Loading...
1996-07-16 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 1996 INDEX Site Plan No. 37-96 Tax Map No. 16-1-30.2 Louie & Christine Lecce Michael Chrys Oscar & Debra Schreiber 1. Site Plan No. 26-96 Tax Map No. 16-1-28 Site Plan No. 13-96 Tax Map No. 6-1-2 24. 25. Site Plan No. 38-96 Tax Map No. 98-1-5.21 Nemer Motor Group 27. Petition for Zone Change P5-96 Tax Map No. 98-2-1 98-3-1 98-3-5 Double "H" Hole in the Woods Ranch, Inc./Charles R. Wood 27. -- 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 7/16/96) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 16, 1996: NONE April 23, 1996: NONE May 7, 1996: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 4/16/96, 4/23/96, AND 5/7/96, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Yes, but I'll abstain from the 23rd. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. West OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 26-96 TYPE II LOUIE & CHRISTINE LECCE OWNERS: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: RT. 9L TO CLEVERDALE RD., TAKE CLEVERDALE ROAD TO ROCKHURST THEN FOLLOW SEELYE ROAD TO HOUSE ON LEFT SIDE WITH LECCE SIGN IN FRONT. APPLICANT IS REMOVING AND REPLACING OLD STONE RETAINING WALL ALONG SHORELINE WITH NEW INTERLOCKING RETAINING CONCRETE WALL APPROXIMATELY 80' LONG AND 2 1/2 TO 3' HIGH. PER SECTION 179-60 15 (3) - ALTERATION TO SHORELINE, NO REPLACEMENT OF RETAINING WALLS ALONG THE SHORELINE SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT SITE PLAN REVIEW. ALSO PROPOSED IS CREATION OF A SANDY BEACH AND MODIFICATION TO EXISTING U SHAPED DOCK TO RESULT IN A 40' X 40' U-SHAPED DOCK WITH OPEN SIDED BOAT SHELTER. SECTION 179-16 REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR DOCKS AND BOATHOUSES. DEC, LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-28 LOT SIZE: .92 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 15(3), 179-16 179-60 B(l) (a) [2] LOU LECCE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-96, Louie & Christine Leece, Meeting Date: July 16, 1996 "This application was tabled by the Planning Board on June 18, 1996 for further information and review. The applicant has submitted new information regarding the retaining wall to be used and the proposed boathouse. The retaining wall - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) will be connected to the existing stone wall on the shore. No areas of soil will be left exposed between this wall pre-existing stone retaining wall. It appears that the design of this wall will prevent an increase in erosion or runoff from this property or adj acent properties into Lake George. The design of the boat house has been changed by the applicant from a peaked roof to a flat roof. This new structure meets the setbacks and size requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Construction of this new structure will not have an adverse impact on adj acent property owners. Views of Lake George will not decrease from what presently exists at this location. Subject to review of any additional comments from the Town's engineering consultants, staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 26-96." MR. PALING-Okay. There are no other documents on this one, I don't think. MS. CIPPERLY-We have also received a letter from Rist-Frost, dated July 12th. MR. PALING-Okay. You have that, we don't. MS. CIPPERLY-I gave you a copy of that. ---' MR. STARK-I've got a copy. MR. PALING-All right. Do you want to read that into the record? MS. CIPPERLY-Sure. This is to Mr. James Martin, from Rist-Frost. "Dear Mr. Martin: We have reviewed the supplemental information received July 9, 1996, C.T. Male letter of June 24, 1996, C.T. Male Drawings Sl and 95-445, and C.T. Male letter dated July 10, 1996 and received July 12, 1996. The concerns enumerated in our letter of June 17, 1996 have been addressed except that a note incorporating the requirements of "NY Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control" has not been added to the drawing. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William J. Levandowski, P.E. Senior Vice President & Director of Technical Services" This letter's dated July 12th. MR. PALING-Okay. Any others? MS. CIPPERLY-There are comments from the public. Do you want to do those now or during the public hearing? MR. PALING-During the public hearing. As soon as we open the public hearing, we'll do those letters first. Is there someone here representing the applicant? Would you come up, please, and identify yourself. MR. LECCE-I'm Lou Lecce, the applicant. MR. PALING-Okay. Does anyone on the Board have any questions or comments at the moment? MR. LECCE-Before you get started, there's been a modification to the original plan. I don't know if it was addressed in the initial presentation. MR. RUEL-It's from peaked roof to flat roof? MR. LECCE-Well, also she's got a 40' by 40' foot structure, which we narrowed the dock itself. Before we had a 28' opening. Now it's only 24. MR. RUEL-24, by 30'? MR. LECCE-So now it's 36' by 40'. - 2 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MR. BREWER-35, isn't it? It's six on one side, five on the other. MR. PALING-Thirty-five total across. MR. LECCE-Correct, six and five and 24 in the middle. So we've made the dock narrower. We've changed the roof from a peaked roof to a flat roof. If you notice the dock, the boathouse itself, it does not extend out any farther than the existing. There was a question before, when last we met, if I was going to extend it to the end of the dock. That was not the intent. It wasn't clear in the original drawing, so the boathouse, the way it looks right now is the same. The only difference is that it will be wider·going away from the adj oining property owners. So it does not extend any farther on the dock than is currently there right now. MR. RUEL-Do you propose any access to that flat roof? MR. LECCE-No. The top? No. It's going to be the same height and elevation that it is now. We're not going to increase the height. We're not going to make it any longer. We're just making it wider to cover the 24 foot opening. MR. RUEL-No railing around it? MR. LECCE-No railing, no deck on top, no access to the top of the roof deck at all. MR. BREWER-Bob, do you have, from last month, the list that we had for him? MR. PALING-Do I have what? MR. BREWER-Didn't we create some kind of a list that you were going to come back with? MR. LECCE-No. You wanted a drainage study, which was done by C.T. Male. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. LECCE-Which was done by C.T. Male, which was presented. You wanted the letter from Male that the retaining wall was not going to impact Mr. McCollister's retaining wall. MR. PALING-Lets see if I can out jumble them here. There was four or five of them. They talked about a permit to ensure no negative environmental impacts. That was answered. Town Engineering Consultant, that's the letter we talked about, and then subject to review, Rist-Frost, that's been done. Short Form. MR. LECCE-It's not necessary here because it's not a classified action. MR. PALING-Okay, and erosion control. I think the ones I had, Tim, have been addressed. Yes. How tall is the structure to the flat roof, from the water? MR. LECCE-It's on the plan. I think it's seven feet. MR. PALING-Seven feet? Okay. That's all I care. That's nowhere near. MR. LECCE-The second page of the plan shows existing and to be built. MR. PALING-Okay. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MR. LECCE-So, I think keeping it the same, we've left the views from the adjoining landowners the same. MR. PALING-All right. moment? We'll go to hearing was tabled at public hearing now, if AnYmore comments or questions for the the public hearing. Right. The public the last meeting. So we'll re-open the anyone would care to speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MARK MCCOLLISTER MR. MCCOLLISTER-My name's Mark McCollister. My wife and I l~ve on the property immediately to the south of the Lecce property. Two points I and obviously this is a distinct change from our last meeting. It's not clear to me how the sea wall or the retaining wall is going to tie into the existing sea wall, from the drawings that 1 see. The only difference I can note is that it's approximately one foot shorter from where it was before, but I'm still a little uncomfortable as to how this new wall is going to tie into the existing rock wall, and what that will do with the runoff. ...-- MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MCCOLLISTER-Again, my concern is just that we don't end up with a problem in that one foot section that didn't existing before. MR. PALING-Yes. I think we all had that question. I think we'll just refer that to the applicant. Do you have other questions? MR. MCCOLLISTER-The other question we have, we're still concerned about the width, total width of the dock, being increased as much as it is. MR. PALING-Now the width is less than. MR. MCCOLLISTER-Less than applied for before, but still significantly greater than what exists. Currently there's three boat slips at that dock. By doubling, essentially doubling the inside of the width. There's room now for two under cover plus one on the outside, at least one on each outside pier. If you look at the drawing 95-445, which shows the plot plan. You can see the existing covered boathouse and the new dock. You can see it's significantly wider. The width is, what, 24 feet under cover. There's certainly room for two boats underneath the cover now, where there's only one. MR. BREWER-Mark, I know we can limit, I believe we have the jurisdiction to limit the amount of boats at that. Is there any kind of a number that kicks in, that you can say that you can have five boats or eight boats? MR. SCHACHNER-There's no standard in the Zoning Ordinance that I'm aware of. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, there is. MR. SCHACHNER-There's a limitation on the number? MS. CIPPERLY-For Private Docks. MR. MCCOLLISTER-At least as I interpret the regulations for a Private Wharf, it can be limited to three. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. It says, Dock, Private, the definition. MR. BREWER-Where are you, Sue? - 4 - '- -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MS. CIPPERLY-Chapter 179-7, the Definitions. Private" . Look under "Dock, MR. BREWER-I guess what I would say is if you have the certain amount of, I know it limits the amount of docks you can have, with the frontage you have, lake frontage. I was wondering if that applied similar to the amount of boats that you could have, I guess is my question. MS. CIPPERLY-So if he has two docks, can he have more boats is what you're saying. MR. BREWER-Can he have two boats? Can he have nine boats? MS. CIPPERLY-I spoke to Jim Martin about this this afternoon. He said this dock that's being proposed is in conformance with the requirements of the Ordinance. MR. PALING-Yes. I'd asked the same question and got that answer, but I didn't get into any detail beyond that, and it wasn't questioned in that way the last time. So I don't know what to say. I think that it's a conforming dock the way it's designed. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but I guess what I'm saying is there is a restriction if you own, lets say, 300 feet of Waterfront property, you can have a certain amount of dockage. I guess what my question was, is there anything that applies to how many boats you can have on that? MR. PALING-Boats, yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. In this case, he has one dock. So it says that he can have three vessels owned by the property owner, except for canoes and rowboats and sailboats under 18 feet. MR. RUEL-There's no limit on boats under 18 feet? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. PALING-That leaves it pretty open. under 18 feet. There's a lot of boats MR. SCHACHNER-Canoes, rowboats and sailboats under 18 feet, not any boats under 18 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Essentially non motorized. MR. PALING-Except canoes, rowboats and sailboats. There's nothing motorized in that. Yes. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. STARK-Why don't we move along and we can address this later on. MR. PALING-Yes. Well, no, I think we better answer it now. It isn't going to go away. MR. MCCOLLISTER-Our fundamental concern, the essence of our concern is two fold. One is the runoff situation, which likely can be addressed. The second bigger concern that we have is the increase in the total size of the dock and the increase in the number of boats that will be at that dock on a residential property. As we stated before, there's currently three boats there. To our knowledge, none of those are owned by the applicant. They're being rented. There's a good possibility that the property, the house itself is going to be rented in August. So there's going to be new people, new boats in for the month of August. This is a residential neighborhood, and we'd like to see restrictions such - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) that it remains a residential property, not a commercial property, and by doubling the size of the width, or doubling the width, however, you want to put it, there's just going to be more access for more boats for more people. MR. RUEL-But still one dock, and three boats. MR. MCCOLLISTER-Well, that's not clear. The current slip, basically the size of the slip limits it to three boats, one inside and one on each outside pier. By increasing the covered area as much as he has, there's certainly room under cover for now two boats, and one on each outside pier. MR. RUEL-But he's still limited by the Ordinance to three. MR. MCCOLLISTER-If that's the limit, if in fact he's limited to three, our objections begin to diminish dramatically. MR. RUEL-Well, Staff just answered it and said it was limited to three. MR. PALING-Yes. there, on page. I think you have, do you have it in front of you ~ MR. MCCOLLISTER-It says up to three boats, and as long as you're willing to say that that's what's going to be enforced, but we see with the activity and traffic that's been there now, by increasing this, that we're concerned that there's going to be more than three boats. MR. BREWER-Well, if that's the case, he has more than three boats, then he's in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MCCOLLISTER-And what action do we have at that point? I mean, do we have to end up having to sit up there and police it? MR. BREWER-You can call the Enforcement Officer, and he can come up and do whatever he does. MR. PALING-He can enforce the Ordinance. MR. BREWER-Is that right? limited to three boats? The Ordinance, as we see it, he's MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. BREWER-If he has more than three, then the Enforcement Officer can go up and take care or do whatever he has to do. MR. MCCOLLISTER-What is the remedy at that point? MR. PALING-They call into the Planning Office and the Enforcement Officer will be advised, and he'll take it from there. MR. STARK-What about the length of the wharf coming out into the lake? Do you have any concerns about that at all? MR. MCCOLLISTER-Well, certainly we're less concerned now that it's not covered, as far as it's not a peaked roof, but it's still, the increase in length of the total dock appears to be approximately 10 feet longer than what's there now, even though it's not all covered. The work itself extends beyond the covered portion. MR. PALING-Yes, but I think it even appeared longer on the first set of prints we looked at. MR. MCCOLLISTER-Well, it's still 47 feet long, if I'm not mistaken. - 6 - - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MR. PALING-It's 40 feet from here to here, but then there's this area in here. MR. STARK-Bob, what's the dimension from the covered portion out to the end of the dock? MR. BREWER-It's 46'6". MR. STARK-See where the covered portion is, and then from there to the end of the dock is how long? MR. PALING-It looks to be, I don't know, 10 feet. MR. BREWER-10 or 12 feet. MR. PALING-You can scale it off. I just eye-balled it. I'd say it's about 10 feet. MR. RUEL-The dimensions of the dock meet the regulations. MR. PALING-Meet the regulations. All right. Can we take those two questions and we'll get answers for you? Okay. ..-- MR. MCCOLLISTER-Okay. DEBBIE SCHREIBER MRS. SCHREIBER-My name's Debbie Schreiber and my neighbor's the McCollisters, and I have some concerns because we just built in the there two years ago. We built a residence, year round residence, and we also have a 40 foot U-Shaped dock. MR. PALING-How many feet did you say? MRS. SCHREIBER-Forty feet out. That's what we were allowed. My question is why, my understanding was when we were doing our docks and we went before you folks, that the maximum allowed footage out into the water was 40 feet. Why is his 47? MR. STARK-Because you're allowed to go 40 feet out from the low mean water mark. He's saying the low mean water mark is seven feet from your shoreline out, and then go 40 feet from there, even though Mr. McCollister said he's never seen the water, 20 years living there, out that far. MRS. SCHREIBER-That's right, and I've lived there, my parents have a place around the corner, and we've lived there for many years, and I've never, if I were to measure tonight, I don't think his water line is any deeper or less deep than ours. So what I'm saying is that he's being allowed, the rules aren't the same for us versus him, and this is what I'm having a problem with, in the sense of, we're two doors down, and we're only allowed 40 feet. MR. PALING-We got into this last time, and as I recall the drawing that we have in front of us was allowed as 40 feet into the lake. We'll find out. We'll get more information for you. MRS. SCHREIBER-The other question on that is my husband had spoken to Mr. Hilton, and he said that the maximum that he was going to be allowed was 40 feet, because my husband questioned him on it because we were concerned as to why the rules were one way for him and a different way for us. MR. STARK-From the low mean water mark. MRS. SCHREIBER- I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying we're two doors difference, and there's not a big difference, and if I went and measured it tonight, I could probably prove to you - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) that, within an inch or two, that it's relatively the same. closer to the swamp, if anything. The other question I also, you're saying three boats by the property owner. what you're saying? We're have is Is that MR. BREWER-I would say three boats, period. MRS. SCHREIBER-Three boats period. MR. PALING-All right. It's short. Let me read it to you. II Dock , Private - A wharf or portion of a wharf extending along the shore and generally connected to the uplands which accommodates up to three (3) vessels owned by the property owner, except canoes and rowboats and sailboats under eighteen (18) feet. II MRS. SCHREIBER-Okay. Last weekend, not, last weekend, the weekend before, there were three boats at the dock, currently. There was a boat across the end of the dock, and none of them were his, and his is sitting on a trailer in the back yard, and we've also had to PWC boats there, and this is already without even extending the docks, without extending the square footage in between, between the docks, okay, and I know for a fact that my husband's boat is approximately 10 feet wide, if that, okay, and he's got a boat~with twin engines on it, with mufflers, and so what I'm saying to you is, even with him decreasing the size of that dock down to 24 feet, he can still get two boats, side by side, if he wanted to, and two deep. So that's four. Now we can get two on either end, and now we're up to eight. MR. RUEL-He's only allowed three. MRS. SCHREIBER-Okay, but my concern is the fact that, I'm just letting you know that already, one of the reasons we built in there was so that our kids, and we wanted to be in a bay. We didn' t want to be in the main part of the lake, and we've adhered to the rules and regulations. When we built this house and we did the docks and everything, the only variance that we ever asked for was a six inch variance to extend our house wider. The property's only 74 feet wide. We have not asked for anything. We wanted to make this a place to get away, quiet, this, that and the other, and all of a sudden, two weekends ago, we had three boats in there, one tied off the end of the boat port and two wave runners. So that's six boats already. MR. STARK-You alluded to a PVC boat? MRS. SCHREIBER-PWC, Power Water Craft, the little wave runners. That's what they call them. MR. STARK-What's a wave runner count as? MS. CIPPERLY-It's less than 18 feet. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know. These are really questions for Sue and her department, not for me, and PWC, just so you know, actually stands for Personal Watercraft. MRS. SCHREIBER-I'm sorry, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-That's okay, but it's exactly as ,this commentor is indicating. It's a jet ski, wave runner, whatever you want to call it, but they're called PWC's, Personal Watercraft. I'm guessing, and it's a guess, Sue, I think you'll have to help us out, but that Jim Martin, the Zoning Administrator, takes the position that a Personal Watercraft is a boat, but I don't know that for a fact. MR. RUEL-Mark, I have a question. The Ordinance, as he just read it, indicates that the boats must be owned by the property owner. - 8 - ,~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) What about rental boats, and what about visitors? MR. SCHACHNER-Ask the Zoning Administrator and Staff. MR. RUEL-Must they be owned by the property owner only, or can they be rental, or can they be visitors? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I'm sure if you have three attorneys, you'd have three different interpretations of this paragraph here. If you read it one way, you could say three vessels owned by the property owner, plus any number of private ones. I don't know that that was the intent of doing it. If you compare to Dock, Commercial, it doesn't mention ownership at all, and as far as the wave runners go, I think they're less than 18 feet, in general. So you could have those there. They wouldn't count as a boat. MRS. SCHREIBER-My understanding was, though, when you just, when she just read that law, though, she said that it was not motorized, it was a canoe. MR. PALING-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-It says, "canoes, rowboats, and sailboats." Probably when this was written, it wasn't exactly a big, it was 1988. MR. PALING-Those things weren't popular yet. MR. RUEL-A sailboat could be motorized. MR. BREWER-I think what it means is that the owner can probably own three boats and tie them up to there. I mean, how can you restrict somebody having a visitor? MR. RUEL-Or if the owner rented a boat. MR. BREWER-I think the intent of it was they could have up to three boats there at that thing at any permanent time. MS. CIPPERLY-If you look at the Waterfront Residential section, a dock is an accessory structure to a private home. I think the intent here was to make a differentiation between commercial and private, in that rental would not be involved with the private docks, but that's not exactly stated right there. MR. PALING-Well, I think we're in a situation where no one here absolutely knows for sure what it is, and we may have to get an interpretation of this, or a final ruling on it, Jim Martin's people, and go by whatever that is, because none of us actually can say we know exactly what to do, and I'm going to just kind of put , that aside for the moment, that one question, and we may proceed with the rest of the business, but that would be left open for some sort of a written opinion out of Planning. MS. CIPPERLY-You're saying you'd like one? MR. PALING-Yes, we're going to have to have it. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-That should actually come from Jim Martin, as Zoning Administrator. MR. PALING-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And you're quite correct, Bob. That would be his call, as Zoning Administrator, at least initially. MS. CIPPERLY-But as far as the dimensions and physical nature of - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) this dock, it is a conforming dock. MR. PALING-Yes, it is a conforming dock. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know that you need to spend, we'll get an interpretation. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I agree. That doesn't seem to be an issue. MR. PALING-All right. Then of your two questions, we've answered one, in regard to dimensions, well, no, there's three questions you had. The other one, the private boat thing and the number of boats we're going to have to answer later, but now Mrs. Schreiber has again raised the question of the length of this dock, whether it's 40 or 47 feet, and it depends upon where you draw the line. Last time we drew the line across the wall and said that the length behind it didn't count. It was only the length from that mean low water mark and out. MR. STARK-That's seven feet out in the lake, Bob. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. What George said earlier is correct, that the regulation in our Zoning Ordinance specifically states ,/ "No dock shall extend more than 40 feet off shore from the mean low water mark", and that's, I think, what George said a few minutes ago. Then, obviously, Staff has to confirm, and I think Staff has confirmed where the mean low water mark is, I'm assuming that, on the plan, and if in fact that confirmation has been made and it's no more than 40 feet, then that would be deemed to be in conformance with our regulation about the length of the dock. MR. PALING-All right. MRS. SCHREIBER-The only other question I'd have in regard to this is also the wood deck. He has on his plans a wood deck, in front of the U-Shaped wharf. Okay. I would like to know, first of all, if there was ever an application for a building permit or whatever he needs to do to do that wood deck, and the reason I'm raising this question is the fact that, once again, two years ago, when my husband and I built, and he did his dock, we had some 300 boulders. I mean, they were allover the property. MR. PALING-Yes. I think you're getting out of our jurisdiction now. If there's suspicion about a building permit, I would suggest that you go back to the building, to the office, and see, but that isn't something that this Board is concerned with. MRS. LABOMBARD-But I think that this is part of the plan that is before us. So I think she's trying to give it some significance. MR. PALING-Yes, but what can we do if there is or isn't a building permit? MRS. SCHREIBER-I'm sorry. What I'm asking is, is that considered part of the 686 square feet? Because when we went to you folks to get the plans for our dock, the first time, the person that drew up the plans was above the square footage allowed. MR. BREWER-I understand what you're saying. MRS. SCHREIBER-Okay, and we were told that the dock could not hook to the land and we could not put a small,I mean, we need like eight feet to go across there for safety reasons, for kids, somebody falls in these rocks on the way to the dock. I mean, we've got a liability problem, and we just wanted to cover up the rock. Aesthetically it would look a lot nicer, and is that considered part of the square footage of the dock? Because we were told two years ago. - 10 - '- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MR. BREWER-It looks like it's tied to it. MRS. SCHREIBER-It is, and according to this, it doesn't look like it is, but physically looking at it there are posts that are hooked to that, to the dock. MR. PALING-I don't think it's off the beaten path if we're tying it to square footage. MR. BREWER-If it's tied to the dock, then it's square footage, isn't it? MS. CIPPERLY-It depends on whether you're calling the dock. . MR. PALING-What's the limitation on square footage of the dock? MS. CIPPERLY-Where are you starting to count the dock from? MR. PALING-Okay, but what's the limitation on square footage of the dock? MR. SCHACHNER-Seven hundred. .