Loading...
08-21-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 2012 INDEX Site Plan No. 42-2012 Daniel & Ellen Nichols 1. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18, 19 Site Plan No. 43-2012 Edward Mastoloni 4. EXPEDITED REVIEW Tax Map No. 226.15-1-29 Site Plan No. 21-2012 Ben L. Aronson 12. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-10 Special Use Permit No. 9-2012 San Souci of Cleverdale 19. Subdivision No. 1-2011 VMJR Companies 30. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 303.11-1-4, 303.15-1-25.2 FWW 1-2011 Site Plan No. 41-2012 SBLB Properties II, LLC 48. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-48, 49, 50, 51, 58 Site Plan No. 46-2012 Jon & Diane Swanson 55. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-5.2 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 08/21/2012) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER, SECRETARY DONALD KREBS PAUL SCHONEWOLF DONALD SIPP BRAD MAGOWAN THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, August 21, 2012. The first order of business is approval of minutes from June 19th and 21 St 2012. Would anyone like to move them? APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 19, 2012 June 21, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 19TH AND JUNE 21ST, 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: Duly adopted this 21St day of August, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-For members of the audience, we do have copies of the agenda on the back table, and there's also a handout there for public hearing procedures. Most of our projects do have public hearings this evening. The first item is a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART& RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANTS ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 8 GLEN LAKE ROAD & 1300 STATE ROUTE 9 SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 400 SQ. FT. DINING ROOM EXPANSION ADDITION TO EXISTING 3,465 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AS WELL AS A 2,500 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO EXISTING DECK TO INCLUDE NEW BATHROOMS AND BAR. FURTHER, CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,500 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING AND A 10,770SQ. FT. BANQUET FACILITY WITH 4 GUEST SUITES ON SECOND FLOOR IS PROPOSED. EXPANSION OF EXISTING RESTAURANT AND NEW COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES IN THE CI ZONE REQUIRE PB REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: FRONT SETBACK, HEIGHT & TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY SETBACK RELIEF. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 35-12 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 4.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-18, 19 SECTION 179-9 STEFANIE BITTER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, actually that recommendation is not what we're doing tonight. In fact, I don't know if there's anything we can really do tonight. What we want to do is Lead Agency for SEAR (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) purposes, and at this point in time we do not have the map plan and report for the sewer district extension. You cannot forward that to the Town Board without (lost words) for review at this point in time. Also, I will say I did see the Long Form that the applicant will be submitting here soon. That also will need to be forwarded to the involved agencies, and so really at this point in time what we're going to need to do is table this pending submittal of these documents. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And obviously I'll give Stefanie her moment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. BITTER-My moment. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter, on behalf of the applicant, together with Tom Hutchins and Ethan Hall. We're dealing with the Blue Moose Restaurant, which I'm sure most of you are familiar with, which is located on a corner lot of Route 9 and Glen Street, or, I'm sorry, on Glen Lake. This is actually an older structure grandfathered location that we're trying to renovate because the Nichols purchased this in the last year and a half and the restaurant's doing well, and they're trying to renovate it and expand to their patrons, which the expansion would include the expansion of the indoor dining room, the addition of a bathroom, a new deck a 400 square foot addition and an enhanced entrance right along Route 9. This will also include the addition of a retail building which will be 4200 square foot of leasable area as well as a banquet facility on adjoining properties that they own. The banquet facility is 10,100 square foot footprint, two floors, four suites for their guests and a height variance which is associated with that. We're seeking 55 feet in height, as opposed to the 40 that's allowed. What we indicate in our submission materials is that we feel that the impact of that height will be lessened by the topography of that site as well as the existing vegetation, not to mention the height of structures in the immediate vicinity. There's the Warren County structure, the Lodge, and The Great Escape park. With that, I just wanted to add, I understand Staff's comments about Lead Agency, and we just pose the question of the fact that the applicant is going to be spending money on a map plan report which is obviously a good amount of money to invest, which could then result in variances that aren't granted. So, I just want to pose that question to possibly the Town Attorney if that's necessary in order to get to Lead Agency status, and I asked Craig, and honestly I don't have the backing, but I just want to present it for reasonableness, as to whether or not those funds have to be expended right now in order to determine Lead Agency status. So, I'll put that back to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MS. BITTER-You're welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anything else that you wanted to add? MR. HUTCHINS-I don't need to add anything. MS. BITTER-No, because I realize we have this SEAR issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, I can't answer your question from a legal standpoint, but I can tell you from a procedural standpoint that that would be consistent with previous projects that required an extension. MS. BITTER-The sewer district extension? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-So I don't know if that's sufficient enough. MS. BITTER-No, and that's really, I just wanted to make sure for clarity purposes. Because obviously he's going to have to make a substantial commitment at this point. So I just wanted to make sure that's what's been done in the past. