Loading...
1995-12-28 '-"' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 28, 1995 INDEX site Plan No. 76-95 James H. Fuhrer Tax Map No. 3-1-2 2. subdivision No. 16-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Richard Kilmartin Tax Map No. 51-1-44.1, 44.2 6. Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 6-95 Edward A. Barlow, Jr. Mar .i.b'n Boggs Tax Map No. 141-1-2 18. Subdivision No. 17-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Edward A. Barlow, Jr. Tax Map No. 141-1-2 24. Site Plan No. 77-95 John A. Shaffe,- Tax Map No. 54~5-19.1 29. Site Plan No. 78-95 Seeds Rest.au ,-a nt Gr oup, I nc . Tax Map No. 98-4-4.1 62. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ".--., ~ ~ '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 28, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN JAMES OBERMAYER ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN GEORGE STARK TIMOTHY BREWER MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LABOMBARD CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. PALING-There is one thing. It's election time for the Board, and there are some questions about it which I want to cover with Mark Schachner because he will not be with us later in the evening. Mark, would you just, what I want to do is ask you to clarify our position regarding the election, and then we'll hold our discussion of the Board until the end of tonight, and decide finally what we're going to do, whether we'll go ahead tonight or not, but would you clarify how we stand, whether we can or we can't, in December and so on? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure, Bob, I'll try. I think what we talked about in the past was that there is a document that exists that's called the Town of Queensbury Rules and Procedures, and that that document talks about having an annual meeting, and it says that the annual organizational meeting of the Board shall be the first regular meeting in the month of January of each year, and somewhere else in that document it talks about the annual election of officers. So I think that the conclusion we drew from that is that at least as far as this document is concerned, what it envisioned was having the annual election of officers at the organizational meeting in January of each year. The issue then came up as to what extent we're bound by this, or do we want to change this, and if we want to change this, what do we have to do to do that, and what I've previously told the Board is that there is no legal requirement for this document to exist in the first place. So that, to that extent, I would not be concerned if you decided to do something different than what this document said, except that, Number One, it does exist, and Number Two, we note in our records that in the past, when the Planning Board wanted to amend the Rules and Procedures, that, in fact, was done with Town Board approval, and after a public hearing. That was also the way the document was initially adopted, back in, I believe, 1988, it was done by the Planning Board and the Town Board after, you know, public hearing, public discussions at regular meetings, and that's, I think, exactly what I've told the Board previously. MR. PALING-Okay. Questions on that? It says that it has been approved by the Town Board, previous years. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, not every year, but when it was adopted, it was adopted by the Planning Board on December 20th of 1988, and adopted by the Town Board nine days later, on December 29, 1988. There were then some revisions, and the revisions - 1 - (Queensbury Planni~g Board Meeting 12/28/95) themselves were adopted the following November, November 8, 1989 by the Town Board, November 21, 1989 by the Planning Board. MR. PALING-So are you saying we still have a choice as to whether we can have an election tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-I'm cleanest thing to seem to say. saying that by far the easiest, neatest, do is just do what the Rules and Procedures MR. PALING-Which is in January. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Then I think that's sufficient. It'll be in January. We won't have it later on tonight. Okay. Lets go on with the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 76-95 TYPE I JAMES H. FUHRER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: ON RT. 9L, ABOUT 4 1/2 MILES TO ROCKY SHORE ROAD ON LEFT (LAKE SIDE) FOR MATTHEWS, WHITE ET AL. TAKE DRIVE TO EXTREME LEFT, PAST TENNIS COURT TO PROJECT, ABOUT 250' FROM ENTRY. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD THREE (3) BEDROOMS AND BATH TO NEW 2ND FLOOR OF EXISTING STRUCTURE TO IMPROVE ACCOMMODATION FOR OCCASIONAL SUMMER USE BY EXISTING FAMILY MEMBERS. PER SECTION 179-79 ANY ENLARGEMENT OR EXTENSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 3-1-2 LOT SIZE: .86 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-15 JAMES H. FUHRER, PRESENT MR. FUHRER-Hi. I am James H. Fuhrer. I'm the current owner. My father built the place about 33 years ago. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 76-95, James H. Fuhrer, Meeting Date: December 28, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to add 3 bedrooms and a bath to the second floor. The proposal does not exceed the 50% expansion yule. A visit to the site reveals that the existing house is set into the slope and is surrounded by several large trees. It does not appear that the proposed addition will obstruct any views of the lake from adjoining properties, nor will it significantly impact the view of the shoreline from the lake. A note on the site plan states that one tree will be removed, however, it is not indicated on the plan. The addition is generally within the footprint of the existing structure so there should not be any impact on stormwater drai nage. " MR. PALING-Okay. "Generally within the footprint", John? No problem with setbacks? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. PALING-No. Okay. MR. BREWER-I've got one question. What about the septic, John, does that have to be changed or not? MR. GORALSKI-No. As long as the septic system is functioning properly, it does not have to be changed. - 2 - '~ '~ '--'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/9$) MR. BREWER-Even if he's adding three bedrooms? MR. GORALSKI-Even if he's adding 20 bedrooms. MR. MACEWAN-What's the status at the County meeting? MR. PALING-The status of the County is the same as it was last meeting, Craig. MR. GORALSKI-I'm sorry, you weren't here last week. The County didn't have a quorum. So they couldn't vote. So everything is, there's no action. MR. PALING-On any County item tonight, as it was last meeting. MR. FUHRER-As I understood it, the end of that meeting, was a default approval, although we did check with the Chair of that meeting and he seemed to indicate that there was no impact that they would take issue with on this particular item, which was Number 15 on the agenda. I offer that just for what it's worth. MR. PALING'-All right . Are there any other questions? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes¡'Do you live there all yea)- round now? MR. FUHRER-No. We do not. We are there pretty much from May through October. :C,am now retired. My wife is now retired. We will be in residence there more than we have been before, but there are two of us. This facility is really for, as I think it indicates in the summary theY'e, some of our children come up, and when they all come up, as they have in the past, it's nicer if they can all make use of a little bit more room. It's not to change the total usage of the septic facility in that sense. It's just to make the accommodations nicer from that point of view. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to live there all year round? MR. FUHRER-Probably not. We are not, at this point, planning that. One can never be certain of that sort of thing. We certainly like it. We've been coming here, as my father built the place, as I mentioned, 33 years ago, and it's our summer place of choice. Whether we're actually able to consider this as a year round retirement home, I don't know at this point. We do have a residence which is close to where both of us worked down in Westchester County, and at this point, the disposition of that is unknown. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-No additional parking? MR. FUHRER-No. MR. RUEL-And no additional lighting? MR. FUHRER-No. MR. RUEL-And that tree that John mentioned a moment ago is, what, near a parking area, next to the house? MR. FUHRER-Yes. The tree is very close to the house. It's a large tree. We hate to remove it, but it's within one foot of the existing roof. MR. RUEL-It extends beyond the roof line? MR. FUHRER-Yes. It is a tall tree, and we generally have, - 3 - --, -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) actually have Dick Sears come around periodically to take a look at things I think this is probably the one that must go, unfortunately. It's just too close to the current roof line, and it will not handle the proposed, I think it's an 18 inch overhang back toward the parking place there. MR. RUEL-You're adding a bathroom, but you don't expect the water usage to increase? MR. FUHRER-No, we really don't, because it'll be the same, we have four sons, and at most we generally have three of them up there at one time, and some of their families. So that that peak usage is not going to change. It's never rented out or anything of that sort. It is just that we're all getting a little bit bigger, or maybe it's older. I forget which. So, we don't really expect peak usage to change. If it did, I mean, my father was in the pump business, and I learned a little bit from him, and we watched the levels and things of that sort, and if something is required there, we're going to do it, because we definitely want that area to be a clean septic area. I mean, we're going to swim in the water. We don't drink the water, but we certainly bath in it. MR. RUEL-Okay. The present structure does not have gutters? MR. FUHRER-No, it does not. I think there's some indication in there. MR. RUEL-AII right, and the addition, you'll have gutters? MR. FUHRER-Yes. What we were proposing was along the side that's close to the north side, the Matthews', that may be the appropriate spot to put gutters. In fact, it may be an appropriate improvement anyway, because water runoff in heavy storms from that side impinges a little bit on the pathway that goes along side of the house, as indicated in the site plan. So it may be a useful thing to do, and then we will probably, there is a spot close to the right hand front side of the building where we can put some place to accumulate and allow to drain off, the water flow. MR. RUEL-Would you consider a drywell or something similar to that? MR. FUHRER-Something similar to that. MR. RUEL-If it accumulates in that area. MR. FUHRER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Because without your gutters, it was dispersed along the length of the buildings, and now it will be concentrated in one area. MR. FUHRER-That's right. 50, at this point, we're not sure precisely what will be the right thing to do. The overall footprint of the roof is not going to change. The runoff from the roof is going to change a little bit because there is a peak now that's a little bit closer to the Matthews' side, which will probably mean a little bit less runoff that way and more to the other side. We will have to do something in the way of gutters there, and we will do that. I don't have the specific plan on it at the moment, but I've been talking with Harry Williams, and we'll figure out something that makes sense, and it's got to drain away from the foundation and provide proper water flow. MR. RUEL-There's no necessity for him to indicate that now, right, John? - 4 - ,,-,,' '--" '-, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. GORALSKI-It says the new roof will employ gutters. When we go out to do a final inspection, we'll look for gutters. MR. RUEL-I see. Permeability is the same anyway. MR. FUHRER-Yes, and I think actually John Goralski and I had discussed, we had talked and that was something that he indicated. So we will handle that, we'll figure that in the final plan. I think you're looking at the plans and elevation views without some of the detailed numbers at present. MR. RUEL-Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. There's a public hearing on this. Why don't we go into the public hearing now. The public hearing will be opened if anyone would care to speak on this matter. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And we'll do a SEQRA. This is a Long Form. MR. OBERMAYER-Why do we have to do a Long one? MR. STARK-It's a Type I. MR. MACEWAN-In a CEA. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, because it's 6n Lake George. It's in a Critical Environmental Area, whic~ for another three days means it requires a Long Form Environmental Assessment Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 76-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before JAMES H. FUHRER, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section - 5 - -~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) 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 28th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Now we've got to have a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 76-95 JAMES H. FUHRER, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE RICHARD KILMARTIN OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-5A SIDE OF RT. 149, 1,000 FEET EAST OF BAY ROAD. TO SUBDIVIDE A 107 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS ACRES. APA TAX MAP NO. 51-1-44.1, 44.2 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TYPE: UNLISTED LOCATION: SOUTH APPLICANT PROPOSES OF 10 ACRES AND 97 LOT SIZE: 107 ACRES LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, subdivision No. 16-1995, Richard Kilmartin, Date: December 28, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to subdivide one 107 acre parcel into two lots of 10 and 97 acres. Both lots meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations. There is an APA designated wetland on the property which makes this a Class A regional project and an APA permit is required. This property is also the subject of an enforcement action because fill has been placed in the wetland without a permit. In the past the Board has been reluctant to grant approval until the required APA permits have been received. Because the public hearing on this project has been noticed for this evening, I would recommend that the Board hold the public hearing. If there are no other issues raised during the public hearing, the Board may wish to consider granting conditional approval. The conditions being that the enforcement action be resolved and the APA permit be issued." MR. PALING-Does anyone on the Board have a problem with that last paragraph of John's? MR. RUEL-APA permit must be obtained? MR. PALING-Well, that would be the condition of approval, but. - 6 - -- ---' ---' '- (Queensbury Planni ng Board Meeti ng 12/28/95,) MR. RUEL-Would that be a condition? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not in favor of doing any conditional approvals. MR. RUEL-That's a conditional approval. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, why would we want to do that? MR. STARK-Bob, maybe things have changed since they made the application. So why don't we find out first. MR. PALING-All right. Lets see what happens. That may be a sensitive area. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. STEVES-Yes, I'm Leon Steves, and beside me is Richard Kilmartin, and we have made application for a two lot subdivision, and the reason for the conceptual approval request is because we're waiting for APA to respond to an action there, and until they do, we're in limbo, and I gbt caught last time around with a six month extension not being enough time. Therefore, I would like to have a conceptual approval at Preliminary. MR. GORALSKI-Conceptual or conditional? MR. STEVES-Conditional, and that would give me an open door or a time frame that I'm not locked into. MR. PALING-Yes. On the assumption that that's all that's a problem, can't we go ahead with a conditional approval, assuming everything else is okay? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes.' I mean, and in fact, I thi nk that Staff Comments suggest that asa possibi I i ty. 'i,' MR. PALING-Yes, right. MR. BREWER-Are you looking for 'a conditional at Final, Leon? MR. GORALSKI-No, no. What I'm saying is that you give them conditional Preliminary, and they can't come back for Final until everything gets settled at the APA. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the benefit to even giving a conditional approval though?, MR. BREWER-Then they can move on with APA. MR. GORALSKI-Well, they've got their Preliminary approval here. They can go back to the APA and get the business done with them and come back. MR. OBERMAYER-Is there an issue with the APA that you can't go to them? MR. STEVES-We can, but we don't have a time clock that we can abide by, and get back to you within that six months time when that Preliminary is normally granted, so that if you grant Preliminary approval, that's six months. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. STEVES-We have to come back with either a Final submittal, with APA approval, or we have to come back and ask for an extension of time. - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. PALING-I don't see any problem with that. MR. MACEWAN-What's the status with the APA right now? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. STEVES-We're waiting to hear from them. MR. OBERMAYER-When did you submit the application with the APA? Last week? DICK KILMARTIN MR. KILMARTIN-No. It's been last August. and for some reason they're dragging their dragging their feet. It's a slow process. It was last August, feet. I say they're I do know that. MR. RUEL-Do you feel that getting a Preliminary approval here would help your hand, as far as the APA is concerned? MR. KILMARTIN-Yes. Definitely. MR. MACEWAN-How's that? MR. STEVES-They will know the action that you take. MR. RUEL~So we can make it conditional. conditional on the Preliminary. We'll make it MR. OBERMAYER-What's the reason? MR. MACEWAN-I don't understand that. MR. GORALSKI-If I could interject here, I've spoken to Don Smith, who is the Enforcement Officer. The actual subdivision approval was proceeding. The problem is the enforcement action because the wetlands was filled. As soon as that's resolved, I don't think the APA is going to have any problem with the subdivision. The Town of Queensbury has no Jurisdiction over the wetland issue, because we don't have jurisdiction over wetlands within the APA. MR. MACEWAN-But what bearing does the Preliminary approval for a subdivision by us have on them getting a quicker response from the APA? MR. GORALSKI-I don't particularly agree with Mr. Kilmartin. I don't think that it's going to really make too much difference to the APA what one way or another what we do. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, it's been kind of policy of this Board where we're rather reluctant to give conditional approvals. MR. STEVES-I understand that, but one of the problems here is that everybody seems to be waiting for the other guy to make a move, and I was approached by Staff and asked when I was going to submit this application for subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I don't understand. waiting for everybody else to make a move, what APA's waiting for us to do that's going to help their coming to a conclusion on this? If everybody's is it that the them expedite MR. STEVES-I don't know, but if we can demonstrate to them that we've been to the Board and sought and been awarded with a conditional approval of Preliminary, then they can see that we're on track, and maybe they'll do the same thing. - 8 - '~ ---,,' ',,--, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. OBERMAYER-It seems like, and according to the notes it says here, Leon, that the APA wetlands exist along the stream, but have not been flagged. Is that true? The wetlands haven't been flagged yet? MR. STEVES-Yes. That's not an issue because the building site has been spotted on the plan up there on top of the hill. The true issue here, as John has alluded to, is that the wetland has been tampered with, filled in or whatever. I have not seen it. I don't know. It's all on hearsay. MR. KILMARTIN-May I comment on that? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. KILMARTIN-Okay. I went to DEC, hell, it was way over a year ago, and I told them what I had planned. I had a man come down there, Number One, as, I did not know that I was going to be selling a big chunk of ground, but, hell,if you had a big chunk of ground and you got the right price for it, you'd sell it, too, but anyhow, I'm farming this land. Now, I went to DEC, and I told them what I had proposed on putting a road in, so that I would not have to go over 149 with my tractors and equipment, with all that heavy traffic. I was going to cut across lots, and it was marshy, yes. I don't say it wasn't, but it was dry at the time when I went to DEC about this. Of course, we had a real dry summer. Well, we had a real dry summer last year, and the year before we had a dry summer. Well, this DEC man came down and he looked at it and he said, look, I'll go to Warrensburg and I'll tell them exactly what you're proposing to do. He went to Warrensburg, he called me, and he says, Dick, he says, go ahead with it. DEC says it's perfectly all right. You're getting that heavy equipment, slow moving equipment, off the road, every time you go from one field to the other, and so I went ahead with it. I've got a lot of bucks in that road way I put out through there. Since then, I've sold the 97 acres, which the road is on. I did not know I was going to sell it when I was putting this road in. I had no idea, but a guy came along, and he made me an offer, and I accepted it. MR. OBERMAYER-Is he farming that land? MR. KILMARTIN-No. He bought it for investment purposes only, to my knowledge. I mean, my wife and I have life use of the property. As long as my wife or I live, we have life use of it. So he can't do anything with it until my wife and I are gone. MR. PALING-Where is the road you're talking about? that run? Where does MR. KILMARTIN-That road goes pretty near to 149. and show you? Can I come up MR. PALING-Sure. MR. KILMARTIN-This is not a very big map, but anyhow, I have a field, now, this road. I have a field up in here, and there's a field in here, and this road runs from this field to this field. Instead of me coming clear over here, down on Dream Lake Road, with my heavy equipment. MR. PALING-And then where does it cross this property? There's 149, and where will the road come in here, into this piece of property? Here's 149 here, and you're coming in from over here I take it? MR. KILMARTIN-Yes. - 9 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. RUEL-You've got a field here, right? MR. KILMARTIN-There is a field up in here. Yes. MR. RUEL-All right. You said there's a field over here. MR. KILMARTIN-No. This is, what's this here? MR. PALING-That's the boundary line. Coffin lands there. MR. KILMARTIN-Okay. Now, there is a field in here, and there's a field up in this way here, see. MR. PALING-All right. Then the road is here to here, then. MR. KILMARTIN-No. It doesn't go that far. The road is only six or eight hundred feet long. There's a spot right in here where it comes across. MR. PALING-Just go from one field to the other? MR. KILMARTIN-Right, but I had a road in here, because I come out, from where our residence is down here, I've always been able to corne this way, but I never ~oJas able to go this way. So, built this road across here. MR. RUEL-So, you have a road across the wetlands, is that it, designated wetlands? MR. KILMARTIN-DEC says it's not wetlands, but APA says it is. MR. RUEL-Here's the house. There's 149. MR. KILMARTIN-Right. Okay. MR. RUEL-All the black stuff is wetlands? MR. KILMARTIN-Supposedly. Now this road comes across from here up to, in here somewhere. MR. RUEL-Yes. You must have crossed a wetland. MR. KILMARTIN-No, I did not. MR. BREWER-It doesn't make any difference, does it? It's not our issue. So let APA figure it out. MR. PALING-Yes. I have one other question I'll get off the road thing. What is the have from this piece of property to Route that? There's 149 right here. regarding that and access your son will 149? How will he do MR. KILMARTIN-Yes. tIll right. His lit~tle. I've got to show you that on this map, here. access is going to be in here, right in that MR. PALING-Show us, here's his lot back here, okay, lands to be gifted to son. How does he get out to 149? MR. KILMARTIN-Right here, right out through here. high ground in here. This is all MR. PALING-Okay. So he's going to go out this way then? MR. KILMARTIN-All right. Here we are, right here. This is where he's going to propose to build. He's going to come out through here. - 10 - ',,-- -./ ---./ ~ (Queensbury Planning BOiHd Meeting 12/28/95) MR. PALING-Okay. All right, because I just want to get an idea. MR. BREWER-The property that he's giving to his son, does that have road access? MR. GORALSKI-That 10 acre parcel? MR. KILMARTIN-Yes, it does. MR. BREWER-Where's the road? MR. PALING-That's what we just did, Tim. MR. BREWER-This is just the 10 acres here? Okay. I thought this was the whole lot. MR. KILMARTIN-No. here to here. See, he's got all this road frontage, from MR. BREWER-This is just the 10 acres. MR. PALING-All right. This whole thing is that? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. PALING-And this, what's this here? MR. STEVES-That's an adjacent owner. This is the 97 acres. MR. PALING-So his access is right here, his existing. All right. MR. KILMARTIN-Now, this is a better map. This road. MR. PALING-Okay. That I don't care about now. MR. KILMARTIN-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Where does the guy have access to the 97 acres? MR. KILMARTIN-He has access to the 97 acres on this side, right there. MR. PALING-That's the part his son gets, and he's got access there, and this guy. MR. OBERMAYER-Is the guy going to commercially develop that? MR. KILMARTIN-I have no idea what he's got planned. MR. OBERMAYER-You used to farm that, didn't you? MR. KILMARTIN-I still farm it. I have life use of it. As long as my wife and I live, we have life use of that. I mean, we've got that in writing. He can't stop us. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Bob, we have a, after a little discussion here. He can't do anything with this land until he gets Final anyway. Why don't we go ahead with the public hearing, leave it open and then, you know, have our little discussion and everything, and then any time he gets the permit, okay, table the application, he can be put back on. We'll do Preliminary one week, the Final the following week, and he can get it at that point. He's going to have to wait anyway, to get a Final. MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, George, this is a Preliminary subdivision. He can't do anything until he gets Final. - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. STARK-Right. MR. BREWER-If we grant him Preliminary with the condition that the APA issue is straightened out. He still doesn't have Final approval. He comes in. Then we give him Final approval. It's not a site plan that we're giving him a conditional approval on. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Why even bother doing that, though? Why are we even doing it? MR. BREWER-It's a two step process. MR. OBERMAYER-It's going to be a two step process no matter what. MR. BREWER-No, it isn't. If we give him Preliminary tonight, and the APA issue, why make them come back and then go through. MR. PALING-He only has to come back one more time for final. MR. RUEL-He'd have to come back twice. MR. PALING-I'm inclined to agree with Tim. I don't see what harm we're doing if we do it that way. MR. BREWER-Ultimately, he can not go anywhere and do anything with that land, even if we grant him Preliminary tonight. He still has to get Final from us, and if the issue's not straightened out with the APA, then we just don't give him Final and he's right where he is right now. MR. PALING-And he doesn't have Preliminary either if it's not met, that's a condition. MR. STARK-Bob, lets open the public hearing anyway. MR. BREWER-If he doesn't meet the condition, he doesn't get the approval, correct? MR. PALING-All right, I agree with George. Lets hold this, and if there's no more input here, we'll have the public hearing. All right, we'll open the public hearing on this matter. If there's anyone here that would like to speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. All right then we've got to figure out amongst ourselves what we want to do now. My inclination is to go along with the conditional approval. I agree with Tim. I don't know why it is we wouldn't do that, I guess. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, it would be are and what issues the APA has eve n flagged. nice to see where the wetlands with the wetlands. They're not MR. GORALSKI-The wetlands are on the map. MR. STEVES-Well, the wetland issue is on the 97 acre lot, not the 10 acre lot. MR. STARK-It's over here. MR. STEVES-See, the large portion of that lot is the 10 acres depicted. - 12 - ~ ,-,'f --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. PALING-This is the part we're talking about here, and this is where the wetlands are. MR. MACEWAN-Well, haven't we, map, asked that any wetlands be indicated on that? historically, on any subdivision be indicated, DEC flagged wetlands MR. GORALSKI-This is APA. MR. STARK-·APA. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Have we done it with APA on a regular basis? MR. GORALSKI-There are wetlands indicated on that 10 acre parcel. You can see where the wetland line is, right through the center of it. It is shown. MR. MACEWAN-Aren't they a little bit more definitive than though? I mean, you don't know how far either side of the the wetlands go. that, brook MR. STEVES-Well, you read the letter where I've asked the APA to come in to flag the wetlands on the 10 acre site. MR. MACEWAN-Could that ultimately be put on the map for Final? MR. STEVES-No. They came in and flagged up what they thought was necessary, because they know the house site itself is to the west end of the lot. Therefore, they didn't make us go to the eXþense of locating all the wetland flagging which would not be used. MR. MACEWAN-Then your intentions wouldn't be to put it on there for that 10 acre parcel? MR. STEVES-Other than the note that you see on the map, that's all we would do. At the bottom of the map. you'd say we have flagged it up, she has verified it, and everyone's happy with it. MR. OBERMAYER-It just hasn't been verified by the APA yet, right? MR. STEVES-They won't touch this now until that action's taken care of. MR. OBERMAYER-Until what action? MR. STEVES-The action of the infringement upon the wetlands. MR. GORALSKI-On the 97 acres. MR, SCHACHNER-The enforcement action is what he's referring to. MR. MACEWAN-Mark, what's the worst case scenario they would use in an enforcement action? MR. SCHACHNER-Worst case scenario, APA $100,000 fine, imprisonment. enforcement action? MR. MACEWAN-What is the likelihood of what they would do? MR. GORALSKI-Well, you know, at the Sagamore when they cut down the trees they gave them that huge fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Well. except it hasn't been resolved. Some sort of monetary fine, and sometimes some mitigation that often involves either, sometimes involves removal of fill. sometimes involves planting of different types of species, sometimes even involves creation of artificial or manmade wetlands nearby. It's real hard to say. I don't know anything about the order of magnitude - 13 - -/ -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) about the alleged violation. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the reasoning for going forward, though? I guess I still don't understand. MR. STEVES-Well, we don't demonstrate to APA something, then I don't know that they will action is in their court right now, and we until we show them, in good faith, that we are lot subdivision. that we are doing do anything. The can't do anything proposing this two MR. RUEL--Aren't talking about APA right? we talking about two items, though? We're permit and enforcement action to be involved, MR. GORALSKI-Right. You've got two issues in front of the APA. There's one issue in front of the Cueensbury Planning Board. MR. RUEL-Right. Now if we did not approve this this evening, on the basis that you should have the enforcement action involved and that you should get the APA permit, then you would have to come back again for a Preliminary application. Is that correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. RUEL-And then the Final. MR. STEVES-And another public hearing. MR. RUEL-Yes, but it seems to me that if it was only APA approval without enforcement action, I think I would buy going ahead on that condition, but with an enforcement action hanging. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, there could be some litigation going on. MR. RUEL-I'm tempted to say that you should resolve these things before you come back to the Planning Board. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I tend to agree with you, Rog, on that. MR. BREWER-But what subdivision, whether do anything with it, he gets Final. harm does it do if we go ahead with the we don't do anything with the subdivision or the APA issue still has to be settled before MR. RUEL-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-That's right, so why don't we Just table it? MR. RUEL-It's a matter of principal. MR. MACEWAN-Historically, our conditional approvals. Board has not granted out MR. BREWER-I don't believe that. MR. GORALSKI-I just want to clarify something. You almost always have a conditional approval at Preliminary, and you require that those things be addressed at Final. They're usually not other agency issues, but you almost always have at Preliminary. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. In that aspect, yes. MR. BREWER-That's right. MR. PALING-What difference does it make if it's APA or whatever the conditions are? - 14 - '--' '--'" '-- ----./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting, 12/28/95) MR. OBERMAYER-Because there's an enforcement action going on. MR. BREWER-Yes, but we have nothing to do with that, Jim. We don't have anything to do with that issue. MR. STARK-Bob, poll the Board and see if we want to go forward or not go forward. MR. PALING-All right. forward with this, or start with Craig. Lets ask the Board now, do you want to go do you want to, I guess, table it? We'll MR. MACEWAN-Table it. MR. STARK-Go forward. MR. OBERMAYER-Table. MR. BREWER-Go ahead, I don't have a problem with it. MR. RUEL-I'd like to table it. MR. PALING-I'd like to go forward with it. Three to three. So that's great. MR. STARK-So, we don't go forward with it, that's all. MR. PALING-''r'es. MR. BREWER-I don't see any harm if we went ahead, with the condition that he meets the APA. MR. PALING-I don't, either. MR. STEVES-John, do you know why I was called as to when I was going to submit this plan? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, because we received, from the Warren County Tax Office, a notification of, I think they call it a split, subdivision, which, based on our Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, was an illegal subdivision. That's why I called you and said you need to get a subdivision. MR. BREWER-So now that means that he can't sell the land, because we won't go? MR. PALING-Let me ask this question. Lets say that we went ahead with this proposition. What's the worst case position that we've put the Town in or the Board in? What's the penalty? MR. GORALSKI-You mean if you give a Preliminary approval tonight? MR. PALING-Yes. With a conditional Preliminary approval, what's the penalty, what's the worst case? MR. SCHACHNER-There is no prospective harm or penalty to the Town or the Planning Board in any situation where all we're talking about is Preliminary approval. MR. PALING-Conditional Preliminary. MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't matter. Even if it was. MR. PALING-Okay, even if it weren't conditional. MR. SCHACHNER-A Preliminary approval doesn't give anybody particular types of rights, to speak of, especially a conditional one. - 15 - _/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. PALING-This is why I can't understand why we're not letting this go ahead. Because we're not putting ourselves in any kind of position of jeopardy. Even if it wasn't conditional, according to Mark, it's still only Preliminary, and if we wanted to !îot g,-ant Final approval, ~..¡e're fine. So why should we perhaps hold the applicant up in what he's trying to do? That's all we're doing is blocking his way to get it done. MR. MACEWAN-I don't feel that way. I don't feel that this Board is blocking his way to get his problems with APA resolved. MR. PALING-Well, we're sure not helping him. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALING-And I think in that form we're blocking him, if we're not supporting and helping him. MR. MACEWAN-I don't share that view. MR. STARK-Bob, why don't you just ask the applicant if he'd like to table it, and help him out as much as you can next month, the following month, after he gets it resolved. We could debate it all night. MR. PALING-Does anybody on the Board want to re-consider their vote? MR. RUEL-Yes, I will. MR. PALING-Okay. What would you like to do? MR. RUEL-Just the opposite of what I did before. MR. PALING-You want to go ahead with it? MR. F~UEL -Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Then we have now a four to two that says go ahead. MR. BREWER-Did we close the public hearing? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you did close the public hearing. MR. PALING-We did do close the public hearing. MR. BREWER-Lets do the SEQRA before he changes his mind. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. Lets do the SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 16-1995, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: I,.JHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the RICHARD KILMARTIN, and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the state Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. - 16 - '---"' ",-,,' ',-- -...-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of December. 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. Now we'll have a motion. MR. BREWER-We have to discuss, maybe, the waivers. Does anybody have a problem with the waivers? MR. RUEL "'No . MR. STARK-Include that in the motion. MR. BREWER-Do we do that in two motions, Mark, or one? MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't make any difference, so long as you account for the waivers. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1995 RICHARD KILMARTIN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: With the following condition: That the APA permit be obtained, and the enforcement action to be resolved prior to the Final Stage Planning Board approval, and also we would grant a waiver of Sketch Plan and topography, grading and drainage report. Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Obermayer ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. So you have conditional Preliminary approval on this. - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. STEVES-Thank you. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 6-95 TYPE: UNLISTED EDWARD A. BARLOW, JR./MARILYN BOGGS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BIG BOOM ROAD, 400' SOUTH OF ARBERGER DR. PROPERTY INVOLVED: GF-ll APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 13.86 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS. PER SECTION 94-4 SUBDIVISION OF LAND THAT INVOLVES ANY LAND IN ANY FRESHWATER WETLAND IS A REGULATED ACTIVITY WHICH REQUIRES A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT. TAX MAP NO. 141-1-2 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. GORALSKI-These comments are related to both the Freshwater Wetlands Permit and the subdivision. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 6-95, Edward Barlow, Jr., Meeting Date: December 28, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 13.86 acre lot into four lots all of which are well above the 1 acre minimum lot size. Lot 1 has an existing residence and related accessory structures, and the map shows proposed single family dwellings and septic systems on the remaining lots. There are no new roads or utilities proposed for this subdivision and the proposal meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Because a portion of Freshwater Wetland GF-ll is on this property, a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit is required. Section 94-4 of the Freshwater Wetlands Law defines that a portion of a subdivision of land within or adjacent to a freshwater wetland as a regulated activity. There is no DEC wetlands permit required for this proposal because DEC does not consider the subdivision of land a regulated activity. Based on the condition that no activity will take place within 100' of the wetland boundary, I would recommend approval of the Freshwater Wetlands Permit and Preliminary subdivision approval." MR. PALING-Okay. For the record, sir. MR. STEVES-I'm Leon Steves from VanDusen and Steves. MR. PALING-Thank you. Do we have any questions by the Board? MR. BREWER-No activity going to happen within 100 feet of the wetlands, Leon? I'm. STEVES-No. MR. BREWER-Is that a problem? MR. STEVES-No. MR. PALING-I don't have any questions on it. MR. STARK-I just wanted to see the distance. MR. BREWER-They're going to have access to the river, all of them, right? MR. STEVES-They'll have ownership to the river. That's correct. MR. GORALSKI-There'll be no clearing? MR. STEVES-No. MR. BREWER-No clearing whatsoever. MR. MACEWAN-I know we've asked this question in the past a lot. - 18 - '--- "_/ ',---, ..