~s th_t it so~nds 1 i ke ar. shapi ng up here., Tþqse, are, ,ot...lr only engineer i ng comments. MR. PALING-Okay. John, do you have anything to add to that? ¡ MR. GORALSKI-I guess, if you're going to go ahead and approve this, ,I1d 1 i ~e somethi n9 in the mqtion to the, effect that, pr ior ,to the issuance of a CQ, that apermanentÇO ~t least, the landscp.pi ng plan would all be in place, ,1 ncluding a~y landscapi ng that's going to be around the building, MR. BREWER-When's construction going to stafPta C):': f'],:¡,: ,~I\ .1>,1' MR. GORALSKI-I think immediately. - 4 - '- --" '----' -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95 ) MR. OBERMAYER-It might be fairly difficult to get the landscaping in this time of ye~r. MR. GORALSKI-What we could do is we could issue a temporary CO, and then in the spring, when the landscaping is done, issue a permanent CO. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Didn't we, in the past, get some kind of a contract, or something like that? MR. GORALSKI-The only concern I have is that we don't have a plan showing exactly what's going to go on around the building. MR. PALING-And we don't know on the Wescott property either. We're not sure of that, so it should coVér both. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. ,RUEL-So this plan landscaping pIan, ~ith the around the building? has to be modified to include the modification that you just mentioned, MR. GORALSKI-At the point, in the spring, when they're ready to do their landscaping, I can certainly go out to the site 'ànd meet with Mr. Ricciardelli or Mr. Rist, their landscaper, whomever, and just be sure that they have satisfactory. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-aut that information should be reflected on the plan, right? MR. PALING-It will be. Yes. That would be approved by John. MR. GORALSKI-Right. I'll work with them, in the spring. Whether it's put on the plan or whether we meet on the site and they show me what they're going to do. If for some reason we have a disagreement, we'll have to come back to the Boàrd and discuss it, but I doubt if we'll have a disagreement over landscaping. MR. PALING-John, have we heard any more from the Beautification Committee? MR. GORALSKI-They won't have it's the first Monday of the an approval contingent upon Committee. another meeting until next, well, month. So if you want to give them going back to the Beautification MR. PALING-Well, it would make it all the same, that would come back to you then, in both cases. I would think that would be all right. Okay, and Warren County Planning, did they vote on this? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-It was approved. MR. PALING-Okay,' and the public hearing is still open on this. Is there any more comments or questions? All right. Now the public hearing on this is still open. Is there anyone that wishes to talk about this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN HOWARD KRANTZ - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1Q/24/95~ MR. KRANTZ-Howard K,ra,ntz, -representing the, Westwood Homeowners Association. When we we-re here last, I think the applicant indicated that the design of the builçJi ng w,ould be similar; to: the Westwood a-rchitecture. I was just wondering if the appljcant could ~he.d s9me¡ mo:r~ ligh:t on , if he'5 fu-rthe-ralopg, and what the buildi~g might look like. MR. PALING-All right. Excuse me. Just address whatever questions you've got to us, and then w,~ll call th~ applicant back, and then he'll address them, and architecture will be the fi-rst one. MR. KRANTZ-All right. As I u~derstand the discus~jÐn tonight, there's go$. ng to be planti ngs as showp on the p,lan¡, a!on~ the southwe~:t bound9:rY qf the parçel. and th:e questiQn I woulq ask the Planning Boa,"d to ask the applicant is, are the plantings at that location which are not defined, going to be ~imilar to what's ,~,long the central and northwest::. boundarY. ! If they,are, that's certainly agreeable to the, W~stwoo~ Homeowners Association. MR. PALING-Okay., 'I . . , . MR~IKRANTZ-In other words, what YQu~ve seen here tonight, ¡f,that c~nt inues souther.! y, or som~thi ng c,¡ose to that, , that wc:;>µl;d be certainly agreeable. MR. PALING-Okay. ,', MR. KRANTZ-Drainage, as I understand it, is all settled with the Town Engineer? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-Okay. The berm along the westerly bo~ndpry~s going to be approximately 18 inches? . , " MR. PALING-Yes, that's what they've said, land plus yege~ation. MR. KRANTZ-Maybe someone can ,"efresh my re.colleçtion, hqw we,left the parkingf" W~ were talking about eliminating the fou-r northerly parkir¡lg sp,~ces;last time. Is that still ¡n effect? MR. PALING-We can just confirm that, I think. that northerly and the two southerly,'reålly, there were six spaces eliminated.; , the four parking MR. KRANTZ-And the lighting, as I understand just as shown on the plan, which is basically affixed to the exterior of the building. it, ii going to be lighting fixtures MR. PALING-That,'s my recollection, but,we~ll ask ,them to repeat that. MR. RUEL-I~J~ sh~w~ th~t way. . , MR. KRANTZ~Jhat's what I'm askimg, if it's just a$'shown, and if so, if the applicant knows what t,yp~ of',lighting,,, sod~~ro; versus incandescent light bulb . "" j' , MR. BREWER-It says in<¡::ande~cent, I think, on the, plan. I , MR. GOR,ALSK I -Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-It says incandescent fixtures to match Westwood. (' \ MR. RUEJ.,.:;Area l,ighting attaphed to the building. - 6 - '- --" ---- (Oueensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. BREWER-Did you get a copy of this, Howard? MR. KRANTZ-I may not have the same. I see. No. I didn't have this. Okay, and last I think the applicant has been in touch with some members of Westwood, and the applicant would indicate that a snow fence or something similar to that would be up on the perimeter during construction. MR~ PALING-Okay. During construction. All right. MR. KRANTZ-Okay. Again, that's on this plan I didn;t have. Those are our questions. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. All right. I noted five points, I think one or two of which have been answered, but lets start with the first one. Would you review the architecture of the buildings please? MR. RIST-Just an overview. I'll tack this back up on the Board, but we're basically maintaining the architecture of Westwood, to the extent where the roof pitches will be the same. The roof shingles will be the same. The siding will be the same, and color. So we're trying to do our best to make it blend in, as a residential type building in a residential area, to blend in with what's already there. I'll put this ba¢k on the board. This is what we had last week, and it hasn't changed. We certainly don't have color elevations, but the siding's gray. The roof shingles are architectural gray. MR. RUEL-Is that part of the plan? Is that Sheet 2 of the plan? MR. STARK-Yes. That's part of the plan last week he gave us. MR. PALING-The same. MR. RUEL-So the design is part of it then. MR. PALING-Well, this is what they showed last week. showing the same thing again. They're MR. STARK-Roger, remember last week he said Harvest Homes, part of the Woodbury group, is going to be the ones that are doing the package deal. So it's going to be the same, the same everything. MR. RIST-It's even the same manufacturer. MR. PALING-Okay. The second question I had was the plantings in the southwest corner. Do you want to talk a little bit about that? MR. RICCIARDELLI-I don't know as we really talked about the plantings in the southwest corner last week. Again, we left here with the impression that what we n~eded tO'address was buffeting the parking lot. The plan that we submitted last week hasn't changed. There will be plantings and landscaping along the building. I really did not envision a wall, so to speak, of landscaping across the southwest corner of the building. I mean, quite frankly, I don't want to totally block the view of the building from Glenwood Avenue. I, personally, think that would look kind of strange. Westwood owns a strip of land along the border, there, and they already have done landscaping with some trees, and they have decorative lampposts, and then they had the corner of the property landscaped. They have their sign partly on my property, but I really hadn't envisioned doing anything more with that. MR. PALING-Well, say planted area. the question was raised, and I see that it does Maybe I didn't understand the question. - 7 - (Oueensbury Planning Board Me~ting. 10/24/95) MR. RUEL-That's Westwood propeTty~ MR. BREWER-No. What I think he was referring to wasi,Í;rom where it says, where that planted area is, all the way ~p to the parking lot. Am I right by saying that? MR. KRANTZ-We just,w~nted to kr¡ow if the applJcant could ,indicate what the plantings were, if he knew, along that southwest. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RICCIARDELLIë""No. I don 'it have a pla'nting plan southwest side of thè building,' and just to be ,c;l.~ar, to 'landsçape all along thebÜ~ld~Il'g, but not out on the corner of Westwood Drive. for the ,we intend southwest MR. PALING~Okay.Lets ~ut th.~¡aside. Lets pass on to the next question, then. Did I quote right on the parking SPaces, at four northerly and the two at the front of the building, 'or south, were eliminated? MR. . RIST-Right . i ,MR. STARK~they're gone. MR. PALING~On this'newplan we've, got, that's the way it~s shown, and that's ~s we agyeed last week. MR. RICC¡ARDELLI-That'~ correct. 'i MR. PALING-Okay. I think that's answered sufficiently. Then the next question I have ,a,nd I think that's answered, is the lighting type is incandescent on the building? MR. RICCIARDELLI-Co{rect. MR. PALING-Okay. then I believe correct on that? I don't have any further question on that, and you answered the snow fence que~tion. Am I MR. RIST-That's correct. That's on Sheet 2 of that new submi.ttal, under Notes, Item Number Two. r i t1R~:,PALJ;~~-O~~I)fH 1 i\.~hen"the; on'~!>f sR~gi f i~,' Rue~'¥t¡Qn!::t;.ha,~'! w~L, h~¥¡en ' t discussed, ,wel,l, they're all"dis¡:qùssed now. Is thEHe anYone else in the public who would care to comment on this ,matter? Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now, le'lfs see, where ,ar.e, we on this{¡ , MR. BREW~R-We need SEORA, righ~? MR. GORALSKI-You should have a Short Form in your packets. MR. PALING-Short Form SEQRA. Okay. RE$OLU1¡ON WHEN DETt;RMINATION OF NOSIGI'IIFICANÇ;E ¡SHADE; RESOLUTION NO. 53-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for í ts açoption, second,ed by George star k: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently I;>efor,e, the ANTHONY RICCIARDELLI, and Planning Board an WHEREAS, project this Planning Board has determiped that, the.proposed and Planning Board action is subject to review under the - 8 - ',-" --.../ "'---' --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) 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 àction 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 Assessmeht Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-Okay. I think we can go right to a motion, then. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-95 ANTHONY RICCIARDELLI, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the following conditions: That they attend the Beautification Committee meeting in November, a'nd thiat they be guided by their recommendation, and this would be approved by the Planning Department. A temporary CO will be issued, subject to the approval of a landscaping plan and inspection in the spring by the Planning Department, then a final CO will be issued after that exercise is completed. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: MR. BRÈWËR-If wea9'¡-~e on this" lan'dscapin'g plan', 'why·, is it necessary for them to go to Beautification? , ' MR. GORALSKI-Because technically they have never been to the Beautification Committee, and the standards say that they should go to the Beautification Committee. MR. BREWER-What if the Beautification Committee turns them down and we approve them? - 9 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Me~t¡ng 10/24/95) MR. PALING~Then John will cO,me back tOI4S and tell us, about it. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. RueI, M)~. Brewer, Mr. Star k, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan NEW Bl,J~INESS: SIT ?:, PLA~ NO. 55,-95 TYPE: UNLISTEP RICHARD H. EGGL.e:STON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NEXT TO HARYEST REST. PROPOSAL IS FOR A 20' X 50' METAL BUILDING ADDITION TO HqUSE PAINT aOOTH. ALL LAND U$ES,IN TJ;lE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 10/9/95 WARREN CO. "PLANNING: 10/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-1,..~ LOT SIZE: 1.38 SEÇTION: 179-23 DICK EGGLESTON, PRESENT MR. EGGL,£;:STON-l..e1;. me comment on this one before w~ b~gin. I was advised, earlier today, that this, has been taken off the schedule. So I didn't bring prints or anything with me, and didn't review it, and I think the purpose of us opening this tonight is because the public will have an opportunity, we're going to open a public hearing, and w$'ll keep th~ Public hea~ing open until it's back on the agenda, but it's so that we don't have som,eone from the public coming here, not being ab~e to speak. They can speak tonight, and they can speak after tonight. Now do we have to do anythi ng else besides the publ ic . hea,r i ng tonight? MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Eggleston's here. You might want him to explain why he needs another roonth, and then open up ~he public hea~ing and see if there's anyone here that wants to comment. MR. PALING-Okay, and Mr. Eggleston, would :; er~.Elase, H~:~' tei 1 :,u!S{\ ~t-¡.ia t h~PRefJ¡Etd ¡'eH~'~'¡ you identify yourself ! ~,:> ( .¡ .,¡ I·' /\ , ¡ .11-1 , t;" .,:: ,,'J /, t: I, ¡"J ·'t';1' ; ¡ " _ ; ;' , ~ ! " I, ,I . _ ; I;, .'{', ,-.~ , frt.R I' /'":, E(3,GLE<$:r~'N¡M~:t nq~::)r4~! D,i~k,< E~¡Q,l~tø,n, and, ! U~~/¡;~a?OD, , I'm , 4ski ng to~y~!'tt'bJs tq.Þt~!~q i~ ,¡~S !'Q.q' the wi,\'),t;.-ey;!,~.$ cO~:f}g qiß._:: and ,(,ço;nstn..J4t.i0¡\')',.i~,.JUS,t;.1AAt:i(:~,ifl9; I~~( be , av..=.i~~bl~,,1;..q ,~~. ' 1rh~y' 're t!Ø1A~Æ¡~ me'~hat'!,~~,~t;.IQ '¡Et~i9ht, tOL 't;.<en"w~.ek$, ,fG ' 'v;s~ee:~I.'i· ~p,_,!a~,!;1;.his ' :.,:;ime¡,;, I'd Ij.ke 't(j,;J')ayel..1t. taÞl~ed,!ito,,\~ ftlt~re"date'11~~,ql~'ll correspond with the Board , in wr itte\n forR'!¡.;, la~-i.totry.e,problems that have arisen. MR. PALING-Okay. When would you anticipate that would be? t !'-.h,".r :r'; ',. MR. EGGLESTON-I don't foresee getting started on this until the spr i ng . MR. PALING-Until spring~ MR. STARK-I, have a question for.. the applicant. Are you negotiating with the Harts to buy that property behind you? , , MR. EGGLESTON-Yes. for the Board. I was going to include that jn w~itten form MR.PALING-Mar~, h.elp me oyt on this. It's,going to be:quite a, it!s going to be months from now before this happens. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. John and I were Justçonferr i ng ',about that, and I think my recommenda,tion would be that, in ¡ight of the applicant's statement that we're looking at a :prqlonged adjournment here, basically until spring, I don't think it's - 10 - '-- -- "-' -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95 ) appropriate to open the public hearing and just leave it open until then. I think we'd have to have a re-advertisement, if the application became re-activated. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-I don't think there's anybody here to talk adversely against it anyway. MR. PALING-Yes. Well, I agree with Mar k, though. 'Be'cáuse of the switch, I wasn't that prepared, and I would just as soon that we didn ~t hear 'ft, tonight.; .', There wou,ld' be ;no pubI'ic Hear i ng, but then ithe whole procêsswould ." ",~ 'I' .. MR.' ËGGLESTON-Thait's :f:i:ne with 'me. 1 Thaf~s perfettI y àll 1" ight . ! . ~ " T ( "MR.' 'PALING-Okay. If,t'here is anyone heré':fldir¡ this, we will not hold a public hearing tonight because there'is nothing to talk about, but the whole issue will be started from scratch, with advertising, when Mr. Eggleston is ready to go ahead. MR. GORALSKI-Just one thing. I would request that the applicant be required to pay for the re-advertising. MR. PALING-I assume that he would, yes. MR. EGGLESTON-No problem. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Sorry if anyone did come for this. MR. EGGLESTON-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-We can just have him resubmit. MR. PALING-Right. It'll be a total re-submittal. SITE PLAN NO. 59-95 TYPE I MICHAEL CANTANUCCI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: BRAYTON LANE - 0.2 MILE TO DRIVEWAY ON LEFT. PROPOSAL IS TO REMODEL AND EXPAND AN EXISTING CAMP AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1995 APPROVAL AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 6-3-17, 18, 32, 15.3 LOT SIZE: 1.9 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 DENNIS MACELROY & BOB STEWART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 59-95, Michael Cantanucci, Meeting Date: October 24, 1995 "The applicant has received a variance to have more than one principal dwelling on a lot and a variance to be 50' from the shoreline. The site plan also indicates a stone patio that is less than 50' from the shoreline. Although the patio is not considered a structure, Seòtion 179-60 prohibits hardsurfacing within 50' of the shoreline. The applicant must apply for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals if he wishes to construct the patio in this location. It appears that the design and location of the house is sensitive to the site conditions. The site plan does not show any vegetation being removed for the construction of the house. There is one 30" hemlock that is very close to the existing foundation that may need to be removed if the patio is constructed. The new access drive will be thoroughly landscaped so that it is screened from the Young property. The disposition of the old R.O.W. should be clarified. The question of wetlands was brought up by - 11 - (Queensbu)-y P Ianni ng Board Meeting 10/24195) the ZBA. I would recçmmend that t~e applicant be required to obta~n a letter from the APA, regarding the presence pf any jur isdictional w,etlands on the property pr, ior to the çOffimenceffient of wor k on the property, Rist Frost Associates, w,¡ll comment on the sewage disposal system and t~~ stormw.ater maJ: agel'(lent system." t,4: MR- GORALSKI-~arren County Planning Board approved, and, then I have one addit¡.ioDal thi ng. I spoke ,to Tom Hardi ng, which is one of the adjoining property owners. ,He was concerD~d about the visibility of the property from Brayton Road and Rappaport Road, and just requested that if at a1.1 possible, some type of buffer be required between the roadway and where the clearing is done for the septic systems. MR. PALING-Okay. then? He's worried about seeing the septic system, MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-And he wants the buffer. MR. GORALSKI-Some buffer between the roadway and, where the clearing takes place for the septic systems. MR. PALING-Okay ~ Is Bi 11 goi ng to, comment on this tonight? )1,. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. this. ¡,think that's what we need to hear nex~ on BILL MACNAMARA MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. These are comments that are list~d on an octob.er 20th letter that I've forwarded to the Town, and also to the applicant, and additionally, the applicant's engineer did stop in this afternoon, and we went over each of these items. So I'll touch on them briefly. Regarding stormwater erosion control notes,· we suggested that specific measures be ,shown regarding sedimentation, erosion control, regarding things of silt fences, hay bales, thiDgs of that nature, particularly on the lake side, and that there's some decent slopes toward the lake, and he didn't ha:V~ a,ny, problem wi th that. In terms of the ,actual management of additional stormwater, there's a couple of decent pieces of asphalt that, at this point, don't have any items put in place to .try to minimize additional stormwater. He's goin~ to look to see if he cquld put in either additional infiltrators, which are those plastic devices, or retention basins Qf some sort, small, shallow, not basins per say, but some type of a management tech~ique, and he is going to fit somethin~ like that into. the site. He's showing infiltrators for roof runoff, and there are ~ couple of decent· sized pieces of new roof. We had asked that some sizing info~mation be provided ,for those infiltrators, and we didn't talk much abou,t that today,' Dermis, and I think that's somwthing that'~ pretty straightforward, in terms of how you size: those. Q~ay. Over to the sanitary systems, I'm not sure how much you've looked over th~ drawings or not, but there's two different systems that are being proposed, and they're of the raised absorption type. In other words, somewhat elevated above original grade. Two of them. We talked quite a bit today about a number of issues that we are certainly progressing, if you will" and ,he's actually going to be modifying his drawings somewhat to address all of them. We did have some concerns with separation distances to property lines, and we talked a bit about those. We also had some concern. about a culvert or culverts, plural, particular one culvert that's shown on the Brayton Road, which was immediately adjacent ,to one of the raised fields, and I think Dennis is going to talk to that - 12 - ........., --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) afterwards. Whatever culverts do remain, we noted the Highway Department should be involved in terms of reviewing and approving and getting so that they're happy with them. We had some concerns about some tapers slopes, which is the slopes to the sides of the raised fields, and he and I talked quite a bit about DOH and DEC Guidelines, and the Town has their own set of guidelines, and we'll work, he's got a handle on those. We also noted that if there are delineated wetlands within the site, per se, even if it~s across the street, then you ought to note those and show that there's adequate separation between the septic field and the wetlands. We had a general concern about the ovèrall size of the fields, of which D~nnis and I worked out today, and lastly a note about an alarm for the pump stations, because these are going to be pump systems. An alarm needs to be on, and certain storage capacities, and things of that nature, which we talked about. Those are our only comments. MR. PALING-Okay, and it sounds like that you~ve talked with the applicant about these, already. MR. MACNAMARA-We did. We spoke this afternoon, and there aren't any revised drawings, and I haven't got any comments about today's discussions, but he did indicate that we're. MR. ~ALING-All right. Should we proceed right to the applicant, then, and do you want to address the comments that have been made? MR. MACELROY-Any more specifically than Bill has addressed those? MR. PALING-Well, Bill, are you saying that these have all been met? MR. MAcNAMARA-No. What I'm saying is we believe that can be overcome, if you want to use that word, or they can be addressed. MR. PALING-Right. MR. MACNAMARA-In a nutshell, what's happening is that we're looking to, not just DOH design. We're using DEC design, and some Queensbury guidance, because it's not really clear which are the most strict, if you will, and we're making sure that all the items that we have concerns on, that he somehow addYesses them, and we believe after today's meeting, that that can be done. MR. PALING-Okay. Then it sounds to me like we should go down the list that he has, and then you should comment on them. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. MACELROY-Yes. I'm Dennis MacElroy from the Environmental Design Partnership, engineers for Mr. Cantanucci. As Bill has indicated, we've reviewed, talked over the comments several times, most specifically, I met with him this afternoon, and we talked about each one of these items, generally, some more specific, how we would deal with them, and I'll just go through. The stormwater erosion control, the first item in his comment, we will add notes and details to the site plan and the detail sheet, if necessary, which deal with construction related runoff, siltation fencing, hay bales. Those are standard details that would go on the construction type drawing. We'll certainly put them on the site plan here, and they will be as per the reference that Bill made, the New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. MR~ PALING-Okay. MR. MACELROY-Increases in off site runoff, typically on a stormwater management design, the post development runoff will be - 13 - -- (Oueensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) no greater than the pre-development, and that's what we will achieve through certain methodologies, as Bill had referred to, either the inf¡ltrators and retention basin of ~ome size and capacity which would accommodate thosestormwater COncerns. MR. PALING-Well, is this something that you specify before hand or do as you go alQng, it sounds a little bit like. MR. MACELROY-No. It would be part of a revised plan that we'll submit to Bill, for his final review. Yes., All these items will ,be that way. MR. PALING-All right. I'm with you. MR. MACELROY-The next comment was the sizing rationale for the infiltrator units. That will be provided to Bill as we use them, pr imar i 1 y for roof ,"unoff, ha ndl,i ng of stormwateT, the infiltrator units. Sanitary systems. Again, these are replacement, systems for two existing systems that are located within 100 feet of the lakeshore. We've relocated both systems to areas, one's about 350 feet from the lake, and the other one's about 450 feet from the lake, and they're raised absorption systems, as per the Town definitions or the Town standards. Although, without setting into too much technical detail, we could, do a sh<.al,low absorption system, which is a¡nother type of systemwh,ich is maybe less ,cumbersome, i nterms ,of the regulations, but it's a little more conservative to use this raised system, and that's what we'd like to do because it's just a little more guarantee that you have a little more f~ll area above the, restrictive condition, here, which is the high groundwater, 'sø that's, in geneq~l, the description of those two systems. Bill had some concerns about setbacks to the property lines, and we're working with ~hifting the orientation, or shi fti ng the exact location, so that we would ,m,i nimize that concern. The last item on the first page, separation of proposed cµlvert inlet under Brayton Lane to edge of ,the raised system. That has to do with, at the intersection of Brayton Lane, and what's shown as gravel dr ive, which is at the bot¡tom left hand corner of the drawing. That's a private right-of-way which serves access to Rappaport, Repi nski , and C~J"!,ey~ ,adjacent properties, and from our variance board meeting, we understood that there was some drainage concerns that exist in that area, just beca~se of my understandimg, 'from'discussion$, and then also my observation, it appears that maintenance of the road, over the years, paving of the road and whatnot, has caused somewhat of a damming effect, so that the water doesn't carry continually through f)íOm north to south, asi t maybe once had. We had proposed, on that plan, to put in a culvert, but there's a 50 foot separation from the end of the culvert to an absorption system. So we'll just eliminate that from our proposé;l.l. Second page, notes regarding proposed taper slopes. Again, that's an interpretation or a use of either DEC sta,ndard or DOH, stand,ard, and Bill and I have talked over that, how we may accommodate that particular concern ò Discussio,n of 15 p~rcent slopes. On the two bedroom system, it,'s açtually 12 percemt. We didn't talk too specifically about that today, but there's a scale on the detail sheet that wasn't,e,xact. SQ Bill had some, wasn't sure how to rea,d that, or it w.asp't clear to him how it, was, but it is 12 percent. So that one's okay. The ZBA resolution indicated concerns with wetlands. In fact, on the southerly side of Brayton L.ane, and whi Ie you don't show .it on your plan, this area south of Brayton Lane, there is,an APA delineated wetland in that area. The day after our variance ,board hearing, I received information from Van Dusen and Steves ~ho had done a mapping of that del,i;neation, and not only reviewed it in terms of ma.p to map, but in the field, and measured off from the closest point of the wetlands delineation to the field, and it does satisfy the 100 foot mi nimum separation dist,a.nce. So it's now shown .on this - 14 - '''-" '-' -..-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) version of the site plan. It's not on the one you have there, but that's an issue that's resolved. The next item is a technical issue regarding the sizing of the basal area and perc rates, and Bill and I have discussed that, and we will resolve things to his satisfaction on that, and the last item is the pump station detail, and the indication of an alarm and the elevation of that alarm setting, which will be accommodated as well. It's not real clear on the plan right now. So we'll make that clear. MR. PALING-We will depend heavily on the communication between you and Bill. Just do one thing for me, on the setbacks. Which setbacks were you referring to in this? MR. MACNAMARA-They weren't zoning setbacks, per say. They were setbacks regarding sanitation, septic designs. I guess setbacks was not a great word. Really more of a separation distance from property lines. It's not a setback from zoning. MR. PALING-All right. questions? Does anyone on the Board have any MRS. LABOMBARD-I just had one question heTe, going over the other plan, that had to do with existing conditions on assumed location of septic system. Now, what do you mean assumed location? I thought you just knew where the septic system was? Is that just engineer type jargon, or is that you really don't know where the septic system is, you're just assuming it's there? MR. MACELROY-Well, I know from the existing conditions that pipes leave the structures and go into the ground, and I know what area is open and clear, and I'm assuming that that's where those septic systems are, but I don't know that it's a leachfield or a drywell or a cess pool or what exactly, and that's typical of any of the older systems around the lake is that you're not really clear what they are, because there aren't necessarily records from years and years ago of what those systems were, and those are the systems that are being eliminated from use and replaced by these newer systems. MRS. LABOMBARD-GYeat. MR. STARK-Bob, mentioned that APA concerning are there? I have a question for John. John, you had you would like to have them get a letter from the wetlands. There are no wetlands on the property, MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. There is high groundwater in the area, and I think it would behoove us, since it's been brought up by neighbors, that we get a letter from the APA stating that there are no wetlands on the property. MR. STARK-Okay. The only thing is, and, Mark, in dealing with the APA, if he wanted to get a building permit, you're saying before a building permit is issued, get the letter. Is that a problem getting a letter from them, some time? MR. SCHACHNER-It can be, although I thought I saw Mr. MacElroy indicating that he didn't have a problem with that proposal. I may be wrong. MR. STEWART-Well, I wonder if 1 could make this comment. First of all, my name is Bob Stewart. I'm a lawyer in Glens Falls representing Mr. Cantanucci this evening. Wetlands, of course, as they're legally defined, are those which have been designated and marked on certain maps which are on file throughout this part of the Country. There are no wetlands, in that sense of the word, on this property. If the question comes up, is there any land there that gets wet from time to time during the year, I - 15 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) don't know what we'd ever end up dQing ~ith the APA on that. I don't know that they're going to send an engineering crew down there. There are no officially designated, there are no legal .'. i wetlands on. this property. MR. STARK-Still, though, if they wanted to get going, and some,t imes the APA ta kes si x months to wr i te a letter. MR. SCHACHNER-It's kind of up to the Board, but for what it's worth, I don't believe it's te,chnicallY correct t:hat,the ab$ence of any previously designated wetlands on a particular property means that the"e are no APA wetlands on the property. I don't bel ieve that's a correct statement, :but George's statement is certainly true, that it's sometimes tough to get letters out of the APA, so! think that's a Staff, Staff has input into that decision, and it's up to,the Bgard, ultimately. MR. GORALSKI-The reason that this issue ,was raised, that at the Zoning Board of Appeals, ther,e was signi f icant concern from several of the neighbors, regarding the ,possibility of we,tlél.nds on this property, and the only way that you're going tQ know, definitely, whether or not there are Jurisdictional w,tlands on the property, is to have someone from the APA come out and do a site review. Certainly, we can assist the applicant: in any way Icl.Q. can to get the APA out there as quickly as possible, but the reason that the issue was brought up was because it was brQught in the public hearings at the Zoning Board of Appeals. I mean, if you want to, it's up to you. I mean, I know EDP haseome people who do wetland stuff. , MR. STEWART-Well, there's one comment I might add to this. Under the requirement of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the variance, which was approved back in September, and all of this application has been sent and had to be sent, by law, to the AP~, and they have a certain period of time, 30 days after receipt, ~pon which to comment on it, or even overrule the local board, if they see something there that they feel creates a problem. I~m wondering if we couldn't just leave it at that. That's the way the law is designed to function. MR. PALING-I'm a little divided on this thing, because the question raised about wetlands was not ,"aisedb:y, anyone in <3 position, who officially knows that there is a wetland there. MR. GORALSKI-Nobody from the APA has ever been on the site. So how would, you know, they're the ones who know. MR. PALING-Where is the burden, then, to prove that it is or it is not a wetland? Where does that lie? MR. GORALSKI-That's the applicant's burden. I mean, the bottom line is, if they go and disturb a wetland, and the APA goes out there and sees that a wetland was disturbed, it's the applicant's responsibility. MR. STEWART-Well, we've been through the SEQRA review on all of this, and there's been a negative finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals on all of the$e matters. MR. MACELROY-When that issue was brought up at the variance board meeting, as I said, the next day I checked with VanDusen and Steves who had done the mapping of the wetlands in the area, which was only for that area south of Brayton Lane, but I also had a staff person from my office, who is a certified wetlands designator, delineator, has gone through the process of being designated as that, and while it's not APA concurrence, I did walk him through the site, and his observation was that there was no wetlands on that parcel of land, and I guess, just to simplify ~ : - 16 - '--' -.-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) the equation here, the parcel in that area, or the total parcel is 1~9 acres. The parcel in that area, or that portion of the property in that area is certainly less than an acre. APA jurisdiction kicks in at one acre. If they have an area that's larger than one acre, then that could be a wetlands, and I'll make a specific reference to the McCall property over on the other side of the point, that I talked specifically with Dan Spada from APA about that. MR. PALING-Mark, are you with what he's saying here? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and it does appear that the Zoning Board of Appeals conducted a SEQRA review. We have a copy of a document from the September 20th meeting that states that the Zoning Board made a motion that we've conducted a full environmental assessment form, so that presumably was the Long Form, and it's disclosed no negative impact, and that was adopted unanimously. The other thing I will state, as well, is that Mr. Stewart statement about sending of the variance to the Adirondack Park Agency, and them having a 30 day review period, is normally also correct, and I believeðohn is of the opinion that this was sent, or would have been sent, to the APA. MR. PALING-It was sent to the APA? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. ÞALING-By whom? MR. SCHACHNER-By the Town. MR. GORALSKI-The Town. MR. OBERMAYER-The Town of Queensbury. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Board of Appeals motion, decision, was sent to the APA. MR. PALING-When was that? MR. SCHACHNER-September 20th was when the decision was made. MR. PALING-September 20th, and this is more than 30 days since the n . MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And Mr. Stewart's statement about the APA's review authority is essentially correct. MR. BREWËR-So it's a non issue, or is it? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I wouldn't say that it's a non issue, usually the APA's review of these Zoning Board issues are more of a legal r.view than a technical review. MR. OBERMAYER-I think we ought to poll the Board. MR. PALING-Or else we'll do the public hearing first. MR. STARK-I don't think it's a problem. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't think it's a problem. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have no problem. MR. RUEL-I don't think it's a problem. - 17 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. BREWER-I'd like to hear the public comment first before I make a decision. MR. PALING-Yes. At this point I'd like to hearing, if we may, all right, and lets get as can. Is there anyone here that would like to p le,ase~ go to the public much input as we comment on this, PUSLIC HEARING OPENED SALLY CAREY MRS. CAREY-Hi. I'm Sally Carey, and Frank Carey. neighbors across the Rappaport Way from the property. question, first of all. Did anyone receive a letter Nesbitt? He was going to write. a letter to the Town; We're I have a from Tom MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe so. MR. PALING-Not that I know of. I don't see any letters here. MRS. CAREY-It would have been received today. ,He said he was going to type it up this afternoon. MR. PALING-Do you have a copy with you? .1,.,! MRS. CAREY-No, I don't. MR. PALING-No. Sorry. I don't think we have it, unless John has got it. MRS. CAREY-Okay. I have a IDt of questions, mDst of which are concerning the septic system, the placement, the groundwate~, the storm runoff, part of it is connected with our own w¡ell and our own property. We have found that just because land is I;\igher than another piece of land, does not ,mean that's how the ground water will flow. We have, in the fall, wMen we turn our sump pump off, we have three feet of water that collects in our basement now, and we're real concerned about additional ground water and possible failure of th, septic system and contamination of our well, and this groundwater that collects openly in our basement. ..1:' MR. PALING-I think we'll ask Bill MacNamara to comment on that particular question. Okay. MRS. CAREY-Aside from that, I have a big concern about the driveway, if it's going to be paved, or a porous surface. I think it's going to be a verylarge,10ng driveway, and I,would love to see it be a ,p,orous$m-face of gravel or stone, so that we're not having to worry about runoff from the driveway as well. Now the intersection of Rappaport Way and Brayton Lane that was discussed before, water collects there when there's been a storm. It's hard to tell from this summer, because it's was such a dry summer, but water collects there, at least in the spring, reaches a point where it ,-uns down the road, past, I, think it's now called Norview Lane, whatever the current access road is to Mr. Cantanucci's" property, and crosses over a piece of pr.operty .that my brother and I own~ and goes into the lake. That's a real concern, both as having the driveway paved, and adding more runoff to this particular puddle. The TO,wn really, I t.hink, needs to address the drainage anyway, whether anything is developed or not. It's not a good situation with the Town road and so on, but also if there happened to be a failure of the septic system, and you know we never expect failure, but I think we have to plan for it. If that, septic system were t.o fail and leak out int~ this stormwater, it would be going directly into the lake, and although I have concerns about my OWD property, I , - 18 - '-- ---../ -' --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) also have concerns about the runoff into the lake as well. MR. RUEL-Is your septic system closer to the lake than the one 'that's proposed? MRS. CAREY-No. Well, it's kind of hard to tell because of the angle of the lake. Our septic system is further from the lake than either of the two that are proposed there. I can't tell you what it is, because I inherited the property with no desc~iption of where, you know, I can assume where it is. I know we have one. Another issue that I have is the building that's been labeled a carriage house, I would wonder if we could request that that be called a boat storage building. So that it's clearly designated that that's it's use. MR. PALING-Is that at the rear of the building, are we talking about? MRS. CAREY-It's like 24 by 36, or something like that. There's a great deal of pavement right in front of it. MR~ DBERMAYER-That is called a boathouse. MRS. LABOMBARD-That is called a boat storage on my map. MRS. CAREY-Okay. Great. At the Zoning Board it had been called a carriage house. MR. PALING-The naming of it is more of a Zoning Board thing than it really is ours, I would think. MRS. CAREY-Well, that's fine. I think that does it. My biggest concern is the septic system, the placement of it. I'm also concerned'about what trees are going to be cut down for this laTge area that the septic system will be built on, and what kind of screening. It was mentioned that there'll be screening for the driveway on the Young's side of it, and I guess I would like to also ask what kind of screening would be on the other side, on Q.YL side, and the screening between our property and the septic systems, which will be quite large, I would imagine. MRS. LABOMBARD-May I ask you something? 1 feel like maybe I've missed something here. Right now the place is being used. I 'mean ,wha't's here now is being inhabited during the good months. MRS. CAREY-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, some of this is year round. I know we were up there. Well, what I'm saying is, right now it's being used with an old septic system. All right. That could fail any time. So probably the chances of what's there now failing, I would think would be a lot greater than what they're proposing to bu i 1 d . MRS. CAREY-But now we have a perfect opportunity to make sure that we're safe from any possibility. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, and I can understand. I would also assume that this proposed septic system has to meet all the requirements for setbacks and all the engineering requirements and all the environmental requirements. So, it can't be built unless it passes all those inspections. FRANK CAREY MR. CAREY-Can someone tell me, the land that we're talking about up there is not just' plain, all dirt, many, many deep rocks are down underneath. - 19 - '-""-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting, 10/24/95) MRS. LABOMBARD-We noticed there were rocks, when we were up there. MR. CAREY-Now can somebody give me a guarantee that when they put that septic system 150 feet across the way from our camp, and across the way from the well, and it's not going to be contaminated. I would like that explained, and then the other problem I have, which I didn't realize until tonight, we're going to be in between two of them. He wants to put one here, and he wants to put one here, and we're in the middle. T~o different septic systems. Everybody in the world can say, yes, it's not going to touch anything, but what happens if it does? My name's Frank Carey. I'm Sally's husband. MR. PALING-Okay. We will address your questions, then. MR. OBERMAYER-The septic syst,em., I, mean, your well has to be a certain distance from , your septic system, 100 feet according to Code. MR. CAREY-I can accept that if it was regular land, but it isn't up there. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you have a well? MR. CAREY-Yes, we do. You don',t know where it.'s going to go if it hits rocks, and that place is loaded with rocks. Where's it going to go? It's not going to go straight down. MRS. ,CAREY-When ours was built, in the early 50's, that we were required to dig deeper than a normal leach field because the soil was clay, and so more excavation had to be done, and gfavel put in for the leach fields. I do remember that, to conform with Town regulations. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, wO.uldn' t that same scenar io occur now, that it was going to conform with the Town regulations,' and it was very rocky? I should be addressing this to the engineer, then probably the same type: of p:rotection will take place that took place 40 years ago, if not better, because the technology is bet ter . MRS. CAREY-I want to also go on record pleased with what Mr. Cantanucci is doing to be a great asset to the neighborhood. sure that our concerns are addressed, too. to say that I'm very and I think it's going I just want to make MR. PALING-Sure. Okay. Thank you. I think we better address these concerns before we go on~ because I've listed five of them. Bill, do you want to? MR. MACNAMARA-You, apparently, are a better note taker than I. So I'll answer your five notes. MR. PALING-Well, the first one I have is concerned generally with ru noff wate)", and I might tie that in wi th the one, I 'm goi ng to tie that together with the comment about Rappaport and Brayton Lane. I think maybe those can tie together. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. Well, not being a local expert for that area, I'm going to have to have you tell me where Rappaport and the other lane is that you just referred to on this drawing. MR. PALING-Would you point it out for Bill and us and everyone? MR. OBERMAYER-Water from the property, or water from the road? MR. PALING-Both. - 20 - ,-" '- --..-' "'...' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. MACELROY-Good point, because I believe it's two different issues, two different situations. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I do, too. MR. MACELROY-This is the location of Brayton Lane and Rappaport Drive, which is the private right-of-way, which serves access to the Carey's property, Rappaport and Repinski. There is an existing drainage condition, here, where water drains in this direction along the road and is somewhat trapped, to a certain elevation, because of sort of a damming effect by th. buildup of Brayton Lane, paved through the years, I believe, is probably the situation. Now, that's one condition. The other is runoff from the increased impervious area as part of this development. Paved driveway, roof areas. That stormwater condition is a comment that Bill had made, and we're working toward the resolution of that through stormwater management techniques, retention basin infiltrators. So that post development runoff will be managed to the pre-development conditions. Now this drainage situation, and I'm not going to contest Sally's description of the runoff going from that corner up over this high point down to the lake at this area, because she's evidentally seen it, but I know in seeing it in the field, I wonder how it does that, because it goes up over a high point, and I would think it would seek relief in another direction first, but that's just my observation, without being out there during the worst conditions. MR. PALING-Well, I think the major question would be, are you doing anything to make the condition worse on that road? MR. MACELROY-Not in that area, because the developed area, pavement, roof tops, is not in that part of the watershed of the lot. So it's a condition that perhaps the Town should address, or the owner of Rappaport's right-of-way should address. I don't mean to pass the buck, but it's really not a condition that's been created by the applicant or the previous owners of the applicant's property. MR. PALING-What about the driveway that you're putting in? What material is that going to be? MR. MACELROY-It's planned to be paved. MR. RUEL-I'd like to point out something, that a paved driveway, versus gravel or stone, the permeability is apparently the same. So from an engineering standpoint, there is no difference between gravel and paved. MR. MACELROY-There's not a significant difference. Right. MR. MACNAMARA-Well, that depends on who you talk to. Other applicants have been here and have tried to argue a very different story, but I tend to lean toward your view, after five years worth of vehicular traffic over it, but anyway. MR. BREWER-No matter what you say about it, stone is stone, and water doesn't go through stone. So how can it be pervious? MR. MACNAMARA-It has to do with the pour space between the sto neS . MR. BREWER-But compacted gravel. MR. MACNAMARA-That's what I'm saying. After a number of years, that's why, typically, more gravel's brought in and more brought in. MR. PALING-We're talking about a paved driveway here. So there's - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) going to b~ no permeation here. MR. MACNAMARA-No, which was one of our notes eqr.lier, a general fashion has done, but in a more specific bel ieve;ì; look to the pre and post development numbers how much is leaving now and how much is proposed to and make up that difference, which is standard. ~ that he, in will do, I in terms of be leaving, MR~ PALING-Okay. Now, there was a question r4ised abqµt septic system failure and the lay of the land, all the rocks, ,and also it was pointed out, evidentally, that they're between two, septic systems, they feel. Did you want to comment on that? MR. MACNAMARA-Yes, I will, but toward that end, I was· c~rious, the drainage that comes down this Rappaport Drive, it starts where? Does it start clear up to the east of the area, or does it come off of the properties to the south? I guess what I'm getting at, Dennis, is we tal.ked, earlier, abou.t'water not running directly over this two bedroom raised field~ MR. MACELROY-Yes. It wouldn't. MR. MACNAMARA-It doesn't come fro~ that side of the site. It comes from somewhere else I'm guessing? MR. MACELROY-Right. There's a break, Bill, roughly in that area, which woµld create sort of a sub drainage area here, and then this, in this area. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. That just goes to one of our, concerns about direct drainage over the raised field. To your question about seepage fields and them being between two, just to address, I believe it was Sally's concern, about the well separation, is that there are accepted separation distances between l~açh fields and wells, and regardless of whether you look to Queensb~H~y, DEC, or DOH, they're all consistent. Those are what we use to review the adequacy of what's proposed. MR. PALJNG-And they'll be complied with. MR. MACNAMARA-It meets the 100 foot setback, plus or minu~, and that was,one of our other concerns, regarding where do you measure separation from? Is it from the taper of the slope of the raised'field, if you will, or is it from tþe actually edge of the trenches, and that,'s one of the points that Dennis and, I are still working out, if yow will, that that would require, at,the worst case, a slight shift of one of the fields, but in any event, it meets the 100 foot, and to go a step further, that 100 foot may actually be required to be 200 foot, which is a pretty significant difference from that distance, but that's only if" in fact, drainage, surface drainage, clearly goes over a leach field in the direction of a well, for instance. That's obviously a concern, and distance goes twice as long, but that does not appear to be the case here. MR. PALING-Qkay. MR. MACNAMARA~In terms' of them being between two different leach fields, Number O~e, their property's not shown on this, in terms of their residence. So I really can't address it in terms of exactness, but in any event, it would take a geological type of an investigation to fully determine, jf you will, I think she talked about ground water movement and things of that nature, which is certainly over and above the scope of a typical s~ptic installation. MR. PALING-Okay. - 22 - '---' --./ '--- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. MACELROY-If I could just add a point of clarification, it's not two systems, but three, actually, because their own system, the well is between their own system as well. MR. PALING-Then I least. One, would going to be cut? have two you care others, asked for a comment on at to comment on the trees that are MR. MACELROY-There will be a certain clearing of the septic system of the paved areas of the carriage house, or boat storage area, excuse me, and the septic system. Those areas will be cleared for that development. Yes, and I know that the applicant, through his concern of screening on this westerly 'bOuhdary, spoke to me just tonight about the possibility of screening in those areas as well. So I know that the applicant will be interested in accommodating those concerns as well. MR. PALING-Yes. The screening of the driveway was one they asked specifically from there. So it appears that the applicant does intend to do some kind of screening there. MR. RUEL-A question for Staff. to be a lot of land swapping. I see on this map there's going MR. GORALSKI-That was approved last month. MR. RUEL-Okay. So that part of the application. we'll have some legal