Loading...
1997-05-20 Site Plan No. 15-97 Tax Map No. 5-1-11 Site Plan No. 16-97 Tax Map No. 109-1-7 Site Plan No. 19-97 Tax Map No. 59-2-13 Site Plan No. 20-97 Tax Map No. 34-1-10 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 1997 INDEX Dale Campbell 1. Newton's Auto Sales, Inc. 15. John Engelbrecht 41. Lehman Trikes, Inc. - Larry Strilchuk 47. 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 5/20/97) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN DAVID WEST GEORGE STARK PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 18, 1997: NONE March 25, 1997: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES DATED MARCH 18TH AND MARCH 25TH, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN 18-94 WILLIAM & CONNIE GEBO OWNERS: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD REQUEST FOR A 6 MONTH EXTENSION FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. TAX MAP NO. 138-1-15 LOT SIZE: 85' X 100' SECTION: 179-19 MR. HILTON-Actually, if I may, Bob. The applicant in this case has applied for a building permit. So this has been removed from the agenda, and they're not, there's no need for the modification. MR. PALING-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 15-97 TYPE II DALE CAMPBELL OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: DUNHAMS BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING "Fn SHAPED DOCK - RECONSTRUCTION OF NEW DOCK AND OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/97 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 5-1-11 LOT SIZE: 2.50 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 DALE CAMPBELL, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-There was a public hearing on Aþril 15th, and it still remains open. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 15-97, Dale Campbell, Meeting Date: May 20, 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. The length of the dock and the setbacks - 1 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) 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-And Warren County Planning Board, on April the 9th, found No County Impact with this application. MR. PALING-Do you have new letters on this, George? MR. HILTON-It doesn't appear that I have any new letters. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. looking for more information. Why did we table this? We were MR. CAMPBELL-We were not notified of the last meeting, and we were not in attendance. My name is Dale Campbell. I am the applicant. JOHN CREEDE MR. CREEDE-I'm John Creede. I'm representing the applicant. MR. PALING-That's right. I remember now. Okay. So we can proceed with this. Do you have any comments on George's comments? MR. CAMPBELL-Yes, in fact, I do. The concerns that our neighbors had in that letter that we addressed to the committee some time ago were considered at the time that we proposed modification to our dock. The dock is all within the zoning regulations of the Town of Queensbury. It is in hope that the boathouse that we propose is open on all side. It is a single slip. The deck itself, the cover of the dock is only 12 feet wide. Our neighbors provided some photographs to the committee, I believe, in the letter that has been distributed. I think that they are somewhat misleading and do not really show the little impact that our proposed construction will have on their view. So I, last month, went to the property, actually stood on their dock, photographs of our property, the dock that is there presently, and a panoramic view of exactly what can be seen and what cannot be seen from their property, and I have copies of the photographs which I would like to submit to the committee for their review, if I could, at this time. MR. PALING-Clarify the height, first, so we can get that out of the way. MR. CREEDE-It's going to be no higher than 13 feet 10 inches. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-From what? MR. CREEDE-From the mean high water mark. MR. RUEL-What's the limit, 14? MR. PALING-Fourteen. MR. HILTON-Fourteen for peaked roofs, yes. MR. RUEL-That's the top of the. MR. CREEDE-Railing. MR. PALING-And that's the highest part of the dock. Okay. Do you want to bring those? - 2 - /' "--' -.../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. CAMPBELL-Sure. I think there's probably a copy for everyone here on the committee. I'll pass them out. If you can take a look at the photograph, it's actually a series of photographs that we scotch taped together and have blown up. Our dock is all the way to the far right hand side of the photograph, and in fact you can't see our entire dock. All you can see, that's sticking out there into the bay, is half of a dock, and I think this shows what little visual impact construction of something in that area, even a larger dock. MR. BREWER-Where is this picture taken from? MR. CAMPBELL-It's taken from the King/Maddox dock, from their property. In fact, in the foreground the couple of posts that are sticking up there are actually posts from their dock. I would also just add that the proposed construction, the dock itself does not stick directly out into the bay. It is angled at approximately a 45 degree angle or less to the shoreline, which has even less of an impact on the, or less of a visual impact on our neighbors than if it was stick out directly into the lake. Sticking directly out into the lake would add another seven or eight feet to the dock or at least to the visual impact that it would have on our neighbors, and I think that that should be considered as well. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mr. Campbell, your dock isn't going out any farther than the posts right here, the new proposed structure isn't going to be any farther out into the water? MR. CAMPBELL-Yes, it will. I'm not exactly sure how far. Because it is at an angle, and not straight out. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we were standing on Dr. Maddox's dock, too. MR. CAMPBELL-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-So I know exactly what's going on here. MR. CAMPBELL-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-But that's what I would like to know. In relationship to the end of your dock right now, how much, I really have to know how much farther that boathouse would be going. MR. CAMPBELL-Do you have the drawings in front of you, ma'am, the proposed drawings that would give you the most accurate. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I know, but that's from the shoreline. MR. PALING-Yes. You've shown a photo, here, but you haven't shown what the new dock will, if the photo's going to do us any good, we better know how the new dock is located on that photo. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, that's what I really would like to know. MR. CAMPBELL-I mean, if I could point out to you, what you can see, that part of our dock that you can see in this photograph is only half of the dock. So whatever is going to be extended out into the water, farther than the dock that is already there, is going to be minimal at best. Also, it is going to be angled. It will be corning more directly at the next door neighbor's property than if it were sticking straight out into the bay. MR. PALING-It makes it kind of hard to use the picture. MR. RUEL-How many feet beyond the shore does the new dock extend, roughly? MR. CAMPBELL-I'm not exactly sure, really. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. RUEL-Two, three feet, five feet? MR. BREWER-Have you got a print of the dock? It'll tell you how long it is. Right? MR. CAMPBELL-Correct. MR. BREWER-Roger, have you got a print? MR. RUEL-No, I don't. MR. BREWER-I don't have mine, either. Do you have an extra print of it? MR. CAMPBELL-I'll see what I have. MR. RUEL-Was there a print with this, George? MR. HILTON-We handed them out, distributed them with your packets when the item was first on last month. MR. BREWER-It goes out 40 feet from the shoreline. The old dock is 30 feet. So it sticks out 10 feet further. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what I wanted to know. MR. RUEL-Ten feet. MR. PALING-But it's got a vertical component to it, too. MR. BREWER-The existinq one does. MR. PALING-The existing one does not. It's not built up. MR. BREWER-I see what you're saying. MR. RUEL-How many feet above the? MR. BREWER-Thirteen, ten. MR. RUEL-No, above the deck, no, not the deck, above the dock? How many feet above the dock? Do you have it on that print? MR. PALING-Here it is here, but there's no figure. MR. BREWER-Well, I mean, it's going to be probably 12 feet. Because you've got to take away this distance here, Roger. John, do you know the distance between the deck of the dock and the tallest height? MR. CREEDE-It's about 12 foot 9, 12 foot 11. I mean, that's the best estimate I can give to you. MR. PALING-But what measurement is this? MR. RUEL-From the dock to the deck. MR. PALING-But going back to the photo, you're saying that it extends about 10 foot further than this dock in this picture. MR. BREWER-Not even, Bob. MR. WEST-It's on a diagonal. MR. CREEDE-There's a dotted line of where the dock exists now and how it angles out. You're talking, maybe, about two or three feet from where the dock exists now. - 4 - '''-' /' , ---./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. RUEL-Looking at this sketch, is it necessary to have that slanted roof, with the cedar shingles, since that obstructs the view. MR. CREEDE-Well, that's a traditional design. MR. RUEL-Yes, but see if you didn't have that, and it was just flat, that would certainly enhance the view, you'd be able to see through it, whereas, you have a roof here, I don't know how many feet it is. It must be at least, what, five feet, four or five feet. MR. CREEDE-No. It's probably about two feet. That picture may be a little bit deceiving, but it's no greater than two feet. MR. RUEL-Well, you have no dimensions on here. I can't tell. MR. BREWER-Roger, think of it this way. You take this picture, it goes out like this, and then put a roof on it, then look at the view you have. How much of a percent of blockage do you have? MR. CAMPBELL-If we could just show, I have a photograph of a camp that's about five camps down on Dunham's Bay from us. It has a very. very similar dock that we're proposing to build, and we can show the impact that that little, I guess it's called a mansard extension. MR. RUEL-If it's a very short roof, I see, it is pretty short. It's about 18 inches. Fine. Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Lets open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that would care to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RAYMOND MADDOCKS DR. MADDOCKS-Thank you. My name is RaYmond Maddocks, and I am one of the two owners of the adjacent property which is probably going to be impacted the most by this new construction if allowed. I guess our concern about this is that we have enjoyed this property for about 20 years, and we have an absolutely breathtaking view of some the most beautiful sunsets in this part of the world, and our quality of our life, we feel, is going to be impacted by the loss of this unobstructed view. Right now, there is no visual impact whatsoever regarding the Campbell's dock as it is in the existing shape. Our real concern is not so much the water layout of the dock. It's rather the part above the dock itself, which is going to impact our view, and when we sort of surveyed the property during the winter time when you could walk on the ice and look at it from our property and we kind of did some guesstimating based on the information that we had received regarding this application, and trying to put up some structures and what have you, it was very clear that this was going to be a major impact. So I guess that's why we're objecting to this. MR. PALING-Could I ask you a question, please. immediate house, is that south of it? Are you the DR. MADDOCKS-Yes, sir. MR. PALING-Okay. Now we stood on your steps, okay, and looked out into the lake, and if you look north, we were looking into a big stand of trees. When we looked straight across from you, which is where I think you'd pick up the sunset, that is a beautiful view, but if I read this right, this dock would not obstruct your westerly view. - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) DR. MADDOCKS-It directly obstructs the westerly view. The only time we can see a sunset is from our dock, sitting on our dock, and it's on the dock, as we are looking directly west, that this new structure is going to be right there. MR. PALING-Okay. You can't see it from your house, you're saying? The best view is from the dock. DR. MADDOCKS-Right. We would not be appreciating a sunset from up in the cottage itself, but rather from the dock. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Well, I was just going to say, from the house it's obstructed by trees and vegetation. So the best view is on your dock. DR. MADDOCKS-Yes. MR. RUEL-Right, either all the way out in the water or at the beginning of the dock. DR. MADDOCKS-Yes. MR. RUEL-Because you have a platform there before the dock. DR. MADDOCKS-Yes. MR. RUEL-You're talking about that platform. DR. MADDOCKS-We look directly west, and the western mountains beyond the west side of the lake. MR. RUEL-It's a very slight obstruction, though, the way ~ see it. DR. MADDOCKS-Well, that wasn't ~ impression. MR. STARK-Is there anything that this guy could do that you would be happy with, put a new dock in? He needs a dock. The dock is in crummy condition. DR. MADDOCKS-Yes. I think, you know, certainly we could live with the plans to construct the dock as planned on the water level. Where we really are predominantly objecting to is the part above the deck level, the so called. MR. RUEL-Are you saying, then, you couldn't possibly ever build a boathouse because then you would get objections from your neighbors? DR. MADDOCKS-I would agree. MR. RUEL- You would have to keep the dock and never have a boathouse? DR. MADDOCKS-Yes. I mean, I feel that it's important to appreciate your neighbor's concerns, and I'm sure everybody does here. MR. RUEL-There are many boathouses in the area that are covered, in your immediate area. DR. MADDOCKS-That is correct, I guess, east of us. MR. RUEL-Yes, they don't impair your view, I know. DR. MADDOCKS-Yes. Now that's not the view from our property that's the important view, is looking east. I guess I just feel that, you know, this is, we're deciding on something that, hopefully, if we - 6 - --' '--" '-'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) can avoid impacting on other people's quality of their life, and to me, seeing a beautiful sunset over the lake, it might sound corny, but you're only on this earth so long, and it's a beautiful sight. I think it's unfortunate if we're going to be impacted negatively. MR. RUEL-It meets all the zoning requirements, rules and regulations, size, height. MR. WEST-Are you confident that the actual sunset would be impaired by? DR. MADDOCKS-Yes, I am. MR. WEST-Okay, because I'm looking at this picture, this panoramic view, and the position of the sun, at least at this time of the year, now this is April. Now I'm not sure what the shift would be as far as the earth rotates, whatever, but in this particular picture, I see very little impact whatsoever by the proposed construction. Did you see this? DR. MADDOCKS-No, I haven't seen that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but, David, I think that you have to kind of be there and, you know, be there on that dock at different times of the year, like the owners are, but because Dunham's Bay, I mean the lake runs north and south, but I mean, Dunham's Bay kind of comes in like this. So when you're looking right here, that is west. Those mountains are on the western side of the lake. I see, right there? Well, what time of day. MR. WEST-Well, this is in April. So I don't know if in August or September it's further down. MRS. LABOMBARD-That sun's going to be higher up in the sky, too, a lot higher up, and it's going to be over more, but if this dock comes out another 10 feet, then you're taking off that much of a, you're taking off half this picture. MR. BREWER-How do you figure, Cathy? DR. MADDOCKS-May I look at the panoramic? MRS. LABOMBARD- Sure. MR. PALING-Yes, take a copy. DR. MADDOCKS-This is the sunset. The sun sets right there during June, half of June, July and August. That's it and that's where we're going to be impacted. This is going to be coming out further, and that is exactly the area where we're seeing the sunset. MR. PALING-From your porch to see that sunset, you'd have to look through the trees. DR. MADDOCKS-We cannot see the sunset because of the trees. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. WEST-He's not arguing that. DR. MADDOCKS-This is strictly from the dock. MR. RUEL-This is from the dock. MR. PALING-I know. DR. MADDOCKS-From the dock, this is where the sun is setting, right - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) where that flag pole is. That's where the sun sets. MRS. LABOMBARD-But if the boathouse goes up, even if you cut those trees down, it would totally obstruct any view from the porch. MR. PALING-Can't you cut the trees down? MRS. LABOMBARD-I know they're nice trees, but I'm saying if they were cut down to get a view, the boathouse would obstruct that view also. MR. PALING-All right. Thank you. Does anyone else care to talk about this? MR. BREWER-I've got one question, Bob. Maybe it's crazy, but how tall would the boat be from the water line? How big of a boat do you have? MR. CAMPBELL-I have a 21 foot boat presently. It's a runabout. It's not a cruiser or anything like that. I mean, I don't know how tall it is. MR. BREWER-So it's not any more than four or five feet then? MR. CAMPBELL-No, if that. Just the comment as to other structures in the vicinity, my wife and I did an informal count of the number of docks and boathouses there are on Dunham's Bay, on the eastern side of Dunham's Bay, and there are 22 docks between the Sea Ray dealer at the very back of the Bay, and the neighbor immediately to the north of us. Of those 22 docks, 17 of them are presently covered, and many of them are enclosed boathouses. Ours is, as the committee is aware, is completely open-sided. It is, as I said before, angled away from being straight out into the lake to negate the visual impact that it will have on our neighbors. As to the sunset, I mean, this is sort of like splitting hairs, but I do have a picture of a sunset from July of last year, and it may take some investigation on the part of the committee, but again, I have another copy of a photograph that I just handed up to you all, and you can compare the sunset in July as to where it will be, and I drew it in where ~ think it will be, and you can see that the Kings and the Maddocks' will be~able to see the sunset in mid July, after our proposed constructic . MR. MACEWAN-The flag pole that you have on the existing dock, how tall is that? MR. CAMPBELL-My guess, 20 feet. MR. MACEWAN-Is there any reason why your new proposed dock can't follow the footprint of the existing dock that you have now? MR. CAMPBELL-It would be very difficult to turn a boat of any length. Since it is at a 45 degree angle with the shoreline, to maneuver a boat in, you can't just drive straight in from the Bay. You have to angle it in, and to move it out just a few degrees, and it's not a major angling, further angling into the Bay, but it's necessary for that purpose. There was also, I don't know if it's indicated on any of the documents that yOU have, there is a very, very ...large rock sort of. on the border of our property and the King/Maddocks property that has to be avoided. It is very difficult to navigate it presently with that garage there. MR. PALING-Is that eel rock? MR. CAMPBELL-No. It's a submerged rock. MR. MACEWAN-The boat that you have now, this 21 foot boat that you're referring to, do you currently use the dock, this one that - 8 - -,,' '--' .......,/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) you want to replace, for that boat? MR. CAMPBELL-Yes, I do. It does not fit in the space. It hangs out of the present space by about two to three feet. It's longer than, and if I want to buy any boat any larger than that, obviously, it wouldn't fit in the present dock. The submerged rock that I spoke of before is on the border between our property and the King/Maddocks property. MR. MACEWAN-I see it on your map, and your map indicates that, from the edge of your proposed dock to the edge of your property line, you're talking 42 feet. MR. CAMPBELL-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-You're just going to rotate that dock around, and follow the same footprint, you're only picking up an additional 10 feet, right, on the length of your dock. Your existing dock right now is, what, 30 feet? MR. CAMPBELL-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Your new one is going to be 40. MR. CAMPBELL-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-So you're adding 10 feet, and that still gives you 32 feet to maneuver a boat. Is my math not coming out here or what? What I'm trying to do is see if we can't come to some compromise here instead of, we can get you your dock, keep the neighbors happy so they can see their sunset, because if we can take your dock and follow the same footprint that you have now, I don't see that your height of that new dock that you're proposing is going to be a hinderance, seeing the sunset. MR. CAMPBELL-I really don't think that I could get, even the boat that I presently have, which is small. It's only 21 feet long, is difficult to get into that dock. The dock as it exists now is essentially parallel to the shoreline, slightly angled away from the shoreline, but essentially parallel. MR. MACEWAN-Are you willing to lower the roof height of your dock at all? MR. CREEDE-Sir, if I might add something, possibly appease both Mr. Campbell and the Maddocks and Kings, we could possibly make, we could omit the mansard type of roof. This is what we're talking about is a visual impact. We're not talking about the actual dock. Height, I don't know if it would make much of a difference in height, taller, shorter, but if we eliminated this mansard and made a railing that is more or less just a top rail and a very bottom rail, to some degree it would improve or become a lesser degree of visual impact. MR. PALING-You're gaining two feet when you do that, on the length of the dock. MR. BREWER-No. He's eliminating the solid part of it. MR. PALING-Yes. That's what I'm saying. ·You're gaining twöfeet of visual impact. MR. CREEDE-That's probably the most visually impacting thing of this whole design is the mansard type roof. We could, which I've discussed with Mr. Campbell, is an option that, if there's room for negotiating here, we could consider that. MR. PALING-Okay. - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. CREEDE-Possibly lowering the dock as well. We're talking about an eight foot ceiling height here. We could go to seven, a seven foot ceiling. MR. PALING-Okay. You could go to a seven foot ceiling, and eliminate the mansard roof. MR. CREEDE-I mean, traditionally we build between a seven and a \ nine foot ceiling, so seven foot would be acceptable for most boat sizes on the lake. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-What would that bring the new height to now? MR. CREEDE-It was 13, 10. We're talking about 12 foot 10 to the top of the railing. MR. PALING-Okay. around quite a there's further hearing. All right. I think we've kind of batted this bit, and we've had the public hearing. Unless comment or response, I'm going to close the public PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing is closed. Okay. George has suggested that anyone that has commented before might want to comment on the new plan that's been proposed by Mr. Campbell. Okay. We'll re-open the public hearing. Come on up. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED BRIAN KING DR. KING-I'm Brian King. I'm one of the other co-owners of the King/Maddocks property. I spoke at the meeting last time when the Campbells were not represented and went over the photographs that we had taken, in a similar effort to support ~ contention that it is going to significantly impact on our visual experience from our dock. Both Dr. Maddocks and I feel that the angulation of the dock is not a problem and readily agree with their problem with the rock. That has been a treacherous thing coming into that dock every since we've been there watching our former neighbors trying to get in. It's tough, and I think angling it out makes a world of sense and is certainly going to make it a lot easier to get the boat in there. We still are very concerned about the boathouse, and I think that the concessions I guess we'll call them that have been made, perhaps lowering it a foot and taking away the roof, I'm not sure that's really going to make a heck of a lot of difference. I think it's going to be a large structure. This is a big structure that's going up there, 40 feet long. It's a big structure, and we're not that, our properties are very close together. I think those pictures are a little deceiving. It's a wide angle lens and I don't think you can really appreciate it that much from those photographs presented, but we still feel that this is going to be a significant obstruction. I don't know what's going to be used up on the deck, but if you have chairs up there and a table an umbrella or something to keep the sun off you, all of a suddeI1. we' vegot lots of things higher up than the deck itself. I don' t have any idea what they're planning to do up there, but it seems reasonable you might use it if you have it. So I guess we would stay the course and say we're still objecting to the boathouse. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Is there anyone else who would like to comment? All right. Then now the public hearing is closed. - 10 - ./ "--' .-.-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CATHY CAMPBELL MRS. CAMPBELL-My name is Cathy Campbell. I am co-owner of the property in question. All I would like to say is that we very much wish to get along with our neighbors, and we want it to be a happy time going up to the camp. I'm sure they do, too, and what we essentially want is to be able to get full potential enjoYment out of the property we've purchased after many, many, many years of coming up and renting at Lake George. All we really want with this structure that's in question is to protect the boat. It's really a roof. We may go out on it because of the deck, too, but it is a roof or covering for the boat, and that is the primary reason for our wanting to do that, and the other thing I would like to say is just that it seems to us that all we're really asking for is something that is a standard on the lake. Seventeen out of twenty- two similar structures on the same side of the Bay as us are covered in the similar fashion. There's nothing unusual about what we want to do. Forty-feet is a standard size. There's nothing exceptional about that. Just ask John Creede, he knows. He builds them all the time. So I would just like to say that we want to get along with our neighbors. We just want to get full use out of something for which we've paid a great deal of money and hope to enjoy as well. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. RUEL-Mrs. Campbell indicated that the prime reason for this is to protect the boat and have a roof over it. Would you be willing to eliminate the stairs and the deck and railing around it, since the roof is the most important thing? MRS. CAMPBELL-I think that it would be fair to say that the primary problem they have is with a structure at all. A railing is probably going to enhance their view, if anything, whereas a regular roofed boathouse is just going to be a roof. So I don't know what you gain by taking off the features you could consider decorative. I mean, there is a beautiful railing along the porch of our dock, excuse me, of our camp. I'd like to repeat that arts and crafts era railing on this boathouse. It would be something beautiful, not something, you know, that you wouldn't want to look at. So I don't see what would be gained by doing this. MR. RUEL-Well, visual impact seemed to be the problem. If you add a railing, it's more of a visual impact. If you remove the mansard roof and you just put a flat roof, no stairway, no railing, it seems to me that, from a visual standpoint, it would contribute a lot. MR. BREWER-But doesn't that seem to you, Roger, that we're designing what they want to have on their own property that they paid for? MR. RUEL-No, I'm only asking. I'm asking if you will. MR. WEST-You're trying to strike a compromise here, Roger. I'm not sure even that would do it. MR. PALING-If you did that, you'd remove the fuhction of it as a deck. It would only. It wouldn't be a deck any more. It would be a roof only, if you did that. MR. RUEL-I only mentioned that because she said it. covering the boat was the most important thing. That the MRS. LABOMBARD-Mrs. Campbell, I'd like to make a comment regarding those other boathouses that are, as you're facing the Bay on the - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) left, towards the boat company. I have a very good friend that used to own a camp there. I don't know if you know John and Diane Matthews. They've sold their property since, but if you're down in there, all those camps to the left anyway, they don't have anywhere the view that you and the Maddocks have. Really, as far as I'm concerned, your two pieces of property are probably the nicest pieces of property along that whole side of the Bay, for obvious reasons, and so, right at this point, I don't think that there's any significance of those other cottages and houses and camps having a covered boathouse, because they are not situated on the Bay like you and the Maddocks and Kings are. So I feel that probably the fact that you're farther out where the Bay is starting to open up, maybe those two pieces of property should not be covered, for obvious reasons. In the case of the Kings and the Maddocks, the people directly to their left, and the case of them, you shouldn't cover yours. All I could say, I know it's tough, but you do have the nicest piece of property, and you're the one at the end. MRS. CAMPBELL-All I can say in response is that having spent a great deal of time at this lake over the course of many years, I've stayed in a lot of places that have covered boathouses next to them. There's nothing unusual about that, and it's something that you kind of expect at the lake, to have these structures, most of which are quite beautiful, around. It seems to be part of the scenery. Let me also say that we have a large piece of property. It's 200 feet along the lake. We're specifically trying, and our camp is kind of on one, it's almost like two lots, I think. Our camp is confined to one side of the property, basically. We're going to try very hard to keep the rest of that shoreline clean and pristine and natural, and so we are going to try, we think we're going a large way toward making that part, that beautiful piece of property, clean and pristine by not, I mean, making a huge boathouse like we could with 200 feet of property, of shoreline. We very much want that to stay, it's one of the few unblemished or uninhabited, shall we say, pieces of shoreline on our side of Dunham's Bay, and we'd like it to stay that way, we intend to keep it natural. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's just that the other 160 feet or 180 feet will be like that, except where the boathouse is, it's definitely going to effect your neighbors to the left of you. I've lived on the lake all my life, and I know just what's going on here, and to tell you the truth, this whole story since I started getting the letters, I've discussed with my dad, because I'm trying to put myself in your place. MRS. CAMPBELL-It's difficult. people. They're nice people. We're nice MRS. LABOMBARD-It's very difficult, and I want you to know that I'm empathetic with what you're saying. It's just that, you know, where's the limit where you feel like, it's mY property. I can do with it what I choose. I'm not directly hurting anybody, but then on the other hand. MRS. CAMPBELL-I think we would say that it would seem to us that it's an unwarranted interference in our ability to use our property. MR. BREWER-How much property on the other side of the rock do you own? MR. CAMPBELL-105 feet. MR. BREWER-Could you put the dock over there? MR. CAMPBELL-We've discussed that with John Creede. First of all, - 12 - -' '",---, ---./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) what my wife said about that other 105 feet of property, it is absolutely, it is in its natural state presently. There is no structure on it. It is just a wooded lot. I dare say that it is probably one of the few remaining 105 feet of lake front property in private hands on the lake that is still in a natural setting with no structure of any sort on it, and that is one of the reasons that we bought the property was because of that reason, and it is our intention to leave it that way. We had discussed, since this issue with our neighbors came up, with John Creede, I mean, is it possible to build anything over there? There is, from my understanding, an ice problem in Dunham's Bay, that the area where the present dock is, is protected by eel rock, which is a very, very large rock that sits out into the water, abutting right up against the shoreline. The shoreline is indented there slightly, creating a natural sort of protection for the existing dock and any new structure that was there. If we were to build on the other 105 feet of our property, not only would we upset this natural setting, but John tells me that it would probably not be viable as far as ice damage is concerned, and that we would lose our dock within just a matter of years, and that's essentially the reason that we have chosen to keep it. To say nothing of the additional expense of building on the other piece of property, it would cost more. It would be further away from our camp, and we're not contiguous with the structure, and for all those reasons, I don't really think that that's a viable alternative. Again, we're really just asking for nothing unusual here, meeting all zoning requirements. There are thousands of similar docks on the lake. I guess the bottom line here is any time anybody builds a structure of this sort it's going to impact, to some degree, on their neighbor. We've done absolutely everything possible. We have 200 feet of lake front. We can build, obviously, under the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations, build a much larger structure if we wanted to. We could even ask, be asking to enclose it. We're not. We're asking for a single slip, open boathouse, angled away from the open lake to have the least impact on our neighbors as possible, and I guess the bottom line is we're just asking this committee to consider us no differently than anyone else on the lake. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. I think we've, the discussion should be about done. We'll limit it to up here now. Any other questions or comments? MR. RUEL-Well, do we have two conditions on this? MR. PALING-Well, we have two conditions. MR. RUEL-The seven foot height and the removal of the mansard roof? MR. PALING-That's right, and the other suggestion. MR. BREWER-Do you want to use that as a condition? MR. RUEL-I don't know, that's what I'm asking. MR. PALING-Well, it's what the applicant said they would do. They volunteered that to try to minimize, they're taking a foot off the ceiling and, a foot off the height, and they're removing the mansard roof, which will improve the visual impact. The visual impact will be less. MR. RUEL-Are those the only two conditions you can think of now? MR. PALING-That's the only two that I have. I think that were consented to or volunteered, either way you look at it. I think we have to go on it with what we have. MR. RUEL-There's no SEQRA on this, is there? - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. PALING-This is a Type II. So there is no SEQRA on this. So we can go right to a motion then. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-97 DALE CAMPBELL, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To remove existing F-shaped dock and build a new dock and open sided boat house, with the following two conditions: One, reduce the ceiling height to seven feet, and secondly to remove the mansard roof. The dimension from the mean highwater mark to the top of the railing shall not exceed 12 feet 10 inches. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 15-97 DALE CAMPBELL for removal of existing F-shaped dock and reconstruction of new dock and open sided boathouse; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/12/97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Copy of Map of lands to be conveyed by J. & D. Kochman to D. & C. Campbell dated 5/20/96 3. Drawings (2) of Proposed New Dock & Boathouse for D. Campbell Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes 2. Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution dated 4/9/97 3. LGPC Application dated 3/20/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/15/97 and 5/20/97 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 moves to approve Site Plan No. 15-97 - DALE CAMPBELL. 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. 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 site plan approval process. - 14 - "--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1997 by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-Could you answer one more question for me. What does that make the height from the actual top of the dock to the bottom of the roof? MR. PALING-You're saying the top of the railing now? MR. MACEWAN-No. I'm looking at what the height is from the top of the dock, the walking surface of the dock to the roof. MR. BREWER-It's seven feet, isn't it? The ceiling height is seven feet. So you've got your material. MR. RUEL-It's probably another four feet on top of that, at least, four or five feet. MR. PALING-No. The maximum height to the top of the railing, from the mean high water mark, is 12 foot 10 inches, and if that's wrong, correct us. MR. CREEDE-No. MR. PALING-That's correct. From the mean high water mark, to the top of the railing, 12 foot 10. MR. CREEDE-Within an inch. MR. PALING-That's right, plus or minus, and then the ceiling height, which is deck to ceiling, is seven feet. MR. RUEL-So the only thing I'll add, then, is the dimension from the mean high water mark to the top of the railing shall not exceed 12 feet 10 inches. MR. PALING-Twelve feet, ten inches approximately. Right. MR. RUEL-Okay. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard SITE PLAN NO. 16-97 TYPE II NEWTON'S AUTO SALES, INC. OWNER: BOYCHUK - 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. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 4/9/97 TAX MAP NO. 109-1-7 LOT SIZE: 1+ ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing on April 15th was tabled. MR. PALING-Okay. George, do you have any comments on this? MR. HILTON-No. We actually don't have any further comments. This was tabled for further information. The applicant has submitted that. It might be a good idea to just have the applicant summarize the additional information and take it from there. MR. PALING-Yes. I think you know what the questions were last time. Would you i'dentify yourselves, and then summarize or comment on the items, the reason it was tabled last time, I should say. MR. MULLER-Okay. I'll do my best. My name is Michael Muller, and seated to my left is Albert Zito, and we're both officers of Newton's Auto Sales, Inc. I wanted to apologize to the Board, last - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) time, I was happy to hear Mr. Campbell say he didn't get notice of the meeting. I didn' t get notice of it either. That's why I didn't come. The Board had requested that we basically re-draw the site plan proposal, if you will, and I did submit a larger copy of that. Basically there is, on the large drawing that you have received, the existing building. I wanted to emphasize that we propose no change whatsoever to the building with respect to its size. The exterior changes with respect to replacement of garage doors or placement of a door was all with respect to compliance with Building Code for handicapped access. The same thing with respect to interior changes for bathroom and for office space and opening doors, but from the outside of the building, you see no change whatsoever. It is essentially a change in use. The parking areas that are provided would be on the south side of the building, and at the south and westerly corner is a handicapped parking space, because one is required, and there are three additional parking spaces which, those would be for persons who are actually employed by Newton's Auto Sales, but in reality persons who are employed by Newton's Auto Sales are sales persons, and sales persons drive automobiles that are for sale. There would be approximately 40 used automobiles at this site, 38 to 40 of them outside or two to three that would actually be inside the building for sale, as if they were in a showroom, because you can move through the building with a car. The area that's offered for used automobile sales is along the southern line or boundary of that property, and basically I put spaces in there to show 38 spots. Those are not parking spaces. I previously had asked, and I believe that it should be the rule of this Town, and I believe that it is, that these are not parking spaces, 10 by 20, for sale. These are places for used car sales. They are inventory spaces. So you're not required to offer a parking space for each one of them. MR. RUEL-You show 38 spaces? MR. MULLER-I show 38, yes. MR. RUEL-Your note says 70 used cars on the lot. MR. MULLER-No, 40. I apologize if my "4" looks like a "7". If you could get 70 on there, you'd have to be two decker. MR. RUEL-But this is not on NiMo property? MR. MULLER-It is not on NiMo property, but I would want to know that we had asked permission of Niagara Mohawk to utilize their property, not to increase inventory, but to actually move it forward, as most of the automobile dealers on Quaker have asked for and received, but our request is pending. You pay them money, they review your project. MR. RUEL-No answer? MR. MULLER-No. MR. RUEL-However, if you do get permission, then all those spots that you have lined up, how many is that, about 18? MR. WEST-Nineteen. MR. MULLER-Yes. It's still 38. They move forward. MR. RUEL-They all move closer to Quaker, I see. MR. MULLER-Yes. Not real close to Quaker, though, but yes, they move closer to Quaker. There comes a point where you can't use that property. It's' wet. It's low. How far are you going to advance? - 16 - -' -/ "'---' ,--,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) ALBERT ZITO MR. ZITO-Probably can only go out about another 15 to 20 feet, at the most, before it goes down and gets all muddy. MR. MULLER-Yes. It's a real first class swamp out there. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MULLER-We were also required to go before the Beautification Committee and the Beautification Committee and Mr. Zito and I met, and we were all in agreement as to the constraints of this property, that is that we didn't wish to offer to change any of the existing lawn and shrubs. We wanted to keep them. They're kind of nice. The visual impact of what would be to the north, that is where, it would be behind the building, that is very well buffered by existing arborvitae that are massive, S9me shag bark hickories in there, and there's actually like a ditch or a moat in the back there, and we're not sure who's fence that is. We think it's the neighbor's fence. MR. RUEL-In that same area, then, you'll remove the shed, and stockade fence and that pile of building material? MR. MULLER-The garbage is not part of the finished product, here, that's correct. MR. PALING-It would be removed. MR. RUEL-It'll be removed. MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. PALING-With the shed, because it's still there. MR. MULLER-Yes. You're right. No, that does not stay. The Code requires that we put a barrier around where we put our dumpster, and we've tried to depict it on the plan, taking into account that we don't want everybody to see where the dumpster is, but also taking into account that we'd like to be able to get the truck to get to the dumpster. So there's a balance here. The Beautification Committee, when we had suggested a stockade fence, came back with a suggestion that we take into account the possibility of maybe a chain link fence with slats in it. They wanted something more sturdy, not obj ect ionable . We'd be happy to do it. We're obliged to hide the dumpster. We intend to do so. How it's done, we propose that it be a fence. MR. RUEL-So we would delete the word "stockade" then? MR. MULLER-Well, I think so. We proposed stockade at the time I first offered the plan, and by the time the Beautification Committee got to it, it seemed to be a chain link fence with slats in it. MR. PALING-Would you have any objection to doing what they've asked? MR. MULLER-None at all. MR. PALING-Okay. Then make it a chain link fence with slats. MR. MULLER-Right. MR. RUEL-Instead of stockade. MR. MULLER-Right. Part of their other plan, we were also trying to figure out what it is that we could put on the southerly side of - 17 - '-- '"-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) this property that would grow and not rot in the water and not be knocked over when snow was pushed over the top of it, and their recommendation was to plant tiger lilies, and we said sure. MR. BREWER-It's too wet for them. They'll never make it. MR. MULLER-They're wild ones. MR. RUEL-They only come up for about three, four weeks, right? MR. MULLER-That's right. It stays through the season. There were questions as to the lighting, and principally speaking, the lighting exists on, well, it doesn't exist, it will be placed as per Niagara Mohawk on existing poles, inward, inbound, down lighting, toward the building, toward the inventory, not out on the street. MR. RUEL-But why do you have all three in one location? MR. MULLER-That's where the poles are. MR. RUEL-If it's for security, what about the back of the property? You have no light back there at all. MR. MULLER-No. There's an existing light on the building? MR. ZITO-On the back of the building there is an existing light. MR. RUEL-So that'll be another one. MR. MULLER-I never saw it lit. MR. RUEL-And how many lights do you propose, three of them? MR. BREWER-Three is what he said. MR. RUEL-Why three? MR. ZITO-To create enough light to light the area. light it all the way back, if they're faced inward. That should MR. PALING-They're all directed down and in. MR. MULLER-I didn't think anybody would want any that were on the other side directed down because they would have a tendency to be out, splashing across Ridge. MR. RUEL-Yes, but I was thinking mid way, you know, on the property. It's all right. MR. MULLER-It is okay. I didn't think of it because there wasn't a pole there. MR. ZITO-We can always put them on the building and face them that way. MR. MULLER-Well, I was concerned because we have not had any direct information with respect to the concerns of neighbors, and we wanted this thing to work and be acceptable to the neighbors. Some of the suggestions offered by the neighbors are just an impossibility for us because we don't own the property. For instance, the existing 30 foot wide driveway, which has been there since the building was built, is our principal, it's our exclusive access, ingress and egress, and there can be no other place. It's not like we don't wish to consider any other place. Some of the objections had proposed that we just have access from and to Quaker Road. It's not our property. It can't be done. - 18 - "-or' ',--, - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-Well, we wouldn't go along with that anyway. MR. RUEL-We wouldn't buy that. MR. MULLER-It would take a bridge. MR. RUEL-But the driveway is not a defined area, right? MR. MULLER-It is defined. MR. RUEL-It's just open. MR. BREWER-It's just completely open the whole length. MR. RUEL-And no curb, nothing. MR. MULLER-Right. No curbs. Absolutely not. I think the heart and soul of this plan, just so you know, is that Newton's, basically, rents from the owner, and we have entered into an agreement to lease it for a term, but make no improvement other than take it as it exists, and increase the building, by no size whatsoever, purely and simply we are here because the Zoning Ordinance requires a change in use, site plan review Type II. We ask for no other relief from this Town. That is that we do not need a variance. MR. BREWER-In other words, if we ask you to define the driveway, in other words make it smaller, you're saying you can't do that? MR. MULLER-I think that we could. If you would want it to be smaller, I would wonder why you would want it to be smaller. We're basically, then, trying to thread a needle from a distance because I think we have to have access and egress, cars going in and out, as opposed to a one laner, a two laner, okay. We're not parking cars there, okay, but I only have 30 feet there. Think about that, okay. That's all I've got. MR. PALING-George, let me ask you a question. I can't find the Beautification's documentation on this. Are we, from what they're saying, are we pretty well complying with what they ask for? MR. HILTON-I have a resolution here that I can read briefly, dated May 12, 1997, and the application was reviewed. These are the comments. It says "Evergreens around lighting on southern corner. This will be done. It will be mounded with Evergreens. It will be round or oval. Tiger lilies along Quaker side of parking area, along with railroad ties. Lights will be aimed toward parking lot. Paul Lorenz moved, Mary Ellen Reese seconded." And that's their comments. MR. PALING- I've added railroad ties to the Tiger lilies, and Evergreens on the southern corner, and that would, okay, I just wanted to make sure he was doing that. MR. RUEL-Where did you get all these items? MR. PALING-Well, that's what we've been saying. MR. MULLER-That's what the Beautification Committee picked, and it's acceptable. MR. RUEL-Evergreens? MR. MULLER-Well, the Evergreens, look at your plan, and in the lower left, that map, the Beautification Committee wanted to see a planting of Evergreens. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. PALING-Did you say mounded? MR. MULLER-Yes, they did, and that's okay. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll just make it part of the resolution. Okay. Tim, your question was answered, at least. You've got the information you wanted. MR. BREWER-I don't think the Tiger lilies will make it, though, in the swamp. My wife has 100 foot swath of them, and they love sand and hot weather. They don't like wet. MR. ZITO-They also suggested wild flowers. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, I do have one. The last meeting that we had, a couple of times in our discussions, you had made it clear that you weren't going to be doing any kind of repair work there at all, correct? MR. MULLER-That's true. MR. MACEWAN-In part of the later on discussion, I found something in the minutes where you said that you were going to be doing light brake work. MR. MULLER-Yes. I'd like to answer it and see if he still agrees, and that is that the servicing is for the vehicles that are sold, to prep them as well as to fulfill the warranty. If you buy a used car there, you're given a warranty, and they have to meet it. MR. MACEWAN-So there will be repair work there if it has to be done. MR. MULLER-Absolutely, but it's only on vehicles that have been purchased there. MR. MACEWAN-That's not what he indicated. He said all repairs were sent out. MR. ZITO-All maior repairs. We just do the minor repairs. We just do get ready, light brake work. We have no lifts. MR. MACEWAN-What kind of provisions have you made to store any kind of liquids or anything like that, oil, gasoline, if that's going to be around? MR. ZITO-We don't store gasoline. Just oil and cleaning, and that's done through the Safety Kleen. We're set with that. MR. MULLER-Sir, on that issue I had spoken to Kip Grant, probably in March, and asked him, because I thought that this Board was going to require it of us, some sort of a disclosure statement as to what hazardous chemicals we were going to keep on the premises, and I was told that that was no longer necessary, and then I just asked Mr. Zito what's the plan with respect to disposal of things that have to be disposed of because they're considered toxic, and he said that there's a service that comes regularly and disposes of it. They cart it away. MR. BREWER-Didn't ~e used to require a HazMat sheet or something. MR. MULLER-Yes, that's what I thought you did, but when I asked for it, he said no longer necessary. MR. BREWER-Why wouldn't we do that any more? - 20 - ../ '-' -----' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. MULLER-I don't know. MR. RUEL-Where do you propose placing a sign? MR. MULLER-If you look at the building today, the signs are on it without copy. They're on the barn side roof. They're on the building, but there's no copy on it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Maybe I missed it. I think that some people are concerned, we haven't heard any public comment yet. When people test the cars, where do you think they will go? MR. MULLER-Hopefully right to the bank to apply for an automobile loan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, then that means they would go down Quaker Road, and they wouldn't have to go down Ridge Road, right? MR. MULLER-I don't know. I do want to give you an honest answer, and I know that the concern is that they're going to go into that subdivision. That would be the speculation on the part of the people against the project. My experience on buvinq used cars is actually pretty good. If I could only speak personally about it, I would say to you that to test drive an automobile, I'm not interested in going in through a little neighborhood and all that. That's where, probably I teach people to drive a car, my teenagers. I'd take it out on the highway. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I wouldn't take it down a subdivision either, but I'm thinking of more traffic on Ridge Road. MR. MULLER-Well, that's possible. Okay. Ridge Road, 9L, and I think that's probably why part of this is Highway Commercial. That's a State highway, and the speed limit there is at least 45. It might be 55. I know that not many people are holding the limit, but it's a State highway. I live on 9L as well. I live further out, and I think the speed limit out there is about 90. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I know what you're talking about. People that are test driving cars, they like to see how the car goes. So, being facetious, you know, it's really kind of sad, because Ridge Road is a dangerous road. MR. MULLER-Yes. What could we possibly promise you, that is, even if we told the people that our preference would be, take it out, go on Quaker, head up on the Northway. They're testing the vehicle. They'll go anywhere they can, and when they buy the car, they're going to go up Ridge Road. MR. PALING-George, do you have letters on this or any other information? MR. HILTON-It appears that all information we have was read previously, but if you want to, I can look. MR. PALING-All right. Well, I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would care to talk on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JACK CARSON MR. CARSON-My name is Jack Carson. I live at 56 Meadow Lane, and I'm opposed to the used car lot, because of what the lady just suggested there, the traffic problem, the school buses are stopped there twice a day, and I'm just opposed to the whole thing. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Who else? - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) KEN ELLIS MR. ELLIS-Good evening. Ken Ellis, 385 Ridge Road. I would like to go on record as being in opposition to this car lot, for several reasons. I expressed several of them the last time I was here. I would like to reiterate. Number One, the beautification that is proposed is on property, it's going to be contingent upon getting property from Niagara Mohawk or permission from Niagara Mohawk. There is no permission at this point in time. Previously to their modifications to the building, no signs existed except one small sign on that building. Now there are three signs on that building. Already progress has escalated. Gravel, the driveway itself, the actual parking area has all been graveled over, whereas previously it had not been. Granted, you could park a vehicle in there, but it was dirt. Now it's been stoned right to the property edge, to the far southern point. So as far as beautification, I think being contingent upon getting permission from Niagara Mohawk is, I wish 1 could bank on something like that. It can't be done. Now I don't know where you people live, or if I have to go home and look at a car lot every day, every single day, I mean, it's great to go to work every day for eight hours and you go home and that's it. My home is my sanctity. That's where I don't have to look at stuff like this, and that's what I'm going to be dealing with. The zoning in that area has been changed at least three or four times in the last 10, 15 years. I would like to ask the Board right now, what that was zoned prior to Conklin having possession of that building. He got a zoning change, and had he not gotten that zoning change, we would not be here tonight, fighting this. I'm not opposed to progress, but we have seen this area escalate right along, over the years. Now, when is the Board going to listen to the homeowners? We've been there for 35 years, and now we're seeing this encroaching upon our domain, on our sanctity. I think that our residences are paramount here. I've seen some of the operations that are occupied. I don't want to see banners and fliers and flags, antennas on vehicles. I think it's tacky. I don't think it's proper in this neighborhood, and I don't think a car lot is going to be appropriate in this neighborhood. We do a lot in our neighborhoods to enhance them and make them presentable, and I think this is only going to drag this neighborhood down, and I'm sure I've got a lot more to say, but there's just, I'm just too upset, when I think of what's happened in years past, how this has encroached upon this. If this had not been changed in the beginning, and I think if you check the records you'll find that Conklin obtained a variance from this Board, and had it not been changed, we wouldn't be dealing with this now. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. ELLIS-Thank you. MR. PALING-Who else would like to speak? JEAN MOON MS. MOON-I'm Jean Moon from 52 Meadow Lane, and I have some letters here, and I have some signatures of our neighborhood and of Queensbury opposing this used car lot. I would like these please put into the record. MR. PALING-You'd like them read into the record. MS. MOON-Please. MR. PALING-Do you want to read them? MS. MOON-Not really. MR. PALING-There's the best reader in the County, right over there. - 22 - --/ -- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MS. MOON-I'd love to give it him. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-Would you like me to go now, or would you like to continue? MR. PALING-Yes. Why don't you hold those, and is there anyone else that cares to speak? We're going to, usually cover all letters at the beginning or at the end. Go ahead. MATT HARRISON MR. HARRISON-Matt Harrison. I live on 1 Meadow Lane. The property in question is within eye sight from mine. The thing, and I talked before about the issues with the traffic, the school bus, and one of the things that was brought up is make the school bus move. Well, maybe you guys could try to do that, because it's not that easy, but today I just want to mention what I think is a slap in the face to you guys, as well as to the homeowners. All the improvements have already been done. The signs are up. They have no permits to do any of that work. It's all been done. He says he's not doing minor repairs, only doing minor repairs. There's a sign up, and the sign says carburetors, fuel injections, brakes. I mean, there's a sign right on the building saying what he's going to do, and he's telling you that he's not going to do that. To me, that's a slap in the face. He's sitting up here lying to you. I don't take it very well. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. BONNIE GLENDENNING MRS. GLENDENNING-Good evening. My name is Bonnie Glendenning. I live at 395 Ridge Road in Queensbury. I also have a business on Ridge Road in Queensbury, which has, I think over the course of years and progress, has probably increased some of the traffic on Ridge Road. I have six children, which I think over the course of years has probably increased the traffic on Ridge Road, and if you look beyond that, there are developments of housing that have gone on up on Butternut and up further, and so that this is part of the progress that we live in and there are more cars. However, they are not being tested. They are not something new. These are people that have a specific purpose of being there, and so the traffic would only increase and I think everyone in this area knows that on Meadowview Road is where you go because you can go so miles an hour between Cronin and Haviland and you've got a good straight shot and that's been a known fact for a long time. Getting to the points of issue right now, yes, there already has been many changes in that building. We have lived in our house for 24 years, and the changes at this point have been drastic already with signs up there and differences. The telephones are in. All sorts of things are done. I had spoken with Mr. Hatin. No building permit had been issued, and I believe that there is a letter in your packet in regard to this. Is this correct? Do you have a letter? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, it's there. MRS. GLENDENNING-Thank you. So we've had some issue, at this point. My question with that is, what is going to be complied with? Are there going to be 40 cars? Do we have to sit there and do a daily count? Where do we go from here? I'm not opposed to progress or business, but it is a lot different selling cars than it would be selling couches or something, because to test them out takes a little bit of different effort, and you can't put things away at night and look like a residential area and it changes the facade completely. Yes, the request from NiMo has been made, but NiMo has assured me that they are community friendly and want to - 23 - '~ ------ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) deal with the area, and that some things have been denied, and that nothing has been issued, and it takes a considerable amount of time to get this done, if it is, plus the swamp area. They've found that there have been encroachments already. My question has been the enclosure for a dumpster. I know when we had to have ours enclosed it had to be more of a building, and we were not allowed to have something that just would be fenced in with a chain fence that had to be strips in it. I spent an awful lot of money to do that. Again, we get back to the type of auto work. Yes, the signs show that there's an awful lot of things done. I can change a tire and I can put oil in, washer fluid in my car, but a lot of that stuff seems like it would be pretty messy and pretty technical. To me what it says on the signs that are there, and I have some pictures if you would like them. The lighting, I checked with NiMo, they said that they would not allow lights put on their existing poles because the high voltage, these were higher voltage poles, and that that would not be allowed in any way. Where are they going to go and what hours are they going to be? I do not feel that I want to spend my nights in the day, because my rooms are on that side of the house. We've got these improvements done. We've, basically in many manners gone against the rules that already are there, and we are dealing with something that really is going to put a very different look and complexity into the neighborhood in which we now live, and I think that even, just because something is zoned that way, the ability is to make choices of what kind of businesses we are going to have there, and this is not one that I feel is conducive to a residential neighborhood. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Can we see the pictures, please. MR. PALING-Anyone else? PETER GALLO MR. GALLO-My name is Peter Gallo. I'm a homeowner on Meadow Lane, and one thing that hasn't been touched upon here tonight is that it is a very busy neighborhood as it is, traffic wise. There are over half a dozen young children within a few homes of mine, and at kind of shift change time, there is a huge amount of traffic that comes from the apartment complex over on Cronin and Meadowbrook, and I think, our Meadow Lane is a direct route to Meadowbrook, which expands and a lot of people do go very fast on. It opens up into the fields, and my concern is that it is a local car dealership. There will be local people who know the lay of the land, and may want to test drive that car not on Ridge and not on Quaker but indeed on Meadowbrook, and then back over Haviland to Quaker, and I am lucky enough to spend a lot of time in mY yard because, like my neighbors, I keep it up, and any more traffic, let alone for the express purpose of testing a car alarms me. The sheriff's have been really good about patrolling from time to time and cutting down on the speedy travel that comes out of the apartment complexes, but I get concerned if a few more cars, in a yank to go test on Meadowbrook which is, again, a wide open expanse, is dangerous, and I also have concerns that everybody in the neighborhood n worked hard to keep their properties up, and nothing against enterprise, but it is very different than Conklin's. Conklin was a three or four van company that went out at set times and kept a very low profile. Car dealerships are very active places and the whole thing worries me. Thanks. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who else would like to talk? Please come up. MARGE KENNELLY - 24 - , "---,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MRS. KENNELLY-My name's Marge Kennelly. I live on Meadow Drive, which runs parallel with Meadow Lane, but I'm also concerned about the test driving. I know, the last time ~ bought a car, I went to the quietest street I could find to tryout the car because I didn't know how I was going to be effected by it, and I know very well they're going to pullout of that driveway, down Meadow Lane, down Meadow View, up past my house, up to Ridge, and back to the used car lot, and I don't think it's fair. They all said they keep their properties up. We all keep our properties looking nice, and it's not fair to have something like that on the street corner. That's all I have to say. MR. PALING-Thank you. WILMA MAYS MRS. MAYS-I'm Wilma Mays, and I've lived on Ridge Road for 43 years, and all I've got, and I've been living with a lot of traffic and high taxes, and now we don't need another used car lot. Quaker Road is filled with them. Now do we have to start getting them on Ridge Road? That's all I have to say. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who's next? CHRIS HUNSINGER MR. HUNSINGER-My name is Chris Hunsinger, and I live at Seven Meadow Drive, and I don't want to reiterate what's already been stated, other than the fact to say that the proposed business is directly across the street from the school bus stop and we've heard that, but my wife indicated to me that the school bus stops there eight times during the day, and my three children ride that same bus, and I think that would be my biggest concern. I just don't think that the proposed use is compatible with what's going on in the neighborhood and would ask you to take a look at that. Thanks. MR. PALING-Okay. Who's next? the reading of the letters. Anyone else? George? All right. Lets go to MR. HILTON-Okay. First of all, we have a letter here dated May 19th. It says "To Whom It May Concern: My name is Edward Pacyna. I live in Queensbury and I'm opposed to having a used car lot on the corner of Ridge and Quaker Roads. Sincerely, Edward Pacyna" The second letter we have says, "Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I would like to call to your attention the unsatisfactory situation that has developed with Carriage Traders buying or leasing the former Hoffis restaurant on the corner of Saratoga Rd. (Rt. 9) and Feeder Dam Rd. in South Glens Falls. A six bay service garage has been built on the rear of the property. Often large car carriers block Rt. 9 as they enter and leave the car lot. They are also parked (as many as five units) across the road. Carriage Traders seems to have some connection with the auto service diagonally across the road, causing at many times a pedestrian crossing problem because there is so much turning traffic they are always crossing in traffic. Bror Wahlquist, P.E. 3 Elmwood Dr., SGF" Then what we have are two separate petitions, and I'm just going to read the captions of each petition. The first one has 16 separate signatures, and the caption reads "We, the undersigned residents of the Town of Queensbury, oppose the approval of a used car lot business to be located at the former Conklin Plumbìng location on Ridge Road near Quaker Road. We feel that a used car lot business is not compatible with the existing residential environment." And again, there are 16 separate signatures on that. The next petition has 3 6 separate signatures, and the caption reads, "We the undersigned residents of Ridge Road, Queensbury and adjacent neighborhoods, strongly oppose the approval of a used car lot business to be located at the former Conklin Plumbing location on Ridge Road near Quaker Road. We feel that a used car lot business - 25 - ""-- --/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) is not compatible with the existing residential environment." And again, there are 36 separate signatures, and that's all the new information we have. MR. PALING-Okay. Thanks, George. Okay. MRS. GLENDENNING-Now, those signatures did not include anyone who had sent in letters this time or previously, the letters that you had already had in the record. So that the numbers themselves do not reflect all the people that we have had sent in. If they had sent in once, we did not have them sign. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. If there's no one else that would like to talk about this subject, then we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING- I closed the public hearing, but now this is the applicant coming up. One of the things that bothered me most was, and clarify this for me. You stated earlier that the only repairs that would be done would be on the cars you sell, that would be returned for warranty service, that kind of thing. Why would you advertise carburetor or any kind of work on a sign if you weren't soliciting retail business? MR. ZITO-Well, that sign is being re-Iettered. We stopped working on all the signed when someone from Queensbury said to turn them all around and have nothing there. If you'll notice, in the corner, left hand corner, we'd started to remove it already. So when they finish putting up the new lettering, all that sign is going to have is just the name and the phone number on it. Those will be off. That's off a pre-existing building. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like it to be clear, here, that he said the last time he was in there that there was no repairs going to be there. MR. ZITO-I said no outside repairs. MR. MACEWAN-I'm quoting you. It says, "We don't have it yet, but 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." MR. ZITO-Yes. We don't do any outside repairs, and major repairs are sent out, if you want to run the tape from the last time. MR. MACEWAN-This is from the tape. MR. ZITO-It should have been from outside repairs. MR. BREWER-What's outside repairs? MR. ZITO-That means customer repairs, paying, you know, that way. MR. RUEL-And all major. MR. ZITO-Major repairs are sent out, yes, motor work, transmission work, anything like that is all sent out. MR. RUEL-What do you consider as minor repairs? MR. ZITO-Brakes, oil change, gasket, you know, nothing extensive. MR. RUEL-AII the items that would be required for meeting inspections? - 26 - ...."...~ ~ '"----:/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. ZITO-For meeting New York State inspection. MR. BREWER-That goes into some detail. I mean inspection, that's brake cables, exhaust. MR. RUEL-Exhaust systems. MR. ZITO-That's sent out. MR. BREWER-That's required for an inspection. MR. ZITO-But that's all minor work anyway. We send that out anyway, but that's all minor work. Nothing requiring a lift, nothing heavy. No motor changes. No transmission work. MR. RUEL-You have a lift in that building? MR. ZITO-No lifts. MR. RUEL-No lifts? How do you change the oil? MR. ZITO-We use ramps and jacks. That's all. MR. PALING-Clarify another point for me, in regard to the NiMo land to be used for beautification. I know you were talking about NiMo land to park cars. Are you getting permission to use NiMo land to plant things on also? MR. ZITO-No. MR. PALING-No, I didn't think so. MR. RUEL-That was the Tiger lily bit, wasn't it? MR. PALING-But it's on your property you're doing that. MR. ZITO-Right. MR. MULLER-I wanted to address a lot of the issues that were raised, and then if I leave any unmentioned. MR. PALING-We'll get you. MR. MULLER-I know you will. It would be fair to say that if you hold us to the test that's set forth in the Zoning Ordinance that this application is worthy of approval. However, if you hold us to a test on the applause meter, we deserve a denial, because there's a substantial amount of people that are against this, but the question remains, if you're going to apply the letter of the law, as you find it in our Zoning Ordinance, it's a worthy application. I listened very carefully to each of the objections, because there would be no possible way that we would want to not please them. We would like to not have this as a displeasurable experience, but apparently it's never going to be possible. That is that, how are we going to increase the traffic? Well, quite frankly, they can spend all night saying that we're going to increase the traffic, and we'll spend all night saying that it's going to be negligible, and then look, if you will, at why the area is zoned Highway Commercial, and that's the root of it. That is that this is an area that has been properly zoned, not by variance. I believe that it was Matt Harrison who came up and said, look carefully at it. It was someone. Maybe I had my notes wrong, but that Mr. Conklin was here and he had gotten some special relief. I know that not to be the case. This has been zoned by a master plan, and it is a Highway Commercial parcel. That's why it was selected in the first place. If you look at your Zoning Ordinance and you take just a gander as to what is it that you can put within this Highway Commercial zone, you have 18 uses that wouldn't even require us to - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) be here, and many of them impact on traffic. A day care center can be there and you don't even have to come before this Board, and a pharmacy or drugstore could be there. So you could have a Rite Aid built, and we all know that a Rite Aid sells a lot more than just drugs. They've got balloons going and specials and what have you and groceries and film and it brings a lot of traffic impact. These are uses that are legitimate and don't even require the applicant to come forward, and I could go through the list of them, but you can, too, and when you get into Type II, which is where we are, these are legitimate principal uses within the zone, but they first require that you come before the Board to have your site approved, that is that are we over intensifying the use of the site? Are we abusing the site in