-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95 ) What's to prevent someone, five, seven, ten years down the road, from clearing? MR. GORALSKI-The only thing that's to preVent t~êm is that ,they would need, in this case, they would need ð Wetlands Permit to do that. MR. MACEWAN-But the average homeowner probably wouldn't have the knowledge to know that, though, would they? MR. GORALSKI-Well, what L would suggest is that as a condition of subdivision approval you either put on the subdivision plat or require a statement in the deed saying that there would be no clearing within the designated wetland or 100 feet from the boundary. MR. SCHACHNER-Or both. MR. BREWER-How far is the river from the wetlands? MR. STEVES-They're adjacent. MR. GORALSKI-The wetland goes all the way down to the shoreline. MR. STEVES-To my knowledge. Now all I've got is a broad brush DEC map of the area. We haven't asked anyone to flag it up because it's pretty obvious, it's location. We didn't go down to the river to do much work down there, other than locating the shore. MR. OBERMAYER-It really drops off, doesn't it, behind the p~·operty . MR. STEVES-Yes, it does. That's correct. MR. MACEWAN-Are there any plans to make some sort of note in the deeds or something, as far as clearing the property? MR. STEVES-I'd be lying to you if I told you there were. I don't have any objection to putting any note you want on the map. That's probably a more appropriate spot for it. People, I don't know if they ever look at their deeds. Of course, you can probably say they never look at their maps either. MR. BREWER-It's probably more likely to look at a map, though, than they would a deed. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. What size homes are they going to build? MR. STEVES-I have no idea. They're only going to sell lots. MR. RUEL-The property is 75 feet from wetlands, the end of the property? MR. STEVES-No, the property goes through, they own all the wetland. They, own right to the river. MR. RUEL-What's this note, 75 feet from wetlands? MR. STEVES-That's the setback. MR. RUEL-The setback. MR. GORALSKI-The building setback. MR. RUEL-The building? Falls? I see, and there's wetlands by Glens - 19 - '-- ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. STEVES-That's a designated number, Glens Falls, 19, or something like that. MR. SCHACHNER-Eleven. MR. STEVES-Eleven. MR. RUEL-And they have a flood zone. MR. STEVES-Yes, we do. MR. RUEL-290 feet? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. RUEL-Are the curb cut, do the curb cuts meet the minimum requirement? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-It's looking good. MR. PALING-Okay. There is a public hearing on this. I think we ought to go right to the public hearing. We'll open the public hearing on this matter, if anyone would care to speak, for or against. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE FIORE MR. FIORE-Name is Joe Fiore. We live right on the river, in this area, right down in here. MR. PALING-Up here? VIR. FIORE'-Yes. MR. PALING-The river is right here. MR. OBERMAYER-No, if you look at this, the river's right here. MR. FIORE-This is the site you're talking about, right? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. FIORE-We live right in here. MR. PALING-You're one of these properties here. MR. STEVES-Right at the end of Arberger Drive. MR. FIORE-Right at the last, Arberger Drive, where the wetland starts. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Do you have a dock? MR. FIORE-Yes, we put it in and take it out. Is that what that is? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I guess that's it. MR. FIORE-Okay. This is us right here. We've got 98 feet on the river. MR. STEVES-Yes, that's this way right here. Yes. MR. FIORE-Okay, but this is a wetland that comes into here, the - 20 - '- ----" --- ----" (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/9.5 ) flood zone. Now we're not too concerned about the building lots up here, but we want the protection of this wetland, because of the people that live in the wetland, the turtles and frogs and so on and so f01-th. MR. PALING-Isn't that being done with this designation here? MR. FIORE-Yes, but you see, it says 75, but in the other piece of paper, didn't you say 100 feet back? MR. BREWER-Any activity within 100 feet requires permit. MR. RUEL-All of these are 75. MR. GORALSKI-Without a permit. MR. BREWER-With a permit they can. MR. OBERMAYER-That's what they're here for, though, to get a wetlands permit. MR. FIORE-Right. We're against touching this wetlands. MR. STEVES-Lets back up a minute. We're here to get a wetlands permit only to subdivide the wetland, not to use any portion of it within 100 feet of it. MR. RUEL-Yes, just the subdivision. MR. PALING-Yes, this is just a subdivision. Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Good. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. John, they would be back. MR. FIORE-Seventy-five feet from this line here, right? This is the flood Ii ne. MR. PALING-We're only subdividing, though. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but they don't have to come back for any approval to put homes in there. MR. PALING-As long as they meet, they've got to stay 100 feet from the wetlands, though, and that you'll have. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, and that's required. MR. FIORE-Because this is an opening where the water, when, hot in this spring, the water comes in all the way here, and with a good spring thaw, this land here, right in this area where we abut, is good until the middle of August. You have a wet August, and it goes into September, October. MR. RUEL-Is this vegetation here covered by water at any time, completely? MR. FIORE-Well, yes. This is also covered with water. MR. RUEL-Normally it is? MR. FIORE-No. Normally, because once the river is down, and this inlet, the water can't get in any more, then this starts all drying up, but high water feeds this whole wetland. MR. OBERMAYER-How high is the river right here, in relation to the edge of the property? Is it pretty well level there? - 21 - --- -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. F:IORE-No. MR. OBERMAYER-Or is it a steep drop off? MR. PALING-Two feet, two and a half feet. MR. OBERMAYER-So these people could, conceivably, have docks thf:ne, too? MR. FIORE-No. How about the wetland? MR. RUEL-Right. touch this. You can't get through the wetland. You can" t MR. PALING-But that's not the subject of tonight. MR. RUEL-No, I know, but even if it was the subject of any night, you can't touch it. MR. BREWER-Yes, they can touch it. With a permit, they can. MR. RUEL-If it's within 100 feet. MR. BREWER-With a permit, yes, they can. MR. OBERMAYER-Is the dock considered, though? MR. BREWER-It's a disturbance, I would think. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know. Is it? MR. BREWER-Mark, would a dock be a? MR. OBERMAYER-Is a dock considered an obstruction for a wetland? MR. BREWER-Do they need a permit to put a dock in? MR. SCHACHNER-You might need a permit, but probably not a wetlands permit, again, depending upon how the dock was constructed and what type of disturbance is necessary. MR. OBERMAYER-So you could put a dock in? MR. SCHACHNER-No. I didn't say that. You do need a permit, typically. It could be from anyone of a number of entities, by the way, including, in some instances, the United States Army Corp of Engineers, for example, but as to whether or not there is a wetlands permit requirement, I think that depends on how the dock is constructed and what type of disturbance, if any, is necessary to build the dock. MR. BREWER-I doesn't make a lot of sense that they would, Jim. I mean, they're going to dock in the wetland? I mean, what are they going to do when they get to the shore? MR. OBERMAYER-Right along the shore. That gives them access to the river. What do you think these people are going to buy this property for right on the river? They want access to the river. MR. GORALSKI-At a very minimum, a site plan review from'the Town of Queensbury would be required to construct a dock. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, that's the first and main permit that I was referring to. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Okay, but I attractive part of this property is it river. Right? mean, to me, that's the gives them access to the - 22 - '---' --.-/ ',,--, --.-/' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. FIORE-As far as our dock is concerned, we are south of the wetland line, okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. I'm not questioning your dock, sir. MR. FIORE-No, no. Well, I didn't realize it was our dock down here. That dock goes in in the late spring, and we take it out in the winter. You have to, or it won't be there next year. When the water comes down, it's gone. The first time we put a dock out there, we lost everything. Then we knew better, and didn't do it again. All right. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else care to speak? Okay. If not, then the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now, is this a Short or a Long SEORA? MR. SCHACHNER-This is a Short Form, and remember that as you answer the questions, your SEORA review relates to both the Wetlands Permit and the proposed subdivision. MR. PALING-Okay. We're doing this for both. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Your SEORA review is for both. MR. RUEL-Both Wetlands and? MR. GORALSKI-The Subdivision. MR. RUEL-The two items here on the agenda? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Excuse me. I've got another question. If we grant a Wetlands Permit tonight, what does that do? What are we letting them do? MR. GORALSKI-All you're letting them do is subdivide the parcel. MR. PALING-Okay. There's nothing beyond subdivision, even though the Wetlands Permit is separate from the Subdivision stage? MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The reason for the Wetlands Permit is because the Town Ordinance includes subdivision as a regulated activity within wetlands, but nothing beyond subdivision within the wetlands or the buffer is currently proposed. MR. PALING-Okay. I've got you. Go ahead, Roger. MR. RUEL-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NOS. FW6-95 & 17-1995, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the EDWARD A. BARLOW, JR., and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed - 23 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) project and Planning Board action is 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 applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria fOT determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1995, by the following vot,e: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. We'll have a motion. MR. RUEL-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 6-95 EDWARD A. BARLOW. JR./MARILYN BOGGS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE EDWARD A. BARLOW, JR. OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE BIG BOOM ROAD, 400' SOUTH OF ARBERGER DRIVE THE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A +1- 14 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS OF 5.61 AC., 2.61 AC., & 2.90 AC. TAX MAP NO. 141-1-2 LOT SIZE: +1- 14 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT - 24 - "--' '---- --/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. PALING-Okay, and, were before. Okay. Board? John, your Is there remarks are the same as any additional comment by they the MR. STARK--None. MR. PALING-Okay. I don't think we have any additional comment. We'll go to a public hearing now. The public hearing is open. Does anyone care to comment on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. DEMARS MR. DEMARS-My name is Mr. DeMars, and I live across from this project, possibly maybe 300, 350 feet down the road from this. My only question would be, I guess I would have to ask the VanDusen and Steves lS, since the whole parcel is maybe 50 percent usable, as far as to be built on, with the layout, my question was, why would they ask, why would he send a letter to the Board asking that he request a waiver of the sketch plan, of the topography below elevation 312 on that drainage map? Is that because it's going to be non usable land area which has no bearing on this permit? MR. RUEL-John, you granted the waiver? MR. BREWER-No. We have to grant the waiver. MR. GORALSKI-You have to grant the waiver. MR. PALING-We haven't granted it yet. That's this letter here. MR. DEMARS-This is just a request to be granted a waiver? MR. RUEL-It's a request. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-We'll have Mr. Steves answer that question. MR. PALING-Not now, but we'll have him answer it. MR. DEMARS-Well, I think that was one of my biggest concerns, and the other one would be, on the description of the house, the one family, dimensions and feet of the largest, this is under "Project Description" in 5EQRA. It has a dimension of 32 feet high. According to the topography of the land, everyone of the lots will have to be built up to road. There isn't really a description on whether or not the driveways would go down and then the elevation off the road, or are they bringing the property up to road level? MR. PALING-Well, we're only subdividing tonight. That isn't up for consideration. MR. GORALSKI-There's a grading plan shown with finished floor elevation of 329, 335, and 341, on the subdivision plan. MR. RUEL-Yes, on the second sheet. MR. OBERMAYER-There is one here. MR. STEVES-On your first sheet, there i~ a grading plan shown for the three houses, and all three hóuses are above, the floor elevations, is above the road elevations in front of it. MR. DEMARS-Okay. 50 that was my question. If you bring it up to - 25 - '- ..-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) road elevation, that's the way L read it, 30 some feet in the area, 32 feet high, meaning that'll, everyone of those houses are entitled to obstruct, full obstruction to the other houses on the other side of the road, which the people that live right directly across, I don't live directly across, but that's one of the things that was brought up, and I just thought maybe I would. MR. MACEWAN-What would they be obstructing? MR. DEMARS-Totally obstructing their view out across the road itself. MR. MACEWAN-To what? MR. RUEL-Of the river? MR. DEMARS-I think the river. I think that's really why the elevation is being brought up to road, because Mr. Barlow, his house, his little house has been sitting down in off the road on that first lot, and he really can't see the river, but the only reason why the elevation is bringing up to road level would be to create a view of the river, and I just think that that would be an objectionable thing to the people that live right directly across. MR. RUEL-According to this map, though, his house is at 330 and 332, and then it drops down to 320, and 290, etc., down to the water level, the water's edge. So what's obstructing it? MR. STARK-I don't see anything. MR. OBERMAYER-They're talking about the people across the street. MR. MACEWAN-If I hit the right place, I mean, they have a view right now of the woods. They can't see a river. MR. DEMARS-No. MR. MACEWAN-So what would, the view be obstructing of what? MR. DEMARS-Okay. objection. I was just thinking that that might be an MR. MACEWAN-Thirty-two feet high would probably be a typical two story home to the peak of the roof. MR. DEMARS-Two and a half story, yes, 32. Okay. MR. MACEWAN-And even the people that would be building those houses, hypothetically, if it was a two story Cape, they wouldn't even have a view of the river. MR. 08ERMAYER-Yes, it's too far away. It's all wooded. MR. MACEWAN-If they've got to wetlands, they're going to see yard, then nothing but woods. stay 100 feet away from the nothing but, maybe a small back MR. DEMARS-Okay. My other question would be, in granting a permit of this sort, for this type of project, for these type of lots, do you, right within the permit, as a Board, state that the portion of the property, how many, is it 100 foot setback from the riveT that they cannot? MR. MACEWAN-One hundred feet setback from the wetlands. MR. DEMARS-Okay, 75 feet, I see on designate, 75 feet from what, the the map. What does that end of the wetlands to the - 26 - ~ ",--,,' -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) property that's usable? MR. GORALSKI-I can clear that up. Okay. There are two separate issues. There's a setback, a building setback, from any shoreline, stream or wetland, okay. Then there's also, so that's at the 75 foot setback. There's also a requirement that if you do anything within 100 feet of that wetland, you need a wetlands permit. All right. So that's where you're getting the two different numbers from. MR. DEMARS-So, basically the Freshwater Wetlands Permit is what you've done? MR. GORALSKI-But that was only for the subdivision. That doesn't allow them to do anything else within that 100 feet except draw that line on a piece of paper. That's it. They're not allowed to cut any trees within 100 feet. They're not allowed to build any structures, place any fill, anything like that. MR. DEMARS-Okay. That's fine. That's cleared it up. The only other thing would be, is if they would address this request that they sent to you, just to let us know. MR. PALING-On the topography? Yes, we will. MR. DEMARS-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Is there anyone else that would care to speak? Okay. If not, then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Leon, do you want to comment on a couple of things on this. I think perhaps clarify the letter and raising the ground, of the land level. MR. STEVES-Yes. One of the questions he had was the waiver request. That's a normal, typical thing. When I submit an application for a subdivision, which is a Preliminary stage, is to ask for a waiver from the sketch plan. That's the one. The second is the topography. Since the elevations below 312, I'm going by memory, is within the wetlands and within the flood plain, I saw no reason to spend the time and money in developing contours through a wetland, and that's the reason for the request, the waiver. MR. RUEL-That makes sense. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I don't have a problem with that. MR. PALING-Yes. You can't touch it anyway. I understand. Okay. MR. RUEL-And the drainage report. MR. PALING-Drainage report. Go ahead. MR. RUEL-He's here for a waiver, part of the letter. Comments to that? MR. STEVES-We aren't building roads or any other major structures. So we, eventually, we're selling lots only. Eventually, people will be building houses, and then they will be putting in eaves trenches in there to handle runoff, so we don't see any impact whatsoever, and that's the reason for the request. MR. RUEL-I agree, but I wanted you to respond for the public. MR. STEVES-Yes, thank you. - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. OBERMAYER-Leon, the existing elevations, do you have those identified here? Is that what I'm looking at? MR. STEVES-Yes, they are. MR. OBERMAYER-You have them both, right? You have them dashed and then you have the other ones, the new elevations, right? MR. STEVES-That's correct. The existing boundaries, and then the proposed grading plan. long broken short dashed lines are lines are tl''',e the MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, so you do plan on bringing in quite a bit of fill. MR. STEVES-We're intending to bring the house itself level with the road, so that they will be above the runoff of the road, and then having a back yard coming out from their cellar, if you will. MR. OBERMAYER-So you do plan on bringing in quite a bit of fill. MR. STEVES-Along the front and side, yes, but the lot lends itself to that particular type of planning. MR. RUEL-The rear of the basement will be exposed, then. MR. STEVES-Yes, it will. MR. RUEL-Will that be living space? MR. STEVES-I don't know. We're not building the houses. We're only selling the lots. MR. RUEL-That's not part of the square footage then? MR. STEVES-I don't know how to answer that question, or if it pertains to the subdivision anyway. We're not on the lake. MR. OBERMAYER-You're on the river, though. MR. STEVES-Well, we're on the road. MR. RUEL-I brought it up because the new master plan was going to consider that as living area. MR. PALn~G-I know. Okay. Are there any other questions by anyone on the Board? MR. BREWER--No. MR. PALING-No? All right. We need a SEQRA. MR. BREWER-You did it already, Bob. MR. PALING-Okay. We need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1995 EDWARD A. BARLOW. JR., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Along with the applicaDt's waiver request, Sketch Plan, topography below 312, and drainage report dated 11/28/95. Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: I~r. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, - 28 - ,--,,' '--"' -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. STEVES-Thank you very much, and if I could regress a moment. Craig, would you feel more comfortable with a note on the map? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I forgot that. Yes, thank you. MR. STEVES-No problem. That's why we're here to work together, right? But I'll put a note on the map that no activity will take place within 100 feet of the wetland boundary without a DEC wetland permit, or if needed, a Town Wetland Permit. MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's great. MR. MACEWAN-What a guy. Right on the ball. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. MACEWAN-Do we want that notation in the form of our approval? Can we add that notation as part of our approval, as a formality? MR. OBERMAYER-I trust Leon to do it. MR. RUEL-Do you want to add that or not? MR. OBERMAYER-Do we have to make another motion? MR. SCHACHNER-Do an amended motion. MR. RUEL-Do you want a new motion or not? MR. PALING-Just amend the motion, if you want. MR. SCHACHNER-Just make a motion to amend the previous motion. MR. GORALSKI-By adding the statement Mr. Steves just made. MOTION TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS MOTION, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: To include the statement Leon just stated on the record, a note will be put on the map that no activity will take place within 100 feet of the wetland boundary with a DEC Wetland Permit, or if needed, a Town Wetland Permit. Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: t'-lONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard SITE PLAN NO. 77-95 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN A. SHAFFER OWNER: SOWAMCO XXI, LTD ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF ROCKWELL ROAD APPROXIMATELY 900 FT. NORTHERLY OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH HAVILAND ROAD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A CLASS A FARM WHICH WILL INCLUDE AN APARTMENT OVER THE MAIN BARN BUILDING. FARM, ALL CLASSES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 46-4-19.1 LOT SIZE: 29.78 ACRES SECTION: 179-19, 179-63 A 1 ROBERT STEWART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 77-95, John A. Shaffer, Meeting Date: December 28, 1995 "The applicant proposes to establish a farm on a 29.78 acre lot in an SR-1A zone. Section 179-63 C limits the number of horses on a parcel to 1 horse for every 2 acres of land. There are a variety of uses surrounding this lot which could be in conflict with this use if proper precautions are not taken. I would recommend that a minimum 50' natural vegetative buffer be maintained along the property lines. Total clearing of the lot should be limited to the area shown on the map and the use of the cleared area should be specified. If this is to be used to graze the horses some fencing should be provided to prevent them from wandering onto the adjoining properties. If there will be trail riding on the property it should be limited to the owners of the horses and not open to the general public. If any trails are to be cut through the woods they should not encroach on the 50' buffer." MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. STEWART-Yes. My name is Robert Stewart, and I am an attorney with the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes, and I'm here tonight representing the Shaffer family in support of this application, and Leon Steves is also here tonight, who has done a good deal of the preparation work, and who can probably answer the more technical type of questions. This is Mr. ShaffeT ne~o(t to me. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. Have you seen the comments John made? Have you seen these before? MR. STEWART-I just saw them a few minutes ago when I came in, and, frankly, I don't understand them. Let me Just explain why. First of all, I take it you have seen the application, which is a faiTly simple straightforward application. We're zoned to have a faTm. We have just shy of 30 acres of land, and all farm uses and classifications are included in this zone, including a Class A Farm. It is a relatively moderate application. The present thinking now, because the Shaffer family, particularly their daughter Kristin who's here tonight, aTe involved in horses that they want to raise and stable and ride horses here. So it's a relatively modest type of farming operation, at least at the outset, but the land is qualified a~3 a farm without any limit whatsoever, and when I got here tonight, I see this suggestion that we not be allowed to clear the land. Well I never heard of land that's zoned as a faTm that you couldn't clear, whetheT you want to Tide horses on it, whether you want to raise crops on it or hay OT alfalfa to feed the animals or whateveT, that seems unusual. A 50 foot buffer all the way around, I know of no requirements for buffer. We're not adjacent to a residential. We're not using some commercial use prohibited in the zone, and so we really don't understand it. It seems to be saying, yes, it's a farm. It's zoned as a farm. You can have a farm, but you can't have the normal uses that one would have for a farm. Now the 50 foot buffer, for example, if you will look at the layout, you will see that the plan that was submitted does fall within 50 feet, the riding paths, the driveway coming into the property, those are within 50 feet of property lines. The property has a fairly narrow neck as you come into it. It's not an easy piece of property for you to go and see. I know that, because there's no roads cut into it at this point, but I think you can see from that map that, particularly as you come in the entrance area, and where the Shaffer's plan to do their initial development, a 50 foot buffer where you can't even ride a horse is going to create some problems, but I don't know why, I don't know what their thinking is. The property diTectly to the north, owned by Dr. and Barbara Brassell, for example, he has horses there. He has - 30 - --" ------ -.f. "-- (Cueensbury Plannihg Board Meeting 12/28/95 ) his fence right to the property line. property line. He's cleared to his MR. STARK-I have a question. Mr. Shaffer, do you object to having a 50 foot buffer in the front there so much, or what's your position on this? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. What's the issue? JOHN SHAFFER MR. SHAFFER-Well, I think that if you look at the way it's drawn there, if you put a 50 foot buffer, we can't do what we want to do, because you're talking about that track that goes around the arena and goes around the paddock area, which is a gravel track, is within the 50 foot buffer, when you get to the Brassell property there. It's probably about 20 feet from the Brassell fence. MR. RUEL-Yes. How many feet do you have of buffer here? MR. SHAFFER-About 20 feet. MR. RUEL-At the southern end? MR. SHAFFER-At the northern end there. MR. STARK-Brassell's southeast line. MR. RUEL-And what about the southern end, the same thing? MR. SHAFFER-Yes, just about 20 feet. I mean, we're planning to leave some trees there, but I hate to be restricted. MR. PALING-When you use the term "track", how do you mean that? MR. SHAFFER-It's a gravel track. MR. PALING-Gravel, like a circular, complete track. MR. RUEL-Well, here it is here. It's a dotted line, right? MR. SHAFFER-Yes, a dotted line. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STEWART-Yes, and it goes all the way around in a, not a circle, but it connects. It links onto itself. MR. RUEL-Yes, around the arena and around the barn and the parking a~·ea. MR. SHAFFER-Right. MR. STARK-So you don't mind the 20 foot buffer? MR. SHAFFER-Well, I'm not saying that, I don't want any buffer, really. I mean, it's possible we might want to expand that track further out. MR. OBERMAYER-What, right to the property line? you're saying? Is that what MR. SHAFFER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Why wouldn't you just shift the whole thing back and, you know, then maybe you wouldn't have any neighbor problems or anything like that. I don't know. - 31 - '--- ----- '-"' (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. RUEL-Well, some of this is existing, isn't it? Is that barn there? MR. BREWER-Nothing is there. MR. RUEL-The barn's not there? MR. OBERMAYER-Nothing's there. MR. BREWER-You're looking at, Brassell's has a barn there. MR. RUEL-If he moved all of this in the northeasterly direction, then he could easily gain buffer both sides. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Take this and move it. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, maybe we ought to wait and hear from the neighbors if they have anything. MR. BREWER-Why 15 cars, if this is going to be for family use? MR. STEWART-Well, it's not farm. It's allowed any use commercial purpose. limited to family use. This is a of domestic animals or horses for any MR. BREWER-Can I ask this question? Do you intend to make this into a business, riding stables? MR. SHAFFER-Possibly. MR. STEWART-Yes. I think our preliminary thinking, now, is, of course, the family is going to own horses, and we would probably stable horses there by the people who would come and ride them. There may be a time in the future, it's not the present intention now, where people could come and rent horses and ride for an afternoon. MR. OBERMAYER-Is that the zoning? MR. STEWART-Yes. I think it is. MR. BREWER-My feeling, then, would be, if that's an intention, then, Mr. Stewart, I don't have a problem with what you're doing, but would it be a big problem, like somebody else said, you shifted this out a little bit, to the, would it be the northeast, and got it out into the open a little bit more, rather than so close to that point where Dr. Brassell's land is? MR. STEWART-Well, of course, the farther you get back from the highway, the cost of installing roads and maintaining them and plowing them and all of that gets to be a significant factor. MR. RUEL-How long is that road now, that gravel drive? MR. STEWART-Well, the barn from the highway, there's a measurement there of 270 feet, plus or minus, and the road leads to the parking area right there. So 250 feet approximately, sir. MR. RUEL-Probably about 250. MR. BREWER-Well then, Bob, even if you went the length of the barn, another 30 feet, then you've shifted everything so that it's way out in the open. It's like a funnel type of a thing. You really haven't got to go but probably another 30 or 40 feet with the drive, because then you're going to end the drive approximately where it says 15 cars, where that line is. If you - 32 - '- '--' ----L ''-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) extended the drive to there, and then made the parking lot about where the barn is, and all the other activities are out further into the property. MR. STEWART-Now relatively level the horses IrJil1 starting to cut in then you have a certain amount of, I'd say, terrain here. Is that a fair statement? Where pasture and graze and so on, and now you're and take that area a~.Jay. MR. PALING-Okay. I'd like to get a point clarified, John or Mark, in regard to, if this is a commercial business, well what does, is this permitted within the zoning? MR. OBERMAYER-It's SR-1A. MR. SCHACHNER-We're wrestling with this issue right now, John and I, because the Class A Farm definition does allow, does include the language, at the end of the definition "for commercial purposes", b¡:?:fore that it talks about "land in e:<cess of 10 acres used for the raising of agricultural products, or the keeping of poultry, fowl, livestock, small mammals, or domestic animals for commercial purposes". I think more often than not, what that definition would tend to mean would be raising of livestock, as opposed to riding activities. What John and I were just wrestling with is that Zoning Ordinance does include a definition for "Riding Stable" is defined as a place, site or building used for the housing, care and riding of horses or other animals, and I'm wondering if this doesn't sound at least as much like a riding stable as it does a Class A Farm. MR. MACEWAN-Which section was that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-That's alphabetically under right "R" for in the Definition section, 179-7, Riding Stables, on Page 17940. MR. OBERMAYER-So does that fall under SR-1A? MR. BREWER-Is that an allowed use in that zone? MR. GORALSKI-No, it's not. MR. SCHACHNER-So there may be some clarification needed here. MR. STEWART-Yes. Well, let me make this comment, if I may. The definition of a Riding Stable is a much more narrOIrJ and limited definition than the definition of a farm. Now we're allowed to have any Class farm on this site, Class A, B, C, or D, and they talk about Class 8, for example, which we're allowed to be, says, "for raising and keeping of domestic animals, either for commercial purposes or for personal pleasure or use". MR. PALING-Raising or keeping I think is what Mark out, I think is where there might be a difference. was pointing MR. STEWART-Well, the point here is, if you look at take Rural Residential, for example, does not allow but it does allow for Riding Stables, because that considered a more minimal. zones like, for Farms, is obviously MR. GORALSKI-That's not correct. for farms. Rural Residential does allow MR. PALING-Okay, but we have to consider the neighbors in that, too. MR. GORALSKI-Could I maybe cut this debate off a little bit? Jim Martin, the Zoning Administrator, who has the final determination, unless it gets appealed beyond that, determined, - 33 - ',-- '- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) based on the information he was given, that this application was for a Class A Farm. My understanding at that time was that he was told that this would not be open to the general public and only that the people who had horses there would be riding the horses there. That's my understanding. I don't know if that's what Jim based his determination on. MR. STARK-John, I think what Mr. Stewart and Mr. Shaffer said, that if you board your horse there, you can ride it there, but that's not like you, if you're not boarding your horse there, you Just can't go in and say, can I rent a horse to go for a ride. MR. GORALSKI-Right, said, yes, this is a and I believe based on Class A Farm. that scenario, ,] im MR. STARK-And that's what he intends on doing, not have a public riding stable. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know if he is. Do you intend on doing that? That's not what 1 heard earlier. MR. STEWART-No. It is our intention, now, the present intention, to have horses there, our own and probably to help offset costs, to board horses of other people who would come and ride and exercise their horses there. We do not intend, at the present time, to be open to the public. This is not our intention, but the difficulty is, you're talking about a use of land for 20, 50 or 100 years in the future. This is what concerns me. This language in the staff Notes, "no further clearing on the land that's zoned for farms". Well, what if we want to go into turnip and rutabaga, raise potatoes there. I don't know what the future holds in store. We're entitled to a farm of any classification, and I don't think it's appropriate to tell the owner he can't use the land for what the Zoning Ordinance clearly says he £Sill. use it for. MR. PALING-I think what the intention there is the consideration of the neighbors, and any effect that any type of animal activity would have on them, be it from noise or odor or whatever, and I believe that's what we're talking about in that situation. MR. STEWART-Well, that may well be, but I think when the Town Board drew this Ordinance and said in this Ordinance that in this area you can have a farm, they made that determination. MR. SCHACHNER-With all due respect, I think the Board has to keep in mind that when the Town Board wrote the Zoning Ordinance and amended it several times, they also included a section called Site Plan Review, and I don't want the applicant to be misleading, or the applicant's representative, to be misleading the Board into thinking that because something is allowed, or is a permitted use in a particular zone, that the Board does not have the lawful authority to look at, as Mr. Paling said, impacts on neighbors and things like that, and to impose, if you feel it's appropriate, conditions that fall within your site plan review criteria. I think there's a little bit of a stretch being undertaken here to suggest that we don't have the authority to even look at these issues because the land is zoned for Class A Farms, which it definitely is. MR. STEWART-But would you agree with me, sir, that to say you can't clear land that's zoned for farming is just the antithesis of fa)"m land? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that's neither here nor there, but if you ~.¡ant my opinion, I would flatly disagree with that. That's my opinion. My opinion on that issue is irrelevant, however. - 34 - '----' ~ -' ........- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Bob, we know what the issues are. Why don't we open the public hearing, see what the neighbors say, and then we can come back and address it after. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other questions by anyone on the Board before we do go to a public hearing? MR. OBERMAYER-I'd like to know how many horses you're going to store, exactly. MR. STEWART-We're limited to, by the Ordinance, to 14. MR. OBERMAYER-Fourteen horses. MR. BREWER-I have another question. I mean, if we're going to allow them to store up to 14 horses on there, how can we tell them that they can't have trails? MR. PALING-No, we're not saying they can't have trails. MR. BREWER-But then that would be clearing of the land, wouldn't it? MR. PALING-Why don't we wait until we get all of the inputs, and then come back to that kind of a discussion, okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, we haven't determined that they can't clear the land. MR. GORAL.SKI--Maybe my statement was, to turn a phrase, "unclear". I'm not saying they can't cut trails through the woods. All I'm saying is that in an effort to protect the neighboring property owner's privacy and other issues, I would recommend that any trails that are cut be 50 feet from the property line, that's all. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. All right. Why don't we, at this point, unless there's further comment hefe, lets go to the public hearing, and we'll ask you to come back, okay. Is there anyone here that would care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED VINCENT SPIRO MR. SPIRO-My name is Vincent Spiro. I live up on Ridge Road just north of Haviland Road, and basically I just have a couple of questions. This is going to be set as a Class A Farm, and they want all the privileges of a Class A Farm, such as clearing wooded area for farming. If they are going to clear the land, are they going to use it for farming? MR. PAL.ING-It doesn't appear they're going to use it for farming. It appears that it's primarily for horses, but we haven't come to that question of clearing yet, at least the Board hasn't. MR. SPIRO-Well, my questions would be, how much clearing are they going to do? Are they going to clear the land and make a parking lot? Are they going to use this for a commercial venture, such as a riding academy? You're talking about the increase of traffic to the area, the noise, the pollution. I mean, I, myself, we live here because it's nice. It's quiet. It's basically farm land, not a commercial venture, such as a riding academy would. I mean, if it's going to be used for keeping horses and boarding horses, and those people having specific rights for riding those horses, as opposed to any Joe coming up - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) and renting and riding, I think we're talking about two different things. So I think the Board and whoever is involved should think about what this Class A definition is and what they are definitely going to use it for. There was also something listed as an apartment going to be put in with the barn. MR. RUEL-Over the barn. MR. SPIRO-Over the barn. Is that a single dwelling apartment, or would that be a multi dwelling? MR. PALING-We can ask for clarification of that. MR. SPIRO-And also, I mean, I'm not an immediate neighbor, but I would think that the immediate neighbors would like to know what type of animals they would keep on the farm, and how many animals they would keep on the farm. MR. RUEL-A maximum of 14. MR. PALING-Yes, a maximum of 14. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but they could have pigs, chickens. MR. RUEL-They've indicated horses. MR. SPIRO-Right, but what's to stop them, six months down the road, from saying, we want pigs now and now 200 pigs next door. MR. RUEL-There must be some limitations on the other animals, right? No, just horses? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. BREWER-We can condition it. There's nothing saying that we're going to, but there's nothing saying that we can't. MR. SPIRO-Right. All I'm saying is, I've seen it time and time again where people buy land and go under the guise of a Class A Farm, when down the road it's turned into something else, and the people who live in the area suffer, and are the people who are building the farm, are they going to be living at the farm, or 1S this something that's going to be a total commercial venture? I mean, I Just have all these questions. MR. PALING-All right. a nSIrJer ed . Well. keep asking. We'll get them MR. SPIRO-Basically, that's it. MR. RUEL-Do you want to take a look at this, what they intend to clear? MR. SPIRO-Yes, I do. MR. RUEL-See here on the map, see this area here? This is what they intend to clear, and we were talking a 50 foot buffer, and this is about 20 feet. This is the proposed here. They're going to put the arena here, and the barn here, and the stalls on both sides, and the parking area, and then the gravel drive. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anything else, Mr. Spiro? I'1R. SPIRO-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? DR. ROGER BRASSELL - 36 - '--' ---./ --../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) DR. BRASSELL-Dr. Roger Brassell. I'm the immediate neighbor to the immediate north, and my wife and I have no fundamental objection to a horse farm on this site, and in fact my wife and I would welcome it. I would, however, like to request some buffering along the borders between our south line and our east line. Mr. Shaffer, we are cleared to the fence, but we didn't clear it. That's the way it was when we got it. We're open pretty close to the property line, but that's the way the land was when we got there, and we didn't clear it to that point. In fact, it's grown in a bit from our property line, and we would like a buffer between our land and the cleared portions and the used portion. If 50 feet is a burden on the Shaffer's, 40 feet would be fine, anything to secure privacy between yours and ours, and to make a pleasant separation. MR. RUEL-Do you have a buffer on your land, sir? DR. BRASSELL-Our land was cleared to the property line when we bought it. MR. RUEL-You don't have a buffer? DR. BRASSELL-No. MR. RUEL-8ut you want him to have a buffer. DR. BRASSELL-Well, I do, but I don't want to impose an undue burden on them, and I'm sure that some reasonable distance could be set forth. The only place we're going to be close at all is in the area around what looks like the parking lot around the bl.Hn. MR. RUEL-The southeast corner? DR. BRASSELL-Right, from the pipe to the barn is 80 feet. So I would judge the parking lot's about 40 feet, and the dotted line is, what, 20 or 30 feet. MR. PALING-Well, that's the same question that's been raised. MR. OBERMAYER-Right now it's all brush, isn't it, in that area? DR. BRASSELL-Pretty much. You should know that that land was largely cleared already by Gary Bowen when he owned it, and mostly all the trees were cut off and what's there now is mostly brush, and surely, you know, you've got to clear some. I don't know who objected to the clearing, but you can't have horses without open. My only comment is we would like a buffer along the adjoining property lines, and if 50 feet is an undue burden on the Shaffer's then find some compromise that would be. Yes, there's 30 acres of land there, and you've got plenty of space, so that a buffer shouldn't be a burden, and again, I'd say we welcome the use of this for normal horses. I think we would object if they put a neon sign up and said, trail rides, or something like that, and I don't think that's your intention, and I'm not worried about it. I mean, you do have to let them clear it. You can't have a horse farm without cleared land. Those are my comments. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-I have a question for Mr. Steves. You heard a couple of comments up here about moving this to the northeast, okay. Other than the cost of, naturally, the driveway being lengthened 30, 40 feet, whatever, do you know of any problem? I mean, the ground doesn't really drop off there particularly steep there or anything? - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-No, but I think what would happen, if you moved it in that direction, you would encourage traffic through that road to the south, through that residential road. MR. STARK-Well, I don't follow you on that. MR. STEVES-If you look on the map, just to the south, there's a subdivision and a Town road between the ownership of Bardin and Pu r tin . MR. STARK-Where do you see Bardin? Okay. MR. PALING-Is the boundary line a )'oad? MR. STEVES-No. This is the road right here. MR. PALING-This road? MR. STEVES-Yes, that's a road. MR. GORALSKI-Clearview Lane. MR. STEVES-It runs out to Haviland Road. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, maybe you ought to access the property from there. MR. STEVES-Well, that's through a residential subdivision. If that's your recommendation, we'll be glad to. MR. PALING-Excuse me. The public hearing is still open. Could we go back to that? Okay. Is there anyone else here that would care to talk about this matter? Okay. JENNY RODRIGUEZ MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Good evening. My name is Jenny Rodriguez. We own a lot in Clearview Lane. My concern is if this will be a place commercial, that is our concern, because there would be a lot of traffic, and the atmosphere of the neighborhood would be completely changed, of course, as you can understand. We will be building there, and that's really our concern, that the neighborhood will change because of the commercial, and that's really what I would like to know, and other neighbors as well should be really notified if this would be case, I think it would be the fair and the right thing for you to do. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Would you like to come up? MIKE STEVENS MR. STEVENS-Hi. My name is Mike Stevens, and I have property north of Haviland. So this property will butt up to me, I think, going to, the back end of their property will butt up against me, and a couple of concerns, I walked that property before, and, not when they owned it, and I thought the grade kind of slants, to me, pretty harsh, and so my first concern is, you're going to have a lot of horses and stuff, and we all know what they make, and I just wondered, when it rains and stuff, if I'm going to have to put up with any of that on !I!L property. I mean, I'm not against horses or anything like that. It's just a concern. It may sound kind of stupid, but that's one of them, and the next thing is, I would like to see the buffer, only because, having ridden horses before, I find, as time goes on, people get quite aggressive with them, and I think they may have a tendency to want to go off a trail or something, or experiment. I also would - 38 - "--" ---- ....-" ',--, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) like to see some sort of fencing, so they can't come on anybody else's property. For simple liability reasons I think it could cause some trouble. Also, if there's going to be an arena, is this thing going to be lit up at night? There's so many questions I could ask. This is parking for quite a few cars. This is noise to me. I just bought this property. I had concerns when I came here, and I talked to, I think it's John over there, and it's nothing against him at all. To the best of his ability, he told me he what this was going to be, and it sounds a little bit different right now. Iim not really sure, but it's coming out a little bit different, and I don't mean to lay anything on him. It just sounds like this business is going to be a little bit larger than 1 certainly thought. I can think of some other questions. The noise factor I'm concerned about. Again, I think that's a big issue. When I bought this property just recently, I was looking for a little pesce and quiet, and I think it's the duty of this Board here to ensure that people who buy property around get it, and again it's not the stock horses and all this stuff. I think that's a great use of the property, but I think this is pretty touchy when we're doing it. This sounds like a business to me. MR. PALING-Are you in the east end of this property? MR. GORALSKI-On your map, the property says First National Bank of Glens Falls, that's what he owns there. MR. PALING-Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. STEVENS-Another question, being an apartment owner myself, I've got a lot of them. I'm wondering how many apartments? What happens if this, two years from now, we don't want the horses, does the barn turn into apartments? I mean, what restrictions, what are we going to have in there for it? I didn't intend to develop !Il.l::. property into apartments, although it's a good thought. My intentions are to put up a big barn in the spring, and you're tempting ~ to put a nice apartment above it. It's a nice little, you know, I can pay a little tax and stuff like that, and it's a nice idea. So you've implanted this seed in me when you people allowed this. I mean, even though this is a Class A Farm and all this, you're tempting !Jlê. to do it, and maybe I want two or three apartments. I do real well in that business, but that's not what I came there for, and so my questions are, if we decide the horses don't work, the apartments do. I know they do, and I think there's a lot of things to go over here. Again, I'm not against it. I think it's great to have horses, and all that, but this sounds like a pretty, we're saturating it with as much as we can get out of it, and I hope that it gets looked into real close. I'm not saying I'm sorry I bought the property, but I certainly hope you people do your job to protect what I just bought. I may have some more questions, but I thi nk that's enough for right now. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-John, is that agricultural use right there? the only parcel that's zoned MR. GORALSKI-No, it's all Suburban Residential in there, which allows for a farm with Site Plan Review. MR. OBERMAYER-I can't believe SR-1A is zoned for farming. doesn't make sense. That MR. PALING-Is there anyone else that would care to speak? Okay. If not, then, the public hearing is closed, and we'd ask the applicants to come back please. - 39 - ~ -/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-I have some questions for the applicant. MR. PALING-Okay. I'll try to fill George. You go ahead, and what you didn't get, in. We have various questions for you. MR. STARK-Well, the last gentleman that came lights around the arena, or hours of operation. that please? up asked about Can you address MR. SHAFFER-I think the arena would be lit up at night, and there could be riding there as late as 10 or 11 o'clock at night. MR. STARK-Okay, and asking Leon if there's a, you know, to alleviate Dr. Brassell's concern, either leave a that northwest corner of the paddock, or else move thing 40, 50 feet northeast. in order buffer on the whole MR. STEWART-Well, if I may respond to that, the problem, as a matter of basic fairness, with Dr. Brassell's proposal is, as the Board observed, his property, of course, is cleared right to the line, and there's talk of imposing, 30, 40, 50 foot buffer of our land that is to be useless. You can't even have a trail through it, to protect him. I would make a suggestion that there is no reason why my client and Dr. Brassell cannot get together with a common boundary line and say, I'll tell you what we'll do. I'll agree to not use 25 feet of ffiZ land close to that common boundary line. You do the same, and together we'll create a mutual 50 foot separation between us, but to ask for a barrier, a buffer to protect Dr. Brassell, when Dr. Brassell didn't put up any kind of a buffer to protect our land, obviously strikes me as not being eve n ha nded . MR. OBERMAYER-You just bought the land just recently, though? MR. STEWART-We're buying it under contract now. MR. OBERMAYER-So then you were aware, though, that the property was cleared before you bought it? MR. STEWART-As Dr. Brassell was aware that this was zoned for a farm. MR. STARK-Mr. Stewart, we require 50 foot buffers in all the developments, not 50 foot, but buffers in all the developments in the Town. Over on Corinth Road we require a buffer. So we're perfectly within our right to ask for a buffer. MR. BREWER-We do? MR. STARK-Yes, we do. MR. BREWER-I don't think that's a fair statement, do you? MR. GORALSKI-You have. MR. STARK-Excuse me, Tim. We have the right to ask for a buffer, period. MR. STEWART-You're entitled Ordinance provides for buffers it doesn't here. to your opinion. Obviously, the in certain conflicting zones, but MR. PALING-Well, 1 think the buffer is the concern of several who have talked, including the Board, and we're going to have to address that. George, do you have any other specific questions? - 40 - "--' --- -_/ --- (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. STARK-Concerning that northwest corner, the paddock is very close to Dr. Brassell's corner there. Why couldn't the building be moved back or else respect a larger buffer there? I don't see any reason why the building couldn't be moved back. So you make the road 30,40 feet longer, fine. MR. STEWART-But you also take away from the level grazing or pasture land, or whatever you might call it, that we have to the east, or behind the building. As you get farther to the east, you can see from your contour line, the land slopes down pretty badly. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, it seems like you've got enough room there, though, to push it back. MR. STARK-I have a response to that, also. By moving this back, you're moving back your arena more. There'd be less light showing. You just said you're going to be open until 10, 11 o'clock at night with the lit up arena, you know, for these people south of the property line, the further you get back into that northwest section, there'd be less lights coming on to their property at night. I'll tell you, 10 or 11 o'clock at night 1 think is a real imposition on the neighbors. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I do, too. KRISTIN S.HAFFER MS. SHAFFER-Can I say something, please? My name is Kristin Shaffer. I'm John Shaffer's daughter. I will be running this property. If we intend, the suggestion here is to move the property back. I've heard 30 or 40 feet. If you look at the map, it is not 30 or 40 feet we're talking about. It's more like 70, 80, 90 feet. We have a problem with utilities. We have a problem with the water level in this particular property. If you notice the grade on the property is much higher where we have the barn sitting right now. If we move further east, we're going to be having some water problems. MR. STARK-I didn't say further east. I said northeast. MS. SHAFFER-Okay. MR. PALING-That would seem to keep you on high ground. MS. SHAFFER-Okay. Well, we're still talking much more than 30 or 40 feet. MR. STARK-I said 30 feet? What's the matter with 30 feet? Why does it have to be more? MS. SHAFFER-The barn itself is 70 feet long. Thirty feet, we're still going to be coming in within. MR. RUEL-Thirty feet would not give the buffer. MS. SHAFFER-Right. MR. RUEL-You've got to go further. You've got to go about 70 or 80 feet. MS. SHAFFER-Right. It's a considerable expense for us. MR. RUEL-What's this berm? already? You have a berm. that there? Is this man made or is that there Do you intend to build that, or is MR. STEVES-We intend to build that. - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. RUEL-For what purpose? MR. STEVES-Containment. MR. RUEL-Of what? MR. STEVES-Any possible pollution to the neighbors. MR. PALING-How tall? That's not very high, I would think. MR. RUEL-Four or five feet? MR. STEVES-No. MR. PALING-Two or three feet. Okay. Jim, go ahead. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. What about, like, I know you have the arena plotted right next to the barn and lot. What if you were to shift it around a little bit and possibly more center the barn, and place the arena back behind it or something like that, just to make it a little more elongated instead of wide like that, just to re-arrange it a little bit? MS. SHAFFER-Are you saying back behind it, further east? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. then you'd push the almost shelter the back. So you'd have the barn more centralized, and arena behind the barn, so that the barn would arena a little bit, and the barn would be set MS. SHAFFER-Let me make a point that this will be my residence, and I do not want to look out!!!.:i. windo~" and see an an~na. I mean, this is also for myself. MR. OBERMAYER-So what if you were to turn, then, the barn 90 degrees, so that your window didn't look out on the arena? MS. SHAFFER-Well, isn't it my preference on where my building should? MR. OBERMAYER-I'm just making a suggestion. trying to do. That's all I'm MS. SHAFFER-This is the way that I wanted the land to be set up. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. I'm Just trying to make it so that maybe it could be more compatible and more acceptable to the neighbors. MS. SHAFFER-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm trying not to, so you don't have an impact on them. MS. SHAFFER-Yes. I understand their concerns with the buffer. MR. PALING-We're heading in that direction. I know that you have strong preferences, but you do have neighbors, and we seem to be heading in that direction. So I hope that something can be "'lor ked out. MS. SHAFFER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Would you, if you took the property, the trail, the arena, the barn, the paddocks, the whole thing, and rotated it clockwise, 30 degrees that would clear the paddock from the adjoining property, and it would maintain a buffer on the south side. Is that possible? - 42 - ''--" ~' -../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MS. SHAFFER-I don't see where it would clear, I see Dr. Brassell's concern, and I don't see where it would, even rotating the property. MR. RUEL-Take this and rotate it so that this is more or less parallel, here. It would take this and move it over here. MR. STEVES-Okay, but then you're pivoting it, so you're moving it. MR. OBERMAYER-Could I just say one thing, too, is that it just, you know, we're trying to work with the applicant as much as possible. MS. SHAFFER-I feel like you're not trying to work with us, like you're against us. MR. RUEL-Jim, I want to get an answer here. MR. PALING-We have to work the entire area, not just one piece of property. MR. STEVES-I know what you're saying, but that really is too big a twist, it wouldn't work. MR. RUEL-Why, there isn't anything there now, right? MR. STEVES-No. MR. RUEL-So what's too big about it? MR. SHAFFER-You're going to be facing directly east, then. We don't want to face directly east. We want to face northeast. MR. 08ERMAYER-Why wouldn't the arena behind the barn work, I guess? You're totally set against that? MR. SHAFFER-Yes, definitely. MR. PALING-Because you don't want to look at it? MR. SHAFFER-Definitely. MR. RUEL-It seems like any idea we come up with, you're shooting us down, and it looks like you want to leave it just where it is. MR. STEVES-Well, on the south side of the property, between the berm and the property line there's roughly 30 feet there, okay. On the north between the path and the property line, the corner south, there's roughly 20, 25 feet there, and it widens out immediately. MR. PALING-To the parking lot you are now? MR. STEVES-Yes, to the parking lot. It widens out immediately in both directions. This is the paddock area, and the parking is all in the front. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. 