documentation as Okay. It is done. MR. MACELROY-The swap portion has been completed, yes. MR. MACNAMARA-I wanted to answer one of Sally's concerns, I believe. You mentioned something about 20, 30 years ago, you determined clay was present. Just to, hopefully, give you a somewhat better feeling about these septic systems, we have, and you're welcome to come look at these, obviously, there's at least 10 different test pits were dug by, in this case, Charlie Main, who's a soil scientist, who's qualified to make determinations of adequacy, in terms of soil and ground water and things of that nature, and I reviewed them earlier. Obviously, we did have concerns of our own, which are close to your concerns, also, in your general fashion, over the septic system, and I'm not finding any indication, in all the depths that were dug here, and some were dug as deep as five feet, of any clay. So whatever clay you have on your side of the driveway is kind of a local deposit, if you will, or maybe he's luckier, in that he's got a local deposit of sand on his side, but in any event, we didn't see any clay over there. MR. PALING-Okay. Sir, you wanted to comment? ROBERT WALDEN MR. WALDEN-I'm Robert Walden. I live on Brayton Lane, and I've been on Brayton Lane for 30 years. So I know the area, and I think I can throw some light on some of the things that you talked about, and it may not have anything to do with the septic system, because at this point I don't know where that septic system is going to be placed, and I'm sure that they're going to do a very good job. So he probably will not have any leakage, but I want to explain to you what the problem is about that wet area, because I'm a runner, and I run sometimes in the rain, and I'm up on that part of the road, all the time, and I've seen what the rain water does, and I think you should know what it does, exactly, and I'll go to the map, and I'll explain it to you. I assume that this is the road, the access road? Is that the one that goes to the Carey property? - 23 - --~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. WALDEN-It is. Oka~, In this general area where this m.ets Brayton Lane, and this road here, there's normally, in the summer, in the spring, and other times when there's rain, there's a pocket of wet water here, and then if there's ropre rain, it builds up and it goes on Brayton Lane, alongside this property here, and it runs down hill, because from here to here is all up hill. So it's running down hill, down here, and then if my property, there's a right-of-way, somewhere, like right in here, where it goes down, and then it goes right, and the lake is right there. So YQur concerns about 100 feet from the' lake have nothing to do with this particular problem, because it'$ not 100, what we were concerned about wa$, if the septic system, is here, that it be protected from that wet area, because if tþa~,effluent gets into that, it is definitely, absolutely, known it~ll get into th. lake down here. Now there's two reasons for that. One is, even if they ,p~otected their property from it, I have a stream going from this wetland, which is a designated wetland, right through my property, right into the lake, and right opw the salts and everything that the Town puts on Brayton Lane, which is paved, goes right into the lake, through either my property or through the property of the other owner of the right-of-way here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Sir, would you trace that path again because you kind of went down. MR. WALDEN-Okay. The thing you have to understand is, on this map you don't see the elevation. There's a real elevation from here down hill. So, any water that's sitting here, after, it rains and rains and r&in$, because it's a pocket there. It begins to run down hill from here, and it run$, usually, 'into this property here, this right-of-~ay, and dir.ctly into the lake, because I don't think there's, I mean, down here. MRS. LABOMBARP-I would like; you to tr,ace for me the exact route that that water takes to the lake. MR. WALDEN-Okay. Let m. show it to you. It goes down here, up to here, and this is çll down hill, and then, that's the access into the Young's property, okay. Right over here js where it ,is. The water goes down hill and then goes right into the lake from here. It's only 16 feet from the road, the lake, at this point. LABOMBARD-You're going down the driveway, you've got to go across to the lake. Now" wQl,Ild Y9U also show me exactly where this other couple lives. MR.:WALDEN-Yes~ They live right here. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what I thought. Okay, and now they said they're between two septic systems. I want to see that. MR. WALDEN-I'm just explaining to you why we see} that if the septic system is placed, and I know that they'll build a good septic system, and it may not leak, and I talked to Michael myself about this and said, Michael, you've got to be careful here, because most of the year there's water in this area here, and so any additional rain, that water starts to run down that road. MR. BREWER-Well, there was several test pits right there. Bill, is that what you said? MR. MACNAMARA-The test pits were actually, what appeared tp be up the grade, right in the immediate area of where the absorption field was being proposed, but they're not in what I believe the gentleman is referring to as the very low area that's wet, or if - 24 - "~ ~' ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) they are, I don't know the extent of this low area. MR. OBERMAYER-I~m talking about stormwater, though. necessarily talking a~out groundwater. " We ' l' e no t MRS. LABOMBARD-No, w.~re talking about both, I think. MR. BREWER-Why don't we have them do a test pit at the lowest point there and see if it's going to be sufficient for the septic. That'll solve all the problems, won't it? MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. The trick to that is, regardless of what the data shows in that low point, and it sounds like it's likely to show water pretty close to grade, that's not where he's proposing the septic system, in terms of the footprint, but in reality, this goes to some of the importance of the sizing comments we had, in terms of the base area, or basal area of which he is going to look to increase, and also the separation distance, and also the fact that there was a culvert there. I mean, all these comments are all boiling down to, there are some items on the septic system that we feel could be modified to, say, relieve all the concerns, or at least a lot of them. MR. WALDEN-Okay, that's basically it. MR. MACNAMARA-If I could add one more thing, it almost sounds like, unless I'm missing the point here, a lot of this runoff that may be gathering here, and I agree, would certainly be a problem if you had a constant ponding of water here, and if the septic system were to fail. Those two ifs, but anyway, it sounds like that water that's of a concerri may not even be coming from this particular property. It may be coming from properties up slope, which maybe a general drainage issue which, right, wrong or indifferent, isn't even directly attributable to this project. MR. WALDEN-The only other question I have is about stormwater, and on Brayton Lane we have that problem. It's a severe problem. My house is in between two hills. I'm not talking about my house. I'm talking about the salts and everything on the road go into the lake already, and what I'm cöncerned about, and I think Michael ought to be concerned about it, too, is if he puts paved roads on his property. Those roads are going to be going down hill toward the lake, and if there's no way of getting that water off the roads before it gets all the way down to the, you know, the house, it may go into the lake, and again, you're going to have a problem of water' that is falling on land going into Lake George. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to talk about this? MRS. CAREY-Sally Carey again. I just wanted to clarify the height. You can see it on this, where I saw the stakes from the road are quite a bit higher than the road. So, the very low area at the intersection is not where the stakes are, which I assume are' the ones that were done for the perc test or whatever, but it's quite a bit higher. Our property is a little bit higher than the road, but we still end up with that massive amount of watér in our basement. So the lèvel of the surface doesn't mean anything. MR. CAREY-One other comment, in talking about that runoff. Frank Carey again. Down by our little right-of-way, there's a camp right next to us, right next to that, before Mr. Walden's, and it's above the ground. When that runoff goes down the hill, some of it goes onto our piece and out into the lake, and some of it goes directly under his camp. It's always moist under his place. He's óomplained to me about it more than once. So, in thinking - 25 - - '-, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) of a proposed asphalt driveway where he wants to put it, that could make life a bit more interesting for the gentleman down at the bottom of the hill, as well as us, in terms of runoff. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. public who would care to speak? publ ic hea,- i ng . ]8 there anyone el$e from Okay. Then we will close the the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Just one question or comment, Bob. Has anybody from up in that area contacted Paul Naylor about the drainage problem, the Highway Superintendent? That would probably be a. place to start. Maybe there could be, I mean, he could go up there and look at the problem and maybe have a solution to it. It may be simple or it may be not, I don't know. MRS. CAREY-Historically, I know that my grandmother, probably 15, 20 years ago, had a running conversation wi~h whoever was in that position then, and never could get any satisfaction. MR. BREWER-I'm sure if you called Mr. Naylor, he'd be more than happy to talk about it. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we need a SEQRA on this. MR. SCHACHNER-From what we can tell from the records, there was no coordinated review, meaning the Planning Board never agreed to allow the Zoning Board to be lead agency, and if that's true, then you should do your own. MR. PALING-And we have to do the Long Form. MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend you review the Long Form. ,Î , RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 59-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, ,there application for: is presently before the MICHAEL C.ANTANUCCI, and Planning 'Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board actionis·subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED : 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the app,l ica nt . 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a' signiÆicant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section - - 26 - '"........~ ~ , ----- --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-Okay. I think we can go right to a motion. MR. BREWER-I would like to engineering comments before approve. possibly get the answers from the I would vote on a motion to deny or MR. PALING-We're sort of relying on, as I understand it, there's quite a few, there are some issues to be resolved, but they're going to be worked through Bill MacNamara and through John, and if they're not satisfied with it, it comes back before the Board. Otherwise, we're relying on their judgement, which we have to, in my opinion, anyway, because a lot of this stuff is alittld bit too technical for us to follow completely. MR. OBERMAYER-Let me just ask. there ,r"éiálly, though? What outstanding issues are . MR. MACNAMARA-Well, stormwater issues, in all 'honesty, really have only been generally addressed, not specifically addressed. So he still has some data and also some devices, if you will, and some things to do, in terms of catching and preventing extra stormwater from leaving the parking areas', the drive, things of that nature. From a septic standpoint, there are a number of issues, each one in particular somewhat small, but taken as a whole, there are a number of them, regarding ~eparation distances, taper slopes, things of that nature, which we generally agreed could be overcome, but it needs to be shown on the drawing. MR. PALING-Right, and these will be worked through you and John, and if you approve, okay, and if you don't, then we talk some more. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you have a copy of this letter? MR. MACELROY-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, and these are pretty much all the issues that you've raised? MR. MACNAMARA-Correct. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you guys have any problems with meeting all these requirements? MR. MACELROY-No. I've talked with Bill fairly extensively about how we will do it. - 27 - 'c~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. MACNAMARA-I would suggest that another drawing needs;; to be submitted that, on paper, shows that what we discussed can be met, only because, quite honestl~~ it's a diffiçult site. I'm sure Dennis will agree, and there are a lot of things that require some fairly fine tuning, if you will. in terms of getting everything to fit and meet the myriad of different guidance that's out there. MR. PALING-Okay. motion. All right. Then I thi nk we'll entertain a MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-95 Introduced by James Obermayer who moved seconded by Roger Ruel: MICHAEL CANTANUCCI, for its adoption, With the following conditions, that the applicant meets all the requirements as indicated in the letter from Rist-Frost Associates, Number 89-5000.059 RC95, dated October 20, ,: 1995, and that they m.et any other discr.pancies, so to sp.ak, from our Town Engineer, to the satisfaction of Rist-Frost and the Planning Department, Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1995, þy the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr.,Qbermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, M,-. Paling NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan SITE PLAN NO. 58-95 TYPE: UNLISTED P.Co MANAGEMENT CO. OWNER: KENNETH ERMIGER ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: W~ST ,SIDE OF RT. 9 JUST SOUTH OF ROUND POND RD., BETWEEN AG.WAY ANDANIMAL,LAND. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 1e HOLE MINIATURE GOLF COURSE, ADMINISTRATION OF MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS AND PARKING LOT. ALL LAND USES IN HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMMo: 10/9/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/11/95 CROSS REFERENCË: SUB. 13-1995 TAX MAP NO. 73-1~4, LOT SIZE: 8.4 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan' No. 58-95, P.C. Manpgement Co., Meeting Date: October 24, 1995 "Given the proximity to other recreation and tourist uses this is certainly an appropriate location for a miniature golf course. However, because this use will operate during the evening it could have an impact on the adjacent zoo. The plan indicates the limit .of clearing to be within 10' of the property line. This creates the potential for light washing onto the zoo property and, may attract customers of the golf cours~ toward the animals. A buffer between the two properties should be significant enough to mitigate the potential for negative impacts to the zoo. The number of parking spaces seems more than adequate and they are significantly set back from the roadway. No specific landscaping plan is proposed, but Note #2 on Sheet C2 states, 'Final landscaping subject to review and approval of Town Planning and Zoning Staff'. I don't have a problem with this as long as the applicant understands that no certificate of Occupancy will be issued w.ithout completion of the landscaping. Also, I will be looking for significant landscaping at the roadway." MR. PALING-Okay, and we have a letter from Rist-Frost. Bill, do you want to comment on this? - 28 - y '- ~ --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. MACNAMARA-Sure. The applicant's engineer, Tom Nace, and I reviewed these by telephone this afternoon, generally, so I'll sort of summarize, to some degree. We didn't receive any specific information on apparently a subdivision that precluded this particular site plan. So if there's anything specific about the subdivision, we didn't get it, and we understand there really wasn't anything we needed to look at anyway. MR. PALING-What is this about a subdivision? MR. GORALSKI-You did a subdivision last month on this property. . V'dl¡ d:ild a final \ subdivision, apprOva'l on this I' property ,aè:tually, last week. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. Our first point, basically, has to do with the site access arrangement. The way it's shown is that there's kind of an odd angle, in terms of its intersection with Route 9. We're suggesting that it be shown at 90 degrees. If not 90, than certainly closer to 90 than, I think it's, what did we figure, something like 65 or something, plus or minus. Anyway, and I'm optimistic that the DOT, in their curb cut review, will also kind of lean toward the 90 degree number, and for what it's worth, I drove by tonight for the first time, knowing what was going to be there, and drove in and I think it would be certainly good, only because, and correct me if I'm wrong here, it almost appears, though it doesn't show up on this drawing, that the road has somewhat of a curvature coming up the hill right there, and certainly people making right hand turns, even could use all the help to know what's coming on their left. That being said, and to that end, John mentioned something about significant, he's €h(pect'iÍ1g' S'ig.rddicant. landscap.i!'r)'g along the roadway. I; would "simply claut;i!ón tf.