some way, or do we have some input and common understanding how we're going to manage the automobiles, what are the hours of operation, things like that. Mr. Zito, I think, has correctly stated it, and whether or not the previous record accurately states it, go right down to the Zoning Ordinance and there it permits automobile sales and services. We don't wish to stretch it. That is that we do not intend to serve outsiders. We intend to, however, serve the customers with respect to meeting the obligations of inspection as well as warranty. I know for a fact that he does not do heavy repair work there, and I consider heavy repair work a muffler, okay. That doesn't really take a mechanic, but it takes the guy with tools. They all head off to Meineke. That's where they get their mufflers, and basically, I happen to know for a fact, that they will change the oil. They will fix a window that doesn't go up, and they will sew the carpet, and that doesn't require off premises work, but it will be done there, and I think that that's consistent not only with what used automobile sales are all about, but that's consistent with Highway Commercial, okay, and so it would be a gross misrepresentation on anyone's part to say that he shouldn' t be allowed to do it if the Zoning Ordinance permits that. We heard obj ections that the Beautification is contingent upon NiMo. That's not true. That beautification we've agreed to, and it's all on premises. That the signage is as indicated not legitimate, and that's not true. We offered an application to the Town of Queensbury for a sign permit. I disclosed to them what the copy was, and those sign applications are pending. There's no reason why they would issue us a sign permit unless we first got site plan approval. The copy that you find on that sign that Mrs. Glendenning finds objectionable, or that shows you that we're harboring some big secret or we've been accused of being liars is not the case. Those are used signs that have been flipped over, and we intend to put the copy on there that's appropriate for this site. They were used at a previous used sales location. There's a controversy, apparently, as to gravel or dirt. Well, quite frankly, the Town of Queensbury's not going to let you have people coming up there, and I don't think you would ever approve of a site plan where we're going to sell used cars in the mud, that is that the gravel was put down, and I personally inspected where the gravel used to be when the Conklin's were there, and it was basically absorbed by the ground, and it was covered over by grass and whatever grows in that swamp. I mean, it just absorbs it. It just disappears into the ground. So we basically restored it so that we didn't get ourselves in a situation where we have cars sinking in there. There's a concern about the visual impact, concerning encroachment, and I think one of the objections were they consider it an encroachment upon the sanctity of their residence. What do you do when you have Highway Commercial uses that are within site of residential uses? All that you can possibly do, and comply with the Zoning Ordinance, is create the buffer or leave the buffer. We have not impacted anything with respect to this property on its north side and its west side. Done zero, and that I think is important, that is that we have not increased anything, in size, in intensity, have cut nothing down. It basically has been left as it is, which has always been suitable. There was a concern about banners and fliers and I - 28 - '--' .-- ,--,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) didn't hear it, but I expected to hear it, that there was going to be an accusation that we're going to have a public announcement system out there. None of that's permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and none of that's going to be here, and that's why it's not a concern, and if it were, you could say that it's not permitted. The car lot that people find objectionable is absolutely positively permitted within the Highway Commercial, and the permitted work that has been done on that premises, the accusation is that we've just gone in there and done it. Now do you really think that a sane businessman would just go ahead and do that? We submitted an application for a building permit, and Mr. Hatin and his representatives have been out there inspecting it every time an inspection had to be necessary, and changing it every time he decided that it didn't meet with his inspection criteria. So we don't know what they're talking about that it's unapproved or unauthorized work. MR. MACEWAN-Not to interrupt you, but does he have a building permit right now to do that work? MR. MULLER-He put the application in and was told the building permit would be issued, proceed, and the inspections flow, and we don't have any permit yet. We would expect a permit as well as the CO if we've complied. MR. MACEWAN-Then you're suggesting that the building inspector told you to go ahead and start doing renovations and construction without a permit issued? MR. MULLER-Absolutely. He's been out there inspecting it, and telling us where to make the changes. MR. MACEWAN-That's definitely contrary to what he's saying in his letter. MR. BREWER-Yes. saying that. I have a problem with that, too. I mean, he's MR. PALING-Tim, would you mind reading that? I've missed this. MR. BREWER-I don't mind reading it at all. It says "At the request of Bonnie Glendenning, I'm writing this letter to confirm that a building permit has not been issued for the renovations at the Newton Auto Sales building proposed for the intersection of Ridge and Quaker Road. Mr. Newton has undertaken renovations consistent with the building permit applied for, but this Department has not done the necessary inspections in order to issue a Certificate of Occupancy and will not do any inspections until such time as you grant approval to the applicant and until the permit is issued and signed off by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Zito was advised that he would proceed at his own risk with regard to interior alterations, and was also advised through his contractor that no site work should be done until such time as he has approval from the Planning Board. Mr. Zito chose to bring gravel to the property after that notification, and since that time, has installed two signs, but has not undertaken any other site plan activities to my knowledge. I trust this will address the concerns of the Board. If not, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David Hatin, Director, Building and Code, and it was dated May 6th. MR. MACEWAN-That directly contradicts what you just said. MR. ZITO-Mr. Hatin was out there at least three or four times and made us change it and told us the door had to be 36 inches rather than 24 inches, made us turn the door around, looked at the insulation, told us it was adequate. He said that the permit would be issued as soon as you did it. - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. MACEWAN-At any time when they were doing their inspections did you receive an inspector's site slip? MR. ZITO-Not that I know of, because I had a contractor doing it. MR. MULLER-AI, could you tell the Board if Mr. Hatin told you that you do the work consistent with the application when the, did Mr. Hatin tell you, at the site, that when you do it consistent with your application, when the site plan approval is obtained, if it is obtained, then the building permit will issue as well as because you completed the CO? MR. ZITO-Yes. He told me everything would be issued together, along with the sign permits. We paid all the fees. MR. BREWER-Well, then why would David Hatin write this letter? MR. PALING-I don't know. He's not here to answer. We don't know. MR. MULLER-I think it's consistent with what we're telling you, which is that when this plan, if it's approved, and it's at his risk obviously, but if it's approved, he will not only issue a building permit, but because it's complete, he'll issue a co. MR. BREWER-I guess what I have a problem with is, Mr. Muller, don't you usually get a building permit before you, I know when I did work at my house I went up and I got my building permit. I went home and I did my work. As the inspections were needed, I called the Building Department, they came and did them, but this was after I had my building permit. I don't understand how you do the work and then get your building permit after? And I'm not saying you're the only one that ever did it, but why does Dave Hatin write this letter and tell you something different? I have a problem with that. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, he's quite adamant in his letter that he has not done any inspections. MRS. LABOMBARD-And he said he advised you not to go ahead. MR. MULLER-Well, just so the record is absolutely clear, I certainly know who Dave Hatin is. I've had no discussions with him on this proj ect . I have not seen him on this proj ect , and everything that he has discussed, that we represent here this evening, is between Mr. zito and Mr. Hatin. MR. PALING-Did you know of the existence of this letter? MR. ZITO-No, I did not. MR. RUEL-The letter's two weeks old. MR. BREWER-It was after we tabled it, though. MR. PALING-Yes. We can't explain that. MR. ZITO-He probably anticipated we were going to get an approval on the 15th when we were here. MR. MULLER-I just want to go over my little hit list here to see if I can address the issues that were raised, and that is that, I don't even know if fair comment is deserving, but I believe the letter was from a Mr. Walquist who has made some characterization that we are like Carriage Traders, and that we're going to overrun both sides of the highway as they have done in South Glens Falls. I have no personal knowledge of whether they have or they haven't, but the important point that I think Mr. Walquist raises, and nobody has seem to raise it, and we'll address it, is the issue of - 30 - "'-/ "-"" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) car carriers, and that Mr. Zito, Newton's Auto Sales operation, does not include car carriers. They obtain the automobiles either through trade or auction, and they come there singular, okay, that is that they don't come loaded in on a truck. So that it's not even relevant, and with respect to the fact that we actually have, if I have counted correctly, 52 signatures on a petition that says that they oppose a used car lot at this site because it's not compatible with existing residential zoning, I believe. It's in a residential environment. All right. All that I can tell you is that if you're fair to this applicant, the duty that's imposed upon you as a Planning Board member, which you swear to uphold when you volunteered for the job, because I know it's not a high paying job, is just basically that if it's Highway Commercial, does it fit within the Highway Commercial parameters? Is he overusing this piece of property? Is he intensifying it so that he's spilling out over the side and it's causing negative impacts? Not can it be seen or should he be held accountable for the fact that things are well beyond his control, that somebody who has taken one of these automobiles for a test drive has gone off into a residential area and does a three point turn over a shrub or a dog or hits some children. I mean, how foreseeable should the risk be that Newton's Auto Sales is going to be held accountable for? If we get back to Square One as to where we belong on this application, it's deserving of approval because it's in the right zone, and because if you look at the other uses that will be here next, when the landlord says, well, I bought a valuable commercial piece of property, I think I ought to be allowed to use it as such, and you've shot down Mr. Zito's application. The next applicant is, what, a day care center or an ice cream stand. I mean, doesn't that bring traffic to the area? Doesn't that have lights at the area? MR. BREWER-But again, all those uses have to come before this Board for site plan. MR. MULLER-They don't, Tim. If you look at the Zoning Ordinance, you'll see that a day care center does not have to come before this Board. MR. BREWER-I'm just looking at Page 17976, permitted uses, see Type II and accessory uses, "All land uses in HC zones will be subject to site plan review, except that allowed accessories shall not require site plan review and except that the substitution of a use. ..", and it goes on and on, the way ~ read it, and I'll ask ~ counsel. MR. MULLER-Where it goes on and on, Tim, is where there's a list of 18 that if you're not increasing parking areas, you can have 18 different types of uses come in and there'll be no relief needed for a zoning variance, and there's no site plan, and they are uses that require lighting, facilities for parking, customers coming there. MR. BREWER-There's no requirement or approval process for any of those? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that what you have to recognize is that we're talking about with an existing structure. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I think that's correct. In other words, the reason that the Board may be perceiving this as a contradiction here is because we're used to reviewing a lot of those types of uses that are on that list, and we do review those uses when they're new uses, in new structures, on property that doesn' t already have the building on it, but I believe that the applicant's contention regarding a situation with an existing structure that's - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) not proposed to change appears to be correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. So if there was no changes, Rite Aid could go in there. MR. MULLER-That's right, or True Value could go in there, but there are always going to be changes. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MULLER-Okay, and I'm asking you to temper what our adversaries say to this project with respect to what is reasonable in light of the site. What is reasonable in light of the site? What is out on Quaker Road? Automobile sales. It's up and down. What's in the Highway Commercial along the Quaker Road corridor. MR. PALING-Okay. We understand. Okay. Could I get you to clarify something for me? Maybe I didn't hear you, you brushed over it lightly. The comment was asked, or made, regarding banners and fliers and what not that we all see from time to time, in both used and new car lots. Did I hear you say you wouldn't be doing that, or clarify it. MR. MULLER-I said that, but you want to hear it from Mr. Zito, because he's going to be the person on site. MR. PALING-Okay. I'd like to hear a little elaboration, yes. MR. ZITO-Banners are very restricted in the Town of Queensbury anyway. We won't have any string banners up. American flags would be the only banner we would put on an antenna on weekends and so forth. If you go past, we don't use banners very much at all. MR. PALING-How about on the aerial? MR. ZITO-Yes. Those occasionally would be American flags only. MR. PALING-That's all. MR. ZITO-That's the only banner that we would use would be an American flag banner, at any time. MR. MACEWAN-What are the review requirements for staff, for fire marshal's consideration if he's going to do repair work at this facility? Is there any criteria that we need to follow or Kip needs to follow? MR. HILTON-I really don't have an answer for you. The applicant's stated that he spoken to the Fire Marshal. I don't know what took place in that conversation. I don't know what Kip may have told him that he has to do as far as coming in for any review at all. If there's a concern with the Board that he may be using some chemicals or fluids or something that, you know, you can certainly include in any resolution requirement that the Fire Marshal sign off, or do an inspection, but to tell you the truth, I really, I didn't take part in the conversation. I don' t know what the requirements would be. MR. MACEWAN-What are the requirements for drive aisles? MR. HILTON-Usually the Ordinance asks for, lets say you have a double loaded aisle. You need 60 feet. Twenty foot wide parking spaces, and a 20 foot wide drive aisle. Again, this is a pre- existing site, with the building already built. I'm not sure if that would play into the requirements, due to the fact that the building's already constructed and the property lines are where they have been, but those are the requirements, 60 feet. - 32 - '-" ---,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. MULLER-Mr. MacEwan, I wanted to clarify something. When I spoke to Kip in March, I did not say to him, would you please review this project with respect to the service aspects on automobiles. I merely asked him for the Haz Mat form which I was accustomed to receiving, because I really felt, in other business locations in this Town, that I was familiar with on other site plan reviews, that was required of us, and I was informed by Kip that whatever Jim has given was satisfactory, and then when I specifically pointed out I didn't get a Haz Mat form, he said, we're not requiring it. So I didn't do it. MR. MACEWAN-I'll tell you. I'm hung up, personally, on two aspects of this application, Number One that, the first meeting we had, Mr. Zito was quite emphatic that no repairs were going to be made on this site. All repairs were going to be sent out. Now I've not heard anything about exhaust systems, brakes, carburetors, tune ups, oil changes. Anything and everything to that aspect was going to be sent out. I've got to put a lot of faith in that young lady over there who, when she transcribes these tapes, she puts down what she hears, and it's right there. The other aspect I've got a problem with is the amount of work that's been going on on that site, without a building permit or this Board's approval. That's really sticking on me, and especially when it's a complete contradiction of what you're claiming that the building inspector, the Director of Building and Codes is saying, and what he's told us in this letter. There's a communication problem here. MR. MULLER-Well, there is. With respect to the service aspect, of course I wasn't at the last meeting, and if I had been here to say so, that wouldn't have been the truth. That is I want you to know they are not replacing mufflers. They're certainly not replacing engines. They're not replacing anything that is major, but they certainly will do a tune up, and they will certainly do an oil change, and they will certainly meet warranty requirements if they can be done on premises. MR. MACEWAN-That's not the indication he gave me. MR. MULLER-It's what I presented in the application. I indicated that we would be servicing. MR. PALING-I have the same two marked as my major concerns, too. Then a lot of minor ones. It appears, this is one of those extremely difficult situations whereby all the zoning requirements are met, but there is the character of the neighborhood that we'd have to be careful of, and then we've got to make sure that you're also going along with the Ordinances that exist and apply to you, and there's question regarding Dave Hatin's letter and what's going on and the repair thing. I've got the same two, and then I've got a list of six other minor ones. The concerns being, test driving, school bus stop, the banners. Now you say there will be no PA system? Are you telling us that? MR. MULLER-Absolutely. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MULLER-Mr. Paling, could I answer Mr. MacEwan's question, because I found it. It's in the application. I've written it, and it says operation. I was asked to supply this information, Monday through Saturday, nine a. m. to six p. m., closed Sunday, auto mechanical maintenance for sales and warranty only, no body work. That's what it says. MR. MACEWAN-That's why we have these public hearings so that we can garnish out of what an application says, and he made it quite clear that that wasn't going to take place, and that's why I needed to understand what was going to take place. - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. MULLER-Okay. Well, if there's hopefully I've cleared it up, okay. I intended to misrepresent it or have it get go, and the day the application went saying in writing. a misunderstanding here, don't think that Mr. Zito misrepresented. From the in, that's what we've been MRS. LABOMBARD-The last time a used car franchise came in front of us, we had no opposition, and I feel that the Board in this room, well, everybody had their own opinion, but it went through, four to three, and them the neighbors were like, oh my gosh, we can't believe you just let this through, and this was in a place where I feel was totally inappropriate, and it was on a road that has no other used car sales in that nearby vicinity, but anyway, now I feel what we have here is the same situation again. The lot that we're discussing is not on Quaker Road. It is on Ridge Road, and at this point there are, that's one of my concerns, and the other concerns have to do with the lack of communication between the letter, Mr. Hatin and what you have to say, and the fact that all that activity has been going on on site without a formal approval from our Board, and the fact that we've had a lot of people here this evening that have given some very good reasons to be against this. I think those things have to be taken into consideration at this time. At this time, I cannot vote in your behalf when I have all these questions with this matter, between the letter and what you have to say. I mean, I don't even think it should even come up, until that is resolved. MR. RUEL-I can relate with the residents concerns here. It is unfortunate that Highway Commercial zones are right next to Residential zones, as is in this case. The new comprehensive land use plan or master plan takes into consideration commercial zones next to residential zones, by placing what they call transitional zones. This is not the case. The old master plan just showed Highway Commercial with residential right next to it, with a road in between. That's the situation here. This application, therefore, is not compatible with the adjacent residential area. However, it does meet all of the zoning requirements. That's all Å have to say. MR. WEST-I concur. I just don't feel good at all about the residential concerns and the safety factor, the fact that this is on Ridge Road and not on Quaker. MR. PALING-What do you mean you don't feel good? Which way are you saying? MR. WEST-I'm opposed. MR. PALING-Okay. Opposed. All right. MR. BREWER-I feel pretty much the same way, and I would just like to also make the point that our review of this is not only limited to the Highway Commercial zone. We have to take into consideration the surrounding zones, and what it effects, and I think it does effect this neighborhood zone, and I don't think it's an appropriate use. There is no access to Quaker Road. I think every car lot that is on Quaker Road, we talk about this lot being Highway Commercial, has access to Quaker Road. This doesn't. It clearly doesn't. It comes out at an intersection with a red light. The school bus stops there. There's another street across the street. I think for the amount of volume of traffic this is going to create, I think it is unsafe. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I guess I've got a little bit different spin on this because I used to trade at Conklin's, and from a traffic standpoint, I'm not considering the test cars right now, from a traffic standpoint, I think Conklin's probably had a little more traffic than a normal, what I would perceive a normal used car - 34 - '--/ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) lot would have. I'm also bothered by the fact that they could come right in with another business with far more traffic than this or Conklin's would ever generate and they wouldn't have to come before us for approval. That's what I'm reading into what was said earlier. So we could be turning down something like a used car lot, and then getting a drugstore in there, and am I understanding this correct, Mark? This is the situation, and they won't come to this Planning Board for approval. They'll just go in and build it with a building permit. MR. BREWER-Can I interject one second? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-I think you have to think a little bit, and if a drugstore is going to go in there, for a retail market place, I don't know exactly what the parking limits were, but I think if it increases over 10 percent, then they have to come here, five spaces. So I think that point is moot, because any drugstore that's going to go in there, certainly is going to want to increase the size of that building for the retail. They're going to come back. MR. PALING-I could perhaps have picked another example, Tim, of a different business, that I think would generate more traffic, that wouldn't have to come in. ' MR. BREWER-Well, we could probably debate it all night along. MR. RUEL-A day care center. MR. PALING-A day care center would be one of them. That would be a lot of traffic at different times. So I'm saying that they're obeying all of the Zoning Ordinances. There could be a worse business brought in there, from a traffic standpoint, but I am very concerned, and I wouldn't vote on this tonight anyway, because I'm concerned about the Dave Hatin situation, and the repair thing, too. So I can't, until those are clarified, I wouldn't even want to vote, and I want to hear, also, from Kip, the Marshal, and my recommendation is, unfortunately, that this would be tabled. With lack of clarification on these points, I couldn't vote for it. MR. MULLER-Mr. Paling, the applicant asks that it be tabled for those purposes. MR. BREWER-Is there a motion to be offered, though? MR. PALING-It's up to us to do what we want to do. If we're at that point, I'll entertain whatever motion anyone would want to make, and you've heard what the applicant has requested. MR. STARK-Bob, if we can get clarification by Thursday. MR. PALING-Yes. I would just sit down with Dave and ask him, and perhaps the applicant should be there. I don't know. We can get it from him. MR. BREWER-If we were going to do that, though, why wouldn't we have Dave Hatin here, for the whole Board? MR. PALING-We can possibly do that. We can do whatever we think is right. This is a very difficult situation. MR. MACEWAN-By having those two individuals here, what would you hope to accomplish? MR. PALING-Okay, then where are we if they go one way or the other. That's a good question. - 35 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. RUEL-These are really minor points, you know. The important thing is the fact that it's right on top of a residential area. MR. STARK-Bob, I'd put it to a vote. MR. PALING-All right. Then make a motion. MR. HILTON-If I can just add something here, with regard to Dave. I don't know his schedule, personally. I don't know if Thursday night would be a problem for him. So I don't want to have this Board leave tonight thinking that they're absolutely going to have Dave Hatin show up here Thursday night. We can have him write another letter, which can be read in, but as far as this letter goes tonight, I think you should also note that the date on the letter is May 6th, which came after the April 15th date that this was tabled. MR. PALING-Yes. Right. MR. HILTON-And I can only assume that, you know, he's very clear and concise in his letter, and what he's saying, I've got to read that he absolutely knows what he's saying. He's being very clear. MR. PALING-Well, I think it's reasonable to ask the Board, then, and in the form of a resolution, regardless of what is said here, no matter what Hatin or Kip said, is it going to change your mind on the vote? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. PALING-If not, we can go to a vote now. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Then I would like to make a motion. MR. PALING-Make a motion. MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 16-97 NEWTON'S AUTO SALES, INC., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: It doesn't meet the site plan requirements of 179-38 Section C and D. I would like to mention the parts of those Sections that I feel are relevant. C says, "The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use would not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the town. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board shall determine if it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic." From the information that we have, I feel that this project would be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the immediate neighborhood, and to the general welfare of the Town, and then Part D says, to approve the project, we would have to say that the project would not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilitièsaI1d services made necessary by the proj ect, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the proj ect . 80 I don't think that there is anything positive that this project would do to enhance the supporting facilities and services that it's going to give, as far as the people around there, the residents. This project would create a public hazard, from the traffic aspect, traffic hazard, because its ingress and egress is on Ridge Road, across from a - 36 - "---' '--'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) residential neighborhood, adjacent to a public school bus stop. There is no other ingress/egress out onto Quaker Road like any other car dealership out on that highway. I think it also infringes the fact that it's close to a residential area. Even though it is zoned Highway Commercial, it's close proximity to present a safety hazard, not only from the traffic aspects of it, going in and out, but also from the aspects of the maintenance that's going to be required would fall under, in my opinion, the health, safety and general welfare about the chemicals that are proposed to be used there, the fact that there's going to be operation of maintenance and mechanic work done there. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1997, by the following vote: MRS. LABOMBARD-I would like to make a motion to deny Site Plan No. 16-97, Type II, for Newton's Auto Sales. MR. BREWER-Lets give a reason, Cath. I'll second the motion, but we've got to have some kind of a reason. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Well, help me with this. because there's been so much public opposition. The reason is MR. MACEWAN-I think probably what you want to say is it doesn't meet the site plan requirement of 179-38, Section C & D. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Because it doesn't meet the requirements of Section 179-38 Section C & D. MR. MACEWAN-I'll second that. MR. RUEL-What is that 179-38 C & D? MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, I'm glad Roger asked the question. I think that Mr. MacEwan's proposed reference is fine, but I think if that's part of the motion, the Board should review those specific sections that you mentioned. Mention that portion of those Sections that you feel are relevant. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I would like to mention the parts of those Sections that I feel are relevant. Roger, they're on Page 17995, and C says, "The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use would not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board shall determine if it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic." Okay. Well, the first part I think says that, one reason why. MR. RUEL-It says something, but has it been proven one way or the other? It's just a statement. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, Part D says, "The project. MR. BREWER-I mean, it's our job to give our opinion of what this means and why this site plan is here and what it's all about, as to what information we have. MRS. LABOMBARD-From the information that we have, I feel that this project would be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the immediate neighborhood, and to the general welfare of the Town, and then Part D says, to approve the proj ect , we would have to say that the project would not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) open space resources of the town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. So I don' t think that there is anything positive that this project would do to enhance the supporting facilities and services that it's going to give, as far as the people around there, the residents. MR. MULLER-Ma'am, I wish no disrespect, and I didn't want to interrupt you. I just wanted to say that as far as the applicant is concerned, and I understand you've read the Ordinance, and read it fine, and those may very well be the basis of a denial, but those are conclusory. That is that rather than Mark and I square off, you know, some six or eight weeks in the future, before a Supreme Court judge to argue that you just read the Ordinance, and that's all you ever did, and you didn't make findings of fact, I think the applicant is deserving to hear what is the negative traffic impact, or what is the negative impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, or historic or recreational open space resources in this Town, or how is it that this Town cannot provide adequate public facilities for the use that is proposed? Because if you tackle those issues, you'll find that you're desirous of giving a big no, but you make no findings of fact, other than read the conclusory statements within the Ordinance. I think that you have to dig deeper. You have to say that we know what the traffic pattern is, that we know what the traffic count is, that we know what that it's going to not be something that the public service that's available in the Town of Queensbury can support, and you know there's nothing like that on this record. It's just that you have an inclination that you'd like to deny this because 56 people plus are against it. That's it in a nutshell. I mean, we could never beat you on the applause meter. The applause meter wins tonight. MRS. LABOMBARD-Are you threatening us? MR. MULLER-Absolutely not. Ma' am, I said to you, I wish no disrespect. I said to you that I just want you to be. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, you did mention the fact that you've got a Supreme Court judge now involved in this. MR. MULLER-Ma'am, that's the next step. Okay. That is that I think that Mark can tell you that I do not deliver that in any way, shape or form as a threat. I indicate to you that that's the next process that we go by unless you make some findings of fact. I think that the applicant is entitled to hear those findings of fact, whether they be negative or not, so we can deal with them. MR. BREWER-I think we've discussed them in detail at this meet tonight. I, for one, stand behind your decision. I don't have a problem stating my opinion. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that the Board is doing a reasonably good job of explaining which portion of the Zoning Ordinance it's relying on and what I hear as an anticipated or proposed motion, but I think the applicant's point, at least a portion of the applicant's point, may be well taken, and what I would encourage the Board to do, just based on what I've heard of the Board's deliberation tonight, I would encourage the Board to focus in particular on the first sentence of Section 179-38C, which I think Mrs. LaBombard read accurately, and I would encourage the Board to make a finding, whichever way you feel, as to the application's compliance with that sentence, and I would encourage the Board to discuss the basis for your findings. I think that spending a lot of time on Section D is probably a waste of that time. - 38 - '-- -..J (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MRS. LABOMBARD- I agree. MR. SCHACHNER-So that would be my recommendation. My recommendation would be that the Board focus on the first sentence of Section C and discuss the manner in which the Board feels that this project does or does not comply with that sentence. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe we could put it this way. This project would create a public hazard, from the traffic aspect, traffic hazard, because its ingress and egress is on Ridge Road, across from a residential neighborhood, adjacent to a public school bus stop. There is no other ingress/egress out onto Quaker Road like any other car dealership out on that highway. I think it also infringes the fact that it's close to a residential area. Even though it is zoned Highway Commercial, it's close proximity to present a safety hazard, not only from the traffic aspects of it, going in and out, but also from the aspects of the maintenance that's going to be required would fall under, in my opinion, the health, safety and general welfare about the chemicals that are proposed to be used there, the fact that there's going to be operation of maintenance and mechanic work done there. Is that narrowing it down for you? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and what I would suggest is that if, that's evidentally one Board members feelings. If the Board feels, or if any majority of the Board agrees with Mr. MacEwan's statement, then I would encourage the Board to adopt that as a set of findings, or consider adopting that as a set of findings, if you agree with Mr. MacEwan's statement. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. I think he did a very good job of paraphrasing what the paragraph says and the way ~ feel. I don't know about the rest of the members here. MR. PALING-Well, okay. Lets go ahead. Tim, how do you feel? MR. BREWER-I feel the same way. I think, as I stated earlier, there is going to be a problem with the traffic, egress and ingress. MR. PALING-Tim, could I ask you a question? How do you compare the traffic that would be created by this lot with two things. A, Conklin traffic that was there when they were in business, and, B, other businesses that could come there without coming before this Board? MR. BREWER-I think in my mind we heard from the residents. MR. MACEWAN-Tim, I don't think we should get into that because we don't have any other applications in front of us. This is the one we're dealing with. MR. BREWER-No. I think it's a fair question. I think that Conklin's, I worked across the road from them, and we dealt with Conklin a little bit. I know he was a small business, and we heard from residents that lived next door to there that he had set times where his people would come to work and they'd go out on jobs and then they would come back. So it was almost like a schedule type of thing. MR. PALING-They had retail customers, too. MR. BREWER-Yes, but I think on a low scale, in my mind. MR. PALING-I was one of them, okay. MR. BREWER-I mean, he's not right on the beaten path, so to speak, in my mind. I just think a used car lot you're going to, - 39 - ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) somebody's going to drive by Quaker Road. They're going to see a lot full of cars, and I mean, that's his purpose for being there, because he thinks he's going to be busy, isn't it? MR. PALING-Okay. No, I'm just asking. Okay. Dave? MR. WEST-I think Craig did an adequate job in paraphrasing it. MR. PALING-Roger? MR. RUEL-Well, I heard everything Craig said, and I can't deny it. It's part of the Ordinance. However, I don't feel that any of it has been proven, one way or the other. On other applications when we had a similar situation, we had a traffic study, or we had various other studies to document the fact that what we're saying is true. Here we're just saying things, all right, and saying these things probably because a lot of residents feel the same way, and they're just saying it, too. I don't know that it is a fact, at all. MR. PALING-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-I've said enough. MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. STARK-I feel the same way as Craig. MR. PALING-Okay, and Craig. Then I think we can continue with the motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and all I was suggesting was, and I didn't keep track of who feels what, nor is it any of my business, but all I'm suggesting is, if a motion is to be made, along the lines of Mr. MacEwan's statement, I suggest that that motion state that it incorporates Mr. MacEwan's statement as part of the findings of the Board, if that's the motion that anybody makes, just so that there are findings in the motion. MR. MACEWAN-We have a motion up on the table, I had seconded it, and that's how we got into the discussion. Do you want to dispense with the first motion and make another one or amend it, this is the addendum to it? MR. SCHACHNER-Either of those is fine. MR. MACEWAN-I'd add to my statements as an addendum, and I'll second it. MR. SCHACHNER-Who made the motion? MRS. LABOMBARD-I made the original motion to deny site plan number 16-97. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. If you made the motion, then if the motion's going to be amended, you should be the person that amends the motion. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, and I would like to refer to Section 179-38 Part C, and back to, it's on record, all the reasons that Craig gave that we all agreed upon. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and you're proposing to amend your motion to include those as the Board's findings, is that correct? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, sir. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Now if anybody seconds that, you can vote on - 40 - ",-," ---../' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) it. If they don't, you can't. MR. MACEWAN-I seconded it. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. West, Mr. Paling MR. MULLER-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 19-97 TYPE II JOHN ENGELBRECHT OWNER: BERNARD & BARBARA HEALY ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 113 MEADOWBROOK ROAD, FIRST HOUSE ON LEFT GOING NORTH ON MEADOWBROOK RD. FROM INTERSECTION WITH QUAKER RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR HOME OFFICE/FAMILY COUNSELING. PER SECTION 179-23 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/97 TAX MAP NO. 59-2-13 LOT SIZE: .8 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JOHN ENGELBRECHT, PRESENT MR. ENGELBRECHT-I'm John Engelbrecht. MR. PALING-Okay. George? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 19-97, John Engelbrecht, Meeting Date: May 20, 1997 "The applicant is seeking site plan approval to allow a family counseling office on Meadowbrook Road. The property, zoned HC-1A, also contains a residence. The plan proposes to use a portion of this residence to operate the office, the applicant proposes no new construction to this building. Staff is of the opinion that there is adequate parking on site for the operation of this business. Staff foresees no negative impacts and recommends approval of Site Plan No. 19-97. The applicant should be aware that a building permit will be required for conversion of a residence into an office area. The applicant should contact the Department of Building & Codes for further information." MR. HILTON-Other than that, Warren County Planning Board reviewed this item on May 14th, and there was a recommendation of No County Impact. MR. PALING-Okay, and there's no further on that. building permit, you're aboard on that? Okay. The MR. ENGELBRECHT-I have not applied for it yet, no. MR. PALING-Okay, but we can still move ahead. MR. HILTON-You certainly can. It's just that typically when there's a re-use of a structure and there's not going to be any additions, usually there's not a permit required. In this case, there is. So, we just thought we'd let the applicant know. MR. PALING-And if you don't get it, you'll be penalized accordingly, no matter what we decide here. However we vote doesn't make any difference, doesn't change anything in the Building permit requirements. Okay. All right. Are there questions on this, Engelbrecht? MR. RUEL-I don't have any. - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. PALING-All right. Lets open the public hearing on this. Is anyone here to talk about this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ED OUDEKERK MR. OUDEKERK-I'm Ed Oudekerk, 117 Meadowbrook Road, next door to the house that's in question. My biggest worry is the parking. There's only a one lane driveway into that place. So if you get one car in, and somebody comes in in back of them, somebody's got to move, and I've been to this Board before, about blacktopping and roofing around that area, because of the runoff and the water that comes into my yard. So I don't want anYmore blacktop and I don't want anYmore roofs, and it seems like the Planning Board and all the Boards in the Town of Queensbury are just looking for new businesses and taking care of everything into my yard, but nobody's taking care of anything going out the other way. So I think there's got to be consideration made of the brook there that runs between Meadowbrook Road, Cronin to Halfway. MR. RUEL-Where are you located? MR. OUDEKERK-Right next door. MR. RUEL-Next door? MR. OUDEKERK-To the north. That house in question is an L-Shaped. Mine is a straight ranch. MR. WEST-He's saying this is an L-Shaped house. MR. RUEL-Where's your property, here? that's north. That's you. Here's Meadowbrook, and MR. PALING-Which is it, Roger? MR. RUEL-This one here, the L-Shaped one. MR. PALING-Okay. That's his. That's north. MR. OUDEKERK-So my biggest consideration is no more water into that backyard. I mean, we're being flooded out. I think all these Boards, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board, Planning Board, all of them, have got to start thinking of getting water away from there, and nobody seems to do that. I had, over in Quaker Ford, now they put up a big building over there, no permits, a big building was put on, big roof, they told me I think Jim or one of his men called me and said they were going to put in drYWells to catch the runoff. A drYWell's no good down there. You've got a water table of about two foot. So you put a drYWell full of water, and it runs over. So where's it going to go? MR. RUEL-Where does the water come on to your property? MR. OUDEKERK-It comes from allover, Ridgedale, Everts Avenue, Quaker Road, Quaker Ford, Queensbury Motors, all of that comes in along. MR. RUEL-Are you the low spot in the area? r~. OUDEKERK-I'm the low spot. They filled in all around me. MR. RUEL-Everything's higher than you are around? MR. OUDERKERK-Everybody's filled in around me, and the house next - 42 - '----' '---" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) where there, (lost words) that's got a low backyard. MR. RUEL-You never have to water a lawn. MR. OUDERKERK-No, but I can't mow it very often either. MR. STARK-They're not proposing any increase in macadam or outside the building footprint. MR. OUDERKERK-Well, if they don't, how are they going to park more than one car in that yard? If they've got more than one car, if they've got two, then they've got to back the first one out to get the second one out. MR. STARK-I don't think it's a particularly high traffic business. MR. OUDERKERK-I think the business would be a good transition from the store houses there to me. I like the idea of a business there, an office, but I still want to know about the parking. MR. PALING-We'll get the applicant's comments on the parking. We'll ask him about that. MR. OUDERKERK-And take into consideration anything else you figure up in that area, getting the water out of there, as well as putting it in. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to talk on this matter? Okay. If there's no one else that cares to speak, then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Do you want to come back up please. Talk to us about the parking if you would. We have a small sketch to go by. MR. ENGELBRECHT-Yes. Well, it has a two car garage there now, and the parking is, it's two cars wide by the garage, and there is a back up, turn around place by the garage. It is wide enough for one car to drive in. The traffic impact, basically, is one car per hour. The only time it might be two cars is when there is the transition between one session to the next session. We're looking at about 30 sessions per week. So we're not talking high impact at all. I've looked at that water situation, too, and it appears as if the culvert that goes into the road is plugged, because I've noticed on one side it's high, on our side, and on the other side it's running quite a bit, and it looks like there's something plugging that up. I've talked with someone else about that, and how can we see to have that thing unplugged or at least have it looked at, because we can raise some pretty good water lilies back there without even trying. MR. PALING-You're doing nothing that's going to aggravate the water situation, but I'm still not understanding the parking. Lets say you've got two cars. MR. RUEL-In front of the garage. MR. PALING-In front of the garage. Now what happens? MR. ENGELBRECHT-Well, one would have to probably back out onto the road. MR. PALING-Onto Meadowbrook? MR. ENGELBRECHT-Well, it's possible, yes, onto Meadowbrook. Now there is a turnaround there by the garage. - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. WEST-So somebody could park in there. MR. BREWER-Somebody could back into there. MR. PALING-That's a turnaround, a little one it looks like. MR. BREWER-If somebody pulled in up the garage and then backed in to that turnaround. MR. ENGELBRECHT-They would have to know what they're doing. I agree. It would be a little bit of a maneuver, but we're talking one car coming, one car leaving. MR. BREWER-What happens in the winter, though? MR. ENGELBRECHT-Well, you have to shovel those out and have the same situation. MR. BREWER-You could shovel out a turnaround. MR. ENGELBRECHT-The turnaround would be shoveled out, yes. There's an asphalted turnaround there that backs up to the fence. MR. RUEL-You certainly shouldn't back out onto Meadowbrook. MR. ENGELBRECHT-That's not a preferred thing to do, no. MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-On the south side of the house, you've got a line and an angle, what is in there? MR. ENGELBRECHT-That's the turnaround area for this. It angles. MR. PALING-Come on up. I don't think we're talking about the same ,thing. I'm looking at this. What is this here, to start with? MR. ENGELBRECHT-That's just some garden stuff there. MR. PALING-Why couldn't you get rid of that? MR. ENGELBRECHT-You'd have to talk to my wife about that one. MR. PALING-Well, it would be a lot better for a turnaround if you had, if that were used for that. MR. ENGELBRECHT-Looking out there (lost words) even just to widen this out, if possible. MR. PALING-All right, but this seems like kind of a tough turnaround. It doesn't seem like it's big enough. MR. ENGELBRECHT-This actually goes back up to the fence here. MR. RUEL-It is longer than that? MR. ENGELBRECHT-It is longer. from the chain link fence. You're probably talking two feet MR. RUEL-So there's adequate space to back in and turn around? MR. ENGELBRECHT-There is, yes. MR. RUEL-Unless somebody parks there. MR. ENGELBRECHT-This (lost words) back in there real easy. This one might have a little struggle with backing in to it, if there was one here. Now if there was one parked here and one back in - 44 - ',,---, '-'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) behind them. MR. RUEL-Can't you move this over this way a little bit, and then it would be easier for this guy to back in, for both of them to back in? MR. ENGELBRECHT-Well, that's what we'd have to then go out there and do some asphalt. MR. PALING-This isn't helping the gentleman that was just here, though, if you start putting asphalt down. MR. RUEL-Well, you were talking about widening this. MR. PALING-Yes, that would be worse. MR. BREWER-Why couldn't you contact Paul Naylor and have him go out and take a look at that? He's the Highway Superintendent. MR. OUDEKERK-I've had Paul Naylor there, and I've had our Supervisor there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Keep your car there, then the clients can just park there. MR. BREWER-Bob, this fellow said he had Paul Naylor there, and what was the outcome of that, as far as the culvert went? MR. OUDEKERK-There was no outcome. They didn't do anything with that. MR. BREWER-Did he say it was plugged or unplugged? MR. OUDEKERK-That culvert, they widened Meadowbrook back, I don't know how long ago. I can't remember now, and when they did, they had to put a longer culvert in, and when they put that longer culvert in, it wasn't Paul Naylor at that time. MR. BREWER-No. It was, I remember when they did it. MR. OUDEKERK-They raised that culvert one foot, and I talked to the engineer out there that day. I said, you can't raise that culvert. He said, we can't get it down. I said, well, you can't raise it. You raise the culvert, you're raising the water level, but they raised it. So consequently, from that time on, the brook east has just filled. So it's all plugged now, all the way through to Cronin. MR. PALING-We better leave this alone. MR. RUEL-That's not part of this. MRS. LABOMBARD-We don't have anything to do with that. terrible. That's MR. PALING-We don't want to make the problem worse, either. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. OUDERKERK-That's what I mean. I don't want to make it worse. Like I said, the office building there would be fine with me, but I don't want the situation any worse. MR. RUEL-Leave it the way it is. MR. PALING-Yes, I think so, too. Okay. Thank you. All right. The public hearing has been held and closed, and it's Type II. We don't need a SEQRA. We can go right to a motion on this. - 45 - -- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-97 JOHN ENGELBRECHT, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written in the resolution dated 5/20/97. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 19-97 JOHN ENGELBRECHT for Home Office/Family Counseling. , Whereas, the above mentioned application received 4/30/97, consists of the following: 1. Application with map Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes dated 5/20/97 2. Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution of 5/14/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/20/97 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 moves to approve Site Plan No. 19-97, JOHN ENGELBRECHT. 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. 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 site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 20th day of May 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. ENGELBRECHT-What about the asphalt? MR. BREWER-No more asphalt. - 46 - '----" ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. PALING-As is. MR. RUEL-Everything stays the way it is. SITE PLAN NO. 20 - 97 TYPE II LEHMAN TRIKES, INC. - LARRY STRILCHUK OWNER: OSCAP, LTD. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: DEXTER SHOES - ROUTE 9 TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE - DISPLAY AREA FOR 3 WHEEL CONVERSIONS FOR MOTORCYCLES - JUNE 3-7, 9 A.M. - 9 P.M. DURING AMERICADE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/97 TAX MAP NO. 34-1-10 LOT SIZE: 7.84 ACRES SECTION: 160 KEVIN MCDONNELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. George? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 20-97, Lehman Trikes, Inc. - Larry Strilchuk, Meeting Date: May 20, 1997 "The applicant is seeking site plan approval to allow a transient merchant market at the Dexter shoe location on Route 9. The applicant plans to use a portion of the parking area to display motorcycles. This display is planned to happen from June 3 and June 7 during Americade. The parking requirement for Dexter Shoe store is 33 spaces based on their building square footage. The site will have 77 spaces available during the time of the proposed transient merchant market. The amount of parking provided will be well within what is required by the Zoning Ordinance. There may be some concern with traffic circulation in the area of the proposed display area. The display area will create two dead end aisles of parking on this site. The Planning Board should consider any alternative locations for the display area which will reduce any traffic circulation difficulties." MR. HILTON-This was reviewed by Warren County Planning Board, with a resolution of No County Impact. MR. RUEL-Before you go on. I have a statement for the record, and it's for Staff. I reviewed this. This is an application for five days, I believe. The Town Board has a resolution, two pages. Transient application, three pages. Authorization, two pages. Department of Development application, two pages. Environmental document two pages. Check list, one page. Plan, one page. Thirteen pages. MRS. LABOMBARD-Fourteen. MR. RUEL-Or 14, whatever, for an application for five days. I mean, it seems to me that somebody in the Planning Department should take a look at this thing and say, hey, this is getting ridiculous, you know. Paperwork and the amount of effort that's involved and the dollars that are spent for an application for just five days. It seems to me that we should come up with some sort of a single document that would take care of this. MR. HILTON-Well, that's, certainly appreciate your concerns and comments. This is a transient merchant application which is distributed through the Town Clerk's office, and any comments you have can certainly be forwarded to them,also. MR. RUEL-You want these comments? MR. HILTON-Well, they're on the record. MR. RUEL-You'll get them in writing, but isn't it kind of ridiculous? What are we building here, a battleship? MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you, Roger. Okay. Would you identify - 47 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) yourself, please. MR. MCDONNELL-My name is Kevin McDonnell, and I'm the District Manager for Dexter Shoe, representing Lehman Trikes, as a favor, before I realized there were 14 pages of application. MR. PALING-Would you comment on the traffic circulation. MR. MCDONNELL-That may well be a valid point. That's the recommended display area that I made to these people, only because it would have the least amount of impact on, in my opinion anyway, on my own business, as well as, this is a very high end, custom motorcycle that they build. They won't sell anything here. This is strictly for display. They'll bring in a fifth wheel kind of trailer, and bring three bikes, and that's all they'll bring and display. So my feeling would be they'd have good exposure as well as room in the back there for starting the motorcycle up and going around the loop and parking it. MR. BREWER-Do you have a picture of these, what they look like? MR. MCDONNELL-I had a brochure. I may have it. I may not, but anyway, they're all custom built, made to order. There's nothing to, so I just thought it would be a good location. I would take any suggestion as to how to, if you look at the map and you see, are you talking about going flat across the front? MR. HILTON-No. If you flatten it out more toward the back of the site. MR. MCDONNELL-That would be just as fine. I was thinking of sticking them up here in the corner, because then they wouldn't have any impact on me, but the elevation is tough for exposure. MR. PALING-I think George has got a good idea, and if you could arrange it such that there was some kind of demarcation indicating that you could drive by it, there would be spaces between the new line you draw across there and the parking spaces. So that they could drive, actually circulate in that, by that. MR. MCDONNELL-Okay. In other words. MR. PALING-Draw that straight across. MR. MCDONNELL-Right here, straight up like this? MR. PALING-Yes, right like that, however deep you have to have it, and then in front of it, or to the north, you would have a road way, whatever you want to call it, so that traffic could circulate there. MR. MCDONNELL-Sure, we can do that. We're not talking about a huge display. I mean, I blocked this out because I wanted to let you know that they would have use of all that space. Basically, at this time of year, I don't ever have to park a car there, much more than beyond halfway between these two lights, unfortunately. I wish that wasn't the case, but that is. So we can do anything down here. MR. PALING-Does that agree with your thinking on that, George? MR. HILTON-Yes. That's fine. That tends to be a busy weekend, and people are coming from various locations, just want to prevent a car coming all the way in, and then having no place to turn around. MR. MCDONNELL-Yes, well, this is 110 feet deep, this parking lot here, and so, yes, we'll make room. - 48 - , ---- '----" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. PALING-One hundred and ten feet, for three cars. MR. MCDONNELL-It's huge. MRS. LABOMBARD-It is. We were in there. nice sized parking lot. It was big. Tha t 's a MR. MCDONNELL- I think they intend to cone the whole area off anyway, because I think they did want to be able to start the bike up. MR. PALING-I'll open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone that cares to speak on it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-We can go to a motion. This is a Type II. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-97 LEHMAN TRIKES, INC. -LARRY STRILCHUK, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 20-97 LEHMAN TRIKES, INC. LARRY STRILCHUK for a Transient Merchant Market license - Display area for 3 wheel conversions for motorcycles - June 3-7, 9 a.m. - 9 p.m. during Americade. Whereas, the above mentioned application received 4/7/97, consists of the following: 1. Site Plan Application with map 2. Transient Merchant Application Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes dated 5/20/97 2. Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution dated 5/14/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/20/97 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 moves to approve Site Plan No. 20-97 LEHMAN TRIKES, INC. - LARRY STRILCHUK. 2. The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. - 49 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) 3 . The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 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 site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 20th day of May 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Now we're going to discuss the subdivision approval process. MR. PALING-Okay. I have a letter that I'm going to pass out, that I would like to read into the record. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would you like me to read it? MR. PALING-Go ahead, you can read it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. "To Planning Board Members, Town of Queensbury, Re: Subdivision approval procedure, Final approval of subdivision plans must be signed by the Planning Board Chairman. Sometimes the heads of the Highway and Water Departments are also asked to approve their portion of the plans. I believe that both contributing Departments, when asked, should approve their portion of subdivision plans before it comes to the Planning Board Chairman for final approval. This procedure has not been followed because the Highway Department has insisted that they be the last to approve any subdivision plan. In the case of the Cerrone subdivision, I requested that the Highway Department approve the subdivision plans before I sign. This request was refused. In this case, detailed discussion had been held with the Highway Department regarding accesses from Bay Road and Fieldview Road, eliminating a cuI de sac and traffic circulation. I explained to Paul Naylor that the Planning Board needs those with specific expertise to approve their part of the plan before any final approval should be given. He still feels that he should be last. In the interest of not delaying start of this subdivision, and because this practice has not been clearly defined, I've signed these plans prior to approval by the Highway Department. I believe that it is time to have the correct and logical procedure put in place. I request this Board's backing in insisting that the Planning Board Chairman be the last to sign subdivision approvals. Signed Bob Paling, Chairman of the Planning Board" MR. STARK-Bob, I have a question for Mark. Mark, what would be the proper procedure? Naylor should sign off on this before Bob does, shouldn't he? MR. SCHACHNER-There's no law that, you know, there's no law, rule or regulation that would govern that situation. In fact, I'm not aware of any law, rule or regulation that requires the Highway Department, the Highway Superintendent, to sign off at all, although I know that's been the practice in Queensbury, and that's fine. MR. BREWER-I have one other question. make? What difference does it - so - ----' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. PALING-It makes a lot of difference I think, Tim, that when you have contributing Departments that are acting on something on a print, they act on their specialty. They act on water. They act on highway. They act on health. They should sign off on the part of that that applies to them before any overall approval is given. It doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't Flaherty, all of a sudden, step up and say, no. Now, I'm going to be last. MR. BREWER-I'm not saying you should or you shouldn't. I'm just asking you what brought this all up? I don't know what the big deal about it was. MR. MACEWAN-Is this something that Naylor has all of a sudden done? I mean, has he always been the last to sign the plat all these years? MR. PALING-Well, he is not always asked to sign the plat. know exact I y when it is, bu t he's not al ways asked subdivisions. I don't in all MR. BREWER-Well, he has to, Bob, because he has to accept the roads, doesn't he? MR. PALING-Well, yes, but he does not have to sign off on the plans. MR. SCHACHNER-No, Bob's right. He doesn't have to sign off on the plans. MR. PALING-This is the second time that this has come up, and I may be wrong, but I thought when it came up before, he relented. When we have a bit of a complicated process within a subdivision, such as I thought we had with the Cerrone Subdivision, I felt it more than logical for the highway portion of the plans before we give it overall approval, and that applied in the Cerrone Subdivision. It would apply to any subdivision, and when you stop and think about this, what is the logical, the better way, I think the right way to do it. Why would someone who's going to give it overall approval be the first to sign it? Why wouldn't he say. okay, the contributing functions, please tell me if highway is okay, if health is okay, if water's okay, then if they are, fine, I can sign off on it. MR. RUEL-But he could sign off on it, and Naylor could come back and say, I'm not going to sign it. MR. PALING-Yes, that's right. He'll say the roads aren't right, and I've given it overall approval. MR. RUEL-And he's already approved the whole plan. right. It just makes a lot of sense. I think he's MR. BREWER-I don't care either way. It doesn't make any difference to me. MR. WEST-How do you change it? MR. PALING-Well, what I suggest is, if the Board will back what I'm saying, then we'll just advise planning that if there's going to be approvals, that we will be the last to sign them, and then if there's a disagreement or what not, they'll bounce it back to us, but we're advising, and Mark, tell me if I'm wrong, the Planning Department that this is the procedure that this Board's going to follow. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. You can advise the Planning Department that way. I don't know if the Planning Department will be able to carry that out, because I don't know what the Highway Superintendent's - 51 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) going to think or say. MR. MACEWAN-Let me ask you, was there a problem as to why he wouldn't sign it? MR. PALING-Well, I talked to him about it, and I went through the same explanation that I went through here, and I asked him. I said, Paul, what would I do if all of a sudden Flaherty said now he wants to be last? And he said, well, the Highway Department is different. It should take precedence over anything like that, and I said, now wait a minute. How can you separate the Highway Department and say you're different than water, than health, and anything. I hope I'm quoting right, well, that's always the way it's been, and it's the way it should be, because we're different. Well, I said, I can't agree with you, and he said he agreed that we couldn't agree, and that was about the end of the conversation, but I think that any kind of logical reasoning is going to bring you to the conclusion that the one that's signing for the overall thing should be last. My goodness. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think you've got a valid point, and like he said, what difference does it make? Well, I'll support you, because you feel very strongly about that. MR. BREWER-What happens now, just a hypothetical, if you write this letter to him and he says, well, I'm not signing it, then what happens? Then do we have a bureaucratic delay? MR. HILTON-See, that's the one comment I want to make is that, you know, if you want to advise Planning Staff that from now on the Planning Board Chairman wishes to be the last person to sign the plat, fine. I can appreciate what you're saying and I hear it, but, you know, when it comes to, you know, making the Highway Superintendent, having Planning Staff make the Highway Superintendent sign it. MR. BREWER-That ain't never going to happen. MR. HILTON-I don't think so, and I can't guarantee it. MR. BREWER-Not in your lifetime anyway. MR. MACEWAN-Let me ask a question. Just suppose we stay status quo as we go and it goes through it's course and you don't get the Highway Superintendent to sign a particular plat, in other words the Cerrone Subdivision or any other one for that matter, but he doesn't sign off on it, because he sees a problem with the road design or whatever, it's just going to kick it back and they'd come back here to make sure it's correct. MR. PALING-That's after I sign it? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but the roads aren't going to ever be accepted by the Town unless he signs off on it. MR. PALING-No, that's not right. MR. RUEL-He doesn't have to sign off. MR. MACEWAN-No, no. It's not necessarily your plat. There's other paperwork that he signs to accept those roads from the developer, and if they don't meet their design specs, he's not going to accept them. MR. PALING-Then the thing to do is to take his approval stamp off of the subdivision plat, and go through the procedure that you're outlining. He's got to do that, but then we wait on him until he's done it before signing. - 52 - .~/ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. MACEWAN-You know what I would suggest, this is just one guy's opinion, I'd take it to the Town Board and discuss it with them and get their input. MR. PALING-Well, I think before we do that, I'd like to see us take a stand, pass it to the Planning Board, and then if it bounces, fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then pass it to the Town Board. MR. PALING-Then we can take that step, yes, but I don't think we should take that as the first step. MR. BREWER-Bob, I agree with what George said. You told the Planning Staff, and if that's the practice we want to do, then that's fine, but I don't, as a Planning Board member, I don't want to go stepping on toes, saying to Paul Naylor, Paul, you've got to do it this way, or we're not going to sign. He's going to say, the hell with you. MR. PALING-Who's stepping on who's toes? Are you afraid to stand up to him. MR. BREWER-I'm not afraid to stand up to anybody. big deal, Bob. I don't see a MR. PALING-~ do. I see a heck of a big deal. MR. BREWER-I don't. MR. HILTON-If I can, I just want to repeat what I said and maybe clarify it a little bit. I hear what you're saying. You're telling us that you want to be, as Planning Board Chairman, the last person to sign it, but, you know, as an elected official, the Highway Superintendent being an elected official, Planning Staff has no place to really tell him, you know, you're absolutely going t sign this before, and I just want to make sure that you realize that, although I understand what you're saying, I can't guarantee that in the future, that we will have the ability to have him sign it before you. MR. PALING-Yes. I don' t disagree with anything you say, but I think the logical step to do is to say, this is what the Board would like. We think it's the logical, proper way to do it. Now, if it's rejected, then I think we have to take another route, but it would come back to the Board as rejected, and take it from there. MR. BREWER-Who are you going to send the letter to? MR. PALING-The minutes, we're passing it. I'm going to poll the Board, and we pass it to the Planning Department as such. MR. RUEL-poll the Board. MR. PALING-Okay. Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think it's that big of an issue. MR. PALING-George? MR. STARK-Write the letter to them, to the Planning Board. MR. PALING-You're saying you agree? MR. BREWER-We are the Planning Board. MR. STARK-No, the Planning Department I meant. - 53 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. PALING-It's just going to be the minutes. We're asking them, through George and in the minutes, what we want. MRS. LABOMBARD-Write the letter, bring it up to the Town Board. MR. PALING-No. We're doing it now. We're not going to write a letter. MR. RUEL-You don't need a letter. MRS. LABOMBARD-So then how does the Town Board? MR. PALING-No. I'm assuming that Paul Naylor will go along with it. If he doesn't, then it bounces back to us, and then we would go, I think, the next step would be to go to the Town Board, but lets let him know how the Board feels, and give him a chance to go along with it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know what you're saying, Bob, it's just that I don't want to start, the more I think about it, I don't want him to think we're taking away some of his authority or, I don't he's going to really accept this very graciously. MR. PALING-I don't think that should be a concern of the Board's. Is it any concern if an applicant accepts it graciously? Then what are we saying? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, then bring it to his attention, no problem. MR. RUEL-That's what we're doing. MR. PALING-All right. Have I got two yeses? MRS. LABOMBARD-Craig says it doesn't matter one way or the other, right? Craig said it wasn't that much of an issue. MR. MACEWAN-The Planning Board was originally established in, what, 1968, roughly, thereabouts? We've been doing this for 30 years. If it isn't broke, why fix it? MR. PALING-All right. Well, I'm still asking for backing, and I guess I have a no and two yeses. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'll back you, Bob. MR. PALING-Okay, and George? MR. STARK-Yes, I'll back you. MR. RUEL-The Planning Board Chairman should be the last to sign the subdivision approval, yes. MR. WEST-I back you, Bob. MR. PALING-Okay, Tim? MR. BREWER-I don't see a big issue with it, so I don't want mY name on the letter, no. MR. PALING-All right. So it's a five Eo two vote. That's interesting. Okay. Then will you accept what we're asking for? MR. HILTON-Well, I don't know if accept is the word. I hear what you're saying, and I will, you know, Planning Staff will make it clear that the Planning Board Chairman wishes to be the last person to sign it, but again, I can't guarantee that that will be the end result. - 54 - ( ..\"..... -.-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/20/97) MR. PALING-And the Board voted yes five to two. MR. SCHACHNER-You didn't really vote. MR. PALING-Well, polled. MR. BREWER-We didn't really vote. We discussed it. MR. RUEL-What happened to this last item, discussion? MR. PALING-Wait a minute, do we have another item on the agenda? MR. HILTON-We had a discussion item planned for this evening. The applicant had sent the letter in, wishing to be on Thursday, for Queensbury Plaza. He's requested to be on Thursday. MR. PALING-Yes, that was postponed until Thursday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 55 -