Loading...
1996-07-23 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 23, 1996 INDEX Site Plan No. 40-96 Tax Map No. 103-1-3, 4.1 John F. & Laura Flower 1. Lou & Christine Lecce 4. Evergreen Bank, N.A. 26. Mr. & Mrs. Jack Hickey 27. Site Plan No. 20-96 Tax Map No. 49-2-32, 33 Site Plan No. 26-96 Tax Map No. 16-1-28 Site Plan No. 41-96 Tax Map No. 11-1-1.11 Site Plan No. 42-96 Tax Map No. 3-1-17 John J. Lynch, Jr. & Alice Lynch 29. Site Plan No. 39-96 Tax Map No. 68-1-15 Steven & Donna Sutton 30. Site Plan No. 43-96 Tax Map No. 110-1-13 Nutech Industries, Inc. ~3. DISCUSSION ITEM Aldi's Store 36. 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. / I J '~ - -/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 23, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN DAVID WEST PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 20 - 9 6 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN F. & LAURA FLOWER OWNERS: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 30 SUNNYSIDE RD. NORTH APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IMPROVEMENTS TO DRIVEWAY AND ACCESS TO LOWER LEVEL PARKING. CONTINUE DRIVEWAY AND INCREASE PARKING. INCLUDES STABILIZING EXISTING BANK. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 49-2-32, 33 LOT SIZE: .36 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN FLOWER, PRESENT MR. BREWER-This is the first time we've seen the new plan. MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. HILTON-Staff has reviewed the plan. We really have no other comment, other than the applicant is filling in the proposed driveway and eliminating the slopes that were created initially. We're comfortable with the request, and I have a letter from Rist- Frost. I'm going to read it into the record. It is dated July 17, 1996, it's addressed to Mr. James Martin, Town of Queensbury Office Building. It reads "Dear Mr. Martin: We have reviewed the revised Drawing SP-1", I believe the site plan they reference is not correct. The actual number is 20-96, "dated July 12, 1996. The provisions indicated for grading, erosion control and drainage appear to be adequate. No details are shown for water supply or sewage disposal. We expect these details will be submitted to the Town when the building permit application is submitted. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C., William J. Levandowski, P.E.", That would be our only concern, and everything seems straightfþrward, and sewage and water information will be made available! when a building permit is applied for, for this site. MR. PALING-Okay, and there's no County impact involved in this. MR. MILLER-Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. MR. FLOWER-And I'm John Flower. MR. PALING-Okay. Are you familiar with John's comments that he just made? MR. MILLER-Yes, I am. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to comment on that? MR. MILLER-Well, we agree with the comments. There's an existing well on the site. It's going to be utilized, and the sewage - 1 - - -..._----- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) disposal system, the septic field will be located at the top of the hill, will be included on the building permit drawings. MR. PALING-And what level is that on top of the hill? MR. MILLER-The existing well is located down in the vicinity of the lake on this lot, and the septic system will be located, this will be on the property where it says "Lot A" in this area, at the top of the hill. That's why the drywell for the house drainage is on the opposite side, to provide separation from that septic system. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions or comments on this one? MR. BREWER-I just wanted to ask one comment. Is there going to be, I'm sure there's going to be, but how are you going to get from the house down to the lake on this lot? It's kind of steep. Are you going to have just like a little walkway or something? MR. MILLER-Well, there probably will be. It's not planned at this time, and right now the site is disturbed. So the intention at this point was to grade the site, get it established, and after the house is built they'll probably develop some type of a walkway. / MR. BREWER-Are you going to cut into it? MR. MILLER-It'll probably be built right into the slope, right. MR. PALING-Now this was an Unlisted type action on this. MR. HILTON-We're just trying to determine that right now, see if it's actually Unlisted or another Type. MR. PALING-Type II? MR. HILTON-It may be. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Wasn't there some concerns last time you were here from the neighbors or whatever? MR. MILLER-Well, if I could help explain. What originally, when we were here, the intention was to develop a driveway down to the lower level, and there was an existing cabin, and there were some retaining walls and things and what happened is we went through, there was a house proposed, actually Jack's brother is going to purchase the lot and build a house, and we looked through a couple of different renditions with the driveway down and the retaining wall, and it just got too complicated. So that lower drivìway and the retaining walls were eliminated. I MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-Did we have a public hearing on this, and it was closed? MR. BREWER-I don't remember if it was closed. I know there was some people that said they wanted to come back and comment. MR. PALING-All right. Then lets just either re-open. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the July 16th agenda, which I think is where this was originally last week, correct me if I'm wrong, says on it, public hearing May 30, 1996, tabled, which I presume means left open. So that would be my guess. MR. PALING-Left open. All right. We'll ask, is there anyone from the public that would care to comment on this matter? - 2 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Then we can go right to the SEQRA now, unless there are any other comments or questions. The Short Form is required. MR. HILTON-The Short Form. MR. PALING-And I think we can just go through it. MR. MACEWAN-Didn't we do the SEQRA the first time out with this application? MR. BREWER-I don't think we did. MR. HILTON-It's been tabled. The Planning Board hasn't been in a position to do the SEQRA review yet. MR. PALING-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE --- RESOLUTION NO. 20-96, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the JOHN & LAURA FLOWER, and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: 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. I 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 23rd day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions or comments? We can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-96 JOHN F. FLOWER & LAURA FLOWER, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: The only stipulation that erosion control measures be put in place during construction. . Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard 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 RD. TO ROCKHURST THEN FOLLOW SEELYE ROAD TO HOUSE ON LEFT SIDE WITH LECCE SIGN IN FRONT OF IT. 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 MR. STARK-The public hearing was tabled. MR. PALING-Yes, well, whatever it was, we will allow public comment on this tonight. George, what do you have to say on this? MR. HILTON-Well, I have a couple items of information here that I guess were requested of the Board at the last meeting. First of all, I have a letter to the Planning Board from Jim Martin, the Executive Director of Community Development. I'm going to g70ahead and read the entire letter into the record. I MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HILTON-It's dated July 19, 1996 and reads "I am in receipt of your request for a zoning compliance determination on the dock proposed by Lou Lecce (Site Plan No. 26-96). The pending application and attached site plan indicate that the total proposed dock surface including the new addition and the area upland from the mean low water mark totals 661 sq. ft. This is under the ordinance maximum allowed area of 700 sq. ft. (see Section 179- 60B(1) (b) [4]). Therefore, the dock as proposed is in compliance wi th the ordinance as it relates to dock surface area. The application also indicates that the dock is proposed to be extended to a distance of forty (40) feet from the mean low water mark. The mean low water mark for this section of shoreline has been established by the Lake George Park Commission. The approach taken towards determining the length for this dock is proper and in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance (Section 179-60B(1) (b) [2]). - 4 - ',--, ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) In consideration of the proposed size and layout, the proposed dock is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance. As a side note, the existing wood deck, which is indicated on the site plan at a scaled dimension of 15 ft. by 25 ft. is not in compliance with the zoning code. This deck was constructed upland of the shoreline. A zoning and building code review was not conducted prior to its installation as a building permit application was not received by the Community Development Department. I have informed Mr. Lecce of this during a telephone conversation held on Wednesday, July 17, 1996. An area variance application has been forwarded to Mr. Lecce and he stated during our conversation that he would apply for an area variance for the deck. I believe this memo will serve to address your questions concerning the dock. Should you have further questions, I will be in attendance at the meeting of July 23rd to provide additional assistance. II Unfortunately, Jim is not at the meeting. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-But as far as that letter goes, I think it clearly states that, you know, the dock as proposed in the plan is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The deck that is on the property is not a part of the dock, but Mr. Lecce is going to be seeking an Area Variance for that deck. MR. PALING-But he doesn't have it yet. MR. HILTON-Not for the deck, but the deck and the dock are two separate, are considered two separate items on the property. Now, secondly, I have a letter. We had some concerns, we have had some concerns, as to renting of dock space in this area, and I've asked John Goralski, our Code Compliance Officer to forward a letter to the Planning Board, which I believe you have a copy in front of you, and I'm going to read into the record. Again, this letter is from John Goralski, Code Compliance Officer, dated July 23, 1996, regarding renting of dock space. "At a previous meeting the question of whether it was legal for the owner of a residential lot to rent dock space to non-family members was raised. Section 179-7 of the Zoning Ordinance defines marina as: ' ...the sale, lease, rental or any other provision of storage, wharf space or mooring for vessels not registered to the owner or lessee of the immediately adjoining upland property, members of their immediate families or an overnight guest on said property.' If a marina, as defined above, is being operated on a residential lot it would be a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. As with any violation that is found to exist, the property owners would be given an opportunity to remedy the violation. If the violation continued then court action would be commenced. Also as with any violation, the property owner has the right to request variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. A violation of this nature could not be lemedied by seeking any type of approval from the Planning Board. The question of Lake George Park Commission dock permits has also come up. The Board should be aware that the issuance of a permit of any kind by the Lake George Park Commission has no relevance to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and in no way entitles a property owner to any pre-existing rights. I hope this memo answers any questions you might have. Please contact me if you require any additional information. II MR. PALING-Okay. I think that does clarify it, but I don't think that that's really a question based upon what the applicant told us last time. MR. HILTON-Well, again, that issue has come up. The second letter from John Goralski, you know, I hope he answered your question, that if any dock in the Town of Queensbury is renting dock space and does not comply with the definition in the Zoning Ordinance, it's a Code Enforcement, you know, we have the ability, through our - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) Code Compliance Officer, to bring them into compliance, and the Planning Board is not charged with that responsibility. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything else on this, George? MR. HILTON-Nothing other, for the time being, no. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there someone here from the applicant? Would you come up, please, and identify yourself for the record. MR. LECCE-My name is Lou Lecce. I'm the applicant. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Any questions, comments? MR. STARK-I've got a question for George. George, was everybody notified in the area? Do you have the green slips back that they were all notified? MR. BREWER-We don't do that on site plans, do we? On subdivisions. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not a green slip issue, is it? ~- MR. HILTON-Well, it's a 500 foot notice, and we send it out ourselves. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You're talking about return receipts, I think. MR. STARK-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And I don't think that's done on site plan. MR. HILTON-Right. The 500 foot notice is done by the Town of Queensbury, but we don't ask for return receipt. MR. STARK-Mark, suppose not everybody within that 500 foot radius was notified? MR. SCHACHNER-When you say, not everybody was notified, I mean, many times somebody doesn't receive the notification for any number of reasons, but it is, it's our responsibility, meaning the Staff's responsibility, to see to it that an accurate list, generally derived from the tax office, from the Assessment Office, is generated, and then notices are sent to those people. Sometimes that information has changed recently. Sometimes somebody doesn't pick up their mail. Sometimes it's a seasonal resident. So I don't know what you're getting at, but it is the Staff's responsibility that the best information currently available for a list of property owners within 500 feet do receive, a7re sent notification. I can't say receive it, but are sent it Am I answering your question, George? / MR. HILTON-And we use the most current tax information that we have. We physically do a 500 foot buffer around each property and mail out the notices to each address and owner that we have. MR. STARK-I was under the impression the applicant had to do that. MR. HILTON-No. Subdivisions. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, because they do for subdivisions. MR. HILTON-But for site plans, Staff is responsible for that. MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions at the moment? - 6 - -' - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. BREWER-Not right now. MR. PALING- If the applicant doesn't have any comments. Do you have any comments? Okay. We'll either continue or re-open the public hearing, whichever the case may be, and I think to start it, I ~ill read into the record which were all addressed to me, and rece~ved this evening. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. PALING-This one is from Mr. and Mrs. Robert Middleton of Seelye Road, Cleverdale. "We have just been made aware of a dock proposal by property owner, Lecce. As a neighbor only a few doors away we feel we should have been notified by the Board when this request was first made; however, now that we are aware we ask you to please, at least table this matter until after the illegal deck situation is resolved." All right. I think we can say that that has been resolved with the explanation from Jim Martin. "Whatever decision is made we would like to state at this time, we object to a 45 foot dock. The dock that is there appears to be adequate for three boats already, a longer dock would obviously accommodate a few more. Respectfully, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Middleton Seelye Rd. P.O. Box 297 Cleverdale, NY 12820" Okay. The second letter is from Kathleen M. Tarrant "Regarding the above proposal now before the Board, I am concerned with several items. One is the verbal commitment to eliminate the rental boats from the dock proposed. Historically, I have seen many verbal promises made with little or no enforcement after the fact. If this were to be the case, we could end up with a number of rental boats at a dock that is 47 feet in length and of double width. The second issue that is of concern is the existing deck that was built adjacent to the waterfront in violation of the zoning ordinances. Many residents within the neighborhood have improved their property by abiding by the zoning laws. Apparently this deck was built without regard to the proper procedures. In light of this, I feel strongly that no approvals for additional improvements should be made until a decision has been made on this non-conforming deck. In many communities it is common for all prior approvals to be complete before additional plans are approved. Sincerely, Kathleen M. Tarrant" Okay. This one is from Mark & Linda McCollister, "As of 7/23/96, we have not received a call or letter concerning the determination from Jim Martin regarding the surface area of the proposed Lecce Dock and the Attached 470 sq. ft. dock. We have been told by John Goralski of the Planning Department that Mr. Lecce has been told to apply for a zoning variance for the existing deck. WE STRONGLY URGE THE PLANNING BOARD TO DELAY ACTION ON APPROVING THE DOCK EXPANSION THAT MR. LECCE HAS REQUESTED UNTIL THE STATUS OF THE NON-CONFORMING DECK IS SETTLED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. We still strongly oppose the extraordinary expa~ion of this private dock. The dock size proposed by Mr. Lecce i~ not in keeping with the residential character of this area. We/feel the Planning Board should protect our neighborhood from the mis-use of lakefront property. There is no valid reason for the owner to need a 47 ft. long dock with a double covered inside slip for only 3 boats. WHEN WE INSPECTED THE TOWN FILE REGARDING MR. LECCE'S SITE PLAN 26-96 ON 7/19/96, WE WERE SHOCKED TO FIND THAT WE WERE NOT ON THE ORIGINAL NOTIFICATION LIST FOR THIS PLANNING BOARD MATTER. WE ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THERE ARE 4 NEIGHBORS TO OUR SOUTH WHO WERE ALSO EXCLUDED FROM THIS LIST. IT IS EXTREMELY DISTURBING TO THINK THAT THIS MATTER HAS GONE FORWARD WITH A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE CLOSEST NEIGHBORS UNAWARE OF THIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION. (Attached is a copy of the tax map showing the owners within 500 feet radius of the Lecce property) We are deeply concerned about how this could have happened. We feel we deserve a formal explanation as to how this error occurred and what steps will be taken to prevent this from happening again." I've got more letters. This is from Oscar and Debbie Schreiber. "We write regarding the above captioned application. We are curious as to why we, in 1993, were - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) limited to 40 foot docks and overall square footage of 576 square feet, and others in the same neighborhood, two doors away, may not be. We are also curious as to why our builder was told that the docks could not abut the land. This has created a dangerous condition at our property as large boulders sit in the water between the land and the dock. We also would like to build a small deck covering these boulders to alleviate this dangerous condition. Lastly, we were never served written notice regarding the application: It is our understanding that the written notice, via return recelpt requested mail, must be served upon all neighbors within a 500 foot radius, so that they may respond. Should the neighbors be given said notice and should the public hearing be re- opened so that they may respond?" The last letter is from Joseph Guerra. His address is Schenectady. I assume he's a neighbor also. "Please know that we are just made aware of the Site Plan 26-96 for a permit to construct a 47 foot dock. We urge that this be delayed until the illegal deck on this property be first resolved. It is our understanding that this deck was constructed without the necessary variance. Further, we would like to comment that whatever is decided regarding the illegal deck, the present dock on this property can accommodate at least three boats. We are concerned that a dock of 47 foot will be used as rental space for additional boats, causing added traffic in an over crowded~ay. Another concern is that Seeley Road is a residential neighborhood, and we are ever concerned with the increased traffic on this very narrow road. As owners of two properties on Seeley Road, one for over 30 years and the other for over 14 years, we are extremely concerned with it being over congested. We would appreciate being advised as to what is progressing on this matter. Sincerely, Dr. Joseph G. Guerra Rose M. Guerra" I think most of what has been brought up in these letters has been answered by the letters we read today. Now the notification's a different thing, and I'd like to talk to you about this after the meeting and see what's happened, because we've got some specific references here to people that may not have been notified. So I would like to get into that matter further, but apart from this meeting. MR. BREWER-I know we talked about the retaining wall and all that stuff. Do you still have your plans for that? The only thing I've got is this. MR. PALING-The plan I have is dated June 25th. MR. BREWER-No. retaining wall? I mean, didn't we have a separate sheet for the Didn't we, Mr. Lecce? MR. LECCE-Yes, you did. It's attached with the new submission. MR. WEST-That's not the retaining wall. / MR. PALING-Yes. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. PALING-The public hearing is open. So I'll ask if anyone here tonight would care to speak on this matter? LINDA MCCOLLISTER MRS. MCCOLLISTER-I'm Linda McCollister, and I just have a few things to clarify with you in regard to the letters. The first thing is, in the letter from the Middleton's, you kept referring to a dock, and I believe, her writing is hard to read, she is referring to a deck, and also in Kathy Tarrant's, you referred to a couple of times thinking it was the dock, and they were referring to the variance that was needed for the deck, and it was a little bit confusing. - 8 - '-- --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. PALING-Yes, the "E" and the "Oil. MRS. MCCOLLISTER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. I can understand that. Okay. MRS. MCCOLLISTER-So both Middletons and Tarrants were referring to the deck a number of times when you referred to it as the dock. MR. PALING-As a dock. Okay. Yes. All right. We will take that into consideration when we read these. MRS. MCCOLLISTER-Okay. The other thing, too, I understand f:Fom the last meeting that either Mark or I was to be notified in regard to what Mr. Martin and his office, so that we could notify the other neighbors and bring them up to speed on what was going to be happening. I was down at the Planning Office once, on the 19th, and they knew who I was. They knew how to get a hold of me, and yet we still never got anything, and it is sad when that happens, you know, we're an interested party, and the Planning Board had said that that would be part of what we should receive. MR. PALING-The letter read tonight, did that seem to answer that question sufficiently, the one from Jim Martin? ~ MRS. MCCOLLISTER-It did, but it would have been helpful to have had that so that I could have explained more to the people that are interested, and being summer it's very hard to get them to come here. Another reference, the Guerras, they are just within the perimeter, if you see the tax map, they are, that's attached to our letter, they are just inside that 500 foot perimeter, and also Mr. Kaidas did not get a notification either. It seems so odd. He is fourth down, you will see on the tax map, and he also didn't get, and it's so funny that that whole strip right there didn't get anything. MR. PALING-We've got to re-visit that whole notification thing on this. MR. MACEWAN-I've got a question for you. Were these properties that these people that weren't notified recently acquired, or have they been there for some time? MRS. MCCOLLISTER-No. We've been there 20 something years. The Schreibers are the most new people, but they've been there since '93. Kaidas has been there, he's almost 15, 20 years, and then Middleton is like, 10, 11 years. Then there are some new people, the Gurrilio or something. They, I don't even know them. MR. PALING-But the tax map should have gotten everybody, everybody. / I most MRS. MCCOLLISTER-Yes. Also, the Planning Board letter made reference that this deck of Mr. Lecce's is not attached to his dock. It most certainly is. You can just see that it's attached, and that's what I was a little confused about, that letter from the Planning Board. MR. PALING-Does it make a difference if it is or is not attached? MR. HILTON-I think the letter, and what Jim's trying to say here is that if they physically touch, that's one thing, but the dock is in the water. The deck is on the land. You cannot consider them all one structure. So the square footage of both combined, it's not the entire square footage of the dock, and the entire square footage also can't be considered the entire square footage of the deck. MR. BREWER-I disagree with that. How can they not be considered - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) one? MR. HILTON-One's in the water, one's on the land. One was built on the land and needed a variance, didn't receive a variance. Mr. Lecce's exploring that now. He's going to be applying for a variance for the deck. MRS. MCCOLLISTER-But when it's right next to the dock, and literally attached it's not considered part of the square footage of the dock. That's what I can't understand. MR. BREWER-I disagree with that. MR. MACEWAN-Can you get access to the dock without the deck? MRS. MCCOLLISTER-No. MR. BREWER-From the water. MR. PALING-It isn't set up that way I don't think. MR. HILTON-Some portions of the shore on the side I believe you can walk right onto the dock. / MR. PALING-Access is intended to be by the deck, though. Access to the dock would be via the deck. MR. HILTON-I would have to go out and look at it again, but it seems to me that you could get around it by not going over the deck. You could get onto the dock by not going onto the qeck. MRS. MCCOLLISTER-I beg to disagree with you, sir, but you need to go take a peek. MR. HILTON-Well, I did, and I saw what it looked like, and I would tend to agree with Jim's letter that it's a separate structure and all the square footage can't be considered or counted as dock square footage. MR. BREWER-Just because Jim says so doesn't mean we have to agree, I don't think. MR. PALING-Well, we've got to remember that we're here tonight to talk about a dock. MR. BREWER-Yes, but if we feel that it's part of that deck, Bob. MR. PALING-There's a variance that they're looking at on the deck, and we're talking about the dock, are we not? MR. BREWER-In my opinion, I think it's all one piece. / MR. STARK-Tim, according to the criteria, the dock starts seven foot out, off the shoreline, right? Then you start measuring your 40 feet? So the first seven feet, is that considered part of the deck, even though it's over water, or is that part of the dock? There's a question. MR. HILTON-That's a good question. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it's not that the dock starts seven feet out, it's that the 40 foot measurement starts from mean low water mark. I don't think Jim Martin or anyone else would say that the portion of the dock upland of the mean low water mark is not part of the dock, and correct me if I'm wrong, George, but his square footage calculation still includes that portion of the dock that's upland of the mean low water mark. - 10 - '- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. HILTON-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-But does not include the deck. MR. HILTON-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And the only other thing I want to point out is that, technically speaking actually, we are bound by Jim Martin's determination, in that that's a Zoning Administrator call. We're not bound ultimately in that anybody who wants can appeal that determination to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but a classification issue like that really is a Zoning Administrator call that we, as a Planning Board, actually don' t have the legal authority to overturn. MR. BREWER-I didn't insinuate that we had the right to overturn it. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm just pointing that out. You don't agree with it, and that's fine. MR. BREWER-Right. That was the appeal issue that I was thinking of. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and that's definitely, that's a viable avenue. MR. PALING-Did you have anything else? MRS. MCCOLLISTER-I thought I had one more thought. If I do, I'll raise my hand again. MR. PALING-You can come back. Okay. Thank you. MRS. MCCOLLISTER-Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Is there anyone else that would care to talk? DEBBIE SCHREIBER MRS. SCHREIBER-I'm Debbie Schreiber, and we're two doors down. I guess I'm, two questions that I had was one on the notification, because it's my understanding that if you don't get notification, these other people can't come and make their opinions known, or their views, or this that and the other, however you folks handle that. We found out, through McCollisters, who found out through somebody, and because we were here last week getting our own boat port approved, and that's why I spoke was because I was here. My other concern is the fact that Mr. Martin says that the deck is not part of the dock, and I guess I just want it, so to speak, on the record, because from our letter, we have the same situa~~on. I mean, we certainly would not be interested in building yne size deck that Mr. Lecce has built, but we have rocks, I mean boulders. Kids can fall down in there, and it could do a lot of harm, and we were told, two years ago when we built our docks, that we could not have a deck, you know, covering those rocks because the minute it touched that dock, it was considered square footage of that dock, and we were not allowed, and it's upsetting to some extent because maybe it's what I'm hearing, but if it's good for one person, it's good for all people. We were limited, and my husband's here, and he was also concerned in the sense that he would like to know why he was limited to his square footage, but Mr. Lecce does not appear to be limited in this aspect. MR. PALING-Do you recall who told you that, that you were limited in that regard? OSCAR SCHREIBER MR. SCHREIBER-When I came in here for my permit. I'm just basing - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) it on my own situation. I came here in August of 1993 for a dock permit. The first one was rejected because it was 700 square feet, and I was told you have to cut it down. No explanation given. We cut them from eight feet wide to six feet wide. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, let me just stop you there. There's been no change in the period we're talking about, has there? MR. SCHACHNER-When was this? MR. SCHREIBER-August of '93. MR. BREWER-I don't even remember the application. I was , here in '93, but I don't remember your particular application. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think there have been any amendments to the dock regulations since that time. MR. SCHREIBER-I came here, and the first one was rejected because it was about 710 square feet. So I had to cut it down from eight feet wide each pier, it's a U-shaped crib, to six feet wide, had to cut down the middle from 14 to 12. I was told, and it's on the permit, which I don't have, and I'll gladly provide it, the permit and the boat said it's approved as long as it does not exceed 576 square feet. When our builder told us about, I was here for the permit, then he contacted somebody here and he was told that the docks could not abut the land at all. I have my permit, and it says 576, and I was asked why I needed 40 foot docks. MR. HILTON-Is your dock nonconforming in any way, in terms of setbacks? MR. SCHREIBER-Not at all. It's the smallest dock in the area. MR. HILTON-No. I mean, does it have the 20 foot setbacks from the adjacent property lines? MR. SCHREIBER-Yes, absolutely. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Did you have a formal application in front of the Planning Board? MR. SCHREIBER-Yes, I did. everybody. I came here and spoke in front of MR. STARK-I remember you being here for your house. MR. SCHREIBER-No. I wasn't here for the house. There w~ a six inch variance, right, but no, I came separately for the docks, and I have a copy of the motion and the approval. I got it from George Hilton, in fact. MR. PALING-And what did the Planning Board say about the footage? MR. SCHREIBER-I'm limited to 576. That was it. MR. BREWER-Can we do that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is yes, under certain circumstances, but that's obviously a fairly precise number, and it's not one that comes from any regulation. I'm just guessing here, and this is also before I was counsel to this Board, but my guess is that there was an application before the Board that had 576 square feet, and it's very common for this Board, as well as other Boards, to include in a motion for approval a limitation based on what's presented to it. - 12 - --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. SCHREIBER-No. The application was 516. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the answer is nobody here right now knows that. MR. PALING-Right. This is'the second point, the one in addition to notification that we're going to have to do some research on. We will have to ~o, tonight, by the Ordinance that we have in front of us. MR. SCHREIBER-I mean, I can get you a copy of my permit. MR. PALING-No, that's okay. We'll trace this and maybe we'll ask you for that. MR. SCHREIBER-And I guess what I want to know is, and I want everybody to be treated fairly, then you're telling me the deck's not part of it, then I can build a deck to cover up those boulders, so our kids won't fall in and get hurt. MR. PALING-Okay. That's a separate issue. Lets stick to the one that we're faced with tonight, and then, I'm going to find out as much about this as I can, but if you want to re-do your dock, fine, but it would have to comply with the same Ordinance that we're talking about tonight. MRS. SCHREIBER-That's why we're here, because we were told one thing, and now he's applying for this, and Mr. Lecce's boat is not any bigger than his 29 foot boat. MR. PALING-We have no idea why it went the way that you describe, but we can find out, I'm sure. MR. SCHREIBER-I'd just like to build that deck, and if it's good for one, it's good for the other. That's okay. MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. SCHREIBER-We don't have kids. We're expecting our first, and we don't want a little tot falling down between those rocks, no more than you would want your kids or grandchildren or whatever. MR. SCHREIBER-I don't know if anybody remembers, but why the rule that it couldn't abut the land, and I remember our builder told us, that's a very serious rule. MR. HILTON-Mr. Schreiber, if I may for a second, I remember just recently within the last month you came in for a site plan for your dock. MR. SCHREIBER-Right, and you gave me a copy of that. / I MR. HILTON-I think we may have sent you a copy of the resolution. MR. SCHREIBER-You gave it to me when I was there. That's right. MR. HILTON-And it may have indicated the square footage of your dock. What square footage did you propose? MR. SCHREIBER-We proposed 516. MR. HILTON-Okay. I don't see where you would have been limited to the same. MR. SCHREIBER-That's what it says right on the resolution. MR. HILTON-Well, the resolution may say approving an X amount of square footage. It may not say you're limited to. - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. SCHREIBER-No, it says. MR. HILTON-Again, I'd have to look into it. MR. SCHREIBER-I'll get it to you tomorrow. It said no greater than 576. MR. HILTON-Well, it seems to me that you'd be held under the same Ordinance at 700 square feet. MR. PALING-Okay. Mark? MR. SCHACHNER- I don't know if the Board wants to belabor the historical aspect of this commentor's situation, although I think it's worth investigating separately, but I don't think they should leave with the impression that this Board is saying anything of an approving nature of the applicant's deck or of anyone else's proposed deck, okay. You've made several comments to the effect of, so it's okay to put a deck there, and I'm afraid that you will leave with that impression. Please understand that Mr. Hilton read a letter from the Zoning Administrator that it specifically stated that in fact the applicant's deck was not legally placed there, and that he's being forced to seek what we would call an after the -fact variance approval, and if that variance is denied, then the applicant will have to remove that deck, and if that variance is denied and the applicant doesn't remove that deck, then I can ensure you there will be an enforcement action commenced seeking that relief. So I don't think it's fair for you to characterize this Board as saying in any way, form, shape or manner it's okay to put those decks there. I think you have to deai with that separately. MR. SCHREIBER-No, I'm not saying that. MR. SCHACHNER-If I misunderstood, fine. I just want to make sure that it's clear. MR. SCHREIBER-My question is, why do you need a variance? MR. PALING-Lets stick to the case at hand. comments regarding the Lecce situation? Do you have any MRS. SCHREIBER-No, except the fact that that deck is attached. Despite what the plans show, Mr. Martin has not been there. I have physically looked at it. There are rods connecting to that dock. I know you're saying one is land and one is water, but that is, they're physically connected with bolts and screws. I mean, we could turn around and saw it off tonight at an inch back and say it's not, and I'm not saying anybody's doing that. I'm just saying that it is physically touching, because I know when I 100ke9(at the plans, they're a little bit, I don't think it's quite clear in that sense. MR. PALING-All right. MRS. SCHREIBER-Other than that, we certainly weren't accusing the Board of anything. We'd just like, what's good for one is good for all. MR. SCHREIBER-The same treatment. MR. PALING-I agree with that. MRS. SCHREIBER-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. If not, I'm not going to close the public hearing because I'm not sure of the eventual outcome here tonight. I'm just going to let the - 14 - -- -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) public hearing stay open for the moment. MR. BREWER-I've got another question, if somebody could help me with this. How tall is the retaining wall? MR. STARK-Two and a half to three foot high. MR. BREWER-The reason being, if everybody will get on Page 18028, Number Three. I'll just pick out a part of it. It says, "When permitted, retaining walls shall not exceed sixteen (16) inches in height, as measured from the stationary mean high-water mark". If that's three feet, then we've got to do something, or are they saying from this water line here I guess is what I need to·know. Because if it's from the water line, then it's only 18 inches, but if it's three feet from the mean high-water mark, then. MR. PALING-It's too much. MR. SCHACHNER-320.2 is mean high. MR. BREWER-320.2, and what's the elevation on the wall, or don't we have it? -- MR. PALING-I don't think you have it. MR. HILTON-We don't have an elevation on the wall. MR. BREWER-Would you consider this line on this sheet here, Mark, the water line, or is that the mean? MR. SCHACHNER-Not a legal call. MR. BREWER-No. MR. SCHACHNER-No. I'm being serious. I don't think it's my call. MR. BREWER-I'll have to ask George. On the second sheet, where it says water line, is that the mean high-water line? MR. HILTON-It's the water line. I don't know if we can determine, right now, if it's mean high-water or what the exact elevation is. MR. BREWER-Can anybody? MR. PALING-I don't know, Tim. MR. LECCE-C.T. Male designed the retaining wall, and I think they discussed it with Rist-Frost. It's going to be built accor?ing to the Codes. So whatever the Code requires as the height/ of the retaining wall, that's what the height of the wall will be. We're not going to exceed the retaining wall height. Whatever is permitted by the Code we'll conform to. MR. PALING-Okay. We could leave that for clarification as a condition, that that be met. MR. HILTON- I believe the Board could also stipulate that the retaining wall wouldn't exceed the height of the Code. MR. BREWER-That's fine. I just want to bring it to your attention. MR. PALING-All right. Lets move on from that, and we will make it a condition of any motion that's made, that the retaining wall is in compliance. MR. BREWER-My only other point is that I disagree with Jim on the issue of the deck and the dock. I still think it's all one piece, - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) and it should be considered as one. MR. PALING-Well, it's his call, Tim. It's okay that you disagree. MR. BREWER-No. We can appeal that, Bob. MR. PALING-Yes. All right. Now, if I understand this, Mark, you tell me if I'm wrong, we can proceed tonight with a motion in regard to the dock? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. PALING-And we'll stay clear of the deck, and I think there's two things that have to be clarified, at least two. One is the attachment of the dock to the deck, if that is okay, and the other is the compliance, the retaining wall being in compliance, that is it's not too high. Okay. Any other? All right. Since that's the case, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And this is a Type II, is it not? We don't re~ire a SEQRA. MR. MACEWAN-Before you close the public hearing, I need to be clear on this from Staff. When you did the notification to the neighbors, it was based only on the tax maps? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-And it's just a standard mailIng? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Without return receipts. So you're not sure if they did receive the mailing, just posting that this was going to have a public hearing. Do you retain a list of who you sent those letters to? MR. HILTON-Yes, we do. MR. MACEWAN-Do you have it with you? MR. HILTON-Yes, I do. MR. MACEWAN-Would you shout out the names for me. MR. HILTON-Well, we're going to be here for a while, but ceì7tainlY. I MR. MACEWAN-There were several people in those letters who said they weren't notified. MR. PALING-All right. Well, lets, is it alphabetical? MR. HILTON-No. It's just done by tax maps. If we have a certain sheet that we're working from first, we would list the people on that sheet and then go on to the next one. MR. PALING-All right. Well, I can make a separate list of the people that are involved with these letters. MR. MACEWAN-The reason why I'm asking this, if for some reason we seem to have missed a number of the neighbors who are within that 500 foot radius of this project, it certainly wouldn't do us justice in the review process by having a public hearing and answering that question on the SEQRA whether there's going to be - 16 - -' '- -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) public concern regarding this, if these people weren't notified. Is that right? MR. BREWER-We're not going to do a SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-It's Type II. So there's no SEQRA review. MR. MACEWAN-Well, he mentioned that he was going to do it. That's why I asked. That was going to be my next question. MR. PALING-All right. If you go down that list, I have the names of Tarrant, Middleton, McCollister, Schreiber, and Guerra. Are there any other names that we should be attentive to, looking for? MR. HILTON-I can tell you right now, Tarrant is on the list. MR. PALING-Tarrant is on the list. Okay. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Hold it a second. Lets say he does read it. Now what have we accomplished? .-- MR. HILTON-I don't know. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think two points bear clarification. One is that, neither New York State law nor our own Zoning Ordinance legally require these 500 foot notifications, but having said that, it is definitely the Town of Queensbury Planning Staff's practice to issue these 500 foot notifications, and if the Board does not feel confident or comfortable that neighbors within the zone, so to speak, have received notice, I guess I feel compelled to remind you that you're not under any pressure to make a decision on this application tonight. If there are people that you feel, as a Board, would have, based on what you've heard from others, would have been here, had they received notice, for whatever reason, you have plenty of flexibility, in terms of whether you need to make the decision tonight, and that's really a Board consideration, whether you feel there's been adequate notice in accordance with our practice, but I did want to make clear that it's not a legal requirement. It's just our practice. MR. PALING-I don't question the people who said that they didn't receive notice, although they could have been sent, too. MR. HILTON-Well, I would just like to add what we said earlier, we generate a list of residents within 500 feet of a subject property. We do the mailing. We go by the most current tax informat~on that we have in our office. If you ask us to investigate thip and we come up with the same names that are on this sheet and there are people here that say, unfortunately, they didn't get notified, I don't have an explanation for that. MR. PALING-Yes. I'm also tempted to say that I think that probably most of the objections that will be made have been made, too. I don't know. I hate to go through something just for the sake of going through it, but then we've got to be fair to everyone, too. t'm going to poll the Board. Tim, what do you think in this regard? MR. BREWER-I feel that everybody should be noticed, but if we have a list of people that weren't noticed, then I've got to believe they knew about it, and if they knew about it and they have concerns, why aren't they here? MR. PALING-Well, there's a lot here and we have letters, too. I wonder how many more we'd generate if there was even another - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) mailing made. MR. BREWER-Don't get me wrong. I don't have any objection if everybody else wants to wait and notice them, but I don't see a purpose that it's going to serve. MR. PALING-Okay. Dave? MR. WEST-When would these notices have been sent out? MR. HILTON-They're required by our Ordinance to be sent out a week before, or five days before the date of the hearing. MR. MACEWAN-Wait a minute. Mark just said this was a courtesy thing. Now you're saying it's required by the Ordinance. MR. HILTON-Well, meaning we chose, as a practice, I think, we stuck into our Zoning Ordinance saying that, pardon me, wait a second. MR. MACEWAN-If it's part of the Ordinance, then I think we ought to really look at it hard. MR. BREWER-Right. --- MR. HILTON-Pardon me. I'll make a correction here. What I was referring to is the public notice in the paper, which is done five days before the hearing. The notice to the property owners within 500 foot is not a Zoning Ordinance requirement. It is a courtesy of the Planning Department, and is usually done a week before the item is heard. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. WEST-Well, I guess in lieu of the fact that there is potentially a number of residents who were not notified and have not had a fair shake at giving their two cents worth, I wonder would it not be appropriate to table this, postpone it for an additional period of time to re-canvas those who may not have been notified, to give them a fair shot, or do you feel that, the question is, are the comments we've seen so far representative of what might also be forthcoming if we were to table it. It's a judgement call. MR. MACEWAN-I feel that we should investigate further, and I agree a lot with what Dave says, that the fact is that even though this has been a courtesy in the past for the Staff, obviously there have been several people who have been, for whatever reason, overlooked or not notified, and I feel that they have their rights to be here and voice their either concerns or approval, disapproval, maybe add some light to it. / I MR. STARK-The people, they knew about it because they sent letters. I'd just as soon go forward with a motion. MR. PALING-Yes. I kind of agree with George, that I think that probably the basic objections that are going to be made have been made. I don't know, maybe there's something new, but I don't think so, and the people, there's been a lot of talk in the neighborhood about this, and I would think most, just by that, are aware of it, or if they were that interested, would read the paper to find out, and I would be in favor of going for a motion on this, and investigating the notification. I want to know about that as separate item, but I think we, with the more than one meeting and the discussion in the neighborhood and all, I kind of feel the input is probably pretty much there, basically at least. So I guess I'm going to say, just as a polling again, do you want to go ahead with the motion, or no? - 18 - -" -- '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. BREWER-Go right ahead. MR. WEST-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-No. MR. STARK-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. We're going to go ahead with a motion. AnYmore discussion or questions or what not? I have two conditions to attach to the motion. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think you've closed the public hearing yet. MR. PALING-No, I haven't closed the public hearing yet. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if you're going to move toward a motion, you're going to have to close the public hearing. MR. PALING-That's right. Is there any other comment? All right. Then the public hearing is open if anyone else would care to speak. All right. If not, then the public hearing is closed. ...-- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-There is no SEQRA required in this case, and we can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-96 LOU & CHRISTINE LECCE, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For the addition of a dock with two conditions. One is that the height of the retaining wall be checked to see if it is in compliance, and Number Two that the attachment between the deck and the dock be investigated to see if it is allowed, if the manner in which they've done it be allowed. MR. SCHACHNER-I would recommend that you somehow clarify that, because neither condition seems to me to be part of an approval. The first condition you've proposed is check the height of the retaining wall. MR. HILTON-Maybe you could say that it comply with the actual physical measurement, 16 inches above the high-water mark. MR. PALING-Yes, that's in the Ordinance. MR. HILTON-Right, but if we could mention that in the m7otion, I guess that would probably be a little bit clearer. I MR. SCHACHNER-Check the height of the retaining wall, I would advise that that not be an appropriate condition. If you want to say that the condition is that any retaining wall, that the retaining wall be built in compliance with the Code requirement, I think that would be legally enforceable. MR. PALING-All right. Condition A is modified to say that the retaining wall must be built in compliance with the Town Ordinance, and that, and you don't like what I said about the attachment? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don't understand how that's a condition of approval, and I don't understand what it is you're proposing to investigate, and if I'm the only one, then just ignore this comment. MR. PALING-There's been objection because the dock and the deck are attached. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. PALING-And there's been opinion that it shouldn't be allowed. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. WEST-Jim Martin made a determination that it's legal. We said the buck stops with him. MR. BREWER-No. MR. WEST-But it can be appealed. MR. BREWER-Right. You can appeal that decision. He didn't say it was legal. He said that the dock and the deck are two separate issues. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. The deck is clearly not legal, as it sits there now. MR. PALING-Yes. That I s right. I'm only talking about an attachment. I'm not talking about a deck. ~- MR. SCHACHNER-But how does your proposed condition fit within a motion for approval? That's my question, and I don't understand. MR. PALING-That there be no attachments to the dock that are not allowed. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That wasn't what I understood the condition to be. Okay. MR. PALING-I probably didn't say it that way. All right. Condition B is modified to be that there be no attachments to the dock that are not allowed, by Ordinance. MR. SCHACHNER-No unpermitted attachments to the dock. MR. PALING-No unpermitted attachments to the dock. Okay. Do I hear a second? All right? MR. STARK-Mark, if a person seconds a motion, he's not in any way obligated to vote in favor of that motion, is he? MR. SCHACHNER-No, he's not. MR. STARK-Okay. I'll second it. Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 1996, by the fOlIOWin¡Vote: I Mr. Paling AYES: NOES: Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Rue 1 , Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-All right. So that's a no go. There's a no decision there now. MR. SCHACHNER-That's correct. MR. BREWER-In the event that no motion to deny is brought forward, what happens at the end of the 60 days? MR. SCHACHNER-There's no default approval for site plans, only subdivisions. As Bob said, it's a non-action. That's what Tim was - 20 - -.- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) asking about, It's not a denial, It's a non-action. You've not yet taken official action regarding this application, because you don't have four people voting in any particular direction, so to speak, MR, PALING-Well then, all right, somebody here make a motion, then, I misread this thing. Go ahead. Who wants to make another motion? You just want to let it lay? MR. STARK-What's the consequence of not doing anything? MR, BREWER-There's no action taken, right, Mark? MR, SCHACHNER-Correct, and there's certainly no consequence, for at least 62 days, and there's probably not much consequence after that, but you've got within 62 days of the close of the public hearing, which happened a few minutes ago, to take an official action, which would require four members voting either to approve or to deny or to approve with conditions, MR, PALING-We can't leave the applicant and the public this way. We've got to tell them something. -- MR. SCHACHNER-You don't mean legally, right, Bob? MR. PALING-No. I don't mean legally, but I mean morally. I don't want people walking out of here tonight and not having the slightest idea what's on our mind and what, what's got to be done to either pass this or kill it, I guess is what I'm saying. MR. HILTON-Well, does the Planning Board have any discussion? Do they have any comments? MR. MACEWAN-I think it's very clear where .l stand. I want to investigate the notification. That's my big hang up here. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. PALING-The notification. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MACEWAN-I think if we're going to sit here and review any and all projects that come before this Board, and it's been the practice of the Planning Office to notify, as a courtesy, anyone within 500 feet of this proposed action, I think it's up t? us to make sure that those parties are notified. If they elec~ not to show, that's their problem, but I want to be sure they're notified. MR. PALING-All right. That's your hang up. MR. MACEWAN-That's my hang up. MR. PALING-George? MR. STARK-I still have a hang up about the size of the dock. MR. PALING-The size of the dock. MR. HILTON-The size of the dock, or the size of the dock that may include the deck? MR. STARK-The size of the dock. I'm not even thinking about the deck. - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, the size of the dock, I would just say, you know, as Jim has said, as we've stated before, it conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. So, be that as it may. MR. PALING-All right. Dave, what's your hang up? MR. WEST-Notification. MR. PALING-Tim, what's yours? MR. BREWER-As far as the dock and the deck being one piece, I have a problem with that, and if it takes appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals, then that's what I would like to do. MR. PALING-Well, the Zoning Board of Appeals has got to approve the deck. MR. SCHACHNER-No. He's talking about a different issue, Bob. Tim's talking about the fact that, although I made a statement earlier that could be characterized as saying the buck stops at Jim Martin, it's properly clarified that Jim Martin doesn't have the actual final determination. His determination can be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals by someone who disagrees with Jim Martin's determination about the dock/deck not being one structure. Tim, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what your comment refers to. MR. BREWER-Yes, exactly. MR. STARK-Well, then we better ask the Zoning Board of Appeals to comment on that, because we were told tonight that steel rods connect it to it. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess what I'm saying is, if the dock and the deck, I feel are one piece, then the square footage is an issue. If it's not, then I really don't have a leg to stand on if it's not, because it falls within the Zoning Ordinance, and I don't really have a problem with that, but I just think it should be, fair for one, fair for everybody. I think we should get a determination. That's all I'm going to say. MR. PALING-More than you've got now. MR. BREWER-Exactly. I would like a determination from the ZBA on that particular issue. MR. PALING-That's going to involve the ZBA. MR. HILTON-I would just like to read the definition of ~9-ck, the definition of "Dock" from the Ordinance into the record, If I may. It says "Dock - Any structure whether affixed or floating, placed in or upon a lake, pond, river, stream or brook and which provides a berth for watercraft and/or a means of pedestrian access to and from the shoreline. This shall include boathouses, piers, wharfs, crib docks, stake docks, floating docks and all such similar structures. " Now also, you know, this dock was in place before this deck that was built without the proper permits. It existed before this deck was built. It seems to me, you know, given Jim's conclusion, and the definition of dock, that maybe we have just an illegal deck here that just happens to butt up against a legal, an illegal deck butting up against an illegal dock. MR. PALING-All right. Then I think we have the three. All right. Would the applicant want to say just one more thing before? MR. LECCE-I think I can alleviate the deck problem, because I'm taking the deck down. I'm removing it. So whether I go for a variance or not, the deck is not going to be there. - 22 - - "--- '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. PALING-What:'s your access to the dock? MR. LECCE-I'll walk over the ground. We're putting an addition on our house in the back, and the side, that deck's being moved to the side of the house. So that deck is no longer going to be there. So it's really a moot point. MR. BREWER-But it's there right now. MR. LECCE-I'll go on record, I'll take it off. As a matter of fact, I'll stipulate that that deck will be removed before we do any additions t:o the dock, make that a condition. That'll resolve your issues. MR. PALING-That: resolves one issue. It doesn' t resolve the size of the dock or the notification issue. MR. LECCE-I think the size of the dock is no longer an issue, the size of the dock itself. MR. BREWER-With me it Wasn't. MR. LECCE-No. I don't know if this is a discretionary act that you have discretionary authority to approve or disapprove, and this meets the Code. The last meeting we were here for a definition from Jim Martin. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it's clearly discretionary approval authority. In other words, the Ordinance requirement, for example, for square footage does not say all docks must be 700 square feet. It says they may not exceed 700 square feet. MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-So if this Board felt, for whatever reason, or feels for whatever reason, within the Site Plan Review criteria, like impact on visual, somebody's view of the lake or whatever. If for whatever legitimate reason the Board felt that a dock of a size proposed was not acceptable, within the context of the Site Plan Review criteria, you can certainly approve a smaller dock or deny the dock as proposed. It's clearly a discretionary approval. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. We're down to two issues, notification and size of dock. Tim, do you agree with that? Are you okay if he removes the deck? Are you okay? All right. We're down to those two issues, and there's nothing we can do tonight here about the notification. That's got to be taken care of outside of this meeting, and I'm beginning to think the best thing to do is to table this, I guess is right, at least for 9ne more meeting, and get these two things clarified. How long doe~ it take us to get notices out, if we're going to do this again? I MR. HILTON-We're just going to do a mailing. We could probably have a list ge~nerated tomorrow, and notice in the mail tomorrow. MR. PALING-Now do we have the list that I saw here before that we can use as a reference? MR. HILTON-I have the list, yes. MR. BREWER-You have the list of the missing people? MR. HILTON-I have a list of the people that were notified, that we have on our list as being notified. MR. PALING-Okay. That's what we're looking for. MR. HILTON-Thl~re was one name, Tarrant, I believe. - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HILTON-And they're on the list. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-The other names, I guess one of them was. MR. BREWER-Lets go down through it. MR. STARK-Schreiber. notified. Schreiber was on the list as not being MR. PALING-Okay. I don't like doing this, but I think we better table it and we'll review the notification. MR. HILTON-We can review the notification. MR. PALING-And send out additional notification. MR. HILTON-If need be, I would think. If we look and find out that everyone within 500 feet that we show on our tax records were notified, I don't see where, you know, we've legally notifiedí not legally notified. We've notified everyone that we show owning property within 500 feet. If it's done correctly, I don't know where we'd have to do it again. MR. PALING-When you say notified, as far as you know they were sent out? MR. HILTON-Sent letters, yes. MR. BREWER-Why don't we double check ourselves and get back to it at the next meeting or whatever. MR. PALING-Yes. I think we'd better. All right. Lets do it that way. We have two items, and I would hope the Board wouldn't bring anything additional to it to complicate it further. We're going to check on the notification, and then we have left hanging, as a discretionary judgement call, the size of the dock that can't exceed 700 square feet but we could be required to call for it to be smaller. Okay. Does the applicant understand what we're going to do? Okay. Now, do we need a motion? MR. SCHACHNER-You need a motion to table if you're going to table. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 26-96 LOUIE & CHRISTINf LECCE, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until the first meeting of next month, August 20th. Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 1996, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-Let me throw something in here. There was some sense here, from your end down there, that you were kind of leaning toward wanting to get a determination from the ZBA regarding that dock versus. MR. BREWER-It's a non issue, if he removes the dock, or the deck. MR. PALING-The deck has been removed. MR. BREWER-Well, he didn't say that yet. - 24 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. MACEWAN-He hasn't officially. MR. STARK-He said he'd take it out. It hasn't been taken out yet. MR. LECCE-I'm going to table that issue. MR. PALING-Okay. Then the whole thing is tabled. MR. BREWER-Well, I mean, if next month we come back and he says he's not going to take it out, then I've got a problem with it. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. BREWER-Just to let you know ahead of time. That's all. MR. LECCE-I will put your people on notice about the decision about the deck. MR. PALING-Will you, please? MR. LECCE-Yes. -- MR. PALING-Good. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Rue 1 , Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. Sorry it's taken so long for everybody. We'll see you next month. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-71 SHERWOOD ACRES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS. SECTION A 183 -13F REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62-1996 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-71, Sherwood Acres Modification, Meeting Date: July 23, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to modify the existing Sherwood Acres subdivision. The plat map for Sherwood Acres which was filed in 1971, contains four lots which have one tax map number on the current tax map. Although these lots are represented as one tax map lot, the~ are in fact four separate lots. These four lots are al, legal nonconforming lots which conform to the setbacks and allowed uses that were a part of the 1967 Zoning Ordinance. The proposed modification would result in setbacks that conform to the Zoning Ordinance they were created under. Staff recommends approval of the modification of Subdivision 1-71." MR. PALING-Okay. This is a modification, so there's no public hearing or other inputs on this one. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I'm here representing the applicant. With me is Daniel Barber who is President of Sherwood Acres Corporation, and who is the applicant. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. Any comments or questions by the Board? I don't have any either. MR. STARK-How about a motion? - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. PALING-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 1-71 ACRES, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its seconded by Craig MacEwan: SHERWOOD adoption, This pre-dates SEQRA, and it does not increase any environmental impacts. Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. I'll present a mylar to the Planning Staff, with how many copies do you want? MR. HILTON-We usually ask for 10. In this case, you'd probably have to double check with me. We might want the same number. ,/ MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It may take me a couple of weeks, because I think I will try to get a mylar just of the subdivision portion, okay, because if you'll notice what we gave you was the whole area in that map, and part of that wasn't that subdivision, although probably we some day we will be back before you for those other lots. Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 40-96 TYPE II EVERGREEN BANK, N.A. OWNER: SAME ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: 54 QUAKER ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 780 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY ADDITION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING GLASS ENTRANCE CORRIDOR TO ACCOMMODATE A WALK-UP ATM, A MODULAR VAULT AND COUPON BOOTH. ALL LAND USES IN PC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 103-1-3, 4.1 LOT SIZE: +/- 2.72 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 TENEE R. CASACCIO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 40-96, Evergreen Bank, N.A., Meeting Date: July 23, 1996 "The applicants are proposing a 780 sq. ft. addition to an existing bank on Quaker Rd. The addition will be used to enclose an automatic teller machine, vjiult and coupon booth. This addition will conform to the petbacks, permeability, and density of the PC-1A district. Staff foresees no adverse impacts associated with this addition and recommends approval of Site Plan No. 40-96." MR. PALING-Okay, and there's no County impact. Now, I have to ask the question, and I'll probably get laughed at, what's a coupon booth? Is someone here from the applicant? Okay. Good. MS. CASACCIO-My name is Tenee Casaccio, and I'm an architect with the firm of Joy, McCoola and Zilch Architects, and I'm acting as the owner's agent. A coupon booth, which coupons pre-date me, but I guess in war times people were given coupons to put into safe deposit boxes. I guess monthly those coupons were detached, given, and taken money. So all it really is, is a booth so that you can take your safe deposit box into an area and review it. MR. PALING-All right. - 26 - - - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. STARK-There is a public hearing. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Any questions by the Board at the moment? No? All right. Do you have any particular? Okay. We'll open the public hearing on this matter, for the Evergreen Bank. Does anyone here care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is a Type II. So SEQRA is not required. I believe we can go directly to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-96 EVERGREEN BANK, N.A., Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Paling ~' NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Rue 1 , Mrs. LaBombard SITE PLAN NO. 41-96 TYPE II MR. & MRS. JACK HICKEY OWNERS: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: RT. 9L TO CLEVERDALE RD., TO HILLMAN RD. TO ONONDAGA DR. (PARKING LOT), #9 IS STRAIGHT AHEAD AS YOU ENTER THE PARKING LOT. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION ON EXISTING HOME. PER SECTION 179-79 EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.11 LOT SIZE: .05 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 BILL MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 41-96, Mr. & Mrs. Jack Hickey, Meeting Date: July 23, 1996 liThe applicants are proposing to construct a second story addition to an existing home. The proposed height of this second story will conform to the requirements of the WR-1A district. Setbacks and permeability at this location will not change with the proposed addition. The applicants were originally scheduled to be heard for ~n area variance on July 17, 1996. As of yet, a variance has ~ot been granted. As a result, the public hearing and discussion concerning this item can begin this evening, but must be continued and voted on at a later date." MR. PALING-Okay. Is there someone here from the applicant? MR. MASON-Hi. I'm Bill Mason. I'm the applicant's agent, Mr. and Mrs. Hickey. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Board questions and comments? MR. MACEWAN-Maybe it would be wise just to table this until the ZBA makes a determination. MR. PALING-Well, there is a public hearing tonight. MR. STARK-We could take the public comment, Bob. - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. PALING-Yes. All right. What is the height of the building? MR. MASON-I'm going to refer to the plan. MR. BREWER-A quarter inch is a foot. MR. MASON-We have 20 feet plus the height of the building off of the ground, which is no more than a foot and a half. We have an eight foot first story and a twelve, twelve pitch on the second. MR. PALING-So you're saying 21 and a half feet, or thereabouts? MR. MASON-Thereabouts. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. WEST-Are you raising the existing roof line? MR. MASON-The existing roof is an eight, twelve. To put the dormers in and get any kind of a pitch on the dormer roof, yes, we're raising that to a twelve, twelve. MR. STARK-Is there a homeowners association out there? all those little houses in a row there? You've got ---- MR. MASON-Yes. There are 31 cottages plus the main house there. Two of them have already built a plan very similar to this one. When all of the owners bought in, we had an approved second story addition that looked very similar to this. So everybody buying in there pretty much expects this. MR. PALING-You understand why we can't take final action on this tonight, unfortunately? Okay. All right. I think we just better go to the public hearing, then. The public hearing on this matter is open. Would anyone care to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-All right. We better leave it open. MR. HILTON-Yes, leave it open. MR. PALING-All right. We,' 11 leave it open, and then I would assume you'll be on our first meeting next month, and we'll just get right back into it at that time. MR. HILTON-The first meeting, August 20th. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. HILTON-I would just like to add that Warren countytþlanning Board reviewed this item, in a letter dated July 10th stated No County Impact. MR. PALING-Okay, and the public hearing is open. All right. We need a motion to table this, then. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 41-96 MR. & MRS. JACK HICKEY, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until August 20th. Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE - 28 - ~ ..-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) ABSENT: Mr. Rue 1 , Mrs. LaBombard MR. MACEWAN-George, when was that supposed to be in front of the ZBA? MR. HILTON-July 17th. SITE PLAN NO. 42-96 TYPE II JOHN J. LYNCH, JR. & ALICE LYNCH OWNERS: SAME ZONE: WR-3A, CEA LOCATION: 14 HIGHVIEW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SMALL ADDITION TO REAR OF HOUSE AND ADDITION TO DECK AREA. PER SECTION 179-79 ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 45-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 3-1-17 LOT SIZE: 31,613 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16 JOHN CAFFRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-If I can just back up for a second here. I think I should probably note, with the previous applicant, he's informed me that he cannot make the special meeting of the ZBA that we're going to have here at the end of July. So he's going to be placed on the first ZBA meeting in August. Therefore, he'll be on the second Planning Board meeting in August. So the next time we'll see this is August 27th. So you may want to revise your motion. MR. BREWER-I would just predicate that motion on ZBA approval, the first available meeting after Zoning Board approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, either way, one way or another, you should amend your motion. MR. PALING-Yes. Why don't you amend it. MOTION TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 41-1996 MR. & MRS. JACK HICKEY, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: To read, the first available meeting after Zoning Board of Appeals approval. Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard MR. HILTON-Okay. STAFF INPUT / I Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-96, John J. LYnch, Jr. & Alice LYnch, Meeting Date: July 23, 1996 "The applicants are proposing to construct a new deck area an addition to an existing home. The proposed expansion has received the appropriate variances from the ZBA. The deck and expansion will conform to the setback, height and permeability standards of the WR-3A district. Staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 42-96." MR. HILTON-On July 10, 1996, the Warren County Planning Board recommended No County Impact, signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there someone here representing the applicant? MR. CAFFRY-I'm John Caffry, the attorney for the LYnches and the - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) agent designated on their form. With me is Mr. Lynch. I do have, for the Board, some additional filing, basically some color photographs showing the site and the view of the house front and back, if I could hand that out. ' MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments or questions? None. All right. There is a public hearing on this matter. It's also a Type II, so there's no SEQRA. We'll open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone that wishes to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right, and we can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-96 JOHN J. LYNCH & ALICE LYNCH, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Rue 1 , Mrs. LaBombard MR. MACEWAN-Just as a formality, when we make our motions, are you guys somehow tying this in together with the drawings of various projects, or should we be making those drawings part of our motion? MR. HILTON-We have the drawings in the file and we refer back to them, but if there's some concern or there's multiple drawings, you can always reference a date of drawing. MR. MACEWAN-Just as long as you've got it covered. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-The next order of business, Subdivision No. 5-1996. MR. HILTON-If I could interrupt right here. This has been taken off the agenda this evening. They're not required to seek subdivision approval. MR. PALING-What has been taken off? / I MR. HILTON-O'Connor, yes. MR. BREWER-They're not? Why? MR. PALING-That was already off. MR. HILTON-They have four lots and they're going to two. So they're actually merging that, and his lot line adjustment is not subdivision. MR. PALING-Yes. It's Sutton is the next one. SITE PLAN NO. 39-96 TYPE II STEVEN & DONNA SUTTON OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: SUTTON'S DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SHED AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 1,500 SQ. FT. RECEIVING/UNPACKING BUILDING. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/8/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 68-1-15 LOT SIZE: 5.833 ACRES - 30 - "'--, '-'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 39-96, Steven & Donna Sutton, Meeting Date: July 23, 1996 "The applicants are proposing to remove an existing shed and construct a new 1500 sq. ft. building. This new addition would be located behind the main building at the north end of the property. This addition conforms to the density, parking, permeability and setback requirements of the HC-IA district. The height of the proposed addition, which can be no higher than 40 feet, should be indicated by the applicant. Subject to the review of comments from the town's engineering consultant, staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 39-96." MR. HILTON-Now I have some comments from Rist-Frost dated July 17, 1996, and the letter to Mr. James Martin reads "Dear Mr. Martin: We have reviewed the site plan information received July 9, 1996 for the addition of a receiving building and removal of an existing shed. It is not clear if the new building will have facilities tieing into a new or existing sewage system or if additiona~ load will be placed on the existing system due to an increase in employees or site usage. If there is an increase then appropriate information on the existing system, demonstrating its ability to handle the increased flows needs to be submitted. In the revised contour area at the northeast corner of the proposed building, erosion control measures should be noted on the site plan drawing. Reference to "NY Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control," should be added. Clearing 1 imi t s should be shown. Please call us if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST- FROST ASSOCIATES, P. C. William J. Levandowski, P. E." And on July 10, 1996 Warren County Planning Board voted for approval of this item, and it's signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. In addition to this, the Town's Beautification Committee met, and in a resolution dated July 8, 1996, there was a motion by Pat Carpenter for approval, seconded by Judy Wetherbee. MR. PALING-That's a preliminary approval. MR. HILTON-It's an approval basically stating that, it's preliminary approval, when they come back in for addition, the Committee will check to see if any screening is needed on the Motel side, if so cedars. I guess they're saying that they approve and they'll look at it at a later date if need be. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves please. MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Nace Eng¡(neering, representing Steve Sutton who's with me tonight. I MR. PALING-Thank you. George read? Are you familiar with the comments that MR. NACE-Yes, I am. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to comment on them? MR. NACE-Real quick, the engineering, we will show a silt fence and erosion control measures in conformance with New York State Guidelines on the site plan. So we'll modify the site plan for that. The proposed building will only be to accommodate a revised method of receiving and unpacking goods at the facility. It will not increase the number of employees. It will not have any separate restroom facilities. So we'll not change the existing system. - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. BREWER-Basically just a warehouse? MR. NACE- It's just an unpacking garage. The Beautification Committee, what we agreed, I don't think screening is going to be necessary between this building because it will be down in the hole as opposed to the Motel. I doubt that it will even be visible, but we've agreed that once it's completed, if we have any complaints from the neighbors or if the Beautification Committee would like to look at it and recommend screening, we'll be glad to do it at that time. MR. PALING-Okay. Clearing limits? MR. NACE-Yes, we will show those. MR. PALING-Okay. You will show those? MR. NACE-Yes. We will revise the site plan in conformance with Rist:FrqSt comments, and that will be submitted prior to building permJ.t .I MR. PALING-Okay. The height of the building is? STEVE SUTTON MR. SUTTON-It's a one story building. ceiling, and whatever the truss. So we expect 10 foot MR. PALING-Peaked roof? MR. SUTTON-Yes. MR. PALING-So you're not going to get anywhere near 40 feet. MR. NACE-No. It'll be less than 20 feet. MR. SUTTON-It's basically an improvement to the site. We're tearing down an old building that's pretty much useless and replacing it. MR. PALING-Okay. I think that answers all of the questions that were raised with Rist-Frost, Beautification Committee, or Staff. Okay. Any comments, questions at the moment? All right. If not, we will open the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone care to comment? ..- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-I'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-96 STEVEN & DONNA SUTTON, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Georgé Stark: For the demolition of existing shed and construction of a new 1,500 sq. ft. receiving/unpacking building. Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard - 32 - ',-, -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) SITE PLAN NO. 43-96 TYPE II NUTECH INDUSTRIES, INC. OWNER: JAMES & WILLIAM BARRETT ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER DIX AVENUE AND QUEENS BURY AVE. 437 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REHABILITATE EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 437 DIX AVENUE TO BE USED AS A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 46-1996/AV61-1996 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 7/8/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-13 LOT SIZE: 1. 73 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BARBER-My name is Tim Barber. I'm the applicant. MR. PALING-Thank you. Go ahead, George. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 43-96, Nutech Industries, Inc., Meeting Date: July 23, 1996 "The applicant is seeking approval of a site plan to rehabilitate existing structures at 437 Dix Ave. The applicant has received a Use Variance from the ZBA for this proposal. As a part of this site plan a buffer will be provided between the residence to the north, with the remainder of the property to the north being screened with a solid screen fence and existing vegetation. The applicant must receive a variance from the ZBA in order to reduce this 50 foot buffer. The Planning Board can begin discussion of this item and open the public hearing this evening, but the item has to be continued and acted upon after a variance is received. The site plan indicates that access will be provided from two curb cuts, one on Queensbury Ave. and on Dix Ave. The amount of parking that is proposed conforms to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The landscaping to be provided meets the planting regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed signage will not be a part of any approval of this site plan. A separate approval is needed for signs in the form of a sign permit application." MR. HILTON-At a July 10th meeting of the Warren County Planning Board a vote of No County Impact was received from C. Powel South, Chairperson, and at the July 8th meeting of the Queensbury Beautification Committee, there was a motion from Mary Lee Gosline, seconded by Judy Wetherbee, for approval as presented. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you, George. All right. Questions or comments at the moment again? All right. The applicant has nothing to say at the moment? MR. BARBER-The purpose of being here, when talking with Jim/Martin, because of the extraordinary circumstances of why th<¡:t other meeting was canceled, he thought that we might be able to get permission to start our fencing on this project. MR. PALING-Is it within our jurisdiction to allow it? We understand the situation and we're going to try to help, but we can only do what we're allowed to do. MR. HILTON-Under the Ordinance, we don't issue fence permits. Fences can be constructed as long as they conform to the Ordinance. I don't think that's a problem, but any grading. MR. BREWER-How tall is the fence? MR. BARBER-Six in the front, chain link and board on board eight in the rear. MR. BREWER-An eight foot fence is not allowed, is it? - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. BARBER-Yes, in the rear of the property. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. STARK-It's commercial. If you want to put the fence up, fine. MR. BARBER-We can do that? MR. HILTON-As far as the landscaping and actual, you know, site construction itself, any modification to the building, that has to wait until the appropriate permits are issued through the Zoning Board and Planning Board. MR. PALING-Can we say this? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess the only other part would be that, obviously, during site plan review something, in theory, and I have no idea what the site plan looks like, but in theory, something could come up relative to the fence. MR. HILTON-And have an issue. --- MR. PALING-Yes, that's a good point. MR. SCHACHNER-So I think that if the applicant wants to pursue on the activities that are not subject to Planning Board approval, it just should be made clear that the applicant is doing that at the applicant's own risk, subject to further site plan review. MR. PALING-In other words, if some kind of violation was found, you'd have to correct it or take the fence down. MR. SCHACHNER-No. I wasn't talking about a violation, and I'm making this up. I have no idea what's on the site plan, but if some site plan concern comes up that you, as a Planning Board, legitimately say to the applicant, we're going to require fencing in this respect instead of in that respect, it's just being done at the applicant's risk if it's being done. I just think that should be made clear for the record, but subject to that, it's up to the Board. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. WEST-Would their be gates across the curb cuts or? MR. BARBER-No. the building. The fence only continues around to the west side of Do you have the print there? MR. PALING-Yes. / I MR. BARBER-Do you see the chainlinked fence area? It comes to the northwest corner of the building, it comes to the face of Dix Avenue. MR. WEST-Okay, so it ends right at the corner of the? MR. BARBER-Yes, right by the handicapped parking. MR. BREWER-Up to the handicapped parking. MR. BARBER-It goes down south to Dix. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. BARBER-Basically what Jim had spoken to me about is just, we want to get constructing that fence, moving forward a little bit, and just to clear up if there's any concerns on that, to limit our - 34 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) exposure. MR. BREWER-Is this, basically your offices and what not are going to be there and construction equipment is going to be in here, right? MR. BARBER-Yes. such. There's going to be some cranes and lifts and MR. BREWER-What are you going to do to the outside of the building, or don't you know yet? MR. BARBER-Phase II next year we're going to put a new faaade on it, masonry and stow, but this year we have to do a total remo~el of the existing structure. So our budget's pretty tapped out w1th the site improvements, because we have a hazardous fill problem that we have to remediate also. MR. BREWER-Do we know about that? Should we know about that? MR. BARBER-It's on record. MR. HILTON-I don't think it makes any difference as far as the-site plan goes. It was brought up at the Use Variance, and that was, I think one of the leading factors in the site, in receiving a Use Variance, but I don't think it really has any difference on the site plan. MR. WEST-Is New York State DEC aware of this? MR. BARBER-Yes. They're closely involved. It's not a major clean up. It has started. All the extraction. MR. WEST-Fuel oil or something? MR. BARBER-It was an old gas system out front for fueling vehicles in trucks, and all the tanks and apparatus have been extracted, but there's some residue left up in the northwest corner of the property that should be incinerated, taken care of. We basically just want to start getting the fencing in. MR. MACEWAN-What is the relief you are seeking for the Area Variance? MR. BARBER-Relief is on the north property boundary there, it abuts residential areas which is all wooded or treed, with the exception of about 100 feet from County Line Road or is it Queensbury Avenue now, I believe. That's why we have a planting over there. We've talked to the neighbors to see what they'd like to see. / MR. BREWER-From the buffer, right? I MR. BARBER-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, you understand what Mark said, and if you're going to do any fencing, fine, but what, the risks involved are yours if. MR. BARBER-Yes. Can we clarify those risks tonight? I mean, I don't see where there is any risk. MR. SCHACHNER-And I'm not saying, I just wanted to make it clear on the record that an applicant is coming before the Board and suggesting that he's going to start work on something which I think Staff is saying is a permitted activity, but you also have a site plan review that's going to happen presumably next month, and anything that the Board comes up with relative to the site plan review could, in theory, have an impact on the fencing. I haven't - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) the faintest idea if it will. MR. BREWER-Well, like neighbors could come in and say that it offends them or whatever. MR. SCHACHNER-Exactly. MR. PALING-Well, there'll be a public hearing tonight which will be kept open for the next, final meeting. MR. BARBER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Were the people notified over there? MR. HILTON-The people were notified. MR. BARBER-I believe they were because they called us. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Why don't we go to the public hearing then. The public hearing is open on this matter. Does anyone care to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED --- MR. PALING-Okay. If no one cares to speak, the public hearing will stay open until, now will this be August 20th? MR. HILTON-We have the Area Variance scheduled for July 31st, and subject to that, we were looking at the first meeting in August, but you may want to say, the first available meeting after issuance of an Area Variance. MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 43-96 NUTECH INDUSTRIES, INC., Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Until the first Planning Board meeting after the Zoning Board has granted approval to the setback buffer. Duly adopted this 23rd day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. See you next month, I hope. / I MR. BARBER-Thanks. DISCUSSION ITEM: SITE PLAN - ALDI'S STORE - PROPOSED AT THE FORMER GROSSMAN'S SITE ON QUAKER ROAD. MR. PALING-George, you have no comments on this one, or did you want to make some? MR. HILTON - I have a few comments. Unfortunately I had some printed that didn't make it into the comments this evening. We've talked to the applicant several times concerning this site, and there are a few concerns. First of all, the plans that I have in front of me show some plantings to be located behind the building, facing Shop N' Save's property. Staff is maybe looking for some relocation of those plantings, possibly toward the front of the building and - 36 - '" -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) within the parking lot to kind of soften the impact of the pavement in the building, to provide some shade for people that would visit this site. Another area of concern from Staff is the fact that they're seeking to use two driveways at this site, and as Planning Staff we're concerned with access management and we're concerned with eliminating curb cuts on major thoroughfares like this, when we can, consolidating curb cuts. We'd like to give some consideration and some thought into having this site, you know, operate off of one driveway. It seems that the parking is more than adequate at this site. The need, based on the Zoning Ordinance, is approximately 70 cars, and they're providing spaces for over 100 cars, I believe, or approximately 100 cars. The only other issue I can see is, you know, possibly enhancing the frontage along Quaker Road with some additional plantings, again, to provide some visual screening between the site and the traffic on the major thoroughfare. MR. PALING-We asked that the Fire Marshal take a look at this. MR. HILTON-Yes, and I had Kip Grant look at this, and he seemed to indicate that there were no problems with the turning radius. MR. PALING-As it's submitted? .-' MR. HILTON-As it is submitted. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HILTON-One question I would have of the applicants, what's the status of the building? Are you going to have it sprinkled? Is there going to be a sprinkler in there? JIM CARE MR. CARE-My name is Jim Care, from Clough Harbour and Associates. LOU KIBBLING MR. KIBBLING-I'm Lou Kibbling with Aldi's. WILL CARPENTER MR. CARPENTER-I'm Will Carpenter with Aldi's. MR. PALING-Okay. Fire away. MR. HILTON-Well, my only question, as I said, is the building going to have a sprinkler system? MR. KIBBLING-It depends on the Fire Marshal. that's required, we will do so. If that's pfomething I MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. CARE-Yes. The architect involved is Opien Architects out of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. What they're doing is they're evaluating Aldi's typical design with New York State Building Code, and based on the type of construction, the accesses, and that and the other 450 Aldi's store that they've developed is they'll decide whether it's going to be sprinkled or not. MR. STARK-What's Aldi's? MR. KIBBLING-Basically, we're a limited assortment grocery concept. It's something that's pretty new to New York State. We carry only 600 items that are the fastest moving items in the household most . , popular 1tems. That's why we only need a smaller store. That's kind of working backwards, I guess, from what you've been seeing - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) recently. What we do carry, we have no depth in. So we only carry one type of ketchup, one type of mustard. There's no choice. So that's a little bit about our marketing. Worldwide, we have ove~ 40? stores, the largest retailer in Europe, volume wise, and in thlS country we have 450 stores. We started in Chicago here in '76, and we're in 18 states now, and we're moving eastward. So we've got four stores. We just opened one in Oneonta at the end of June, and this will be probably our sixth or seventh store with the way we're expanding. ' MR. PALING-Okay. MR. WEST-How many household items did you say you carry, 400? MR. KIBBLING-Six hundred most popular items, and we work off of a one to two and a half percent margin. So we turn over product real quickly. A typical store turns over in seven days. Therefore, we need parking. We will pull people from three counties, probably at each site. MR. BREWER-What's your turnover? MR. KIBBLING-It's about seven days for each store. --- MR. BREWER-Unbelievable. MR. KIBBLING-So it's all, it's geared to keep prices low. MR. PALING-All right. Any other questions? MR. WEST-You're not tearing down the existing structure, are you? MR. KIBBLING-We're tearing back part of the front and some off the rear, and we're trying to keep some of the middle portion in back. We figured this because, based on the configuration of the property, and our building's rectangular to begin with, our prototype, it makes sense to try to keep somewhat of it. It's a hard property to work from, you know, from our standpoint, but it's an available package with Grossman's. MR. CARE-There'll be about a 4,000 square foot reduction in size of the building. I think the existing Grossman's is around 19,000. The Aldi's store is around 15,300. MR. BREWER-This map, I'm sorry I have a problem with it. What's the setback going to be, George, when they're all said and done, from the Quaker Road? MR. CARE-There has been no formal submittal made, as of yet. The plans were revised and yanked from the last meeting. The~ are the latest and greatest we had developed. The setback will/be around 60 feet, whereas Grossman's right now I believe is around 25 and a half. The plan itself calls for the setback right now for the existing Grossman's is around 25 and a half. What we're proposing to do is rip off around the first 40 feet of the existing Grossman's, which will give us a front yard setback of around 60 feet. The side, as shown on the schematic, the top side is going to remain the same. The bottom side and the rear will basically, the bottom side will remain the same. The rear will actually move about 20 feet in. MR. KIBBLING-That building existing there now is 230 feet long. We're shaping it down to about 186. MR. BREWER-Just an economic question. Why wouldn't you, I can understand you giving yourself exposure