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I would open it up for any questions, comments from members of the Board, if anyone wants to add anything or ask any questions at this point. (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that the picture of the building? ETHAN HALL MR. HALL-This is a picture of the banquet facility itself. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It looks like a fire station. MR. FORD-That's its secondary use. MR. HALL-The intent is the doors along the bottom are operable, the garage doors, and the intent is that during nice weather this entire facility can be opened up to the outside. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They're going to open it up. MR. HALL-And be just a covered, the upper area is all balcony on the outside, and the clear story at the top daylights the middle of the building. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Unique. MR. HALL-And it is the intent that these materials will be similar. They're going to re-surface all of the existing restaurant and make it look like one compound. MR. HUNSINGER-So the existing building is going to have a similar fagade? MR. HALL-Yes, the existing will have new siding, new roofing materials. They're going to put some stone on it, some logs, dress it up. MR. FORD-Is that stone or brick? MR. HALL-Stone. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It looks like brick, doesn't it? MR. FORD-It does. MR. HALL-Well, the stone is on the pillars on the end, which are active fireplaces, there's a fireplace in each of the four corners, and then in the gable ends, that's shake material. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-So would you have any idea how quickly the map plan and report would be filed? MR. HUTCHINS-It's a matter of weeks, three weeks. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm just trying to figure out when to table this to. MR. KREBS-The second meeting in September? MR. HUNSINGER-The second meeting in September, is that too soon? MR. OBORNE-The second meeting in September is fine. Keep in mind that we do have a full agenda going in to September and the possibility of a third meeting will need to be discussed next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. OBORNE-So that would add to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MS. BITTER-But you would just be naming Lead Agency status, right? Would you be naming Lead Agency status? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. So it would basically be an Administrative Item on the agenda. MS. BITTER-Right. (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not a big deal. MR. HUNSINGER-So we should probably do this to the 18th, so they could get to the Zoning Board after us? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, in terms of requesting Lead Agency status, I don't see reason why we wouldn't want that. MR. OBORNE-Yes, Staff feels that you're the most capable Board to take care of the SEAR issues, the Board with the most experience. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Again, there's no promise that the other agencies will acknowledge that, either, but, I mean, we have to just go forward at some point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and there is no public hearing scheduled this evening. Unless there's any other questions or comments from the Board, I'll entertain a motion to table this to the 18th of September. RESOLUTION TABLING SP #42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to September 18, 2012. Duly adopted this 21St day of August, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll see you in a month. EXPEDITED REVIEW SITE PLAN NO. 43-2012 SEAR TYPE 11 EDWARD MASTOLONI AGENT(S) FRANK DE NARDO OWNER(S) MASTOLONI FAMILY, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 18 NEIGHBORS WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES 30 FT. X 24 FT. (408 SQ. FT. TOTAL) OPEN SIDED U- SHAPED DOCK WITH PEAKED ROOF. BOATHOUSE IN A WR-ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 38-09, AV 9-09, NOA 2-09, BOH 28-08 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES APA, CEA, OTHER APA WETLANDS, L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-29 SECTION 179-9, 179-5-060 FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is a boathouse in a WR zone and as a result it does require Planning Board review and approval. Location is 18 Neighbors Way. Waterfront Residential, as was stated, is the zoning. SEAR status is a Type 11. Warren County referral, there was, it's a No County Impact. Applicant proposes a 30 foot by 24 foot open-sided U-shaped dock with peaked roof. It requires review and approval. As far as the plans go, there does not appear to be any facilities for cooking, sleeping, no bathroom facilities on this. There's just one concern, one observation, is that it is shallow there. I don't know if they plan on doing any excavating or anything along those lines, and also I will say that the shoreline is relatively pristine shoreline in that area (lost words), and with that I'll turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Since this is an Expedited Review, I'll just open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You've already got Lake George Park Commission approval for the? (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) MR. DE NARDO-We have, yes. Frank DeNardo, representing the Mastoloni family. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't know why they need us, then. MR. KREBS-Do they plan to do any excavating? MR. DE NARDO-Absolutely not, no. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. DE NARDO-Actually the dock is built right now. We got the permits from the Town to build a dock. Now we're just going for the boathouse now. MR. KREBS-Okay. MR. DE NARDO-So there's plenty of water. He's putting an old, a new wood boat in there. That's his little bucket list thing. So, name of the boat, by the way. MR. KREBS-The Bucket List? MR. DE NARDO-The Bucket List. MR. KREBS-Okay. I'll look for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-I have none. MR. TRAVER-I guess not. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We do have at least one person. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties a chance to comment on the project before us. I would ask that you address your comments to the Board, speak your name for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting, and the tape is used to transcribe the minutes. So, with that, good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MARY GRIDLEY MRS. GRIDLEY-Yes, good evening, members of the Board. I am Gridley, adjacent to the applicant's dock building. I had earlier sent the members, seven member Board, copies of this letter which I'd like to read, answer any questions you might have as well as address to the Land Use Planner, the Zoning Administrator, the Director of Building and Codes, and the Lake George Park Commission Executive Director David Wick as well as Molly Gallagher, and I'd like to read concerns of the neighborhood, the little community where this dock is being built, as already been built, in fact, and this letter I wrote on, it was a group writing of this letter of concerned neighbors, August 5t", and it reads: "Dear Mr. Wick: Pursuant to our letter of September 6, 2011, which unfortunately the Commission did not take into account when granting permits 5234-21-12 wharf construction and 5234-22-12 excavation/fill dated May 7, 2012 to Mastoloni Family, LLC 18 Neighbor's Way, Lake George, NY, we would like to bring to your attention the following issues. Clarification is needed concerning the dock project plan, Schedule A in terms of where the dock starts-high or low water mark and if the dock extension conforms to general condition number 23 which limits the extension to 40 feet from the mean low water mark; Further, the dock is not, as planned, contiguous to the shore line, but is accessed via a walkway projected at 4 feet which is now considerably longer; Work on this project commenced on July 30th using rocks from the Lake to build the crib, thus disturbing a formation which anchors a very fragile peninsula; we believe that this is in violation of general condition number 30 which states "no rocks for use in construction may come from the Lake"; We see no verification from the field survey that general conditions number 23, 28 and 30 will be met;" of course I should make that have been met, since it's already completed, "given the fragile nature of this cove, we ask that periodic inspections be made to ensure the construction is according to the permit; We feel that this dock will unreasonably impede navigation and swimmer safety as the horseshoe cove is very shallow", it is just three feet deep, it's a walk in cove, "and is heavily used by extended families with young children", for swimming; "furthermore, the site adjacent to the dock is a favorite swimming spot because of the large shallow rocks used for diving; our continuing concern is that the dock can only be accessed (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) crossing 4 water lines and they could be cut or damaged when the water level is low particularly in the fall; We question the necessity of the proposed roof which creates an obstruction stretching so far out into the horseshoe shaped cove; currently no other dock creates such an obstruction; this roof will considerably diminish the scenic beauty enjoyed by the cove residents; Furthermore, we found no evidence of a permit for 2 moorings on the Harris Bay side of the Mastoloni property. In closing we would like to suggest that all residents in a cove a small and fragile as ours should have been notified of this dock construction. We are disappointed that the Commission ignored our original concerns sent on September 6, 2011 and did not notify us of the application for the dock permit. We intend to request that our letter of September 6, 2011 and this one be read at the Queensbury Planning Board meeting of August 21, 2012." This letter is signed by Gridley of 54 Bay Parkway; Munroe Gridley of 60 Bay Parkway; Beverly Pozzi of 66 Bay Parkway; and Lorraine Ruffing of 66 Bay Parkway. I have just, in summary, some thoughts here. That our disappointment, really, is over no contact with the adjacent property owner to Gridley was ever initiated by the applicant, by the Board or by the Lake George Park Commission before building this dock. The U shaped crib is hazardous to our water lines. My water line, if I walk from the water line 42 steps is all it takes to get to their dock. We draw our water from that line. It is detrimental not only to our health because of the water, but swimming and wading on this three foot shallow crescent walk-in cove. A requested roof will further have an adverse on effect on the natural scenic aesthetic view of Cleverdale and Pilot Knob. It will actually eliminate my look across at this area if a roof is constructed. There are questions to be answered. One, why is Page 10 of the applicant's site plan review left blank, on Part 11, the environmental assessment? Two, did a boathouse review not consider the applicant's two to four other similar structures that he has on the Harris Bay lakeside? Three, did Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, ever get a chance or get an answer to his April 23rd letter to Molly Gallagher of the Lake George Park Commission regarding a potential Class A Marina being operated on the property? Four, was a listing of boats registered to the applicant supplied, and to whom? Five, who did a field survey within the water to determine the mean high and low water marks to validate this construction? I leave you with these questions, and our heartfelt request that a roof permit be denied. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Did anyone else want to speak on this? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. BEVERLY POZZI MS. POZZI-Good evening, gentlemen. I'm also a neighbor, Beverly Pozzi, and I represent both myself and my sister who's away at this moment, and we're about 200 feet across the cove from this dock. So we've seen, you know, the access to it. In case you don't have a copy of the September 6, 2011 letter, I'll read it, it's brief, and these are our concerns to the Park Commission. "The area is a shallow cove, which all ages of swimmers use frequently, often swimming out to the rocky point. These swimmers are residents and guests including the Mastoloni family. This cove is on the inner side of a fragile point of land." And this past weekend there were a dozen swimmers of all ages swimming there. "Drinking water pipes are in close proximity, and under the area where power boats would travel, thus stirring up the bottom, which could cause the water to no longer be usable in home owned by Mary Gridley, Monroe Gridley (two houses), Lorraine Ruffing and Beverly Pozzi, Barbara and John Lynch and probably the next four homes. The Mastoloni family has a well. Depth of water is as shallow as three feet most of the year. If there is a request for dredging, it would destroy the cove. Most of this cove has a sandy bottom. Erosion of the