Loading...
1996-12-17 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 1996 INDEX Subdivision No. 10-1996 SKETCH PLAN Site Plan No. 59-96 Richard Trzaska Tax Map No. 54-2-7.22 Angela Kladis Tax Map No. 13-1-16 1. 4. Subdivision No. 9-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE Marguerite Eldridge Tax Map No. 83-1-12.1 5. Subdivision No. 7-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE Barbara Barber Tax Map No. 48-3-49.54 8. Site Plan No. 6-96 MODIFICATION Ken Ermiger Tax Map No. 73-1-4.1 16. Site Plan No. 74-96 Phoenix Trailers - David Libby Tax Map No. 118-1-4, 5.1, 5.2 29. Site Plan No. 77-96 Vogel Realty, LLC Tax Map No. 137-2-6 35. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES {IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK DAVID WEST CRAIG MACEWAN /I MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 12, 1996: NONE September 24, 1996: NONE October 15, 1996: NONE October 22, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 9/12, 9/24, 10/1S, AND 10/22, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1996 SKETCH PLAN RICHARD TRZASKA OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD' . PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 8.212 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 4.1 ACRES EACH. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 4-1996 TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7.22 LOT SIZE: 8.212 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RICHARD TRZASKA, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-1996 Sketch Plan, Richard Trzaska, Meeting Date: December 17, 1996 "The applicant is seeking sketch plan approval for the subdivision of an 8.2 acre lot into two 4.1 acre lots. The existing lot was previously approved as part of a Planning Board approved subdivision earlier this year. The two proposed lots meet the dimensional and area requirements for the SR-IA district." - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. TRZASKA-I'm the owner, Rick Trzaska. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. There are three, 8.212 acre lots, and you're going to subdivide one of them? MR. TRZASKA-I'm only the owner of one. MR. PALING-Okay, which one? MR. TRZASKA-It would be Lot Two, the middle. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're going to subdivide it right down the middle? MR. TRZASKA-Right down the middle. MR. PALING-Okay. That's still 128 feet, right. Lets see, we don't have a public hearing. Any comments by anyone on the Board? MR. MACEWAN-At time of Preliminary, are you going to request any waivers? Waivers from like the contours, stormwater management? MR. HILTON-They'll probably refer to the old subdivision plan. It may be, in some cases, as far as the wetland and topography, take the date off the old subdivision. We'll get that in writing from the applicant. MR. RUEL-But Craig is right, because even at the Sketch Plan, you're supposed to have all these things. You're supposed to have street utilities, drainage, sewer, water supply. Is a waiver needed here? MR. HILTON-I think it's something that the Planning Board has to approve, but in your application, if you would just refer to some of the things that you're copying from the old application. MR. PALING-But those items have got to be covered at least. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Staff. This evening I believe we have three applications for subdivision. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Can you elaborate on the Planning Board responsibility here as far as subdivision is concerned, after the Zoning Board has approved the subdivision of the property? What is our role here? MR. HILTON-In one case that you're speaking of, the variance was actually granted to create nonconforming lot sizes, but the actual subdivision and new laying out of lot lines is something that is normally done by the Planning Board anyway. So that this Board has to vote and go through the two remaining applications, even if a variance weren' t necessary. So, you know, the relief has been granted to create such a lot that has nonconforming area. You can approve the division, the actual physical division, as was agreed upon with the ZBA, but you have to review the subdivision. The ZBA can't review the actual application. I hope that clears it up for you. ~ MR. RUEL-But once the ZBA has approved, what can we do? We can't disapprove it. MR. HILTON-No, but they're just allowing nontraditional or legal nonconforming lot, in one that we have this evening, and you are deciding whether to approve the actual division I know that doesn't make any sense. the creation of a terms of area, the just voting on or of the land itself. - 2 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. SCHACHNER-Well, can I add to that? The ZBA approval does not create the lot either, okay. So that it's the subdivision that creates the lot, and the subdivision only occurs if the Planning Board approves it. All the ZBA is saying, and I don't know what case you're talking about, so I'm speaking generically. MR. RUEL-Any case. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I'm speaking generically also, but if the ZBA approves a lot that is smaller, for example, than the minimum lot size in a particular zone, which I take it is the type of question you're asking about. MR. RUEL-Yes. ,. MR. SCHACHNER-That does not mean that the lot exists or the lot is approved. All it means is that if the Planning Board authorizes the subdivision, well, two things, it allows the Planning Board to review the application, because you couldn't otherwise review it because the application would not comply with zoning. Okay. Are you with me so far? In other words, if there's a one acre minimum lot size and you have a, one of the lots is a half acre, you would not be allowed to review an application for a substandard lot unless the ZBA had already granted a variance allowing that substandard lot to be created, but the ZBA variance allows the substandard lot to be created only if the Planning Board approves the subdivision. You have your Subdivision Regulations that talk about access to property and a number of other criteria, and if those criteria are not met to your satisfaction, you are not obligated to approve a subdivision, even if the Zoning Board of Appeals has authorized a particular lot to be substandard. MR. RUEL-Okay, and these criteria you just mentioned aren' t usually looked at by the Zoning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Are not looked at by the Zoning Board, correct. They're not the Zoning Board's jurisdiction, because the Zoning Board, as Dave says, is not concerned with and it's not the Zoning Board's jurisdiction to decide whether or not a subdivision should be created. The ZBA issue is whether a particular lot can be allowed to exist smaller than is allowed, if you approve it as a Planning Board. MR. RUEL-From a Zoning Board standpoint it's usually from a hardship standpoint, economic or otherwise? MR. SCHACHNER-No, not necessarily, not in the context of an Area Variance. The hardship standard is more in the context of a Use Variance. --- MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Now there is no public hearing. There is no SEQRA. Do we need a motion on this? MR. HILTON-You could make one, I guess. MR. PALING-Should we have a motion? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I had to step outside so I didn't hear what happened, but if you are inclined to encourage the applicant to proceed with the Sketch Plan as submitted, then you should indicate that by motion. If you're inclined not to encourage that because ¥ou, have problems with the Sketch Plan as submitted, you should 1nd1cate that by a motion. MR. RUEL-AII right. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1996 RICHARD TRZASKA, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the stipulation that the Preliminary plan will include street utilities drainage, sewer, water supply, etc., as required. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 59-96 TYPE II ANGELA KLADIS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: 5050 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AT THE SHORELINE. SEE SECTION 179-60 B[5] (3) (e)3 - ALTERATION OF SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 83- 1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-16 LOT SIZE: .45 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 ROBERT KLADIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing on September 24th was tabled to this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 59-96, Angela Kladis, Meeting Date: December 17, 1996 liThe applicant is proposing to construct a retaining wall along the shoreline of her property on Mason Road. The wall will be constructed along the entire shoreline from the north property line to the south line. The portion of the wall at the southern end of the property will be constructed at a height of 16 inches above the mean high water mark of the lake. The portion that is proposed to be 4 feet high has received a variance from the ZBA to be built at such a height. The remainder of the wall conforms to the height requirements in Section 179-60,B,3,E,3 of the Zoning Ordinance. II MR. PALING-George, there was something here, though, about the part of this that was, and the adjacent property, that the building would not, the wall would not go all the way to the property line was it? MR. HILTON-I think that's another application that you're thinking of. MR. PALING-Okay. Sorry. . MR. RUEL-You mentioned that the ZBA approved four feet. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-What was the approval required for? What should it have been? MR. HILTON-Well, normally they could only construct something with site plan approval, a wall that was 16 inches above the mean high water mark. They're allowing four feet, and I think that some of the reason had to do with preventing erosion and stormwater runoff. - 4 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) EL I Is this four feet above the water mark? MR. RU - see. MR. HILTON-The mean high water mark. MR. RUEL-I see, okay. Rather than six feet. MR. HILTON-Rather than 16 inches, actually. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other Board questions or comments? Okay. There is a public hearing on this tonight, or còntinuation of a public hearing. Did you want to make any comment before we go to the public hearing? . MR. KLADIS-No, sir. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll open the public hearing on the Angela Kladis application. Is there anyone here that cares to speak about this, for or against? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. This is a Type II. Do we need a SEQRA on this? MR. HILTON-No, Type II. MR. PALING-Okay. We can by-pass the SEQRA. Then we can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-96 ANGELA KLADIS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To construct a retaining wall at the shoreline. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. KLADIS-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. STARK-Bob, just as an aside, in going up and looking at your new dock, McCollister's, the Sunburst, is probably one of the nicest ones we've seen up there. MR. KLADIS-Thank you. MR. WEST-That was very nice. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MARGUERITE ELDRIDGE OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: AVIATION ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF .422 ACRES AND .937 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 67-1996 TAX MAP NO. 83-1-12.1 LOT SIZE: 2+ ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) REGULATIONS ROYCE ELDRIDGE, REPRES~NTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-1996 Prelimin~ry Stage, Meeting Date: December 17, 1996 "The applicant lS seeking approval to subdivide a 1.4 acre piece of property into two lots. The resulting lots will be .937 acres and .422 acres in size. A variance has been granted by the ZBA for the creation of two nonconforming lots at this location. The applicant is seeking a wai ver of the sketch plan requirement for this subdivision. A home currently exists on the portion of this property that will become the .922 acre lot. Staff foresees no negative impacts associated with this request, and recommends approval of the preliminary phase of Subdivision No. 9-1996." MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions or comments? MR. RUEL-They're asking for a waiver on the Sketch Plan requirement? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Does that include contours in proximity to wells and septic systems, etc.? MR. HILTON-Well, those are requirements that are listed in the Subdivision ordinance that the Planning Board can choose to waive. In a situation like this, Staff is pretty comfortable allowing the subdivision to proceed as is. There's an existing house on the site. Staff doesn't anticipate any future grading or re-working of the site. It's just a simple two lot subdivision, which can't go through the two lot subdivision approval by our Zoning Administrator. MR. RUEL-The only neighbor is the one to the north, right? According to the regulations, you're supposed to show the proximity to adjacent wells and septic systems. MR. HILTON-Sure. I mean, that's a requirement. something that you have the discretion to waive. I think it's MR. RUEL-Yes, and in a lot of cases with the Planning Board we can say that we don't feel that it's necessary in this particular case. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. RUEL-But that doesn't constitute a waiver, does it? MR. HILTON-Well, you're allowing the applicant to proceed with an application that doesn't contain all the information that's listed in the Subdivision Regulations. So, in a sense, I guess, it's a waiver. . MR. MACEWAN-Has he requested the waivers? MR. HILTON-They have by virtue of applying and filing application. It's not a formal process where they say, requesting a waiver from this, that and the other thing. this I'm MR. MACEWAN-I thought it was? I thought they had to have a letter? MR. HILTON-I mean, well, I'm not sure how it's been done in the past. MR. RUEL-I think it was a formal request, wasn't it? - 6 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. MACEWAN-Yes, it is. MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, I stand corrected. MR. RUEL-It has been. I don't know. Maybe we've changed. MR. MACEWAN-So by the time it comes back for Final, we'll have that letter in hand. How's that? MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. RUEL-But can we make it a condition of this mOtion? . MR. PALING-Yes, that's what Craig is saying. Otherwise, I think it seems like a reasonably straightforward application with good wide setbacks and so on. MR. RUEL-I'm going by the requirements. MR. PALING-Yes, I agree with you, but if we can do it in letter form, pending the letter submittal, if the Board's comfortable with that. Okay. Would you identify yourself, please, for the record. MR. ELDRIDGE-I'm Mr. Royce Eldridge. mother. I have a POA. I'm here representing my MR. PALING-Okay. All right. There's a public hearing on the matter. So why don't we go right to the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to talk about the Marguerite Eldridge application, for or against? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And then we can go, George, there's no other input on this? MR. HILTON-No, we have no other comments. MR. PALING-All right, and we don't either. MR. STARK-We need a SEQRA. MR. PALING-This is Unlisted. So we need a SEQRA Short Form. MR. HILTON-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 9-1996, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the MARGUERITE ELDRIDGE, 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. - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) 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. S. 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 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-We need a motion on this. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1996 MARGUERITE ELDRIDGE, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To subdivide a 1.4 acre parcel into two lots of .422 acres and .937 acres, and a waiver is granted for Sketch Plan requirements predicated on the receipt of a letter from the applicant requesting such a waiver. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. , MR. ELDRIDGE-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED PRELIMINARY STAGE BARBARA BARBER OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NW CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND MAID MARION WAY PROPOSAL IS FOR A 4 LOT SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 106-1996 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-49.54 LOT SIZE: 5.40 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 8 - '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1996 Preliminary Stage~ Barba:a Barber, Meeting Date: December 17, 1996 liThe applJ.cant J.S proposing to subdivide a 5 acre parcel into 4 lots located at the northwest corner of Bay Road and Maid Marion Way. This single lot currently contains four duplexes. This subdivision would create separate lots for each building unit at this ~ocation.. These new lots are being created under the current zonJ.ng of thJ.s property which is SFR-IA. All current buildings and future expansion will be required to conform to the setbacks of this zone. The setbacks are currently: 30 foot front yard, 20 foot side and rear yard. The subdivision as proposed meets the requirements of the SFR-1A district. The ZBA has granted relief from the density requirements of the SFR-IA district which state that each dwelling unit requires one acre of land. The proposed lots range in size from 1.1 acres to 1.79 acres. This area is currently developed and has vehicular access off of Maid Marion Way. This subdivision is for the creation of new lot lines over already developed land. Staff finds this application in compliance with the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance and recommends approval of the preliminary phase of Subdivision No. 7-1996.11 MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have any other input on this one, George? MR. HILTON-The only other input that I would have, I guess, is maybe some clarification for the Planning Board. This is an existing lot with existing structures from, I believe, the early 70's. The applicant can probably. DAN BARBER MR. BARBER-'86 and '88. MR. HILTON-'86 and '88, okay, from a previous Ordinance, and the applicant just seeks to subdivide those lots and create individual lots for each building. The variance, what that did, normally, in order to have two dwelling units on one parcel, they'd have to have two acres of land. The variance is allowing two dwelling units on each parcel, with under two acres of land for each lot or parcel. So hopefully that'll clear some things up, and like I said, this is subdividing of an already developed property. So I really don't foresee anything changing or any new drastic impacts. MR. RUEL-George, I'm having difficulty in understanding the second paragraph where it says that ZBA granted relief because each dwelling unit requires one acre of land? MR. HILTON-Under the SFR-1A zoning district, yes. MR. RUEL-And then the next sentence says, proposed lots range in size from 1.1 to 1.8. MR. HILTON-Right. So in order to have two dwelling units on one lot, that lot would have to be two acres in size. MR. SCHACHNER-There's two on each, that's the key. MR. RUEL-I see. I misunderstood. I thought, the minimum was one acre, and I felt that the 1.1 and 1.79 was certainly adequate to meet that. MR. HILTON-Well, the lot widths conform, but the densities of the lots. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. PALING-Any other comments or questions? MR. RUEL-The only other question I have is why is the applicant - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) asking for this subdivision, for what reason? MR. O'CONNOR-Just trying to clean things up for the future, in the event that they ever want to. MR. PALING-I'm sorry, would you identify yourselves please. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor, and with me is Dan Barber, the husband and co- d~velop~r with Barbara Barber of the subdivision that you're dlscusslng. The reason for the application is simply to be sure that in the future there's no issue, if they were to sell one of the units, they'd be able to do at that time. There's no intention at, this time to actually do anything, but we're trying to get thlngs cleaned up. These unlts were built under the 1982 Ordinance, if you will, in compliance with all the conditions and terms of ,the 1982 Ordinance. When the Ordinance changed in 1988, new requlrements were put upon the property, which we now do not comply with. So we just want to get a map on record showing that we are pre-existing, that if there's some desire in the future to do something, we can do something in the future without necessarily delaying it for some application to the Board. MR. RUEL-You answered my question adequately. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. PALING-Any other questions or comments on this? Okay, then lets open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that cares to speak on the Barbara Barber application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HILTON-We have several letters. MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead, George. MR. HILTON-First of all, I have a letter dated December 15, 1996, from, I believe it's William and Deanna Cox. It says, "Dear Chairman: We live on Nottingham Drive within 500' of the 4 Duplexes owned by Barbara Barber. We are aware that these duplexes conformed to the zoning at the time (1986 & 1988) they were built. As there is no change to the area and the fact that they are existing, we see no negative impact on the neighborhood or community. Therefore, we support the application. William F. Cox Deanna Cox" There's a letter from a Dr. Michael Sheehan. It says, "Dear Chairman: I am presently building a home on lot 2 in the subdivision named Loxley Knolls. It is directly across the street from the four duplexes Barbara Barber wants to subdivide. I see no problem with 'the requested three imaginary lines between the buildings so that the properties can be individual units. From my location obviously, I have more of a stake in this than those down in the lower part of Sherwood Acres. As there is no change in the properties and they adhered to the zoning of 1986-88. I am giving my support to this request. These buildings don' t even look like apartments. This and the extensive landscaping along Loxley Knolls helped me make the decision to build my new home there. Sincerely, Michael F. Sheehan, D. D. S. " A letter from Ronald & Shirley Harris, to the Town Planning Board "Regarding the subdivision of the property of Barbara Barber at the northwest corner of Bay Road and Maid Marion Way we see no problem with the Planning Board approving this request. This property has already been developed with no further development intended. All Mrs. Barber wants to do is to divide this already developed parcel into 4 parcels, each with one house, so that she may sell these lots. We feel the Town Planning Board should approve this request. Very truly yours, Ronald H. Harris Shirley B. Harris" There's a letter from Al and Eleanor Oudekerk "As neighbors directly across . - 10 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) the road from the proposed subdivision of the Barber property, we would like to submit this letter in support of the subdivision into 4 lots. When the four houses were built on the parcel in 1987, they conformed to existing regulations at the time. We can see absolutely no reason why approval should not be given to subdivide the parcel into 4 separate lots, making each of the houses more marketable. This should have no visual impact whatever on the surrounding neighborhood. To clear up what is apparently just paper work, we urge the Board to approve this proposal. Sincerely, Al and Eleanor Oudekerk" Lastly, just a Record of Telephone Conversation between Barbara Toomey and Sue Dav~dsen, the only comment was "Yes, I am in favor of project." MR. PALING-Very good. I wish all of them were that way. All right. Then is there anyone that would care to talk on this matter here? All right. If not, then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING MR. RUEL- You mentioned a moment ago about the subdi vision for purposes of possible sales, etc. How do you propose to take care of the shared driveway? MR. O'CONNOR-It'll be a common driveway agreement. MR. RUEL-I mean, is this written from a legal standpoint? MR. O'CONNOR-You'd have an agreement that would be of benefit to both parcels, saying that both parcels could utilize that for driveway purposes only, that they would have to share in the cost of maintenance of it, and it would, in effect, be an easement over each other's lot. Lot B would get an easement over Lot C and Lot C would get an easement over the portion that's on Lot B. MR. RUEL-It's a shared, 50/50 type proposition? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-For maintenance and snow removal, etc.? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay, and that's written in the deed? MR. O'CONNOR-It would be in a recordable type document. MR. RUEL-Attached to the deed? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It could be separate, but it would be recorded with deeds. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. So that's part of the parcel? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. Only two lots, right? MR. O'CONNOR-They're the only two that share the driveway, yes. MR. RUEL-The end ones are okay? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Danny's whispering in my ear. The reason for that was the cut that was necessary to get the road Loxley Lane or Maid Marion Way, to conform to what Paul wanted.' When that was init~a~lr installed, there wasn't that cut, but in order to get the subd7v7S10:r: approved and get the road in according to the Town speclflcatlons, they had to cut the driveway. - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. RUEL-That's why the distance between curb cuts? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes, thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. This is an Unlisted. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-1996, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before BARBARA BARBER, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. S. 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 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling ¡ NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. B~ewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1996 BARBER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its seconded by Robert Paling: BARBARA adoption, For a four lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following - 12 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, could I have your indulgence for a minute? Is there anything that you think that you're going to need for Final approval that you don't have on ~hat map there? MR. MACEWAN-Do you need waivers? . MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think so. MR. MACEWAN-It's an existing subdivision. Everything has been done in the past for it. I mean, we're really basically just talking about a paper change here. MR. HILTON-It's an existing lot, just change of the imaginary lines as someone put it. I don't see any problem. MR. PALING-I don't see anything either, but guarantee. It's just our opinion at the moment. a thing. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand, it's on for Final Thursday night. I'm just trying to make sure that I've dotted my I' s and crossed my T's. that can' t be a I can't guarantee MR. RUEL-Do you have a feeling something's missing? MR. O'CONNOR-No, I don't. thought. I don't mean to even give you that MR. STARK-Because this is an already pre-existing development and everything, is there a problem with doing the Final tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-One problem with doing the Final tonight is you have it on the agenda for Thursday night. MR. PALING-And there is a public hearing. No, there isn't. MR. SCHACHNER-No. Actually you already had your public hearing opened and closed just a few minutes ago. I don't know that there's any leqal impediment to doing it. I don't think it's been your practice, but it's up to you all. MR. STARK-Yes, well, it hasn't been our practice, but this is a unique situation in that it's already a developed thing. There are imaginary lines. There's nothing going to be developed in this hunk, this hunk. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not unique. It's come up before and it'll come up again, but again, it's up to the Board. I don't think there's any legal impediment. MR. RUEL- I agree with George. additional requirements. I don't see any requirements, MR. O'CONNOR-I'm basically trying to save a call for my appearance again, and I was going to have Mr. Barber come by himself, if there was nothing that you required, but certainly we would be happy to have you entertain a motion right now and have neither of us be required to be here. - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. RUEL-Yes. anything. I'm looking in this document, and I can't find MR. STARK-I don't see why you can't. MR. PALING-All right. Well, let me just interject this. If this is okay to do for the Barber application, under these circumstances, then it's got to be okay to do it for some other applicant under these same kind of circumstances, and I'm in favor of doing it, but I don't want to set us up for saying yes one night and no another night, and we may have been doing tçis in the past. MR. HILTON-I guess that's a policy or some type of decision you ~ have to come to. I know that sometimes you are in favor of hearing the preliminary and final in the same night and sometimes you're not. MR. MACEWAN-Was it advertised for Thursday night? MR. SCHACHNER-Probably not, because it's not subject to another public hearing. I mean, it could be subject to another public hearing in theory, if there were dramatic changes. Here, not only don't we have dramatic changes, I'm sure we have no changes whatsoever. So, presumably, although I don't have the public notices here. You probably do, presumably it was advertised for tonight for public hearing, but not for Thursday night. MR. HILTON-And that's exactly the case. MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-And you know on something like this it's really our prerogative, and it's not as if we're vacillating. I mean, if something similar like this comes up in the future, then we can just act the same way in the future, but it's our prerogative to do that in the future, too, and I don't think we'd be slighting anybody. MR. WEST-As long as there's no public hearing involved. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I'd just as soon expedite some things. MR. PALING-Okay. Just a minute. Craig, you've been at this longer than any of us here, are you in agreement with this? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I don't have a problem with it. MR. PALING-Okay. Fine. MR. RUEL-Do you want a motion? MR. PALING-Yes. Go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1996 BARBER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its seconded by George Stark: BARBARA adoption, For a four lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer - 14 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much, and if I can beg for one further indulgence. This is the Sherwood Acres. In trying to find out this afternoon the filing date of the modification map that I got approval in July, I find that the modification map is still in somebody's office rolled up. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets start from the beginning. We're talking about Sherwood Acres, and this is for a modification to Subdivision No. 1-71. Now, this was submitted before, and if I'm saying something wrong, somebody stop me. It was approved by the Board, but the total process, as Mr. O'Connor was just saying, was not followed. So they don' t have an approval of the modification. There's nothing changed, so we're back in to approve the modification that was approved previously. MR. MACEWAN-The plat was never filed? MR. 0' CONNOR-It was approved in July of 1996. Apparently the mylar was never signed or filed. So the approval would lapse if you don't file the mylar maps with the County Clerk within 60 days of the date of your motion. MR. PALING-Yes. All right. So I should read this letter, I would think, into the record, to Jim Martin from Michael O'Connor "It has come to my attention that no map reflecting the July 1996 approval of Modification of Subdivision has been signed by the Planning Board Chairman and filed in the Warren County Clerk's Office. Please consider this letter a request for reconsideration of said, modification and a request for re-approval of said modification. This will allow the applicant to present a map for signature and then file same in the County Clerk's Office. There is no new construction proposed as all lots are already occupied. Yours very truly, Little & O'Connor Michael J. O'Connor" Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I happen to have a copy of the map, if somebody's not familiar with it. This was pretty much, again, the same thing. These were modifications that were made during the period of construction of the units that are on these lots. At that time, if we were not creating a new lot, we were allowed, or as a practice to modify lot lines that would conform with the actual configuration of the land. Separate mortgages have been put on most of these units by the builder during the period of construction, with the separate description, per the map that you have in front of you. Again, it was an attempt to clean house, to get things in order, and the last step wasn't taken, unfortunately. At least, the Town didn't have a copy signed and the surveyor didn't have a copy signed. I didn't find out until late in the afternoon. I didn't get anybody up to the Clérk's Office to see if that was the only place that got a signed copy, but if I understand the practice here, when the Chairman signs a copy, at least a paper copy is kept here on a temporary basis. So my strong suspicion is that it never was presented to the Chairman for signature, and there was no follow through. MR. HILTON-Just to clarify, the applicant, after the approval in July, the 60 day time period began through the Planning Department or directly to the Chairman, I believe. We were never present a copy for signa~ure, and if you could just clarify the date on that letter. '" MR. PALING-The date of the letter of the letter that I read into the record from Mr. O'Connor to James Martin is 12/17/96. I have no problem with it, if there's no Staff or legal objection in proceeding with this. MR. HILTON-I have no objection. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. STARK-What kind of a motion? MR. HILTON-You would just be, if you choose to approve, you'd be approving a modification. MR. PALING-Yes. I can do it if you want. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 1-71 SHERWOOD ACRES, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: This action is taken on a previous submittal which pre-dated SEQRA and there is no environmental impact by this action. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-If you're approving a modification, I would suggest that, as you typically do, you say something in reference to SEQRA. In this case, I think back in July you said two things. I think you said, Number One, that the original subdivision pre-dates SEQRA, which it does, and I think you also said that there is no environmental impact of the proposed modification. I think those things should be part, they were part of the motion in July, and I think they should be part of the motion again. MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-No. On the basis that I would vote on it if I had access to the minutes of that particular meeting, but I don't know any of the details of it. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Ruel ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you very much for your indulgence, and for expediting us. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 6-96 KEN ERMIGER MODIFICATION OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9, NEXT TO AGWAY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN - MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE SHORTENING THE TRACK, ELIMINATION OF THE BRIDGE ON THE TRACK, REDUCING THE LENGTH OF THE COVERED STARTING AREA, ELIMINATING THE OFFICE AREA ADJACENT TO STARTING AREA, MOVING THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING ADJACENT TO STARTING AREA BEHIND THE JOG IN THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. ALSO MODIFYING LIMIT OF CLEARING. TAX MAP NO. 73-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 2.90 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT , MR. RUEL-George, Cathy just read the modification. Is that correct based on the new information you gave us? MR. HILTON-Based on the new information, yes, it's still a modification. MR. RUEL-It's still okay the way it is? MR. HILTON-It's still okay to commence review. MR. PALING-Well, it's a modification, but there's still a public hearing and everything that goes along with it. - 16 - · (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site plan No. 6-96, Ken Ermiger, Meeting Date: December 17, 1996 liThe applicant is seeking approval to modify a previously approved Site plan for a go kart track on Route 9. The applicant is proposing the following modifications: 1. Reconfiguration of the go kart track. 2. Eliminating a pedestrian bridge over the track. 3. Reducing the area \of the covered starting area next to the track. 4. Eliminating the office area adj acent to the start ing area. 5 . Moving the maintenance bui lding to the south of the go kart track. 6. Modifying the previous extent of removal of vegetation. Sound walls which were proposed to be built around the original track will remain. The 13,375 square foot office building shown on the original plan will also remain. The maintenance building will be moved to the south of the track near the south property line. The building will be moved to the south of the track near the south property line. The building will have a setback of 27 feet from the south property line. The Planning Board may wish to consider whether or not the fence that is proposed to be built near this building will serve as an adequate buffer from noise and other activities in the maintenance building. The parking area that is shown at the front of the property along Route 9 is proposed to be modified. Some parking spaces will be removed in order to allow an existing large tree to remain on site. Parking requirements for this site should be adequate, however, the site plan should be updated to indicate the loss of these parking spaces. At the present time this site has been graded beyond the limits shown on the previously approved site plan. The site plan should be modified to indicate the new level of clearing. If the Planning Board wishes to require the clearing limits to remain as shown on the previous site plan, a revegetation plan will be required." MR. HILTON-A couple of comments that I have on what was just handed to us before, prior to the meeting, the proposed maintenance building is now being, is proposed to be increased in size to a 30 by 48 building. It will remain at 27 feet from the south property line, as was previously proposed. The applicant has indicated that he will provide 60 White Pines, as a re-vegetation plan, within the area that was cleared, beyond the original limits of clearing. If that's acceptable to the Board and this plan is modified this evening, Staff would recommend that those plants and their size and quantity be listed in the plant listing which is attached to the site plan. Those are the only comments I have at this time. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions or comments from the Board at the moment? MR. MACEWAN-I have a question for Staff. The office/arcade/in-line skating rink building, that wasn't an original proposal under this site plan. Have calculations been given for additional parking requirements? MR. HILTON-I don't understand your question. MR. MACEWAN-The original building on this was going to be serving as an office concession stand and part of the maintenance for the track. Now this building is going to be used for an arcade and for an in-line skating rink, which wasn't originally discussed in the original site plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Has additional parking requirements been calculated for - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) this? MR. NACE-May I address that? For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Nace Engineering, representing Ken Ermiger. The office/arcade/skate rink has always been part of the proposal. What the building was that was referred to, that we're eliminating out by the covered starting area that was a small office and ~ maintenance area that was attached to that roofed over structure for the starting area. That's what we've eliminated. MR. MACEWAN-You're telling us that when first came in here you were proposing having an in-line skating rink and an arcade in the original proposal for this site plan? MR. NACE-There's the approved site plan. This is the original approved landscaping plan. I've just taken it and eliminated the planting details over here and sketched on the actual clearing limits with these three notes. That's the only change that's been made to this plan. Okay. So that that building has always been part of the approved plan. MR. MACEWAN-I realize the building was, but I don't remember a discussion about a skating rink. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't, either. MR. MACEWAN-I remember it being discussed as a concession stand where you were going to serve hot dogs, soda drinks and stuff like that, part of the building was going to be an office and part of the building was going to be the maintenance for the building. MR. NACE-Maybe the confusion, remember we were in here several times with a first proposal that had this building located over here. The track was shorter, but fatter, and closer to the property line, and then when the ZBA determined that we had to meet the setbacks for the track, then we came back. We skinnied up the track and moved it back. The building (lost words) here. That was the change, the stage of which we determined which building was going to serve as an arcade and an in-line skating rink. MR. MACEWAN-Does anybody else recall that? MR. RUEL-Is that rollerblading? Yes, I remember that. MR. MACEWAN-That's not what I'm asking, though. The use of the building is what I'm asking. Does Staff remember that? MR. HILTON-That building before was proposed as an office and arcade complex. MR. NACE-That was in the very first submission. MR. HILTON-The very first submission. I'm researching this right now. So hopefully I ~an have an answer for you in a minute. MR. RUEL-I remember in-line skating. " MR. STARK-Why is he making these changes? MR. NACE-Okay. The change has been made. The first change is the reduction in size of the track, okay. That's a result of his further research into what the current thinking is in the go kart business. He attended a seminar out West early this Fall and came back from that with a determination that it really didn't pay to have the track as long as we had it, and that the bridge was really not a necessary part of the track, okay. So we eliminated the bridge. Incidentally, for the record, it's not a pedestrian bridge. It was a bridge used as part of the track, but at any - 18 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) rate he's determined that that's not necessary. So we reduced the size'of the track, shrank it down in length, and with that he also, at the same seminar, determined that it ~ better to have a maintenance facility that was a little larger and was separated from the starting area of the track, okay. So that's why we're making the changes. MR. STARK-Cars will be in there at night? MR. NACE-In here? No. The cars will be in the starting area at night. This whole, the starting area is fenced in. MR. STARK-Covered? MR. NACE-It'll be covered in the off season, yes, okay, and probably during the winter he'll store them in the maintenance facility, but during normal summer operations they'll be out under that shed roof at the starting area. MR. STARK-There's enough room under there for the cars? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STARK-Did he reduce the number of cars? MR. NACE-I believe that was part of it, yes. He's thinking, originally I think we were talking about 27 cars. I think it was 27, and I think now he's thinking more in terms of 22, 23 cars. MR. RUEL-I'm concerned about the, I'd like to know something about the maintenance activity in that new location, and also would you point out where that fence is between the maintenance activity and Agway? MR. NACE-Sure. The maintenance will be just the normal repairs of the cars. The fence, okay, we always had a fence, you can see it here, that ran up across there MR. RUEL-Is it on this plan here? MR. NACE-It's right here. Okay. See we had the fence heré before, okay, and now we've tied the fence in to the back corner of the maintenance building, and it'll come back out and, I don't know why it didn't show here, but there's a gate across here. MR. RUEL-So you'll have to revise this plan? MR. NACE-This plan, yes, if this is approved tonight, we will revise all the site plans to conform with this, and submit them for record purposes. MR. RUEL-So this is a modification to the existing plan, plus this. MR. NACE-Okay. The modifications are, the track length, the size of the starting area, now this was longer before, and they're building that was attached to it is no longer there. Okay. Putting this in as a modification, and then this is remedial action, I guess would be the best way to term it. When his contractor cleared out here, he got carried away, I guess. I don't know what the reason was. I don't know that any of us will ever, but he cleared way back here close to the property line. This is actually, this is an actual location. The surveyors have gone out and determined where that is. MR. RUEL-AII right. So this will be added to the plant list. MR. NACE-This will be added to, the trees in here will be added to the plant list. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. STARK-What's the height? MR. NACE-It's 12 foot at the eaves and a four on twelve roof for 15 feet would be 15 times, well, divided by 3 is 5 feet. So at the peak it would be 17 feet. So it's fairly, it's not a huge structure. MR. RUEL-Does this have walls, or is this open? MR. NACE-No, it will have walls. It's a pole barn type structure with metal siding, you know, metal roof, so it'll be a decent looking structure. MR. RUEL-The metal is great for acoustics. Metal is great for the noise. MR. MACEWAN-What happened to all the plantings that were on the original plans, now that you're modifying to include this maintenance building, all the plantings in all this area here? MR. NACE-We'll re-distribute those. Obviously we want to provide some. We will re-distribute those plantings. We still have this area in here. So those can remain. Some of this stuff around the back of the track can be located in behind the maintenance building. There's enough buffer there that maybe 'if we plant some White Pines right up close, put a hedge row up close to that maintenance building, it can help the noise issue. MR. MACEWAN-Were you talking six or sixteen White Pines or something? MR. NACE-No, 60 up in here. MR. RUEL-Are you going to add these? MR. NACE-We'll leave those, okay. We can take some of this planting material and re-distribute it, you know, back in behind and around the edges here, yes. Because obviously the track's shortened up, and some of this planting can remain out in the courtyard areas. There'll be more green in here, but, yes, we can add some planting directly behind the maintenance building. MR. HILTON-Okay, and if I could just clarify something here real quick, I'm looking at the approved site plan from August, and it does indicate that the building is to be used as an office, arcade, and in-line skating rink. So that's not changing between the previous approval. It was something that changed from the first submission in February or March, and the approval and August, but it's not something that's being included now. MR. PALING-I'm not sure that was craig's question, though. You were asking about the track or the buildings? MR. MACEWAN-The buildings. MR. PALING-All right. Are there any more questions at the moment? MR. STARK-Offiae/arcade/in-line skating rink, what's that building? That's wood? MR. NACE-No. That'll be a combination of masonry and metal, probably metal roofing. I'm not sure whether it's going to be a metal frame at this point or a wood frame, but there will be masonry around the front for the presentation to the reception area, and then the rear portions will probably be metal. MR. RUEL-Perhaps you didn' t have the time, but why weren't all these modifications in the plan? - 20 - · (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. NACE-Because I wanted to make sure that the building itself, okay, where we proposed it is satisfactory to the Bo~rd! okay, and then we'll revise all the plans for record submlssl0n to the Planning Department. MR. RUEL-Yes, because it would have been ideal if we'd have had it before and after, two of them. This way you have a lot of, not necessarily maior modifications, but you have a lot of modifications, and it's difficult for us to try to envision all of these on a plan. MR. NACE-Yes. I think the only thing that's e'ffected there, really, is landscaping. If there had been modifications that would have been significant for engineering type stuff, I think we would have made those to show the Board what the differences were, but it's really more of a scaled down track separating that maintenance building, but the landscaping I have no problem. We'll add some landscaping behind the building, in the form of a fairly tight cluster of conifers and I think that'll do what you're looking to do. MR. PALING-Did you have anything to add to this before we go to the public hearing? MR. NACE-No, I don't. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-How far beyond the clearing limits did you go? MR. NACE-Significant. I think it's about 160 feet or 130 feet. MR. MACEWAN-And the realization was the excavator just didn' t know? MR. NACE-I have no idea, Craig, I really don't know what motivated it. MR. MACEWAN-One other note on here, I note down on the lower left hand corner, southeast corner of the property, right where there's a radius in the track, where it turns around, and says an oil tank (lost word) pipe to be removed. Was there a buried oil tank there or something? MR. NACE-I think there was. That was removed in the initial stages of construction. MR. MACEWAN-It was? Okay. MR. PALING-All right. Lets open the public hearing on this matter. George, do you have any input for the public hearing? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HILTON-I have a letter. letter though. I'm not sure if you have the same MR. PALING-Is it the one addressed to me? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I've got the same one. MR. HILTON-Okay. Would you like to read that, then? That's the only thing I have. MR. PALING-All right. Let me read this letter into the record as part of the public record, as part of the public hearing, and then we'll ask for comment on this. This is addressed to the Chairman - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) of the Queensbury Planning Board from Martin Auffredou of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, subject, Ermiger revised site plan application. "Our firm represents Lake George Campsite & RV Sales, Inc. Our client owns the property directly to the rear of the proposed Ermiger amusement center. During the original site plan review, Mr. Ermiger and his representatives maintained that our client's noise and privacy concerns were unfounded as Mr. Ermiger's proposal would leave an adequate buffer area between the Campsite and the amusement center. Subsequently, Mr. Ermiger has cleared the property and construction of the amusement center has commenced. The clearing which has occurred, as confirmed by the Department of Community Development, has gone far beyond what was approved by the Planning Board this past summer. It is now our understanding that Mr. Ermiger has submitted a revised site plan application. If the Planning Board is inclined to approve the revised site plan application, our client insists that the approval be subject to certain conditions. Under the circumstances, we believe that the following two conditions are completely warranted. First, before additional development or construction can occur, Mr. Ermiger must file a revegetation plan with the Department of Community Development to address the areas where the unpermitted clearing has occurred. As part of this condition, our client should be given an opportunity to review the proposed revegetation plan and provide comments and/or suggestions to the Department of Community Development. Second, at the time the original site plan application was approved, Mr. Ermiger informed Mr. Edward Gardner, the proprietor of the Lake George Campsite & RV Sales, Inc., that he would install a fence along the perimeter of the buffer area on the amusement center property. Given the unpermitted clearing, as well as the noise and privacy concerns which were raised during the review of the original site plan application, the Planning Board should require the installation of a fence as a condition of approval of the revised site plan application. Again, Mr. Ermiger represented to Mr. Gardner that he would install such a fence. Finally, it is our understanding that an employee of Lake George Campsite & RV Sales, Inc. will be present at the Planning Board meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 17, 1996. As always, I thank you for your courtesy. sincerely, Martin D. Auffredou" Okay. So that's the only letter that we have. MR. HILTON-That's the only letter we have. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone here that cares to speak on this matter? MR. STARK-Jim, did you look at these plans? JIM VALENTI MR. VALENTI-Yes. MR. STARK-They're okay with you? MR. VALENTI-No problem. " MR. STARK-No problem. MR. RUEL-I have a question for George. The last time the applicant was here was for, what, Preliminary? MR. HILTON-The last time the applicant was here, they were here for an actual site plan. MR. RUEL-Final site plan? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-And this is a modification to the final? - 22 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. NACE-This is a modification. MR. RUEL-To the final site plan. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. PALING-Now I see that no one is coming forward. Is there anyone here from the Lake George Campsite? Do you care to comment? CRYSTAL RAYMOND MS. RAYMOND-Crystal RaYmond from the Lake George Campsite and RV Sales. Mr. Gardner just wanted me to make sure that the letter was read, and if there were any questions that I could answer I'd be willing to do that. , MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MR. MACEWAN-Are you satisfied with the proposed 60 White Pines three to four feet tall as re-establishing the buffer between your parcels? MS. RAYMOND-Mr. Gardner is in Sedona, Arizona and he wants to see the plan for himself. He wants to approve it. He wants to see the plan. MR. MACEWAN-That's certainly not going to be possible. It's probably going to be acted upon anyway this evening. I don't see the Board wanting to table this thing until he comes back. MR. RUEL-That would put it on hold. MR. PALING-Well, we can proceed and see what else develops here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is he aware of the 60 planted trees? MS. RAYMOND-Not that I know of. MR. RUEL-He had requested two items, right? He wanted to see the revegetation plan and he also wanted to see, what, the 10,cation of the fence? MS. RAYMOND-He wanted to make sure that that was included, the fence. MR. RUEL-Okay. So we can say it's included, if the applicant says so, and he did indicate, what, the revegetation plan, the additional modification would be, but you're not in a position to approve this tonight? MS. RAYMOND-No, I'm not. MR. PALING-We accept your input, and we'll just have to consider it along with everything else we're doing. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that cares to talk about this matter? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Has any thought been given to the maintenance building being Tlll siding? Why the metal? It seems noisy. MR. NACE-Actually, I think the metal looks better than the T111, especially after five or ten years. I don't think there's any opposition to using TIll. It was just a thought that the metal would. MR. STARK-I was thinking of noise. - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. NACE-We could certainly, along the back two walls well one thing, at that point in the property, we're back pretty ~ell b~hind the. Agway building. N?w, are you using that sales area directly ~ehlnd whe~e that's gOlng to be? The area directly behind there, lS that belng used for sales area now? It will? I'm sure what we could do is put some panels on that back wall, yes. MRS. L~OMBARD-~vhat ab~:)Ut just cedar clapboards or something? See, what we re gettlng at lS, there's another, I/m not going to mention any specific projects, but there's another big project that is proposed in Town, and we're trying to kind of keep this a little Adirondack, even though we're not architects or anything like that, but we're trying to keep a little Adirondack-y look, or it just seems like the metal might be kind of abrasive, as far as environmentally aesthetic. MR. NACE-AII the other buildings on the road are metal. MR. STARK-What color? MR. NACE-It hasn't been selected. that would fade in. It could be a brown or a tan MR. STARK-If it's okay with Agway, it's fine with me. They're the ones that are going to have to live with it. MR. NACE-I think we could work out something, whether we use Tlll back there or maybe put a liner. MR. RUEL- I would like to see the material of that maintenance building changed to be sound absorbing rather than metal, if at all possible. I'm not that concerned with what it looks like at that particular location, but originally there were a lot of objections as far as noise is concerned, and this is partly responsible for a lot of the changes that you've made. I think we should continue in that vein, and if possible, it doesn't seem like it's too difficult for you to put different material that's more absorbing. If you have maintenance, you're going to run these engines. You're going to rev them up, right, whatever, before you put them on the track, and lets keep the noise down. MR. NACE-Let me say that at a minimum we will, there are, okay, let me back up. The building will have wood posts on the inside and wood slates or stringers to support the metal facing, okay. At a minimum, we can come on the inside of those wood slates and put something like a homosilt material, which is very porous and will absorb from the inside. MR. RUEL-But put sound absorbing material on the inside. MR. NACE-Either doing that or going to a wood siding on the outside. MR. MACEWAN-You could tie that into an approval of some kind, so that there's something for them to look at when they go out and do their inspections. MR. STARK-Can 'you work with Agway to get their input to what they would really like? . MR. NACE-Certainly will. MR. STARK-Not hold it to them, but. MR. NACE-Yes, we will, definitely. MR. PALING-Okay. - 24 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. MACEWAN-Has the fence been erected yet between the Zoo's property and the Ermiger property? MR. NACE-The Zoo property has been sold, in fact, they've ta~en their own fence down. The fence that was being referred to ear11er is the fence that Ken, after the meeting and after the approval process, agreed with the Campground that he would put between the Campground property and his property, okay, and that has not been put up yet, but it will be. MR. MACEWAN-I guess the only outstanding issue I think I have with this thing at this point is the size of the White'Pines that you plan on replacing in that area where you clear cut. . MR. NACE-White Pine's a fairly fast growing tree. MR. MACEWAN-But that was a totally mature wood lot back there. MR. NACE-I realize that, and we're never going to be able to re- establish that wood lot that was there. I can't kid you there, but when you start going up in size, first of all it gets fairly impractical to transplant, okay. We're talking about a four or five foot White Pine. Once you get, and I grew up on a Christmas Tree farm, but once you get up to a certain size, the root structure takes a while to get hold, and really the tree becomes dormant almost for a year or two, okay. A smaller tree transplants quickly and takes off fairly quickly. So I don't think, you know, we could transplant eight foot, nine foot trees, but I don't think in three or four years there's going to be a whole lot of difference. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I abstained originally on this, and probably, you know, this whole thing overwhelms me for some reason. I was so ambivalent about it before. I feel like I'm still in the same rut. I'm a little upset about, considerably upset about the trees. Why do those things happen? They happened before and they just continue to happen. I don't know. I'd like to think that maybe this whole size of the area has been condensed a little bit, but I don't think it has. Like I said, again, I'm ambivalent about the whole thing. MR. RUEL-We will have a considerable number of conditions with the motion. MR. PALING-With the motion, yes. MR. RUEL-Because all of the things we talked about will have to be put on the plan, if approved tonight, and do you think that that would satisfy the motion if we just make conditions? MR. PALING-Well, there's only two issues that have really been raised. MR. RUEL-Well, there's a parking requirement on a site plan has to indicate then loss there, and then we have to add 60 pines to the plant list and the size of them, etc., and then we should say something about the fence along the western lot line, and then we should, I don't know if we need a revegetation plan, if this plan shows everything on it, I guess that's part of the plan. MR. PALING-Well, I would like to see, though, as we were talking about earlier, I'd like to see some vegetation where, I don't want to see that removed. MR. RUEL-No, no. Leave the vegetation in the corner by the maintenance building and perhaps remove some of the vegetation and place it along the southern lot line between maintenance building and Agway. That's another condition, and then another condition - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) would be the placement of sound absorbing material on the inside of metal building to satisfy the noise requirements for Agway. MR. PALING-Okay. I think those are all things that we can have as part of the motion. MR. RUEL-Unless there are others. That seems like an awful lot of conditions. MR. HILTON-Just one thing I'd like to clarify with the applicant. The level of clearing that was approved with the previous site plan is going to remain? That's your plan? Are you planning a revegetation plan and not a new, alternate limit of clearing? MR. NACE-That's correct. That's, I believe, what that note says is to revegetate that area. MR. PALING-When something like this is done and this is planted and identified on the print, does that limit the use of this in the future to being a, without any kind of functional use or destroying the trees? MR. HILTON-Behind that level of clearing? MR. PALING-No, where they've cleared, and they will plant, the 60 pine trees, is that now restricted in use to just supporting the pine trees? MR. HILTON-They could come in with another site plan if they were going to. MR. PALING-They couldn't do it on their own? MR. RUEL-No, not according to this. MR. PALING-They've got to go by the print? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Now, 60 pine trees. Do you have any idea how far apart they would be? MR. NACE-That puts them, I think, I think I ended up at 15 feet, okay, which gives them enough room to grow. MR. RUEL-Fifteen feet apart, right, from the trunk? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. RUEL-And they grow to what diameter? MR. NACE-The Pines? White Pine will grow to 36 inch diameter eventually, but that may be 40, 50 years down the road. MR. RUEL-Are they fast growing? MR. NACE-White Pine, yes, definitely. #I , MR. RUEL-And they're sound absorbing the year round. MR. NACE-Well, White Pine is what is native there, what was removed. MR. RUEL-The soil is good for that? MR. NACE-The sandy soils, acid soils are good for White Pine. MR. RUEL-AII right. - 26 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Boaró Meeting 12/17/96) MR. PALING-Okay. Now this iš a modification. So there is no SEQRA required. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, not exactly. As you know, whenever you consider modifications, one of the things that I'm always suggesting and that some of you are always adding on is that you consider whether the modifications are significant enough to cause any different environmental impacts than what you evaluated when you did your initial SEQRA review. Typically, they have not been. This particular application, I'd just caution the Board to make sure and look at that because you do have a lot more modified here than in most of your modifications. ' . MR. PALING-Well, lets do a SEQRA then, because we do have, you've got noise and we've got the buffer here. MR. RUEL-And the maintenance building. Both appear in the SEQRA. MR. STARK-I don't think we need another SEQRA, Bob. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not suggesting you do a whole new form from scratch, although you can do that if you want, but what I'm suggesting is just make sure and look at the issues you've just identified and decide whether those have a significantly different impact than the prèviously approved plan. MR. RUEL- Yes. We talked about these issues tonight, and apparently they can all be mitigated, as far as I'm concerned. MR. PALING-I think they can be mitigated, too, if it were necessary we'll do a SEQRA, but I think they can be mitigated also. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm just urging that you include in any motion, if you're inclined to make a motion for approval, I'm just urging that you include in that motion some discussion of whether or not the modifications caused any new and significant environmental impact, as I recommend on every modification. MR. RUEL-Yes. Right. MR. PALING-Is the Board agreeable? Should we go to a motion on this? And we'll talk about the SEQRA within the motion, but what it's going to say is that the impact is not considered important enough to run another. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, I don't want to go through this again, because we're just going to get bogged right down. We know what's going to happen. MR. PALING-Are you saying you do or don't want to do a SEQRA review? MRS. LABOMBARD-If we do a SEQRA, we're going to get bogged down on the same point again. MR. STARK-Bob, just in the motion say that we realize that noise might be increased, but it can be mitigated. MR. PALING-Yes, and the effect of the clearing will be mitigated also. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mark, do you think we should do one? MR. SCHACHNER-Do one what? MRS. LABOMBARD-A SEQRA. Should we go through all the provisions? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that, I really can't answer the question for - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) you as to whether you should do the whole form. That's up to you but what I'm urging is that the factors that have changed or that have been modified, that you make sure that you look at them evaluate them, and mention them in any motion, so that thi~ decision, if you're going to make a decision, includes consideration of environmental impact as a result of the modifications. You can do that by going through a whole new SEQRA form if you'd like, although I wasn't suggesting that you had to do that, or you can do that by just looking at the issues that you've just mentioned and analyzing, on each issue, whether there's a significant environmental impact on each of those issues different than wha~ was pre~iously identified as the environmental impact, and you Just mentloned two or three issues. MR. PALING-Then I think the Board goes along with the latter, that there've been changes, but they can be mitigated, and we can make that part of the motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I'm just urging that you include discussion of those things in any motion. MR. PALING-Do you want to try it, Roger? MR. RUEL-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 6-96 KEN ERMIGER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For modifications including shortening the track, elimination of the bridge on the track, reducing the length of the covered starting area, eliminating the office area adjacent to starting area, moving the maintenance building adjacent to starting area behind the jog in the southern property line. Also modifying limit of clearing, with the following conditions. That the revised site plan should show the parking requirement laws of three spaces on the eastern end of the property. Two, that you should add the plants in the newly planted area of 60 Eastern White Pines on the plant list with an indication of their size, indicate on the plant list by symbol, botanical name, common name, quantity and size and any other remarks that may be required for the northwestern portion of the property, as indicated on the plan. Three, that they show the location and the description of the fence along the western lot line. Four, install some sound absorbing material on the inside of the maintenance building to satisfy the noise requirement of the neighbor, Agway. Wood frame building, metal outside, and apparently it is the Board's opinion that no significant impact requires a SEQRA at this time. The buffer noise zone and the noise levels indicated earlier will be mitigated. That the plantings along the southeastern corner of the property remain as is, and they will re-distribute the plants that were there for the new layout of the track, and add Pines at the back of the maintenance building, at the southern line, southern side of the building. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following . vote: MR. SCHACHNER-The only condition I heard that I was concerned about was I think you said early on, Roger, something about, on the re- vegetation, indication of size, etc., of trees. Whenever I hear conditions, I always pretend that John Goralski is sitting here, our Compliance Officer, and I'm wondering how he's going to go out to a site and see whether we have compliance. MR. RUEL-All right. I'll define the etc. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think you talk about the size and the etc. - 28 - · (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. RUEL-Indicate on the plant list by symbol, botanical name, common name, quantity, and size and any other remarks th~t ~ay be required for the northwestern portion of the property, as lndlcated on the plan. MR. HILTON-Are you trying ,to determin~ an actual mi?im~m size here that you're going to requlre the appllcant to provlde. MR. RUEL-Three to four feet was indicated, right? MR. NACE- I think what he's trying to say is t~~t what we 1;ave provided as a note on the plan ~ubmitted will ge~ lncorporated lnto the planting schedule, okay, wlth all the pertlnent data. MR. RUEL-It's already here. MR. SCHACHNER-And that note indicates what the actual sizes are? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. RUEL-We could just transfer this information onto that table, plus some additional information such as symbol and things like that. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. NACE-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 74-96 TYPE II PHOENIX TRAILERS DAVID LIBBY OWNER: FLR PARTNERSHIP ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 53-55 LUZERNE ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR METAL FABRICATION, I.E. AUTO TRAILERS, ONE AND TWO CAR CARRIERS, SNOW MOBILE TRAILERS, TRUCK BODIES, SNOW ~LOWS AND BOX SANDERS. ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 118-1-4, 5.1, 5.2 LOT SIZE: 4+ ACRES SECTION: 179- 26 MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 74-96, Phoenix Trailers, Meeting Date: December 17, 1996 liThe applicant is proposing to use an existing building as a metal fabrication business. The new business will use the existing building and parking located at this site. The site is located on the north side of Luzerne Road, at the intersection of pine Street, and is zoned LI-1A. Site density and permeability conform to the requirements of the LI-1A district. Parking appears to be adequate, however, the applicant should update the submitted site plan in order to accurately show where parking is on this site." MR. HILTON-And in addition, the applicant should also clarify any plans for outside storage of materials and which areas of the site that may occur on. Those are the only comments I have at this time. MR. PALING-And what did you say, you said something that's not in your letter, right? - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. .HILTON-Ye~, a cou~le of things. First of all, that the appll~ant has Just s~bmltted better indicating where parking is on the slte. The a~pllcant should also discuss any plans that they may have for outslde storage of any materials or equipment that may be produced or sold on this site. MR. RUEL-This is an existing building? MR. HILTON-An existing building. MR. RUEL-And yet it has to come before the Planning Board? MR. HILTON-Yes, because of the fact that it's in a Light Industrial zone. All land uses are required to receive site plan review. MR. RUEL-Even minor modifications in that zone would be subject to Planning Board review? How do you determine what's minor? MR. HILTON-Well, this is a new use. So even though they're not c:eating any new buildings, because it's a new use, it requires slte plan review. MR. RUEL-It's a very similar use though, isn't it? MR. HILTON-It's a similar use and it's something that's allowed through site plan in the zone. MR. RUEL-What I'm thinking is that formerly AMG, they were in that kind of business, a very similar business and then all of a sudden now because we have a new owner, the same business, the same building, we have to go through this exercise? MR. HILTON-Well, I understand what you're saying, and there's no provision for that in the Light Industrial zone. There is in our Highway Commercial zone. However, the Ordinance still says that any Light Industrial use has to come for site plan. MR. RUEL-Even though the use is very similar? MR. HILTON-Yes. I just have a letter here from Warren County Planning Board dated December 11th. The recommendation was for approval, signed Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves and kind of bring us up to date on the new print, at least, that you've submitted. MR. LEVACK-Okay. My name is Mark Levack from Levack Real Estate. I'm here as agent on behalf of the applicant, Phoenix Trailers and White Bear. We have with us this evening Dave Libby of Phoenix Trailers and Tom Pollard of White Bear, and also, too, Fred Alexy who is the current owner of the building. We're here this evening to get a site plan approval for a use, as Roger said, that's very similar to the prior use of the building which was a metal fabricating plant. White Bear is a tenant. They're not purchasing the building. They are currently a tenant in the building, and they propose to manufacturer car carriers, snowmobile trailers, everything that was on the list that we just mentioned. They have no plans to in~rease the size of the building. They have no plans to increase the size of the black top paved parking area. They have no plans to increase the size of the crushed stone parking area and the sides of the building or the rear of the building. There are no plans to store any equipment outside. The size of the building is a 26,000 square foot building and they're occupying the rear 15,500 square foot section. Any materials that they have in their operation would be stored inside. Any fabricating would be done inside. They're operation does not produce any exterior noise outside the building, does not produce any exterior exhaust to speak of or fumes outside the building. We don't see that this use . - 30 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) will increase any traffic demands on Luzerne Road. They do propose to put one pylon sign, which actually I have on the map up on ~he front display area, but not on your existing maps., ~ can p01.nt that out for you in the southwest corner of the bU1.1d1.ng, or the southwest corner of the site. It's a permitted use. They currently employ nine people, and, they ,hope that .if tI:e ora~ge Blossom Car Carrier which was des1.gned l.n cooperat1.on w1.th Wh1.te Bear and Dave Libby; is as successful as they think it is goinq to be they see many more jobs coming into the building, and we have th~se gentlemen here to answer any questions on their operation. MR. PALING-Okay. Now this is a manufacturing opèration, right? There are no sales out of here? MR. LEVACK-Tom could answer that question. My understanding is they may sell something off site and then bring the purchaser to the plant to witness the construction of the, there's no showroom, there's no sales floor. There's no on site salesman. They may be, in the technical term, conducting sales out of the building, but there is no showroom or no sales. MR. MACEWAN-It's not retail sales, so to speak. TOM POLLARD MR. POLLARD-No. Our retail sales operation is based out of Albany. All of our sales projection will be based on on the road salesmen that will conduct sales on site on premises to customers. The only sales, so to speak, that will be based out of this building will be of the trailer sales, which is conducted through an 800 line that we're going to put into, which is marketed up and down the northeast coast. These gentlemen generally look at the trailer as we have a demonstration unit that we take out on the road to their locations to conduct a sale there, consummate a sale, and then we oversee the manufacturing side of it within this facility here. MR. PALING-Okay. You've answered the question. MR. STARK-There'll be no stored, finished product outside? MR. POLLARD-No. There will be no stored or finished product outside. Upon any completions of the finished product, it' s promptly delivered to the end users. MR. PALING-It's sold. MR. POLLARD-It is sold prior to installation, and then immediately after installation it's delivered back to the end users. MR. RUEL-Do you have water supply in that building and bathroom facilities? Everything is in there already? And as far as the sign is concerned, just one sign, pylon in the southwestern corner? MR. PALING-This'll be a new sign, but this'll go through the Sign. MR. HILTON-Right. They'll have to apply for a sign permit. MR. PALING-Okay, because we can't say yes or no on this. MR. RUEL-No, no. I'm just asking. MR. POLL~D-John is the approval guy. I met with John today, over at the s1.te, and we physically went out and he showed us exactly where the sign should go, and the parameters we were allowed to put it up. MR. PALING-That's not our concern on this Board, but that's. - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. RUEL-Do you intend to have any exterior lighting in that area? MR. LEVACK-Only what's on the building currently. going to add any exterior lighting. They're not MR. RUEL-Just what's there now? MR. LEVACK-Right. MR. RUEL-And the parking is in the front, is that it, as shown here on this plan? MR. LEVACK-Vehicle parking is in the front. MR. RUEL-Do you have any parking in the back? MR. LEVACK-If you go around the back of the building, it's all crushed stone, and the current tenant, Phoenix Trailers and White Bear, plan to park in the back. It's where they access their space. So they really have no desire or need to park in front of the building. In fact the remaining 10,000 square feet in the building we see as being maybe a little more light manufacturing or assembly use, and we'll probably have more of the cars and they'll be parking in the front of the building, when we're successful in leasing the front of the building. MR. RUEL-You said nine employees, right? MR. POLLARD-Yes. MR. RUEL-Now the loading and unloading is in that dock area shown on the plan? MR. LEVACK-The two ramp areas in the rear of the building and the dock area on the west end of the building. MR. RUEL-So three places then. MR. LEVACK-Correct. MR. RUEL-I see. Okay. MR. STARK-Where you show crushed stone, it's more of a swamp than crushed stone. You've got a swimming pool on the right hand side going in, and the back it's all mud city. MR. LEVACK-It was an item for, and I guess that more stone will be brought in as the conditions require. MR. STARK-I thought we were going to disappear when we went through the pool there. MR. RUEL-Yes. See if you can do something about the front of the building. There's a pond there, too. MR. LEVACK-You're saying on the east end driveway? little bit of a. There's a . , MR. STARK-That's toward the back. MR. LEVACK-Right. Yes. There's a roof drain off area there the driveway access needs to be (lost words) from time to time. MR. RUEL-That's it. Thank you. MR. WEST-Is there any new or different industrial wastes that are going to be generated as a result of any of these new manufacturing processes, surface coating operations or metal cutting? - 32 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. LEVACK-Dave can tell you a little bit about the coating process. It's an electrostatic painter, and it's not deemed by OSHA or ENCON to need a paint booth because it immediately adheres to the trailer itself, and there's no collateral paint in the process of painting these trailers. MR. WEST-Do you have powder coating? MR. RUEL-No, electrostatic, right? DAVE LIBBY MR. LIBBY-It's electrostatic. We charge the material to be painted and spray it and it sucks it in like a magnet. MR. WEST-But there's still overspray. MR. LIBBY-It's 98% effective. painting. It's not even considered spray MR. WEST-Okay. MR. LIBBY-Most anybody that has this system, the insurance company is so happy about it, they give you a 10% discount on your insurance. MR. RUEL-And then they increase the insurance in case you get electrocuted. MR. LIBBY-You couldn't get electrocuted, per se, to injury you. You might get a burn on bare skin, but it's not enough. MR. RUEL-What's the voltage? Do you know? MR. LIBBY-At this point, I don't know. particular gun has a turbin inside, electrical charge. What it's got is this and when it causes an MR. RUEL-So it's high voltage with low current, so you don't get killed, right? MR. LIBBY-Yes. It's not really a high voltage. It's just enough to make it pull the paint to the metal, and anything that's not grounded will not be effected. MR. WEST-So there's no air permits or spraybooths? MR. LIBBY-No. MR. RUEL-No exhaust fan? MR. LIBBY-No. You don't need any of it. It's not even considered spray painting. You can go into an office with this gun and paint the desk and have nothing on the floor. MR. RUEL-Could I bring my car there? MR. LIBBY-Sure. I'll paint everything but the tires and windows. MR. PALING-All right. This is a Type II. The public hearing on this is tonight. Lets open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that cares to comment on the Phoenix Trailer application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. PALING-And this is a Type II. Therefore, we don't need a SEQRA' We can go directly to a motion. MR. RUEL-How come there is one attached? MR. HILTON-Well, they attached it with their application. MR. RUEL-They do, automatically, whether you it or not? MR. HILTON-Yes, and we determine whether it requires a SEQRA review after they've submitted the application, and we determined that . ' thlS doesn't need one. . MR. RUEL-You make them fill the form out, and then you don't need it? MR. HILTON-Well, we make them fill the form out just in case one is needed, and between the time that they submit the application and the time the public notice is created, we determine what parts of SEQRA are applicable. MR. RUEL-So now the plan that was submitted will be modified per this? MR. PALING-Well, they have the modified plan submitted, I believe. MR. RUEL-Is this the plan that was submitted originally? MR. HILTON-That's the originally submitted plan. The one you have in front of you is the modification which does show the parking and gravel areas of the site. MR. RUEL-So they will come up with a revised plan. MR. HILTON-Actually, they have. MR. PALING-This is the revised plan. MR. RUEL-This is it? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Do I hear a motion? MR. RUEL-Yes. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 74-96 LIBBY, Introduced by Roger Ruel who seconded by Catherine LaBombard: PHOENIX TRAILERS DAVID moved for its adoption, For a metal fabrication for Auto trailers, One and Two car carriers, Snow mobile trailers, Truck bodies, Snow plows and Box sanders, per revised plan dated 12/17/96, Site Plan No. 74-96. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. LEVACK-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. - 34 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) SITE PLAN NO. 77-96 TYPE: UNLISTED VOGEL REALTY, LLC OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD CONTINUE PRESENT USE (COMMERCIAL TRUCKING OFFICE AND MAINTENANCE SHOP) AND ADD 4,600 SQ. FT. SMALL BUSINESS OF EXCAVATING AND DEMOLITION COMPANY. ASSOCIATED STOCKPILE OF MATERIALS FOR EXCAVATING BUSINESS AND CONTINUED MAINTENANCE SHOP OPERATIONS. ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-6 LOT SIZE: 3.746 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 PAUL VOGEL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 77-96, Vogel Realty, LLC, Meeting Date: December 17, 1996 "The applicant proposes the construction of a 4,600 square foot addition to an existing building on Big Boom Road. This 3.7 acre property is zoned LI-1A. This site currently contains a 4,050 square foot industrial building. The proposed addition would bring the total building square footage on site to 8,650 square feet. The proposed expansion conforms to the density, permeability setback and parking requirements of the LI-1A district. As a part of the development of this site, the applicant is planning to widen the existing curb cut from 100 to 150 feet. The widening will be done in order to allow vehicles to maneuver around the proposed building addition. The applicant is also proposing to use a portion of the site as an equipment storage area. The area that will be used is located at the rear of the property, to the southwest of the building on this property." MR. HILTON-A Warren County Planning Board resolution dated December 11th, this application was reviewed with a recommendation of No County Impact, signed Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson, and before we begin I had a telephone conversation with someone, I did not get her name. She had planned to submit something this evening. She had just one minor question. With the area that you're using for storage of materials, are there going to be any explosives, any dynamite, anything like that that vandals may be able to get into and would be hazardous to anyone? And that's the only comment that I've had. I thought I'd get that in right now. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself please? MR. VOGEL-Yes. Paul Vogel. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Do you want to comment on George's question? MR. VOGEL-Yes. There will be no explosives, anything dangerous. MR. PALING-What' II be stored there? MR. VOGEL-Topsoil, gravel, Item Four fill, sand fill. MR. RUEL-Fertilizer? .. MR. VOGEL-No. MR. STARK-The new addition is going to be the same height as the old addition? MR. VOGEL-Yes. MR. STARK-Are you going to put new bathrooms in there? septic area. I see a MR. VOGEL-Yes, I'm going to have to. - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. STARK-You're going to have a bathroom in there. MR. VOGEL-Yes, sir. Yes. There's going to be, you see the office area on there? It's 20 by 50? There'll be a bathroom in there. Probably two bathrooms, actually. MR. STARK-Where do you park for the office, on the north side? MR. VOGEL-Probably right outside the office is where the parking will be. MR. STARK-Now where you had it staked off and ribb~ned off, that's where the new building's going to be? ~ MR. VOGEL-That's where the addition is going, yes. MR. PALING-Do you have a curbing on the present access? MR. VOGEL-A curbing? No. MR. PALING-There isn't, and you're going to open that up another 50 feet. I think I read that right. MR. VOGEL-Yes. MR. PALING-How are you going to define the access, the limits on it? MR. VOGEL-I was going to clear another 50 feet in addition to what's already cleared for access for tractor trailers to pull into that added on shop space. MR. PALING-I understand that, but what defines the? MR. VOGEL-The trees. The trees and the green area there, because it'll be gravel, that 50 feet will be gravel because it'll be a road for trucks to come in and out. MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments from the Board at the moment? All right. Lets go right to the public hearing on this matter. We'll open the public hearing, if anyone cares to comment, please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MACEWAN-Are these parking spaces along the northerly and westerly lot lines that you have delineated on here? Is there a setback requirement for those? Do they have to be off the property line? MR. HILTON-The parking can be right up to the property line. MR. MACEWAN-It can be. No buffers between that and the edge of the property? MR. HILTON-Usually pavement has to be a separation of I believe it's two feet, or five feet, actually. Yes, usually it's a five foot buffer between any pavement and a property line. This is a pre-existing condition where there's gravel already out there and the applicant isn't proposing to change that in any way. MR. MACEWAN-So as far as 179-66B3A, doesn't apply to him? MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, certainly this is under review, I guess, - 36 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) in the past with other site plans where they've had existing conditions, we've let :the condition remain and, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's been the policy, and in a situation like this you can consider it, but the applicant isn't changing anything. MR. MACEWAN-I guess what's leading me up to the question is when you do snow removal, how do you plow that out? I mean, you're plowing the snow right up to the property line, therefore pushing the parking spaces back farther or what? MR. VOGEL-Well, you could push the snow right up to the property line. That would move the parking space out a little bit further, just like you see in a parking lot, like the shopping centers, you know, snow, you've got to have some place to go with it. If we had a problem where snow was building up that much, we'd take a loader and move it to another portion of the property, if it became a problem. MR. HILTON-And as far as number of spaces, if that's a concern, there's adequate area. MR. MACEWAN-It wasn't so much the spacing, just the fact that I was curious as to how does the Ordinance (lost word) the fact that the parking spaces are right up on the property line? MR. HILTON-Well, usually with any new construction we do, it's stipulated that there be a five foot buffer area. As I said, this is an existing condition. It's not changing. MR. MACÉWAN-One more question for you. The septic system location, should it be relocated to a different location and out of the drive aisle? MR. HILTON-The septic system, we've already spoken to Dave Hatin. That's acceptable. The one thing you may want to do is if you're going to approve this application, stipulate that the applicant install traffic covers over those drywells. That will be required by the Building Code, but you certainly can stipulate that. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. VOGEL-If I can comment on the last question. I was planning on putting traffic covers there anyway because of the location of the septic. MR. RUEL-Over the tanks or the fields or what? MR. VOGEL-Over both the tank and the drywells. MR. RUEL-I see, you have a tank and you have two drywells. MR. VOGEL-Correct. MR. RUEL-Yes. So you'd have three traffic covers? MR. VOGEL-Yes, sir. . MR. RUEL-I wo~ld like to see the plan dated, put a date on this plan. MR. VOGEL-George, I thought you told me I had to date the application and sign the application and not the plan? MR. HILTON-We have a dated application and we can just transfer that over to the plan. I could write it on it right now. MR. PALING-What's the date of it, do you know? - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) MR. VOGEL-Would that satisfy you? MR. HILTON-Yes. We're satisfied. The date that you submitted this, we received it on the 2nd of December. MR. PALING-All right, 12/2/96. MR. RUEL-It's just that I like some identification on the plan, dated or something. MR. PALING-Okay. This is an Unlisted Action, so we're going to do a SEQRA, Short Form, right? ' MR. RUEL-I have a question. Recently, there was a plan to evaluate the properties in Queensbury as far as endangered species of flowers or whatever. Has that been completed? MR. HILTON-Are you referring to the Blue Lupine study? MR. RUEL-I'm referring to the Curtis. MR. PALING-What has that got to do with this applicant? MR. RUEL-Well, because this may be one of the properties involved. MR. STARK-I don't think there's any Lupine butterflies. MR. WEST-It's a parking lot, Roger. MRS. LABOMBARD-Have you seen it? There's no, believe me, there are no nothing there. MR. RUEL-Forget it. Sorry. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 77-96, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the VOGEL REALTY, LLC, 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. S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant - 38 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) 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 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 77-96 VOGEL REALTY, LLC, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To continue present use (commercial trucking office and maintenance shop) and add 4,600 sq. ft. small business of excavating and demolition company. Associated stockpile of materials for excavating business and continued maintenance shop operations. With one condition, that traffic covers be placed over the septic tank and drywells, and that the plan be dated 12/2/96. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE, ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. VOGEL-Thank you. MR. STARK-When did you plan on starting construction? MR. VOGEL-That's why it's all roped off to keep people off of it and keep them from driving on it. So it does pound the frost in. Because I was hoping to start this winter, if I could. MR. STARK-There's no frost in the ground right now. MR. VOGEL-No, sir. That changes fast. You push the snow off and drive on it, it pounds the frost in. ~ MR. PALING-Okay. We have a meeting Thursday night. everybody realizes. I think MR. RUEL-I won't be here. MR. PALING-Roger won't be here. I hope Tim will be back. MR. VOGEL-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay, gentlemen, meeting's adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/17/96) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 40 -