\'t'it it needs t>Ó T'l'ot interferei,With' the site iil€jistanð:íé åspeêton ~()ute 9~J! Tf\'êre's·¡a ndte abou't a w'ate:f't'.te-in meeting Town',!stànOards;¡: Regard! ng storm.water ~ and John mentioned this 'e~rl:ier,and 'I'll,ljust:.n:Hterâte it, there basically wias not .ia lot.' o'f i nform!atioñ' preSented reg:aï"di ng'the speci -r ics of the dr'àinage of¡iEhe',l"actu'al' 18 hole COÜ1~Sè, if you will, and in ! partit::ular'tht'lré ' s· a pond that TOm attèffiJ3'ted to kind of give me a quick five dollar tour on over the phÖne today, but I don't think I picked up all the important details. The elevations, as we're seeing them here, are such that if in fact there were overflows, it's higher than Route 9, and we certainly don't want to have any water heading out that way, and Tom has apparentTy got that licked, and he's going to supply us some additional data on it. Theve's also a note about a back drywell, and he was going to, he may even talk about that back drywell, but he's basically asked for it to be a touch bigger, in terms of preventing some runoff on a back slope, and we didn't even talk about this, but some of the slopes are approaching the Town's max of one on three, if you will, and they're to be disturbed or actually excavated for the yard. We suggested some specific erosion control items be noted and where they're going to put them. Okay. On sewage disposal. I'll be brief because I'm almost done, we, much like the last plan, went bat::k and forth on a number of DEC versus DOH requirements, and I think we've shaken those out, in terms of which one is the important one, and what he's going to show. This one certainly doesn?t have anywhere near as many of the items that are to be shown, if you will, as the last item, and I don't believe we'll have any trouble meeting the notes that are there, f6r the septic system. I summarized those last comments, by the way. Those are all my comments, unless you want me to go over it in more detail. MR. PALING-Okay. purposes~ please. Would you identify yourself for record - 29 - '''--- (Queensbury Planning Board Me~ting 10/24/95) MR. NACE-For the record, my nam~ is Tom Nace E ng i nee)" i ng , her e 1" epr esent i ng P. C . Ma nagement , owner and operator of Pirates Cove Golf Courses. with Haanen which is the MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments from anyone on the Board at the moment? MR. OBERMAYER-Are there any future plans to build anything else on this site? MR. NACE-If you'll notice, I think on one of the plans, we've shown the rear portion of the property as a set aside. If it does well with the first 18, their intention would be, eventually, to build another 18, and there's more than sufficient room in back to do that and include parking for that, MR. PALING-Before we go any further on Beautification Committee has said yes. this, lets see, MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board approved. MR. PALING-Okay, and Warren County Planning Board has approved. Okay. MR. BREWER-I've got a question. The note about between the property line and the clearing, Tom, is to find out, this maybe a crazy question, but animals are in that particular part of the zoo? the distance there any way what kind of MR. PALING-Okay. There's a question regarding animals. We might have to have somebody else come forward to answer it. Lets put the question off for a moment, okay. We'll make note of it. Okay. Any other quest ions? Okay. 'Lets open the pUP 1 ic heari ng . PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ART SMITH MR. SMITH-My name's Art Smith. I'm the Manager of the Lake George Zoo. I represent Mr. Osbourne. He asked me to come in and talk to you. We are happy to see something going in there. We do have a couple of concerns, because of our animals there. I'm not sure how close they are to our property. MR. BREWER-Within 10 feet, right? MR. NACE-As shown on the site plan here, the nearest hole, this, if I remember right, 30 scale. The nearest hole would be between 10 and 15 feet from the property line. MR. PALING-The nearest hole, and that's where the grass stops? MR. NACE-No. That would be the actual putting ho1e. MR. BREWER-Where the patrons would be. MR. NACE-There are paths from one hole to the next, okay, and the way it's laid out here, there probably would not be a path going any closer to this one tee on Number Seven, if you look at your map, which shows about 50 feet away. MR. PALING-And that would then cut right through the 15 foot? MR. NACE-No. The path, there would be no other y:Jalking facility closer than about 15 feet. MR. PALING-Fifteen feet. -·30 - '-' ~ ".- --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. SMITH-Okay. The animals I have there are deer. I have ostrich in one pen. How far back are they going, two hundred and some feet to start with? MR. NACE-About 250 feet, 240 feet. MR. SMITH-That's for the first 18 holes, and then how far for the? MR. NACE-The total property is about 500, a little over 500 feet. MR. SMITH-Right, which, that there will cover about three forths of my park in the back there, it'll run along the fence lines. I don~t hav~ dangerous animals, but I've got animals that if you stick your fingers in the fence will bite you. The ostrich can take a half a finger right off a little kid. MR. PALING-And could they walk right up to the fence, the way this is arranged? MR. SMITH-They're going to be landscaped right to my fence, I would assume. MR. OBERMAYER-What kind of fence is it? Is it chain link, did you say? MR. SMITH-Chain link, yes. MR. RUEL-How high is the fence? MR. SMITH-I have eight foot. MR. PALING-Height is probably not a factor, but a little kid could get his hand through the fence. MR. OBERMAYER-How high can an ostrich go? MR. SMITH-They'll go over a four foot fence with no problem. MR. STARK-Art, is the Zoo going to be there next year, or what? I heard rumors that you're bankrupt, or so on and so forth. MR. SMITH-As of now, the Zoo will be there next year, and that's what the owner wanted me to stress to everybody here. We have had problems, but we're hoping to work it out, and we intend to open up next year. MR. PALING-And you can't guarantee that they wouldn't shift, whatever animals you have near that fence aren't necessarily what's always going to be against that fence. MR. SMITH-No. It's eight foot fence. So I can put a lot of different animals in there. I can put zebras in there. I can put a lot of different animals. I can't put felines in there, you know, meat eaters, but I have a problem, we have a problem with Martha's at night. They come over. They eat their ice cream and visit my animals late at night. It's a tremendous problem there, and we're going to put up a fence this year along Martha's. MRS. LABOMBARD-What are those fences that have the weave through them? MR. SMITH-I have that out front. They pull it apart. MRS. LABOMBARD-The animals do or the people do? MR. SMITH-No, the people do. - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. OBERMAYER-How about like a stockade fence? MR. SMITH-A stockade fence is great. It doesn't look the nicest. I mean, I'm sure that's what they're considering. We would be happy with even a chain link. fence, say, five, six feet away. MR. RUEL-Double fence. MR. SMITH-Right, a double fence. We wouldn't like to see a four foot fence, because a four foot fence, daddy could still pick up the son, set it over the fence, and run over. MR. PALING-And they do, too. MR. SMITH-We do this all the time, and the sad part, when they do that, we are liable, because we have animals. I've had a man climb the eight foot fence and pet the leopard at night, and we are liable. The police say, you don't have signs up, No Trespassing. I've got an eight foot fence, but back to this problem, we'd like to see a fence, a buffer zone, because what's going to stop that little kid, after he's done playing that hole, to run right to the fence, and my animals are going to'come over. They're trained to go to people. MR. away them. OBERMAYER-Pa1"ents might not know enough to. tell them to stay from the fence, if there'$ no obstructi~n there to stop MR. SMITH-And I haven't heard what their hours are, either, of operation. I don't know what that is. MR. PALING-Well, it'll probably go from day into night, probably lighted I guess, most of them are. MR. SMITH-How much lIghting? I m,ean, is this, are they going to light my property up? MR. PALING-Is that going to disturb the animals? \ MR. SMITH-Some of them it does, yes. I mean, we would love to see the miniature golf come in. We're not against it~ We'd just like, we're trying to protect our anlma1s, and their customers at the same time. MR. PALING-Well, the direction of the lighting may be controlled, and maybe a buffer fence and those kind of things. So there's a solution here some place. MR. SMITH-Right. The stockade fence, if it was considered, we felt that, like, 20 or 30 feet up from the highway, to $tart, maybe chain link from the highway down, or up, you know what I'm saying, then stockade fence back. Because youdon,'t want stockade right along Route 9, because that's a bad curve there. I know you talked about it. MR. RUEL-You have animals all the way to the highway? MR. SMITH-Yes, but, see, in the summer time, I don't 'let them down there because people go there constantly to feed them. MR. BREWER-Has there ever been a consideration, possibly, Tom, to flip this plan around? Is that a possibility? MR. NACE-Do you want to get th1"ough and then let' m.e respond? MR. PALING-Yes. Let the gentleman finish. MR. SMITH-We're concerned about a fence to keep their people, - 32 - '-- ,-",' ......... (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) even with a flip in the parking lot, you've still got the cars. MR. OBERMAYER-Which is probably even worse. MR. SMITH-Yes. That would be worse, as far as I'm concerned. We're just concerned about the lights and how late it's going to run, because Martha's, he closes at 11 o'clock, and I still have people, I have to call the police from time to time to get them out of my area down there. It's kids. What are they going to do? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, our job is to also provide for the safety of people. MR. PALING-People and the animals both. yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-So we have to really take this into consideration ser iousl y . MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SMITH-And there is,one other question about the drainage there now. Starting, like where the log house used to be, there's a ravine that goes right down in back, and it comes right out to my area, and I get flooded real bad already now because of that. How far back are you filling in? MR. NACE-The ravine you're talking about starts up, the log house is on the top of the hill, it starts up here, and works it way down through here. We're filling a little bit here where we're constructing the parking lot out into the edge of that ravine, w.'re not cutting it off, and we're putting a drywell here, and that's one of Bill's comments was that drywell, we had designed only for a 10 year storm, because I was under the impression, having walked this, I thought this ravine sort of closed itself off and this was a low area )-ight in here, that sort of ponded into itself before it got over the hump and then on down. MR. SMITH-No. There's one that runs along the fence. MR. NACE-Isn't there a low point in that, though, right toward this back, well, this back corner hasn't been defined, until this subdivision. MR. SMITH-Right. It's only like 75 feet from that iron pipe, wherever the iron, thei ron pipe they found somewhe)-e right up in there, that it runs into me. It dumps, channels right into me, and I do get a lot of water in the spring time right there. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, we will definitely beef this up to be sure that everything off the road stays here. Our developed portion of the site up front will all drain, it'll be graded to all drain down to this pond. MR. PALING-Oka}'. MR. SMITH-And the lighting was, do you know what kind of lighting it's going to be? MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. SMITH-Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Lets talk about what this gentleman asked, because it is, I think, unique. The public hearing is still open, but I'd like to address his remarks now. MR. NACE-Okay. First, let me pass around, we're sort of asking - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/9$) the Town to take a leap of faith here, because we, have a black box that's a golf course, and we really haven't shown specific grading or landscaping. So I'd like to pass around, if I could, some pictures of other facilities that Pirate~s Cove owns and operates, and I'll give you a little bit 'of '<feeling for the quality of the landscaping and they do an ß~cellent job of landscaping, and the reason I bring this up now, is the course looks so nice, and it's so well landscaped, we would like to, if possible, stay away from a stockade fence, which is a very brief, stark looking feature right next to the golf course~ Okay~ I'd much prefer, if we can, to do a very dense screening of thick a,-borvitae or some type, of hedgerow there that would ,physically prevent somebody from getting through it, and would also cut off the visual view of the animals on the other side, so most people wouldn't even know it's there. I think there's a couple of things here, that it's a little different than Martha's. Martha's, people are sitting around eating ice cream with nothing to do. If they wander back toward that back corner of the parking lot, they're pretty much by themselves, and there's no pressure from other people to do what's'right. Here, they're going to be in a little miniature golf course. There's going to be a foursome on either side of them, playing through, and, first of all~ there's really not going to be time to 'gO venturing off to go pet the animals, and, secondly, there's going to be peer pressure that that's not the right thing, to do. So, I've got people watching me, I better not do it. So I think if we provide physical screening of, landscaping or dense planting, that it will be effective, and I was talking with Ed Graff~ the owner of P.C. Management, this afternoon, and he agreed that he's willing to stipulate in writing that, yoU know, lets try the landscaping, and then if, in the future, the Town gets complaints, the Building Department gets complaints, then he will agree, at that point, to put up some fencing. So we'd like, because of the aesthetics of it, we'd like to stay away from the fencing if we could. MR. OBERMAYER-Even if you started the fence up, off the road a little bit, and at least cover it in most of the area? MR. NACE-Our concern is the visual impact of the fencing from the people on the golf course, right next to it, that it's~ MR. OBERMAYER-Can you put shrubs up against the fence? MR. NACE-It's still a stockade fence. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, Tom, what you're saying workable thing. sounds like a viable, MR. NACE-We'd be glad to put up a fence if if the owner has a problem and complains. file with the Town that says we'll do it. make the first attempt at some sort of a prevent the problem. it becomes a problem, We'll have a letter on Okay, but we'd like to landscape screening to MR. GORALSKI-Possibly, you know, if the Board would like to see a fence now, and the concern is the aesthetics of: the fence, possibly a chain link fence with some type of ivy growing on it that would eventually cover the chain link fence, that you'd just have a wall of vegetation, instead of a fence there. MR. OBERMAYER-Or plant shrubs, ,arborvitaes against it. MR. GORALSKI-I guess what I'm saying 'is if you use some type of ivy growing on the fence, you're not going to take up that space. It's basically just going to grow on the fence, and you won't be taking up that space with shrubbery. - 34 - --- --.,/ ~ ...-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. OBERMAYER-That's true. MR. PALING-I have a serious doubt about it because I can visualize a family going there to play golf, a little kid walking back thyough the bushes and going up to the fence, and doing as I did, when I was a kid. I got a scar from a deer who bit my finger when I tried to feed it a carrot. MR. NACE-I'm talking about a screened planting dense enough that you'd really have to shoulder your way to go through it. MR. OBERMAYER-Enough to stop a golf ball? MRS. LABOMBARD-You can pack arborvitaes together that you cannot get through. When they planted those at Hiland, seven, eight years ago, those little things were just these little things, you know, that looked like, they didn't look like much, and now you couldn't get through them if you tried. MR. BREWER-Well, like yo~ said, Cathy, that was seven or eight years ago. MRS. LABOMBARD-But you could plant them. You don't have to plant little things. You could plant the ones that are already, and what you do is you pack them. I did it myself, instead of putting up a fence, and I'll tell you, it. MR. NACE-The other point is that there will be, during the time that the course is open, lighted, in the evening, all day long, there will be people there policing the course. Okay. There's a person in the ticket booth taking, making change and taking tickets, and there's another person constantly going around the course to make sure that everything's going okay. MR. PALING-Can you not also shield, whatever, the light so that there's nothing that goes back into the Zoo area? MR. NACE-The other issue is lighting. The lighting we will use will be a down light, a shielded cut off light fixture. So definitely the light will be directed down, and certainly along this edge, we can be extra sensitive to that, to make sure the spillage is minimized. MR. PALING-Okay. We've talked lighting. MR. NACE-Hours of operation was the other question. The course opens at 10 a.m., and at 11 o'clock they cut off ticket sales. At that time of night, the real crowds, typically on these courses, dwindle off about 9, 9:30. By the time 11 o'clock rolls around, there may be a half a dozen players or a half a dozen groups on the course, and at that point, where it's spread out, it takes about twenty minutes to play through. So by 11:20, the course would effectively be closed. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-But then the lights still have to be kept on to clean up. MR. NACE-They do most of the clean up with the morning crew. The evening crew simply closes down the front operations after the last people set through. They will walk the course to make sure nobody's left on before they turn the lights out, close up the office, and go home. The other issue, I don't know if it (word lost) here, but there is no food sale on these courses. They have a vending machine for soft drinks, and that's it. There is no food sale anticipated. - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. RUEL-I was concerned about the animals, perhaps, 'having some gastrointestinal problems eating golf balls going over the fence. MR. NACE-How many times have you seen people on a miniature golf course throwaway their golf ball? . I mean, they need that golf ball to play the rest of ' the course. MR. BREWER-This subdivision, is the access provided here, Tom, sufficient for the other lot, not a problem? MR. NACE-Yes. It was an agreement, as part of the subdivision, that this access would serve both lots. Now, Bill has a good point. We have not submitted to DOT yet. We don't anticipate any problems because we're closing down three curb cuts along this entire property and having only one to rep1ace that. I don't see any problem with DOT, but Bill is right. We probably should try to straighten the angle out here a little bit to 90 degrees, and we will work on that. MR. BREWER-Straighten it on the other side as well, YOU mean? MR. NACE-No. The actual entrance road itself, right at the throat here, we'll have to curve it so it comes out more at 90 degrees, but I'll work those details out with DOT. MR. PALING-All right. Any other questions? would like to talk about this? Anyone else that EDWARD GARDNER MR. GARDNER-I'm Edward Gardner, and I own the Lake George Campsite and R.V. Sales Center, which has property adjoining the proposed project at the rear of that project, My concern, likewise, is with respect'to the operating hours of the golf course. I spoke with Mr. Graff today by telephone, and he also stated that the last tickets would be intended to be sold at about 11 p.m., but he did say that it is likely to take upwards of 40 minutes to complete the round of golf, which would then take playing time very close to the midnight hour. Normally, quiet time at a camp ground is expected to begin at around 11 p.m., and that's what we' normally enforce. Some years ago, our neighbor to the south, Skateland, when they were proposing the water slide project for their property, cooperated, and agreed to close down their operation so that particular operation, the water operation, at 10 p.m., and that has worked very, very well for us, for both of us, as a matter of fact, even to the extent that they need to do some clean up just after 10 p~m. There's been no noticeable disturbance in any way, that has bothered the serenity of the campground, and so I am hopeful that somewhere we could ask for ,the same kind of cooperation in this particular instance, and ask, that perhaps, if the latest ticket could be sold at 10 p.m., that would then give us reasonable assurance that by 11 p.m., we would have quiet on the campground, as well as on the golf"course, and hopefully one would compliment the other. MR. STARK-You said you own property in back'of the golf course, or in back of Lot Two of this subdivision, where the senior citizen housing project is potentially planned? I think you don't own property on the golf course. You own it on the back property? MR. GARDNER-On the back property which, yes, that's correct. There's another 200 feet, I believe, beyond the back boundary of this proposed project before my property begins. That's correct. MR. BREWER-I'm lost. talking about. I don't know what senior housing you're - 36 - -- -....../ -- --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. STARK-Well, that was potential, but you say it's only 200 feet? MR. GARDNER-I believe, that's what I've been told, is that there were, there was a parcel, 200 foot in depth, behind this parcel, which is the buffer between this and the campground. MR. STARK-Let me ask Tom. Tom, is that correct? MR. NACE-No. I don't believe so. MR. PALING-Excuse me, but lets address that separately. have any other questions? Do you MR. GARDNER-The only other concern that I might have would be the possibility of, heretofore there's been no need for any kind of fencing to run along our border, our perimeter. With the addition of this venture on the front, it's of course going to open up the entire area and make it known and visible probably that there is a campground there. That is likely to bring along some uninvited guests who might try to enter via that opening or through the golf course, but perhaps in the course of developing some perimeter plans, including growth, that would be included as a consideration for the boundary which would exist with the campground, and the last thing, of course, might be the lighting, although I think, ,in this particular case, all I'd want is to know that there was not any lighting which would be severe enough to penetrate into the campground, especially after the dark hours, or the 11 o'clock hour anyway, the restful time, and so as to not disrupt the peaceful environment of the campground, but I'd like to add that we are extremely pleased to know that the golf course is coming into the area. It'll be certainly another asset for the entire business climate of the Town of Queensbury, and for the campsite property itself. So I do not want to appear to be negative, I'd just like these few considerations. That's all. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Tom, do you want to comment again? MR. NACE-Sure. I think to me the only misconception is the distance involved. There's the subdivision plan, which I'm sure you've all seen. We're developing the front half of this. The total length of this property line is about 500 feet, and this is 500. This property line back here is about 300 feet. So from our back property line to this property line with the campground is 300 feet, and I believe there's also, from the property line here to the actual nearest camping facilities, there's still some distance, whether it's 100 feet or 200 feet or 300 feet I couldn't tell you for sure, but there is some relatively considerable distance. So we're 300 plus another, on our own property, another 150 to 250 feet to our actual facilities. I don't think, in all reality, that noise is ~oing to be a problem. First of all, it's not a real noisy operation. It's well landscaped. The trees, if you'll notice on those pictures I passed around, P.C. doe a very good job of trying to maintain the existing trees and their landscaping. One of those you looked at was a course that opened only six months before the picture was taken. So, obviously, all those big trees were existing trees that they worked their course around so that they could keep them. Those trees will do a great deal to buffer the sound. This back portion, at least initially, will be treed. This portion here is treed, plus we're I said, about, even if we only say 150 feet here, another 300. That's 450 feet. Sound carries, or it diminishes as the square of distance. If you listen to a person talking very loudly 100 feet away, if you listen, you can hear what he's saying. You go 500 feet away, and that's diminished to 1/25th of the noise level. It's imperceptible. At 500 feet, you could be yelling and screaming and barely tell what - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) somebody's saying. As far as lighting, our light would be, with the cut off fixtures~ there is no way that there would be spillage, you know, 500 feet back. The fencing, I don't think with this additional 300 feet in here, that somebody's going to wander 300 feet back through the woods (lost word) golf courses. MR. STARK-You'd probably get it the other campground in. way, from the MR. PALING-All right. Are there any other questions or comments from the public on this matter? TOM MCDONOUGH MR. MCDONOUGH-Good, evening. My name's Tom McDonough. I'm an attorney in Queensbury, and I have a law office across'the street from the area which is bei ng developed here for the past·. 20 years. My wife and I operate the Greycourt Motel since the death of my mother-in-law this past summer. We've been in the business for about 30 some odd yeaYS, and I'm here to speak in support of the application. Mr. Graff spoke to us about tWQ weeks ago and told us the type of operation that he was going to have. He:was going to be open there until about 11 or 11:30 at night, and in consideration of the operation of the motel business, the activity that's in that area, until about 11 or 12 o'clock at night, and the way we've been informed the operation is going to be performed, we'd like to speak in support of the operation as the petitioner has made it to the Board. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. MCDONOUGH-Thank you. MR. PALING-Anyone else? MR. SMITH-I've just got two questions. Did we address the drainage there, did he address? I don't know. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets readdress it then, drainage. about the corner. You talked MR. SMITH-And are the lights going to be on all night, or are they going to dim it? That's all. MR. PALING-Okay. Drainage and lights. All right. Lets address those questions. MR. NACE-Drainage, we will, at the back I indicated we will, according to the Town Engineer comments, beef up the drainage there so we definitely don't overflow anything, even in severe storms, and the lighting, no. The lighting will be turned off when the course is shut down. There'll be security light near the office, but the general courselightin9 gets turned off at the end of the business day. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. put with will up? STARK-I have a question. Art, will that satisfy you if they a very dense row of arborvitaes along the northern border, the stipulation that, if it's still a problem, then they go ahead and fence on their side of the arborvitaes with ivy MR. SMITH~Okay. The only question I guess, sense to you, but if someone does 9.e·t hurt, liable? it might not make who's going to be MR. PALING-Yes. - 38 - '-' '-.-' "--' -/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95 ) MR. SMITH-We are, that's the problem. I've seen all kinds of fences, and when people climb an eight foot fence to get in, ivy's not going to, or brush is not going to stop them, because kids will crawl under it. I'm not saying a stockade fence, because I know it would look bad, but at least we would prefer like a five foot chain link fence, because the four foot people still set their children over and let them run over to the fence. Five foot is just where it's going to be hard to do, and then, like the ivy, it would look pretty, or something like that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would you still be liable with No Trespassing signs? MR. SMITH-We can holler at them and scream at them with signs up. Our insurance, when you've got an animal and they bite somebody, you're liable. Are they liable, can we sue them if their people, now, granted, their golf ball, but they carry money. I get this all the time. They throw it to my animals all the time. I mean, we're not trying to be bad neighbors, but we've got to protect our animals. I'm fighting every day there, and the laws are getting to where it's pushing us out. They're making the laws for me to protect these animals so bad, and the animal rights groups, it's brutal what they'll do to us. MRS. LABOMBARD-When yoU purchase your ticket, if could say something to the effect, if you are authorities feeding, going near the fence, etc., just be asked to leave. You will not get your mean, does that deter these kinds of things? the golf course caught by our etc., you will money bac k . I MR. SMITH-I would have to say over 50 percent of the people will not read your rules, and I have it right along the highway. On Route 9 in the winter time, they'll stop right in the middle of the road to go look at the deer. Right in the winter time. I've had the police come up to make them move. I mean, people want to see animals. I talked with Mr. Graff, too, and he said he's never had a golf course ne~t to a zoo, so he didn't realize what kinds of problems it might create, and there is a problem. 'People will go to the animals. They will. MRS. LABOMBARD-So you're saying is you have your fence. So then what you woùld, the ideal situation for you would be skip five feet away from your fence, and then they put up a fence. MR. SMITH-A five foot fence. someone over. Four foot, they could still put MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. So they put up a five footer. MR. SMITH-And a stockade fence would look bad, but if worse came to worse, we'll put one up, too. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm just wondering if you could somehow put a five foot fence up, with arborvitae, stick them right in the middle of it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. NACE-Can I just respond? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. NACE-We're still, we'll do what we have to do, obviously. We're still, because of the aesthetics concerned about a fence, that we would have to come inside our property line five feet or so, let me pose a hypothetical solution or statement here. If I were proposing an animal park next to an existing housing development, okay, it would be incumbent upon me to, I've got the - 39 - ~../ (Oueensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) attractive nuisance, it would be incumbent upon me to provide that buffer fencing inside my 'property. One solution here may be, if we could provide the fence, and put it inside the animal park property for the buffer, I think might be a reasonable solution. I don't know. MRS. LABOMBARD-If he doesn't mind giving up that land. MR. NACE-We're talking about five feet. considerable amount. To us, it means a MR. BREWER-Yes, but you're 10 feet away from the line, Tom. MR. NACE-Right, but again, it's, if you look at those pictures, it's a nice, open airy landscaped feeling around these courses, and that's what we're trying to maintain. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, you're going to see the fence anyway, though, aren't you, Tom, the existing fence? MR. NACE-You'll see the existing fence, but now we have the chance to do some landscaping to sort of buffer than, rather than to encroach. I'm just throwing that out. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we've discussed it far enough. Is there anyone else from the public who would care to comment? All right. The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now, with the consent of the Board, I wonder if we could just do inter Board discussion. MR. STARK~Tom offered to put up a dense row of arborvitae. See how that works. He would put a letter on file. If it's still a problem with this dense thing, then they would offer to put a fence on Animal Land's property to make the buffered area even more. I mean, it depends on what Art wants to do. MR. OBERMAYER-I guess that would be okay with me. MRS. LABOMBARD-My contention is, Animal Land doesn't want to take the chance of that one errant child going across the boundary to the fence, or the father that lifts the kid up. I think, of everything I've heard tonight, I think Tom's hypothetical solution, I mean, if they want to foot the bill, and Animal Land is willing to relinquish that five feet, and put the fence and put the fence inside the fence that's already there, then they can still go about keeping the landscaping the way they want to, and now they can also keep the people away from the animals. MR. RUEL-I agree with Cathy. The only exception, the five foot fence I think should have the plastic covering, in addition to just the wire. MR. BREWER-I kind of agree with what Cathy said, but I don't know that it's fair for us to ask Animal Land to give up five feet of their property when they're not creating the problem. I mean, they're there. They're established, and if this property owner wants to put this park in, or golf course or whatever in, I think he has to protect his rights, as well as protect the people that are going to be there that mayor may not go after the animals. I think he has a legitimate concern. MR. PALING-Okay. We're polling the Board and you've got one more to go. I'm uncomfortable with the arborvitae by itself. I think there has to be some kind of protection, in addition to the fence that exists, whether it's put on by the P.C. Management, or - 40 - ~ ----./ '--' '"-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) whether it's actually on the Zoo property, I wouldn't care, but I'd like to see a five foot high fence, some distance from the other fence. Five foot would be on the golf course side, such that a child would be most unlikely to even get picked up and put over there, but otherwise, I'm not comfortable with just arborvitaes. I could visualize a chain link fence with ivy growing on it, or arborvitae, whatever it is to cover the chain link fence after a period of time, but I am not comfortable. MR. STARK-Why does it have to be five feet? Why can't it be two feet from the line? MR. PALING-No, I said five foot high. MR. STARK-Ok~y. MR. PALING-I'd have to think about the distance between the fences, that would not have to be five feet, I wouldn't think. That would be two feet or whatever, but I would want to see some kind of an obstruction about five foot high to separate this. So there's two fences. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm not hung up on the distance between them eithe¡- . MR. STARK-John, have you got any comment? MR. GORALSKI-Well, to be honest with you, the Board doesn't have the authority to say that they should put å ifenbe ön the Animal Land property. The only authority you have is on this property that's in front of you, and I guess I tend to agree that there is a potential hazard there, and I think putting up a chain link fence, you know, a few feet from the existing fence, and covering it with ivy or something, so that it doesn't take any more property away, any more useful property away, would be a way to hide the fence, yet provide the needed space between the two uses. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. What's three feet? MR. NACE-I'll tell you what. Would you allow us, rather than the Board stipulating exactly what we do, would you allow us to sit down with Animal Land, come to an agreeable solution, as long as it satisfies Animal Land? At a minimum, we would have another fence of some sort. MR. PALING-Well, satisfy Animal Land and the Planning Board. MR. NACE-And the Planning DepartMent. MR. PALING-Yes, well that's up to the Board to say, then. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, thé only reason that we're asking for a fence is because Animal Land requested it. Why can't they just work it out amongst themselves? MR. PALING-No, no, no. I'm requesting a fence because I feel there should be one there. MR. BREWER-The safety of the patrons that are going to be there Jim. I mean, that's our obligation. MR. PALING-We could perhaps put some kind of basic spec on it, so that you could work it out. MR. NACE-Sure. I fully understand your intention. Okay. If we can meet that intention. - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. PALING-All right. Well, what we're saying is, we visualize another fence on the golf course side of the existing fence, approximately five foot high, some distance from the Zoo fence, and then you would deco)-ate it, but that would be your option. We're only concerned with the barrier, and it would be some kind of a very rugged fence, like chain link, or similar, and if you want to then work out the distance between the fences, the exact height and that kind of thing, would you all be comfortable with that? MR. BREWER-I would be willing to say that we could agree to some sort of a fence. Do we want to go the whole length, the whole? Why don't we Just say right to the end of development, to the development, at this point, and then if, at another point, he develops further back, then we can talk about it again. MR. PALING-Well, Tim, could I Just add something to that? Maybe you could ask them to Join the fences at that point. Then no one could walk around in between the fences. MR. RUEL-Yes. They'd have to be closed. MR. PALING-Yes. In other words, you've got the two fences coming along to a certain point, then Join the two fences at that point, and then you could remove it later on, if you wanted to. MR. BREWER-No. What I'm saying, Bob, is that, rather than have them go back the whole length of this, Just go right to here. MR. PALING-And I'm saying Just Join the two fences. MR. BREWER-Yes. That's fine. MR. PALING-Okay. How does that sound? MR. GORALSKI-That sounds fine~ I hate to keep going here, but there is another issue we started discussing when all this was going on, that I think should be brought up, and it may be very simple to address. Is there any provision, or can You tell me what the disposition of the area along the roadway is going to be? The point I'm getting at is that I think there's going to be a tendency for people, pedestrians, to move between this property, the Zoo, aDd Martha's. It's a natural thing, and I'm not clear in my mind exactly how this front area is going to be developed. Will there be at least a grassed area where pedestrians will be able to walk along ,the front of that pr oper t y? MR. NACE-Yes. Between the pond and the road is going to be grassed and landscaped. There probably will be at least an intermittent split rail fence, or some sort of a low landscaping fence incorporated in that, simply to help control people from walking onto the golf course without going through the main entrance. MR. GORALSKI-So there will be a roadway between the whatever development you have that pedestrians can that roadway, the actual paved area to the curb. roadway and walk along MR. PALING-There's a sidewalk. MR. NACE-There's already a sidewalk along here. DOT already has a. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. That's what I'm asking. exactly what's out there. I don't remember MR. NACE-Yes. DOT has that. - 42 - 0__ '-- --...../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. MACNAMARA-Does that go as far as Martha's, cream and golf, if they wanted to combine it their car? Could they get there? in terms of ice without driving MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. NACE-People are going to do whatever they can do~ MR. GORALSKI-Yes, but we don't want them walking out on Route 9 to do it. MR. NACE~No.' There is a sidewalk. island type sidewalk. There's a brick, raised MR. PALING-On Route 9? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. NACE-Yes, on Route 9. brick sidewalk. It's a curb and like a three foot MR. PALING-So there is a sidewalk along Route 9 that they could wal k to. MR. STARK-Not the whole distance. isn't one. Where the curb cut is, there MR.' NACE-Well, no. It stops, it goes down with the curb cut, because it's like an island sidewalk. It's built up with the curb cut. MR. PALING-But then it begins again. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to replace that curb, Tom? MR. NACE~Where we had the curb cuts taken out? Yes. We will be re-curbing. MR. PALING-What material will you use in the curbing? MR. NACE-That will DOT standard. MR. RUEL-Tom,does the såme sidewalk continue in front of Animal Land? MR. NACE-I think most of the way. MR. SMITH-There is no sidewalk there. MR. BREWER-Just paving. MR. SMITH-I mow all that. I mow from my driveway all the way up to the t.V. place now. There is no sidewalk. MR. NACE-There is not that brick island there? MR. SMITH-No. MR. NACE-I was certain there was a brick sidewalk in there. MR. PALING-But that's Animal Land you're talking about, not the property YOU represent? MR. SMITH-There's no sidewalk on their property at all. There is on mine. From my (lost word) driveway toward you. MR. NACE-It's a paved area. - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. SMITH-It's brick. sidewalk. That's all it is. It's not really a MR. NACE-DOT had a standard, back when they built that, had a raised brick sidewalk curb, and they called it a pseudo sidewalk snow storage area. It's three feet wide, behind the curb line, and where they had curb returns and curb cuts, they went ahead and bricked that in as a brick island. I was under the impression that that continued on from Animal Land on south. That may be mistaken in there. I know that picks up, further south is picks up somewhere. At any rate, that will all be DOT right-of-way. We don't have a whole lot of control over what goes on there. MR. BREWER-Bottom line, there is a place for people to walk. MR. NACE-There will be a grassed area. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I don't think it has to be a sidewalk, but I think we should be sure, because as Tom said, people will do what people want to do. You should be sure that there's some area there, whether it's grass or whatever, that's, flat and people can walk on, so that they don't have to walk out in the road. MR. NACE-Yes. The DOT right-of-way is extremely wide there. So, there's loads of area that we are not going to be. MR. OBERMAYER-That's a good suggestion, John. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. We've got the fence. We've got the walk,area, lets call:it. (, '!", MR. BREWER-He's going to beef up the drainage. MR. PALING-And the drainage, I think, is taken care of. MR. NACE-I will address all of the Town Engineer's comments. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-It sounds good to me. MR. PALING-All right. I think, now, where are we, here? We need to do a SEQRA Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 58-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the P.C. MANAGEMENT CO., and Planning Board an .~! .::.; ,- , " j ,).·1 I WHEREAS. ,this Plann&ng Boardihas dete'l1mi Iled:that ttheproposed projêctand 'l"lanning! Boa'l"d:ðlctton .is $objeat to )"€!o.;¿iew under!, the statè"Env i ronmant;alJT Qua lit)' Rev tewt'Act " I: "~I':' (~¡ i -~.J , , ¡,;~. ''',' n J. NOW ,THEREFORE , ,BE IT- "1 1"j, ¡ (¡ . , ~- , ' I,. T ,-' ~\ I 1', r: : It- , , , , RESOLVED: , , I' 1,1 \ -, , ¡,,: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The the propo$ed action considered by this Board is unlisted in Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations ,- 44 - ~ --" - "../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appl icant . 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning ,Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 24th day of Octobe)", 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-Okay. I guess we can go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE Introduced by Robert by Roger Ruel: SITE PLAN NO. 58-95 P.C. MANAGEMENT, Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded With the following two stipulations: One, that there be a second fence erected which will be approximately five feet high, and of a to be determined distance from the existing Animal Zoo fence, and that it be approved by the Planning Staff. Secondly, that there will be an area in front of the golf course sufficient for people to walk from one to the adjacent properties, pedestrian paths to adjacent properties. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr::! Ruel:;Mr. 8rewér,' Mr. Står ki,,' Mr. Obe'rmayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan SITE PLAN NO. 60-95 TYPE I ROBERT & MARY O'BRIEN OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-IA, C.E.A. LOCATION: CLEVERDALE RD. APPROXIMATELY 5 PROPERTIES BACK FROM END OF ROAD ON LEFT SIDE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND EXISTING RESIDENCE BY CONVERTING A SUNROOM AND DECK TO 301 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE. SECTION 179-79 REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ANY EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 14-1-9.2 LOT SIZE: .467 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 CHARLES JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. GORALSKI-I have no written comments. The area that they're going to be utilizing consists of a sun room and a deck now. We don't see that there are any impacts on any of the issues listed for the site plan review considerations. Rist-Frost did not - 45 - -~ ,-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95 ) review this. MR. JOHNSON-My name is Charles Johnson. Architects, if you've got any questions. It's really quite simple. I'm with Paradox Design I'll do a quick review. MR. PALING-Excuse me. Okay. Are there any comments by the Board before we begin? Okay. The floor is yours. -4i"~ "-, ,"1!: ,.~:^H-, MR. JOHNSON-A quick review. It's a 15 year old existing sun room. They were going to replace the curbed greenhouse glass. In the process, they thought they'd like to try and enlarge the sun room , incorporate a three foot wide dec'kthalt' runs alo.ng,¡the outside of it. So we're looking to increase the sun room by three feêt,~, SO we'1-e addii"\g 70 square: feet 'to:'~an e><isting" sun room. I had a colored picture with some dotted lines. MRS. LABOMBARD-Are you going to keep the sun room part? going to still be glass? Is it MR. JOHNSON-The glass is going away. windows. It's just going to be MRS. LABOMBARD-So you're taking all those windows out. MR. JOHNSON-The glass rather than continue to it. has failed over the last 15 replace it, they're going to years, and get rid of MRS. LABOMBARD~We were uþ there. The only concern we had was maybe the neighbors, it would obstruct their view. MR. JOHNSON-The next door neighbor, the O'Briens, Robert and Mary, are here if you have any questions'for them, but no one's expressed any problems. MR. PALING-Okay. No County Impact. Okay. You're going outside the footprint, but you're staying within the setbacks. MR. JOHNSON-Well, the footprint that exists includes the existing deck, and we're'g<;¡in!ŠJ to include that '8xisting,dec:k: SO' 'we're not changing the footprint, but we're enlarging the room. , MR. PALING-Okay. If you count the deck, you're staying within the footprint? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Any questions? MR. OBERMAYER-I think it's great. MR. PALING-All right. MR. GORALSKI-This is really a judgement call on your part. Part of the Type II Definition, Mark might want to quote it, but talks about minor structures and appurtenances. MR. BREWER~Didn't we do this a couple of weeks ago? this very minor and move on to a Type II. Lets call MR. STARK-This is very minor_ MR. OBERMAYER-I consider this extremely minor. MRS. LABOMBARD-So do I. MR. GORALSKI~Okay. - 46 - -- ----- .............. '---"./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. BREWER-We would consider that, then, a Type II. MR. GORALSKI-And no SEQRA review would be required. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-We'll open a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-95 ROBERT & MARY O'BRIEN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Star k: Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Mr. Paling, before you get on to anything else, in your motion regarding the golf course, you didn't include that they should address the engineering comments. He made that part of the record, but it wasn't part of your motion. MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets make it part of the motion. MR. GORALSKI-So I would just modify your motion. MR. PALING-All right. Site Plan No. 58-95. I'm going to re-address the motion for HOT¡ON TO ADD TO THE MOTION FOR MANAGEMENT, Introduced by Robert adoption, seconded by George Stark: SITE PLAN NO. 58-95 P.C. Paling who moved for its To add to it the fact that all engineering comments by Rist-Frost will be met, approved by Rist-Frost and the Planning Staff. Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-Okay. We have three more items to do. First of all, we have a letter, and I'm going to read the letter into the record. It's a request that the Zoning Board of Appeals be lead agent for the John Brock Mooring Post Marina, and I'll read the letter into the record. "The Town of Queensbury is in receipt of the hereto attached Long Environmental Assessment Form for John Brock/Mooring Post Marina, located on Cleverdale Road, Town of Queensbury, NY. The project involves a Type I Action as it is an unlisted action which takes place wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any Critical Environmental Area designated by a local or state agency, pursuant to Section 617.4 - 47 - '''-" ./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) of the Part. The application requires a Use and Variance approval by the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Thus, the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, as the official agency to review environmental concerns within the Town of Queensbury has concluded that it is the most involved agency, and should be lead agency for the purposes of the state Environmental Quality Review Act. Accordingly, this memorandum constitutes notice that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals is seeking lead agency status pursuant to, SEQRA. If your agency is considered to be an involved agency under Part 617 and Title 6NYCRR, and your agency consents to the Zoning Board of Appeals being designated lead agent, please indicate by signing the attached sheet and return this form to Jim Martin and his group." So with the Board's concurrence, I will sign this designating the Zoning Board of Appeals as lead agent. MR. STARK-Wait a second. How come they're involved more than we are? I don't think so. MR. GORALSKI-If I could address that. The Zoning Board of Appeals has to address the Use Variance bef01"e anything else gets addressed. Okay. You can't do your review, your site plan review, unless they receive the variance. The criteria for a Use Variance is very strict and outlined in State law, and given that and the fact that the Zoning Board has been intimately involved with this project for over a year now, it's the opinion of the Planning Staff, as well as the Zoning Board, that they would be the appropriate agency to conduct a SEQRA review. MR. RUEL-I agree. MR. STARK-What Use Variance do they need? MR. GORALSKI-For expansion of a nonconforming use. MR. STARK-He wants to expand it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. STARK-I thought he was putting up buildings that are smaller in size than the ones that were taken down? MR. GORALSKI-There was a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and by the court, that a Use Variance is required. MR. BREWER-It's philosophical, George. long about it. We could argue all night MR. GORALSKI-But the court has determined that a Use Variance is required. MR. RUEL-That's good enough for me. MR. PALING-All right. need a motion. Are there any other ~uestions? Then I TOM NACE MR. NACE-Is there any way we can speak? MR. PALING-Yes, you may. MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing John Brock. Our thoughts are that there may be some validity to the Planning Board being lead agency, simply because, in the Planning review of this, you will be dealing with the site specific issues, which are more environmental related and not just zoning law related. I don't know, from a procedural standpoint, whether - 48 - '--- -> '-- -/ (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) there's a climbing way that that can happen, but we would, if it's feasible and possible, we would support the Planning Board being lead agent, and I'll apologize for not having brought this up b~fore. It really, in the time frame as we've gotten drawn out here. We were, originally we were still thinking that we might be able to get into the ground this fall, if everything went very well. At this point we're saying, hey, the construction season's gone. We're going to be next year. The time frame at this point really doesn't matter, and lets make a more logical approach, if it's possible. MR. OBERMAYER-And that was the intention of the original, you know, when we decided originally to go with the Zoning Board to, remember you pushed that through, Bob, just for'them to be lead agency, was to eliminate the stuff, wasn't it? MR. PALING-Yes. You're talking about the basic thing that we did, which I think is right, but then you have to cover the speci f ic. MR. GORALSKI-First of all, if the Zoning Board is lead agent, that doesn't mean that the Planning Board has no involvement in the environmental review of this project. Certainly, you can put this project on your agenda. You can discuss all the pertinent issues, and you would then bring those issues before the Zoning Board of Appeals as the lead agent. That's what an involved agency, that's the definition of an involved agency. You have a right to be involved. They just happen to be the ones who are doing it at their meeting. MR. STARK-They meet before us, though. We wouldn't after it's approved by them. If it's not approved never comes to us. get it until by them, it MR. OBERMAYER-Right. That's the problem. MR. GORALSKI-No. You folks can certainly have a meeting and review this project. There's nothing that says you can't have a meeting and review this project, come up with a list of comments, and have them presénted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Okay. Now, that being said, okay, if you folks disagree with the Zoning Board being lead agent, you would have to then state that, then the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation would have to make a decision as to who would be the lead agency. MR. STARK-I've got a comment on that. The Planning Department's track record on this project is dismal, and I would want us to be the lead agent concerning SEQRA, period. MR. BREWER-We have no track record, do we, George? MR. STARK-We don't, but Martin does. You weren't here, John, when this originally, I don't think you were, originally when this horrible situation. That~s all I have to say. MR. BREWER-I'm saying we don't have a track record, do we? MR. STARK-I didn't say we did. I said the Planning Department. MR. BREWER-Staff. MR. STARK-We're not the Planning Department. MR. OBERMAYER-Maybe it's good that we don't have any past experience. MR. PALING-Lets say that we were lead agent on this, and it came to us for a site plan review. Are we going to run into that same - 49 - -...