Loading...
1997-04-15 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 15, 1997 INDEX Site Plan No. 15-97 Dale Campbell Tax Map No. 5-1-11 1. Cont'd Pg. 41. Site Plan No. 16-97 Newton's Auto Sales, Inc. Tax Map No. 109-1-7 4. Site Plan No. 17-97 Catherine M. McDonough Tax Map No. 68-1-1 20. Site Plan No. 18-97 Steven & Donna Sutton Tax Map No. 68-1-15 24. Subdivision No. 1-1997 FINAL STAGE Cerrone Builders Tax Map No. 48-3-51.1, 53 31. 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 4/15/97) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 15, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER DAVID WEST CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LABOMBARD PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 15-97 TYPE II DALE CAMPBELL OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: DUNHAMS BAY REMOVAL OF EXISTING "F- SHAPED II DOCK - RECONSTRUCTION OF NEW DOCK AND OPENSIDED BOATHOUSE. LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 5.-1-11 LOT SIZE: 2.50 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 15-97, Dale Campbell, Meeting Date: April 15, 1997 "The applicant proposes the construction of a new F shaped dock as well as the construction of an open sided boathouse with a deck and stairway." Access will be granted only from the dock and not from the shore onto that stairway. liThe length of the dock and the setbacks conform to zoning requirements. The height of the covered boathouse must conform to the Ordinance requirement of 14 feet. The applicant should indicate what the proposed height of the boathouse will be. The stairway will be attached to the boathouse and access will not be available to the roof top deck from the shore. Comment on possible impacts this dock and boathouse may have on the surrounding neighborhood may be provided at the public hearing. II MR. HILTON-George, we're going to have to ask you tonight a little bit different than other nights. I don't mean to put the pressure on you, but you're going to comment on County impact and so on. MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. PALING-Would you tell us what's different from the two packets that we have, because the one tonight we haven't, and I hope you can do that okay. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. PALING-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? MR. HILTON-There shouldn't be anything different from this application. No additional information was received this evening. MR. PALING-We do have questions of the applicant, or the applicant's representative. So if no one's here from the applicant, we'll open the public hearing on the Dale Campbell - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) application. Does anyone care to speak about it, pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BRIAN KING MR. KING-My name's Brian King. My wife and I are co-owners along with RaYmond and Joanne Maddox of the camp just to the east of the Campbell property. We've owned this property now for approximately 11, 12 years, and are concerned by the new dock, as to how it's going to impact on our enjoYment of our present situation. By that, I mean this covered boathouse is going to be coming out at an angle into the bay. From our dock, and we went up there this winter, I did submit some pictures of how this is going to impact our enjoYment of the lake. We enjoy greatly looking out to the west toward the main body of the lake and right where the sunsets with the mountains in the background, and it is our feeling that this boathouse is going to obstruct that view considerably, and (lost words) with the fence that they're going to have around the deck. It looks to me like it's going to be well over 14 feet high, and the view will be greatly impaired, and would object for that reason. I would strongly support their concept of putting a new dock in. I think they need a new dock. I don't object to that at all, but we would greatly prefer to see it just be a flat dock, and not the covered boathouse attached to it. MR. RUEL-Your property is where, east or west? MR. KING-To the east, just a little inside the bay from them. MR. STARK-That's the big white house that sits up high? MR. KING-No. It's an almost identical house to theirs. It's a red. We just have a U-shaped dock. The other thing I might add is it's considerably bigger than any structure on that side of the bay going in. It's much bigger, much larger than anything along that side. (Lost words) unusual design that's on that side. MR. RUEL-You mean as far as the deck is concerned? MR. KING-Yes. MR. PALING-You mean as far as the 40 feet is concerned. MR. KING-Forty feet is going to be large. MR. PALING-I didn't see any in that similar dimension in that area. MR. KING-Absolutely not. Forty feet long. The decks are going to be, I think, 12 feet across. It's going to be a large structure. MR. PALING-Okay. Dale Campbell. MR. KING-Those are some photographs we took this winter, and tried to sketch in according to the information we had as to how this is going to change the appearance. There's still no one here from the applicant, MR. PALING-Okay. The built up part here, the sketch is sketched in. MR. KING-Yes, and there's one that shows as it is, and one with just what would be sort of a flat dock. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Is there a height to a proposed covering that would be acceptable to you, other than 14 feet? - 2 - / ./ --./ ",-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. KING-I think 14 feet is than, it looked to me like might be as high as 16 feet. any bit of difference as to not going to be a whole lot different they were saying in their drawing it I'm not sure 14 feet is going to make what they're trying to do. MR. RUEL-There's no indications of the height on this drawing anywhere. That's why if the applicant was here. MR. PALING-Have you talked to Mr. Campbell, between the two of you, to discuss it? MR. KING-We have corresponded with him and expressed our displeasure with the design, yes. MR. STARK-Anything else, Brian? MR. KING-No. MR. PALING-Thank you. Campbell matter? MR. HILTON-I just have one written comment that I'll read in. It's a letter to the Planning Board dated the 11th of April, 1997. It says, "I have reviewed the file on the application of Dale & Catherine Campbell to construct a new wharf and open-sided boathouse on Dunham Bay (Tax Map #5-1-11). We have no objections to this new construction. Douglas A. Wrigley (Tax Map No. 5-1-7)" Is there anyone else here to speak on the MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone else, for the moment? All right. We're going to leave the public hearing open. Because there is no one here representing the applicant, I don't see that we have any alternative but to table it. Now what does this do to the applicant? MR. HILTON-One thing, if you'd like, one thing you could do right now, and this is entirely up to the Board, but you could put this item off until later in toniqht's meeting, and see if the applicant does show up, maybe they're running late or something, and then we could pick it up then, and then if need be, you could table it for another evening, another meeting. MR. PALING-Okay. I guess that's about the only thing we ~ do. If that's okay with the Board if we just let this go until later on in the evening, and then if necessary, we'll table it. MR. RUEL-Yes. If he doesn't show up this evening and we table it, can we table it so that the applicant can set his own date? MR. PALING-Well, he'll have to confer with the Planning Staff, and he may have to re-notify the, send out another notice. MR. HILTON-Well, with the public hearing, if the public hearing is left open, there'd really be no need for further notification. We could hear it, we could say the first meeting in May, bring it up on that evening. MR. PALING-Well, what do we do about the person who testified tonight, make sure he knows? MR. HILTON-Well, we'd certainly let them know. We'd give them a call or something and let them know when the meeting would take place. We would plan for the first meeting in May, the first regular meeting in May, which would be the third Tuesday. MR. PALING-All right. Well, lets see what happens then, and see if he shows up, and we'll come back to it. Lets just move on to the next item, then. Okay. Do the minutes. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. STARK-Okay. CORRECTION OF MINUTES: February 20, 1997: NONE February 25, 1997: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES DATED FEBRUARY 20TH & 25TH, 1997, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard SITE PLAN NO. 16-97 TYPE II NEWTON'S AUTO SALES, INC. OWNER: BOYCHUCK - c/o BOB SEARS ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE RIDGE ROAD - CORNER OF QUAKER AND RIDGE ROAD USED AUTO SALES. PER SECTION 179-23 AUTOMOBILE SALES IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 109.-1-7 LOT SIZE: 1 + ACRE SECTION: 179-23 ALBERT ZITO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 16-97, Newton's Auto Sales, Inc., Meeting Date: April 15, 1997 "The applicant is seeking approval to allow a used auto sales business on property located at the northeast corner of Quaker Road and Ridge Road. The applicant plans to provide parking for 40 vehicles. Due to the location of the building and the limited width of this property there may not be enough room on this lot to park 40 vehicles along with vehicles used by employees and patrons of this site. The applicant has indicated that they are seeking approval to allow parking of vehicles on Niagara Mohawk property to the south. Without this approval staff believes it would be difficult to park 40+ vehicles on this property. The Planning Board may also wish to require landscaping be provided by the applicant along Quaker and Ridge Roads as has been done with other commercial projects throughout Queensbury. " MR. HILTON-This project was reviewed for Warren County Planning Board, on the ninth of April, and No County Impact was found, and there's a resolution signed by Tracey Clothier, Chairperson. MR. RUEL-George, could you explain further how you arrived at the inadequate parking area? MR. HILTON-In looking at the site plan, if you look at the distances between the building and each property line, and you take into account that each parking space has to be nine feet wide by twenty feet long, as per our Zoning Ordinance, it seems kind of difficult, in measuring it, that you would be able to fit 40 automobiles on the site, and at the same time have enough drive aisle to maneuver cars in and out of the site. MR. PALING-And what's the difference in the information, the two packets of information. MR. HILTON-The information that you received tonight is the same as you've received before. - 4 - ./ -'" ~ "--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. RUEL-It's identical. MR. PALING-Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Okay, would you come up, please, and identify yourself? MR. BREWER-George, haven't we, in the past, as far, I'm trying to remember Barrett's. Did we require a car lot to be nine by twenty? MR. HILTON-Well, each parking space, if the use primarily involves the parking of vehicles, then you've got to have enough room for the car and also a drive aisle. MR. BREWER-But isn't that for patrons? MR. HILTON-I think the thing to do, and the applicant can speak to this, but I think they plan to do some minor maintenance of the automobiles on site, and our concern would just be that if you're going to be doing the maintenance in the rear of the building, and you've got cars parked up along, up and to the front, it may be difficult maneuvering cars around there. MR. BREWER-I don't disagree with the drive aisle, but I mean as far as cars on display, I don't see a need for having them that far apart. I mean, he might pick up two or three or four spaces if he put them closer together. MR. PALING-Yes, and I think there's evidence that they have two repair doors back there now. So maybe we'll, a lot of this will be clarified from the applicant. MR. ZITO-I'm Al Zito. I'm the applicant from Newton's Auto Sales Incorporated. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you want to tell us what you're going to do there and you might address some of the comments that have been made so far. MR. ZITO-As far as the parking, we've sought permission from NiMo to use that property out in the front. There should be sufficient parking. They're just for display, there would be a maximum of 40 (lost words) and they'll go, if I have 100 feet you could be 25 cars straight in a row. MR. PALING-Did you say you've qotten approval or you're qettinq approval? MR. ZITO-We're seeking. They've indicated there should be no problem with that. We don't have it yet, and in the back, we only do, as the cars come in, we just do a check out there, make sure that they're in good condition. Repairs are sent out. So we actually have no reason for moving them around, and there's a large square area, right in the back, that we could probably park 12 or 15 cars right in that area, where the property line comes this way and juts out that way, coming across this way in the back. So from this area here, you could probably put 12 or 15 vehicles in there, for display only. MR. RUEL-None of this area is paved, right? MR. ZITO-It's all stone. really good. We (lost word) the stone so it looks MR. STARK-What are you going to do with the shed in the back, to the north of the building? MR. ZITO-That little shed to the side? Nothing. - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. STARK-Leave it there? MR. ZITO-Leave it there, take it down, if you want it down. It's of no use to me. MR. PALING-The only business you're going to run there is used cars? MR. ZITO-Automobile sales. No public repair. MR. PALING-No. I mean, any other business besides selling of used cars? MR. ZITO-No. MR. PALING-You can't display a car in the front, inside of the building, can you? MR. ZITO-Yes. We have made provision for putting (lost words) we can put three vehicles inside. MR. PALING-Peeking through the window, it doesn't look like there's room for a car to get by with the new wall going up. MR. ZITO-If you look to the left, right where we're putting a big showroom door in there. You'll be able to drive in and put two this way and one straight across the front. MR. RUEL-Could you tell me what your request to NiMo is? MR. ZITO-It's just the use of the property from that point to Quaker Road, and we'll keep it maintained. We'll keep it the grass cut. MR. RUEL-You wouldn't use this for anything? MR. ZITO-No, just for display. MR. RUEL-Is that on the north side of the building? MR. ZITO-The Quaker Road side. It would be the south side. MR. RUEL-That's where you're going to park the cars? MR. ZITO-That's where we're going to park the cars. MR. RUEL-Not on NiMo property? MR. ZITO-No, not now until we get permission from them. MR. RUEL-But if you got permission from them, then you'd have space. MR. ZITO-We'd have additional space. MR. WEST-You could park them two deep along there? MR. ZITO-Right now we could park them two deep and still have probably a 25 or 30 foot drive through and access to the back. MR. RUEL-And your hours of operation are until six p.m. did you say? MR. ZITO-Six o'clock. MR. RUEL-Yes. You don't anticipate putting lights out there, do you? - 6 - / -/ ~ "--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. ZITO-We would put private lighting, but we'd lease that from NiMo. They'd put it on the poles out there. MR. RUEL-There is some existing poles. MR. ZITO-Yes, the NiMo poles. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. ZITO-We'd just lease. MR. BREWER-What kind of lighting? MR. ZITO-They put these privacy parking lights up. I have them in my other location. MR. RUEL-Yes. NiMo does that. MR. ZITO-Yes, and you pay so much a month for the lighting and maintenance. MR. PALING-Privacy parking, what is that? I don't know what kind of a light that is. MR. ZITO-It's mercury vapor light. Instead of it facing the road, like a street light, it would face the building and the parking area. MR. RUEL-I have a question for George. Should this go before the Beautification Committee for landscaping? MR. HILTON-There was no landscaping proposed as a part of the site plan. The site plan only indicated that they moving into an already built building. So therefore the decision was made to forward it to the Planning Board. If you feel that you'd like it referred to the Beautification Committee, you can certainly do that. MR. BREWER-There's a comment in here about it. MR. RUEL-Should there be some landscaping? MR. ZITO-(Lost words) will maintain the shrubbery and the green area, the front lawn and so forth. MR. RUEL-You can't tell from the plan whether there's any landscaping or not. MR. ZITO-Yes. MR. PALING-Well, there is some landscaping there, yes. MR. ZITO-The front of the building has shrubbery, and down the side. MR. RUEL-Yes, but Staff comment indicates to me that perhaps they thought there was a lack of it. MR. PALING-Well, I think they're right, and we can get to that I think maybe toward the end when we cover other stuff, but I think there should be additional plantings there, yes, but we can get to that. MR. MACEWAN-I want to get clear on something. Without NiMo's permission to utilize their property, how many cars can you store in that lot do you think? MR. ZITO-We can still put 30 to 40 cars comfortably. - 7 - ',,---, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. MACEWAN-And with NiMo's blessing, how many more cars could you put on there? MR. ZITO-You could go to 100. MR. MACEWAN-How many do you anticipate having at anyone time? MR. ZITO-We've never had more than 30 or 40 cars. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you care to put a number on that? As a maximum you'd be held to? MR. ZITO-Forty, even with NiMo's property. MR. PALING-Okay, and that's the maximum you'd park on your property for re-sale? MR. ZITO-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets go to the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing on the Newton Auto Sales matter. Is there anyone here that would care to speak about it? Please come up and identify yourself. KEN ELLIS MR. ELLIS-Good evening. My name is Ken Ellis, approximately 100 yards from the proposed site. I with lights on. First off, the north side of within 50 feet of a dwelling. 385 Ridge Road, don't sleep well the building is MR. PALING-Okay. Is that where you live or is that your property there that you're talking about? MR. ELLIS-385 Ridge. opposite side. I'm approximately 100 yards north, the MR. PALING-Okay. MR. ELLIS-Now the existing building right now is approximately 50 feet from an occupied dwelling, okay. That may be acceptable. That's within the minimums. The front of the building, to the front paved area of the highway, is less than 40 feet, or approximately 40 feet. MR. BREWER-Thirty-two feet. MR. RUEL-Thirty-two. MR. ELLIS-Thirty-two feet, I guesstimated it. As for the paved area on the south side of the building, adjacent to Niagara Mohawk property, that was recently paved with stone, right up to four o'clock yesterday afternoon, the 14th. No more than approximately 20 feet was paved, prior to this recent development. So now there's no green space to the south of the building. None whatsoever, right up and adj acent to what appears to be the property marker for Niagara Mohawk property on the south side of the building, and from Ridge Road, it's approximately 120 some odd feet deep. MR. BREWER-The paving is you mean? MR. ELLIS-The stone and the pre-existing macadam. MR. PALING-Explain that 120 again. That seems a little shy. MR. BREWER-No, the paving. - 8 - ;/ -,/ '--' "--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. PALING-East to west, okay. MR. RUEL-He's talking about Ridge. MR. PALING-Well, this is the area, here, that he's talking about, the paving that runs along side of the building. MR. ELLIS-The south side of the building, parallel with Quaker Road. That has all been stoned. MR. BREWER-What he's saying is, the pavement they have put down is 120 feet. MR. PALING-From where? MR. ELLIS-From the road area. MR. PALING-Road area, okay. It doesn't run the whole length of the building, then. MR. ELLIS-It runs well beyond the length of the building. MR. PALING-And if it goes from the roadway, it's got to be more than 120 feet. MR. ELLIS-I don't know the exact dimensions of the building. MR. PALING-The building's 100 feet long. MR. ELLIS-So I'd say it's 140 feet of stone now. So there is no green space to the south side of the building. None whatsoever. MR. PALING-Yes, until you hit the NiMo property. MR. ELLIS-That's right. One of my main concerns is there are no sidewalks anywhere on the Ridge Road, either side. The children congregate on Meadow Lane, immediately opposite that driveway, the only existing driveway to that property. The children have to pick up the bus there. They congregate for the bus there. That is a very busy intersection with children all the way around that intersection, that corner, and every evening when they disembark from the bus. That originally was all developed residential, and gradually it's encroaching, and I realize you can't stop progress, but that's still a residential area. Now however that was zoned, we have to live with it, but clearly, that area cannot stand anYmore density on that particular road, and I would beseech anyone here to try and cross Quaker Road, right now, within 100 yards of that intersection. You take your life in your hands. You have to go 100 yards either way and cross traffic, and everyone is taught to cross at a light. You can't. People making right turns on red. They have green arrows. It's impossible to cross that intersection right now. Right now I'd say that that existing parking area is clearly 60% more than is was a few weeks ago, and that's a conservative estimate. I think that's all I have to say. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Please come up. BONNIE GLENDENNING MRS. GLENDENNING-I'm Bonnie Glendenning. I live at 395 Ridge Road, which is a little farther up Ridge from where the existing structure is. We also own a business on Ridge Road, and we've spent the last 24 years here trying to maintain a building and a business in a residential area so it would conform to any aesthetic quality for this residential area. I see progress as being very important, and having a commercial property in a residential area, I'm sort of sitting on both sides of the fence, but I think that - 9 - ~~ -./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) the commercial property which would be on that corner would be mostly (lost words) to the entire community of residents around there. It would be something that could retain a residential appearance. We're losing that very definitely. By allowing something like that to go in there, it changes the entire complexity of the entire area around that four corners. Yes, there are two other commercial properties, but in the evening there is nothing is left for an aesthetic quality it looks very nice on those corners, and I have nothing against car dealerships. My father was a car dealer for many years, but you can't put it away. You can't plant your flowers (lost words) Halfway Brook on the weekends and so on and so forth. (lost words) I think that it is imperative that at some point we retain a more aesthetic quality. Having the lawns, having the flowers, having it look like it fits into a residential community, and that's what Ridge Road has been, and I think it should remain that way. MR. PALING-Thank you. MARJORY JOHNSON MS. JOHNSON-I'm Marjory Johnson. I agree with everything Bonnie has just said, and I have several letters here from my neighbors, all opposing this lot being used as a used car lot. MR. PALING-Well, really they should be read. Give them to George and they should be read into the record. If we have them, they're not going to do any good in the envelope. MS. JOHNSON-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. STEVE GUZIK MR. GUZIK-My name is Steve Guzik, and I'm the Plant Manager at AVS Engineered Systems. Of course we're not in close proximity as some of the other people that have just spoken, but we are not here to hinder free enterprise at all. What we do ask for, though, is that the proprietor of this establishment try and maintain this property as well as or at least as well as the other auto dealerships on Quaker Road. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who else would like to talk? MATT HARRISON MR. HARRISON-My name's Matt Harrison. I own the property on 1 Meadow Lane, which is as soon as you enter into Meadow Lane off of Ridge Road you come to my property. Certainly this property in question is very visible from my property in the day time, and certainly with any kind of lights, I won't be able to sleep, but more importantly, it is important that I got almost sick to my stomach when I got this letter. I have a two year old daughter, and I bought a house in the neighborhood so that she could ride her bike, be in the neighborhood and be safe. A used car dealership or car dealership, when someone's going to buy something from a car dealership as opposed to a restaurant or any other commercial enterprise, they've got to test drive this vehicle. I think that if you talk to any car dealership in Queensbury, anybody takes their car and test drives it on Meadowbrook Road. It's probably the only road in Queensbury where you can drive 55 miles per hour. Obviously, anybody that's going to test drive a car, get in the car, exit Ridge Road, go right across Ridge Road, into Meadow Lan~, directly over to Meadowbrook Road. One way to get there. I'm not the only one in this neighborhood with children. These people that are test driving the vehicles don't know there are children, and what type of neighborhood this is. I work out of my home. I see - 10 - .-/ '-" ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) kids in the street, riding bikes, roller blading all day long. They're not going to understand this increased density. I mean, I dare say there's maybe 10 cars a day that drive down Meadow Lane. This is, at best, going to double the traffic. I just can't sleep at night thinking about what could happen. That's all I've got to say. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who else would like to speak? DOUG IRISH MR. IRISH-Hi. My name is Doug Irish, and I'd just like to speak on behalf of Mr. Zito. I think, for one it is a permitted use in the area. I think I was up here a couple of weeks ago when Passarelli's application was up here, and I didn't think it was a good idea having a dealership on Route 9, but I do think that Quaker Road is conducive to car dealers. I think that's kind of where they should be in Queensbury. The problems that they had with Meadow laying across from the business, it's not actually right across the street from the driveway. It's probably 35 feet down the road, and I have kids. I wouldn't want my kids out on this corner either, but that's really something that they could take up with the School Board, move the bus stop if that's a problem. I wouldn't want my kids out on that road whether there was a business there or not. It's a dangerous road, Ridge Road in itself. As far as walking across Quaker Road, anywhere on Quaker Road you couldn't do that, safely, and the intersection is controlled by a traffic light. I don't think you can really expect a business to control the traffic that's not coming to his business, that's traveling up and down the road. He has no control over that. I've know Al Zito probably for between five and eight years, and some of you may know him from, he's the former owner of Adirondack Power Products, and I don't think he's ever done anything in the Town that he didn't check and see if it was authorized first. I think when they put the sewer thing up here, he was one of the first businesses to tie into it, and I don't think that he would do anything that's going to harm the community, and if anybody's got a complaint and they want to talk to him, he's the kind of guy that will listen to you, and, you know, if it's something he can control, he'll do everything in his power to control it, and again, I would just go back to the fact that it is a permitted use. It's Highway Commercial, and I don't think that it's something you can just turn down because it's not something that somebody wants in their backyard. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else care to talk? George, how far north does the Highway Commercial extend from this property? I've got the map in front of me. MR. HILTON-I think this is the last lot with Highway Commercial. The lot to the north had a re-zoning to Neighborhood Commercial, and then from there north it's a Single Family Residential zone. MR. PALING-Single Family Residential One Acre, yes. So that's the last property. MR. HILTON-That's the last Hiqhway Commercial property. MR. STARK-There's a realtor office next door. MR. PALING-And what's after that, did you say? MR. HILTON-The insurance company, at the north there, and that's Neighborhood Commercial. MR. PALING-Yes, Neighborhood Commercial. There's a little block, and that's north of, or abuts the north side of this property. - 11 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. Now does the Board concur we should hear the letters that have been sent in? MR. STARK-We've got to hear them. MR. MACEWAN-On the record. MR. PALING-Go ahead. MR. HILTON-All right. A letter dated April 14, 1997. It says, "Dear Sir: I am writing this letter because I am very much concerned over the proposed use of the property on the corner of Ridge and Quaker Roads. I have owned a home in the subdivision directly across the street from this property for many years. This neighborhood has always been very quiet. Many residents walk the streets of this neighborhood every day, and many children can be seen riding their bikes at almost any time of day. These streets in this neighborhood are our "safe haven" since the nearby Quaker and Ridge Roads are so heavily congested. Most residents in this area are aware that all of the car dealerships on Quaker Road have their customers test their vehicles up Meadowbrook Road because it has little traffic and a 55 mph speed limit. This is accepted by our residents and the children are told to avoid Meadowbrook Road just as they avoid Quaker and Ridge. This new car dealership poses several problems. First of all, it is much too close to the subdivision. The distance between the driveway of the property and the subdivision is less than 50 feet. Also all the traffic from this dealership will drive across Meadow Lane in the subdivision to get to Meadowbrook Road for their test drive. I have lived in the subdivision for many years and have seen many young children grow up here, but now I am haunted by what may happen if this business is allowed to occupy this property. Sincerely, Pearl Johnson" A letter dated April 15, 1997. "To Whom It May Concern: We are absolutely opposed to having a car sales business at Quaker and Ridge, Queensbury, NY. School buses drop off and pick up children there on Ridge - the traffic and people "trying out" the cars, through our neighborhood, is a real danger - Why not be on Quaker Rd. like other auto dealers? This would be a terrible move, plus lowering the values here in Ridge Meadows - Sincerely, Joan & Jack Carson" A letter addressed to the Planning Board. It says "We would oppose any business on this property which would give the residential surroundings a commercial appearance. The existing commercial properties on Ridge Road have worked hard to blend into the neighborhood. A used car lot does not blend into the neighborhood. Edmund and Dorothy Clark" A letter which states, "The placement of a used car dealership concerns us because - a. it may allow a "j unk yard" look to develop on prime Ridge Rd. property. b. it may allow the dealership to open another business, such as, car repair. c. we would not like this area to develop into an auto junk yard. We object to any business being established which will lower any of our neighborhood real estate values. George G. Thurston Nancy P. Thurston" A letter dated April 15th. "I am opposed to having a used car dealership at the corner of 72 Meadow Lane and Ridge Rd. due to the already busy traffic and lots of our young children that have to be bussed at that immediate site. It will be very unsafe and inconvenient. I hope you will give us as taxpayers your kind consideration. Thank you, Mrs. Johnson White" A letter dated April 14th, "To Whom It May Concern: We, the undersigned, wish to go on record voicing our protest to any person or persons doing business as a used car lot on the property at Ridge and Quaker Roads in Queensbury. We believe this type of business will affect the value of our properties in Ridge Meadows, aside from causing a disturbance on our quiet streets. Sincerely, Virginia A. Sanford 43 Meadow Rd.; Sally C. Sanford 71 Meadow Drive; Richard L. Sanford 71 Meadow Dr." A letter dated April 14th, it says, "Gentlemen: I have just - 12 - '"-,, -,," ........-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) learned that you are considering allowing a used car ~usi~ess ~n the former Conklin Plumbing corner. Those of us who 11ve ln thlS area of Ridge Road are constantly having to come before boards and do battle in our attempts to retain the value of our properties and the residential appearance of our neighborhood. Would you like a used car lot next to your home? We realize no one can stop progress - but a used car lot? This is not progress. There is much vacant land along Quaker Rd. but the prices are probably high. The price for the Conklin property should be some indication of deteriorating values in our area. We ask you to please be considerate of our properties in your decisions. Dorothy A. Chartier" "To Whom It May Concern: We are very much opposed to having a used car dealership open in the former Conklin Plumbing location on Ridge Road near Meadow Lane. Ours is a quiet, low- traffic residential neighborhood, and a business such as that would have a very adverse effect on the family quality of our immediate area. Please don't let this happen! Respectfully, Barr S. Morris Margaret M. Morris" A letter dated April 15th, "We own Hair Designs on 384 Ridge Rd. Our concern with a used car dealership is that it was very important to this neighborhood to have a residential look within a commercial property. We feel it would be a hard business to keep the look that this area would enjoy living with. We work very hard to keep the look our neighbors live with daily. Thank you, Rick and Karen Cunningham" And that's about it. MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing is still open. Is there anyone else that cares to speak? Okay. If not, then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Would the applicant want to come back up, please. Did you want to address any of the comments that have been made? MR. ZITO-Yes. As far as the look, maintaining the look of our location, we maintain a very clean location. We don't keep junk, or vehicles of late models. Our projected sales are only 15 to 20 units per month, and we're not talking about a lot of test drives. I, myself, did not even know that you could go through Meadow Lane to get to Meadowbrook. My intention would be if someone wanted a test drive, they would go up Quaker Road or down Ridge Road, not go all the way across to Meadow Lane. I can understand their feeling, but we do maintain a clean area. It does look nice. It'll look nice. It looks nicer now than when Conklin's had it. I mean, we still haven't cleaned up the lawns or anything, but, you know, I don't see why we should be denied use of what's usable property. As far as the price of Quaker Road, it's too costly, and I don't own it. I'm just renting it. I'd appreciate it if you'd give consideration to that also. MR. STARK-When we were there yesterday, Bob and I, we came up with a little list of things for you to do that would kind of dress it up. Like, immediately to the south of the entrance way, there's no shrubs there. To the north, there's those three spreading yews, you know, shrub that area, keep the lights facing in, not out. MR. ZITO-Yes. The lights would never face the development or anything. They would only be facing toward the back, toward the vacant property, you know, not facing the road, toward that back lot. MR. STARK-One of the other things, too, is the shed, and there was stumps in the ground, although I think today they did clean the stumps up. Anyway, did you plan on having a dumpster or anything? MR. ZITO-Yes, we did. MR. STARK-And that has to be enclosed. - 13 - '---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. ZITO-Yes, we know. We just want to see where the trash company would want it, and we'd put a stockade fence around it. MR. STARK-And you don't plan on having anything outside at all, like fenders or batteries? MR. ZITO-No. We don't do any of that kind of, no body work at all. We're just strictly sales, basically. It's just light brake work, nothing that's going to accumulate any kind of garbage. Any trade- in vehicles we usually ship away. MR. PALING-When I think of this, I guess we have to think back to the traffic that was there when Conklin occupied the building, too, to make a comparison as to how it would look or be with the way it would be with a used car business, and I kind of visualize that in my mind. MR. WEST-Did Conklin have a showroom there? Was that a showroom there? MR. PALING-Not really a showroom. Not on display, inside. MR. ZITO-It had a (lost word) showroom where he did sell fixtures and that type of thing. We have a lot of people drive in still looking for Conklin's, right now while we're working. Fifteen or twenty vehicles a month, we don't get that kind of (lost words) twelve or fifteen customers there at one time. I've never seen that. We get one, run in an run out, two. Maybe on a Saturday morning you'll have four at one time. That will be a lot. I've been in that business a long time, and I've never been congested that way. We're not a big operation. We're not a super store. We're very low-keyed actually. MR. PALING-And you have one other lot? MR. ZITO-We have a lot off Exit 17 in South Glens Falls, and we maintain our repair facility over on the Boulevard. MR. PALING-And that's where you'd have the major repairs done is over there? MR. ZITO-Yes. MR. PALING-Why do you have two rolling overhead doors in the back? MR. ZITO-Because the pole's going down the center, we couldn't access the full garage without having two doors. MR. PALING-Okay, because you had a build a new entrance to get to one side, one door. Okay. What other comments do we have, or questions? MR. RUEL-Board members may be satisfied with the plan that was submitted, but I feel it lacks a lot of details, and I think that the plan should be re-submitted, and that you should show, One, crushed stone area, Two, show the location of the NiMo property, Three, show the location of lighting fixtures, how many and the hours of operation, Four, show the landscaping, both existing and what you propose, Five, the condition, a maximum of 40 cars to be parked on property should be a note on the plan, Six, show the removal of the shed, Seven, show the dumpster location. I think all of these items should be on the plan, as part of this application. I looked at the plan and, believe me, it doesn't show any of these things. MR. WEST-You should also show the location and proximity to the other neighborhood areas. - 14 - "--' ---- ,--,/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. RUEL-Yes that would be nice, too, to have, as Dave said, to show this pa;ticular piece of property and it's relationship to the surrounding properties, not extensive, but to show at least the, what they call the Neighborhood Commercial property and perhaps the closest residential plats, and also that, what's that, Heather Lane or someone mentioned that road across the way. MR. BREWER-Meadow Lane. MR. RUEL-Meadow Lane, and I feel that all these things should be shown on the plan, as part of the application. I mean, all these questions came up, and I can't see how we could possibly approve an application like this and make all of these conditions. They just aren't there. They're not in writing, and they're not on plans. Those are my comments. MR. PALING-All right. Who else has got comments? MR. BREWER-I would agree with Roger, and I think one more further step we should take is, if we're going to have an access, define the access in the front of this place. MR. RUEL-He says on this plan that he will use existing driveways. MR. BREWER-Well, maybe reduced, then. MR. RUEL-But they're not shown. MR. BREWER-Exactly. That's my point, and something else comes to my mind is access. It is a Highway Commercial, but if we think about all the car dealerships, they have access from Quaker Road. There is no access from Quaker Road to this property, and to me, that, I have a little bit of a problem with it, only because they are going up toward a residential area where the children are. I just have a problem with it, as far as that goes. MR. RUEL-Yes. I don't think I'm asking for anything unreasonable, because this is the same request we have for other applications. MR. WEST-I agree with Roger. MR. STARK-Well, the only thing wrong with that is the Adirondack Animal Hospital probably has five times the amount of traffic that this guy will generate per day, coming in and out. Is that true? MR. BREWER-I don't know. MR. STARK-Well, we'll get Mrs. Glendenning back up here and we'll ask her then, okay, how many customers she has a day. I mean, that generates, and that's way up the road. MR. RUEL-That has nothing to do with this. MR. STARK-That's a residential area where she lives, even though it's the Animal Hospital. It used to be, next door, was All Good Realty, and now it's an insurance office. MR. RUEL-Well, what's the relationship to this application? MR. STARK-Well, Rog, did you go there and look at it? MR. RUEL-Newton's? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. RUEL-I know where it is. Yes. I know where Conklin's is. MR. STARK-Did you see where the crushed stone was or the shed - 15 - '- ----- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) behind the place and all that and everything? MR. RUEL-No, I didn't see the crushed stone. That's why I'm asking for it. Apparently, someone said this evening that there was more crushed stone that was placed just recently. MR. STARK-That was placed yesterday. MR. PALING-I think George's point is that this is an existing building, existing land, existing access, and I agree with some of the things you're asking for, but not necessarily all of them, simply because it is an existing building, existing land and existing access. MR. BREWER-But the use is what is more intense about it, Bob. MR. MACEWAN-I think what we need to clarify and have Staff look into is to find out how many cars can actually be kept on this lot, both with the usage of the NiMo property and without the usage of the NiMo property. Is there a way that you guys can get back up there and figure that out? MR. HILTON-Well, in our parking schedule, a used car lot isn't something that's a listed use. So the parking requirements would be determined by the Planning Board. My comment earlier was based, you know, as I said, on the zoning Ordinance, which says that a parking space is nine feet by twenty feet, and I think that's a pretty safe measurement of what you need to fit a car in, especially on a used car lot where the vehicle type and make can vary. So, ultimately, I think the number of cars that can be parked here is a Planning Board decision, but we would just want to make sure that you keep in mind the dimensions and the requirements within the Ordinance. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to have something to go by. I mean, his application says that they plan on storing up to 40 cars, and your Staff Notes say you doubt that it can store 40 cars. MR. HILTON-Well, then, maybe the applicant, you know, if you're asking for more information, he can certainly put a parking layout on the plan and show us how he plans to store the cars. MR. BREWER-Demonstrate exactly how he's going to do it, without NiMo's permission and with. I mean, if you don't get NiMo's permission, it does us no good to approve you the use of it. MR. ZITO-NiMo's position is not going to change the fact that we're only going to have 30 to 40 vehicles there at any given time. MR. BREWER-But lets hypothetically permission, you've only got SO feet. lane, and the space has got to be 20. say you don't get their You've got to have a drive MR. ZITO-We'd have one line across, and the property is how deep? MR. BREWER-Well, to here it's 150 feet. So you've got 15. MR. ZITO-You (lost words) and just put them straight in a row. Could we make it? MR. BREWER-You can get 15 in there. MR. ZITO- I can get 15 across the front that way, and then the square area in the back. MR. PALING-If we had a drawing that showed it, I think it would be much simpler. - 16 - '-' ~- .i (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. RUEL-That's another item you can add on to the new plan. MR. PALING-I think we've got quite a list of things that the Board is requesting you to do, but I'd ask the Board this. Lets assume that we make this list of necessary things, and the applicant complies with it. Now, how are we going to vote? Are we going to, lets not have the man do it just as an exercise. Will it be acceptable to the Board if he meets all the criteria we're talking about? MR. RUEL-I won't know until I see the plan. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. MACEWAN-And I would ask that he be asked to go see the Beautification Committee for their input. That's why we have them. MR. PALING-Yes. I agree with that. We're going to do some requiring in that regard, but if that's going to be the route, then let the Beautification Committee take over. MR. RUEL-This should be put off until all this information is available. MR. PALING-All right. Roger, read your list, and I'll go to mine. MR. RUEL-AII right. A new plan showing, Number One, crushed stone area and show the parking area for each car. Two, show the location of NiMo property. MR. BREWER-Why don't we just make a list for the guy right now. MR. STARK-Roger, if you went up there, you would see where the stakes are for the edge of the crushed stone, and the NiMo property's in front of that, from there to Quaker Road. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know. You're telling me that. Is it on this plan? MR. STARK-No, but I go over a lot of plans once a month, and, you know, they don't have other people's property listed. MR. BREWER-No, we just want to see his property, George. if he shows us his property, another point that should be that if he's going to get permission from NiMo to put there, we ought to know where they're going to be. I mean, made is cars on MR. STARK-The same as they are at Della and Queensbury Motors, right on the grass. MR. BREWER-Fine. MR. RUEL-What's wrong with asking for a complete plan? MR. STARK-There's nothing wrong, Rog, but when you start saying that, you know, where's NiMo property, it's right in front of the place. MR. RUEL-I want to see it on a plan. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets go ahead. Number One, we're going to have a plan. MR. RUEL-A revised plan showing the crushed stone area and parking of cars, the location of parked cars. MR. BREWER-How are we going to say this, show stone area? What are we going to say, Roger, show the stone area? I just want a definition of where you're going to park cars. - 17 - '--- ---" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. MACEWAN-I don't think it's necessary to show the crushed stone area. I want to see, for my piece of mind, how he plans on storing the cars with NiMo's property being used and without NiMo's property being used. MR. BREWER-Perfect. MR. BREWER-Okay. We've got one thing. Now we're saying we want a parked car layout. A, the way the existing property is, and, B, with NiMo property. MR. RUEL-Okay. Fine. MR. PALING-Okay. There's one. MR. RUEL-And then I'd like to see the location of the lighting fixtures and the hours of operation. MR. BREWER-We've got the hours of operation. MR. RUEL-Not of the lighting fixtures. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry. MR. PALING-Lighting hours. MR. RUEL-And then I'd like to see landscaping, both existing and proposed. MR. PALING-Yes. Landscaping, and somehow or other, you should meet with this young lady in the front row, from the Beautification Committee, on that, perhaps it would make a short cut, but I know we're going to ask you to do more, okay, a landscaping plan. MR. RUEL-And the last item I have is the removal of the shed and the location of the dumpster. MR. PALING-Okay. Now the removal of the shed, I don't know. Why do we want the shed removed? MR. RUEL-Because the applicant said he was going to remove it. MR. WEST-He said he'd be willinq to. MR. RUEL-The applicant didn't say he was going to remove it. MR. STARK-It just doesn't look good there, Rog. MR. ZITO-We'll remove it. MR. PALING-It's okay with you? MR. ZITO-As long as it's okay with the (lost word) . MR. RUEL-Okay. Removal of shed and the location of dumpster. MR. PALING-Shed, show dumpster and enclosure. MR. RUEL-Yes. Could you also show on the plan the location of the driveways? I want to see it on the plan. MR. BREWER-Yes. Does anybody have a problem if we asked them to reduce that rather than have it the whole 121 feet? MR. PALING-There is no curbing there. MR. MACEWAN-Isn't he allowed 24 feet? Isn't that what the zoning says? - 18 - ~' "--' .J' '-" - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. BREWER-Some definition of a driveway. MR. PALING-All right. Just show the driveway, show driveway. Okay. Anything else? All right. So far I've got, Number One, that he should have a layout plan showing the parked car layout, with and without NiMo property. So they would show two things on the same print, how it would be with NiMo, how it would be without NiMo. It might take two prints. State what hours the lights are going to be on. MR. BREWER-And where they're going to be. MR. PALING-Lighting hours and location. Landscaping plan, remove, just to verify that the shed will be removed. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with the shed. MR. PALING-Show dumpster and enclosure, and then define the driveway on a print. Okay. I've got this all down here, but I want to re-do it. MR. MACEWAN-You also need to put in there, Beautification Committee review. MR. PALING-Yes, and the landscaping plan. I'll put Beautification Committee review and recommendation. Okay. All right. Is there anything else from the Board? Okay. Now, I ask the question again. If we ask the applicant to go through all of this, and he does it. MR. RUEL-Lets wait until it happens. MR. BREWER-I mean, how can we decide how we're going to vote, Bob, if we don't see it. MR. PALING-All right. Then let it be. The public hearing is closed, but go ahead, if you want to make a comment, make it quick. Come on back up to the mic, if you're going to do it. We try to be loose on this public hearing thing. STEVE GUZIK MR. GUZIK-It'll just take a second. I'd like to ask if you could consider whether or not there's going to be a public address system with this business that's going to be perhaps asking Uncle Fred or Fred if Joe or somebody could report to the sales lot, because we hear that allover the neighborhood, and on a summer day, we can hear it from the muffler shops and everything else farther down the line on Quaker Road. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. ZITO-This is not a super car operation. little used car lot. This is a small, MR. PALING-Okay. Will you have an outdoor? MR. ZITO-No, we will not have music, no outdoor PA system. MR. PALING-No OD PA System. Okay. MR. RUEL-This will be in the form of a letter to the applicant? MR. HILTON-He'll get the resolution, and if you specify in the resolution what you're looking for, he'll have it all outlined right there. MR. PALING-Then you can just give him a copy of this resolution as - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) quickly as tomorrow. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-Yes. That would be a better way than me trying to do it from here. All right. This is going to have to be tabled. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 16-97 NEWTON'S AUTO SALES, INC., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Until the meeting of May 20th and receipt of further information requested by the Planning Board as follows: One, revised plan showing NiMo property and the parked car layout, proposed NiMo property and existing property. Two, lighting hours and location of lighting. Three, landscaping plan as per Beautification review and recommendations. Four, remove shed. Five, show dumpster and enclosure. Six, define driveway. No outdoor PA systems. Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-So work with the Planning Staff here, you can probably get a copy of the resolution tomorrow morning, and then we'll point for the first meeting of the Planning Board in May to review this, then everything should hopefully take place that night, but the acceptance of these conditions and the tabling of the motion doesn't tell you how we're going to vote or how this thing is going to turn out, and at that time, we should re-open the public hearing, for anyone, or open it now and leave it open. Okay. I'll re-open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. PALING-And we'll leave it open into the May 20th meeting. MR. FRIEDLAND-Maybe you want to clarify that the public hearing is not being closed tonight, but being adjourned. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. FRIEDLAND-So if you don't close it tonight, just adjourn it, and re-open it again on May 20th. If you close it tonight, then you have to re-notice it for the next meeting. So maybe you want to clarify that the public hearing is not being closed tonight, but simply adjourned and will be re-opened again at the next hearing. MR. PALING-The public hearing is adjourned until May 20th. Okay. See you then. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 17-97 TYPE II CATHERINE M. MCDONOUGH OWNER: THOMAS J. MCDONOUGH ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1088 ROUTE 9 TO PURCHASE AND LOCATE A ROLLING TEMPORARY HOT DOG CART ON THE PROPERTY APPLICANT HAS EXISTING BUSINESS ON SAME PROPERTY. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 68.-1-1 LOT SIZE: .384 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 CATHERINE MCDONOUGH, PRESENT STAPF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 17-97, Catherine M. McDonough, - 20 - '--' '-,--", (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) Meeting Date: April 15, 1997 liThe applicant is seeking approval to allow a hot dog cart business on commercial property on Route 9. This new use would operate at this site with another current use. Staff feels the operation of this new use would not have any negative impacts and recommends approval of Site Plan No. 17-97." MR. HILTON-Because it is a permanent use, it is not subject to the Transient Merchant law, and is not considered a Transient Merchant business. It's a permanent business that will operate on the site. Warren County Planning Board resolution, dated April 9th of No County Impact, signed Tracey Clothier, Chairperson. MS. MCDONOUGH-I'm Catherine McDonough. MR. PALING-Thank you. Any comments, questions at the moment? MR. RUEL-I've got a couple of questions. MR. PALING-Go ahead. MR. RUEL-The application indicates temporary. I want a definition of temporary, and also the hours of operation and whether there's any lighting. MS. MCDONOUGH-Temporary meaning June, July, August, September. During the day, it's rolled out probably eleven 0' clock, say possibly as late as six or seven o'clock in the evening, and then put away for the evening. MR. RUEL-What months? MS. MCDONOUGH-May, June, July, and August, warm months. MR. RUEL-AII summer. MS. MCDONOUGH-Right. MR. RUEL-The lighting and hours of operation. MS. MCDONOUGH-It will be during the day. MR. PALING-No lighting. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Is there anything that you want to tell us about it that we don't perhaps already know? We've visited, most of us visited the site. MS. MCDONOUGH-There's a photograph of what the proposed cart will look like in the packet. MR. RUEL-You have three pictures, which one is it? MS. MCDONOUGH-The main one in the middle. MR. RUEL-The big one? What's the other ones? The other ones are just extras. Mexican Fiesta and condiment dispensers. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets go to a public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone that cares to address the McDonough application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NICK CAIMANO MR. CAIMANO-Nick Caimano from Queensbury. Just a question, Mr. Chairman. Staff feels there is no negative impact here. I guess - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) this place is where McDonough the lawyer is, and there's going to be a hot dog cart, presumptively, you're marketing to transient traffic, which is 40 mile an hour traffic on Route 9, and there's no impact? That's hard for me to believe. I mean, where else is she going to get customers, other than Route 9? Which has just gone from four lanes to two lanes going north. It's 40 miles an hour. It seems like a relatively dangerous situation. MR. STARK-I would think that she probably gets most of her customers from the motel, people that stay at the motel. MR. CAIMANO-So the cart then will be toward the back of the property? MR. STARK-I don't know where the cart is. MR. CAIMANO-My point is, if it's on Route 9, does it then become a traffic hazard, for people, especially tourists who don't know any better and who already travel Route 9 in a relatively haphazard manner, who would all of a sudden stop because they see a hot dog stand, and that's my concern. MR. RUEL-Is there a shoulder there at all? MR. CAIMANO-No. There's a curb. As I remember the property, there's a curb and there's a cut where you go into Mr. McDonough's law office, that's my fear. My fear is that that cart would be there. I'm a commercial person, too, but my fear is we're going to have this business. You're asking when it's going to be, the obvious answer is, June, July and August because there aren't many people buying hot dogs outside in January. That same situation causes me concern because of what could happen with somebody saying, gee, lets get a hot dog on Route 9. MR. RUEL-You say there's one curb cut going into that parking area? MR. CAIMANO-As I remember it. I haven't visited that in a while. MR. STARK-There's two curb cuts. MR. RUEL-Two? So they could go in one, into the parking area, and back out again? MR. CAIMANO-Well, you could, but what you'd be doing is you'd be driving 40 miles an hour and you'd see a hot dog stand and say, lets go in here, and put your brakes on and make a right hand turn. MR. RUEL-That's what she's hoping for. MR. CAIMANO-I know that. MR. WEST-The same thing would apply for Martha's, right? There's a hot dog stand. MR. STARK-It applies for Suttons. MR. WEST-It applies for any place. MR. CAIMANO-No question. You're right. It does. I just want to know if you want another one. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who else would like to talk on this matter? CHARLES MCNULTY MR. MCNULTY-I'm Charles McNulty. I live up on Twicwood Lane, roughly behind this general area. I hadn't really intended to make comment on this one tonight, but it strikes me that I'm one of the - 22 - "--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) few people that (lost words) allow a miniature golf course and a go kart track to go in across from this property on Route 9, and I don't see how, fairly, you can deny the hot dog stand when you allowed those other two businesses directly across on the other side. I'll agree you may have some traffic problems there, but you allow one, you need to allow the other. MR. STARK-We didn't deny anything yet. MR. MCNULTY-No, but countering the concerns about traffic. We've already got a traffic problem there, and I doubt this will make it much worse. So if you're going to have a problem, you're going to have to address is some other way anyway, and eliminating the hot dog stand is not going to solve the problem. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who else would care to speak? Okay. If not, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Ms. McDonough, where were you going to put the hot dog stand? By the office where you register, or by the pool? MS. MCDONOUGH-I have a picture of it right there, right by the big sign by the shop, on the grass right next to my shop, on that side. MR. PALING-So that's back from the road. MS. MCDONOUGH-Considerably. It's going to be parallel to the building. It's not going to be way out by the road. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you mind stating that that is where that will be located? MS. MCDONOUGH-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Then that commits you to it. MS. MCDONOUGH-Right. MR. RUEL-It's shown on the plan, isn't it? MS. MCDONOUGH-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Then this is a Type II. We don't need a SEQRA. SO we can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-97 CATHERINE M. MCDONOUGH, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 17- 97 CATHERINE M. McDONOUGH to purchase and locate a rolling temporary hot dog cart on the property; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3-26-97, consists of the following 1. Application w/drawings. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution dated 4/9/97 - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/15/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has factors found in Section 179-39 Queensbury (Zoning); and considered the of the Code of environmental the Town of Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve Site Plan No. 17-97 CATHERINE M. McDONOUGH. 2. The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. Recreation Fees are to be paid at the time a building permit is applied for. 5. Engineering Fees are to be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 7. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 8. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Thank you. MS. MCDONOUGH-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 18-97 TYPE II STEVEN & DONNA SUTTON OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE RT. 9 SOUTH OF ROUND POND ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT AN 8,000 SQ. FT., 2 STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING FURNITURE STORE. ADDITION TO BE USED AS SHOWROOM. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 68.-1-15 LOT SIZE: 5.833 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-Okay. Just a correction on this one. The agenda that you have lists the SEQRA as a Type II, and it's actually Unlisted, and the applicant has attached a Short Form Environmental Assessment Form. So we will have to do a SEQRA review for this this evening. MR. PALING-And is Short acceptable? - 24 - ~ -'"--" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. HILTON-Short is acceptable. MR. PALING-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 18 - 97, Steven & Donna Sutton, Meeting Date: April 15, 1997 "The applicant proposes the construction of an 8,000 sq. ft. addition to an existing furniture store. The building which will be a two story building, will be built to the rear of the existing Suttons furniture store on Route 9. The site plan does not indicate the height of the proposed building. The new building must conform to the 40 foot height requirement of the HC-1A zone. Permeability, setback and parking requirements will meet HC-1A zone standards. The Planning Board may wish to require the applicant to eliminate one of the cµrb cuts on Route 9 and provide green space and landscaping as has been done with other commercial properties along Route 9. GFTC is expected to comment on this issue before the April 15 meeting. Comments f+om the Town Engineering Consultant should be addressed prior to any Planning Board action." MR. HILTON-However, we have a letter from the New York State DOT we've received with their comments on this letter and how it complies with their overall access management plan for Route 9. I'll read that letter into the record. MR. RUEL-Also, George, you could tell Bob here that there are two new letters that were furnished to us tonight, the GFTC letter and Rist-Frost. MR. HILTON-I believe it's a New York State DOT letter that you have. MR. PALING-Yes, that's the one you referred to. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-He's going to read that, and we're going to get the engineering comments, also. MR. HILTON-Okay. Also with this the Warren County Planning Board reviewed it on April 9th, recommendation to approve. There's a resolution signed Tracey Clothier, Chairperson. I guess I will read the letter from the State DOT on this. It's a letter from Jeff Marko, Planning and Program Management, addressed to me. It says, "Dear George: Thank you for sending me information on the Sutton's Furniture expansion on Route 9. I reviewed the site plan and also spoke with our designers of the Route 9 resurfacing project, which includes the roadway in front of this site. We have no comment on the proposed expansion. The placement of the driveways is consistent with state guidelines and with our access management plans for the corridor. For your information, our Route 9 project will widen the island between the roadway and Sutton's parking area to provide a sidewalk. ADA-compliant wheelchair ramps also will be installed to transition between the sidewalks and the driveway pavement. If you have any questions, please call me at 474-6215. Very truly yours, Jeffrey Marko, P.E. Planning & Program Management" Now as far as the engineering comments go, I believe there was something that was handed in your packet, a blue letter, which was dated today. It was a follow up to an April 11th letter stating, "We have received Nace Engineer's letter of April 15, 1997 in response to our comment letter of April 11, 1997. The responses are acceptable to this office. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P. C. William J. Levandowski, P.E." MR. PALING-Now that had to do with the location of the septic - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) system and the nature of the, not the nature of the business, but the store itself. MR. HILTON-Right, and how to determine the capacity of the septic system. MR. RUEL-It's all been resolved, though. MR. HILTON-It's all been resolved. MR. RUEL-There's no problem there. MR. PALING-Okay, and do you have any letters on this one, George, beyond this? MR. HILTON-We have no letters of public comment in the file. MR. PALING-And no Beautification or anything. MR. RUEL-No. '. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-George, why are we doing the SEQRA on this? MR. HILTON-Because it's over 4,000 square feet of area that's being constructed, and because of that it's a Type Unlisted. If it were under 4,000, it would be Type II. MR. RUEL-I was just wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on the widening of the Route 9? They're going to widen the island between the roadway and the parking area? MR. HILTON-Right. I spoke to Jeff after this letter was issued, and he said that they do plan to widen the aisle between the road and the parking lot. That's something that they're going to undertake. That's something that, it's going to be their project completely. He didn't really outline a time frame, but they plan to put sidewalks in there. MR. RUEL-Sidewalks where, just on Suttons property? MR. HILTON-Between the road and the parking lot. They would widen the aisle to accommodate the sidewalk. MR. RUEL-Just that property? MR. HILTON-Well, I think all along Route 9. MR. RUEL-AII along? Okay. That was my question. All right. MR. NACE-For the record, my name's Tom Nace, representing Steve Sutton. MR. STARK-The building is the back is going to be the same height as the building in the front? MR. NACE-It's actually going to be lower. I have an elevation if you'd like to see that. MR. PALING-Yes. I would. MR. NACE-The building, as you view it now, has a, view from Route 9, has a peak that comes out on the left hand side, and it's a little lower ridge going to the right, to the south. The building in back will have a flat roof and will be substantially lower than both of those roof lines that you see now. 80 from the road it will be invisible. - 26 - ~ ''--'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Is it going to be sprinkled, sprinklered? MR. NACE-The construction, yes. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. PALING-And what will it be used for? MR. NACE-It'll be used simply for showroom area. MR. PALING-Showroom. MR. NACE-It's to allow, if you've been in there now, they have a lot of furniture. MR. PALING-The summer furniture. MR. NACE-No, this is all regular furniture. MR. STARK-They've got a lot of furniture outside right now. MR. NACE-Everything there right now is inside, is regular furniture. MR. RUEL-And no connection between the two buildings? MR. NACE-The two buildings will be, yes, totally connected. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. NACE-It would simply allow them to have larger displays and more displays. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments, questions at the moment? Lets open the public hearing on the Sutton application. Does anyone care to comment, pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LINDA MCNULTY MRS. MCNULTY-I'm Linda McNulty. I live at 14 and 16 Twicwood Lane. We live almost directly behind Suttons. Since they have begun expanding, they have been doing an enormous amount of clearing of the property to the rear of the (lost words). We are now very exposed to Route 9, and it's not a very pleasant thing. I really would like to know whether they have any more clearing (lost words). When we purchased our home about 24 years ago, we were told there was going to be 10 foot buffer between our property and the property behind us, so that we would be forever green. We are not. So if there's anYmore clearing to be done, I would highly recommend some substitute be put along the back of the property so that we are more protected. Our property values have gone down enormously (lost words) . MR. PALING-I think that's, perhaps, not so much for us to address, but for the Compliance Officer to look into, if they're violating any buffer zone or whatever was set up. MR. HILTON-Right. There is a requirement between the commercial and residential zone that there be a 50 foot buffer, and I don't know the history, if there have been past site plans or past variances to reduce that SO foot buffer, but certainly that is something that we could have our enforcement staff look into. MR. PALING-Okay. Could we ask you to refer this to John? - 27 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. HILTON-Sure. MR. PALING- It'll be referred to the Compliance Officer, John Goralski, and you can work through them, but that we can't address, but they can. Okay. Is there anyone else that cares to talk about this? Okay. If not, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Any other comments, questions? MR. STARK-Let Tommy address the buffer in the back. You know where the houses are up on top, Tommy? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STARK-Not her house, Steve's house. MR. NACE-I don't know which one is her's exactly. MR. STARK-No, but I mean Steve's house, the house up there and everything. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STARK-There's woods behind there, isn't there? MR. NACE- Yes. There is. I don' t know where this clearing is taking place, or when it took place. With this project proposed here, there will be no clearing involved. MR. PALING-Yes, there is no clearing. MR. NACE-It's all constructed down into level flat space. MR. BREWER-Down under the hill anyway. MR. NACE-There's no disturbance of that area. MR. PALING-It'll be in the right hand. there. So it'll be taken from MR. MACEWAN-If they were to be found to be in violation of that SO foot buffer, what course could your Department take? Could you make them re-vegetate? MR. HILTON-Well, that's one option. They could apply for a variance to reduce that SO feet. They could come in and propose to re-vegetate it with a re-vegetation plan. There are a number of things they could do. MR. MACEWAN-That require them, a re-vegetation plan, to come back in front of us, or is that something that's just done internally? MR. HILTON-I think it's something that's done internally. The only thing is that if it violates a previous site plan approval, it may need to come in as a modification of some sort, of the past site plan. MR. MACEWAN-I don't recall anything where we've done in the recent history that has even taken something that back parcel. MR. BREWER-The only thing I recall, he took an old barn or something up there, and he added on to it. MR. PALING-He had a storage building that we approved not too long ago, but that still was not up in on the hill. That was down on the lower level. - 28 - '"-" '-'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. WEST-That was down below. building. MR. NACE - Yes, that's the receiving building, right behind the store. That was over here , receiving MR. BREWER-Well, maybe I'm going before that time, but I remember up on top of the hill we did a building at one time. MR. PALING-Yes, that must have been before my time. one, that storage building, and now this one. We did the MR. BREWER-But I think maybe five or six years ago, way up on top, but there wasn't any clearing then, that I remember. MR. PALING-Okay, but still it's in your hands. MR. HILTON-Yes, we'll take a look at it. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Then we'll go to the SEQRA. MR. RUEL-Environmental Assessment. MR. PALING-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-97, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the STEVEN & DONNA SUTTON, 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. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-97 STEVEN & DONNA SUTTON, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written in the resolution. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 18-97 STEVEN & DONNA SUTTON to construct an 8,000 sq. ft., 2 story addition to existing furniture store. Addition to be used as showroom; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3-26-97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map dated 3/23/97 - Sutton's Furniture Proposed Addition Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. Rist Frost comments dated 4/11/97, 4/15/97 3. Response from Tom Nace dated 4/15/97 to Rist Frost 3. Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution dated 4/9/97 4. Letter dated 4/8/97 to Jeff Marko - NYS DOT 5. Letter dated 4/10/97 to George Hilton Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/15/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury ( Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve Site Plan No. 18-97 STEVEN & DONNA SUTTON. 2. The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. Recreation Fees are to be paid at the time a building permit is applied for. 5. Engineering Fees are to be paid prior to issuance of building permit. - 30 - -/ / '- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) 6. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 7. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 8. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1997 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CERRONE BUILDERS OWNER: CERRONE BUILDERS (UNDER CONTRACT) ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD SOUTH OF STONEGATE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES RESIDENTIAL CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION AND IS REQUESTING FINAL STAGE APPROVAL FOR PHASE I WHICH IS 16 LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: P6-96 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-51.1, 53 LOT SIZE: 57.97+ ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE & MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-1997 - Final Stage, Cerrone Builders, Meeting Date: April 15, 1997 "The applicant is seeking final stage approval to allow the development of 16 single family lots. The lots, which are being developed under the Town's cluster provision, range in size from just under one half acre to 1.7 acres. The applicant is proposing to connect to Field View Lane to the north and construct a new road off of Bay Road in order to provide access to this subdivision. Staff recommends a stipulation that the road shown connected to Bay Road be constructed first before any certificates of occupancy are issued for lots in the subdivision. The applicant proposes to connect to Stonegate subdivision by constructing a connection to Field View Lane. As a part of this construction the existing cuI de sac in Stonegate will be straightened as the through street is constructed. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to construct a drYWell on the east side of Field View Lane in the Stonegate subdivision in order to manage stormwater runoff from the construction of Field View Lane. The applicant will be responsible for the paYment of a $500 per lot recreation fee. This fee must be paid when applications for building permits are filed for each lot in this subdivision. All comments from the Town Engineering Consultant should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this subdivision." MR. HILTON-And we have a letter that you just received this evening, dated April 15th. It was in response to an April 11th letter. It states "We have received Nace Engineering's letter of April 15th submitted in response to our comment letter of April 11th. The responses are satisfactory to this office. William J. Levandowski, P.E., RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES" MR. PALING-George, I think I'd like to have you read Tom Nace's letter on this, because this, we're just getting this. So lets read that. MR. HILTON-Okay. Sure. - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. BREWER-What are we reading? MR. PALING-Tom Nace's letter of April 15th. It's right behind. MR. HILTON-There's a few items in correspondence from Tom Nace to Bill Levandowski he outlined. Number One states that he "spoke with George VanDusen at Warren Co. DPW this morning who informed me that they have reviewed and approved the plans for the connection to Bay Road and approved the plans for the connection to Bay Road and will issue a permit pending receipt of an issuance certificate from the developer. Their approval will be in place prior to signing by the Planning Board Chairman. 2. I have not yet been able to obtain all of the locations of wells and septic systems for the adjacent properties. I am enclosing a partial plan showing which ones we have located. The rest of these will be located and shown prior to the NYSDOT approval. 3 . I have inspected the existing drainage conditions on Field View Road and Stone Gate Drive. There are two existing drYWells at the intersection of these roads which take all of the drainage from Stone Gate Drive. Field View Road south of this intersection generally has a cross slope carrying any drainage to the low (east) side of the road. However, a small section of the existing road and one of the properties to the west side of the road will drain into the wing swales along the new section of road replacing the existing turn-a- round. This will improve the existing drainage problem on the lot on the east side of the existing turn-a-round. However, it will add some storm water to the proposed drainage system. I have revised the drainage calculations to reflect this change and am attaching copies of the revised pages with the changes underlined. As you can see the additional drainage is not significant and does not alter the conclusions of the original report." And in response to this, as I've mentioned, today Rist-Frost stating that the responses were satisfactory. MR. PALING-Okay, and that's all you have, George? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Nace Engineering representing Al Cerrone. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor, also representing the applicant. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you gentlemen want to summarize for us what you're doing, and I'd like, Tom, if you could, I'd like you to go through especially the last paragraph of your letter on this, okay. MR. NACE-Okay. The question was raised by Rist-Frost regarding drainage which might be tributary to our drainage system, coming from the section of road where we're replacing the existing cuI de sac. It's in the background here, the existing cuI de sac. Presently, up here at the intersection where Stone Gate comes down, there are two drYWells that pick up the runoff along the sides of Stone Gate Drive, before they cross Fieldview. Then Fieldview drains from that location generally across the road, there's a cross slope draining toward the east, and toward the south. What happens, some of that runs off between these two lots here, and all of the area in here plus this lot, and a little bit of a portion of this lot, drains into a low portion at the back of the cuI de sac and runs off to the east, partially down this person's driveway here on the adjacent lot. When we replace this cuI de sac, we're going to be changing grade, so right now this comes down to a low point right here around the throat of the cuI de sac and goes back up toward the back end. We're going to be grading that all out, so that everything continues down to where we have catch basins at the - 32 - -- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) intersection here. We are bringing wing swales all the way back up into what is presently the throat of the cuI de sac, and those wings will prevent that runoff from going on across the road and will bring what comes into the road from above here down to our catch basin and to our drainage system. So it will improve some of the problem with this low area in here. What we ,can al~o do, I know this man has been at one or two of the publ~c hear~ngs and voiced some concern, we also can open up an area in here where this hedgerow sort of blocks the drainage off of this la~d. We can open up a small ditch in there and allow that to dra~n down on the hedgerow. That'll take care of any drainage outside of the roadway which collects in here. MR. PALING-Okay. All right, any questions by the Board or comments at the moment? MR. BREWER-Tom, you note on the septic systems, you've got replacement area on all of them. MR. NACE-That's a requirement by DOH for drainage. MR. BREWER-I've never seen that on a plan before. MR. NACE-They're generally requiring that we show it somewhere in the approval process, where we would locate, 50% replacement area is what they require, and so on subdivision plans the easiest thing to do is show it right on the plan. MR. BREWER-It's not an indication that there'd be a problem then? MR. NACE-No. It's just any subdivision that DOH approves, in their approval process, at some point, whether we show it on the plan or sit down with them in a review session, we have to show them that we can provide 50% of replacement areas. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Okay. I have two items on the plan. Number One, you have a landscaping plan for the entrance, very elegant. However, how do you explain that all of that landscaping is not on your property, it's on Lot 29? MR. NACE-That will be on the property of Harris', and there will be an easement to locate, most of that is the subdivision sign, and when it's done, because our property comes out to a 50 foot wide neck here that's taken up entirely by the access road, Town right- of-way for the access road. So in order to meet the setbacks for the sign, the setbacks are 15 feet from the property lines. So we had to put it over here and we'll have an easement. MR. RUEL-But you'll have a documented easement to that effect? MR. NACE-We will. That's correct. MR. RUEL-My other question had to do with, apparently you intend to do away with the turnaround on that, what is it Fieldview Road? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Shouldn't that be shown on the plan as to be removed? MR. NACE-It is. It's shown with notes, on the grading and drainage plan. There's some fairly extensive notes there, requiring removal, re-grading, and we've got to take these existing driveways that are there and extend them out to the new road. It's covered in notes. MR. RUEL-So these people will have more property then? - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. PALING-All right. Now what's the status of the public hearing? It says April 1st? MR. STARK-That was a special meeting, Bob. MR. HILTON-Yes. That was a special meeting. There was Preliminary approval. There was a public hearing that night. There's no scheduled public hearing tonight. However, if the Board wants to accept public comment, you're certainly free to do that. MR. PALING-Yes. I would be in favor of public comment. MR. BREWER-I just have one more comment. Didn't we have a list, maybe you've got a copy of it, Mike, that we had at the last meeting that was going to be done for this meeting or not? MR. NACE-That was, I believe, for the Preliminary. MR. BREWER-That was just Preliminary? MR. RUEL-It was between Preliminary and that special meeting. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. O'CONNOR-The only issue that we haven't touched on yet that I knew that we talked about at the time of the Preliminary was the ownership of the common lands, and I've made a presentation to the Town Board for dedication to the Town Board without credit to the Recreation Fee, with the proviso that we also will be making contributions to them of $1500 for the purpose of setting up a land conservation trust that would manage the land, and they didn't take a vote. It was at a workshop meeting, but it seemed to be something that was acceptable to them. I think it's a good planning concept. It may be something that you're going to do more often, as more people get into this cluster type of development. MR. PALING-And that's pending MR. O'CONNOR-That's pending. I would ask you to make that, if you would, a condition of your approval, the same as you do the Health Department approval that we don't have, permit that we don't have. We would accept those as conditions. MR. RUEL-Isn't that part of the cluster requirements, though, to have that green space and open land? MR. O'CONNOR-There's a requirement of open space, but there's no real definition of who will own it in the future. There's different ways of doing it. We could create a paper mountain here and have a homeowners association approved by the Attorney General's Office, which in my own personal opinion throws a lot of money away and doesn't give you a lot of benefit. I think you're better off (lost words) some type of conservancy, some type of open space trust that the Town would take. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll make that part of any resolution. Okay. Now, with the Board's concurrence, I'm going to allow public comment. Is everybody aboard on that? Do you have anything further before we do that? Okay. If anyone cares to talk on the Cerrone Builders application, please come up. MARY LEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline. I have a question. clustering, you have to have density, right? When you do - 34 - ~"" '''--" --.