08ERMAYER-What about these people? MR. STEVES-Well, there's enough land there, there's 30 feet here, and there's roughly 25 feet there, and it widens out immediately in both directions. MR. RUEL-I can't understand why you can't rotate it. - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. OBERMAYER-I can't understand why you can't put that behind there. MR. RUEL-Just rotate it. MR. PALING-All right. I'll tell you what, lets move on to another subject. I'm going to go down the list that I picked up from the people, and you commented earlier that, you're going to occupy that apartment? MS. SHAFFER-Yes, that's right. MR. PALING-There's going to be one apartment is the initial intention? MS. SHAFFER-That's correct, yes. MR. PALING-And what about containment of the animals or someone there at night? MS. SHAFFER-I will be living there at night. MR. PALING-Okay, and how about containment? MS. SHAFFER-Now there was a suggestion to have a fence around the entire property to contain animals? MR. PALING-I didn't hear that, but if you're only having horses, the containment, I guess, would be obvious, in the paddock. MS. SHAFFER--Yes. MR. PALING-All right, now. Another sticky question we've got here is, how commercial ~re you going to get? You will be doing some commercial because people will board horses there. You, evidentally, are not going to hang a sign out that says, you know, ride on Sunday afternoon. I don't think you're going to do that. It's only the people who own horses, who board there, that'll be patronizing it. MS. SHAFFER-Okay. Well, my concern with there is, why you say own horses, that friend come over and ride my horse on my don't own a horse on that property. your statement right means I can't have a property, because they MR. PALING-No. We couldn't stop something like that. It's the extent to which it, I guess, how extensively does that go, and where do you draw the line between a commercial endeavor and? MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman, if I may. Why don't we draw a five minute recess and we can all sit back and talk about this a little bit, and come back and refresh our minds. MR. PALING-Do you want to have a five minute break. All right. We'll have a five minute break. MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. MR. PALING-All right. I'm going to go, if I can, to the list of questions I've got here, and one of them has to do with the night lights. We've talked about the arena being lit up until 10 to 11 o'clock at night. Will there be any other lighting involved? MR. SHAFFER-No. MR. PALING-There will be no trail lights, no trail, okay. MR. OBERMAYER-What kind of lights do you plan on putting up? - 44 - ----' --../ "- (Queensbury Planning Board Méeting 12/28/95) MR. SHAFFER-Spotlights, general spotlights, a flood light. MR. PALING-That kind of thing, yes. Now, you have no intention beyond horses, I understand, is that correct, for animals? MR. SHAFFER-At this present time, yes. MR. PALING-Well, okay, because containment could be a factor if, depending upon the other type of an animal that you might anticipate having. MR. STEWART-Well, I don't disagree with you. I think containment is critical. I was Joking outside before the meeting began, some day he may want to raise llamas, because a friend of mine raises llamas, and says they're a beautiful animal. Again, you don't want to, never say never as the old saying goes. You don't want to say, years down the road, you're not going to do anything with this land. No one is going to put valuable horses or llamas or anything else on property without fencing and keeping them in, because they're going to have horses destroyed that are worth many thousands of dollars, and there's going to be lawsuits and liabilities, and they'll be responsible if the horses ran out onto the road. So adequate fencing and containment sort of comes with the territory, it seems to me. I don't question your Judgement in asking it, but it seems to me that if we're going to have animals grazing over in this area, we're certainly going to have to fence them in in that area, and if the decision is made, well, lets not have the animals graze over there, then we don't need fenci.ng. MR. OBERMAYER-No. One of the concerns. We've had a lot of, believe it or not, people come up for putting in pigs. Pigs seem to be a popular thing in the Town of Queensbury, okay. I know it's kind of funny, where you have to protect the neighbors in odors and the amount of pigs that you have, and actually pigs are very clean animals, but they do smell. So do you plan on having any pigs? MR. STEWART-Pot bellied or regular pigs? The present intention is really to have horses and horses only, as far as we know, but as you get into it, and the more you enjoy it, and you may decide you want to have some other animals there. You're certainly going to want to raise, and go back to that question of clearing. You're going to want to raise a certain amount of hay and alfalfa and things like that to feed the horses. You're going to want to have areas for them to graze. That's part of farming. That's part of having horses. MR. PALING-John, perhaps you can answer this better. Can the neighbors, right now, on the south side of this property, see where the arena, if the arena were there today, could they see that area, the Purtins, the Church of Latter Day Saints? MR. GORALSKI-I can't say if, you know, I didn't go out there, looking at it that way, only because I never thought of if being lit at night. So I don't know. There've been other places in town where we've had problems with areas being lit at night adjacent to residential properties. MR. PALING-Sure can, and I can't help but note that you said you didn't want buildings facing a certain direction because you didn't want to look on a certain part of it. You've got to consider your neighbors don't want to look at bright lights, and they don't want to look at, perhaps, a barn or a corral or something like that. MR. SHAFFER-I think Leon might be able to address that, though. He's walked that property. He can tell you what that property's - 45 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) like. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I'm just, now the major concerns. MR. SHAFFER-You neighbors could 1S. asked a see it. question about whether or not the He could tell you how thick that area MR. PALING-Well, I think we're going to have to re-walk it or something to get a correct feel for that. The major concern appears to be buffer on at least two sides of this. I think the second major concern, if I read it right, is what effect you're going to have on the neighborhood, inso far as noise or lights or sound or smell kind of thing is concerned, and then comes commercial use, I'd rank as how far you're going to carry this. It is a bit of a commercial endeavor, and the way you describe it tonight, I don't think there's any objection to that kind of thing that you were talking about, but going beyond that, I think it should be reconsidered for a lot of reasons, including traffic, and then containment would be a factor, should you change the type of animal that you have on the property, and I think those, okay, but you've clarified, there's only going to be one apartment. You're going to live in it, and you're the one responsible for the animals wandering, and I think those are the major concerns, if you could get them all down to those four. So I'm going to ask for any comments further from the Board or suggestions as to what we do here. MR. STEWART-Well, one thing, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, before you do that, Leon took us outside and yelled at us, and Leon has convinced us that the Christmas spirit and all that SOì-t of thing, that we would agree to dedicate 20 feet all the way around the entire perimeter of this property to a buffer zone that would not be in any way developed, and my comment there, if Dr. Brassell, who I've known all my life, or other people would like a little more protection, they certainly can plant some bushes and some trees along their side of the line, if they want to thicken it out a little bit more than that, but that's quite a bit of land to really just abandon, because that's essentially what you do. You pay taxes on it, but you can't get any use out of it, but we would agree to that, 20 foot all the way around as an untouched wild buffer. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-I think 20 feet where you're not going to definitely closer to where the 50 feet was more the number we along have baT n ~.Jere maybe the perimeter is the animals, but I is and the arena is, I looking at. okay, think think MR. STEWART-I don't understand that. How could you have a buffer zone but it's not along the boundary line of the property? MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. propeì-ty. Well, then, 50 feet all the way around the MR. STARK-John, you came up with an idea, and I think you said it more precisely than I could. Could you repeat that, please, to the wl'''lole Board? MR. GORALSKI-It wasn't as much an idea as a statement, that if the question is, what is an allowable use on this property, and you want clarification on that, by statute, the Board has 62 days of the public heaì-ing to make a final decision. If you want to close the public hearing and then get more input from Jim Martin as to what the allowable uses on the lot are, you can do that. If, on the other hand, the applicant is willing to state that there won't be any trail riding, and you can tie that down - 46 - '--"' ---' --../' ',-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) somehow, it's up to you, but if you have concerns about what's allowable in the SR zone, for a Class A Farm, you don't have to make a decision tonight. MR. PALING-Okay. Use in so far as what animals are there, I have no problem with. Use in so far as ciHrying it as a comm~:Hcial establishment, I'm not so concerned with the definition as I am concerned with the neighbors, and the affect that anything a commercial establishment, lighting, or lack of a buffer, would have on them. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think the only issue, in my opinion, regarding the use, is whether or not they can advertise to the general public, and like you said, you know, come Sunday afternoon then we'll have a trail ride for whoever wants to pay $10 for a trail ride. As far as lighting and buffer and all that stuff, those are all issues that are considerations under the Site Plan Review section of the Ordinance, that whether or not this is a Class A Farm or a riding stable, you have the right to consider those items. MR. STARK-Bob, I would want Jim to clarify it, and I want more information about, we should, I think we ought to re-visit the site, myself, and we didn't, we walked it last year, but we didn't walk it this year. MR. PALING-I'd like to walk it from the neighbors. I think I can visualize Dr. Brassell's, because we've been there before, when the housing development was on, but down on the south side is where I have a problem picturing it. MR. RUEL-Is that land cleared now? MR. SHAFFER-No. It's impossible to walk through that land. MR. OBERt-1AYER-Because of all the brush. MR. STEVES-It's very thick brush. MR. STARK-Bob, I'd like to go on those two or three parcels of land to the south of that, Just go to their house and look back there, and Just see, see what you can see. MR. PALING-Yes. I think I kind of agree with that, and I wish that the applicant would reconsider some of the concerns, the four major concerns we have, and see if there isn't something else that you would offer. We're going to work this out. I know we will, because we always do, but I wish you would give more consideration to the buffer and that kind of thing we've talked about. MR. STEWART-On the question of time, I'm not going to give you any legal advice, obviously, as to how much time you do or do not have under the law, but I will tell you that Mr. Shaffer has an option that expires on February 1 to buy this property. So, if you want to take longer than that. MR. PALING-Okay. We re-convene the third and fourth Tuesdays of each month, and there's no trouble with getting you on the third Tuesday in January, so that, if we table this matter, that we bring it up again. MR. STARK-I want Jim's opinion, and I want to re-visit the site. MR. PALING-All right, Craig, how about you? MR. MACEWAN-Agreed. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. - 47 - '-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. PALING-Yes, and I feel that way, too, and what I think we're heading for is if we get your permission to table this motion, and it'll be on the next meeting. It'll be on the third Tuesday of January, and then hopefully we'll come to a final agreement then, but again, I would urge you to consider the four items of concer n . MR. STEWART-Which is buffering, lighting. MR. PALING-The buffering, the lighting, the containment, and the potential ultimate or whatever commercial use, however we're going to address that. MR. STEWART-Well, maybe I didn't make myself clear. There's no question that we will agree that any animals that we maintain on this property will be adequately contained. I mean, that's a given. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. Of course we will. These are going to be valuable horses. There's no argument there on containment. MR. OBERMAYER-The lighting, what's the reason for the lighting? Are you planning on operating I guess in the evening hours, riding at night? MR. STEWART-If you're engaged in you are, or skiing or anything during the day, sometimes about is, like night skiing. a sport, I don't ride horses, if else, and you work long hours the only time you can enjoy it MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. STEWART-Husbands and wives work these days. MR. RUEL-How many months of the year do you expect to use? MR. SHAFFER-Twelve months. MR. STEWART-Twelve months, because exercised on a regular basis. the horses have to be MR. RUEL-And the arena? MR. SHAFFER-Twelve months. MR. RUEL-The horses need lights? MR. SHAFFER-The riders need lights. MR. STEWART-No, the horses don't, but the riders do, and if the riders can only come out and exercise the horses in the evening because they work during the day, that's where that comes up. MR. RUEL-The lights will be on early in the winter. MR. OBERMAYER-What time at night will the lights be on until? MR. PALING-Up until 11 they said. MR. SHAFFER-Ten, eleven. MR. OBERMAYER-Ten, eleven o'clock? MR. SHAFFER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Do we have any other comments from the applicant or the Board? MR. BREWER-Lets write down or send a note to Jim as to what - 48 - ~ -- -...../ ~, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) clarification we want from him. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I really don't need a clarification from Jim. MR. BREWER-I don't, either. MR. OBERMAYER-I think it's more concern of the buffering. MR. BREWER-They're proposing something. We know what they're proposing. We can either approve it or deny it. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. BREWER-Now what clarification do we need, George, or do you need? MR. MACEWAN-Whether this is an agricultural use. MR. STARK-We're approving it for approval for a Class A Farm. That horses tonight. covers pigs. They want an MR. PALING-Well, we can limit it, however, whichever we choose. MR. STARK-Yes, we can limit it, but I don't know whether they'd accept it. MR. GORALSKI-Under, once again, not under this Farm section, but under the Site Plan Review section of the Ordinance, you can put whatever conditions you feel are reasonable. MR. BREWER-We can limit it to just horses. just llamas. We can limit it to sheep. We can limit it to MR. GORALSKI-As long as you have a reason for that limit. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, we can limit it and say that if you had these other animals, you'd just have to come back in front of the Board again, that's not shutting you out. MR. BREWER-To me, I don't think that's an issue. I mean, we can limit it if we so desire. MR. STEWART-Yes. I don't know how relevant it is. For example, someone talked about, if we had 50 cows there, you're going to have a lot more effluent than having 14 horses. MR. OBERMAYER-No question about it. condition on. So cows we'll put a MR. STARK-Bob, the limited to horses there, and I want a feet. only way I would be for this tonight is it's and put a condition on anything else back buffer around the whole place, more than 20 MR. PALING-All right. Want a buffer of more than 20 want some limitations put on the lighting as far as intensity and all are concerned. feet, and I directional, MR. STEWART-Well, as to the lighting, let me make a suggestion. I have been through some of these before, when this Board was with different members, and several times we've worked it out with an agreement that whatever external lighting is put on the property will be designed in such a way that it shows directly down, or lights directly down, and will not be aimed or light directly onto adjacent properties. Now, obviously, if you're on an adjacent property, you're going to look over there and notice that's a lit area, but you won't have light shining in your eyes if you understand what I'm trying to say. - 49 - - ~' ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. RUEL-If your light was beamed to the next door neighbor's property, it wouldn't do you much good, would it? MR. STEWART-No. We just want a light straight down where the horses are walking, but we would take care that the lights are guarded in such a way or shielded in such a way that they don't shine directly onto adjacent properties. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. touchy. How about the buffer? That seems to be a MR. STEWART-It's awful expensive land, and I just feel badly if there's a feeling that protection is needed between a neighbor's, all of whom, incidentally, are zoned to have the same use for horses that we are, that all of the protection must come off our property, and no contribution by them. Frankly, it's not fair. This is valuable land. MR. BREWER-Let me just make mention of, when we did Animal Land, the neighbors wanted a buffer. We made a compromise with the neighbors and Animal Land? Does everybody remember that? MR. PAL ING--Yes . MR. BREWER-We probably should do the same thing here? MR. PALING-Could be. MR. MACEWAN-Will you be charging a price for people to come and ride horses? MR. STEWART-We aren't charging a price, at this point. MR. MACEWAN-Will you be charging a price for people to come and ride horses? MR. STEWART-We will be charging a price for boarding the horses, and with that comes the right to come and visit your horse and ride it and exercise it. MR. MACEWAN-That's not what I asked. MR. STEWART-Okay. We do not intend, at the present time, to have anyone from the outside come in and ride a horse, with the possibility of a friend of the owner, who might want to come and )- ide. MR. SHAFFER-Right. The charge would come for boarding the horse, and the people who board the horse have a right to ride their horses. We're not going to charge outsiders to come in and ride horses. MR. BREWER-If I wanted to call you up on a Saturday and say, I'd like to take my daughter and my wife up there to ride a horse, could I do that? ¡VIR. SI·-{AFFER-No. MR. BREWER-So you wouldn't have a problem if we limited your use to that? MR. PALING-To boarding only. MR. STEWART-I would, as a lawyer. The problem is your definition of Riding Stables. MR. BREWER-Not open for the general public to come in and be charged a fee to ride horses. - 50 - ~ '-" --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95)' MR. PALING-Or could we just say boarding only? MR. GORALSKI-Well, they're asking you to at least allow the owners to ride their horses. MR. PALING-Well, that doesn't stop anybody from riding a horse, but the only commercial endeavor you have is boarding. MR. GORALSKI--If to do is board that people are them permission you tell me that the only thing horses there, and someone calls riding horses there, that's not to do. they're allowed up and complains what you gave MR. BREWER-In other words, if somebody's got a horse and they board it there, they're going to pay a fee naturally. I'm. PAL_ING--Yes. MR. BREWER-That's the fee they're paying to ride their horse and to board it there, but what I'm saying is, I kno~.J Bob Stewart, and I call him up and say, Bob, can I bring Robin and Ally up to ride a horse, he says, sure, come on up. It'll cost you $10. That's what I want to prevent. MR. PALING-That's your commercial endeavor. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALING-That's not boarding a horse. MR. BREWER-No. I know that. What I'm saying is, condition the approval so that that kind of an affair doesn't happen. MR. MACEWAN-Based on all the information we've taken in tonight, I would like to table this and have Jim Martin review the minutes of this meeting and determine whether this usage is going to be an agricultural use or a riding stable use. MR. BREWER-I disagree. MR. PALING-Yes. I don't have a hang up on that_ MR. BREWER-I think we know what they're going to do. I just think we have to put it into words and say, look, they're going to board horses. Your tenants that board the horses there can come up and ride them. If their daughter or friend comes home from college and they want to go up and ride, that's fine. That's ~ opinion. MR. PALING-Okay. We have left now, buffer, and we have, to Tim's point, I'll call it boarding only. I know I'm not saying it right, but to your point, we've got to clarify that, and to me, we've got to clarify the lighting. I'd say now we're down to three points. The lights, the buffer, and the clarification of the business that'll be done there. MR. BREWER-I think the major point is the buffer. MR. OBERMAYER-The buffer. MR. BREWER-That's the big hang up. MR. PALING-Yes. I would say buffer's Number One. MR. OBERMAYER-Now, do you plan on planting, this might help, do you plan on planting any buffer or just leaving it shrubs. MR. SHAFFER-I think if you look at, well, Leon can address the - 51 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) area there, but it's all honeysuckle. It's very, very thick. There's not very many trees because it was cleared, but the honeysuckle is probably, you know, sometimes 10 feet high. That's going to stay in that 20 foot. You can't, in the spring, you can't look through that, once it fills in. MR. OBERMAYER-But in the winter time you can see right through it, though. MR. SHAFFER-Not much. It's pretty thick. It's really dense. MS. SHAFFER-There's a deer run through that. That's the only way we can get to the property. That is the only way. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we're getting to that point, but there has been quite a bit of conversation since the public hearing. So I'm going to re-open the public hearing for some very brief statements by anyone that would like to comment. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED DR. ROGER BRASSELL DR. BRASSELL-We're satisfied with a 20 foot buffer. I think that they're use is appropriate, in that they're intentions are appropriate. MR. PALH~G-Okay. buffer? You said you are satisfied with the 20 foot DR. BRASSELL-Yes, and there's already a buffer. Roger Brassell. I'll be very satisfied with a 20 foot buffer. I already have better than that on my side of the property line, and I think that would be adequate. It's very thick growth there, and we'll have adequate pTivacy in that respect. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. DR. BRASSELL-Further, I think the use to which they intend to put this, if I understand them properly, is a common use for horses. You build a stable. You keep your own horses there. You board maybe train or exercise other people's horses, perfectly legitimate business, and I'm in favor of the project. MR. PALING-I would think so. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, then do you have any objection, Dr. Brassell, to shift the whole thing over a little bit more toward your property to allow a little more buffer on the other side? DR. BRASSELL-There isn't any need to do that, if you look at the map. MR. BREWER-He's got the 20 feet there. MR. OBERMAYER-He's got 20 feet already. It shows 80 feet to the barn. DR. BRASSELL-Yes, it's about 20 feet. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, but there's only 20 feet left after you take out the paddocks and the track. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. BREWER-He may have to do a little bit of adjusting, but not a lot. - 52 - ',,-, --./ ....." (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) DR. BRASSELL-There's about 20 feet there. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? JENNY RODRIGUEZ MRS. RODRIGUEZ-My name is Jenny Rodriguez. I am the owner of one of the lots in Clearview Lane, and I'm going to be right in back of the arena. I am very, very concerned about our property. This is our investment, a large investment that we have there. We bought it because it was nice and quiet. The neighborhood is really nice. We are very concerned about the traffic, about the light that is going to be right in back of our home, about the smell and about the environment. It will completely change all our neighborhood. It's not only me that's going to be in Clearview, but it's going to be others as well as our family. None of them are here tonight, but that's really my concern. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else? t-lIKE STEVENS MR. STEVENS-Mike Stevens. I think the 20 foot buffer's good. My only big concern is for all the neighbors is still the lights. If it's a suggestion, I don't know how high they're going to be. I mean, all I can think of is West Mountain Ski Center, every time I think of lights, and I'm thinking of everybody around them. I'm just not sure how much light is going to emanate from this arena, and I thought if we had a height of how high they actual were in relation to how high is the buffer, maybe that'll help some of the neighbors, you know, on how they feel about, the lighting really seems to be an issue. You've got the buffer straightened out, and again, I'm certainly not against these people putting these horses in there. I think it's a great use for the property. However, I am very concerned about the lights, and I think other people are too, and maybe somebody can shed some light as to how high they're going to be, because I think that, I don't care how you shine them, when they're up high, it's going to illuminate an awful lot, and I think that would help. MR. STARK-I want Leon to answer that question. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone else that would care to speak? VINCE SPIRO MR. SPIRO-Vince Spiro. On the statement that this was just going to be a non commercial venture, that they were just going to allow family and friends to come over and ride. MR. PALING-Not non-commercial. perhaps train horses there. They're going to board and MR. SPIRO-What's to stop them from saying, anyone who comes there to ride is their friend? I mean, is there a limit on the amount of people that we could have there at one time and vehicles at one time on the site for this. MR. BREWER-Fourteen horses. There's only so many people can get on 14 horses. MR. SPIRO-Right, on the horses at you from having another 20, 30 horses? one time, but what's to stop people waiting to ride those - 53 - -- '--' -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. PALING-Well, if that were the case, then it could be turned back to the enforcement people and there would have to be questions asked. MR. SPIRO-Well, could be, but what we're trying to do is fix something before it becomes a problem, and the other thing I wanted to say is, nobody rides horses eleven o'clock at night. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone else who cares to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Leon, do you have any idea of the type of proposed lighting, or candle power that the lighting puts out, or anything like that at all? MR. STEVES-No. I can research the question for you, but I don't have the answers. MR. PALING-I've seen a few of these, and the lights aren't that bright. The poles aren't that high. If it's like what I've seen, I don't think it's going to carry it very far. MR. STARK-How high are the poles? MR. PALING-I'd say they were like 20 feet. MR. STEVES-I think you'd have to have them about 18, 20 feet high, the light itself. MS. SHAFFER-Is anyone on the Brown, and their boarding Queensbury? Board familiar establishment with Glen, Sandy in the Town of MR. PALING-No. I'm afraid not. MS. SHAFFER-Okay. that's on Corinth Mountain Road. That's Road, where I board my horse currently, and the intersection of Corinth and West MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Right there. Yes. MS. SHAFFER-They have a lit arena, and there are residents that, back to their property, they have approximately 22 acres with trails, their lighting is, I'd say maybe 12 feet off the ground. It's the intersection of West Mountain and Corinth Road. It's called White Oak Stable. MR. PALING-White Oak Stable. Okay. take a look at, as compared to what you're saying? That would be a good one to you would do here, is what MS. SHAFFER-Similar. Their lights, I because they're projecting toward woods. have that. Ours would be more in. think, do project out, I don't think we would MR. PALING-Yours would be to the arena only. MS. SHAFFER-Yes. MR. PALING-Are they on at night? MS. SHAFFER-Yes, they are. MR. SHAFFER-To address the question right now, I would really like to get the thing done tonight if we could because of the option. I'm afraid of losing that property, and that's going to - 54 - "----' '~ ~ ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) be a big problem for us, because the property, there's another owner waiting to take that property, or another person that wants to take that property, and if I lose that option, then I'm out of luck, and that option does expire pretty soon, and if we get tied up in a lot of, you know, going back and forth, I'm going to lose the property. The lighting, we will be willing to put some restrictions on the lighting, if I say the lights can't shine on other adjacent properties, just shine down. MR. OBERMAYER-How about the height? MR. SHAFFER-The height, sure. height. We can put restrictions on the MR. STARK-Ms. Shaffer, where you board your horses now, what's the latest that those lights are on there? MS. SHAFFER-Four o'clock in the morning. There is no limit. I work during the day. So the only time I can ride is usually nine o'clock or later. So sometimes I'm there at midnight and the lights are on. MR. BREWER-That's a more secluded area, though. I know exactly where it is. I don't have a problem going forward, as long as we can pin down the conditions. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. PALING-Roger, are you okay? We've got to put some condition on it. MR. RUEL-Well, I'm a little disappointed in the applicant's reluctance to compromise on a few areas. MR. PALING-Well, I think they're willing to do some compromising, and don't forget, now, the buffer thing has changed as we speak. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but not from the south. Mrs. Rodriguez isn't satisfied. MR. RUEL-I haven't seen anything yet. MR. PALING-All right. Any comment? Okay. MR. STEVES-I think perhaps if we stipulate that we will not use Clearview Lane as an entrance to the property, that would give you that buffer you're seeking there. The 20 feet is more than adequate at that particular spot. MR. MACEWAN-But there was never any consideration of using Clearview as an entrance to begin with. MR. STEWART-But there could be, because the road comes right to the bounda)')l. MR. GORALSKI-Well, there is if the site plan is approved as it's presented herø. MR. STEVES-That's correct, but if you move the building, then you're moving it and changing the conditions that are presentød to you, and we would have to counter with a change as well. MR. BREWER-Leon, I think you're opening a can of worms. MR. STEVES-I understand that, but we're talking not using this so that we'd have a buffer at the B:nd of it. - 55 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. BREWER-I think our intention is to make Stewart offered, 20 feet all the way around, therefore you couldn't use that anyway. the buffer, as undisturbed. Mr. So MR. STEVES-Right, including that end. That's exactly right. \0(e8.. MR. GORALSKI-On this lighting thing, if you want to somehow come up with some conditions on this lighting, I'm asking you to please be very, very specific. MR. PALING-I don't think we can. MR. BREWER-Five feet high, and 75 watt bulb. MR. GORALSKI-Well, that's what I mean. That's how specific yoU have to be, because if you're not, I'm going to have people in my office, from Clearview Lane, every morning, complaining about the lights. I have people from Greenway North complaining about Wal- Mart's lights. I have people from Mr. Rudnick's property complaining about the Mall. I can go through a list of places allover town where people are complaining about lights, when the condition that was put on by the Planning Board was, the lights don't shine on the neighboring properties. MR. BREWER-That's comparing apples and oranges. MR. OBERMAYER-But the people are complaining. I mean, are they shining on their property? MR. GORALSKI-Well, when you go on Greenway North, it looks like Yankee Stadium in their back yards. I'll tell you right now. MR. PALING-We've got to avoid that. MR. GORALSKI-If you just go on that side, and you look at what they have on at night. MR. BREWER-How tall are those lights, John? MR. GORALSKI-They're like 30, 40 feet tall. MR. BREWER-So if we restrict them to 12 or 15 feet. MR. GORALSKI-That's what I'm saying. Whatever you do, Just make sure it's specific. MR. PALING-Well, could we reverse it, and ask the applicant to submit a lighting plan, and then we know how many, and we want to know the direction, the intensity, the height and so on, and then we can make a judgement on it. Then I think we can say we think it's nice or not nice. MR. STEWART-But until you saw it up and lit, would you really know? I'm not an electrician. MR. PALING-I think you've given other riding establishment, which night some time. us a way there, to visit this has lights, we hope to see at MR. BREWER-They're completely different than what they want to do, though, Bob. They're shining out, outward. MR. RUEL-It's not similar. MR. PALING-I also think you'd have a feel for it, though, when you knew the wattage and so on. - 56 - c"--' --- -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. GORALSKI-The other thing that might help, because I think the only place that the arena is going to be impacting neighboring properties is on Clearview Lane. I mean, every place else you've got quite a distance, and Dr. Brassell has already agreed that the 20 foot buffer along his property line is sufficient. MR. PALING-We could request shielding on that end of it. MR. GORALSKI-Well, what I was going to say was, you've got a berm. It says, provide berm here. What if you limit the clearing from, say, the point along that berm, to where, see where this property line turns here, well, basically here, don't clear this area here. MR. OBERMAYER-All right, from the berm all the way around. MR. PALING-You're saying don't clear that. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Don't touch anything from the berm over. MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. I see what you're doing. that as not to be cleared. Okay. Label MR. BREWER-Fifty feet. MR. GORALSKI-No. I would say that whole thing. MR. PALING-All along the berm. Right along here. MR. BREWER-If we could limit them to 15 feet, and that ceiling is, what, 10 feet, three feet higher than that ceiling in here, Bob. That gives you an idea of how high that's going to be. MR. PALING-I don't even know if Leon can tell us that tonight, if he has a preference for pole height? MR. BREWER-No higher than 15 feet a problem? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, that's what you said. MR. SHAFFER-Yes, that's no problem. MR. STEWART-Now would this no cutting zone be due south of the berm? MR. STARK--Yes. MR. PALING-Leon sketched it out on here. MR. STEWART-Again, I agree on this idea of being specific so that we don't get in trouble, or get cross wise to you. I want it clear that my client knows what he can and can't do. Due south I can understand. Are we going to have an angle of some kind? MR. PALING-See the corner of the arena? where I started my drawing. Due south of that 1S MR. RUEL-He's marking it off. MR. GORALSKI-The lights themselves, then, you're talking about where it says. Dennis and Jane Purtin? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-The lights themselves, I assume along the arena and not on the outside of correct? the lights the tn3ck, IrJill be is that - 57 - '...../ - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. SHAFFER-That's right. MR. GORALSKI-It will be on the inside of the track area. MR. SHAFFER-Yes, inside the arena. MR. GORALSKI-Right. So that, at that point, the lights will be 70 feet from the property line. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALING-And the poles will be in the ground in the outer track line. MR. SHAFFER-Outside of the fence, around the arena. MR. PAL.ING-Outside of the fence pointing in. MR. SHAFFER-Right, pointed down. MR. PALING-In and down, yes. MR. GORALSKI-The closest light would be 70 feet from the property line. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. STEWART-I Just wanted to comment on that. An awful lot of people have security lights on their property, on or near garages and so forth, and they have these bright lights, and nobody restricts them, and one comment on timing of lights, too. I think we should be careful between lights on the arena, to assist in exercising of horses and just a security light somewhere on the property, because there's going to be valuable animals here, and I expect that they're going to want some security lighting to hear a noise in the middle of the night and take a look out and see what's going on, just as any property owner would. MR. BREWER-Right. We're talking strictly to light up the arena. MR. STEWART-Right. MR. BREWER-That's the condition that we're going to put on. MR. STEWART-Okay. MR. STARK-Bob, in the interest of expediting this, would you list the conditions that we would impose to the applicant, and lets get it going, either yes or no. MR. BREWER-Yes, that's what I said five minutes ago. on with it. Lets move MR. PALING-So far, the conditions, we're down to three conditions right now. Number One, that there be a border, a minimum of 20 feet, around the entire property. MR. OBERMAYER-I'd like to see 20 feet just on the south. Twenty feet, the doctor said that's fine, but on the south part. MR. PALING-All right. So far, 20 foot. The way I'd term the lighting is that the lighting for the arena area will be on poles no more than 15 foot high, with all lighting directed in and down, and that a lighting plan be submitted to the Planning Staff, that they can give a final look at and okay, too. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know about that. - 58 - ',--, ( ~ '~ --../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/2$/95) MR. STEVES-If I could, one of the problems we have with in and down, the down is fine, but where is in? On some side, you're going to be looking at a light. Just say down. MR. GORALSKI-Just say down. MR. STEWART-See, if I aim the light away from my neighbor on the south, it's going to aim it at the face of my neighbor on the north, if you start angling the light. As Leon says, if you say the lights go straight down. MR. STEVES-Right. Then it isn't aiming at anyone. MR. PALING-All right. Then the lights will all be pointed down, meaning vertical to the ground. MR. OBERMAYER-How many lights? That's a big area. MR. PALING-Well, that's why I would like to see a lighting plan submitted and the judgement call made. I don't think there will be a problem, but a final lighting plan submitted. MR. BREWER-Suppose he doesn't like it? MR. PALING-Then they've got to change it, or they've got to come back to us and tell us how cruel he is. MR. STEWART-And lose the property. MR. BREWER-I think we just tell them that he's got to aim the lights down, and be done with it. MR. OBERMAYER-How about the hours? the lights? How about the time frame on MR. BREWER-Eleven o'clock curfew. MR. STARK-If she wants to go riding at one o'clock in the morning, so what? If the lights don't bother anybody at 10 o'clock, how are they going to bother them at one o'clock? MR. OBERMAYER-That's true. MR. PALING-We talked eleven before. MR. OBERMAYER-Unlimited lights. MR. BREWER-No. I don't think that. I think we should have some kind of a cut off. MR. STEWART-Could we agree at midnight? MR. PALING-All right. We've done buffer. Midnight. All right. DOIrHJ midnight. MR. BREWER-I would say no trail lights. MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. No trail lights. I think you agree with that. That's okay. Now, Tim, do you want to word, tell us, expound on your definition of the commercial. MR. BREWER-I would just say that the venture wouldn't be open commercial riding stable. borders, well, I would say that to the general public as a MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I think the definition of Riding Stable in the On::Ji na nee may. - 59 - --- -- -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. PALING-May do that for us, yes. All right. look at up and go to George's point. L(~ts let John MR. STARK-Horses fine, any other animal has to come back. MR. PALING-Horses only. Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you guys have a problem with that one? i"1R. SHAFFER-No. MR. BREWER-I would only say, Bob, that it's not open to the general public, for a fee, to ride horses. MR. GORALSKI-The definition of a Riding Academy says, "Any establishment where horses are kept for riding, driving, or stabling for compensation". So why don't you just say, the horses cannot be kept. MR. BREWER~The stable is not open to the general public for a fee. They have to charge a fee to their clients. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Say that again? MR. BREWER-It's not open to the general public for a fee to ride. MR. RUEL-It's open to the public for a fee to board. MR. BREWER-Right. horses. Now we're going to set a number, too, 14 MR. PALING-That's already set. All right. Then, at this point, we should do a SEQRA, I think, okay. All right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 77-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before JOHN A. SHAFFER, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: r~ONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. ~' ,;) . Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant - 60 - ,~ ',,--, ~ ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/9~) '! 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 28th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. Now we'll go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN Introduced by Robert Paling who by Timothy Brewer: NO. 77-95 JOHN A. SHAFFER, moved for its adoption, seconded With the following conditions: Number One, that there be a buffer a minimum of 20 feet around the perimeter of the entire property, with the exception of the driveway. That there be a no clear area measured approximately from the south corner of the arena 80 feet, as depicted, and the northwest boundary the same as depicted, and will be covered with a revised drawing submitted to Staff. Number Three, first, there will be no trail lights. That the lighting will be limited to 15 feet off the ground, and that all lights will be directed down, and that the lights will be turned off by midnight. That the animals on this property be limited to horses only, with the exclusion of domestic animals, and that the intent of this endeavor is for boarding and training of horses only, and that there will be no general public activity, for example, no horses for hire, under any conditions to anyone in the general public. Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: MR. STEWART-As you know, I feel very strongly that, as a point, in this area where you allow other uses, you allow day care centers, schools, churches, hospitals. MR. PALING-If you want another use, come back. MR. STEWART-Our application's for use as a Class A Farm, if you want to impose the limitations, obviously, you have the authority, you will do that. MR. STARK-No problem. back next month, then. We'll let Jim do it and we'll bring it No Pì·ob.l.em. MR. STEt.JART--But I hated to come across as though this is what we want, 0\- thi~3 is what ~ agreed to. MR. BREWER-Those are our conditions. MR. OBERMAYER-Those are OUT conditions. MR. STARK-Bob, in that case, there's no ~..Jay I'm going to Vot~3 for this tonight unless Jim clarifies that, then, next month. - 61 - -- -- '....-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. SHAFFER-I think that we can restrict it, and that's no problem, as far as we're concerned. MR. PALING-All right. I think the motion is complete. AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. STEWART-Thank you very much for your time and attention. MR. PALING-Thank you. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 78-95 TYPE: UNLISTED SEEDS RESTAURANT INC. OWNER: PETER BALTIS ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: 3 ROAD, FORMER PAPA GINO'S RESTAURANT. PROPOSAL IS TO EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW ADDITION. USES IN PC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 98-4-4.1 1.001 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 GROUP, AVIATION REMODEL ALL LAND APPROVAL. LOT SIZE: ROBERT HEATH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 78-95, Seeds Restaurant Group, Inc., Meeting Date: December 28, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing structure as a restaurant which is an allowable use in the Plaza Commercial zone. They are proposing to add a freezer, a tower structure, and a drive-thru window. The existing access to the site is a signalized intersection aligned with the easterly access to the Aviation Mall. This access also serves the Pearle Vision Center to the east and is the optimal access location. Per Section 179-66.1, a twenty foot wide paved connection should be provided from the parking area in the front of the building to the common property line with Warren Tire. The Warren Tire driveway currently has no left turn signs at the exit which are typically ignored. By providing access to the signalized intersection, vehicles could safely make left hand turns from the Warren Tire site. Related to the issue of site access is the attached plan for a proposed connector road prepared by Transportation Concepts in 1993. It does not appear that the implementation of this plan to alleviate congestion at the intersections of Route 9 and 254 would negatively impact the site plan as proposed. The reduction in the number of parking spaces caused by the drive-thru aisle results in 50 spaces, which is well above the required number. Even if the connector road is built in the future, there would still be more than the required 31 spaces. On a technical note, the access aisle required between handicapped accessible spaces is required to be 8' by the New York State Building Code. There does not appear to be a significant impact on stormwater management facilities as a result of this proposal. In fact, there will be slightly more permeable area on the site than there is currently. I would recommend a slight swale be provided along the west property line so that any runoff from the drive-thru aisle does not discharge onto the adjacent property. No landscaping plan has been provided. The plan indicates two new landscaped islands, but no details are provided. All other standards listed in Section 179-38 appear to be adequately addr essed . " MR. HEATH-My name is Robert Heath. MR. PALING-Okay. Have you seen these comments by John? - 62 - /" '---' '~ -./' -....,./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. HEATH-I've reviewed them. Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to talk about them? MR. HEATH-We have no objection to putting a 20 foot right-of-way to our property line for the Warren Tire. MR. PALING-Access. Okay. MR. HEATH-As far as have a drawing which point. I'm not sure concerns about that. the issue of the proposed connector road, I really doesn't really fit our site at this if this will ever come about, and I do have MR. GORALSKI-That's a very conceptual thing. That's just something that was discussed. It's not, i~ my opinion, it's not something that should hold up this proposal; MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-I must have missed something. John, where are you proposing the access from Warren Tire, the people to come out, right here in the front? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. STARK-Well, is there still room for a drive-thru lane over that way? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Just continue this right there. MR. STARK-That's 20 feet right now? MR. GORALSKI-That's 20 feet, okay. So you just pave that area 1- ight there. MR. OBERMAYER-So you're saying the people from Warren Tire can come over that way? MR. GORALSKI-No, but there's a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance that they do that. If this plan gets approved, then I will let Warren Tire know that that is going to be done. I would think that they'd be thrilled to have that. MR. STARK-Yes. He doesn't have drive-thru lane? What distance building, in the front? any parking. will that I,.Jhat about be out 'hom the the MR. GORALSKI-It's right here. This shaded area is the new drive- thru lane. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. It's 18 feet. MR. STARK-And it would not exit over these? It would come out to her e? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. STARK-I can't see anybody parking here, myself. They really don't need to park in there. MR. PALING-What are your concerns with the proposed road way? MR. HEATH-Again, it's only conceptual. It doesn't, that drawing doesn't work, there would have to be an access ramp from the drive-thru on to this new access road. MR. STARK-I can't see that road ever going through, myself. - 63 - '- -- .~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. PALING-It might go through, but he's working property, too, and it's been there for a long time. to be some kind of. with existing There's got MR. GORALSKI-I don't think it's an issue. I just wanted to bring up to the Board that this type of planning was looked into, and there is the potential that in the future, that's one of the solutions that somebody came up with for alleviating congestion at 9 and 254. Because this property is involved in that, I wanted to show you people what it was. MR. BREWER-This is what the building is going to look like when you get don(~? MR. HEATH-Yes. That is a proposal. That's kind of a staired building, but, yes, there is that tower that we will build, and there will be some awnings. That roof line might not look exactly the same. MR. PALING-The height of the tower, we talked about that? MR. GORALSKI-That's all set. MR. PALING-That's okay? MR. GORALSKI-It meets the requirements. MR. PALING-All right. That was one of my questions. MR. BREWER-How about a landscaping plan? MR. HEATH-Our architect will add those two areas. It'll be low yews, and maybe a deciduous tree, one tree in the middle, and we'd be glad to submit that to John. MR. MACEWAN-Has any plan been submitted to the Beautification Committee? MR. GORALSKI-The Beautification Committee didn't want to look at it because it was an existing building. MR. MACEWAN-Really? That doesn't make sense. MR. BREWER-Well, if we let him submit a plan to John, we it's not going to happen until spring anyway. So John problem with it, he can always bring it back to us. know has a MR. HEATH-What's not going to happen until the spring? MR. BREWER-The plantings. ~1R. HEATH-Yes. MR. STARK-You're not going to plant from now until May? MR. HEf-\TH-No. MR. BREWER-Yes. wouldn't think. You're not going to put any trees in now, I MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to do what's shown in the picture here, is that what you're going to do? MR. HEATH-Basically. Again, it's only a conceptual drawing, but there will be a tower, and there will be some awnings. The roof line might change, because we'll probably use most of, we will use this roof line. - 64 - '''-"' I J -----/ ~,/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. RUEL-This is what it's going to look like? MR. HEATH-Yes. MR. RUEL-The reason I'm asking, these lights that shine right into the road, blind the drivers. MR. HEATH-Okay. existing lights. Those, right now we have plans to use the MR. GORALSKI-The plan shows all the existing lighting. MR. BREWER-When do you anticipate to open? MR. HEATH-March 23rd. to sati~3fy. We have some legal documents that we have MR. PALING-All right. Just so permit modification used in there? you got to go through? there's no kick back, define What permit modification have MR. OBERMAYER-Do you guys have another one of these somewhere? MR. HEATH-Yes. This is a chain. There's probably 100. Nothing in New York. MR. PALING-"As a result of proposed action, will existing permit approval require modification? Yes." MR. GORALSKI-Probably what he means is that there was a site approval for this site previously. MR. PALING-Okay. So there's nothing that'll kick back later. That's all I'm concerned with. Fine. All right. Lets see. We have a public hearing on this. We'll go right to the public hearing. The public hearing is opened. Does anyone care to comment, pro or con, on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-The public hearing is closed. All right. Then we need a SEQRf';. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 78-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: l.JHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning SEEDS RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., and Boa 1"<1 an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE - 65 - ~ '--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. We'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 78-95 SEEDS RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Type Unlisted, the only condition being that he submit a landscape plan to John. Duly adopted this 28th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. STARK-When do you plan on starting work? MR. HEATH-As soon as we get a building permit. somewhere the end of January. I would say MR. STARK-You plan on being open by April? MR. BREWER-March 23rd. MR. HEATH-I would say probably April 1st. MR. STARK-I just wondered. MR. PALING-I just have one additional comment. We have never been caught without a majority here, but it can happen, and one of the ways to avoid this is, if you're not going to be here, to call in. Last meeting, there were two of you who were not present, who did not call in, and it makes it tough, if we are stuck we can, perhaps, call somebody out of the shower. - 66 - '-. ',----," J -..,,/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. MACEWf-'ìN- I'm personal crisis. guilty. It'll never happen again. I'll never do it again. It was a MR. PALING-All right, and, Roger's already said he will never, ever do it again. MR. RUEL-No. I was sitting there peacefully at home. All of a sudden I was watching NYPD Blue and I said, how come I'm watching this? I always miss this program. It must be a Planning Board night, and I looked on the calendar, and sure enough it was. Bob says I should have been here, 10 after 10. MR. PALING-That's right. The minute you realized it you should have come and, we still had three applicants to go. That's all I have to say. MR. MACEWAN-I've got a question. Why were we in such a rush to approve that horse thing tonight? MR. BREWER-Why were we in such a big rush to delay it? MR. MACEWAN-I wanted to get more information. reluctant to, A, cooperate anything. They ~.Jere very MR. RUEL-They were bad. MR. MACEWAN-I certainly got the sense that they gave in to conditions, and reluctantly did so, but I think we left some issues that were not even address or even answered? MR. BREWER-Why didn't you bring them up? MR. MACEWAN-I was running into a defeatist attitude, here. I mean, you guys had your, I think the very least we should have gotten some more input from Jim Martin. I mean, like John said in the very beginning of this thing, that when he reviewed the application and the information that he had at the time when he made his determination that it was for farm purposes only, he didn't hear all the stuff that we heard tonight. I think, at the very least, we don't want to hold this guy up, but I felt that everybody kind of crumbled to the guy's pressure of his bank waving this, you know, he's going to lose the property if he doesn't jump on it quick. I mean, if the bank is really interested in doing business with him, they'll grant him an extension. MR. STARK-This guy Shaffer was an arrogant bastard, period. I'm on record for that. No problem. MR. RUEL-He was uncooperative. MR. STARK-He was an arrogant bastard. MR. BREWER-I think his personality doesn't have anything to do with what he's doing. MR. STARK-The hell it doesn't. We approved this project year, no problem. We're willing to go along with everybody. willing to go along with everybody more than most people, this guy here was obnoxious tonight. last I'm but MR. PALING-On the point that Craig is making, I felt whatever Jim said wouldn't have influenced anything I tonight, regarding buffer activity. that did MR. MACEWAN-This is an open how come nobody discussed handicapped parking access? to the public activity up there, so anything, asked him anything about - 67 - '--' -/ / (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. BREWER-Why the hell didn't you bring up the issues during the public hearing? MR. MACEWAN-Because I felt at the time, and the way things were going, the way the information was being put to us, that I was getting real confused as to what this person's endeavor really truly was, and I wanted to have Jim give us a better definition, is this a farm, or is this a riding stable, and all you guys felt very comfortable that the information they were giving you was fine. So what am ~ going to do? I still would have been out voted four to two or five to one. MR. BREWER-Not necessarily. Not have brought those points up, and five of us, maybe we would have information. necessarily at all. discussed them with said no. Hey, lets If you'd the other get this MR. MACEWAN-I tried to. MR. BREWER-I didn't hear you say anything about it. MR. MACEWAN-Three times I said, gee, I think we ought to maybe send this back to Jim and ask for a better definition. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you didn't say for what. Send it back to Jim for what? MR. MACEWAN-I did. I said for this was an actual agricultural going to be a riding stable. a better definition of whether farm use, or whether this was MR. PALING-Well, I think you were heard, Craig. I heard you, two or three times, but I disagreed, in that I didn't think that it would impact anything I was thinking about. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe I got it all wrong. Did you feel like you were being pressured to give a decision tonight because this guy was waving this thing over your head about the bank? MR. PALING-Well, I think that we get that from all, a big percentage of applicants, but I brush that aside totally, and I don't let it speed me up or slow me down either way, I try not to. MR. BREWER-I think at one point we were right to the point of tabling it, and then something was said. MR. STARK-Yes. Leon said lets have a five minute break, and he went out and calmed those people down. MR. BREWER-No. I think we got the issues, like Brassell said 20 foot was all right. Then somebody else said something else was all right, and it Just worked in together. MR. MACEWAN-But, you know, in the zoning book, 20 foot is what's required for the zone. So they didn't give you any big deal. MR. GORALSKI-No. That's a building setback. right to the property line. They could clear MR. BREWER-It's not required. That's the point. MR. MACEWAN-I stand corrected. MR. RUEL-Right to the line they can go. MR. BREWER-That's not required. - 68 - í'--"\ "\ ~, , --../ ----' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) MR. OBERMAYER-And the south part of the property did get the additional buffer. MR. PALING-That's right, where that berm 1, "". "" , yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. Next subject. MR. GORALSKI-I a nS~.Jer , so you LaJant to ask.. subdivision that had to come back just have one thing, and I think I all don't have to jump out of your skin. Do you remember Mr. McCotter, his he got approved, and he never filed and get it approved allover again? know the I just bJO lot it, so he MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Is this the guy over there, off Main Street in West Glens Falls? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-He didn't send out the public notices. MR. GORALSKI-He didn't send out the public notice, so we had to table him until the next meeting. Guess what he didn't do? MR. MACEWAN-He forgot again? You're kidding me? MR. GORALSKI-I'm not kidding you. MR. PALING-Forgot to send out the public notice? MR. GORALSKI-No. He forgot to file his map again. MR. STARK-So what happens now? MR. GORALSKI-I'm asking you. MR. BREWER-It's expired, John. there. Done it. We've been through it. Been MR. STARK-It's not our fault he forgot it, it's his. MR. GORALSKI-You're right. MR. PALING-John, what are the alternatives? MR. GORALSKI-Well, the alternative, do you want to put him on for Preliminary and Final in the same month? MR. STARK--Yøs. MR. PALING-Yes, that could be all right, sure. MR. GORALSKI-The same night? MR. PALING-I don't see why not, in that case. MR. STARK-The same night probably wouldn't be a problem, in this case. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. STARK-But tell the guy, you know, he ought to have a checklist. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, - 69 - '- '-" '-'~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/28/95) Robert Paling, Chairman - 70 -