-,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) SEQRA problem that we've had? MR. GORALSKI-Okay. If tonight, you folks decide that you want to be the lead agency regarding SEQRA, all the information would then be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation. He would then make a decision. I don't know exactly what the time frames are, but he would then make a determination as to who would be the lead agency, and if he comes back and says that the Planning Board would be the lead agent, should be the lead agent, then the Planning Board would undertake a SEQRA review. The Zoning Board would certainly have the )" ight to make any comments that they wish to make.', If. on the other hand, he comes back and says the Zoning Board should be the lead agent, then you folks would have the right to make comments to the Zoning Board. MR. OBERMAYER-Why is it up to the DEC Commissioner? understand? I don't MR. GORALSKI-That's the way the law reads. MR. BREWER-Yes. I can remember we did that once before. MR. PALING-Let me ask a question. This is kind of a surprise that this has gone this way, and I was just going to ask you to, for me, I'm slow. Would you just repeat, again, why you would be in favor of us as the lead agent? MR. NACE-Well, I think from a technical standpoint, okay, most of the issues involved with SEQRA go to the teohnical site plan issues that this Board is normally involved in dealing with. So, other than, well, even the effect on neighbors, even the effect of higher buildings. MR. GORALSKI-I have to break in right here. I ,have to, say something. There are a lot of people involved in this project. This is a very controversial project. You're allowing these people to speak on this project without anybody else from the public here and no notification to anybody, this discussion is taking place. I just want that on the record. MR. PALING-Yes. All right. Well, we have a better Board, though, that's t)"ied to let anyone that wants to speak, and if I'm out of line, then I'll have to cut it off. Then you should have handled it from the beginning, then, in advising us that this was to be a routine letter read, and I thought gO through. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I mean, I can't t$ll you how the Board's going to react to the letter. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. We could have just said, okay. MR. GORALSKI-And I didn't know Mr. Nace and Mr. Brock were going to be here tonight. MR. BREWER-What if the ZBA conceded to us being lead agent? Then there's not a problem, right? MR. GORALSKI-They've already requested lead agency. MR. PALING-Yes. They asked to be lead agent. MR. BREWER-As a formality, though? MR. GORALSKI-No. The Zoning Board passed that resolution. You folks have the right to disagree. MR. PALING-You said something about 30 days, John? - 50 - '- ~ '- ..-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. GORALSKI-Right. let tel" . You have 30 days from the date of that MR. PALING-Oètober 19th. MR. GORALSKI-You don't have to make a decision tonight if you're going to meet again prior to that 30 days. MR. PALING-Well, if we meet again, we have to advertise, and then it can be a public. MR. OBERMAYER-In what, determining whether we want to do the SEQRA 0)- not? MR. PALING-Whether we want to be lead agent. MR. GORALSKI-It's up to you. I can't tell you. I've told you what l think. If you disagree, you certainly have the right to do that as a Board. MR. PALING-You want us to sign it? MR. GORALSKI-I'd recommend that the Zoning Board be lead agency. MR. PALING-Yes, and what are your reasons? MR. GORALSKI-My reasons are, first of all, the Zoning Board has very strict criteria in State law they have to abide by. You can't, the site plan review, if they don't get their variance. Okay. They have been involved with the project for over a year. They've heard a lot of public comment to this point regarding this project. I feel they're up to speed on the project, and they would be the appropriate ones to be lead agency. Again, that does not exclude the Planning Board from being involved in the SEQRA review. It simply means that the Zoning Board is the lead agent. You are an involved agency, and you have the right to make all of your comments and concerns known to the Zoning Board. MR. PALING-And this has got to come for site plan review anyway. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-If it passes ZBA. MR. GORALSKI-If they get their variance. MR. BREWËR-What does their strict criteria have to do with the variance, versus doing a SEQRA? It has nothing to do with each other, does it? MR. GORALSKI-What I'm saying is, they can't do anything unless they get their variance. MR. BREWER-Right, but that has nothing to do with the SEQRA. I mean, on an average, we do 15 or 16 SEQRAs a month, and they do, what? MR. GORALSKI-They do, I'd say, 7 to 10. MR. OBERMAYER-I agree with Tim. I don't really see where variances really have anything to do with the SEQRA. MR. BREWER-Right. That criteria has nothing to do with the criteria for doing the SEQRA, I don't believe. MR. STARK-Put it to a vote, and let the Board fall where it will. - 51 - ......- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. OBERMAYER-Mark, do you have any comments regarding this? MR. SCHACHNER-I have many comments, and I Can't make any of them. I can't help the Board on this one because of my prior involvement with the appl~cant. MR. STARK-I think the Planning Board ought to bend over backwards for the applicant, for what the Town has put this gUY ,through. That's my feeling on the whole subject. The Town made a horrible mistake on this deal, and then they cave in to public opinion up there. Two or three people up there are the gang leaders of this whole opposition, and I don't think that's right. MR. RUEL-What can we do about it? MR. STARK-We can bend over backwards trying appl ica nt . to help the MR. r BREWER-:George, ~1J agree w'Í'th what you're'sEtyìng'cEts ae,¡person, but you can't take that into ,consider'a:tiÍ<Dn when'yoa do .the:$EQRA. I mean, it's just not fair. MR. STARK-I didn't say that. MR. OBERMAYER-No, it's not. MR. STARK-I'm just saying, if they don't give him his variance, that's the end of it? He can't do anything up there, then? I disagree with that. MR. BREWER-I do, too, but. MR. OBERMAYER-I think the variances and the SEQRA are (lost word) . MR. STARK-Bob, poll the Board and lets vote on it, th~n. MR. PALING-We need a resolution. I just need a motion on this, or we can poll the Board just to see what's going on, and then we can make a motion. All right. MR. OBERMAYER-Lead agency, us. MR. PALING-You want the Planning Board to be lead agent. MR. STARK-The same thing. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm waffling. My life would be a lot simpler if I just turned it over to the Z8A, but, no, I'm thinking, do I want all this work ahead of me? I feel that, ethically, we should take it, but I'm not so sure I want to. I don't know. MR. RUEL-ZBA. MR. but just have BREWER-I think 'the Planning Board should be the lead agency, I have reservations, only because we're going to have to, so you know, I've been through this before. We're going to to submit a letter to, is it still Jorling? MR. SCHACHNER-I can answer that question for you. Commissioner's name is Michael Zagata. The new DEC MR. BREWER-We'll have to sit down and write a letter and explain why we want to be lead agent and why we're more qualified, and I do feel we are more qualified, only because of past experience. MR. PALING-Well, if we say no to this letter, that doesn't make us the lead agent. It merely puts the decision in someone else's hands. - 52 - '---"' ----- -- ~--...' (Queensbury Planning 80ard Meeting 10/24/95) MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend what you do, and unfortunately you don't have legal representation. So you're going to have to rely on me. What I would recommend you do is pass a motion requesting that you be designated as lead agency regarding the project that's listed on that letter. I'm saying, if that's the way you're looking at it. I'm just instructing you on, if you want to be the lead agency, I would recommend that you pass a motion stating that you want to be. MR. PALING-I wish that I knew it well enough that I could say that I would like to do this or that, and what ~ inclined to do is let somebody else make the decision as to who should be it. MR. BREWER-We have to make a decision, bottom line. We have to make a decision. MR. PALING-All right. Lets have a motion. MOTION THE PLANNING BOARD REQUESTS TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE MOORING POST APPLICATION FOR SEQRA, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Ruel ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-All right. I have a letter I'd like to read before the group, which I'll give everybody a copy of. This is addressed to Fred Champagne. "There are two parking problems in Queensbury which should be addressed. First is difficulty in driving into parking spaces in some lots because of the narrow drive aisle space. Quaker Plaza and Queensbury Plaza are examples of this condition. The drive aisles in these two plazas are 20 feet wide, and the parking spaces are 9 by 20. The drive aisle is just not wide enough to allow easy parking on the first turn into a space. The same drive aisle width makes it difficult to make turns and otherwise maneuver around these parking lots. 8y contrast K-Mart and Wal-Mart drive aisles are 24 feet wide, with the same 9 by 20 foot parking spaces. Parking and maneuvering through these lots seems to be quite satisfactory. The second problem involves the type of material being used to form eurbs and dividers in parking lots, or I should say some parking lots. The materials used for curbing and dividers should be limited to concrete or granite. Other materials, mostly wood and asphalt, deteriorate too fast. Vehicles are more prone to run into and over asphalt and wood, and these materials do not withstand the punishment very well. It is requested that both of these matters be reviewed as soon as possible." MR. BREWER-Sign it and mail it. MRS. LABOMBARD-It sounds good. MR. PALING-Would everybody agree that everybody signs it? MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Let me start a copy around. - 53 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that point done? Can I bring up a point? MR. PALING-Yes. You certainly may, Mr. Brewer. MR. BREWER-I disagree with Jim Martin on something. When we looked at that, the site plan for the golf course, if we applied the setbacks, then we wouldn't have this problem ,with them being so close. John said that Jim made the decision that the golf course is not, how did you say that to me, John? It's flot a structure, and if you read the definition of "Structure", an object constructed, installed or permanently placed on land to facility land use and development or subdivision of land. Isn't he placing something there to facilitate the use of the land? MR. STARK-He's saying, also, that the roller coaster is not a structure because it's so high. He's using his head. MR. BREWER-When did he say that? MR. STARK-Well, for Charlie Wood when he put the Comet in~ He's saying, you know, because it's so high. MR. BREWER-No. That had site plan. MR. STARK-But you're talking about the setback. MR. BREWER-No. I'm saying, is the golf course a structure, the holes and the greens and what not? MR. RUEL-No. A patio is not a structure, either. a structw"e. A slab is not MR. BREWER-So what you're saying is that golf course, the alley that you hit the ball down, and then the green is not a structure? That doesn't facilitate the use of the land? MR. RUEL-Is it elevated above the ground level? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Well, if it's elevated, then it is a 'structure, according to the Code book. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, you know there will be little tunnels that you hit the golf ball through, and boats and ships and windmills. MR. PALING-Yes, and lighthouses, and things. MR. BREWER-So are you saying it is or it isn't? MR. PALING-No. I'm saying, I'm asking Mark. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is the miniature golf course a structure? We are thinking it is, because it has structures in it. MR. BREWER-Not the structures, so much, in it. I'm saying, if they're building slabs, like if you go over to the Hillbilly Fun type thing over there on 149, would you consider that slab going to the green and the tees, is that a structure? I mean, to me, that facilitates the use of the land. ,I; MR. PALING-Lets ask Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-I think, first and foremost, the Board has to recognize that the decision of how to classify an application rests initially with the staff and specifically with the Zoning Administrator, and what John is telling us is that Jim Martin, as Zoning Administrator, I think what he's telling us is that this - 54 - '----" ----" '-- ''''''' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) iS$ue was raised. MR. BREWER-And Jim said it's not. MR. SCHACHNER-Or got some attention, Jim Martin, as Zoning Administrator, made some sort of determination that the project does not constitute a structure, or the portion of the project does not constitute a structure, and therefore does not need to comply with the setback requirements. Is that right, John? MR. GORALSKI-That~s correct. MR. RUEL-So be it. MR. SCHACHNER-So, really, we can debate this intellectually and philosophically, if you want, but it's not a Planning Board determination, nor is it a Planning Board counsel determination. It's really a Zoning Administrator determination. It's appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals if somebody disagrees with the determination. MR. RUEL-So forget about it. MR. BREWER-I don't agree with it. So why should I forget about it? MR. PALING-Take it up with Jim. Okay. Could I just that the dates for next month, we will have site Thursday, November 16, and meetings. tell you visits, MR. BREWER-Bob, can we start doing it on Saturday mornings now, seeing as how we set the time back? MR. OBERMAYER-I think that would be great. I could make those. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. So this means that the site visits will be November 18th, nine a.m., site visits, and then 21 and 28 are the meetings, the regular meetings, unless something comes up. MR. GORALSKI-I hate to bring Kristensen. You never opened anything at all with them. up sore subjects, but Seale and a public hearing. You never did MR. PALING-You took them off the agenda. MR. GORALSKI-I can't take them off the agenda once they submit an application. MR. STARK-Nobody was here to talk. Nobody stood up. MR. GORALSKI-So that was it. So would you like them to, they should pay and re-advertise when they come back? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. PALING-John, lets be careful now. When you tell me somebody's off the agenda, and I turn around and do the same wording, now I'm saying either you or Pam, you better be careful what you're saying. MR. GORALSKI-No. We can't take someone off the agenda. When they submit an application, the Planning Board's got to do something with that application, unless it's withdrawn. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, John, what you have to tell Bob is that you - 55 - --,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/24/95) recommend taking someone off the agenda. MR. PALING-Then we've got to have some kind of communication with the applicants. MR. SCHACHNER-But there is a point to be made here, I think, and that is that when the agendas are distributed revised, with stuff marked "off", I think the Planning Board and the public think that means that it's literally gone off the agenda. MR. BREWER-Yes. That's what I would think. MR. SCHACHNER-You might want to change how the staff does that. MR. GORALSKI-See, I mean, I've seen that over the past couple of years. I thought you guys knew what that meant. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman .- 56 -