-- MR. PALING-Seven hundred. So, now the question is, where do you count the sizing of the dock from? MR. BREWER-Has he got 86 square feet on that deck? How big is the deck? MR. RUEL-The deck on land, what's the size? MR. BREWER-It doesn't say. MR. PALING-Then that's attached. MR. BREWER-That's attached right to the dock. MR. PALING-We'll get that clarified, yes. Okay. Next question. MRS. SCHREIBER-That was my question. Because we were denied. Is it part of the dock? MR. PALING-We'll find out. MRS. SCHREIBER-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Now is there anyone else from the public that would care to talk? JIM MERRIGAN DR. MERRIGAN-My name is Jim Merrigan and I live at the end of Seelye Road with my wife and I have three children, and I just want to raise some questions about the nature of the project. What is it that the Lecces are trying to accomplish here. I'm very concerned because I have three children myself, and have talked to some of the neighbors about this, about the nature of the project and the effect on the neighborhood. We're already seeing several boats parked at this dock. We're seeing one parked in the driveway, and I see a lot of cars there on the weekends. I'm also concerned about the size of the project and the structure, and why it needs to be so large. It seems to me that the intent here is not to pursue residential interests, but to develop what I would call perhaps a mini-marina, as many people seem to be doing on the lake, and so I'm questioning the nature of the project itself. I'm also concerned about safety issues with congestion, and the environmental impact. I don't live right next to the Lecces. I live down the road, but I frequently walk up and down the road and - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) enjoy the views of the lake which this structure will block to a certain extent. I think I can also shed some light on the question before when you were trying to determine just how many boats are allowed at a residential dock. Well the answer, in terms of boats, if you own I believe, is three. The answer in terms of rental boats is zero, and that comes under the jurisdiction, not of the Town of Queensbury, but the Lake George Park Commission. To have even one rental boat there, you must have a permit from the Park Commission, if you have more than, and that's considered a Type B Marina. If you have more than one rental boat, then you must have a Type A Marina status, which is considered a major project, and you have to show parking, sewage, and other facilities. Okay. So if Mr. Lecce has any rental boats there, he's in violation of the Park Commission, not necessarily the Town rules, and if he has more than one rental boat, he is also in violation of that marina statute, and I'm aware of that because I've recently had the Park Commission people out to look at another dock right on Warner Bay, not too far away from the Lecces, and the reason I'm concerned is that I watched this other residential property, which I unfortunateÌy had to report to the Park Commission and they took action on this week, grow from one or two rental boats to three or four rental boats to this year six rental boats, and that's why I'm concerned about the nature of this proj ect, and I realize that.-some of these questions are not within your jurisdiction, but I would like to raise that issue, as a neighbor, as to what is the intent here, because we have to live with it after it's done. You may make your decisions in terms of size and so on and so forth, but we have to live with the results of that, and it looks very much like growth, to me, and it looks like more than a resident needs to house his own private property and his boats, and that's my concern. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would care to speak? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, just to address something Dr. Merrigan said. If you look at the definition of Marina, it says "Any waterfront facility which provides accommodation services for vessels by engaging in any of the following:", and Number Three there is, "The sale, lease, rental or any other provision of storage, wharf space or mooring for vessels not registered to the owner of said facility, a member of the owner's immediate family, the owner or lessee of the immediately adjoining upland property, members of their immediate families or an overnight guest on said property." So, technically, if you are leasing dock space, you're a marina. That's not what this person has applied to do, and marinas are currently not a conforming use in that zone. MR. BREWER-Didn't we discuss this last month? MR. PALING-Yes. I think it will come up again, too. Does anyone else care to talk on this matter? Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-This is a letter from Mrs. Merrigan. Should I still read the letter in? DR. MERRIGAN-Please, yes. MS. CIPPERLY-This letter is from Mary Ellen Merrigan who lives on Seelye Road, Cleverdale, NY "I would like to express my concerns about the overuse of the dock space being proposed for the Lecces' property. If people are allowed to purchase property and turn it into a mini-marina, what happens to the quality of life for everyone else? What compelling reason could there be for overloading a residential area with extra boats? I understand that the town at times has to balance the needs of the residents with the needs of the business owners and true marinas must be allowed to exist and function as such around the lake. However, except for - 12 - '- -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) the financial gain of an individual owner, I don't see any benefit to the town or the community in allowing individuals to develop their lakefront property in this manner. Every additional boat represents the potential for additional traffic, sewage and parking. Seelye Road is a quiet residential location and I ask you to please help us maintain the character of our community. Please do what you can to preserve the quality of life here and not ask us to compromise and accommodate a situation that is solely for the financial gain of one individual. Sincerely, Mary Ellen Merrigan" I have one from the McCollisters. Would you like me to also read yours in? MR. MCCOLLISTER-No. MR. PALING-Okay, and we have one here, Sue, if you have no others. MS. CIPPERLY-I have one from McCollisters. MR. PALING-This is one that was just handed to us, and we'll give to you. Go ahead, Cathy. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. It's from a Kathleen M. Tarrant, ....--from Saratoga. "Dear Mr. Martin: As the residential neighbor to the north (directly) of the Lecce property, I would like to voice my concern regarding the proposed expansion of said dock and the purpose thereof. I would request that the Planning Board restrict the number of watercraft allowed in a residential area. Currently there are three, sometimes four, large boats at this dock. The noise and traffic are of serious concern to this neighborhood. I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but would ask that this proposal be carefully reviewed with regard to overuse and/or commercial use in an environmentally sensitive area. Sincerely, Kathleen M. Tarrant" MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone else who would care to speak on this matter? Okay. Then the public hearing portion of the meeting is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Would the applicant come back up please. Lets start from the beginning of the list I have. Would you talk.about the adjoining walls, and address is to the adjacent property? MR. LECCE-Okay. The last meeting that we had here, I forgot the gentleman at the end, he requested a study from an engineer whether the new retaining wall would impact the adjoining neighbor's retaining wall. We then retained C.T. Male who prepared a letter, certified to the Town. I guess he wanted it certified so if there was any liability, it would fall back on the engineer who went out and did a site inspection of the site and noticed that the McCollister property's elevation was higher than my elevation, that the retaining wall would not adversely impact, I think you have a letter, on the McCollister retaining wall at all. They also sent it to Rist-Frost who reviewed it, who also, I guess, agreed with the C.T. Male representations that it would not impact the McCollister wall. As a result, we decided to shorten the wall one foot, so my wall, the boulders that currently exist now would still be there to help support Mr. McCollister's wall. MR. PALING-Right, and that was approved by the engineer. MR. LECCE-By Rist-Frost as well as C.T. Male, and it was a certified opinion made by C.T. Male to the Town of Queensbury. MR. PALING-Okay. The next question I have on my list, and I'll just right down here, would you care to comment on the number of - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) boats, and go back to last meeting, and about what you're doing, what you will no longer do. MR. LECCE-Yes. At the last meeting, I told this Board that I had a new boat coming on board, and that's the boat that everybody's saying that is not owned by me. That boat was delivered the Fourth of July weekend. I also have another boat, I own currently two boats, and the one that I currently own is stored in the back, because I have no spot to put the boat. So there are two boats there that are both mine, okay. I went on record last time at this meeting that the current tenants that rent now that live nearby me will be leaving the dock. They're no longer going to be renting from me. So, I don't see that as an issue anYmore. If there's a concern being raised that I'm renting to people, I went on record before. Those people were going to be leaving the site. MR. PALING-When what you say is applied, how many boats will be at your dock, besides your own two? MR. LECCE-Just two? MR. PALING-Just your boats? .