shoreline, which was substantially secured with rocks approximately 25 years ago. Damage or removal of shoreline trees and undergrowth would seriously add to the erosion." And on January 2008, shoreline trees were removed until Bruce Frank came out and stopped it, and of course we have lots of birds and things like that, and it's a favorite place for Herons. "A deck roof on a new dock would be objectionable as it would block the view toward the east, and for others both north and west." The letter which you have in front of you is for your information. As you know, the dock permit was issued and we're questioning Condition 30, no rocks for use in construction are to come from the lake bed. The condition has been violated on several days by Mr. DeNardo's company workers, and they took the rocks from the bed of the cove. You will see that clearly, and as I said, I have colored pictures. They're piling the rocks on a float and taking them over to the dock. The Park Commission was notified and sent the pictures of the illegal removal, and they haven't done anything at this point because Mr. DeNardo insists that they came from the previous dock, and the dock permits states that the rocks would be taken from the existing dock. However, since the dock was a temporary one and removed every winter by the former owners the Binley's, it has never had any crib for rocks. The dock company told the Park Commission they took rocks from the old crib, something that isn't so because the temporary dock never had a crib. The pictures of the temporary dock before work will reveal the true nature. We also have pictures of the rocks being removed on August 13t". Until this matter of the violation of the permit is resolved, I respectfully request that you do not grant the request for further construction. (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) Today, and I'm sorry you don't have a copy of this, but I do have a few copies, we've spoken to Arthur Binley, the former owner, and Arthur has responded, and this is what he has said. I was a resident and then an owner on Assembly Point which was purchased by Ed Mastoloni. There has always been a stake dock on the cove side since the 50's, which was removed each winter. There never, under our family's ownership, or the Nemer's before us, was a crib dock to the cove, and that did not change with Mr. Mastoloni's ownership. For many years, we paid Frank DeNardo to remove and replace the dock as the seasons changed from the cove and the shore on our property. This was explained to Ed Mastoloni prior to the sale of the property, both parties knew that there was never a crib dock there, and I would be happy to make a sworn statement to that effect. If anyone would like to see the color pictures. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you can start them down at this end. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anything else? MS. POZZI-Yes, two other pictures. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. POZZI-You do have them in black and white, but I think the colored ones show (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else that wanted to comment on this project? MS. POZZI-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome. Were there any other written comments, Keith, other than what was just read? MR. OBORNE-Let me check. No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I question, is it true, you can use rocks out of the lake to put in a crib dock? MR. DE NARDO-Correct. The original docks were put in there in 1946. There were two dock systems inside that bay in the 40's. All right. They have been deteriorated over many years. All splayed out, we actually have the wood that came out of those docks in my pit that we took out of the docks that were there. I mean, they don't look like docks when you look at them from aerial photos, but you can see the crib systems that were in there. We removed them, that's what you see the raft over the top of them. We took numerous rocks out of them, put them in the cribs and the cribs, where the docks at the Binley's originally thought they were stake docks, actually was a crib dock in there at one point. It was accessed by the Palmers, Walt Palmer to be exact, 1946, and used that to get back and forth to Long Island when he had the farm out on Long Island. So for the new neighbors in the area that don't know the history of that area, there's a history of that area. All right. Those docks are gone now. We removed the rocks from there to help the navigation for his boat, and by the way as far as navigation goes in that bay, everybody that spoke today has a boat that goes over the same water lines that they own and apparently they don't stir up the water for their water systems. Mr. Mastoloni will be coming in with his boat from there, not even near their water lines, where the other five other people that are in that bay come in all the time, and it's not going to affect anything, and the water is about five feet deep by the end of the dock, four feet seven inches today, and the water is low. If I can answer any other questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from members of the Board? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I could either bring this up now or later, but I question whether we even have jurisdiction in this. If you read the judge's decision, the Supreme Court Judge's decision, he says Lake George is State water and the State has jurisdiction. That means the Lake George Park Commission has jurisdiction over the permits. Period. Now, if you want to argue with the judge, you can appeal the decision, but I notice that the Town of Lake George has stopped evaluating docks and voting on them until the judge's decision is either appealed or until the State legislature next year makes some other decision or whatever, but in the meantime, I think the judge's decision is law, and I don't think we have any jurisdiction. That's one reason we don't have jurisdiction. The second reason is that water is not in our Town. Okay. MR. DE NARDO-True. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I don't know. It's in the Town of Bolton. (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I don't know why we're regulating anything in the Town of Bolton in the first place. That's just my take on it. MR. DE NARDO-And as far as ruining the view, I mean, it went out, the Park Commission put it out to all the neighbors. I'm sure you're all aware of that, as they do all the time, all the neighbors get time to respond to that. We are building this dock, Mr. Mastoloni took into account his neighbors to make this peaked roof as low as possible to protect the boat, and not obscure the views of his neighbors. I mean, if you look at the property line, he owns another piece of property behind that that it's also going to be in his way, and he realizes that. He didn't want to block 100% of the view, but his only resource is to put that dock over on that side. The Town of Queensbury would not let him put the dock on the other side where the other dock is, the original dock, due to the square footage allowed, 700 square feet, and we went through this at a couple of meetings. I'm sure we were all at this meeting prior to this. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? MR. SIPP-Chris, in the back. MR. HUNSINGER-We'll need to get you on the microphone, ma'am. MR. KREBS-While she's coming up, I'll just say that I agree with, Paul, though. I really don't know where we stand anymore relative to our ability to regulate the docks in the lake, because the Supreme Court Judge made a decision and he said no. MR. OBORNE-Without Planning Board approval, the permits will not be released. So that's where you're at. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, the question is, do they need permits from us? MR. OBORNE-Well, that's totally up to the Building and Codes Department. MR. SCHONEWOLF-They got one from the Lake George Park Commission. MR. OBORNE-I'm not going to argue. At this point my direction is status quo. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, until we're told otherwise, it's business as usual. Go ahead, ma'am. If you could just identify yourself for the record again. MS. GRIDLEY-I'm Gridley next door to the applicant. We did not receive notice by mail, e-mail, phone. When I talked to Molly Gallagher she said, well, I said who did get the notification. She said Provanzano who is on the other side, but next to Mr. Mastoloni, he owns those three houses, so, you know, he actually didn't have to notify himself, did he? Because we're on the other side, so apparently they don't consider us adjacent, even though we're the next door neighbor, we never got notification. In fact, I didn't really see where the permit was hung on any tree and it was very, almost impossible to see a Elite's building sign where the dock was going up to see it because it was in the woods, but I know Mr. Frank DeNardo mentioned about the history of the land. Guess what? Gridleys have been there four generations since 1940. So we know a little bit about the history of the place because we've been loving it for that number of years, and I question, you've got Arthur Binley who sold the property to him stating, and he's willing to put it, declare it that those rocks were not his rocks. He didn't have a crib, so it's illegal to take rocks out of the lake bed or shoreline, and as far as our boats going out over our own, our lines, the fact is if you look at it, our boats go out straight, they back out of the dock. Now this dock is almost perpendicular, you know, here, so that here's our dock. When he comes out, he's going to almost, I mean, we better not come out at the same time, because his rear end would hit our front, or our back end. It would be a collision, traffic, and we carefully avoid our own water line because it feeds our camp. We don't have a well. He does, and as far as the height of the water, you know it gets shallow in the Fall, and that's when, environmentally, a lot of disturbance can happen to the water line that feeds in to our place. I'm just trying to kind of correct a few of the statements that we're not in agreement with. If you've got some questions for us, you know, I'd be happy to try to answer them, but I just don't understand, you know, how come the Town didn't allow the applicant to put a boathouse, you know, on the other side in Harris Bay, which is the long end of the lake. It wouldn't destroy anybody's aesthetic view, maybe his own, maybe. MR. TRAVER-Ma'am, have you received any response from the Park Commission? I don't know if you're familiar with the jurisdictional issues that have been going on with regard to, you (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) know, the waters of Bolton, and, you know, the Supreme Court ruling and those various things, but it would seem that, at least for the moment, the Park Commission has authority here, and I know you indicated in your letters. MS. GRIDLEY-1 sent her registered letter, our pages that you've received, and unfortunately she was out on vacation. She was out of the office all last week. All last week. So the only person I could talk to was her assistant Joe Thewin, and she wasn't away. He said she will get back to you, Mary, on Monday. She didn't. I didn't hear from her yesterday when she arrived back. MR. FORD-Or today? MS. GRIDLEY-Or today. Or today, and I have been, I'm pretty available because I'm paranoid about not having my cell phone with me to pick up a call. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MS. GRIDLEY-1 think that, you know this, the way you can obviously see how that cove is positioned, and one dock almost hits the other, but the other is going to be so perpendicular and the roof is going to be blocking off total view, and hazardous. I swim that bay, and I know that I have to be very careful of boats that come out of, not just, you know, there, that little cove there, but as I go down towards Lynches, etc., I have to be very watchful because boats, captains of the boats, they don't always see a little head in the water doing their little paddle swim back and forth, and I do that. Mrs. Binley used to do it on a daily basis, no matter how cold it got, so, you know, it can be a safety issue. Thanks again. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Keith, how close do you have to be to be noticed? MR. OBORNE-Five hundred feet. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay. So if you're more than 500 feet from this you didn't get a notice. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Because I don't get very many notices. MR. OBORNE-1 think the Town of Queensbury, you receive the Town of Queensbury notices. MS. GRIDLEY-No. MR. OBORNE-Are you year round residents? Do you live here year round? It would go to where your tax documents go. MS. GRIDLEY-Didn't get it there. I didn't get it at my primary residence. MR. OBORNE-Well, I know that they were sent out last week. MS. GRIDLEY-Last week? Notice of this meeting, yes. MR. OBORNE-That's the notice I'm talking about. MS. GRIDLEY-So the notice came. Why was it dated the 14th? The dock is already completed. MR. OBORNE-Well, the dock is allowed to be constructed because it's a legal structure. You're really only here for the superstructure that's on top of the dock. I know that Craig had spoken to you about it and I understand your concerns, absolutely, but as far as the Lake George Park Commission, I can't answer anything about that. The Town of Queensbury, we really can't answer to the machinations of the Lake George Park Commission. I hope that helps. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, in fact, I was just looking through the Code about some of the issues that were brought up, and, you know, there was several comments made about the rocks being used, and the Town doesn't have that same restriction. So a lot of your issues are really with the Park Commission, and really not with the Town of Queensbury, but, you know, I wanted to verify that that was the case. MR. DE NARDO-Can I state one other thing real quick? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead. (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) MR. DE NARDO-The Park Commission did come up and they sent a law officer up and they took pictures and surveyed it. I have the remaining cribs that were left under water. We actually have them in storage, in our shop area. The reason we save them is because they're old chestnut and oak beams, and I recycle them for furniture or whatever they may be. As far as being environmentally friendly with Lake George, my company's probably the most environmentally friendly company on Lake George. I make my living here. I watch out for the neighbors. I watch out for everything. When Hurricane Irene came in, I pumped out the last two applicants here, I pumped out their boats, without even thinking about it. I used all my oil sponges and everything else to soak up the gasoline and the oil from their motors, and goes to say, I didn't charge them full freight because I'm a neighbor, but that's water under the bridge, but I am very concerned with the environment here, as far as taking rocks off the bottom of the lake. I know the rules. I know the regulations. I've been doing this for 20 plus years on Lake George, and the Park Commission has never had a complaint until this past week or so about my company, or Queensbury, or anybody. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions? Go ahead, Steve. MR. TRAVER-I was just going to say, I think, you know, with the jurisdictional issue, I think, with respect to the Park Commission, I don't think this is for us to disapprove or approve. I don't see how we can do either, really, until that issue is resolved. MR. DE NARDO-What would be the issue, I mean, at this point? MR. TRAVER-It's a jurisdictional issue. MR. DE NARDO-As far as who runs the lake. Okay. MR. TRAVER-Basically. I mean, it's a little more complicated than that. MR. DE NARDO-I understand. Yes. I know where you're coming from there. MR. OBORNE-1 disagree. I disagree. I mean, we have not been directed by Town Counsel to change the way we approach the Zoning Code. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Town Counsel has nothing to do with it. The judge overruled them. MR. OBORNE-That is who I take my direction from. MR. KREBS-But again, the rocks being taken off the bottom are not in the Town Code. MR. OBORNE-But it's anecdotal. So, you know, that's for this Board to decide. I'm neither for or against this application, obviously. MR. KREBS-I mean, it makes it very difficult for us, because we don't have that in our Code. That's what they're complaining about, taking the rocks and moving the rocks, and building the crib dock with it. How do I make a justification for that when it's not even in my Town Code. So therefore I have to look at Lake George Park Commission, who's regulation that is, to enforce that regulation or not enforce that regulation. MR. DE NARDO-Now if they were there and they did their investigation, everything came up okay. I would have been cited if it wasn't. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, and it's really, that's where we disagree, but it's really their case. MR. FORD-Yes, we're the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, not the Lake George Park Commission. MR. DE NARDO-I mean, I thought we were here for actually the boathouse tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-We are, yes. I just wanted to elaborate on Keith's comment. You said you hadn't received anything from Town Counsel, Town Counsel or the judge, because the case wasn't in the Town of Queensbury. It was in the Town of Lake George. So, you know, no one has directed the Town to do business other than how we've always done business, and, you know, as far as I'm concerned, we still follow the Zoning Ordinance that's on the books. MR. DE NARDO-Absolutely. (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-1 haven't said this in a long time, but typically, before I became Chairman, each and every time we saw a boathouse I'd say I hate them all. If it were up to me, we would never approve any of them. MR. DE NARDO-I remember. MR. HUNSINGER-But in my opinion, you know, what you're requesting meets the Town Code, and I really don't see any reason not to approve it. That's just my opinion. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What you're saying is we're only talking about the structure. MR. HUNSINGER-That's all that we're here to review. MR. SCHONEWOLF-If you're only talking about the structure, not in the lake, then I would agree with you, then I see no reason to deny that. MR. HUNSINGER-Having said all that, you found no other comments in the record? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type 11 SEAR, which means no SEAR review is necessary or required. With that, I would entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #43-2012 EDWARD MASTOLONI A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 30 ft. x 24 ft. (408 sq. ft. total) open sided U-shaped dock with peaked roof. Boathouse in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/21/2012; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2012 EDWARD MASTOLONI, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: As per the resolution prepared by Staff. All waivers are granted. 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9- 080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; 2) Type 11 SEAR; 3) Waiver requests rg anted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans; 4) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. 5) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; 7) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Duly adopted this 21 st day of August, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DE NARDO-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Quick clarification on one thing, as far as the waivers granted, were Board members okay with stormwater management, grading, landscaping and lighting plans? MR. KREBS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's in the resolution. MR. KREBS-I'm sorry, I forgot to add that. TABLED ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 21-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED BEN L. ARONSON AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MS-MAIN STREET LOCATION 64 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES 53 PARKING SPACES ON VACANT LAND TO THE EAST OF WHICH 24 SPACES TO BE BANKED FOR FUTURE USE. PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE NEW LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. REVISIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FINAL ENGINEERING SIGN-OFF RECEIVED ON 7/18/12. CROSS REFERENCE AV 10-02, SP 49-99, AV 83-99, SP 22-97, AV 19-97, UV 18-97, AV 15-94, AV 94-92, AV 29-92, AV 1287, VAR. 777 WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1- 10 SECTION 179-9, 179-7 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 21-2012 for Ben L. Aronson. Obviously revisions to an approved site plan require Planning Board review and approval. 64 Main Street is the location. The zoning is Main Street. The SEAR status is Unlisted. At this point, obviously you will be required to do a Short Form on this if you are to approve this application. I think that the applicant, I think that the Board is aware of the issues with this parcel. What I would say is that there are some outstanding issues, as far as Staff is concerned. The applicant has provided a clean plan, a clean, cogent approach to the project. There are some disagreements between the applicant and Staff on gravel parking. I am aware, I believe, Tom, that he is going to be using Calcium Chloride. MR. JARRETT-He has used that. MR. OBORNE-He has used that, to contain the dust issue that was on the adjoining parking lot, and you have received Chazen's signoff on this. So it's really up to the Board on how they want to proceed with this project, either in part or parcel, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers representing Ben Aronson. From my perspective, we're down to one issue, and it's parking. Keith is going to disagree, and I'll let him elaborate on that, but the one issue that's outstanding in my mind is the paving of the lot, the paving of the parking lot and paving of the truck entrance area on the Second Street side. Mr. Aronson feels that it's not warranted to pave that. He sent a letter in to the Board stating his reasons. He has not budged since that time with that position. So basically I'm down to asking you to approve it without paving it at this time, and he did say he would consider it when and if a tenant is forthcoming that needs retail space, retail parking, and then paving would probably be warranted. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess I had two questions, if you didn't have anything else. MR. JARRETT-I'm good for the moment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The use of Calcium Chloride, is that pretty much an acceptable method for dust? MR. JARRETT-It has been. It's common. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Now, when we got the engineer's signoff, did he signoff specifically on that, Keith, do you know? (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) MR. OBORNE-He wasn't asked to review that. That came up as public comment. That mitigation was offered. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And then the other question I had was, you know, he mentions in his letter that since they started the review they closed the business. So, do you know what his plans are? Is he trying to lease the building? MR. JARRETT-He's actually trying to lease it. He thinks it'll be the same use, but he's not elaborated to me if he knows if he's got a tenant in mind. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. KREBS-But if it isn't the same use, doesn't he have to come back for a site plan review anyway? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. JARRETT-That's kind of our understanding is that we would have to do that. It would be Craig's determination whether it's a close enough use, but likely it would have to come back. MR. OBORNE-We are hoping that some use goes in there, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FORD-I know that Calcium Chloride has been used for some time for dust. Is that the preferred substance for use on dust control? MR. JARRETT-I'm not sure I know of a better material. I mean, water's used and water's very temporary. Calcium Chloride is still used, and I don't know if any objections to it, per se, other than near a lake body that's calcium limited, where we wouldn't want to apply it, but I don't know of any objections to it. MR. FORD-Okay. Do you know of any better solution to it than that use? MR. JARRETT-I'm sure there's some proprietary chemicals out there. I'm not really privy to them. I don't know. Calcium Chloride is a fairly recognized and inexpensive method to control dust. MR. TRAVER-One would be asphalt. MR. JARRETT-I thought that was what he was begging for is me to respond that way. MR. FORD-No, no. You know where I am on that. MR. JARRETT-One of the old tried and true methods is applying oil or some kind of tar to it. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There are still highway departments that oil roads. I've seen that over at Hamilton County just recently. MR. JARRETT-Really? Well, certainly not locally. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not in this County, but the advantage of Calcium Chloride is that it keeps kind of like emitting water. I mean, it's always wet, whereas if you throw water on it, forget it. MR. FORD-I didn't know but that there had been a new compound or solution that they had come up with that was better. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, my only question would be, you know, now that it's closed and not being used, and the traffic's not going in and out, the problem won't prevail as bad as it does with the traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Good point. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) MR. MAGOWAN-So, you know, we approve it and he gets the same, you know, say he gets a tenant in there with the same use and it doesn't come back to us, and then, bingo, the problem reoccurs because we've got traffic in and out again. So how do we handle it then? MR. OBORNE-Is that a question for me? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, generally, everybody on the Board, and if you'd like to join in, too, you may. MR. SCHONEWOLF-It's not our problem. MR. MAGOWAN-It's not our problem then. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Now it is. MR. MAGOWAN-So if we approve it and then it becomes a problem later on, it's not our problem? MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, it's his problem. Because there are ordinances against doing that kind of stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-And the applicant has offered, you know, to mitigate it with the Calcium Chloride. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. MAGOWAN-Which I've seen that work. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-And he has applied it already. MR. HUNSINGER-He has already? MR. JARRETT-He has applied it, yes. I believe he applied it last week. MR. FORD-How frequently should that be applied to be? MR. JARRETT-It depends on the amount of traffic and the weather conditions. It really is highly variable. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, obviously it's more than a one time? MR. JARRETT-Yes, it is. As is mentioned, there's no traffic in and out of there now, so this application should last probably through the end of this year if there's no traffic on it. Or could last until the end of this year, but if he gets a tenant in there and there's active truck traffic, he may have to do it several times before the end of the year. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess the issue becomes how is that then policed and applied and kind of begs the question. MR. TRAVER-It's an enforcement issue. MR. JARRETT-I don't know. I think that Mr. Aronson understands that if he has to come back here for a change in use he's been put on notice that that issue is going to be outstanding with this Board. So I think he's on notice that he better pay attention to it, and that's kind of the impression that I got from him is that he knows that he has to deal with it. So, other than that, I don't know what else to offer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I would say, my opinion at this point, this is really not part of this site plan review. This was something that was offered by the applicant and should be lauded. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. (Queensbury Planning Board 08/21/2012) MR. JARRETT-That was mentioned in the public hearing, the comments from the neighbors. So we have actually two issues. We have the Second Street side, which is the Calcium Chloride application, and we have the parking lot that we're proposing. MR. OBORNE-Right, and the parking lot is the focus obviously. I know you know that, and what it comes down to is $16.8 million upgrade to Main Street gravel parking lot or paved parking lot. That's really what it comes down to, and that's for this Board to decide. MR. JARRETT-I would add that we've shown on our plan the provision for a building on Main Street, adjacent to the old Double A building, and our parking might have to be massaged or changed, added to, to accommodate that building. If we pave this lot now, it may be less conducive to adding a new building. I used that argument the last time I was here. MR. OBORNE-That comes back to the east/west, north/south orientation in the parking lot. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. JARRETT-Which we are proposing landscaping, and certainly if a building comes back, then we will have to re-visit the paving issue, and paving's probably more germane then. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board on this project? I would ask, when you come up to the mic, if you could state your name for the record and speak into the microphone and address any of your comments to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD HILL MR. HILL-My name is Richard Hill. I'm the owner of the property on 24 Richardson, property borders two sides of the Double A property, kind of on an angle. When I first saw these plans coming and got notice, I really wasn't too clear on it. I thought it was another project out on Main Street and I didn't pay too much attention 'til I realized that it's, indeed, I believe the vacant lot which is covered with grass currently. I was just curious, you know, what type of buffering there was going to be. You said something about lighting. I guess I should probably get up here and go downstairs and review the plans. I unfortunately work in Saratoga. So this is kind of just seeing what was going on tonight. Again, I guess there's lighting. I was curious about the green space, the runoff, the noise, and then hearing that the business had closed, as to what the purpose was for this, was it for a new business or, you know, to try and entice somebody to come into the area. I really don't know. I've had conversations with Ben before and, you know, there are no issues there. I'm just a concerned property owner. It says something here about banking 24 spaces. I don't know exactly what banking 24 is. I mean, 53 now, 77 later? Or does that mean 53, you know, as the total, that 24 are banked? I'm not sure, and this talk of the calcium I'm assuming was something with, you know, yes, the gravel on the other parts of the lot that do go behind the building. I'm not even sure of the surface. On the other side of the building, you know, what that composite is, you know, that's on the other side. That's out by Main Street. I'm concerned about my backyard where this is literally going to buffer me on two sides. That's my concern. MR. KREBS-The way I read it, the 24 spaces are part of the 53 spaces. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that are being approved tonight, but not going to be constructed. MR. KREBS-Right. So it's not 53 plus 24, it's 53 total, 24 of which will not happen immediately. MR. HILL-And the plans that are downstairs, they show the buffering? MR. KREBS-I believe they do. MR. JARRETT-If I can interject and help this gentleman understand the plans, the parking in this location would be constructed right now, and this was proposed as a replacement for employee parking that was on the other side of the road, when Double A was operating, and Double A has shut down since, but Mr. Aronson is hoping that he'll get a tenant for this building soon and he'll need this parking anyway. So this would be the immediate parking needed for the employees, and this parking is proposed in the future, if there's an expansion here, or if a building is constructed right there, which space has been left for a building right in that location. Now this area is left green in the rear, and we have landscaping, well, at various locations around the