in the front, or whatever, but why wouldn't you just put a wall up there and keep that for warehouse or, I'm just curious, that's all. - 38 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. CARE-The rear of the building? MR. BREWER-Yes, the rear of the building. Suppose you wanted to expand in five years? Why would~'t you just leave that there? MR. CARE-The rear of the building, as it stands right now, is an addition that Grossman's actually put on themselves, and it's a metal type of construction that doesn't conform to the type of structure at A1di's, Opien's has actually used standardly. MR. CARPENTER-I think, more than that, is the fact that docking. Our trailers, trucks are about 65 feet long, and this is one, another big item we have in working this site out, is how to maneuver the trucks. So by bringing the building, tearing that off and bringing that back in a little bit, it facilitated the docking somewhat, too. It's actually more difficult, but it's worked all right. MR. PALING-Do you have any comments on the curb cuts? We had a discussion of that in the preliminary meeting, and do you have any further comment on that? MR. CARE-We have discussed it, well I've discussed it with George VanDusen of the County. In fact, I talked to him a couple of hours prior to the meeting. As of now, he gave me the verbal that the County has no problems with the dual access onto the road. The dual access, from Aldi' s standpoint, works ideally with the tractor trailer access, ingress and egress that is actually needed to use the dock in the rear. MR. PALING-Show the Board what you mean by that. MR. CARE-As Will said, the tractor trailer is around 65 feet in length. So what'll actually happen is it will hit eastbound, take a right into the site, U-turn around, and then back into the dock, after it's unloaded, pull straight out, and then egresses from the western access. MR. MACEWAN-There's really no problem for you to go out the way you came in either, is there? MR. CARE-What would have to happen is, in order to cut it coming out, it would have to pull up, back up, and then use that same access. It can't actually start it's turning movement until the truck cab is actually past your painted island, and by that time it can't cut the wheel enough in order to make it down this aisleway. So it what would actually have to happen is they'd have to pull forward, reverse, and then. MR. BREWER-Either that or eliminate the east most access/ / MR. CARE-That's true. When we went through the discussion on the parking, we met with George and Jim and the Chairman, because what happens is Aldi' s has done their own studies on the amount of parking spaces they actually do need, in the way of traffic analysis, in the way of comparison to ITE, the Transportation Engineers manual. They need 100 parking spaces, or they ideally should have 100 plus parking spaces. Based on the configuration, it is triangular, 101 fit just minimally, and in order to reduce it, it doesn't work for Aldi's. MR. WEST-What's the dimensions of the parking spaces? MR. CARE-Ten by twenty, the interior, and ten by eighteen, along this curb line and this curb line. MR. HILTON-Our Code is nine by eighteen. - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. CARE-And the aisle width between the parking stalls themselves are 25. I believe that's five greater than. MR. WEST-Is 65 foot a standard trailer length, or is that a super trailer? MR. KIBBLING~That's including the tractor. It's a 52 foot trailer. MR. CARE-More commonly a WB55, which is the wheel base. MR. BREWER-It just so happens we have traffic experts here tonight, to help us with the ingress and egress. MR. HILTON-I can't really see that plan, if that's the updated one, but I know we discussed the loading area to the south of the building. Before it had kind of a weird angle to it, one comment I had is, we were looking to maybe have that squared off a little more, so that trucks could access that loading area a little bit better. MR. CARE-That change has been made. MR. HILTON-Has it? --- MR. PALING-Tell me, again, what that change was that you just made? Show us on the print. MR. CARE-The change is, this is the dumpster pad in the rear. It used to angle out toward the building. What we did is we straightened that line out. MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. MR. STARK-How many people will you employ? MR. KIBBLING-Ten to twenty. MR. STARK-More than Grossman's, or the same? MR. MACEWAN-Probably less. MR. KIBBLING-I'm not sure about Grossman's. More than now. MR. BREWER-More than there is now. MR. STARK-I just wondered about the septic system, that's all. MR. CARE-I believe it's central sewer. MR. STARK-Okay. / I MR. PALING-Okay. What comments, this is a discussion ,item. So lets be clear what the Board's thinking is. MR. MACEWAN-I think probably the most difficult hurdle to overcome is this thing with the two curb cuts. MR. BREWER-Why don't we ask for comments from Ms. Brunso. She's here. Why not use her. It's discussion, isn't it, or not? MR. PALING-Well, we haven't opened the discussion. MR. BREWER-I didn't tell her to come up here. don't we ask her. I just said, why MR. PALING-All right. Why don't we do it via the route of just public comment? Ms. Brunso, are you going to comment? - 40 - '- ~- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. HILTON-I have a question of the applicant, before we go any further. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HILTON-The amount of trips with your truck, how many do you anticipate per day, per week? MR. CARPENTER-One to two per day. MR. HILTON-One to two per day. MR. CARPENTER-The maximum. MR. WEST-What's the hours of the store? MR. CARPENTER-From nine to seven, Monday through Friday, nine to six on Saturday, and it's closed on Sunday. MR. WEST-Do the trucks come at any given hour? MR. CARPENTER-The trucks ideally come before or after store hours. There will be times when they come during store operation, bu~-it's ideal for us to do before or after. MR. MACEWAN-What are your normal hours of operation? MR. CARPENTER-Nine to seven, Monday through Friday, nine to six on Saturday and closed on Sunday. MR. PALING-All right. Does anyone have any further questions or comments? I guess we can ask DOT a comment. I'm not sure that's fair. We haven't had anybody else's commented on by DOT. MR. BREWER-Well, I mean, they happen to be here. MR. CARE-One thing I'd like to bring up, I did call DOT, Mark Kennedy, the permit engineer for the Regional Office. Mark Kennedy said that they do not have jurisdiction over Quaker Road. So that's why we worked through the County. We'll welcome any, you know, if DOT wants to take a look at it, that's fine with us also. MR. PALING-All right. comment on this? That's good. Does DOT, do you care to JOANNA BRUNSO MS. BRUNSO-We're just trying to read the plan, and I'm having difficulty reading it because of the way it's laid out. / MR. PALING-Okay. Why don't we let the applicant, I think/they can best explain it. MS. BRUNSO-I'd like to know what the total distance is from here to here, and here to here. My name is Joanna Brunso, Staff Director for the Glens Falls Transportation Council, and with me tonight, because it's the next item on your agenda, are Jeff Marko from the Region I Planning Department of DOT, Jim Munson, of the main office of New York State DOT, and Lynne Webb of the main office of DOT, and all of us have some knowledge of access management, and therefore we would like to, we don't know if we want to make comment yet until we find out what the dimensions. MR. PALING-Okay. I'm reading 151 feet, but I can't tell where. MS. BRUNSO-Yes, I can't either. MR. PALING-You can best tell, better than I can. - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. CARE-This plan right here is the landscaping plan. MS. BRUNSO-Yes. MR. CARE-The layout plan contains the majority of the dimensions in regard to radius, turning radius. ' MR. PALING-Okay, but what's the property, the width of the whole property? MR. CARE-The width of this entire property across the front is around 400 feet. MR. PALING-Okay, add these, yes, okay. I think if you add these three up, you'd get them. Does that answer your question? MS. BRUNSO-Yes. Do you have, are there ingresses and egresses at both of those curb cuts? MR. CARE-Yes. MS. BRUNSO-Well, you know, I don't have any problem with that. ~- JEFF MARKO MR. MARKO-Hi. Jeff Marko, New York State Department of Transportation. The gentleman indicated that he spoke with Mark Kennedy in our office who's the one who reviews the highway work permits for driveway and access, and he's correct that Quaker Road is not on the State's jurisdiction. However, if the Board has a question about proper access, we'd be happy to review the plans, and comment on them formally. MR. PALING-Well, didn't you just say that it seems okay to you the way it is? MS. BRUNSO-Yes. MR. PALING-And that's the way it has been for years with Grossman's. There's no change there. MS. BRUNSO-That's true, but if you know something that can improve the situation, then it's probably a good idea to apply it, but in this case, I don't know anything, or I have no comment to make on the situation. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. CARE-One thing that the County, when we did meet out 09 site, myself, will Carpenter and Mr. VanDusen, was that the Count¥~ after they go through their review, it's in traffic right now. ¡They're reviewing the traffic study that Aldi's prepares for these sites. His comment was that he may come back and require painting of the common right-of-way, to show where the breaks are and keep people to one side or another side, so people aren't taking a left hand turn from the left hand lane of the egress portion of the access. MR. PALING-That would be an improvement. MR. STARK-But that's required, isn't it? MR. PALING-I would hope so, yes. MR. CARE-The County may come back and not require us to do it, but if the Board wishes it be done, we have no problem providing it. MR. MACEWAN-What, ultimately, are you folks looking for from us? - 42 - '--.. --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) MR. CARE-Tonight is more of a discussion. We have met with George. We have met with Mr. Martin, the Chairman, a member of the Beautification Committee. Any input that the Board may have in regards to the two accesses, which is a large part of why we are here tonight, landscaping. We are increasi?g the ,amount of pervious material on site, but do to the park~ng requ~rement of Aldi's, we can't get that 30%, but what we are doing is raising it from existing 14%, which is what Grossman's is now, up to 28%, basically doubling the amount of pervious cover, and just to let the Board know that we still require an Area Variance, since we are in the Overlay district, where 75% setback is required. We are increasing it, in the existing 27 and a half feet to around 60.1 feet, and any other input that the Board may have ·on the landscaping, internal layout, building size. MR. MACEWAN-What will the store look like, facade wise, color schemes, so on and so forth? MR. CARPENTER-It's a four sided, brick structure. There's a canopy in front, which is drivet, sort of stucco, which is a beige color. It's all quality brick on all four sides. Does that answer your question? ,/ MR. WEST-Earth tones? What's the colors? MR. CARPENTER-The technical description of the brick I don't know at the moment, but, yes, it's earth tones. It's red brick. It's more of a reddish brown brick. MR. BREWER-Snow removal, taken off site or left on site? MR. CARPENTER-It depends on the amount of snow. MR. BREWER-We usually get a lot. MR. CARPENTER-But I guess we'll keep it on site until we have to move it off. MR. PALING-I think the concerns of the Board have to do with the egress/ingress. I, personally, don't have a hang up with them on this site myself. I think they're all right, especially in lieu, in recognition of the fact that it does help their truck access situation, and allows them to have the amount of parking spaces they want, and they're going over the plantings with the Beautification Committee, and they talked a lot about the culvert on the street and they had some good ideas about how to fill that in. MR. MACEWAN-I guess maybe if we can reflect back as to when Grossman's was operating, if anybody recalls watching ~liveries going in and out of that place, with the trucks they had/going in, this is certainly going to be a significant improvement over what they had. MR. PALING-Improvement. In all ways it's going to be an improvement. So I think, myself, it's a pretty good situation. They've got to get the variances. MR. BREWER-When do you anticipate to start, provided you get the variance? MR. KIBBLING-As soon as the approvals, we'll start, hopefully by the end of September. MR. PALING-Are you scheduled before the Zoning Board of Appeals? MR. CARE-No. We wanted to get the input from the Planning Board first. We'll make the formal submittal either Monday or Tuesday of - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/23/96) next week for both the ZBA and the Planning Board approval. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I don't think we have that many outstanding comments, and that's not all bad. MR. MACEWAN-Does the ZBA, when these folks will go in front of them, have copies of this meeting, minute wise, sent to them, as part of their packets, in the minutes? MR. HILTON-No, but they can be, if the Board wishes to. I can make a note of it. MR. MACEWAN - I think there were some good comments brought up tonight. MR. PALING-Excuse me, George, I get their minutes. Do we all get ZBA minutes? And they don't get ours? MR. HILTON-As far as I know, no. Maria? MS. GAGLIARDI-They do get them when they're done. MR. PALING-Well, we don't get them until they're done, either~ MR. HILTON-In a situation like this, I don't think a month they're going to be ready. If need be, we can get them to them. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I would ask you to send them along with their packet for this application, copies of tonight's minutes. MR. BREWER-This portion. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments? I guess that's it. MR. CARE-See you next month. MR. PALING-Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman / / - 44 -