-- MR. LECCE-Just my boats. Now, understand, Mr. McCollister's correct. I do rent my house for the month of August, which is totally legal under the zoning code, and I do give a slip for that person who rents my house to use the slip. So I will own two boats. There'll be a tenant there for August. They'll have a slip for themselves, and that is the extent of what's going to be there, and as far as the length of the dock is concerned, we only have four feet at the end of the dock. My kids dive into the water. I want the docks- longer, so they don't break their neck going into the water, and that's the reason why I'm making the dock longer. MR. PALING-That's the 10 foot extension beyond the cover. MR. LECCE-Exactly. Correct. Now we're going back to the low water mark. The low water mark was not determined by myself. The low water mark was determined by the Lake George Park Commission, as well as C.T. Male. So we have engineers out there who determined the low water mark. If Mrs. Schreiber thinks her low water mark is different, then she should go out and measure, but that was measured by C.T. Male and by the Lake George Park Commission, not by myself. Molly Gallagher came out herself and measured the low water mark. MR. PALING-And, Sue, was the confirmed? Did we confirm that? MR. LECCE-George did, George will Molly Gallagher of the Lake George Park Commission. Then it was re-confirmed by C.T. Male, when they came out and did their engineering after the June 18th meeting. So the low water mark has been determined by two engineers. By one engineer and the Park Commission. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, how about the attachment, the deck? MR. LECCE-The deck, if you look at the Lake George Park Commission Regulations, any deck that is upland from shore is not counted in the square footage of the dock. MR. BREWER-No. Lets talk about ours. MR. LECCE- I think yours is the same. George and I had this discussion before the meeting, and that is not part of the calculations of a dock. It's upland, and it's on shore. It's not calculated as dock space. MR. PALING-Is it connected to the dock? - 14 - '- '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MR. LECCE-I think it connects on shore. There's steps that step down to the dock. MR. BREWER-Are we going to get a determination about the other point, Bob? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Lets get a determination about that, too. MS. CIPPERLY-I've already got it written down. How long has the deck been there? MR. LECCE-The deck's been there since 1993. The deck was built in 1993. I bought the house in 1993, 1994. MR. PALING-I think what you said earlier is sufficient to cover what your intention is, regarding any kind of commercial operation. So I think that brings us down to two points that have got to be resolved in this regard, and that is the deck, and if it's attached, and if that's considered part of the total dock. MR. RUEL-I have a question here. This deck, upland deck, you~now the square footage added to the dock, and if it doesn't exceed 700 square feet, it would be all right. MR. LECCE-It probably does. MR. RUEL-It's probably over 700? MR. LECCE-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. LECCE-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. So we do need an interpretation. Sue, what are you going to get for us? MS. CIPPERLY-I have written down that you want Jim to interpret the definition of a Private Dock. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes, the number of boats and ownership. MS. CIPPERLY-And whether the deck is part of the square footage of a dock, the upland deck. MR. RUEL-Right. MR. BREWER-We want him to give us a definition of what a deck is, or a dock is? MR. PALING-No. I think what we're saying, Tim, if the deck is attached to the dock. MR. BREWER-No, I know that, but what was the first one you said? MS. CIPPERLY-No. The original question was, the definition says, to be used, for up to three vessels owned by the upland property owner, but it doesn't say anything about other boats. MR. PALING-But also by the applicant's statement, he doesn't intend to violate that no matter how you interpret. He's going to have two boats of his own and maybe one. MR. BREWER-I think that's pretty simple. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-I don't have any question about that. MR. RUEL-Well, he's going to rent the property. MR. PALING-Well, I think we have a question about the square footage, if you include the deck and the dock. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, to me, if the deck is on the land, and it's a step up. MS. CIPPERLY-If the deck has height, I would like to look ~p the dock, the deck, and see whether it got a building permit in 1994, and whether it maybe got a variance or something, because, technically, if you're putting a deck on your property, and it has height above the ground, it should meet setbacks. So, I would like to research the deck. MR. PALING-Then that comes down to one unresolved issue, which is what you're just stating. Does the Board agree with that? MR. BREWER-Yes. .-- MR. PALING-All right. Then we can entertain a motion to pass this, pending the investigation which Sue will. MR. BREWER-No. I don't want to. I want to get the interpretations done before we. MR. LECCE-I would rather not table this. I would like to have a decision tonight. MR. BREWER-Not from this Board member. MR. LECCE-Well, I'm entitled to a decision. I have an application that's before you tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you're obligated under law to provide the applicant with a decision within 62 days from tonight, because tonight's the close of the public hearing. So, as far as, you can decide the way you want to decide, but I didn't want the record to stand on the applicant's statement that he's entitled to a decision tonight. Under law, you can decide anytime between now and 62 days from now. MR. PALING-All right. Well, I'm going to poll the Board. MR. STARK-If he wants a decision, fine, but why don't you poll the Board as to what their concerns are about this, first. MR. PALING-Go ahead. MR. STARK-I have a big concern, how many docks have we ever okayed up there, and I never heard of a dock being measured seven feet out from the shore, this low mean water mark, and then you go from there. Every dock we ever did up there was measured from the shoreline. Nobody ever heard of this before in the last four years I've been here. The same with you, Mark. You've probably never heard of that either. MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, to be honest, I've heard it every single meeting I go to of the Lake George Park Commission, the calculation is done from one of the mean water marks, not from the shore, and as far as I know, this provision has been in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance for several years. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine, well, anyway, I have a concern about that. - 16 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MR. LECCE-I understand, but the regulation does call from the low water mark. MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I'm saying. MR. LECCE-That's for the record. So it's low water mark. MR. PALING-And if that was done by the Lake George Park Commission and C.T. Male and confirmed by George Hilton, then I don't think we have an issue there. MR. RUEL-Did you say low, or mean? MR. LECCE-It's the low, low water mark. MR. SCHACHNER-The regulation says "No dock shall extend more than 40 feet offshore from the mean low water mark." MR. LECCE-The mean low water mark. Correct. MR. STARK-Another concern is the number of boats. Never more than three boats. A visitor can come, but never more than three overnight. / MR. LECCE-But is this Planning Board, is this an enforcement Board, or is this a Planning Board for site plan review? That's an enforcement matter for the local zoning, and I've gone on record already that I'm not going to be leasing the dock to anybody else. So I'm bound by the regulations, which I have consented to on the record to be bound by. So as far as the record is concerned, I've gone on record,for that. MR. STARK-I still say never more than three boats overnight. MR. LECCE-But have I violated the Ordinance? Am I violating the Ordinance is the question. MR. STARK-No. I'm not saying you have. that's illY recommendation. I'm just saying that MR. PALING-George, I'd just like to comment on that. I don't think we can single this dock out and tell this particular owner he can't do this, violate the three boat rule, if you will, and not ever say it to anyone else. He said he's not going to do it, and I don't think we can ask that, we don't ask that of anyone else, nor should we ask him to make any extraordinary statement in that regard. MR. STARK-Well, it's been brought up, the concern about four boats here and five boats there, and so on. Then what do we have a public hearing for? MR. PALING-No question, and that's the Enforcement Officer's duty. MR. STARK-Why don't we put it in our recommendation that, never more than three boats. MR. LECCE-I'm not going to accept it. regulations, but that's all I'll accept. I'll live by the MR. STARK-Okay. That's all. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree with George, as far as the nature of the project and the effect on the neighborhood. There has been so much concern by all of your neighbors, and it sounds as if there's an incredible amount of traffic there, but then when YOU speak, it sounds perfectly fine, that there's nothing going on there. MR. LECCE-The traffic there is my family. If I bought a house on - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) Lake George and wasn't allowed to entertain my family to come visit for the weekend, then we have a big problem here. MRS. LABOMBARD-The way I inferred it was there was boats. The boat on the trailer on the property. MR. LECCE-Which is mine. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then somebody said there has been up to four boats on the dock, but that's what they're saying. MR. LECCE-First of all, the personal watercraft are friends of mine and live at the Antlers, and they come and visit me on their jet skis, but I don't see a zoning restriction, tell me if I'm wrong, of people that can come and visit your house while you're there. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, there isn't. MR. LECCE-So this is an aesthetic feeling more than an actual regulation and zoning code violation. If someone doesn't like the amount of traffic that comes when I rent my house, then that's an issue with them, not with me. MRS. LABOMBARD-Exactly, and that's why I'm just saying that when I heard the other people, I thought, wow, what's going on here, but then as you talk and tell us what really is happening, what you say is happening on your property, obviously, of course there's no problem whatsoever. So, that's the concern that I had, and if there's not going to be more than three boats, then there's certainly no problem. MR. LECCE-And r"ve gone on record with that already. MRS. LABOMBARD-But I guess, and you don't have to answer this. It just seems like such an enormous structure for three boats, but that's your business. MR. LECCE-If I meet the Ordinance, and I don't violate any ordinance, the regulations, I don't know where the other issues even come into play. MRS. LABOMBARD-Exactly, but I was given the chance to speak my mind, and I'm just saying it. Thanks. MR. RUEL-Well, first of all, I have to assume that the applicant will meet ordinance requirements, and after re-doing everything that was presented here tonight, I feel that everything does meet the requirements of all Ordinances. However, this application, I feel, is subject to Planning Staff interpretation of Ordinance 179- 7, Definition of Private Docks, specifically the number of boats and ownership. Now, this is a question addressed to Mark. This is really not an ordinance. What I'm looking at in 179-7 is not an ordinance. It's a definition. MR. SCHACHNER-It's a definition in an Ordinance. MR. RUEL-It doesn't say it's an Ordinance. Definition. It says, it's called MR. SCHACHNER-That's a section of an Ordinance. MR. PALING-Roger, excuse me, but there has been no challenge of what's written here by the applicant. He says, whatever that says, I'm going to do. MR. RUEL-No, I'm asking the question. Is this an Ordinance, or is this a Definition. That's all I'm asking. - 18 - '............. '-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MR. SCHACHNER-It's a definition in an Ordinance. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. Also, Number Two, we need a definition of on-shore deck, if it's connected to the dock, as far as total square footage. MR. SCHACHNER-You're not going to get a definition of that. You're asking for a Zoning Administrator determination, and that's an appropriate question that the Zoning Administrator can provide you with. Jim Martin, as Zoning Administrator, can provide you with that determination. MR. RUEL-So instead of the word definition, I will change that to determination. MR. SCHACHNER-That would be appropriate. MR. RUEL-That's it. MR. BREWER-I have a concern with the amount of boats. The ordinance is there, and it's for protection for everybody, but I think we have an obligation, just because it's within the Ordinance doesn't necessarily mean that we can't make any changes to it~- If we feel that there's changes should be made, then we should make them. MR. PALING-What changes do you have in mind? MR. BREWER-Well, I'm not saying that we should. I'm just saying that it's been said tonight that because it's within the size limits that, if that's what it has to be, and I don't agree with that. It has' to be within harmony of the general purpose and intent of everything in that area, and if we don't think it's in harmony there, then we shouldn't accept it. I don't want to make any decision until we get the determination of the deck. We don't have to make a motion tonight. MR. PALING-The only question I have has to do with the deck. MR. BREWER-That's all I want to know, too. MR. PALING-And I'm waiting for a definition from Planning on that, but I don't have any quarrel with the rest of it. MR. BREWER-I don't think we have to limit it to three boats. He's bound by the Ordinance to that anyway. MR. PALING-I totally agree with that. MR. BREWER-So I think we should wait and get a determination. MR. RUEL-Would you like to see a motion with a condition? MR. PALING-A motion with a condition concerning the deck, yes. MR. RUEL-All right. Then I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-96 LOUIE & CHRISTINE LECCE, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: To remove and replace old stone retaining wall along shoreline with new interlocking retaining wall and create sandy beach and modification of existing U-shaped dock to result in a 40' by 35' U- shaped dock with open sided boat shelter with a flat roof. The applicant will remove the existing 42' wood dock, and with the condition that the approval of this application is predicated on the determination by Jim Martin of on-shore deck, if connected to - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) the dock. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-And which way he makes that determination. MR. PALING-Yes, and if it is constructed properly and attached to the dock, it can make a difference in what we're saying. It might have to be detached, as I understand it. MR. RUEL-Well, it is connected now, isn't it? MR. LECCE-It's not nailed to the dock. It just sits on the.dock. It rests on the dock. MR. PALING-If this dock it'll legal, it'll be the interpretation by Jim Martin to tell us if this dock is legally installed and meets all specs, ordinances. MR. SCHACHNER-I would suggest that that condition relate to whether the plan for the dock is determined by the Zoning Administrator to be in conformance with the regulations, including square footage. ---- MR. RUEL-Wasn't that determination already made, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-I asked Jim. He did not put it in writing. You want it in writing, and the question wasn't posed as to whether it included the deck or the seven feet between, like where does the dock really start. MR. RUEL-Yes, ~nd you don't know that, right? MS. CIPPERLY-I'm not the Zoning Administrator. MR. PALING-That's going to be part of the determination. MR. LECCE-For the record, the issue was brought up with Mr. Hilton. MR. PALING-All right. Do we have a second on this? I'll second it. AYES: Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. votes. It's a no go, because we've got to have four MR. LECCE-I understand. MR. PALING-All right. Now what do we do here, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that's actually a non decision, because you don't have four votes going either way. So, to some extent, this may be up to the applicant, if he wants to withdraw his application, but basically that's a non action by this Board. It would seem to me that one possible approach would be for the matter to be tabled for further review pending the Zoning Administrator determination, and also pending the possibility that we'll have more of our Board here at the subsequent meeting, whenever this is re-Iooked at. That's just a possibility. MR. PALING-I would favor that latter one, yes, tabling it. MR. LECCE-I'm not ready to make that decision right now, about which way we're going to go, whether I want to table or withdraw - 20 - - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) it. MR. PALING-Okay. We can't table it unless we have your permission. MR. LECCE-I understand. MR. SCHACHNER-Wait. That's not correct. Okay. That's not correct. The Board has no obligation to make a decision on this application until 62 days from the close of the public hearing. The public hearing was closed tonight. You have the discretion within that 62 day time period to make the decision at any regular or special meeting that you choose. So although it is perfectly appropriate to seek the applicant's consent if you want to· table it, you are not required to have that consent. You can table without the applicant's consent, if that's what you decide to do. MR. LECCE-But this decision will be filed when, this vote here will be filed in the Clerk's Office when? This decision will be filed. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it's not a decision. MR. LECCE-The no vote, though, will be filed. ..-- MR. SCHACHNER-No. It's not a decision. The minutes will be filed. MR. LECCE-Correct. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-The minutes will be filed, and that won't happen until after they're approved at a subsequent meeting. MR. PALING-That's fine. Well, I'd like to see it tabled until we have the writtèn explanation from Jim Martin, and then open the subject again and see what we can do. MR. SCHACHNER-Then that would require a motion enacted by the Board. MR. PALING-All right. Does somebody want to make a motion to that effect? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 26-96 LOUIE &: CHRISTINE LECCE, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Until next week, provided we get a determination for next week. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Do we have to give it a date, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-You don't have to. It's good to do. I think our practice is to do that, just so people know, if you know. Well, of course, you don't know when the Zoninq Administrator's determination is going to be made, that's true. MR. BREWER-We don't know when he's going to make his determination. Well, we can table it until next week, in hopes that we get a determination, and if we don't, then we table it until next month. Can we do that? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LECCE-Now, just to go back to the last meeting, we had the same discussion last meeting. You guys needed a set of things answered, and we submitted those. To narrow the scope of this issue that is outstanding, the issue is the size of the dock? The deck, or the - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) deck is included with square footage of dock space? MR. PALING-Is the deck in conformance, I think, is the basic question, and I'd like to have the attachment clarified also. Is it attached to the dock, and does that make a difference. MR. BREWER-Well, if it's attached, then, to me, in illY mind, then it becomes part of the dock, and then he has to reduce the square footage. MR. PALING-Lets make that part of the interpretation, is it in conformance, and is it attached, and can it be attached. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I'm sure Jim will read your questions in the minutes, and do a determination. MR. PALING-All right. We have a motion by Tim to table it until next week, if I heard it right. MR. BREWER-Provided we get a determination. MR. LECCE-Mr. Chairman, just for the applicant's sake,' what other issues are we talking about besides that issue? ~ MR. PALING-I don't want to be unfair to you. Let me poll the Board. I know what it is in my own mind. Tim? MR. BREWER-Well, the size of it. I mean, do we really want to allow a 47 foot dock, or do we want to reduce it to eliminate some of the traffic concerns? MR. PALING-If ít's determined to be a 47 foot dock, then I don't think we can allow it. MR. BREWER-Right. So then we'll wait for the determination. MR. PALING-Yes. you? Right. Roger, what other things are bothering MR. RUEL-As far as tabling? Why do we have a motion for tabling? Supposing we vote no, then what? Supposing we vote no on the tabling? MR. LECCE-The I can Article 78. MR. PALING-Okay. What do you want to do? He's asking what other questions might be raised, so we can get this thing taken care of. MR. RUEL-I don't have any further questions. I think I elaborated the whole thing. I gave a motion with a condition, and the condition is the thing we're waiting for, determination from Jim Martin. MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy, do you have any other questions? George? Okay. I don't either. We're telling the applicant that the only thing we have is a question in the determination of the dock. MR. BREWER-As we speak right now. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. LECCE-Let me ask for now? Any other issues? I think, in fairness to me who's paying engineers to have studies done, I need to know. I guess for me to prepare for the next meeting, I'd like to have these issues that you have concerns over, and if you're saying, right at this time, does that mean next week there may be something else? - 22 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MR. BREWER-No. The 47 foot bothers me a little bit. MR. LECCE-Okay. MR. BREWER-That's what I'm waiting for. MR. LECCE-So, for the record, the outstanding issue is the 47 foot dock, and two, the calculation of coverage for, does it include the deck or not. MR. RUEL-That's the same thing. MS. CIPPERLY-The 47 feet is not including the deck at all. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not the same thing. MR. BREWER-The 47 feet bothers me, the length. MR. LECCE-Let me just clarify the issue. If the deck space is not calculated for square footage of a dock, do you still have a problem with the 47 feet? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. --- MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LECCE-Okay. So what can I do to address that issue? MR. BREWER-Reduce it. MR. LECCE-Okay. So for the record, you want me to reduce, even though I meet the Zoning Code? Is that correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the Board's not sure whether that's correct or not, and I'm going to advise the Board not to answer a hypothetical question. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Do we have a second on Tim's motion? MR. BREWER-To table. MR. PALING-To table. I'll second it. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Ruel ABSENT: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-All right. tabling. We agreed to nothing more than just a MR. LECCE-Is there a date for tabling? MR. BREWER-Well, we said in the motion that, provided we get a determination for next week. If we don't get a determination next week, it'll be, I would presume the first meeting in August. MR. LECCE-Okay. MR. PALING-Hopefully we'll be able to wind it up next week. MR. BREWER-In all hopes. MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Could we be advised of that determination? MR. PALING-What can we do in that regard. - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MR. SCHACHNER-Certainly if there's a determination made it's public information and they're certainly entitled to be notified. Notified may not be the right word, but you are certainly entitled to a copy of any determination that's made, and you're certainly entitled to be informed about it. MR. PALING-If we notified all of those that spoke tonight, would we be covered. MR. SCHACHNER-You're not even obligated to do that, but you can. MR. BREWER-Can we pick one person, if we notify them when the determination is made, you'll contact the rest of your neighbors? MR. PALING-All right. MR. SCHACHNER-And you're certainly entitled to a copy of whatever determination is made. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. NEW BUSINESS: - SITE PLAN NO. 13-96 TYPE II MICHAEL CHRYS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA, LGPC LOCATION: 9L TO ASSEMBLY PT. RD., .4 MILES ON LEFT (LOG CABIN) PROPOSAL IS TO MOVE PORTION OF DOCK THAT IS PARTLY ON ADJACENT PROPERTY. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 21 & 22-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 6-1-2 LOT SIZE: .31 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 13-96, Michael Chrys, Meeting Date: July 16, 1996 "Applicant is proposing to relocate an existing dock which sits partially over the property' line with an adjacent property owner. The applicant has received a setback variance from the ZBA for this dock to have a zero setback at the property line. A determination has been made by the Zoning Administrator that zero setback in this situation can only exist when the proposed dock is clear of the side property line if it were extended into the lake. 'Although staff foresees no adverse impacts associated with this application, an updated site plan which shows that the dock will not intersect an extended side lot line is needed before staff can recommend approval of this site plan. The applicant has indicated that he will provide a new site plan at the Planning Board meeting. " MR. PALING-Is there someone here representing the applicant? MR. BREWER-Well, we can't really do anything without the new site plan. MR. STARK-What do you do, Mark? You can't do anything. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you can, legally, but since it says at the end of the Staff Notes that the applicant is indicating he will provide a new site plan at the Planning Board meeting, it would seem to me to be a waste of time to proceed without that. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll entertain a motion to table. MR. SCHACHNER-Now, before you table, there was a public hearing scheduled for this. I wonder if you'll want to see if there's anybody here to comment on this, and open the public hearing. MR. PALING-Excellent point. Thank you. MR. BREWER-I've got a problem with that. How can we comment on it - 24 - '-" -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) if we don't know what the plan is, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-We're not commenting on it. I'm just saying. MR. PALING-No. We're asking if there's anyone here from the public that wants to, and if they're here, we should hear them. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I'm certainly not suggesting we close the public hearing. I'm just indicating if somebody's here that wants to speak, perhaps we should let them that opportunity. MR. PALING-Okay. application is open. The public hearing on the Michael Chrys Does anyone here care to talk about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-Okay. There appears to be no one tonight. So we'll leave the public hearing open, and now we'll entertain a motion to table. Thank you, Mark. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13-96 MICHAEL CHRYS, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: ~ Until next month, until we can get the plan and review it, the first meeting of next month, August 20th. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan SITE PLAN NO. 37-96 TYPE II OSCAR & DEBRA SCHREIBER OWNERS: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: SEELYE ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO ADD A 16' X 32' PEAKED ROOF OPEN SIDED COVER TO AN EXISTING U-SHAPED WHARF. PER SECTION 179-16 PRIVATE BOATHOUSE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 25- 1993/SP 40-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-30.2 LOT SIZE: .63 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 DEBRA SCHREIBER, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. The Warren County Planning says there's no County impact involved. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 37-96, Oscar & Debra Schreiber, Meeting Date: July 16, 1996 "The applicants are proposing to construct a 32 foot by 16 foot high peaked roof to an existing wharf. The cover will be built into an existing dock, no new cribbing will be constructed as a part of this application. The dimensions of this boat house will conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 37-96." MR. RUEL-Sue, do you have the letter from McCollister? They call for a sun deck. Is it a sun deck or a peaked roof, or was that changed? MR. PALING-This is a peaked roof, yes. MR. RUEL-But the letter says sun deck. - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) MR. PALING-It says peaked roof, too. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't have that letter. Do you? MR. RUEL-It's dated July 19th. MR. PALING-This is from Linda McCollister. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. We can read this into, when the public hearing is opened, I think is what you're saying. Yes. Okay. Is there any comment here? Is anyone here from the applicant? Did you. have anything to tell us before we open the public hearing? MRS. SCHREIBER- I can clarify the letter. When we originally bought the property, we had asked Linda, because that's who we bought it from is Linda and Mark, and we wanted to put a U-shaped dock with a boat port over top, and our original plans were to do a sun deck, but my husband and I don't have time to shovel snow off in the winter. So it was less maintenance, maintenance free. So we went to the peaked roof instead, and this letter was, at the time of the sale of the property, she had no problems with it, and she's here tonight, or Mark is. MR. RUEL-Okay. She doesn't have a problem with the peaked roof? MR. PALING-We'll see. Okay. All right. Then we'll open the public hearing. Does anyone care to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK MCCOLLISTER MR. MCCOLLISTER-Mark McCollister. My wife and I live on the property immediately north of the Schreibers, and because of a fair misunderstanding with the letter, I think it's appropriate to say, at this point, we have no problem with the application as they've submitted it tonight. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. public hearing is closed on this. If not, the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Does the Board have any questions or comments on this? This is a Type II. We do not need a SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-96 OSCAR & DEBRA SCHREIBER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To add a 16' x 32' peaked roof open sided cover to an existing U- shaped dock. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan (DUE TO TAPE ERROR THE REST OF THE MEETING WAS LOST. WHAT FOLLOWS - 26 - ,~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) IS A SUMMARY ONLY) SITE PLAN NO. 38-96 TYPE: UNLISTED NEMER MOTOR GROUP OWNER: PYRAMID CO. OF GF ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: AVIATION MALL PARKING LOT TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE FOR AUTO SALE AT THE AVIATION MALL ON JULY 18, 19, 20 & 21. CROSS REFERENCE: SV 63-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.21 LOT SIZE: 56.25 ACRES SECTION: 160 FRANK ROMAIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 38-96, Nemer Motor Group, Meeting Date: July 16, 1996 "The applicant is applying for a Site Plan Review to conduct an auto sale at the Aviation Mallon Thursday July 18, 1996 through Sunday July 21, 1996. Site Plan review is needed in order for the applicant to receive a transient merchant license from the Town Board to conduct this sale. This commercial activity will be held in the Aviation Mall parking lot. The mall property is currently zoned ESC-2SA, Enclosed Shopping Center 25 Acre. The sale will be held in an area of the parking lot to the west of Friendly's restaurant. Aviation Mall's parking lot will be used as parking for patrons of this sale. Staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 38-96." MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD APPROVAL FOR NEMER MOTOR GROUP, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE P5-96 TYPE: UNLISTED DOUBLE "H" HOLE IN THE WOODS RANCH, INC. /CHARLES R. WOOD RECOMMENDATION ONLY OWNER: SAME CURRENT ZONING: SFR-10 PROPOSED ZONING: HC-1A WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 98-2-1, 98-3-1, 98-3-5 LOT SIZE: 4.377 ACRES PUBLIC COMMENT ACCEPTED: JULY 16, 1996 *** PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD BY QUEENS BURY TOWN BOARD JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Zone Change PS-96, Double "H" Hole in the Woods Ranch, Inc./Charles Wood, Meeting Date: July 16, 1996 "Proiect Analysis The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 4.4 acres of land located on the north side of Aviation Rd. across from the Aviation Mall from SFR-10 to HC-1A. This property is located in an area with commercial zoning existing to the east, west and south. Residential zoning, SFR-10 exists to the north of this property. The subject property was at one time zoned commercially as indicated by the 1967 Town Zoning Map. The zoning on this property was changed in 1982 to Urban Residential and again in 1988 to the present zoning SFR-10. As a part of this project, the applicant is proposing to dedicate a 50 foot strip along Old Aviation Rd. to be used by the Town for buffering and/or future traffic improvements for this area. Conformance with the Master Plan This property is currently shown on the Future Land Use Plan as an area of future commercial development. With the majority of the surrounding area currently developed commercially, this rezoning would provide for future in-fill development. This commercially master planned property which is located on a major - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) thoroughfare has close access to Interstate 87 and Route 9. The potential for this property to be developed residentially severely restricted given the proximity to major thoroughfares and existing commercial uses in the area. Environmental Considerations This site is currently tree filled with a slight slope to the southeast. The main environmental considerations with this rezoning are noise, glare and odors that may effect the residential area to the north. The proposed 50 foot buffer between this property and the residential area to the north will assist in mitigating these impacts. Any proposed use of this property will be subject to site plan review, at that time Staff and the Planning Board will conduct a further review of specific uses and will comment on mitigation measures for any proposed uses. Waste disposal at this loc~tion would be mitigated by the requirement that this property connect to the Town's sewer system when development occurs. Transportation Considerations The subject property is located between the Aviation Rd. and Route 9 commercial corridors. Increasing numbers of vehicles use these roadways as continued growth and commercial expansion occurs in this area. A transportation study prepared for the Glens Falls Urban Area Transportation Council (GFTC) examined traffic conditions in this area of Queensbury and made recommendations for traffic improvements. One recommendation was for two new access roads between Route 9 and Aviation Rd. / The planned route of these proposed roads would be over the property presently being considered for rezoning. As part of this rezoning staff is looking to work with the applicant to realize the recommendations of the study prepared for GFTC. Existing Neiqhborhood Conditions Commercial zoning exists around this property with the exception of the residential area to the north. This residential area is deed restricted so that any future development must be residential. The expansion of commercial in this area may have negative impacts on this residential area. The proposed 50 foot buffer will help by separating future development from this residential area. Plantings, berms and other forms of screening may also be used to provide a barrier between any business and existing homes. In addition, it should be noted that a 50 foot buffer will be required between this property and the SFR-10 property to the east. Staff Recommendation This property which was once zoned commercial would be difficult to develop under the existing zoning given the location and surrounding land uses. This land is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Land Use Plan element. Staff sees this rezoning as in-fill development in an area which is largely a commercial area. Staff would recommend approval of this rezoning with the idea that buffering and screening will be required between this property and the residential neighborhood to the north. In addition, staff and the applicant should work toward mitigating potential traffic impacts associated with SEQRA review before the Town Board." J. Lemery went through chronology of events from a few years before first Zoning Ordinance to present, regarding the property proposed for re-zoning (He also brought a map of the different zoning designations around the area) . Members of the public were allowed to speak. DAVID STRAINER-Issues with traffic. GLENN LUNT-Area where he lives the only residential area around, issues with traffic. LAUREL MCNEAL-Just moved to the area with her son who is deaf and partially blind. Wanted to live closer to Prospect School. This was the ideal home. Issues with traffic, concerned for her son. TERRY BUSKY-Issues with traffic. - 28 - -.-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/16/96) BOB SAWN-Issues with traffic. CHRIS FRAZER-Had questions on the PC (Plaza Commercial) Zone, whether this meant there could be more than one business in that particular area, therefore even more traffic. FRED TROELSTRA-(THE SILO) Discussed commercial businesses around area, Hess Mart, etc. J. Lemery then proceeded to try to answer public's concerns. When vote came, wanted to keep the 50 foot buffer, not 100 foot, as Board was inquiring about. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman --- - 29 -