-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. GOSLINE-Now what land is he talking about that they're going to donate to the Town (lost words) the same property? MR. NACE-No. MRS. GOSLINE-More property? MR. PALING-We'll have that clarified. MRS. GOSLINE-What do you do to save the land, the density land? How do you protect it from future development? Is that with deed restrictions or anything like that for saving that property, so later on, say 15 or 20 years from now, someone says, there's one or two good lots in here we can get into it from Hiland Park, can we, you know, buy a lot here and there? MR. PALING-There can be deed restrictions. We'll ask the applicant to comment on that. MRS. GOSLINE- I really think deed restrictions should be put in these densities because look what Top of the World's doing right now. I mean, it is something that's possible. People have to put up with clustering and not have the one acre lots, they should be protected with these open spaces. MR. PALING-Thank you. If you'd take note of them and comment on them later, if you would, please. CHARLES WEINGART MR. WEINGART-Hi. My name is Charles Weingart. I live right on the corner of Fieldview Drive where the new road looks like it's going to be built. My question is, with the new road that's going in, how long are you going to be tied up in front of our property? The last meeting you said it would only be one day to a week. With this new drYWell going in, it seems like they might be down there for a couple of weeks. Secondly, if there's going to be a lot of holes dug, left out in front of the yard, we'd want a temporary fence to be put up, an orange fence, just for the safety of the kids. Another reason is, if the road is going to be done, we would like it to get done first, get it over with, since you're taking out the circle in the cuI de sac. We don't want to wait until the end of the summer to get it done. The last thing, we know the last time that since they're putting a new road in, our biggest concern was, with the new properties going in, our biggest concern was for the safety of our kids, and we still would like to see if a speed bump could be put at the end of that property, and the end of our property where the new road is being accessed. Just because we've only lived there two years, but the number of kids that live, that congregate at the end of that street warrants a safety factor, I believe. I know there's no stop sign at the end of (lost words), and my idea of just a gravel road didn't fly, but a speed bump, I think, would be a reasonable request to put in there. Thank you. That's all I have. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who's next? TOM CICCONE MR. CICCONE-My name's Tom Ciccone. I live on Fieldview. My land's adjacent to the land that's on the east side of Fieldview, and it's adjacent to the land of the new fellow. The question I have is, seeing that the new road is coming through, they talked about drywells or whatever to take care of the runoff. I appreciate that. Right now there's a turnaround, and I have these, I guess they call them Canadian Elms, and they kind of go with the - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) turnaround, and they're not very big trees. They're kind of tall but they're not big in diameter, and I was just wondering if thos~ trees will be, I'd say right now they're probably five feet from the road, and I was just wondering, when the road gets straightened out, if the trees will get straightened out, too, to go along with the road, because I don't know, I'm not sure how much footage I'm going to have in the front, but the trees are way back too far so I'd like to bring the trees up to the road and just have them straighten them out, and I was just wondering if the developer could do that. MR. PALING-We cou ~ find out, sure. MR. CICCONE-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who's next? Okay. No one else cares to speak? If that is the case, then we will close the public comment. The public comment is closed. Okay. We'll get the applicant back up and comment, and then if you miss any, I'll use my list. MR. NACE-The first issue, I think, was the open space lot, and whether deed restrictions. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. The open space area is Lot 28 here. It' s approximately 6.15 acres. It's about halfway back through the parcel and on the west side. It adjoins the property line on the west side. There are, on any of the lots that are large, there are deed restrictions, and I think it says right up here in the notes. It says deed restrictions will, okay, Lots 7 and 8, which is the big lot in the back, and Lot 8 here is 2.6 acres. Lot 7 and 8 will be deed restricted to prevent further subdivision. So it's already there. MR. O'CONNOR-Also on that same issue, that is part of the reason for making an offer of dedication to the Town as well. If the Town has it, nobody can then go in and use it for anything other than open space. Nobody can go in and subdivide it. Nobody can go in and develop it. Typically, we would do restrictive covenants that would cover every lot in the subdivision that says that the lots cannot be subdivided so as to create an additional building lot. From time to time, somebody will run into a reason to adjust the boundary lines, and we've got to come back here and ask for a modification of it, if necessary, or simply a boundary line agreement between the two lot owners. MR. MACEWAN-Early on in your application there was some discussion regarding preserving those hedgerows. What was formally put in writing to protect those hedgerows? MR. O'CONNOR-On the plans I think we've got no cut restrictions, which will also be carried forth in the deeds. MR. MACEWAN-In the deeds as well. MR. NACE-Here it says deed restrictions will be included in all lots (lost word) cutting of trees over two inch caliper, existing hedgerows, except for necessary removal of dead and diseased trees. MR. MACEWAN-Very good. Thank you. MR. RUEL-So that dedication of land includes access paths or whatever to that land? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, 20 foot, and it's situated so that if the adjoining property is every developed, this could be carried forth - 36 - '--' ,---,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) onto the additional property or the adjoining property as well, and have a bigger area than the 6.15 acres and get into a larger open space park area within both properties. MR. RUEL-Yes. length? MR. O'CONNOR-From the proposed road to the area itself. the width of the lot. How far does that 20 foot strip extend, the full It runs MR. NACE-From the right-of-way up here all the way back to the lot. It's about 350 feet until it opens up into the lot. MR. RUEL-That's where that cuI de sac is? MR. NACE-That's right. The cuI de sac here, and then the access right-of-way goes back. MR. RUEL-Yes, and even if that was eliminated and made a road, it would still be road, right? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-The other questions I heard, maybe you could correct me or not, but there was a question about how long it was going to take us in front of this fellow's house because there's going to be a drywell. If I understand the comments that were finalized with Rist-Frost, there was an agreement that there's no need for a d~ell there, because the drainage will be taken care of by the change of grading at the end of the cuI de sac, by the swale along the side of the road. MR. PALING-It carries it further in. MR. O'CONNOR-It carries it into our development (lost word) their lot. MR. PALING-The only time involved is grading time? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. RUEL-And how much time would that be? MR. O'CONNOR-If it's directly in front of that property, you're probably talking a week, from the time it's commenced. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-You're talking rough grading time of a week, and then they have to prepare with (lost word) before they come in and do the paving, and then when they come back it'll probably be a day of paving directly in front of that property, and if he's just added, and we're willing to accept, we would try and re-plant the trees as part of that, somebody else has some trees that are planted in accordance with the curb in the cuI de sac, and they would like to have them straightened out, we're going to have somebody that's going to do some landscaping in connection with our entrance. We would try and have them transplant those trees in a reasonable manner along the road and along the newly established property line. MR. RUEL-On these properties adjacent to the turnaround, will their lawns and driveways be disrupted, and if so, will you be responsible for replacing it? MR. NACE-Yes. There are notes on the plans that maintenance must be maintained, the driveways, during construction, okay. 80 that would be gravel surface access into and out of each driveway, - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) throughout the construction period. When the road's finished the driveways will be paved and the edge of the new road up to ~here the old right-of-way line was, okay, and into the existing cuI de sac, and the area, once the old cuI de sac is removed, that area has got to be re-graded topsoiled and re-seeded. MR. BREWER-Is that going to occur first? MR. NACE-What's that? MR. BREWER-The area where the cuI de sac is down, and they asked if it could be done first. MR. NACE-It'll occur very early on, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-That can be done as part of Phase I. MR. NACE-The road has to be constructed and accepted by the Town before any CO's are issued. That's a standard requirement. MR. PALING-Okay. Now the order in which the roads are going to be constructed, the one off of Bay is the first one, isn't it? MR. NACE-They'll both occur. MR. PALING-At the same time you'll do Bay and subdivision, okay. All right. So that'll all be done I have two other comments, protection against kids. any comment on that? go into the at one time. Do you have MR. NACE-Yes. It's a construction site. with orange safety fencing. It will be fenced off MR. PALING-Okay. Good, and then, well, there was a request for a speed bump, but I think that might not be the way to go. MR. BREWER-I don't think we have the authority to do that. Do we, on a Town highway? MR. PALING-No, I don't think so, either. would refer to someone else. I think that, that I MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think we'd get the road accepted if we put it in. MR. BREWER-I don't think so, either. MR. NACE-We've been through that with (lost words) and it's not been acceptable. MR. RUEL-This is something that the residents would have to ask for from the Town Board or the Highway Department after the road is constructed, right? MR. PALING-Or whenever they want to, the speed bump. MR. BREWER-I don't think you can put them in a Town highway, a parking lot or something maybe. MR. PALING-No, that was part of the list I had, so I thought I'd make note of it. So far on the list I have is that there will be the transplanting of trees for the gentleman that talked about them being in existence on a cuI de sac right now. You would try to put those back in align with the road. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. PALING-And then there's the small ditch to the south side of - 38 - '" ~ --,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) the property, which you'll be digging to facilitate the drainage from, is there a lot number for that? MR. NACE-I don't have a lot number, no. It's the very southeastern lot of the existing subdivision. MR. PALING-Okay. That's the southeastern lot, okay, and then is the easement on the Harris property pending, what you wanted to do at the entrance there? MR. O'CONNOR-It's not been executed, but Mr. Harris is here and has agreed to it. MR. PALING-Yes. We can make that a condition, however, and then the recreation fee/dedication is another pending item before the Town Board. MR. BREWER-It's got nothing to do with us. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-We have withdrawn our request for a waiver of the Town Board. So we're going to have to pay a fee. MR. PALING-Do we need to concern ourselves with that? MR. HILTON-No, that's just a general comment, just to make them aware. MR. PALING-And then I have the last item, road cut permit. MR. O'CONNOR-We need a highway permit from the County to attach to Bay Road. We have that in process. MR. PALING-That's in process, okay. Okay. Where are we on this thing now? SEQRA's been done. MR. HILTON-Yes. It was done with Preliminary. MR. PALING-So we can go directly to a motion, then. I'll make the motion. All right. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1997 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As requested, with the following conditions: That the particular trees along the cuI de sac will be re-planted, roughly in alignment with the new road that will be cut in. That a small ditch will be dug on the south side of the most southeasterly lot to facilitate drainage, and that the final approval from Mr. Harris for easement at the entrance on his property, for an easement at the entrance to the property. Finally, that a road cut permit will be obtained from the County. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 1-1997 CERRONE BUILDERS, Final Stage, Phase I - 16 lots; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4-3-97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map - CP-1 revised 4/2/97 Map - C-1 revised 4/2/97 Map - C-2 revised 4/2/97 Map - P-1 revised 4/2/97 Map - D-1 revised 4/2/97 Map - D-2 revised 4/2/97 - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) Map - L-1 dated 4/3/97 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. Rist Frost comments dated 4/11/97. 3. Rist Frost comments dated 4/ /97. Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/25/97 and 4/1/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve Subdivision No. 1-1997 CERRONE BUILDERS, FINAL STAGE, PHASE I - 16 lots. 2. Recreation Fees are to be paid at the time a building permit is applied for. 3. Engineering Fees are to be paid prior to issuance of building permit. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: MR. RUEL-I agree with the final subdivision application, with an exception. To be consistent with my vote at the Preliminary subdivision application, where Stone Gate citizens requested no through road through their development, which I believe was a reasonable request, it could have been granted, and it violated no regulations. I, therefore, vote no on this application. MR. PALING-Okay. The motion's been made and seconded. So we can have discussion. George, do you care to comment on that in regard to the Highway, I'm not sure you realize what happened. MR. HILTON-Well, there's really nothing I can add to this. We had the letter from the Town Highway Department which stated that, in their opinion, they wanted to see the connection. The connection shown on the Final, as was shown on the Preliminary as approved, Mr. Ruel voted against the motion to approve the Preliminary, and I think he's pretty clearly stated that he's going to vote against this motion also. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I think it was taken at the time that we didn't know what the Highway Department would say. MR. RUEL-Yes, we did. We had a letter. - 40 - ./ ',---./ --../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-AII the facts, then, were the same as they are now. MR. PALING-Okay. AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Ruel ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is anyone here, a representative, from Mr. Campbell? Okay. If not, then I'll entertain a motion for this to be tabled. Do we need a motion? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. WEST-We didn't already table it? MR. PALING-No. We just put it aside. MR. BREWER-We don't need a motion to table? MR. HILTON-No, I think you should have a motion to table. There was some discussion on this, obviously. However you want to handle it. I know the public hearing is left open. We can schedule this to be heard on the first meeting in May. MR. PALING-The only thing I was concerned with, George, was the notification to the public. Different things happen when the applicant's here. MR. HILTON-You can require further notification. MR. RUEL-Why don't you call him. MR. HILTON-We're going to. MR. PALING-All right. I would be in favor of a re-notification to the public, if that's the case. MR. MACEWAN-If you table it, there's an opportunity that it could slip through the cracks and the public wouldn't be re-notified. If you just take no action on it, it would have to be re-advertised anyway, guarantee that the public would be notified. MR. BREWER-It's a whole new application, isn't it? Lets table it with the condition that the notice be re-done. MR. FRIEDLAND-It's up to the Board, but this is the same thing I said before. If you open the public hearing, which I think you did already, and just adjourn it, don't close it, keep it open, and just adjourn it, you do not have to re-notice it for the next meeting. That's one way you can do it. It's up to you. MR. PALING-It's my opinion, however, that we should re-notice, notify in this case. I think it's only reasonable. They didn't show up, didn't tell us they're not coming, and you can disappoint too many people. MR. STARK-Bob, until he talks to the applicant, we don't know anything. Maybe he did notify him and he's got the proof that he notified him. I don't know, but until he talks to the guy, how do you know? - 41 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. HILTON-No. The notices went out. That's not a problem. I just don't know what happened to the applicant tonight. MR. RUEL-George, why can't we have an application that has no action, period? MR. PALING-All right. Then that requires are-notification. MR. RUEL-What do we need a motion for? MR. FRIEDLAND- If you want to, you can close the public hearing tonight, okay, you still have 62 days to make a decision, okay. That means the public hearing is closed, though, okay. If you want to have another public hearing at the next meeting, then I suggest you either keep this one open, don't close it, or you'd have to re- notice it again for the next meeting. You have a choice. MR. PALING-Well, my opinion is that we have re-notification. MR. WEST-We had the public hearing, and we heard from everybody except the applicant. So what effect does re-noticing it have, continue with the public hearing, what does that accomplish? MR. PALING-The only point, and maybe it's too fine a point that I see, there could be someone out in the audience, having heard what the applicant said about something, then wants to discuss it, but they didn't have that opportunity, and they go away tonight not realizing what might have been brought out and what they might have commented on. MR. RUEL-You should re-open it. MR. BREWER-Lets re-notice the thing. I'm in favor of re-noticing it. MR. PALING-Now, do we table it to do this? MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. MR. HILTON-Yes. You've closed the public hearing, table it with the condition that re-notification. MR. MACEWAN-I'll attach one more condition to that if I could, please. I, for one, would like to know the exact height he plans on building that roof line. MR. BREWER-Well, when he comes back we'll ask him, Craig. MR. MACEWAN-Save him the trip. Have him ready when he gets here. MR. BREWER-Whatever, that's fine. MR. PALING-All right. hearing is closed. So the first thing is that the public PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And then we'll entertain a motion, now, to table it, and re-notification. MR. BREWER-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 15-97 DALE CAMPBELL, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: With the condition that it be subject to re-notification. Duly adopted this 15th day of April, 1997, by the following vote: - 42 - ¡ I '-" - '"--"" ....~ - (Queens bury Plann1ng Board Meeting 4/15/97) AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MACEWAN-Did you put in that condition about asking for the addition? MR. BREWER-I think if George calls him and tells him we want to know that, that's fine, isn't it? MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. STARK-Okay. What about Schermerhorn? We've got a letter from Schermerhorn here. MR. BREWER-Yes. We've got the Schermerhorn letter. MR. PALING-I didn't see it. Where is it? Okay. George, do you want to read this? MR. HILTON-I'm not even sure I have the letter myself. MR. STARK-Okay. The next order of business is a letter concerning the Town Board's acceptance of land dedicated in lieu of recreation fee for Rich Schermerhorn. George wasn't there some land the Michaels Group wants to dedicate some land that's attached to this land that Schermerhorn proposes to dedicate. MR. BREWER-I think, if I remember, George, we tabled it so we could go walk the land. Didn't we not do anything with this so that we could go look at it? As I recall. MR. STARK-Roger and I did go look at it. MR. BREWER-I did, too. MR. HILTON-We also had to send out notification to the Town Board and the Recreation Commission. MR. STARK-What did they say, the Town Board? MR. HILTON-The Recreation Commission, I don't, for some reason, have the file with me. The Recreation Commission, my understanding is that they felt that acceptance of this piece would be kind of, maybe just wouldn't work without any dedication from the Michaels Group to the north. The status of that is still unknown. They're going before the Zoning Board tomorrow night for a variance connected with that dedication. We don't know what's going to happen right now with the Michaels Group property. MR. STARK-We don't have to act on this tonight anyway. MR. BREWER-Why don't we wait until next month and get written comment from the. MR. STARK-We'll see what The Michaels Group is going to do. MR. BREWER-I don't care what the Michaels Group is going to do, because it has nothing to do with this. MR. STARK-Well, they do connect, Tim. MR. BREWER-Yes, but the point is, The Michaels Group isn't here trying to give us land. Schermerhorn is. Why don't we wait and get written comment from the Recreation Commission. - 43 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. STARK-It doesn't have to be tonight. MR. BREWER-No. MR. HILTON-I think the Rec Commission, if they get some more information on The Michaels Group, they may re-Iook at this a little bit differently. So if we get, you know, get another month into it and find out what's going to happen with The Michaels Group property, maybe we can get some further comment from the Rec Commission and we can discuss it then. MR. BREWER-I think we should wait until we get written comment. MR. STARK-We'll put it off until next month. MR. RUEL-Yes, lets do that. MR. PALING-Is there any other subjects that anyone would like to bring up before the Board? Please come up. DOUG MILLER MR. MILLER-Doug Miller. For the record, I just would like to determine and maybe the attorney will have to help with this, or George, regarding the Indian Ridge application, and the legal proceedings that are going on. The 60 day time frame, is that in effect? Is it on hold? MR. PALING-The 62 day time frame, I believe, is not in effect yet because the public hearing is still open. So the clock doesn't start to tick until the public hearing is closed. MR. MILLER-That's when the 62 days start. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Anything else anyone would care to talk about? Yes, come on up. DOUG IRISH MR. IRISH-Doug Irish. You'll have to excuse me. I've got some stuff I want to read out of. I don't have as much experience up here as some of you guys. Some of the things that have been coming in front of the Board concern me because they haven't really raised any kind of response from the Board as a whole. One of them was a question that one of the Stone Gate residents raised today, and again, you'll have to forgive me because I don't know the requirements or the computations that you guys make when you come up with zoning for density, or high density zoning, but I do know that in the Town Law, Article 16, it says that a developer sets a site forever wild areas on their own, and restricting their use to residents of the tract, effectively eliminating these areas from consideration in determining density requirements for the balance of the parcel. These areas cannot be used for computing density on the project for anything that's re-zoned. Now again, I don't know what the density requirements are and how you arrive at that figure, but I'm concerned because a lot of the times when I come up here, and I realize that the developer wants to get the property off of his tax roll so if he donates it to the Town as parkland or forever wild, they don't pay any taxes on it. I can understand that. My concern is that I don't think the public understands how you guys arrived at how many houses you could put on a piece of land, or if they can actually do it once they turn that property over to the Town. I mean, if they come to the Town Board and say, we're going to give this to you without the Town Board asking them for it, then effectively they've taken that out of that computation and it shouldn't be used for the zoning. MR. PALING-Well, there's one thing if the Town accepts it, and - 44 - '---" ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) another thing if they don't, but, George, I think you might be the best one to comment on that. MR. HILTON-Yes, and this was something that was handed to me after the last meeting with Cerrone, and I did look into it. Our Subdivision Ordinance complies with that because it states that in order for a cluster, well, in computating the density of a cluster subdivision, what you do is you take out the area of the roads, the area of the open space to be dedicated, and there's certain guidelines, it's in Section 183-34, and then you computate the density. With the Cerrone Subdivision, they have 58 acres. When you take out the open space and you take out the roads. The 27 lots that they're going to develop is well within the one acre density that they have there. MR. IRISH-Because I know some of them were concerned about that. The other thing that I wanted to, I spent a lot of time at the library. There was a comment made during one of the meetings about what the actual authority of the Site Plan Review was with regard to the Planning Board. Specifically access, and according to, again, Town Law Section 274, the Planning Board has the authority to, it's Section 274A, Page 175, Traffic Concerns. It says the Planning Board may be authorized to review the means of access, and it goes on to state some case law, and the second part, I found the Planning Board's consideration of traffic congestion during Site Plan Review as both a proper subject of concern and also mandatory subject of review under the provisions of the Town Code. Traffic congestion on the streets from which the proposed development's customers would enter and upon which they would exit is within the Board's Site Plan Review jurisdiction. It goes on to cite a couple of other traffic concerns, and it does say that consequently the existing case law indicates that the provision authorizing Site Plan Review of the means of access is not limited to consideration of the traffic circulation on the site. A Planning Board may be delegated the authority to consider the effect of a proposal on immediate adjacent roadways and intersections and the adequacy of those means of access. Although a Planning Board may be delegated the authority to consider the effect of proposed development on adj acent roadways, a Board does not possess the authority to require an applicant to improve an existing road not located on the site. It goes on, consistent with the rationale of Site Plan Review to control the layout and design of a site, this element enables the Planning Board to modify plans, condition an approval to minimize the impact of a site plan proposal on adjacent properties or to deny an approval if a proposal will have a demonstrative serious and unmitigatable effects on neighboring properties, and you know there's a big concern with that. Myself, I'm real concerned with Indian Ridge. I wanted to make sure that there wasn't, somebody didn't pass up your authorization and say, the Town Board has already taken that into effect and has effectively taken you out of the loop, which in case is not the fact. MR. PALING-I'd like to comment on that, because normally it's not a problem. Access is pretty well defined and there's not a disagreement. There is a disagreement in this case, as to where the location of the access is and how it should be treated, and the next part of the next meeting, probably, that the Planning Board would have will contain testimony in that regard, and we have to wai t . We have no choice really, and I think it should be that way. We're waiting on that testimony, because we haven't said anything yet. MR. IRISH-No, I know. MR. PALING-And prior to that we're going to be exposed to quite a bit of information, and I don't think we could say much prior to. - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/15/97) MR. IRISH-No. I really wasn't looking for any explanation or anything. I just wanted to get that on the record so that everybody was aware of what our position was on that, and that I do think there's some case law that supports the fact you do have the authority to review that part of the development. MR. PALING-And you'll have opportunity to come back again at any meeting we might have, too. MR. STARK-Bob, if our attorney says we can review it, we can, but we're not going to go by what YOU say. We go by what our attorney says. MR. IRISH-I understand. I just don't want somebody else's attorney coming up and telling you that you don't have to look at that. MR. STARK-No. We listen to Schachner when he's here, or Jeff, and if they say something, we're not going to go against what they say, what they recommend. MR. IRISH-No, that's not a problem. MR. PALING-We've got to take that information into consideration, all of it. MR. IRISH-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anybodyelse? Okay. I think the meeting's over. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 46 -