Loading...
1990-10-25 -- QUEENSBURY PLAIINIIIG BOARD JEETIIIG SECOIID REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25TH. 1990 INDEX Subdivision No. 7-1989 FINAL STAGE Farm to Market Commons John A. and Stephanie B. Mason Site Plan No. 63-90 Wayne and Dawn Viele Owner: Thom and Sandy Ripley Subdivision No. 10-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Kelly Subdivision Owner: John C. and Nancy A. Kelly Subdivision No. 9-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Madison/Diamantis Owner: Curtis L. Madison, Jr., etal. Petition for a P9-90 Change of Zone Martin G. Gallup, Marilyn Matriccino, Kay Kuebler Site Plan No. 80-90 Wi 11 i am Threw Owner: Rosemary M. Threw Site Plan No. 81-90 John M. Hughes Subdivision No. 14-1990 Inspiration Park. Adams and Rich Assoc. Owner: Anthony P. Ricciardelli, etal. -- 3. 7. 10. 10. 13. 17. 27. 41. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISION WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVE OF SAID MINUTES. ',- -- QUEEIISIIIRY PlANNING BOARD MEETING SECOIID REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25TH. 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, ACTING CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO JAMES MARTIN EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT JAMES HAGAN CONRAD KUPILLAS DEPUTY JOWl ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN EllGINEER-RIST FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PLAINER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-The first item, for someone who may be here, Site Plan No. 79-90, Roulier/Weller, has been withdrawn. It there anybody here for that? Okay, that takes care of that. A couple of items I'd like to take care of before we get into the regular agenda. One has to do with this Resolution regarding Lead Agency Status for the Town Board, in reference to the re-zoning and Site Plan Review for the Pyramid Company. Glens Falls, known as the Aviation Mall. Just taking a fast read on this, the second paragraph, I just need some clarification. "Whereas the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has requested to be Lead Agent in the creation of a new zone, re-zoning, and site plan revi ew"? MS. CORPUS-Correct. They're actually, those three different actions commenced. MR. CAIMANO-They're going to do a Site Plan review? MR. CARTIER-They're going to be Lead Agent for a Site Plan review, too? MR. CAIMANO-That's not right. MR. CARTIER-That's Planning Board territory. MS. CORPUS-At that point, I think the thought was, and I donlt know if Paul's back, yet. If you want to put this until the end of the meeting, I'll ask him, because I spoke with him, and I'm not sure whether they were going to do one coordinated SEQRA Review for all of these items. MR. CAIMANO-That's fine. MR. CARTIER-Well, if we approve this, or if we pass this Resolution on.... MRS. PULVER-And thatls not what it says. MR. CAIMANO-That's not what it says. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-It only has to do with the SEQRA. It does not have to do with your approvals, or approvals of the Site Plan. MR. CARTIER-But, normally, we would do the SEQRA Review on a Site Plan. MS. CORPUS-Normally, yes. MR. CARTIER-And. the way this reads, the Town Board is going to do the SEQRA Review on the... MS. CORPUS-On the whole project, the project as a whole, the re-zoning, the creation of a new zone, and the Site Plan. Apparently, the Site Plan has been prepared, although I'm not familiar with the project that well. MR. CARTIER-Well, how does the Board feel about that? I know my reaction is to strike the phrase, "Site Plan Review". 1 ~ MRS. PULVER-Either do it, or wait'll Paul gets here. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to wait until Paul gets here? MR. CAIMANO-Let' s wa it until Paul gets here. because then he'll read it the way it was supposed to be done. MR. CARTIER-Second item I think we need to deal with is, we have a request from an applicant to be put on in place of the withdrawn item, here. In order to do that, we would have to waive the public hearing. Normally, we have never waived public hearings. It is not has not been a policy of this Board to waive public hearings, considering the fact that a SEQRA Review is required for the particular application in question. We cannot complete a SEQRA Review without a public hearing. MR. MARTIN-And, also, the applicant who is requesting the waiver is on for the November meeting, correct? MR. CARTIER-Correct. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman, if I may address the Board? MR. CARTIER-Hang on, Mr. Steves. ~an the Board finish this discussion, and I'll find out if they want to take comments from the floor, after that. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Anybody else want to make a comment? MR. CAIMANO-No. I agree with your letter of October 22nd. I think it should be made a part of our public record. MR. CARTIER-Okay, anybody else? MR. MARTIN-I agree with that. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with your letter of October 22nd. MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry, you're not. Do you have? MRS. PULVER-I'm locating it. here, I think. MS. CORPUS-Thank you. MR. CAIMANO-And I guess my next comment is tha t, if that's what we're goi ng to deci de, then any comments of Mr. Steves, rega rdi ng thi s matter a re pub 11 c comments and, therefore, we a 1 ready sa i d we're not going to take any public comments on this project. MR. CARTIER-Well. I guess, you're answering the question I haven't asked, yet, and that is, do we want to take comments from the floor? MR. CAIMANO-I don't care. MR. CARTIER-How does the Board feel? MRS. PULVER-I don't object to the last plead. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, let's see what he has to say. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Steves, would you care to comment? MR. STEVES-Good evening, for the record, my name is Leon Steves. Mr. Hughes is in the audience, tonight, as well, and I think the application you're talking about is Mr. Hughes' Lot Two. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. STEVES-He's on the agenda for Lot Seven. The public hearing will be held, tonight, for Lot Seven. I would assume that anyone in the audience, here for Lot Seven, would be here for Lot Two. MR. CARTIER-Well, I donlt know. There's a broader issue, here. The broader issue is waiving a public hearing. and. traditionally. this Board has not done that. and this Board's not prepared to do that. 2 ~ --./ MR. STEVES-I understand that. but we're not talking a public hearing being waived, but rather being extended to Lot Two, because Lot Seven is on the agenda, tonight. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think that's a semantic distinction that I don't quite care to accept, I guess. MR. STEVES-Your neighbor's not your neighbor, then. MR. CAIMANO-No, but you're reducing it to a very specific, where Peter is talking about a general thing. Again, where is the line drawn? That's what the problem is. MR. CARTIER-We can expect. if we waive this, we can expect that every time a slot opens up on the agenda, like this, that we're going to receive the same request, and I think what the Board is saying is, we don't want to do that. That's a door we don't want to open. We don't want to change what we have normally done in the past. MRS. PULVER-Well, the public is notified within 500 feet, when there's public hearings. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. MRS. PULVER-So, Lot Two could be more than 500 feet from Lot Seven. Lot One, actually, could not be notified, might not have been notified that there was a public hearing on Lot Two, because of the distance, depending on how big the lots are. I mean, I don't know, but, supposing it's 700 feet to Lot One, he would never be notified that there was a public hearing. MR. CAIMANO-Well, at any rate, that's very specific, and not general, what we're trying to do. MR. CARTIER-Anybody else care to comment? MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, is the Board at the point of entertaining a motion whether to? No. MR. CARTIER-I don't think we need a motion, here, to, do we need a motion saying that we're going to continue to do what we're doing? That doesn't make sense, to me. MRS. PULVER-Well, was it a written request? MR. CARTIER-I don't have a written request in front of me. MS. CORPUS-I believe the Planning Department did, though, there was a note from the Planning Department, to the Board, regarding this, and regarding the request to put it on the agenda. MR. CARTIER-So, what are you suggesting, that we have a motion? MS. CORPUS-I would suggest, for the record, the Board state it's reasons. explicitly, in the motion, also. MR. CARTIER-Okay, the Chair will entertain a motion, in regard to this matter. MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR WAIVER FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. IN REGARDS TO SITE PLAII 110. 88-90, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: The nature of the request, the 500 foot notification requirement may be excluding some property owners who would have normally been notified. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1989 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HC-IA FARM TO MARKET COtll)NS JOHN A. AIID STEPHANIE B. MASON SOUTHERLY BOUNDS OF PROPERTY ARE APPROX. 200 FT. IIORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 149 AND BAY ROAD AND LIES BETWEEN THOSE ROADS FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION FOR COIIŒRCIAL USE. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP 110. 27-1-40 LOT SIZE: 3.79 ACRES LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 3 "---' ---- Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Is somebody here to speak for the applicant? MR. STEVES-Good evening, for the record, I'm Leon Steves and Jim Hutchins is also here, tonight. Tom, the comment you made about the easements for driveway and drainage easements, should that be something shown on the Subdivision plan. or, perhaps, on the Site Plan, itself? MR. YARMOWICH-It should be recorded with the Subdivision. MR. STEVES-That would kind of lock in the design criteria for the individual lot Site Plan, now, would it not? MR. YARMOWICH-The Subdivision Regulations require that the easements be shown on the plat. during the Subdivision process. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-The fact that it locks things in, does not mean that easements can't be adjusted, between individual property owners, and, for the purposes of integrity of the Subdivision, it's appropriate to show them with your intent. MR. STEVES-Okay. You're talking about drainage? MR. YARMOWICH-As well as the driveways, unless you're going to propose additional road cuts, which puts, you know, the circumstance, there, would change the approval from Warren County. MR. STEVES-No, we're not changing that. MR. YARMOWICH-In this case, it is appropriate to show those easements that will make sure that access is available to the other lots. You can't subdivide a lot without access. The answer is, yes, they should be recorded before you record the plat. You have to, you can't sell a lot without access. MR. CAIMANO-But I see his point. His point is that, you can't subdivide it without access, but you limit the subdivision by these easements. In other words, you lock him in. Is that what you're trying to get at? MR. STEVES-Yes, that is. For instance, if the sales of the lots are such that Lot One is sold, first, or Lot Three is sold, either one, it would change, perhaps, the way the configuration is, in the ingress/egress to that particular lot, off the main entrance. The main entrance, or main cut, on Bay Road will not be changed. No way are we going to change that, or come in off of 149. MR. CARTIER-And the main cut is in Lot Two, correct? MR. STEVES-Yes. it is. We have showed a proposed drainage easement, through here, for the County, and that should be described and given to the County, but it should be done after it is constructed, rather than trying to follow a design. MR. CAIMANO-He makes a good point. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but Tom has a good point, too. MR. CAIMANO-I know that. MR. CARTIER-We've got to have easements shown. into the various lots. Can this be handled, in terms of an easement will be provided at a future date, or, how do we handle this? What's the appropriate way to handle this? MR. YARMOWICH-It's appropriate to have an easement. MR. CARTIER-Shown? MR. YARMOWICH-If the Board would like to specify that they do it at a future time, it should be made a part and a provisiön of the subdivision approval. I don't think, you know, once an easement is granted, from one property owner to the other, it can be changed, legally. It's an instrument that has to be recorded. It would not be appropriate for someone to buy a piece of land, in this particular subdivision, without such a right for egress and ingress. The nature of this plan is such that there 4 "--' -..../ are shared driveways, for things such as access to trash dumpsters, as well as access, internally, to parking and buildings and other things. It's important that it be recognized, as part of the approval process. if there are no easements shown on this plat. I may have different, I may not have what Mr. Steves is showing, but I didn't see anything, on the drainage easements, by way of the information that I got. MR. STEVES-No, there's no difference in what you have and what is demonstrated, here. MR. MARTIN-It strikes me as that's part of the reason why we have a subdivision process, that you want to show the easements, and that's, you want to show the capabi 1 ity of thi slot, or that thi s subdivision can work, and, like Tom says, it can be changed, at a future date, but I think it's something that's part of the process, that's why you subdivide and why you go through this. MR. CAIMANO-Well, it ~ be changed, not can. It may be changed. Once it's done, and once somebody owns that piece of property, then it becomes a matter for the courts to decide, .2.!:. we al so are creating.... MRS. PULVER-At whose expense? MR. CAIMANO-that's right. We're also creating an economic dilemma, for somebody, or advantage for somebody. MRS. PULVER-We inflate the cost. MR. YARMOWICH- The driveway easements, I would tend to agree that they can be much more flexible. In the case of a drainage easement, that's something that the Town has to accept. The easement is to the Town, and not to another property owner. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, that's true. MR. YARMOWICH-And I think that it's very, the Subdivision Regulations are very clear on that. Should someone, through the development of the Site Plan, propose something different, I feel it's entirely reasonable for them to bear the expense, and whatever else comes along with changing that. Once a subdivision is approved, the impact of drainage from any off areas should be fully known and not changed, as a result of someone's mere whim with the Site Plan modification. I think that if the Board feels it appropriate, it would be reasonable to approve the plan with the stipulation that an easement be provided. MR. CARTIER-Drainage or driveway? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, that a drainage easement ought to be shown on the final plat, and that provisions should be made for the driveway easements, at some point, to be determined with Site Plans. MR. CARTIER-So, what we're talking about is. on the final plan, a fixed drainage easement and a driveway entrance/egress, or driveway easement, subject to change, depending on Site Plan Review. MR. YARMOWICH-And both of those are relatively minor items, with regard to the status of this subdivision. MR. CARTIER-Right. Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. STEVES-One thing, Tom, that will be given to the County, the easement for the drainage. !t'S a County road, Bay Road, and a State road. MR. YARMOWICH-Right, they maintain that drainage. MR. CARTIER-Could we. since, however, at some point in the future, we are going to be, possibly, looking at a Site Plan for that particular site that has the drainage easement, could we have a copy of that? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Of what you're sending to the County? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, that drainage easement should. then, appear on the Site Plan. MR. STEVES-Yes, that's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I don't remember if we kept the public hearing open on this or not. MR. CAIMANO-I have a question. Two and Three. as I read these, Tom, are subject to review at individual site plans, when they come up. Is that correct? 5 '--' "-'" MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Is there anybody who'd care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Do we have any other correspondence, related to this issue? Probably not. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have completed the SEQRA Review at Preliminary. Is there any way, again, with regard to Items Two and Three, that those items that Tom's talking about. can be included or provided to, how is that information going to be provided to anybody who is considering purchase of those? MR. CAIMANO-Through the motion, right? MR. CARTIER-We're going to handle that in the motion? MR. CAIMANO-I would think, wouldn't you, Lee? MRS. YORK-You mean how are the easements going to provided? MR. CARTIER-No, I'm referring to Tom's Item Two and Three. It seems that anybody coming in to purchase one of those three should be apprised of that, at purchase, and how do we handle that? MRS. YORK-Basically, you can have something written on the mylar. Mr. Steves could make a notation to that extent, on the mylar, indicating exactly what Tom says, in the same language. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so we could stipulate that in the motion, also, correct? MR. CAIMANO-Correct. MRS. PULVER-What about. is there any way to put it on the deed? MRS. YORK-Well, what happens is, once the mylar is filed, then those stipulations go with any sale. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-So, should, an applicant pick up the mylar, they will get a copy of that, and they will know the stipulations. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Okay. No problem. MR. CARTIER-Has anybody else got a question, care to discuss this any further? Okay, are we prepared for a motion? MR. CAIMANO-I am. MOTIOII TO APPROVE FIlIAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1989 FARM TO MRJŒT COIIIHIS JOlIN A. AID STEPllAllIE B. MASON, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a 3 lot subdivision for commercial retail use, at the intersection of 149 and Bay Road. subject to the following: An easement for drainage should be shown on the final plat, and provisions should be made for driveway easements when individual site plan reviews come before the Planning Board. The substance of Points 2 and 3 of the Engineering Consultant's October 22nd letter should be entered on the mylar for this subdivision, prior to final signature from the Board Chairman. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas 6 SITE PLAN NO. 63-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-IA WAYNE AID DAWN VIELE OWNER: THOM AID SAlDY RIPLEY CORINTH ROAD. 1 MILE WEST OF 1-87 EXIT 18. 1110 PROPERTIES ON RIGHT PAST STEPHANIE LAIIE FOR A SOFT ICE CREAM AIID TAKE OUT RESTAURANT WITH SEATING AVAIlABLE ON PREMISES. (WARREN coum PLAIINING) TAX MAP NO. 126-1-30 LOT SIZE: 2.1 ACRES SECTIOII 4.020 N BRUCE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. CARTIER· You will recall that we looked at this, once before, and made some suggestions and that's what we're about to consider, I guess. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARR· Good evening. For the record, my name is Bruce Carr. I'm an attorney in Glens Falls, and I represent Wayne and Dawn Viele. We have been here before, and, at the time, the Board had brought up many concerns, concerning the Site Plan. I'd like to address those issues, and show the Board how we have resolved them. One of the issues was that the walkway had originally gone around the whole building, onto the east side, which is also the residential side of the building. We have changed the design so that walkways are only in the front of the building. for handicapped access, and on the side of the building, the west side. There will be no access on the east side of the building. The Board had also indicated they would like to see where the venting for the kitchen will be. That is located at the rear of the building. The parking has been redesigned, to take into consideration what Warren County had requested, and that would be that the parking be moved further back from Corinth Road. So, we have taken out the parking arrangement that was right up next to the road, moved it all back a little, so that there would be easier ingress and egress to the property. The Staff's comments that four spaces should be added, I mean, we have no problem with that. There is plenty of room, on this Site Plan, for additional space. So, if it's the Board's desire that we have 21 spaces, rather than 17, we'll, certainly, comply with that. The septic system will be replaced, has been redesigned. Now, we've got a 1500 gallon septic tank, with a 1200 grease trap. As the Engineer's Report has indicated, I think we have complied with his concerns, regarding the particular septic system. We do have the perc tests, right now, available. That was just done a couple of days ago, and the results are in. So, I'll give that to the engineer, for his review. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Tom, you don't have any problem with the fact that perc tests were done in October? MR. YARMOWICH-The perc tests can be done anytime. It's the groundwater determination that's critical. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. YARMOWICH-Depending on the results of the test pit, which, based on my knowledge of the area, you don't find much water. They found it at 12 feet, so it would be acceptable for this sort of disposal. MR. CARTIER-Okay. ~ MR. MARTIN-I just have one question. Is the place where that leachfield, there, behind the parking lot, so to speak, is that, in any way, going to limit further development of the lot, if necessary, Tom? Is that something you can pave over? I don't expect that it is. ~ MR. YARMOWICH-It's not recommended that you do that. MR. MARTIN-I just want to make you aware that it's going to be a limiting factor, for future expansion. MR. CARR-I don't believe it's intended, at this time, that the parking area be paved. I think they're going to use a course gravel. MR. MARTIN-Okay, but I'm saying if he's just going to have cars driving over that leachfield, and that's going to limit your ability for growth, just to point that out. MR. CARR-Alright. MR. MARTIN-And the pool's going to be filled in? MR. CARR-Yes, that was my next point. That was a major concern. The pool will be filled in, to reduce any hazard that may be present. The dumpster will be located in the rear of the building. It 12.. enclosed, and, basically, just in general, what we've tried to do is. remove everything from 7 - -....,.-/ the east side of the building, and move it, so that it's facing another commercial entity, on the west si de. MR. CAIMANO-Ri ght. That's why I don't understand John's comments, but, of course, he's not here to answer it, so I can't ask him. MR. CARTIER-We've had comments from the Beautification Committee, approving. I do not, I don't have in my file, here, Warren County. MR. CARR-That was approved, and it was pending Beautification, that's right. That was back in August. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so Warren County's covered. Okay. I know we left the public hearing open on this. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. CARTIER-And, I don't recall. We probably did not do the SEQRA Review on that, then, did we? MRS. YORK-I don't have it done, in the file. Short Form. MR. CARTIER-Would somebody care to take us through that? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATIOII OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 63-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pul ver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a soft ice crea. and take out restaurant with seating available on p~ises for WAYNE AND DAWN VIELE, and WHEREAS, thi s Pl anni ng Board has determined that the proposed project and Pl anning Boa rd acti on is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having consi dered the cri teri a for determining whether a project has a si gnifi cant envi ronmenta 1 impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as måy be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of October. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We have heard from the Citizen's Advisory Committee. You do have an eight foot wide handicapped parking, with an eight foot wide access, correct? MR. CARR-I believe we do, yes. 8 --./ MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you, that takes care of that. Okay, any discussion here? I think what we Ire looking for, I guess the only question that pops into my head is how we're going to, where we're going to locate these other four? MR. CAIMANO-The question is, do we need them? Do we need to? I think that John's letter is. to me, and you pointed it out, is questionable. I'm not sure if he's, you know, there was an increase, from 13 to 17, whi ch is 4. Is he ta lki ng about those four? And then he talks about, "I recommend at least four additional spaces be located at the easterly portion, oh, of proposed parking lot. Oh, I misunderstood that. At the easterly portion of the proposed parking lot, where? MR. MARTIN-That's why I make that comment about the location of the septic system. If the septic system were to be located, directly behind the restaurant, proposed restaurant, where the pool, presently, is, then, they could keep going out the back. MR. CARTIER-With parking, you mean? MRS. YORK-It would appear that they do have some room, there, on their parking design, to add a couple of more spaces, if they are needed, down the road. MRS. PULVER-Yes, I'd be more inclined to let them see if they need it, rather than make them have it, in advance. MR. CAIMANO-I would, too. MRS. PULVER-I mean, if they've got people waiting outside, or driving up and down the street, they're going to add more parking. MR. CAIMANO-They're going to be glad to have more parking. MRS. PULVER-They're not going to wait for us to tell them to add more spaces. The only thing is, about filling in the pool, do you have a date for that? MR. CARR-Sure. It's going to be done as the restaurant is being prepared to open, and done with the excavation that's going to be going on, for the driveway. It's all going to be done at the same time. It will be done before the restaurant opens. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I think, though. that you might want to make that as part of the motion. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say, you know. could be done within five years, but.... MR. CAIMANO-We'll make it as part of the motion, that way it'll.... MR. CARR-Sure. MR. CARTIER-You can indicate, before any CO is issued. Anything else. MR. CAIMANO-I'm going to put down this test pit data, before building permit, too. MR. CARTIER-He has that. MRS. PULVER-He has it already. MR. CARTIER-Tom already got that. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, they furnished information that the site is suitable. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-It was furnished, just at this time, but there's no reason to suspect that, at that location, it wouldn't have been. MR. CARTIER-Tom's concerns have been addressed. Okay. Anything else? MR. CAIMANO-Thatls it. MR. CARTIER-Then I guess we are ready for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PlAII NO. 63-90 WAYNE AND DAWII VIELE, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: 9 ',--, --./ For a soft ice cream and take out restaurant with seating available on premises. In addition, the swimming pool must be filled in, prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-20 KELLY SUBDIVISION OIIfER: JOHN C. AND NANCY A. KEllY SOUTHEAST CORIIER OF STEPHAIIIE LAIIE AND CORINTH ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 126-1-20.15 LOT SIZE: 1.13 ACRES LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. YORK-Before I read the Staff Comments, could the applicant please give me the Certified Mail Receipts, as proof of public notification for tonight's meeting. Is the applicant here? JOHN KELLY MR. KELLY-Right here. MRS. YORK-Our Ordinance requires that you notice the public. MR. KELLY-Yes. Someone was supposed to be here for me, tonight. VanDusen and Steves were going to represent me. Apparently, they're not here. MRS. YORK-He was here. Leon Steves just left. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Steves was here. MR. CAIMANO-Are you Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY-Yes, I am, sir. MRS. PULVER-Do you want me to call that, again, Mr. Chairman, now that he's here? MR. CARTIER-Well, Mrs. York has a question that, apparently, you can answer, Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. YORK-May I please have the Certified Mail Receipts as proof of public notification on the Subdivision. MR. STEVES-For Kelly? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. STEVES-You wouldn't believe that I didn't bring them with me. I did it. I've got them all at the office. I cancelled out, last month, as you know, because I didn It do it, but we have made all the noti fi cati ons. If you wi sh to put thi s off unti 1 the end of the meeti ng, I'll run down to the office and get them.. MRS. YORK-Sure. How far, can you go to your office and get them? Maybe, if the Board would agree to this. maybe they could hear a couple of more petitions, and you could come back with the notification? MR. CARTIER-Fine. I don't have a problem with that. So, we're going to put that application on hold. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA MADISON/DIAMAIITIS OWNER: CURTIS L. MADISON. JR. ELAINE A. MADISON. LLOYD DIAMANTIS. RENE DIAMAIITIS SOUTH SIDE OF HAVILAIID ROAD. OPPOSITE SOUTHERLY END OF MARTELL ROAD PROPOSED 4 LOT SUBDIVISIOII: TWO LOTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. TWO lARGER lOTS TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED. TAX MAP NO. 54-5-6.6 lOT SIZE: 18.8 ACRES CHUCK NACEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 10 '-"' '--' Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Okay, is there someone here representing the applicant MR. NACEY-Good evening. My name is Chuck Nacey. I'm here with Mr. Curt Madison, tonight, to present his plans for this 4 lot subdivision for Preliminary review. Mr. Madison and Mr. Diamantis own, approximately, 19 acres of land, on the south side of Haviland Road and theylre proposing to subdivide that, in a fashion which would create two small lots, both slightly over one acre, immediately south of the highway, and the remain acres to be subdivided, with the restriction that it not be further developed. Those two acres to the south, the two acreage lots constituting the bulk of the wetlands area, which exists down there. The applicant has received a wetlands permit approval, from this Board, for both lots. They have received a wetlands permit approval for the most easterly lot from DEC. There's a permit approval process, review process, undergoing, right now, for the most westerly of the two residential lots. Within the last 10 days, DEC has been on the site, in conjunction with their continuing review of the wetlands mapping in Warren County, and, although they have not reclassified any of the lands, as we knew it before, as additional wetlands, they have asked the applicant that, on the most westerly lot, he reserve a particular area which is cross hatched in red, on the map, as a "No Construction" Zone. In other words, keeping the house out of that particular area. That creates one little, one slight adjustment in the mapping that was submitted for this review. The house, on the plan, as originally submitted, is the one outlined in pink, here. The red crossed hatch area is the area which DEC has staked and flagged and asked that there be no construction or required that there be no construction within that area. As a result of that, the applicant has downsized the house that he'd planned for Lot Two, moved it towards the road, creating a greater separation distance between the wetlands and the face of the house. Still being able to maintain the proper separation between the fill area and the proposed house location, and, in general, perhaps even improving the situation a little bit, from what it had been, before. He will be allowed to create a lawn, within this "No Construction" area. It's just, no construction of a house or garage or driveway or anything like that. With regard to the Staff Comments, from the Planning Staff, it's certainly a reasonable recommendation that the hale bales be continued across and we would do that on the final mapping. I think that, probably, as a result of the recent input and requirements from DEC, with regard to Lot Two, that would probably impact a couple of the comments that your Engineering Consultant had. The well location, which I guess was left off on this initial mapping, would now be outside of the red cross hatched area, and still be able to maintain a 15 foot distance off of the road right-of-way boundary, in order to serve the house on Lot Two. Tom, I guess you're looking for details on the pump station. You're looking for pump capacity, that sort of thing? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, that's correct, with regard to that. MR. NACEY-Okay. We have examined the adjoining properties. There are no existing disposal areas or wells within 100 feet. in either direction, across the road or east or west. MR. CARTIER-Doesn't this. on the west side, border the land that the Highland donated to the Town? MR. NACEY-That's correct. There's a stip in there, approximately, 100 feet wide. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so that's not developable. MR. NACEY-We'll put a statement on there, to the effect that there are no adjoining wells or septic areas. I think that, probably, Four and Five go hand in hand. If a grading plan. with the proposed contours. is required, then that would indicate the grade for the house and some assurances that the openings would be at least two feet above the 100 year flood plane. MR. CAIMANO-Could I ask a question? What you've shown us, here, and it's all well and good, do you have this? MRS. YORK-No, and I actually can't see it, from here. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I guess, and I don't mean to imply that he's not doing a good job, here, but what, in essence, what we're doing. here, again, especially in a very critical area, is that we are redesigning. maybe all for the better, a project which the Staff has not looked at, and we're being asked to accept a Preliminary approval, or make a Preliminary approval, here, and, as I'm sitting here, I'm saying, fine, we're going to make a Preliminary approval subject to a lot of contingencies, because Tom and the Planning Staff have to look at it, are we really going to be able to make a Preliminary determination. tonight, in a Critical Environmental Area, when the Staff hasn't looked at this thing? MR. YARMOWICH-It's noteworthy, at this point, that there's some separation distances, concerns, that are immediately brought to mind. There should be 100 feet between a well and a disposal area. There should also be 20 feet between the edge of the disposal area, in this case it's a fill system, and 11 a dwelling. I think there are enough concerns, here, to justify what you're saying, Mr. Caimano, because it would seem as though the applicant should do some more work with that lot layout, to demonstrate that it is suitable for both water supply on site disposal, before I would be satisfied. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, and I guess what I'm saying is, rather than go through this whole procedure, and then turn down Preliminary, maybe we're better off taking a look at this, right, now, maybe table the darn thing so they can look at it, and come back and do Preliminary, again, and get it passed. I guess it's just too critical an area for me to be comfortable with it, and, certainly, for the engi neer. MR. NACEY- It's unfortunate that DEC happened to make thei r adjustments between the time it was submitted and the review. MR. CAIMANO-What does everybody else think? MR. MARTIN-I agree that there's certainly enough reasons, here, to table it. It's just, there's too many changes. Some may be for the better, as you alluded to. but I do think there's some separation distances, there, that need to be reviewed, technicalized, rather than just on the Board. MR. CARTIER-I'm not pushing this. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, here. We are at Preliminary and some of these things can be addressed at Final. MR. CAIMANO-But can we, I can understand that and I was going over it. in my mind. The question is, can we even pass Preliminary, when, in a Critical Environmental Area, that is a wetlands that DEC is involved with, we're going to be asked to make a determination, tonight, that the Staff really hasn't had a chance to look at. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-And, by their own admission, they haven't been able, because DEC was late, haven't been able to submit that. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MRS. YORK-Yes, it might be difficult for the Board, also, to do the SEQRA Review, with these changes, at this point in time. MR. CARTIER-Correct. Yes, I agree with you. MR. CAIMANO-Right, which is supposed to be done tonight. I don't know how we'd pass SEQRA tonight. MR. CARTIER-Alright, is there anything else we can address? I assume we're going to table this. Is there any other comments that we want to make, pass on, so they can be addressed? MR. NACEY-Will we be required to re-submit the notices for the public hearing, for the second time? MR. CARTIER-Lee, will the applicant be required to re-submit public notice? Yes, because we're going to have to extend the public hearing. MRS. YORK-Well, what you could do is simply keep the public hearing open, at this point, or take public comment. now, if there is any public comment, then keep the public hearing open, so that the applicant does not have to re-notice. MR. CAIMANO-Why don't we do that? MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Right, and then if we take public comments, now, he can then answer those comments. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and we can do the SEQRA Review, too. Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Then, in that case. let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEIIED MR. CARTIER-Do we have new correspondence from anyone in the files on this, I assume? MRS. YORK-No. I do not have any correspondence. MR. CARTIER-Well, in that case, we'll close the public hearing. 12 ~ MR. CAIMANO-Just a recommendation that Lee had recommended, and it might not be a bad idea, to leave it open, since we are going to, in effect, be at Preliminary, still, next time. MR. CARTIER-You are correct. Fine. I'm getting ahead of myself. So, we will, in fact, leave the public hearing open on this, until we see it again. Okay, do we have the applicant's agreement to table this? CURT MADISON MR. MADISON-My name is Curt Madison, and I agree to table the proposal, Preliminary. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay, any further discussion? Then I guess we're ready for a motion. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMIIlARY STAGE SUBDIVISION 110. 9-1990 MADISON/DIAMAIITIS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Tabled for proposed 4 lot subdivision: two lots for construction of single family residences, two larger lots to remain undeveloped, due to the fact that the lateness of the DEC changes to the applicant caused the Planning Staff and Consulting Engineer to not be able to review the Site Plan properly. Further, the applicant will review the Consulting Engineer's October 22nd letter and address the concerns. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano NEW BUSINESS: SITE PlAN 110. 79-90 JAMES M. WELLER. P.E. HAS BEEN ASKED TO BE WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P9-90 MARTIN G. GALLUP MARILYN MATRICCIIIO KAY KUEBLER PROPERTY INVOLVED: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF QUAKER AID MEADOWBROOK ROADS CURRENT ZONING: SFR-20 PROPOSED ZONING: HC-IA ACREAGE: 0.934 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-1. 2 STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MR. CARTIER-Is there someone here representing the applicant? Okay. Keep in my, we're only making a recommendation to the Town Board, here, as to our advice with regard to this matter. This is not a matter for public hearing. The first question that occurs to me, has to do with Lee's last statement on here. Karla, can we, legally, do something that creates a nonconforming situation? MS. CORPUS-Yes. The fact that the lots are not one acre in size is not a ~ bar to the re-zoning. The Town Board can re-zone any piece of property it wishes. In fact, the theory of nonconformance was created to preserve certain property rights, when zoning came into being, which is also what is occurring, here, in the case of a re-zoning. However, it is one of the factors the Board should consider, when making its recommendation to the Board, in the fact that these are, approximately, half an acre lots Lee? MR. CARTIER-Well, total, .93. MS. CORPUS-The total, .9, but, in itself, it is not a legal bar. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. MR. CAIMANO-So, the lots aren't going to be merged? MR. CARTIER-They ~ going to be merged. MR. CAIMANO-So, they'll be almost conforming, .9. MR. CARTIER-.934. MS. CORPUS-In that case, the nonconformance would be very slight, if they are being merged. MRS. YORK-Yes, I have no documentation saying they are going to be merged. 13 -, '-/ MR. CAIMANO-Right. You said yes, off the top of your head. I don't... MRS. YORK-Yes, these are two separate and distinct lots, as identified on the tax maps now. They are not under single, my understanding is, they are not under single ownership. They are two separate and distinct lots. I mean, maybe there is some indication, somewhere, that down the road they will be merged, but they are shown that way on the tax maps. MR. CARTIER-So, in effect, we would be creating two, in effect, half acre, nonconforming lots, based on what we've got in front of us, now. MR. MARTIN-Yes, they're still going to be two separate and distinct lots, as you're just saying. changing the zoning of both. MRS. PULVER-They have different owners? Each lot is owned by... MR. CAIMANO-There's three of them. MR. MARTIN-The other question I have is, Lee, the property to the south of these two lots is residential, still, correct? MRS. YORK-Yes, it is. MR. CAIMANO-Carol's question, are there three, is each lot independently owned. or are both lots owned by three people? MRS. YORK-It's not indicated on the application. However, the map that was submitted with the application shows to separate and distinct lots. MRS. PULVER-With three owners. MR. CARTIER-Well, another question that occurs to me is, if this were Highway Commercial One Acre, what could go there? Given the site, the condition of the site, what, in fact, could be put on those. in terms of Highway Commercial use? MR. CAIMANO-How about the same thing that could be put on the corner of Bay and Quaker, that's for sale forever and nobody wants to buy it because there's..... MR. CARTIER-Bay and Quaker? MR. CAIMANO-Yes, next to Home and City. MR. MARTIN-Across the street from Doyle's. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. MR. CAIMANO-The point is. they also are suffering an economic hardship, I would assume, since, certainly, no residential is ever going to go there, and it can't be sold as residential. MRS. YORK-What it appears to be, here, is that it is identified as the lands of Lauren Gallup, both lots. It may be part of an estate. MR. CAIMANO-Well, let me answer your question in another way, Peter, and that's the fact that, given the fact that this has changed to a Highway Commercial, there is, and I won't say infinite, there are certainly more ways that the applicant or the owner could then dream up, to do something to come before this Board, then there are to use this as a residential lot and that's up to him or her or them to do, I would think. MR. CARTIER-Well, understanding the legal issues that Karla's pointed out, it bothers me that we're, by Board action, whether it be this Board or the Town Board, we're creating a nonconforming situation. MR. MARTIN-I really don't, I don't see the value in changing this over to a Highway Commercial zone. There's too many limiting factors, in terms of the environmental character of the land. MR. CAIMANO-That's true. MR. CARTIER-And the fact is that there is a use on the property, now. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say, can't they get a reasonable return from their property, the way it is? MR. CAIMANO-They're renting it, now. 14 ---' MRS. PULVER-I mean, they're renting it. Go to the spot zoning issue? Could this be spot zoning? MR. MARTIN-The only thing I could see is if these two lots were sold to an adjoining property owner and then, which is a Highway Commercial, and then you could, maybe, create some sort of use, here, but..... MRS. YORK-Well. you know, there is always the avenue of a variance procedure, also, for an individual. MR. CARTIER-That's right. That's true. MR. MARTIN-I think that's more appropriate. MR. CARTIER-And I think that might be the route to go, because I think they could make a hardship case, here. MR. CAIMANO-I think that's probably the best way to go, without washing our hands of it. MR. CARTIER-And we can include that in any recommendation we make to the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-I don't know if I would recommend it. I would just, simply, suggest looking into it. MR. CARTIER-That's what I meant. There's an alternative, here. yes, okay. Anything else? I guess we're ready for a recommendation. RECOMMENDATION THAT THE REQUEST FOR A ZONING CHANGE. P9-90 MARTIN G. GALLUP. MARILYN Matriccino. AID KAY KUEBLER. BE DENIED AIID. AS All ALTERIIATIVE TO ZONE CHANGE. THE APPLICANT EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF LOOKING INTO A VARIAllCE, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: The reasons for this recommendation are that there are some serious environmental limitations for the development of these lots as a Hi ghway Commerci a 1 zone and, furthermore, we recommend that the Staff Comments and relevant minutes of this meeting be attached to this for the Town Board review. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint MRS. PULVER-Karla, does spot zoning apply? MS. CORPUS-In this case, I don't believe so. It's more of a lot line readjustment. I had a copy of the tax map, and the Highway Commercial zone runs along Quaker Road. MR. MARTIN-It's not a spot zone. MS. CORPUS-No. It would just be a lot line adjustment of that contiguous Highway Commercial zone. MR. CAIMANO-Before we go any further on this, may I bring up a point? The third paper down shows that the Warren County Planning Board has approved thi s, for us to overturn that approval and disapprove it, we're going to need five votes? MRS. PULVER-No, not to disapprove. It's the other way. MR. CARTIER-I don't know that ~ need five votes. The Town.... MR. CAIMANO-Youlre right. (OLD BUSINESS) SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE KEllY SUBDIVISION. RESUMED MR. CARTIER-Mr. Steves is back. Can we return to Subdivision No. 10-90. We were at the point where we were going to take Staff Notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) 15 MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. and I would point out that this is a two step process, we're going through, because this is only a two lot subdivision. So we're not seeing this as Sketch Plan. Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Leon Steves, for the record. The map has indicated, on it, the present location of the cable t.v., leading across Lot B, to Lot A, the house, as it exists, and I would recommend that the filing, or say that the filing of the map would indicate the easement, itself, in existence, and anyone buying the Lot B. would refer to the map. so that, to say anything beyond that would be repetitive. The proposed clearing limits, that's almost ridiculous. The only trees on the site, here, are, right, as depicted. It's going to be impossible to maintain too many of them, when we put a house in there. The house has to be put in the positi on, as shown, because of the 75 foot corridor requirement on Corinth Road. MR. CARTlER-I have a note to myself, here, something about, maybe this is already taken care of, somewhere, the comment was made, regarding driveway location be restricted to Stephanie Lane. Is that stated anywhere? In other words, that it not be cut onto Corinth Road. MR. STEVES-I don't believe a statement has been put on the map, to that effect, other than to demonstrate that it should be off Stephanie Lane, but I agree it should be done, yes. MR. CARTIER-That can be done at Final. Does anybody have any questions? Okay. Since this is Preliminary, this is subject to public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 110 COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-No other correspondence in reference to this? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct a SEQRA Review on this, I believe. Do we not? Yes, Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-1990, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Preli.inary Stage Subdivision of a t.o lot subdivision. and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Secti on 617.11 of the Offi ci a 1 Compi 1 ati on of Codes, Rul es and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect, and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: 16 '--'" ...- AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-Okay, we're looking at a utility easement. Clearing Limits, does anybody want to discuss that? There are trees there. Are some of them going to remain? There are trees bordering the two lots, are there not? MR. STEVES-A note could be placed on the map, requesting the builder or owner of that lot to maintain as many trees as possible. MR. CARTIER-Great. Thank you. We have a waiver request involved, here. and we would like. I think, a stipulation that the driveway cut be made onto Stephanie, rather than Corinth Road. Anything else? Okay. I guess we're ready for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMIIlARY STAGE SUBDIVISIOII NO. 10-1990 KEllY SUBDIVISION, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a two lot subdivision. In addition, a waiver will be granted from a stormwater management plan, due to its minimality and lack of significant impact on the site. Driveway cut should be on Stephanie Land and no driveway cuts onto Corinth Road, and those cuts should be shown on the final plat. A utility easement for cable t.v. is to be shown for Lot A, across Lot B. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas SITE PLAN 110. 8D-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-IA WILLIAM THREW OWNER: ROSEMARY M. THREW BIG BAY ROAD. OFF OF CORINTH ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE STORY BUILDING FOR STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS. (WARREN coum PLANNING) TAX MAP 110. 137-2-7.3 LOT SIZE: 3.11 ACRES SECTION 4.020 N RAYMOND IRISH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Okay, we have an approval from Warren County. We have comments and approval from Town of Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification. Excuse me. Let me interrupt you right there. I just want to be sure I understand that(Referring to Staff Notes). By adding this building, he will have maxed out his site. in terms of the number of buildings, but not in terms of the square footage he would be allowed, correct? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MRS. YORK-So, any expansion would have to be in addition to an existing structure and the site cannot be subdivided without a variance. I just want the applicant to be very aware of that and clear about what he's doing. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Irish. MR. IRISH-Thank you. My name is Raymond Irish, Consulting Engineer. I apologize for any confusion, but let me put a couple of maps up, and we'll discuss it. First, to clarify one point. The 3.11 acres is the portion of the area shown around the proposed structure. The whole site is much larger. I don't have the total acreage, and Leon doesn't have his file here, but it's well in excess of the 3.11 acres. That was designated as the site limits for this particular building, is the 3.11 acres. Regarding the existing buildings, there ~ a plan submitted. I was not involved in that project, which I believe, was approved last fall. Is that correct? WILLIAM THREW 17 -- ~ MR. THREW-Yes. MR. IRISH-Whi ch showed topography and drainage features and exi sti ng structures. Those two exi sti ng structures, here. So, there already was a plan submitted and approved by your Board. At least that's my understanding. What we're proposing is a new structure, here, to enclose the equipment, which is, basically, sitting out in the back, here, right now. So, there already was a plan submitted and approved, for those two structures. In regards to any future expansion, I would presume that if he subdivided the property, you could do something different than Mrs. York commented on. At the present time, we would not have a problem with only the three buildings. If we had to do anything, in the future, we would have to subdivide it. He, actually, has larger, he has some other lands over here, too, not contiguous, I guess. Is that right, Bill? You have some other lands, there, adjacent to it, but not contiguous to it. So, there actually is an approval, it's my understanding, of the drainage and the parking features of the existing two structures. MR. CAIMANO-Could we stop there, and ask if that's so? MRS. YORK-I'm not sure about any past approvals. However, if these are the site limits, are these the development limits? The Board is charged with looking at an entire site, the entire lot. MR. MARTIN-Yes, well, what is your definition of "site limit"? MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. IRISH-BasicaIly, that's the portion of the site that we're going to grade and provide the facilities for the structure. MR. MARTIN-Okay, but, in our definition, we're looking at the entire property which is under the ownership of Bill Threw. MR. CAIMANO-Is this end, right here? MR. MARTIN-No, that's the end of the "site limit". The property ends.... MR. CAIMANO-No, he goes up here, right? MR. MARTIN-Right, the property ends, continues, like this. MR. IRISH-Is it your intent, then. that we, basically. repeat this existing information on this drawing? MRS. YORK-Well, the Board needs to know how this entire site interrelates. You can't just take a piece of, a small piece of a parcel of land and say it has nothing to do with the other industrial portion of the site. It is a total, contiguous site. MR. IRISH-No. I'm not saying it has nothing to do with it. I'm saying it was already submitted to this Board. MRS. YORK-I realize that, but how do these interrelate? MR. CARTIER-Usually, when we look at something like this, we look at the whole parcel, and what Mrs. York is saying, appropriately I think, is give us the information on the entire parcel, in terms of whát's there and drainage and so on. What's happening on this piece of property is.... MR. IRISH-In other words, you're looking for an as built of conditions. here? MR. CARTIER-Yes. What's happening on this piece of property, it's getting piecemeal developed, I think, and I think, maybe Master Plan is too strong a phrase, here, but I think we want to have some idea of what the whole thing is going to be like. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. MARTIN-You have to understand, it may not be the case, but there may be drainage coming off these two existing buildings, that would effect the proposed drainage pattern for this building. MR. CARTIER-Or vice versa. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. IRISH-I have no response. If you want us to revise the Site Plan to show existing conditions that have already been submitted to the Board, we certainly can do that. MR. CAIMANO-When was this submitted to the Board? 18 -.../ MR. IRISH-Last fall. The date on the drawing that I have is revised September 26th, or, last revision was November 13th, 1989. Is that the last revision? MR. CARTIER-Yes, this involved an addition to a building that was there, correct? MR. IRISH-Correct. I was not involved in that project. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think maybe what's appropriate, here, is that the Board make the applicant aware of any other concerns that they woul d 1 i ke to have addressed in a re-submi ssi on, and while you mi ght be thinking about that, I have one. When we were out there, it seems li ke there were a number of tanks, fuel tanks, and so on and so forth, lying around on site, and I would certainly hope the applicant would address those, in terms of what's in those tanks and are they empty. We're talking about a high perc area, aquifer recharge area, that we have been... MR. THREW-These are all empty tanks out there, that you were looking at. DEC's been there. They've all been cataloged and we're going to take care of that. They're for water, for putting in water. As far as these two sites go, they're two different lots. We first bought this parcel, here, when we had a boundary line disagreement with DeCann. They gave me this parcel, for the back parcel. Two years later, I came back and bought that parcel, which is the one we're looking at right now. I have the approvals for this site, right here. This takes care of all the drainage, everything was approved with this, two years ago, or last year, with the Town approval, and what we're doing right now is this new part that we've got. I'm going to put this building on, so we can put all this debris and my equipment in this building, right now, and on this site, right here, we're talking about, is going to contain and take care of all the water problems that we have, here. This one's goi ng to take care of thi s one, and thi s one's goi ng to take care of that one. Nei ther one of them is going to go on either òne of them. MR. CARTIER-Well, what occurs to me is, when we did, what's the Exit 18 area, behind the restaurant, there? MRS. PULVER-It's the moving place. MR. CARTIER-The moving place. When they came in for a building addition, we sawall of it. We saw everything that was there. I guess what I'm saying is, we're not asking for anything unique, here. We looked at that whole parcel, even though they were putting up a relatively minor addition, and, as a matter of fact, I think we told him, don't come back to us until you can show us a Master Plan for that piece of property, and I think that's what we're saying, here. We want to see whatls there, what IS going on, in terms of drainage, for the other things, and so on. I'm bothered by, there's kind of a piecemeal feel to this, I guess. MR. THREW-We've got an approval on this one, and we're just asking for an approval on this one. This one has already been approved, and this is a separate entity. It's a separate piece of, it's a separate. MR. CAIMANO-It's not a separate entity, is it? MR. CARTIER-No, I donlt agree that it's a separate entity. I agree with what you're saying. MR. THREW-And it's got separate deeds on it, too. MR. CAIMANO-What's got separate deeds? MRS. YORK-Mr. Threw, either ~ misunderstood the application, or there is a problem with your submission. either one of those is occurring here. Is this, your site, is this one parcel of land? Your application indicates it is ~parcel of land. MR. THREW-That's definitely true. MRS. YORK-It is ~ parcel. It is not three separate lots in a subdivision. It is ~ parcel of land. MR. THREW-It's not three separate lots in a subdivision. There are three different deeds. MRS. YORK-But it is one parcel. MR. THREW- No. We bought the fi rst pa rce 1 from DeCann, two yea rs ago. We just acqui red thi s pa rce 1 and now we want to build on this parcel, which has a separate deed. MRS. YORK-If I could just clarify this one question. You indicate your Tax Map No. is Section 137, Lot 2, Lot 7.3. Is that what your map is showing? 19 -- ...- MR. CARTIER-Well, before we spend a lot of time on this, does the Board have any inclination, at this point, of approving what is presently before us, or are we uncomfortable enough with this to recycle it, in effect? MR. MARTIN-Well, I'd like to see verification that there's either one lot, here, or three. There's some terminology on here that. site limit, you know, is usually just a hard and fast boundary, property boundary line. MR. STEVES-I think what we're trying to demonstrate. here, is that Mr. Threw has eight acres of property and he's only working on a development or a Site Plan on a three acre parcel. He's not trying to subdivide it, but limit his work to a three acre parcel. If that approach jeopardizes him, in the future, as to what he does with the rest of it, I think that's a risk ~ takes, but he is limiting himself to demonstrate, three acres of which is all he wants to work on, and he would maintain all the drainage on that three acre site, all work on that three acre site. MR. CAIMANO-Well, that's a risk he takes, as long as he owns it. Should the property change hands, however, we're at risk, again. The Town is at risk. MR. STEVES-It can't change hands without coming through the Board. MR. CAIMANO-I understand that, but I'm saying, it isn't just a risk he, alone, takes. All I want to be comfortable with is what are we developing, here? Are there three pieces of land and we're developing one? MR. STEVES-No. Supposing he had 1,000 acres. Is he to submit to you a plan for 1,000 acres, or just the area that he's working on? MR. CARTIER-Sometimes that would be appropriate to do. MR. CAIMANO-It depends. You were just here for a subdivision. MR. STEVES-We're not subdividing. We are site plan review. There's a difference. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think there's enough discomfort, on the part of Staff, and I think there's enough discomfort on the part of the Board, here, that welre not going to resolve this, tonight, and I think what needs to happen, I know. for me, what needs to happen is Staff has to be satisfied that they have a submi ssi on in front of them that they can work wi th, that they understand and it is clear. Given that, I don't know how much more discussion we want to have. MR. CAIMANO-I know what he wants to do, but I don't think Leon is right, here. I mean, normally, what we'd do is take this whole thing and make a subdivision out of it and then he would parcel it off. Is he saying that's not a subdivision, that those are three separate entities? MR. STEVES-No, itls not a subdivision. MRS. PULVER-No. he's here for a Site Plan. This is that old, do we force him to do something with the rest of his land, now, and he says he doesn't want to do it? MR. CAIMANO-No, it's not a matter of that, it's a matter of, do we follow the, as Lee said, do we follow the regulations? MR. MARTIN-Is this area that you have outlined here as a site limit, is that a lot in and of itself, up at the... MR. CAIMANO-That's what I want to know. MR. STEVES-No, it is not. It's just like a contract limit. It's only to indicate the extent of any usage. MR. IRISH-It's to indicate the boundary of where we're going to do our work, our grading, our construction, our sewage disposal and to meet all the area requirements and setback requirements. MR. CARTIER-Well, what do you want to do? I think it needs some cleaning up. MRS. PULVER-I'm confused as to what is our problem? You want to see the drainage on this other piece, here? Is that what everybody wants to see? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, that's the message I'm getting, here. It looks fine, as is, except we're missing information beyond the site limits. MRS. PULVER-For this piece. 20 '--' .- MR. LAPOINT-For the existing building and this triangular portion, up here. MR. IRISH-Let me understand. What you're asking us to do, or telling us to do, is to add the information that was submitted, previously, to the Board, and was approved, to show what the drainage is on the adjacent property, is that correct? MR. CARTIER-Yes, and I guess, what lid like to see, too, is how this is going to help clean up the site. We have, as far as I'm concerned, a rather unruly site, here. and I'm hearing that we're putting a building up that's going to clean up the site. MR. IRISH-Yes, because it's for storage. The building is for storage of what's exposed on the site, now. MR. CARTIER-Does that mean to say that all that equipment and material outside is now going to be stored inside? MR. THREW-We can put everybody's on the road in that building, ProCraft's and mine, the Town's, anybody's. Ninety percent of that debris you see on the property. right now, is the building that's going to be built there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. THREW-And, again, we're still out, this is the rest of that property that we got from DeCann, this and this. We just want to put one building on that property. MR. LAPOINT-You've previously submitted information on that off, which is outside the site limits, correct? MR. THREW-This other property? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. THREW-We have a Site Plan Review approved. We have the building up and it's ready to, right now, this building is up. MR. LAPOINT-Right, and that extends beyond the site limits as you define them, here. MR. THREW-Right, that extends beyond these site limits. MR. LAPOINT-And we had no problem with that? MRS. PULVER-I guess not. MR. CAIMANO-I don't know. I wasnlt here. MRS. PULVER-I wasn't, either. Yes, we were. November 13th, 1989. MR. CAIMANO-That doesn't mean I was here, though. I don't remember it. MR. STEVES-If I may, this plan dated September 22nd, 1989, revised November 13th, 1989. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I remember that. MR. STEVES-This is all that that Bill Threw owned, at the time. That was the extent of his ownership. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-There was a conflict in deeds into exactly where the line was, here. This configuration came about on a property line agreement, if you will. Since then, Bill has purchased all the rest of the land from DeCann, that's why he's back, tonight, with this parcel, here. MR. MARTIN-But the thing I'm concerned about is. you have drainage patterns, retention basins, what have you, for that first development, done last fall, and now you're putting. within just a few hundred feet, more catch basins or drainage or whatever. and I want to see how that interrelates and if it causes a problem for either building or either drainage plan, and to see how that interrelates, to pick one out and say, yes, this works fine. in and of itself, but when it's placed next to this other building, then maybe it wouldn't work so fine. MR. IRISH-WeIl, with these soils, and several hundred feet is no problem for the infiltration type system that we have. 21 ....../ MR. CARTIER-Okay, but we also have an engineering comment, here, going back to Number One. "Grading plans should be completed to reflect site plan treatment of all existing pits and stockpiles", and that doesn't show up, on here. MR. IRISH-Are you talking, within this site, what we called the site limits? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. IRISH-WeII, it does show that, because if you'll see, we have existing contours, which are dashed, and the finished contours, which are solid. This pile will be eliminated and this area will be filled in, as noted here, pit to be filled with 380. MR. YARMOWICH-To the north of their building, there appears to be a small building. Are you going to leave that pit there? MR. IRISH-North of the building? Well, that's why you're showing the finished contours, here, that's actually a little ridge, there. It will be graded off to eliminate that ridge, in essence. It will be sloped down, that's what these finished contours are for, here. MR. LAPOINT-While we're on filling that, you're going to be using clean fill for that, from an off site source, nothing in that big pile will end up down in that pit? MR. THREW-Yes. I own another pit, on 149, where we bring in fill, there. The reason I've got a pit there is because I had to have a mining permit and if you take more than 1,000 yards off any property, you need a mining permit, either to put it on or take it off. So, I got a mining permit to do that, so I could work my business. Sometimes there's a pile there. Sometimes there's a hole there. So, that's what I'm doing. I'm trying to get all the regulations straight, so that I can run my business the way I should. I'm trying. MR. CARTIER-Well, where does the Board want to go with this? MRS. PULVER-I just want to be sure that I have, this triangular piece, back here, that's a separate deed? That's a separate piece of property? MR. THREW-This particular property, right here, all the way back to here, is all one deed. I'm only using this part of that one. MRS. PULVER-Alright, the whole thing is one piece of property? MR. THREW-This, right here, is another, separate deed. This I've already got an approval on. I'm just asking for this parcel, right here, which is a separate deed. This whole thing, right here is a separate deed. MR. CAIMANO-This whole thing, right here, is under one deed? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. THREW-No. This, right here, is one deed, where this building, this building right here. MR. CAIMANO-Where's the boundary? MR. THREW-Right here. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, that's one deed. MR. THREW-This, right here, is another deed. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. THREW-That's all I'm asking for. This is a separate deed. MR. CAIMANO-This has nothing to do with this? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. THREW-No, this has no buildings on it, right here, now, at all. This one, right here. has ~ buildings on it. MR. CARTIER-But they are separate deeds, but in the same ownership, correct? MR. THREW-That's right. 22 --' MRS. PULVER-But, see, if it was two separate owners, and he came in with this map, we'd only be requiring him to show us the drainage on the piece of property that he owns, even though, on the map, may have the other pieces of property. MR. CAIMANO-I agree. MR. MARTIN-I have no problem with that, if it's two separate lots. MR. CAIMANO-I have no problem with that, if it's two separate lots, but I'm still not sure it is. MRS. PULVER-Well, this is what I'm asking to clear up. MR. THREW-This parcel, right here, has the drainage taking care of itself and this one, right here, is completely on itself. MRS. PULVER-Exactly. I understand that. MR. THREW-So, one doesn't go into the other one. MR. MARTIN-Alright. MRS. PULVER-What I was unclear on was, which parcel is which deed? MRS. YORK-Well, I was just going to try and explain to Mr. Threw that you have a development that is already started. You're adding to this development to the north, with this proposed storage facility. Some of the things the Board has to look at, in this case, are the traffic flow. There's no curb cut shown, into your existing facility. There is nothing shown here, so that the Board can ascertain if this should be looked at as one development, rather than piecemeal, separate developments. MR. THREW-We have a curb cut. We showed the driveway coming in on it. It's right on the map. MRS. YORK-It doesn't show to your existing buildings. Mr. Threw, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. We have no information on what is existing. I know you got an approval, in 1989, but we need to see the information on this particular map. MR. IRISH-That's why I explained, before. What you're really looking for is for us to repeat the information, which was on a previous submission, that was approved by this Board. on this drawing. MR. MARTIN-Well, what is the nature of the first building? Is that, like, an office? Is there going to be any reason for equipment and vehicles to travel in between the two buildings? MR. THREW-Right now, we're going to use the whole parcel as one. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. THREW-This is just an imaginary line. This is just on there. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. MARTIN-That's the problem. MR. CARTIER-Then, as far as I'm concerned, we need to look at everything. Even though these are separate. MR. THREW-I'm going to use this building, right now because I own both parcels. I can go through here. This is all cleared, here. There's woods, here, which we're going to keep, but, if, in the future, I have to keep this. MR. MARTIN-For example. I'd like to see, what is the parking around your existing buildings? Are you going to have entrances from this lot into your new lot? MR. THREW-We have that, with the previous one. We've already addressed that in the one that we got last year. MR. CAIMANO-But not as it pertains to what you're going to add on to. You're saying that you're going to expand the use of this entire land. MR. THREW-We're trying to build on a new parcel that we got. MR. CAIMANO-Right. 23 - MR. THREW-We've already got a building permit for this one. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. THREW-All we're asking is, put this building, on this site, and look at just this site. This is all we're asking for. I should be entitled to put one building on that site. MR. CARTIER-You sure are. You're certainly entitled to put a building on that, but what the Board is saying, here, is we want to look at the whole package. For me, the fact that this property is in separate deeds is a moot issue. It's owned by one person, by one corporation, or whatever. MR. THREW-Right. MR. CARTIER-And, as far as I'm concerned, then, any submission we see, regardless of separate deed issues, I want to see the parcel that is owned by one person. MR. MARTIN-Well, more importantly, beyond the same ownership, is a shared use. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. CAIMANO-Right, that's really the important thing. MRS. PULVER-I don't agree with that. MR. THREW-So, I don't have any rights, because I own two pieces of property? MR. MARTIN-No, we're not saying you don't have any rights. MR. THREW-I've got to come back another month? The first month I tried it, I didn't know DeCann's septic system, so I couldn't the agenda for that. So, we got an that. We got everything we were asked to get, and now. MR. CARTIER-Well, let's not beat ourselves over the head, here. Are we at a point where we want to approve what we have in front of us? That's the question. Are we happy with what we see in front of us, to the poi nt where we can issue an approval, or do we want to table thi s? We're not tal ki ng about disapproving this, okay. We're not killing this off, permanently. We're talking about tabling this issue, until Staff is comfortable with it and we are comfortable with it, and there's certainly nothing to prevent Mr. Threw or Mr. Irish from going into the Planning Department and sitting down with Lee and having Lee explain to them exactly what we're looking for, here, because, frankly, I'm not going to be satisfied until Lee's satisfied and Tom. MR. IRISH-WeII, I see no engineering problems with this. Is that correct? MR. YARMOWICH-I don't believe that the grading that's suggèsted by this, can be contained within the site limits, for one, in order to make the stormwater management base function. MR. IRISH-Within that singular spot? MR. YARMOWICH-Even if that's the intention. I see, in a number of cases, where there's not continuity in proposed grading and existing contours. MRS. PULVER-Peter. if you look at this plan, you see the entrance. You see all the parkings. You see the buildings. You see the shrubbery. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but hels also, now, talking about going back and forth, here, and we don't see anything. MRS. PULVER-We can make it part of the motion that he can't, if he doesn't have a driveway, what's he going to do. He's probably not, but.... MR. CARTIER-He's going to. He wants to use this. MR. CAIMANO-He wants to use it altogether. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think if he has the shrubs and everything planted there. MR. CARTIER-He's already said, this is shared, any plans to cross here. This line is meaningless. That's a line on paper. As far as I'm concerned, we need to see this tied in, somehow, because, what I don't want to see is, a piecemealing kind of development. We've tried to get away from that kind of thing. We did that with, God help me for bringing it up, QEDC. MRS. PULVER-Supposing he gets up, right now, and says, I'm not going to go between the properties. I'm going to do it exactly like it is? 24 --- MR. CARTIER-Well, I think there's more than that. There's more to it than that, okay. Even though he might say that, it's going to be awfully tempting. He certainly not going to come out and go around and go this way. MR. CAIMANO-How's he going to get there? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-How's he going to get to that property? MRS. PULVER-I mean, he's got to put driveways and everything else in there. MR. LAPOINT-It's wide open, from what I've seen. This is just, you could drive, virtually, anywhere, with the equipment moved anywhere on this site. Am I correct? MR. THREW-That's right. MR. CAIMANO-So, it's a construction site, is what he's saying. MRS. PULVER-Alright, correct me if I'm wrong. On this plan that I'm looking at, here, where you have the layout, is that the way you're going to lay it out? I mean, that is the proposed site plan? You're going to have some shrubbery? You're not going to put a driveway here? MR. THREW-There is a driveway, here, proposed for this site, itself. MRS. PULVER-I know. I can see that, but Mr. Cartier wants to know how you're going to get from this building to this building. Are you going to drive back and forth, this way, or? MR. THREW-Right now, because of the mining thing that we did, there's a 50 foot buffer, well, there's really a 60 foot buffer between the whole front and all like this. The whole inside is open. Right now, it's stripped, and I've got piles of dirt, here, for sound barrier, so that, when we're running the equipment, the noise doesn't go to the neighbors. So, this here's really all open, right now, so what we were going to do is. we put this in, we were going to put a line of trees in here, so that you couldn't see this parcel. These two parcels would be separated. MR. CAIMANO-How do you work on this piece of land? MRS. PULVER-I see that, but you're not going to be running your vehicles back and forth, right? MR. THREW-I have an entrance, right now, to work on this property. MR. CAIMANO-From where? MR. THREW-Right from the front. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, so you're not going to meld these two properties? MR. THREW-No. This is going to have a separate entrance. I have an entrance, here and he's going to have, this is a separate entrance. MRS. PULVER-I don't believe he was going to keep a truck, here, and run it over there, to that building. MR. CAIMANO-How big is this piece of property, right here? MR. THREW-About one and a half, two acres. It's almost two acres. MRS. PULVER-Yes, it's almost two. It's 3.11, altogether. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, with this. MR. THREW-This is something, like, 17 acres. MR. CAIMANO-This is not part of this. MRS. PULVER-Right, this is 3.11. MR. CAIMANO-This part. MRS. PULVER-No. This whole thing. MR. THREW-This is a separate. 25 '--- - MRS. PULVER-But this is, like. two, and that's over.... MR. THREW-This is one .lot and this is another lot. MRS. PULVER-I know. MR. CARTIER-Okay, let me ask the Board a question. Is the Board willing to allow Mr. Threw to come in, later on, and lop off another three acres and do the same thing, and then lop off another two acres and do the same thing, and then, later on, lop off. I'm not suggesting you're going to do this. All I'm talking about is the procedure, here. Are we willing to do that, because, in essence, that's what we're going to begin to do, if we approve this, at the moment. MRS. PULVER-Well, if you don't allow something like that then, what you're saying to him is, alright, you go back, and I want you to come in, next week. and tell me what you're building. Who you're selling to, what you're going to keep there. I don't think we can ask him to do that with his property. MRS. YORK-If I could just ask a couple of questions. When you filled out your application, Mr. Threw, you said that your parcel was Tax Map No. 137, Lot 2, Lot 7.3. Is that correct? MR. THREW-I think I did. yes. MRS. YORK-You also indicated the limits, that entire parcel. You said this was your parcel. You said that entire area of the parcel was, approximately, three acres. That is incorrect. Your parcel is not three acres. That is not what you've indicated, here, tonight. MR. IRISH-That's an error. Itls more than three. MRS. YORK-Okay, and then you indicate the building area, based on your statement that the parcel is three acres. That is also incorrect. Your percentages, on your application, are incorrect, because of these things. You've based your building setbacks on your site limits lines, rather than the area of the parcel, okay. So, basically, what this Board is looking at, this application has many erroneous things on it. Probably, not anticipated. I mean, probably, this was just something that you did not realize was going on, using your site limit lines. MR. IRISH-But all of those errors you're speaking of, are in the conservative, in the fact that welre saying a smaller limit. MRS. YORK-I'm not say that they aren't. I'm not arguing that fact. What I'm saying, here, is, that if, anytime down the road, this is considered a legal document. We have a problem with this, and the Board has a problem reviewing this. MR. THREW-We're only using three acres of, like, 17 acres. MRS. YORK-I understand, Mr. Threw. MR. THREW-What we did is, we took this three acres, and did all the setbacks and we use the percentages. We had to have something. We couldn't use the whole 17 acres to get your percentage, because it would be wrong. We'd be using a whole lot of area that we wouldn't really be using. So we took an a rea, 1 i ke you sa i d, and when we got the squa re footages that we needed, the green area, all the permeable area, the setbacks are alright. Leon Steves did that for me. The only thing we did wrong is we said that we only owned three acres and we own ~ than three acres, but we're only asking to build on three acres. MR. CARTIER-Let's be sure we all understand ourselves, here, so that we reduce the confusion. as much as possible. We are not suggestion that you cannot build the building. What we are suggesting is, well, more than suggesting, I think, is that there are enough errors in the application that, this needs to go through the mill, again, so that we can clean up... MR. CAIMANO-And if not errors, inconsistencies, and problems that we don't understand what's going on, clearly. MR. CARTIER-Correct. I agree, and I think these things can be hassled out and straightened out between the applicant and Staff, rather than tonight, because, what I'm hearing from the Board is not going in the direction of approval, okay. Any further discussion? Okay. MRS. PULVER-Do you want to table it? MR. CARTIER-In order to table it and not get into time lines, we need the consent of the applicant. Is the applicant willing to table the issue? MR. THREW-Yes, I am. 26 --./ MR. CARTIER-Thank you, very much. I'll call for a motion. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, was the public hearing held? MR. CARTIER-Not yet. Do we want to do a public hearing, at this point, if we're going to table this? MS. CORPUS-It ~ noticed. MR. CARTIER-Thank you, in that case, I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. CARTIER-Well, we will certainly leave the public hearing open, for future consideration. Thanks, Karla. Do you want to hold the SEQRA Review next time, too? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, because, what are we going to hold it on, 3.1, 2.6, 9.8? MR. CARTIER-Okay, then, I guess a motion's in order. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAII NO. 80-90 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Tabled with the agreement of the applicant, for further clarification of the size of the lot and to correct inconsistencies within the application. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas MRS. PULVER-I think it might be to the benefit of the applicant if you show. when you come back, on the parcel that's already built, the entrance, the driveway, so the Board can really get the whole picture. MR. CAIMANO-Could I ask that, the next time this appears, that we have whatever we approved in 1989, along with it, please? MRS. YORK-We will be happy to do that. MR. CAIMANO-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 81-90 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 JOHN M. HUGHES OWNER: SAME WEST SIDE OF BAYIIJOD DRIVE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON lOT 7 IN THE HUGHES SUBDIVISION (WARREN coum PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 60-7-11.1 (PART OF) lOT SIZE: 0.63 ACRES SECTION 4.020 F CHUCK NACEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Okay, Warren County approved with no comments. Committee for Community Beautification approved. lid like to see more of these kind of things, "The Committee is pleased this building will conform to design of the buildings already approved and the plantings will be coordinated with the first two." Applicant, please. MR. NACEY-Good evening. Once again, for the record, my name is Chuck Nacey. I'm here with the applicant, John Hughes, and also our Consulting Engineer, Mr. Frank Walter. Mr. Hughes is proposing to build a professional office building on a parcel land which is constituted of the original Lot 7, on the Subdivision Map, which was approved, awhile back, and, also, the southerly 55 feet of Lot 8, to the north of Lot 7. With comments from the engineering review. particular to Comment One, whether pumping would be required. I have a sketch profile, which I pulled from our file, which will probably answer 27 ..- that question. It does show that we can maintain a gravity flow from the building to the fill system. In fact, we worked it backwards, to arrive at the elevation of the ground around the building. May I submit this to your engineer? MR. CAIMANO-Please. MR. NACEY-I think, probably, Mr. Walter can address Item Two, about the permeability, more than I can, so I'd ask him to do that. MR. CARTIER-Fine. FRANK WALTER MR. WALTER-My name is Frank Walter and we have examined some of the stormwater drainage prOV1Slons for the lot. We did submit a brief report. I guess, in which we, basically, talked about it, in terms of the runoff coefficient. Runoff from the lot is directly proportional to the coefficient in runoff. The coefficient used in the original drainage calculations, for the entire subdivision, at least for this part of the original subdivision was 0.50. We went, more recently, we went back and checked the coefficient for the lot, as presently laid out and developed a runoff coefficient, using some of the same assumptions as were originally used, of 0.52. That amounts to, since the runoff is directly proportional to that coefficient, that translates into about a four percent increase in runoff from this lot, as opposed to the original calculations, that were done and approved for this subdivision. I think it's our position that, owing to the imprecision of the rational method and the assumptions that are used, that the four percent is not particularly significant, and I don It think would have any meaningful change on the works that were originally proposed. that is, we feel that the original stormwater retention facilities, as originally designed, would be sufficient for this, would be adequate for this lot. If worse came to worse, there could be a minor increase in the height of the berm. but we don't really even feel that that's, the berm that creates a little retention/detention pond, we don 't even feel that that would be necessary, owing to a four percent increase, as calculated, what the real increase might be, it might not even be that much. I guess that's our discussion, on the drainage comment. MR. YARMOWICH-Frank, before we leave that point. I'm looking at the calculations, and the calculations that you're show showed a reduced drainage coefficient. Are you talking about some ~ calculations? MR. WALTER-Yes. We went back, what we did, in the original, in my original work, here, I used a value of .25 for runoff from the lawn areas, which I still believe is adequate. However, we increased that to .35, to coincide with the original drainage work and that caused the composite, C, to come out, at point .52. MR. CAIMANO-The question I have of Tom, is, the first question I have, is, is it your opinion, also, that four percent is relatively insignificant number? If that number were true, first of all. The problem I have is, that the same impreciseness that you used, the first time, also is there, for the second time, and, you're right, it might be less than four percent, but it also might be ~ than four percent. So, we're dealing with the same, inexact, science. What do you think, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-The concern is general, to the extent that the subdivision was designed to accommodate a certain intensity of development. The change in location of lot lines, coupled with the higher intensity of development, that more impermeable areas are being furnished, leads to the undeniable conclusion that, unless therels some sort of strategy, in terms of the landscaping or something like that, which is materially different than what was used for subdivision review, I can't ever say that it's going to be no increase. There's certainly ~ to be an increase. The significance of it is difficult to judge, unless you look at the entire subdivision. Four percent for this lot and four percent for that lot gives you four percent, overall. It may be that you've gone just too far. The precision is an appropriate consideration. I'm kind of at a loss to be able to make a clear cut decision, on whether or not it's significant. Significance is an interpretive thing. MR. CAIMANO-It's in the eye of the beholder. MRS. YORK-Perhaps, Mr. Hughes, would you clarify what's going on in the subdivision, for the Board. I don't know if you have a map showing the new lot lines? Mr. Hughes is planning to adjust some of the lot lines, in the subdivision and that, I think, is adding to the confusion we're having, here, and, perhaps, you could explain it to the Board. JOHN HUGHES MR. HUGHES-Okay. For the record, I'm John Hughes and, the way we're proceeding, down there, somebody comes to us and, what we showed on the original plan, based on how many square feet, we had to do something to indicate what the buildings were going to be, where they were going to be located, and so on and so forth. We're finding that most of our clients are needing larger square footage than what we showed on the plans, so, therefore, we've been increasing the size of the lots, to accommodate that square footage. We might be, in the next adjoining lot, somebody might come to us and decide 28 -- that they need something that is under what we had showed on that plan, so that, at that point, we can probably make up the difference, but there's no way, at this time, to tell whether we're going to be going over, going under or what. So, what we're doing is kind of adjusting lot lines as we're going along. MR. CARTIER-Are you saying, am I hearing correctly, that you're modifying lines in a subdivision that has been approved, without appearing? Somebody. am lout of whack, here? If we're changing lot lines in an approved subdivision, isn't that subject to re-review, by this Board, or not? MS. CORPUS-Mr. Hughes, can you clarify the number of lots and the amount of lot line adjustment? MR. HUGHES- Thi s is the fi rst one where we've changed the lot 1 i ne to, we've had to increase the lot line. The others, so far, have been what we showed on the map. What we ended up, down on adjoining Lot Two. we had a pretty good sized lot left there, that Psychological Associates wanted an option on to. They dropped their option, so what welve done is, taken that property, not adding anymore lots, we've added more property into these other lots. MR. CARTIER-What you may be doing is, it may be an improvement and, from what I'm hearing, it sounds like it is, but what 11m hearing is an alteration of a previously approved subdivision. MS. CORPUS-Have you filed a new map? Has any map been filed, regarding this change in lot line adjustment? MR. HUGHES-Just on the site plan map. MRS. YORK-If I may be so bold. under the definition of Subdivision, in the Ordinance, the last provision says, provided, however, that, subdivision, the word subdivision, does not apply to conveyances of small amounts of land to correct a boundary of a lot, so long as such conveyance does not create additional lots. So, the Zoning Administrator determined that these conveyances of small amounts of property were not, they were not creating any new lots. There was never, not a new subdivision being created, but it was a modification of an existing subdivision. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I hate to be picky, but what's small, Number One, and, Number Two, my interpretation of that, correct me if I'm wrong, would be, if there was a problem, there was an unanticipated problem, so they adjusted the line, so as not to, don't worry about it, if you're adjusting a line. In this case, what we're talking about is adding and subtracting to lots, to make them bigger or smaller, to make them more palatable to the buyer, that's, I think, a different story. MRS. PULVER-Well, that's it. If you just keep moving over, now, every lot line, you could end up with, either, one less lot, because you could end up with a small, nonconforming, and so you have to combine it with the last one, or, again, you'll end up with these odd dimensional lots. MR. MARTIN-I think you also have to consider why that particular clause is in a given Zoning Ordinance. and that is to correct for a natural feature, or something like that, that you have to shift the line, maybe, three feet one way, or two feet, another, but not to just adjust gross amounts of square footage to increase the building size, on a given lot. MRS. PULVER-What is the increase in lot dimension. MR. MARTIN-What is the change we're talking about, here? MRS. PULVER-Yes, what is the change in the dimension? MRS. YORK-Mr. Hughes, do you hav,e your plans for the change in lot lines? Do you have that with you, so you could illustrate, to the Board. what you are doing? MR. HUGHES-Did you want to see this? MRS. YORK-No, I think they should see it. You can hang it up, there, or however it's best for you. MR. CARTIER-I guess what 11m saying. for me, is, in terms of what Jim's saying. if we're just talking about moving one lot line, two or three feet, I don't have a problem with that. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's the intention of the clause. MR. CARTIER-But if we're talking about, all of the lot lines are, now, subject to fluidity, if you will. I've got some questions about that, and I guess that's what I want answered. MR. HUGHES-On the original approval, when we got approval for the subdivision, I think we got it approved on that basis, that this could happen, and that was the reason that, at the time, they said, well. you've got to come back for site plan for each and everyone of these lots. So, that I wouldn't be locked into the particular lot line. 29 -- MR. MARTIN-Just for a poi nt of being exact, what is the wi dth of thi s frontage, here, as opposed to what was on the.... MR. HUGHES-We added an additional 55 feet to that lot. MR. CARTIER-Well, that IS more than two or three feet. MR. CAIMANO-That's what's causing things like permeability changes, right? MR. YARMOWICH-No, that's strictly related to the intensity of development. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Which will, ultimately, effect stormwater runoff. MR. YARMOWICH-The concern that I have, it's four percent, here, and the next one's eight percent. Does the next one have to do it, and this one not. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, if I might make a recommendation. At this point, I think would, if there's enough confusion, I would recommend the Board pass a motion to have the Zoning Administrator make a formal ruling on this particular matter. MR. MARTIN-No, not the Zoning Administrator. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. MARTIN-The Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm going to be firm about that. MRS. PULVER-We'd like them to make a determination, right? PAUL DUSEK MR. DUSEK-Can I just interrupt? May I, Mr. Chairman? MR. CARTIER-Certainly, please. MR. DUSEK-I just want to clarify one point. The law requires that the first interpretation be made the Zoning Administrator. There is no choice. The Board of Appeals is appellate Board, only. Now, if you do not like the decision made by the Zoning Administrator. then you can appeal it. This Board even has the power to appeal it to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and then, ultimately, go on to a court, but I just wanted to make sure that point of law was clear, because the Board of Appeals is not a Board of original jurisdiction, just so that you know that, but I wouldn't want you just going off, on one path, and find out that you can't do it, that's all. MR. CARTIER-Okay, well, we're talking... MRS. PULVER-We might not have said it right, Paul, but that's what we meant, I think. MR. MARTIN-Has the Zoning Administrator looked at this? MRS. YORK- Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, I interpret that, then, as, she's had her chance for interpretation and, having learned what I have, and learned at the conference that we just came back from, the only one who has the power of interpretation, is the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Enforcement Officer is strictly administerial. MR. DUSEK-I hate to interject, but that's incorrect, just so you know. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we're going to find out, I guess. MR. CARTIER-Well, there's, apparently, I tend to agree with Jim. I think she's, the Zoning Administrator's already made a determination on this. Correct? MR. MARTIN-And her act of not giving this any significance, and letting it pass, that's, she's, by that action, made her decision. MRS. YORK-I cannot remember, at this point in time. who talked to Mr. Hughes. I know he came in and di scussed it with me and then I suggested he go down and talk to someone in the Bui 1 ding and Codes Department. It may have either been Mrs. Collard or Mr. Hatin, at that time. What I would 30 '-- ...-- like to suggest to this Boar.:: is that I do, I am not absolutely sure, and Mr. Hughes has stated this, that his former approval, on this subdivision, gave him some latitude, to adjust lot lines. He may have that right, under a former approval. I'm not sure of this and I would like the opportunity to look into this, for the Board and for Mr. Hughes. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MRS. YORK-And I will also, at the same time, get a written determination, for this Board, if they so choose. MR. CARTIER-From? MRS. YORK-From the Zoning Administrator. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute. Before we get off that, the Zoning Administrator, if we re-worded it to say, we want to ask the Zoning Board to review the Zoning Administratorls actions and interpretations on this, that's what we really want to say, right? MR. DUSEK-It's my opinion that, if, in fact, she made an interpretation, which, I'll take Lee's word for it that she has, and I don't mean an interpretation by terms of just passing something through. She has to, formally, have made a decision, regarding this particular question. If she has, then this Board could direct an appeal be filed on that decision, in exactly the manner that you've indicated. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Before you leave there, though, what Jim is saying is, de facto, by the fact it is here, and, presumptively, the Administrator has seen that, with or without anything formal written, it is assumed that she has passed on it, if she saw it. MR. MARTIN-The point I'm trying to make is that that is the function of a Zoning Administrator, to take into account every aspect of the Ordinance that applies to this specific action. MR. DUSEK-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-And, by having passed on this, or not brought up or raised any issues, then, in fact, she's just going to reiterate what she's already done, and I'm just saying, go on, now, to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MRS. PULVER-Okay, but, Jim, what I'm saying is exactly that is, now we request the Zoning Board of Appeals to review her action and interpretation. So, it really doesn't go back to her. now, to interpret it. MR. CAIMANO-She's already made her decision. MRS. PULVER-Right. It goes to the ZBA, for them to look.... MR. CAIMANO-Assuming she made it, but what we're saying is, and I'm backing him up, is, it doesn't have to be in writing. As a matter of fact, this particular Administrator has already said that. If I haven't said anything about it, it means I have looked on it, and it's all fine. So, what we're saying is, that, if, indeed, the Administrator looked at this application, and there's nothing written one way or the other, our assumpti on is that she has passed on it and said, thi s is fine and now, for us to appeal that, we go back to the ZBA, not to the Administrator. because then the Administrator is put in the position of appealing her own decision, when, in fact, there's some question as to whether she should have made that decision. MR. DUSEK-Yes, the only thing I would caution the Board on is that, it's important to clarify exactly what is being appealed. If the Zoning Administrator has not indicated anything, formally, then the question becomes, are you appealing her entire review of this application, or are you appealing one particular aspect of it, which, it may be advisable to get a clarification from her, then, of what her opinion is, relative to this point. Once you have that, preferably in writing, then you can take that and say, this is what we object to and we'll take this to the Zoning Board of Appeals, because, when you get to the Zoning Board of Appeals, otherwise, you don't have her tied down anywhere, at that point, and the Zoning Board of Appeals is kind of in the dark. MR. MARTIN-I can see that. MR. DUSEK-The other thing, let me just mention something, in all due deference, I feel I have to say this to Jim, because I indicated that I disagreed, basically, with what you had indicated, relative to how to take appeals. There is a lot of disagreement, in the law, over how these appeals are taken, and you may hear things differently, at different seminars. In fact, I wasn It sure. either, when 31 -- I first came to the Town, but what I found out is, it all relates back to the many different court decisions that are interpreting the many different Ordinances. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-So, you have to interpret the Ordinance with the court decisions or with, we have Anderson which we use quite frequently, here, as a treatise or resource. When you -;;;- those, too, that'; where I come to the decision that we must have an interpretation, first by the Zoning Administrator, which then goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. There are many Ordinances where you go directly to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. CAIMANO-Well, be that as it may, Mr. Chairman. we are holding up this applicant, and we should do something with him. MR. CARTIER-Certainly. I agree. MRS. PULVER-So, I'm confused. What path are we following, here? MR. CARTIER-There's a sequence, here. Number One, we need to table the application. Number Two, we have to decide what we are going to request of either the Zoning Administrator or the ZBA, and what I'm hearing from Mr. Dusek is, this is up to the Board, as far as I'm concerned. MRS. YORK-First of all, I would like to request that the Board allow me the time to investigate, before you take any action regarding anything. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MRS. YORK-Please allow me the time to investigate whether Mr. Hughes had the latitude, under formal approval, to change lot lines or modify the subdivision. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that's an appropriate step, but I think what we're going to find is that he did have that latitude, but now it's going to be a matter of someone interpreting for us, what is considered small change. MR. CAIMANO-But, without seeing that latitude, we don't know what it is, we canlt make that decision. So, that's the first step. MR. MARTIN-Right. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman, my name is Leon Steves. My understanding of the Code, too, is that any modification of approved subdivision must come back before this Board for it's review and approval. MR. CARTIER-Thank you, we agree. MR. STEVES-Isn't this Site Plan Review nothing more than that request for modification of an approved subdivision? Well, if it is, it's subject to be, if we don't do these steps, Leon, it's liable to get turned down, as no, and we need to know what the facts were, before it got here. MR. MARTIN-That's true, but the reason why, at Subdivision, you look at the entire parcel, and how all the lots are going to interrelate, is so that you can project how this development is going to occur, but when you ta ke one lot out and you say, well, thi s is now changed, thi sway. Now you've impacted the entire parcel, and all the remaining undeveloped lots. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and if we follow your line of reasoning, I think what we run into is that, every time a new site plan comes in, in this subdivision, we're looking at a modification of a subdivision, and it's not... MR. STEVES-Not in numbers, only in lots. MR. CARTIER-If every lot changes. If lot lines get moved every time, on every lot, everyone of those represents, every lot application or site plan application, then, if there's a lot line moved, everyone of those is a modification of the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-For example, if we allow another 55 foot change. in the next two lots, you're going to totally eliminate the last remaining lot. There won't be any road frontage left. MR. STEVES-Ergo, if he comes in with no changes, whatsoever, there's nothing to review, because it's all on that plan. 32 '-' ..- MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-What plan? MR. STEVES-That plan. MR. CARTIER-The Subdivision plan? MR. STEVES-Subdivision, right. It's all there. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. STEVES-So, you don't need to go through Site Plan Review, because it's right there. MR. MARTIN-Well, youlre bringing up another case, here. You're bringing up another issue. MR. MARTIN-No, because Site Plan Review takes into site specific consideration. MR. CARTIER-That's true. MR. MARTIN-Drainage, as it relates to that specific site, setbacks and so on, and the actual development of the lot, not a projected development. MR. CARTIER-Well, Leon, I can recall, when this thing came in for subdivision approval, statements being made, to the effect that, I have to go back, to be really sure of thi s, but I seem to recall, when we went through this, one of the things we heard was that, well, those will be addressed at Site Plan. So, that's why we're back in here, at Site Plan, because some things are left to be addressed at Site Plan. Okay, where are we? MR. HUGHES-Are you trying to tell me, because we've got a certain sized building on there, and a certain sized lot, that I've got to find a buyer for that sized building and that sized lot, or I've got to come in here and be hassled every time? MR. CARTIER-That's what you were, you were approved for a subdivision. MR. HUGHES-If you go back to the original approval, I think you'll find that there was latitude built into there, that I was not going to be locked into that. MR. CARTIER-Fifty five feet worth? MR. HUGHES-What difference does it make whether it's 55 feet? To start out with, I started out with 13 lots. I did everything you people asked for. You cut me back to g lots. I did that. I came back again, and you cut me back to L lots. Now, would you be happy if I quit and left town, right now. MR. CARTIER-Well, there's no way to address that, John. What we've got to do is get this clarified. MR. HUGHES-I got turned down, twice, already, here, tonight. We have no work other than these three buildings right here. It means I have to layoff my whole Staff, because you people have got one little technicality that you don It want to address, tonight. MR. CARTIER-No, it's a major technicality, Mr. Hughes, and we are going to address it, and we're going to get it clarified, before this goes any farther. DAVID SHERRICK DR. SHERRICK-May I address the Board? MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. How much more comment do we want to take? MR. CAIMANO-He's going to be a buyer. I think it would be appropriate. MR. CARTIER-Okay. DR. SHERRICK-The application is being presented on my behalf. My name is David Sherrick. I turned in the Site Plan application and, off hand, I can't remember the fella's name, but he did speak to you, I'm sorry, I don't know your name, about the lot line extension. MR. CAIMANO-Lee York. 33 ',---, ,-",' DR. SHERRICK-And, you told us, at that time, there would be no problem with it, that it was an enhancement to the development, because the lots were going to be enlarged, rather than made smaller, and that John had talked to you about that, previously, and it had been cleared. He mentioned two names. There's two men across the hall from you, I believe. MRS. YORK- Right. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think, maybe, I can address that. You're talking about a specific lot, and what I'm hearing is that, what's being said about lot line adjustments is applying to all of the lots remaining in the subdivision, that are, now, undeveloped. and that's the question I think the Board has. Not only in addition to your lot, but all the other lots. DR. SHERRICK-John, was there one lot. there, that that addition was small? MR. HUGHES-Yes. this lot, right here, in the corner. DR. SHERRICK-There is a small section of property, here, that's drawn, proposed property adjustment. There is no building planned on that and, essentially, what John has done is incorporated that section of land into the addition to this smaller lot. MR. CARTIER-Well, let me boil this down, I think. What is being offered to us, here, is a defacto change in an approved subdi vi si on or defacto changes in an approved subdi vi si on, and we have some questions about that. and we need some information back from Staff, on where we're going from here. We can deba te thi s ' t il the cows come home, and they a 1 ready are, and I don't thi n k we're goi ng to settle this, tonight. MR. CAIMANO-No. and Mr. Hughes was right, and so was Lee. Both of them feel that there were some extenuating circumstances in the original subdivision, so let's look them up. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Let's find out the answer. MR. CARTIER-Let's find out. MR. HUGHES-We're going to hold this whole thing up for another 30 days? DR. SHERRICK-Is there some mechanism for taking action on this, subject to that... MRS. YORK-Mr. Hughes, how many lot lines are you going to be adjusting, in the subdivision? Do you know, now? Do you know what your plan is, or, no, you do not know, at this point? MR. HUGHES-There would be no way for me to know, unless I had a buyer for every remaining lot. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-But does that mean, in effect, that the subdivision approval you got was, essentially, meaningless, if all these lot lines are going to get shuffled around, in here. MRS. YORK-The problem, here, and I talked to you, earlier this week about it, was, basically, that the change in lot lines impacted your overall drainage concept, that was approved with your subdivision, and I know you spoke to Mr. Yarmowich about that, and how you could handle it. Unfortunately, it does appear that there's a greater problem than we can deal with, at this point in time, and I would appreciate it if we could all sit down, potentially tomorrow, and talk about this, and talk about a way to expedite this whole thing. MR. HUGHES-Okay, thank you. MR. CARTIER- Is it accurate to say that the Board is concerned about the amount of change, that we wouldn't be arguing about this, if we were talking about two or three feet? MR. MARTIN-I think so. MR. CARTIER-We are talking about it, in terms of the size of the change. MR. LAPOINT-Well, he's built in that buffer, right into that plan and I don't see a problem. You can't plan things to death, to where you've got it in granite, that you can't sell things because you've been limited to a certain amount of lot space. He's actually built a contingency in for that. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, he has. 34 '-'" ..- MR. YARMOWICH-Mr. LaPoint, I think it's the opposite. What he's done, what appeared to be, in looking at the subdivision review, and I did. and I don't recall all the details of which he referred, it was based on minimal intensity development. What's being proposed is additional intensity development, and I think that what Mrs. York said is that it's causing problems to an overall concept for the entire subdivision, by increasing that. Now, the options that would exist, to show that the overall, entire development is going to be no more intense, that may mean leaving lots in reserve and remaining undeveloped. Those sort of commitments have to be made, at some point, in some time, or to approach the stormwater management, on a lot specific basis, which can be done to augment the overall stormwater management plan. The shifting of lot lines, I think, is incidental to that, to a certain degree. The idea, here, is to preserve the lot, allow him to build, but to not allow off site impacts to go unmitigated. MR. LAPOINT-But if he backs himself into a corner and has something he can't build on, in the end. that's his problem, not ours. MR. CAIMANO-That's his problem. MR. LAPOINT-And, again, that's his planning, with his own property, and I think that what he's doing, here, wi 11 be less intense, if he has more of a buffer zone than what he's desi gned. I mean, he can only have a bigger buffer zone, when this is done. Am I correct? MR. HUGHES-That's right. MR. YARMOWICH-It may be possible to allow the applicant to proceed, on a threshold basis, that is, you have X amount of runoff that you are able to manage, within your existing development, and I'm speaking only to stormwater management concerns, at which point you've gone beyond that capability, and no more development will be allowed, that's certainly a risk that someone takes. However, should somebody buy into this development, and not know that, and at what particular point in time that threshold is going to be reached. can he maintain his development rights? I think that enters whole bunch of problems. MR. LAPOINT-Well, that owner, that particular owner, would come in for Site Plan Review. Am I correct? I mean, the owner would be aware of that? MR. CARTIER-True. MR. YARMOWICH-But then, is there a way for anyone to become a property owner in the subdivision and have those rights, those threshold aportionments maintained? MR. MARTIN-The other thi ng 1'm concerned about is the broader pi cture, here, okay, and, ri ght now, we have a particular owner of a subdivision, who is taking, what appears to be the less intensive route. Let's say we had a subdivision owner whols coming in here with a 50 foot reduction and now he has the opportunity, maybe, to intensify the buildup on that land. Granted, he would have to come through the process, again. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Thatls not the case here, but that's the, I mean, that you would deal with at that time. and you'd have to say no to that, if he's going for an increased intensity, but it appears, to me, he's going to have a decreased intensity, no matter what, because of this particular site, that he's shooting himself in the foot. MR. YARMOWICH-That's not true. For the average area, the increase, the intensity of development is increasing, okay, whereas, the overall presumed level of intensity for development of this particular subdivision, on lots, would have been 75 percent permeable. He's proposing 69 percent permeable for this, that's more intense development. Regardless of how large the lot is, the intensity of development proposed for this particular site plan is higher. MR. LAPOINT-So, he will have to compensate for that with the next one. Am I correct? MR. YARMOWICH-By having less development and that's the concept of a threshold, where you get to the point where you have so much intensity, and that's it. MR. LAPOINT-By less development. right, and that's his problem. MR. CAIMANO-What if we were to accept this, hypothetically, accept this, and ask for a review of the remaining, and find out just exactly what he could build on the remaining part of the land. MR. YARMOWICH-There's nothing wrong with augmenting a plan to provide for more intense use, as long as it's permissible. The problem is is that, when the plan came in with a relatively modest intensity proposed, it, in itself, created a limitation on what the subdivision could handle. There will be a point in time in which that threshold is going to be exceeded and augmentation is necessary. The choice for the applicant, I think, at this point, is to live with that threshold, and augment it when that point in time comes, or to choose to augment it, at this time, so that the balance of the 35 ~ --.../ subdivision can proceed, as originally planned, and augmented in each individual case. MR. LAPOINT-He could do both. Right? I mean, he could do both of those. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. As long as the total off site impacts are not exceeded. MR. LAPOINT-I'm just putting myself in his shoes, and, again, you can't have things, so in concrete that you can't change them. I mean, what's the process for? MR. CARTIER-Well, at some point, you do have to have things in concrete. MR. CAIMANO-At ~ point. MR. CARTIER-I think, and 55 feet.... MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, he's built that buffer in there. MR. CARTIER-But 55 feet is an incredible amount of leeway. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I agree with you people. Let me play devil.'s advocate, here, and agree with Ed on one point. It's his problem. I mean, it could be, just for the sake of argument, that this is the last thing he can build on this piece of land. MR. LAPOINT-That's right, that's conceivable, that this is JJl for him, and he's taking that risk. MR. CARTIER-But it's not. MR. CAIMANO-We don't know that, but it's our responsibility, though. (END OF FIRST DISK) 36 ..- MR. CARTIER-It's, obviously, not. Well, the question I have is, are we willing to allow a 55 foot alteration in a lot line, this time, and then, how do we say no, the next time? MR. CAIMANO-By putting it very specific, now. MRS. PULVER-Well, by asking the Zoning Board for an interpretation of that particular part of the Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-But, suppose we find out that granting that 55 foot change is in violation, because of the research that Lee wants to do, it turns out that that 55 feet is in violation of what was allowed? MRS. PULVER-Well, I think you could make the approval conditioned upon.... MR. CAIMANO-Assumptive, anyway. MRS. PULVER-Yes, subject to Planning Board looking up the past approval, and what the conditions were, of the approval. What about approving this, with the condition that no other, all the remaining property has to come back in, with readjusted lot lines for this 55 feet. MR. CAIMANO-That's what we're saying. MRS. PULVER-So, that you would have to look at it. MR. LAPOINT-They would have to. anyway. I mean, this is a physical change. MRS. PULVER-No, he could come back in with one more lot, Lot Number Two. MR. CARTIER-I think what's Carol's talking about is coming in with a modification to an approved subdivision. Is that right? MRS. PULVER-Right. This can go on. You don't hold this up, assuming that Lee can look everything up and that's fine, and then the rest of it all has to come back. MRS. YORK-Perhaps, the Board would consider, because, if I understand Mr. Hughes correctly, this is goi ng to be an ongoi ng process, where you woul d to modify these lot 1 i nes as you go on. Perhaps, what you could do is come in with, when you come in with your site plans, come in at the same time, and show the Board a modification to the subdivision, at the same time, and show your drainage plan, at that time, if the concept is being modified, at that time, explain it, and allow the process to go on, and, basically, you would be submitting for two things, instead of one, a modification to a subdivision and a site plan for that meeting, okay. Would that be advisable? MR. CARTIER-I can live with that, but I still want a clarification on the approval. MRS. YORK-Yes. will have that to the Board, and have something in writing for you, tomorrow. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-But, potentially, you could follow through, in that respect, Mr. Hughes. MR. MARTIN-So, welre looking at a conditional approval, here? MR. CAIMANO-I would think, a conditional approval, approval on the assumption that, what everybody thinks, is so. If that's not so, then it's not, you know. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. PULVER-And the next time, also put that in that, he will re-submit. MR. LAPOINT-He's got to redo his subdivision, next time. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, this puts a big burden on you. MR. CAIMANO-A burden on him. but keeps the thing moving. MR. LAPOINT-But it keeps it moving. Now, when you come back to us, you'll have to get it approved and, again, you're shooting yourself in the foot, so to speak, by moving this 55 feet. MR. HUGHES-You're saying that I'm going to have to come back and get another subdivision approval, go through that whole process again? 37 '-' -- MR. MARTIN-Well, for the next lot. MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-You're modifying. MR. HUGHES-Just modifying. Okay. MR. CARTIER-You're modifying. You're not going to have to go through the whole subdivision approval process. You're going to come in with an application to modify what's left. MR. HUGHES-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-With drainage, the whole package. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, I have a question regarding the filed subdivision map. Would this Board require that that filed subdivision map be altered, accordingly and filed each time, also? Otherwise, the public, in general, would not have notice of this change. MR. CAIMANO-I would think so. MR. CARTIER-I think you've answered your own question. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, where are we? MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess we are... MR. CAIMANO-Do we need a SEQRA on this? MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. We need a public hearing. Are we at a point where we want to do a public hearing, here? Do I hear the Board going toward an approval with certain stipulations? MR. CAIMANO-Stipulations which put the monkey back on the applicant's back to do something further. MR. CARTIER-Okay, then, we need to do a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COtItENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-I'll close the public hearing. We need to do a Short Form SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATIOII OF NO SIGNIFICAllCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 81-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pul ver: MR. CAIMANO-(Referring to SEQRA) Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or i ntensi ty of use of land or other natural resources? And the answer is yes, and it is being mitigated by..... MR. CARTIER-The assumption is, it will be taken care of, in terms of modification to the subdivision. MR. CAIMANO-A modified subdivision plan. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a professional office on Lot 7 in the HUGHES SUBDIVISION, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 38 -- - 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-Okay, discussion. Let's hammer out exactly what it is we want to have in this motion, before we make the motion. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Well, we want to make sure that it's understood that the motion is contingent upon the previous subdivision approval and what went on there, and that's going to be checked by the Planning Department. MRS. PULVER-Alright, but you want to name names. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Previous subdivision approval, having given some leeway or latitude with lot lines, lot line adjustments. MR. CARTIER-Well, the motion's going to be contingent upon reaffirmation or, is that the right word, is that what I want? MR. CAIMANO-Well, confirmation of the fact that the original approval was, gave the applicant a leeway, in terms of lot lines. MR. CARTIER-And how much that leeway was. MR. CAIMANO-And how much that leeway was, if, indeed, there was anything. MRS. PULVER-Well, if it was given a number. It might not have been given a number. MR. CAIMANO-The second thing would be that this applicant will have to.... MR. CARTIER-Apply for a subdivision modification? Is that what you're going for? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Apply for subdivision modification for the remaining lots. MR. MARTIN-For development of the remaining lots. MR. CAIMANO-For development of the remaining lots, right. MR. CARTIER-Remaining empty lots. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CAIMANO-And that's all I know of. MR. CARTIER-What else? MR. CAIMANO-That's it, really. MR. MARTIN-Are there any engineering comments? MR. CAIMANO-Well, it's up to you. Tom. Are you willing to accept Frank's four percent? 39 "-....- ..- MR. YARMOWICH-I'm willing to recolllOOnd to the Board that they stipulate that, up until the time as such stormwater management capacity is utilized, there will be development allowed to that point. Otherwise, additional mitigation of stormwater is going to be required, and that it will be looked at, on a cumulative basis, from project to project, until such time as you reach the threshold, and it can no longer stand anymore. I think that should be, somehow, made clear to the applicant and I think that it may even be a wise idea to indicate what the schedule is, in terms of available capacity and how much is being consumed by this particular project. I think that it's worthwhile that he know what the status is, before he comes back here. MR. CAIMANO-Why don't we do that backwards, because we are asking him, in our motion, Tom, to come to us with a modification and, since he's sitting out there, and his engineers are sitting out there, I would think that they would do just that, right? MR. YARMOWICH-It'll show, quickly, that there may be a particular project where the additional mitigation is best suited. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-And if it comes down to the last one, it may make it an unliveable restriction, and I can't anticipate that for him, and I don't want to be in that position. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I'm trying to frame that into something. See if this is right, Tom. See if this covers it. It is understood that final build out will be dependent upon cumulative impact of drainage. Does that say it? MR. YARMOWICH-I think that's a good way to put it. I guess to say that the cumulative stormwater management impact will be assessed with each site plan in this subdivision, to the extent that it's already been analyzed, and that will be the limit. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-The applicant understands that? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAII 110. 81-90 JOHN M. HUGHES, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For construction of a professional office on Lot 7 in the Hughes Subdivision. The motion for approval is contingent upon the following items being met: Number One, confirmation of subdivision approval, regarding leeway of lot lines be confirmed with the Planning Department within the next week. Number Two, that the applicant apply for subdivision modification for remaining empty lots. Number Three, it is understood that final buildout will be dependent upon cumulative impact of drainage, stormwater runoff. Number Four, that parki ng spaces Number 3 and 4, as depi cted on the Site Pl an, be reserved for handicapped parking with the designated concrete walk. next to Slots 3 and 4, to become the handicapped access to the building. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-One other relatively minor issue and, with the maps, the blue prints down, now. Handicapped parking is shown across the driveway, on the southeast side, and, right across from that, it shows proposed parking, two proposed parking slots. Where's the handicapped? Right here. Okay. It seems appropriate, to me, to move that handicapped parking to that reserved for future parking. That way, these people donlt have to cross the driveway and they're parked right next to the walk. DR. SHERRICK- If I coul d address that issue. I spoke with Dave Hati n about thi s. I ran the whol e thing by him, and he saw no problem with that. If there is a problem with it, my idea in developing that was to keep the greenery in the front of the building to maintain the aesthetics of the front of the building, without having automobiles parked across the entrance to the building. Those parking areas are drawn as reserved. Should those areas be used, I would be willing to designate one of those areas for handicapped parking. 40 -.../ '-.--' MR. CARTIER-I would find it much more appropriate to reserve that, I understand the aesthetics involved, but I think, sometimes aesthetics take back seat to handicapped access, and I don't like the idea of seeing handicapped access, across what is a macadam driveway, because what we're saying is that handicapped persons, people with handicapping conditions are now required to cross a travel lane in order to get to the ramp. It makes far more sense, to me, to put the handicapped right next to the walk, where the ramp is. MRS. YORK-Perhaps you could change the handicapped spot for one of your Staff spots, near the walkway. DR. SHERRICK-That was suggested to me, and I would agree with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay, fine. Are we talking about Lots 3 and 4? DR. SHERRICK-Right. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay, how many handicapped slots are required, here? One? DR. SHERRICK-One. MR. CAIMANO-One. MR. CARTIER-And it's got to be 16 feet, right? MRS. YORK-Yes. It'll take two of the Staff spots, but he'll have two more down there. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that. Okay, that's also going to change the construction of that concrete wal k, there. I'm assuming, are we on the same wavelength, here? If we move handicapped parking to, here, they're going to be coming in, here? MR. WALTER-No. MR. CARTIER-Well, they still, then, have got to go down, here. Normally, what we do is we put handicapped parking as close as possible to where the entrance is going to be, for these people. Now, it seems more appropriate, I don't mind this, as long as they're coming in this way, but for people that have to get out here and go down here, I'm thinking, particularly, in terms of the winter time, this is the most appropriate place for handicapped parking, it seems. It's right next to the walkway. If I'm the only one who's nose is out of joint on that, point it out to me. MR. CAIMANO-It's a good point. MR. WALTER-We have no problem with that. MR. MARTIN-Making this a handicapped? MR. WALTER-No, we'd have them come in this entrance, which is what you suggested, originally. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1990 SKETCH PlAN TYPE: UNLISTED SR-20 INSPIRATION PARK ADAMS AID RICH ASSOCIATES OWNER: ANTHONY P.. CAROL A.. AND ROBERT RICCIARDELLI. JR. SOUTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD APPROX. 0.1 MILE IIORTHEAST OF WEST NT. ROAD FOR A 42 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 148-1-7.1. 7.3. 7.4 lOT SIZE: 22.48 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CHARLES ADAMS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. PULVER-And I will refrain from any discussion or voting on this project. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (attached) MRS. YORK-I just want to make sure, before we get started, too, that the applicant is aware of the Phasing criteria in our Ordinance. I know there's a stipulation, in the Town Board minutes, here, that talks about infra structure improvements completed within two years, and I just want the applicant to be aware that we do have Phasing, in our Subdivision Regulations. You can only build 30 houses, per phase, and you have to have 60 percent of them with a Certificate of Occupancy before you can go on to Phase II. 41 -...-' MR. CARTIER-That's right. I forgot about that. MRS. YORK-Okay, I just wanted to make sure we all knew that. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you for reminding me of that, too. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer (attached) MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. We are looking at Sketch Plan, here. only. Is the applicant present? Yes. MR. ADAMS-For the record, my name is Charles Adams, Chairman of the Board of Adams and Rich, the developers for this particular project. I do appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Board, aga in, and, wi th your consent, we will work from a di spl ay of a Sketch Pl an di fferent than the one that you have in your packet. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute, same Sketch Plan. MR. ADAMS-Same Sketch Plan, okay, sorry. In any event, most of the considerations that I think Planning Staff has brought up and the engineer has brought up can best be addressed by the engineer, Tom Nace, on this project. So, I'll turn it over to him. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. Tom, just for absolute clarification, here, you have hung up what has gone through the Planning Staff and the Staff has looked at, correct? TOM NACE MR. NACE-That is correct. I would not presume to present something new. MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much. MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering, here on behalf of Adams and Ri ch. Let me go through the Engineeri ng Comments, fi rst, and I will address some of the other. As I said, this is the very same plan you have. I've discussed the road radius issue with Paul Naylor. We've come to a resolution that the radii, up here, where the amount of curve is minimal, are no problem for Paul. So, we will maintain those at the back of, what we will do is bring the top, most northerly streets, straight back, put a right angled intersection, and round this off to 250 feet and these few lots, here, on the corners, will be re-confi gured to adapt to that. So. that'll be a stop sign and it'll help reduce, I think, traffic going around the back end of that anyway. It'll force people to go back out the way they came in, back out the closest entrance. The second issue, I think, that engineering had, was the road grading plan and stormwater management plan. The road grading profiles will be submitted at Preliminary. The site is relatively flat. There's one little area, in here, that it drops off, maybe, 10 or 12 feet. and we will flatten that out with the road. The storm drainage will be handled. The road will be slightly depressed. Storm drainage from the lots will come down to the road, into a winged swale in the road. The road will have, along that winged swale, will have catch basins and dry wells. The soil is sandy, relatively deep, and there's no groundwater, down to an elevation of at least, I believe it was, eight feet that the test pits went. So, that's the way we propose to handle stormwater. That will be detailed at Preliminary. Clearing plan, I think there was a concept, landscaping plan, regulations are a little unclear. I have simply shown that clearing that was necessary to construct the roads. Obviously, with 100 by 100 foot lots with on site septic, most of those lots will get cleared. I have no problem, and I will show, on Preliminary, I will move that clearing line back, to show what would be the clearing for, not only the Subdivision road, but also the individual house construction. MR. CARTIER-Is there any way you can leave some trees on individual lots? It seems to me it would make it much more attractive. MR. NACE-No doubt, and I'm sure that most of the people will put in some additi ona 1 1 andscapi ng on thei r lots. What we wi 11 do is make some sort of sti pulati on on the drawi ngs that the contractors are to save as many trees as possible. MR. CARTIER-Because we're talking about some fairly substantially sized trees out there, are we not? I'm not talking 80 footers or anything like that. MR. NACE-No, most of it, most of the growth is probably 20 to 30 year growth. So, there's some nice trees. There's some good. maybe, eight to ten inch maples and birch. MR. MARTIN-What I'd like to see is something along the lines of Queen Victoria's Grant, for example. 42 '----' --...../ MR. YARMOWICH-I think a typical site clearing plan could be shown, much as there is for typical layout plan, to convey that. MR. NACE-Sure, we can, we have a typical plan for the septic systems that'll show the house on it. On that plan, we can show, at least what the intent is. Obviously, any of those layout plans are goi ng to be dependent upon what house is put on the si te, the si ze of the house, the 1 ayout of the driveway, and the garage, etc. The layout plans are simply intended to show that you can construct on the lots and meet all the requirements. Surface runoff, I think, on my concept plan for drainage and grading, I had indicated drywells and catch basins that were a little too far apart. I will modify that to meet the required 350 feet drainage standard, and you're quite right, Tom, some of the lots we are finding now, as we lay them out, some of the irregular shaped lots up at the front and back at the back, we're having a little trouble fitting the septic systems on the lots. So. we may end up adjusting some of those lot lines a little bit, but still staying within the 40 percent open space requirement, in order to fit the lots on them, but Preliminary will show a specific septic system and house layout for each non typical lot layout. MR. YARMOWICH-You don't intend to reduce the number of lots, just make those that are difficult a little larger? MR. NACE-Yes. We still have, with the layout we have now, with the road re-configured, we still have about two percent excess open space that we can use to adjust some of those a little bit, and, typically it's a matter of, not the gross area of the lot, but the configuration of the lot, in order to meet all the setback requirements. So often, we can trade off, find a little bit different configuration, without requiring additional open, or reducing the existing open space. I guess the other comment that Lee had was the Phasing. Quite frankly, along with you, Peter, I had forgotten about the Phasing requirement. So. we will indicate, on the Preliminary plans, where the extent of Phase I and Phase II would be. MR. CARTIER-You have some leeway. What is it, 30 units? MRS. YORK-Thirty units per phase and, before you can move on to the second phase, you have to have sixty percent of Phase I with CO's. MR. NACE-The first phase complete. MR. CARTIER-That does not mean you have to build 30 in the first phase. MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-You can do 20, and get your 60 percent, and then start the second phase. MR. MARTIN-Well, the applicant had indicated that he was going to do six at a time, and then he wouldn't have anymore than six going at one time. MR. NACE-Yes, but we don It want to come back for seven different phases. MR. MARTIN-No. I understand that. MR. NACE-So, we will divide it into two phases and, since the plans are, really, already developed, for the complete thing, even though I put a phase line on it, I'm going to show you what we're going to do for Phase I and II and the details will be complete, for both. MR. CARTIER-Great, and, can't we approve that whole thing? He doesn't have to come back in for Phase II, does he? MRS. YORK-No, you can do the whole thing. MR. CARTIER-So, the only thing that kicks in, is he doesn't start Phase II until the 60 percent CO. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Do you anticipate needing fill systems? MR. NACE-In, maybe, a few of them. We have gone back, there were two original perc tests on the site. We have gone back and done an additional seven perc tests. The rates are now varying from about 45 seconds to two and a half minutes, and I believe there was only one hole, out of the seven, that was below a minute, no, I take it back, there was two. There was one at 45 and there was one at about 55 seconds. We found a method to get adequate water back into the site, to presoak the holes, in accordance with regulations, and I don't know that the original 30 seconds was a true indicator of what's there. 43 --- MR. YARMOWICH-This is all going to be public water, right? MR. NACE-This is all public water. MR. YARMOWICH-Are there individual wells, in the vicinity? MR. NACE-I do not believe so. MR. CARTIER-I hear you, but this is aquifer country, here, too. MR. NACE-In the original re-zoning issue. it was stated that if we had systems. or had lots with perc rates under a minute, that we would put in a bath tub type fill system with imported material. So I think, to keep from throwing any clouds on that issue. we will probably stick with that detail. MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry. I got side tracked. Did you just talk about low flow toilets? MR. NACE-No. Fill systems, imported fill systems for lots where the perc rate is less then one minute, and all they said was, in the re-zoning discussions, the applicant agreed to put in fill systems where the perc rate was less than a minute, and do specific on site perc tests for the systems as they were installed. So, rather than throw any of that re-zoning issue up in the air, again. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Low flow toilets? I'm just wondering where that came from? MR. CARTIER-It just popped into my head. 11m just wondering if that might not be appropriate. here? Tom, are low flow toilets appropriate, in a situation like this? MR. YARMOWICH-With the provisions that they're, it's a pretty standard sewage disposal requirement. The size of the lots would prohibit these on site wells. I really don't see the need for that. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. YARMOWICH-The State requirements are three and a half gallon or less flush, right now. You can go as low as one and a half gallon. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. YARMOWICH-That's going to have a certain impact, using that approach for something like this. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? MR. MARTIN-Why don't we see what the public hearing? MR. CARTIER-We don't do a public hearing, this is Sketch. We'll do a public hearing and SEQRA at Preliminary. Any discussion? We've got a waiver request. MR. ADAMS-I had one question, which may be, simply, a procedural one, and that is, in the Ordinances, it says that the cluster provision is available by request. I don't know what that request is supposed to be constituted by. Apparently, this subdivision is the first one to, I think it's the first one in Queensbury to fall under the cluster provision. I'm not sure. MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. ADAMS-It's not? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. ADAMS-But, in any event, the re-zoning requires us to be under the cluster provl S10n. The Ordinance says we have to request it. I'm not quite sure what constitutes that request. MRS. YORK-You've got it. MR. CAIMANO-I think it's been requested and granted. MR. MARTIN-When you answered yes to that clustering question, you got it. MR. CARTIER-Anything else? MR. CAIMANO-Are we granting the waiver? 44 "-" -- MRS. YORK-Yes, you are. MR. YARMOWICH-I think the applicant explained that they won't be requiring that. MRS. YORK-No, they are requiring a waiver from the curvature coming off of Corinth Road. MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. YARMOWICH-That will still be required? MR. CAIMANO-And that's what Naylor said he'd go for, right? MR. NACE-Yes. That's in Staff Comments. MR. CARTIER-In other words, he would accept the conditions of that? Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Anything else? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-Are we ready for a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAII 14-1990 INSPIRATION PARK, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a 42 lot subdivision, with the following stipulations: A waiver has been requested and granted, from Subdivision Regulation VIII.E.9, regarding minimum center line road radii for horizontal curves on marginal access roads. The applicant agrees to comply with all suggestions made by the Consulting Engineer and the Staff. This subdivision is subject to the Queensbury Phasing Regulations. Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint MR. CARTIER-We have three votes. MS. CORPUS-If the Board stays with three votes, within the time frame set up in our Subdivision Reg's. MRS. YORK-Mr. LaPoint, what she is saying, is the majority of the Board have to approve this. MR. LAPOINT-I have disqualified myself from projects regarding Haanen Engineering. MR. CARTIER-That's right. I forgot about that. MR. LAPOINT-I have a procedural question whether I should be absent or just abstain. I have been abstaining. MR. CARTIER-That's correct. Mr. LaPoint has dealt with this. already, at his first meeting, and it totally slipped my mind and I wish it had not. MR. LAPOINT-I apologize. I thought everybody was on board with that. MR. CARTIER-You're right. You are in the clear on this. We are having a Special Meeting, in November, or at 1 east goi ng to talk about a Speci a 1 Meeti ng on November 5th. I assume that Mr. Hagan will be here at that time. MR. CAIMANO-Wait a minute. She's looking up something. It may be a majority vote of the allowable voting members, no? MR. CARTIER-It's got to be four votes. PAUL DUSEK MR. DUSEK-The Chairman's correct. You have to have a majority of the Board. 45 '- --- MS. CORPUS-Four, of the Board. MR. DUSEK-Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do, tonight. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay, that is not to say that we have to go through this whole process again. All we can do is postpone our vote. We need to vote on it within 30 days and, as I say, we are about to schedule a Special Meeting for the 5th of November. We will make sure that Mr. Hagan is here and that, as far as I'm concerned, will be the first item on the agenda. MR. NACE-Procedural question for you. If you do that, is there any way that I can go ahead and submit Pre 1 imi nary, thi s comi ng Wednesday, or pri or to thi s Wednesday, and it be accepted, conditi ona 1 upon your approval of it, at your next Special Meeting? MR. CAIMANO-Well, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it is our problem, I think it would only be fair that that be granted. MR. CARTIER-Correct. I don't have a problem with that. MRS. YORK-Could you state that again, just one more time? MR. NACE-Okay. Typically, you will not accept applications, prior to approval of the previous phase. MRS. YORK-Right. If the Board has no problems with this, I don't have a problem with this. MR. CARTIER-We don't have a problem, correct? MR. MARTIN-I don't have a problem. MR. CARTIER-That takes care of that. You mayor may not wish to appear the 5th of November, that's enti rely up to your presence wi 11 not be requi red. Okay, I thank you. So ends the written agenda. We've got some other business that we need to take care of, here. MR. CAIMANO-We've got to do the mall resolution. MRS. YORK-Yes, the resolution on the mall. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Dusek, we have a question regarding the mall and designating the Town as lead agent, and the question came up, do you have a copy of that in front of your, or. are you familiar with it? With regard to the second paragraph, "Whereas the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has requested to be lead agent in the creation of a new zone, re-zoning, and site .I!lª-!l review of property". We, at least I did, anyway, had a question about this, with regard to site plan review. Normally, the Planning Board does the environmental review, at site plan review, on something, and this is, we have a question about that. Can you? MR. DUSEK-Sure. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. DUSEK-You're absolutely correct, first of all. normally, it would be the Planning Board that would handle, obviously, all its own $EQRA Review for its site plan. In this particular project. we've researched out the issue, under SEQRA, and, as it turns out, because it is .Q!!!. project. bei ng promoted, here, itls a project that needs some zoning, obviously, some zoning changes. It's a project that needs site plan, the project should still only have .Q!!!. SEQRA Review. As that is the case, once that SEQRA Revi ew is accompl i shed and then all agenci es wi 11 go down through and do thei r approvals in that fashion, afterwards. SO, SEQRA comes first, then you would divide up and do the other site plan reviews. So, the Town Board has not taken the site plan review away from you. What they will be doi ng, though, is acti ng as the 1 ead agent to cover all of the envi ronmenta 1 issues, or that's what they're asking to do. Now, if, at this point, you have yourselves, the Town Board, as the chief two involved agencies, if the two parties cannot reach an agreement as to who should be lead agent, then it would have to go to the Commissioner of DEC. MR. CAIMANO-That's not the issue. As far as I know, we have no problem with Town Board being the lead, that's fine. Our question, at least my question, and Peter started it, was, the second paragraph seems to get off the topic. It seems to say, to me, the term "lead agent", is that to be synonymous with SEQRA Review? MR. DUSEK-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, then I have no question. I was concerned that we got off on other topics, that was my concern. MR. DUSEK-The only thing this resolution is asking for is the determination of lead agent, for SEQRA purposes, and nothing other than that. 46 '-- --- MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess my concern, here, still, is in terms of. this is, I guess, what you could call a blended application. MR. DUSEK-Correct. MR. CARTIER-That it's all going to be done in one shot. and I'm not sure that's appropriate. I think, I think this Board, and we've got to talk about that, tonight, as a matter of fact, needs to sort out how we are going to pursue this, because we're going to be looking at a petition to re-zone, here. What we have to keep in mind is that we are not only creating a new zone for a particular applicant, we are creating a new zone in the entire Town. So, the issues that we have to look at go far beyond just this particular site, and I have some concerns about the Town Board looking at it, and I don't mean this in a parjoritive sense, but looking at it in a very narrow issue, in terms of this particular site, whereas this Planning Board may look at it in a much broader way in considering the entire Town. What we're talking about is a zone that could show up in other places in the Town and we have to do a, somebody has to do a SEQRA Revi ew from that perspecti ve, and what I'm concerned about is that that is not going to happen at the Town Board. MR. DUSEK-Maybe a couple of observations may be helpful. The first is, of course, is the Planning Board's right and opportunity to comment, as far as the re-zoning goes, as far as the site plan, as far as raising any issues. You always have that right. No one takes that away from you. The lead agent, if you will, is the coordinator or the organizer of the SEQRA Review. As part of that function, they are required, by SEQRA Regulations, to take comments from the other agencies, in undergoing that SEQRA Review. So, it's not like your considerations would be disregarded or that you could not submit them because, in fact, you can and they're required to listen to them. MR. CARTIER-Okay, I think I'm hearing Special Meeting, again, another Special Meeting, but that's okay. Does that satisfy, am I the only one who's.... MRS. YORK-Could I just ask a question? The Town Board is going to handle the SEQRA Review of these three items under one SEQRA Revi ew? MR. DUSEK-That's correct. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. MARTIN-How is the actual formation of this. in the District, going to be accomplished? Who is going to draft the new language for the new District, and the subsequent supporting narrative and all that. Who's going to undertake that? MR. DUSEK-Okay, the appl i cant has already submi tted some proposed 1 anguage, not binding, proposed only. Typically, the Town Board has taken a very active role in determining what that language will be, because they're the legislative body. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-However, in the past, they have, of course, taken recommendations and Oplß10nS from the other Boards. Maybe it would be helpful to compare this to a Planned Unit Development, because it's really very close to that. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-In the past, the Town Board has taken the lead agent in the SEQRA process for all Planned Unit Developments, and that's, basically, a re-zoning, with subsequent site plan, subdivisions, everything kind of boiling out of it. and they have taken that lead role, in the past, and then the Planning Board has made various recommendations and conducted it's own studies and gotten back to the Board. Does that help a little bit? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think so. What we're going to have to do, tonight. and, if we're going to do this at a Special Meeting. at the 5th of November, we're going to have to sort out exactly what it is we want to do and what we want to consider, before we get to that meeting, and how we're going approach this thing, but, yes, I think that answers my question. MRS. PULVER-I have a question. Is that a date that everyone agreed on? MR. CARTIER-Well, we haven't voted, formally, on it. We've said we were going to check our calendars and so on. Does anybody else have any other questions or comments on this resolution because maybe we can move that and get on to some other things? I just, somehow, want to be very sure that granting them lead agency status does not cut us out of the loop. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think what we're doing, we're mixing terms, here. I understand that this is geared toward the SEQRA process, but what I'm more concerned about is the planning process. 47 '---, -- MR. CAIMANO-Me, too. MR. MARTIN-How does the designation of an entire new zone fit into the overall picture of the Town, the Master Plan, that type of thing. and I just want to go on records as saying I hope that we have an opportunity to review that language, in a draft form. before any part of it's finalized. MR. DUSEK-You would, and, maybe this would be helpful to look at it this way. There are, basically, maybe just forget about the fact we have lots of things going on. Let's just, maybe, take are-zoning, or a new zone being created. I know there's site plan, but it's kind of tied, but, just, if you had a zoning matter that came before the Town. Somebody wants to create a new zone. Back before SEQRA, SEQRA hasn't been around that long, right before the 70's. MR. MARTIN-Right, that's what I'm saying. MR. DUSEK-All you would have done is exactly what you're saying. From a planning perspective, you would have looked at it and said, well, this either fits or doesn't fit with our Master Plan. The zone can be made better. It may cause us problems in this area of the community. You would have looked at all these type of issues, but, many times, many communities didn't look at the environmental issues. Now, with SEQRA, what it does is it creates a whole separate procedure, whereby you look at the environmental issues, first, make a decision, with reference to environmental issues, whether it's going to have an impact, not have an impact, environmentally, if there is none, obviously, it's a negative declaration, which you, typically. do here, or, if further study is needed, there's all kinds of issues, there. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-Once you get that part of the SEQRA process over, though, the next step is not denied you, and that is, you do have the right to comment on the re-zoning and, ultimately, of course, you will have your own site plan review. MR. MARTIN-Then, my next question is, then, it seems like that's putting the cart before the horse. We should be drafting what is going to be, we should be looking at what is going to be the actual language of that new zone, and then you see how that impacts on the environment, not this nebulous idea and then the end product can be very different. MR. DUSEK-Okay, the Town Board is, currently, going with the proposed draft submitted by the developer. iSO, there is something concrete. MR. MARTIN-Then we haven't seen that, yet. That's what I'm saying. MR. DUSEK-There is something concrete and written, as a proposed zone. That's what I would recommend that you conduct your review on. MR. MARTIN-But. see, what I'm saying is, what happens if you give this thing a negative declaration and then it goes through all the Boards, a major change is made and maybe your negative declaration then, is.... MR. CARTIER-Moot. MR. DUSEK- If that happens, there's a coupl e of di fferent thi ngs that coul d happen. Fi rst of all, if it became so serious that there was. now, an environmental concern. where there wasn't one, there are provisions for removing that negative declaration. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm just saying it seems like it makes more sense and would save more time that, if we go through the process of drafting the language, having the Boards look, everybody's in agreement, then you take that product and go through the SEQRA Review, that's all I'm saying. It seems to make more sense. MR. CAIMANO-But the point is, that we do this all the time. We approve SEQRA and still go on and have discussions regarding the site plan, after it and, in some cases, turn down the site plan. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-It needs to get a vote, that's all. MR. CARTIER-Well, let's get this resolution done, unless anybody else has any questions, and then we can get into some of these issues, on how we're going to approach this thing. Would anybody care to introduce this resolution, please. tmTION ON RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY IN THE CREATION OF A NEW ZONE AID RE-ZONING AID SITE PLAII REGARDING THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: 48 Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-We had, tentatively, scheduled a November 5th meeting to do two things, as a Special Meeting, one was to consider the petition to re-zone, and the other one was to look at the resolution we have, regarding expedite processes. Is the 5th of November still okay? MR. CAIMANO-Fine. MR. CARTIER-I believe it's a Monday. MR. CAIMANO-Evening, afternoon? MR. CARTIER-I hadn't thought about that. What's your pleasure? MR. MARTIN-Evening. MR. CARTIER-Evening? MRS. PULVER-Well, yes. MR. CARTIER-I don't see it, frankly, as being a long meeting, not an 11 o'clocker, I hope. MR. CAIMANO-How about 6:30. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say. let's start at 6:30. MR. MARTIN-Yes, 6:30 is alright. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I guess we need a motion to establish that, for a meeting at 6:30, do we? MOTION TO HAVE A JEETING. fl)VEMBER 5TH. AT 6:30. AT THE CJ,IEENSBURY SENIOR CENTER. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas MR. CARTIER-That takes care of that. Paul, you wanted a few minutes, emphasis on the phrase few minutes, to talk to us. MR. DUSEK-I just wanted to touch base with the Board. There's been a lot of changes, recently, and I'm finding that it helps if I, I've been trying to visit the various the Departments, new people in Town, because, sometimes, there's a little confusion, as to what the Town Attorney's office does, or what they should be doing or who we are, sometimes, and what our organizational scheme is, and, also, my office, it just so happens that we're currently redeveloping, ourselves. We're going through a phase, right now, where we're reevaluating the types of things we're doing. We're reevaluating the issues that we're handling and how we handle them, with our, I consider everybody that we deal with, obviously, as clients, from that perspective, because you are, and we answer to everybody, obviously, in Town. We answer to the Board, as a whole. We answer ~o you, as individual Board members. We answer to the various department heads, and even the employees in the Town, everybody comes to us. As a result of that, we have learned, and keeping in my that my office has only been in existence, now. a little over two years. Some of you may not be aware of that. They did not have an in-house Town Attorney, before this. They used to retain outside services for attorneys. They had one attorney that covered Planning and Zoning. They had one attorney that covered the other Town stuff and then they would, occasionally, go to further outside services, if they needed them. When they created my office, they created just ~ slot, and that was myself, at that time, who was to cover everything. That worked for, about, a year and a half, or didn't work for about a year and a half, maybe, would be a better way to put it. I found myself, usually, around this time of night, not even able to talk, after having gone through so many meetings. because you guys are very, very busy people. As a result, they brought on Karla, and Karla is the Assistant to me. She is. we call her the Deputy Town Attorney. That's the correct title, under statute. When we developed all of this, the designation 49 '--- ~ for Karla was to service the Planning Board and Zoning Boards, primarily, and cover them, that's why you haven't seen me here. very often, except for something that, maybe, has a relationship between the Town Board and the Planning Board or the Town Board and the Zoning Board. What I want to emphasize, first of all, tonight. is that that has occurred. only out of an interest in, hopefully, trying to turn a better service. What we're finding. though, internally, is sometimes the conflicts within my own office, of people wanting different things at different times and Karla's time is getting pushed in the same fashion, that we're meeting everybody's needs, at the level that they would like and I've seen that happen. a couple of times, with this Board, and, basically, besides explaining, then, to you, what is going on, a little bit, is, also, to tell you that we are. currently, taking a look at how we're delivering our services and, also, while we're doing that. we're taking a look, with the thought that we want to serve the Planning and Zoning Boards. obviously, at a very high level, because you're constantly faced with some very, very significant issues, every time you meet. Issues that, certainly, have a great impact on the community, and we're aware of that, and I want ~ to know that we're aware of that. If, during the course of what we're doing, over the next couple of months, we're going to be going through some changes. If there's anything that you feel is not working out, to this Board's satisfaction, please let me know, and it would be very helpful if you came to me, personally, to let me know if you feel that some of the changes we're making don't fit properly with the Board, or, if there's things that we're not addressing, at all, or. in terms of how we're getting back to you, that you would like done differently, once again, I want to indicate to you, please talk to me. The goal, here, is to turn out, at least my goal, as I tell my Staff all the time, and I've got a Staff, now. I've got a Deputy Attorney and I'm up to three secretaries, but the goal that I have set for my office is to turn out the same type of work that you would get from any other quality law firm. I don't look at myself as, necessarily, in-house and you all have to wait and that's too bad, when I get to it, I get to it. That's not my attitude. My attitude is, we're going to do whatever's necessary to meet the needs of our clients. just as if. like I say, you went to an outside firm. So, hopefully, you'll find that we're turning out the quality service, at a reasonable time, and you'll have to bear with us, to some extent. We have to look at the realities, but, at a reasonable time, and turn around time, so that you're happy. So, that's just to give you a quick pitch, let you know that we are doing something and, once again, encouraging you, if you do have feedback, by all means, please don't hesitate to give it to us. MR. CARTIER-The only question I have, and I don't need an answer, tonight, and maybe you've already thought of it, being as thorough as you are, but if you are, in fact, treating us like clients, and I think that's an appropriate thing to do. how do you handle a situation where two of your "clients" are in conflict with each other. MR. DUSEK-I have thought of that, because welve come close, on that. Interestingly enough, you might think, well, maybe Karla would take one and I would take another, but that's totally inappropriate, as a matter of the law, ethics. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I agree. MR. DUSEK-First of all, we evaluate the situation, in the beginning, to see if there is a conflict and, so far, I think there's only been one, that I can recall, and when that happened, that was very early on, and I think Case Prime was still with us, and we threw Case into it, but that's what we would do. We would go to outside counsel. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anybody else, any questions? MR. DUSEK-I appreciate you giving me the time. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay, we've got this zoning interpretation thing and the Hogan issue. Do you want to talk about that? MRS. YORK-Do you people just want to go into a workshop session and have a discussion, and end your Board meeting, at this point in time? MR. CARTIER-Well, don't we have to vote on sending this thing off to the Zoning Board, but then, I guess, we can do a workshop, after that. MRS. YORK-Do you have to, formally, vote? I guess you do. MR. CARTIER-You have. in front of you, a package of things. It should be, you've got a cover letter for that, tonight, from me. There's a request for an interpretation that I asked be drafted. You have a letter from Stu Baker to Pat. You have a letter from me to Pat. You have Pat's reply. You have the application for Hogan and, I believe, part of that package that's going to get sent on are the minutes, or am I getting confused? MR. CAIMANO-There are some minutes, here. MR. MARTIN-Yes, they're in there. 50 '''"--' -- MR. CARTIER-The minutes, when the discussion first came up, when we were doing a site plan on that. MRS. YORK-Those were the minutes of, I have them somewhere. MR. CARTIER-Weren't they at the last meeting, October 16th? MR. CAIMANO-16th. MRS. YORK-October 16th, Hogan, okay. MR. CARTIER-I guess all we want to ask is, do we want this to go off to the Zoning Board for an i nterpretati on? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is the package sufficient? Is everything in there that we want to have in there? MRS. PULVER-Yes, but what you want is Article 9, Section 9.011 B, right, defined by the Zoning Board? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-I mean, you want, you're requesting them to give an interpretation of what that is. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MRS. PULVER-Now, and, also, you want an interpretation, from the ZBA, on 289, Subdivision. MR. MARTIN-That came up, tonight. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Yes, that IS where they're moving the lot lines, of some or no significance. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. CAIMANO-On the one, the first one, the Hogan issue, I want to make sure we have all of the evidence that we Ire going to submit to them, including.... MR. CARTIER-That's a separate one. Let's do that one, separate from this. MR. CAIMANO-Including the letter from Lee York, on October 23rd, which gives us the Section, a copy of the Section, and it gives us some creative interpretations by the Zoning Administrator. MR. CARTIER-I don't have that in front of me. MRS. YORK-I wrote a letter? MR. MARTIN-It's that whole package of things, there. MR. CAIMANO-You didn't write a letter. You just gave us some stuff. MRS. YORK-Yes, I sent you that. at the request of the Chairman. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, right. MR. CARTIER-Yes, there you go. MRS. PULVER-Yes, you've got that, okay. MR. CARTIER-Is there anything else that ought to be added to that, or deleted? MR. CAIMANO-No, I think it makes it's case, and I use the term loosely, creative interpretation, because we have the same Ordi nance, and 180 degrees out of phase. is the best I can interpret her interpretations of this Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-On the one hand, it's one thing. On the other hand. it's 180 degrees out of phase. Also, I wrote something down here, as I told you earlier, and I don't know how far this goes, whether 51 --/ you want to send this to the. my concern is that the word "expansion", as defined in the dictionary. is the amount of increase in size, range, volume, etc., and I don't know how we could misinterpret what Section 9 says, or Article 9. I have no idea how we could get far on this. MRS. PULVER-Well, it's not ours to interpret. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MRS. PULVER-It's the Zoning Board, to interpret. MR. CAIMANO-And, when I say, "we". I don't mean this Board. MRS. PULVER-No, right. It is not this Board's decision to make a determination on what that means. MR. CARTIER-Well, we have a definition of expansion, in the Zoning Ordinance, which is the one that applies, expansion means any growth of activity which requires enlargement of facilities, including. building, parking spaces, storage yard, or any other facilities which are required to accommodate special...... MR. CAIMANO-Right, so if that thing goes from 800 feet to 1800 square feet, I think that's expansion. MR. CARTIER-There's are starting point. MR. MARTIN-That's what would be enforced. MR. CAIMANO-Right, but, anyway. all those things should go. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MRS. PULVER-Paul, let me ask you a question, while I've got you here. What we're asking the Zoning Board to do is to make a determination on something that's in the Ordinance. If this applicant were before us, right now, and it was just last week, and we were questioning this, and what was said was that the Zoning Administrator had made a determination that this was not, or didn't apply to this particular thing. Could we have. at that point, tabled the applicant, with his permission, or whatever and said, well, we need to get an interpretation from the ZBA, as to exactly what this means, before we can make, because we're confused. We need more information on that. MR. DUSEK-The answer to that question is, yes, and, in fact, I would have recommended to you that you do that. MRS. PULVER-I mean, of course, they would have just fainted on the spot. MR. CARTIER-Yes and, frankly. we would not have needed the permission of the applicant to do that. We can still table, without the permission of the applicant. It's just that a time clock starts. We have to act within 30 days. Correct? MR. DUSEK-Well, now, your time clock's been extended by that Agenda Control Law. So. you might want to remember that. MRS. PULVER-It's 45 days, now, isn't it? MR. DUSEK-It's much longer than that. Up to six months, on some things. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-It doesn't always kick in, but you might want to check it, on each instance. to see if that is applicable. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, but I'm just reminding you that you do have that, there. MRS. PULVER-I mean. I'm not for holding up the applicant, anymore than they should be, but.... MR. MARTIN-It comes at a frustrating point, because the applicant comes here, thinking. tomorrow morning he's going to go down, or in the very near future. going to go down and get their Building Permit, and. like what happened, you saw the rage of Mr. Hughes, I have to lay off men, now, because you're going to kick my project out, and, you know, if this was said, early on. in the beginning of the process. the applicant's would deal with it, and they would configure their project accordingly and it would go through much easier. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. MARTIN-But now we're the bad guy, at the point in which the project has got its most momentum. 52 "-' '--' MR. CAIMANO-Truthfully, I think we did, probably, the wrong thing for the right reason. I just felt, I felt badly that the person had gone through all this. He's standing here, has no idea that this is a problem, and yet it is a major problem. MR. MARTIN-And that's why I'm concerned that, you know, I have to, now. take this half step and go back for a written interpretation and all she's going to do is reinforce her position. MR. DUSEK-Well, on Hogan. I don't think you have to. Didn't she give a written opinion, on Hogan? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. DUSEK-I thought she did? MS. CORPUS-That Section of the Ordinance was not mentioned, at all, in her letter. MRS. PULVER-She didn't think it applied. MR. CARTIER-We requested a clarification from her. We have that. MR. DUSEK-Okay, you do have that. MR. MARTIN-October 22nd. MR. CAIMANO-After the fact. MR. MARTIN-Itls been approved. They're gone. MR. DUSEK-My advice was, it probably would have been better to hold up on that, maybe, at that point. MR. CARTIER-Yes, absolutely. MR. DUSEK-The next thi ng is, though, as far as getti ng to the ZBA, I don't thi nk you're stopped, now, because you do have a written opinion. MR. CARTIER-Yes. We know that. We're on our way to the ZBA. MR. CAIMANO-We're on our way to the ZBA. Carol was just asking what you thought. As I said. I admit. We did the wrong thing for the right reason. We don't want to be looked at as a Board that stops progress, either, and what we had, here, was a situation where there was a nice young guy and he di dn' t know and we di dn' t do the ri ght thi ng, maybe for the ri ght reason, but we di dn' t do it ri ght. MR. LAPOINT-Well, she came back with, again. a reinforcement of her interpretation. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. LAPOINT-So, I mean, where are we then? We would have had to send it to the ZBA. MRS. PULVER-That's what we're doing, now. Welre asking the ZBA. MR. MARTIN-And. this is the second case that I've seen that. the same scenario happened on the Docksider application. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. MARTIN-And be clear about what I'm saying. I'm not, personally. interested in who's saying what. I just want to make sure our procedure is fair and equitable to every applicant and when she writes that letter, now the applicant says, well. I've got your Zoning Administrator's opinion, now. Now, you're going to sit there and tell me you're still going to send me back and in the meantime, 30 days more have elapsed. MR. LAPOINT-That's the problem. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. That's the problem. MR. CARTIER-Yes, what is going to happen is, if the process continues, the applications are going to get held up, and the Zoning Board of Appeals is going to be very busy. They're going to get a lot of business from us. MR. MARTIN-And that is my reasoning for saying, she's had her opportunity to comment. and she didn't do so, and that, in itself, gives us, as a body, the authority to go directly to the ZBA, rather than, you're creating, actually, a 60 day time delay for the applicant, because we have to wait 30 days for him to come on the meeting schedule, again. He gets here, we say, no, we still don't agree with what the Zoning Administrator said. We're going to go for the ZBA. 53 - MR. DUSEK-I see what you're saying. Now, I understand the point I think you were trying to make, earlier, too. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-You want to treat, perhaps, her "no comment" as. in fact, an indication as to what her opinion must have been. MR. CAIMANO-We have to. MRS. PULVER-That it wasn't necessary or wasn't needed. MR. MARTIN-Because I was told that, the night of the Hogan meeting, that she only supplies written comment on those areas of the Ordinance where they're not in conformance. MR. CAIMANO-And, in fact, I think she says that. MRS. PULVER-Well, here's her words, and we asked her. This is what she's sent. I interpreted this application to need only that variance, and none other, as this is not an expansion. Now, they were tearing down the building and rebuilding an 18, doubling it, practically. So, this is what happened the night, there. The applicant said, well, your Zoning Administrator said we wouldn't need a variance for that, that we only needed a variance for something else and that's exactly what she said, when she came back with the letter. MS. CORPUS-She also clarified the reasons for that. There was an actual interpretation in that letter, I believe. I don't have it in front of me. I don't have that package in front of me. MR. MARTIN-No, I donlt say that she doesn't have reason. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that, I assumed that, going in, but I'm just saying that I'm still in disagreement with her interpretation and I'm going to appeal to the.... MR. CARTIER-Zoning Board. MR. DUSEK-A couple of observations on that, if I may, just to make a couple to you. First of all, I would like to give some thought to what you're saying, Jim, and see if there is a way that we can do, or do something close to what you want. I'm not prepared. right now, to say, or to recommend to you to do it. I'm a little troubled by it, for a couple of reasons, and there's probably more rattling around in the back of my brain, here, but, one of which is, what if you're wrong? What if she is right, and what if, if she explained it to you, you would then understand it? There's that possi bi 1 i ty. In the meantime, though, you've sent it to the Zoni ng Board of Appeals. A delay has occurred, and now the Zoning Board of Appeals has also got it. MR. MARTIN-What I'm saying. then you only have a 30 day delay. I mean, it goes to the Zoning Board and once they've made their ruling. no one can argue that, within the framework of the Town. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. MARTIN-So, you only have a 30 day delay, but if we continually go to her, to reaffirm her reasoning, going in, then you create that, you add on that 30 days. MR. DUSEK-Like I say, I may be able to wrestle with it, and come up with something, or maybe even agree wi th you, but I just need some more time to thi nk about it, I think. It's just not the usual way that you would see an interpretation go to the Zoning Board. Usually, there's something, in writing, defined, that the Zoning Board would then take a look at and say. this is it, but I can see ways that that could be gotten around. She could submit something to them, directly, instead of going back to you with it. MRS. YORK-What occurs is that an applicant goes down and talks to Mrs. Collard. Mrs. Collard fills out a three section form that we. traditionally, have used for in-house stuff. So that, when she comes to our department, we look on it and it says, this person needs a variance from Section 4.030 D, or from this Section. Then we know, I initiated this so there would be no confusion, on anyone's part, what this applicant needed. The Zoning Administrator made a determination. She wrote it down. He carried it to my department. We rip off, she keeps a sheet, we rip off a sheet and we file it. It is not made part the file or the public record. It is just an indication that this person needed this paperwork, but that is, basically, her determination that she has made, that sends them on their way to you or the Zoning Board or any other Board. What we could, potentially, do, Paul, is make thi s a part of the record, the indi vi dua l' s record. I mean, it's. basi ca lly, used for interdepartmental reasons, now, but if that would eliminate some of this, we could use it as a part of the persons record. Of their Zoning Interpretation. 54 ',,--, "--" MR. DUSEK-That may work. MR. MARTIN-And my reasoning. Paul, when I said I went to a conference. This wasn't just some shoddily put together affair. These were three lawyers, the Council of the Department of State of New York State and this was their interpretation of the powers of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, strictly an adminsterial position. She is like a machine. It's either spit in and spit out and it either goes one way or the other and when there is the least doubt, it is to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, even the shadow of a doubt, because she has no interpretive power, none. MR. DUSEK-Well. there's where I don't agree with. MR. MARTIN-Well, I was told different. MR. CAIMANO-How could you do that? MR. DUSEK-What's that? MR. CAIMANO-How could you give, just as a theoretical, mental exercise, how could you give that position that kind of authority when they don't have any right to vote on it? How could you give them that authority? MR. DUSEK-Because there is an appeal process that can still be followed. There's protections built into the system. MR. CAIMANO-That's the question I have, is whether there's an appeal process, okay. MR. CARTIER-Yes. There's a checks and balances system in there, and the checks and balances system is, part of the answer is, we can request an interpretation by the Zoning Board. MR. CAIMANO-Jim's point is that it gets slowed down. MR. MARTIN-And what I'm saying is, right now, that checks and balance system is being overloaded because it is... MR. CAIMANO-Well, to come around full cycle to what we've been beat over the head with for the last six months, rightfully so, this Board has been asked to try to move these things along. Now, we are getting more and more into a situation where it's actually going to go the other way. MR. DUSEK-Slows it down. The only thing I can ask the Board is, just give me a few days to take a look at this, to see if there's a, like I say, I may be able to come back, and, with Lee's idea of the form. and stuff, that may be the justification we need. The only thing I know that you have to have, as a basis, you have to have something to appeal to the ZBA from, because there's no question in my mind, that you just can go to them, automatically, because they're not, at least in this Town, the way we've structured it, with our Zoning Ordinance, in combination with the Town Law, they're not a Board of Original Jurisdiction. MR. MARTIN-Right. I understand that. MR. DUSEK-They can only hear something being, that has happened down at a lower level, that is now being shot up to them, saying, this is not right, this is wrong. Now, maybe, the interpretation or the decision shels making, by use of those sheets. that maybe the vehicle that we need, to get it to them faster. MR. MARTIN-Or maybe even an all inclusive check list that is an enhancement of what you've already done. I don't know. MR. DUSEK-I'd be happy to work on that and see if we can come up with a solution. MR. CARTIER-Can you, perhaps, have something for us, for the 11/5 November meeting? MR. DUSEK-Definitely. MR. CARTIER-Great, because we're going to be dealing with some issues. then, and expedited and maybe that's some of the things we can kick around. MR. DUSEK-I mean, I'm all for trying to move things along. You guys have enough work to do without being bogged down. MR. MARTIN-And the other thing, I want to make sure that everybody has a clear understanding of where the powers lie and what types of powers lie where. 55 - MRS. PULVER-And everybody has the same shot, you know, and they have an equal chance. MR. CAIMANO-You mean the applicant. MRS. PULVER-Right, the applicant, but whatever it is that they want... MR. DUSEK-I'll take a look at that whole picture and report back to you. I plan to be at that meeting, in any event, so. MR. CARTIER-Great. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Well, we still need a motion to pass this request for interpretation on to the ZBA. tmTIOII TO REQUEST All INTERPRETATION FROM THE ZOIlING BOARD OF APPEALS OF ARTICLE 9. SECTION 9.011 !' Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas tmTIOII TO REQUEST All INTERPRETATIOII FROII THE ZOIlING BOARD OF APPEALS OF NU&R 289 IN DEFINITIOIIS. SUBDIVISIOIIS, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 25th day of October, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Kupillas MRS. PULVER-They may have to come up with a specific, what they feel, I think they should give it, like, dollars and cents, okay, no more than five feet or ten feet is considered, you know. MR. MARTIN-I would even like to go so far as putting some sort of teeth in the definition. MRS. PULVER-Thatls what I mean, really restrict it. MR. MARTIN-I mean, an actual amendment to the Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well. that's something we have to wrestle with, and we have to submit that to the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-Because I think that is a definite weakness and I can see where that could be a problem, in a number of cases. MRS. PULVER-Well, first they have to give an interpretation, right? And then the Planning Board can make a recommendation, to the Town Board, as to updating the Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Perhaps we could request Legal Staff to research the issue and put together a..... MR. DUSEK-On? This is, which, now? MS. CORPUS-Which, I was following. MRS. PULVER-Number 289. MS. CORPUS-No. 11m following that. On 289, with regard to, what would you like the Legal Department to research, specifically? MRS. PULVER-Well, the ZBA is going to give us an interpretation, and if they don't come back with the dollars and cents of it, then we would like some research onto how we could really pin this down. MS. CORPUS-Some proposed language? MRS. PULVER-Yes. 56 - MR. MARTIN-289, Paul, is the definition of Subdivision and. at the end of the definition, it says that, essentially that. an applicant £!!!. make a small change in where the property lines of the subdivision are. MR. DUSEK-I'm familiar with that. MR. MARTIN-And what has happened, like, tonight, Mr. Hughes came in with a ~ foot adjustment to one of his property lines and there's some feeling that that's a little large. MR. CARTIER-Some strong feeling that that's a little large. MR. DUSEK-Let me ask you this. If and I think the Ordinance has to be checked, in this regard, but. if it's not written this way, if it were made to be written this way, that you could never use that exception in that definition, with regard to a subdivision, approved subdivision by this Board. Would that take care of your concerns? In other words, leave it open to any other lot that is not in the subdivision? MR. MARTIN-Well, no. I think the reasoning behind having the adjustment was, occasionally. you come across a natural feature or a man made event occurs that would require that you change a line that's drawn on a subdivision, maybe three or four feet, or maybe, more. MRS. PULVER-You're going to save a tree. You're going to save a whole ~ of trees. Supposing you make your lot lines and then you have a whole row of trees that grew up and you want to save them. MR. MARTIN-Or it turned out to be an environmental concern and you have a rare piece of flora or fauna and you want to... MR. CAIMANO-Even more than 55 feet, it was 30 percent of the lot line. MRS. YORK-Or you come across a water line you didnlt know was there. MR. DUSEK-Let me give you a couple of observations, though, here, again. First of all. if we are dealing with a subdivision map that's on file at the County Clerk's office, for instance, personally, from a legal standpoint, I'd be very hesitant to allow anybody adjust lines on those maps, without filing a new map, for any reason. I mean, not even two feet, not even six inches, and the reason for that is, as Karla will tell you, too, because I know Karla's done a lot of real estate work, that when you sell property, as an attorney, frequently, you rely on those maps and you may, exclusively, rely on that and sell what that map purportedly shows. MR. MARTIN-That was my concern. That's why I wasn't so concerned about how his drainage is piling up, elsewhere in the subdivision. That, certainly, is a concern, but I am also concerned, from a standpoint, this is a legal document. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. MARTIN-Itls on file, and now you're just, arbitrarily, giving this man power and authority to go out and sell 55 more feet off. MR. DUSEK-This is why I'm suggesting that, in the case of approved subdivisions, maybe the procedure should always be that they have to get a, you know, there could be a brief modification from the scheme, in mind, so that they can be changed, and then the records at the Clerk's Office always stay correct. Anything else that's not in a subdivision, I don't know that there's really any harm in allowing pieces of land to be switched between parcels and not call them subdivisions. In fact, there's a benefit. there, because, when somebody wants to do that, now they don't get thrown into the Ordinance, by calling it a subdivision, and then have to go through subdivision approval, and my perception of that Ordinance or that definition was, is that that's exactly what that was trying to avoid. They didn't want to have every little sliver called a subdivision and then have to go through the process. I don't know that, really, anybody thought about subdivisions, or internally, in subdivisions, the lines being shifted there. I don't think anybody really gave that a lot of thought. I think they were thinking of property that wasn't, at all, never subdivided and now, somebody says, well, to make, our boundary line goes like this. We'd like to make it straight. We I re not creati ng new subdi vi si ons, so, therefore, we shoul dn' t have to go through the process and I think that's what the goal of that definition was, in addition to what you're saying, to go around minor objects. MR. CARTIER-Historically, we've got some of those, on the agenda. We went through it in Rolling Ridge. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-We had an argument about that, but it was a minor lot line adjustment and we didn't have a problem with that, but here we're talking about, as Jim says, a 55 foot minor lot line adjustment. 57 "--' -' MR. CAIMANO-Thirty percent of the frontage. MRS. PULVER-We need a definition of what "minor" is. MR. DUSEK-But to go back to my original thought. If, in fact, the Ordinance read that you couldn't do that, with regard to subdivisions. doesn't that take away all your concerns? MR. CARTIER-Well, the way to do thi s is to handl e it wi th tri ggers. In other words, over so many feet, okay, it's got to come back in. MR. DUSEK-Okay. but then the maps are still inaccurate, at the Clerk's office. MR. MARTIN-I'm more for what he's saying. MRS. YORK-Excuse me, Mr. Caimano, I want to understand your question, make sure I'm answering the correct question. MR. CAIMANO-In our motion, did we put the fact that he had to change his Tax Map? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-I thought we did. MRS. PULVER-He had to re-file. MRS. YORK-From now on, he will come in to you with a modification to the subdivision and a site plan. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-I would, and maybe this is not the right time to do it, but I'll do it anyway. I would like to go on record as saying that we are not the villain, here. We have had problems with Mr. Hughes applications, in the past, and, for us to be declared the villain, is not appropriate, as far as I'm concerned, okay. MR. CAIMANO-He accused us of laying off his people, tonight. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Even more, going beyond appropriate, meaningless. I don It care if I'm the villain. It's a matter of what's right is right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Alright. MR. DUSEK-How does the Board feel about the proposition that I'm making, I guess, in terms, just to see if we're going along the same lines of thinking, here. The thought I had is, one, the Ordinance may very well have enough in it, already. to give us that, and I want to check that, because I do recall some language, in the Ordinance, dealing with modifications. It may be that the Zoning Administrator, to date, has not viewed that as strong enough and maybe something has to be corrected, there, and that may be the additional language that you're looking for. MR. MARTIN-This is a case, again, where this gentleman, there was an aspect to that applicant, he comes all the way to this point and that is an issue that was never brought up or, apparently, addressed or looked at. MR. DUSEK-Well, from what I heard from the Planning Department, tonight, though, apparently, or, at least, not from the Planning Department, but from the gentleman, he. apparently, did discuss that with the Planning Department. MR. CARTIER-Right, but understand something, here, too. There's a misperception that you come to the Planning Board alfd you get approval. You come to the Planning Board, and you do all of this stuff, in public. That's the purpose of these meetings, is to bring all these issues up, okay, but we, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to get stampeded into approvals when these issues are still floating out there, okay. MR. CAIMANO-Although I think we did this one right. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, again, how can you tell him you can't do that? MR. CAIMANO-Well, you can. 58 '-"' --' MRS. YORK-Mr. Dusek, I would like to go on record as saying, I am not in the position to argue with the Zoning Administrator's determination on anything, and I think we're both well aware of that. MR. CAIMANO-That's true. MR. DUSEK-You're right. MRS. YORK-So, whether the applicant said anything to me or not, I was not in a position to say anything, regarding the issue. MRS. PULVER-Well, until it gets changed, we still need a determination on how many feet is a little and how many feet is a lot. So, if he moves every lot line 55 feet, he'll end up with a nonconforming lot, at the end, either that, or he'll end up with one less lot, because he'll have to consume it, in the end, and I guess that was the Board's concern. you know, what are we supposed to do? MR. DUSEK-Okay, now, the only concern I would have on this issue, though, is, do we have something concrete that you're going to the ZBA with? MR. CAIMANO-On which one? MR. DUSEK-On the Subdivision 289. MRS. PULVER-All we're asking for is an interpretation on what they're talking about. MR. DUSEK-You should start off, you should get an interpretation, first, according to my theory, from the Zoning Administrator. first. You've got to have something. We said, a little while ago, maybe we could use her decisions that she makes in the course of things. That's one way to get around, you know, maybe speeding up the process, but, in this case, we don't even have that, that I can see. MRS. PULVER-Well, we're not hold up the process. We can go to her first, or we can go to her last. MR. CAIMANO-Or never. MR. DUSEK-You need something, see, the only thing I'm concerned about is, when you go to the ZBA, they've got to have something that they're reviewing. There's a decision or something they have to be looking at. MRS. PULVER-They're reviewing the Ordinance for us. MR. CARTIER-Can they review a decision for her not to decide. Do you understand what 11m saying? Can we go to the Zoning Board. what I'm saying is, and that's what they were talking about, before. She's decided that this doesn't require an interpretation. MR. MARTIN-Right, that's what I was arguing, before. MR. CARTIER-That is, in fact, an interpretation on her part. MR. DUSEK-And that's the item I need to get back to you on. MR. CARTIER-Okay. She's decided, I don't have to interpret this, and, can we say, yes. we think you do have to interpret it? MR. DUSEK-And that's the item I want to get back to you on the 5th on, then. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. DUSEK-That relates to the same thing. MR. MARTIN-We have to approach that one particular problem from a different aspect, or a different point. simply amend the definition, then. MRS. YORK-I have a suggestion for this Board, on this particular matter. If you would like to make it a policy that, in any, if any person who comes through and wants to modify a lot line, or change the size of a lot, in their existing subdivision, it.£!!!. be the policy of this Board, that they also prepare a modification to the subdivision, no matter whether it's a minor lot line adjustment or not. and. probably, that would be the best way to attack the problem without going through all of this hoopla with the Zoning Board. MR. DUSEK-The only thing is, we have to be careful, there. You can't, there again, you can't just make policy. You have to look what the law says. If the law doesn't give you that power to demand that. you can't just create a policy that says, well, we're going to require you to do it, anyway. 59 -- You, first, go from the Zoning Ordinance, okay. That's the only concern I would have. You can't just, arbi~rarily say, well. from now on, we're going to require that. anytime you do a lot line on a subdivision, you have to do a subdivision map. You don't have that authority. MR. CAIMANO-But you're going to look that up. MR. DUSEK-We're going to check that out. Now, if you have it in the Ordinance, already, then it's there and you don't have to make a policy. because it's there. MR. MARTIN-I would think that you would, because you're reviewing a subdivision. MR. DUSEK-I just get concerned when I hear "policy", because, when I hear "policy", that means I'm not seeing law, and the applicant's are guided by the law, and so are you, okay. MRS. YORK-Well, I'm sure if Mr. Hughes felt that the Board would be looking for a modification to a subdivision, as well as, his site plan, tonight, because he ~ adding 55 feet to his road frontage, he would have, certainly, brought that in. Do you see what I'm saying, Paul? MR. DUSEK-I'm losing it, because it's getting late. MRS. YORK-If the applicant's aware that the Board, whenever therels a lot line adjustment, needs to see the subdivision map, with that lot line adjusted, as well as just his site plan, he would bring it in. MR. DUSEK-You could always ask for documentation, but, unless there's an Ordinance, you can't do anything about it, that's what I'm saying. MRS. YORK-No, we don't force them to do anything. We just, simply, tell them. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. The Planning Board is empowered, there's not a law that covers every condition. MRS. YORK-Well. the Planning Board can ask for any further information. It is stated right in the Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Right. MRS. YORK-This can be further information you simply tell me to look for. MR. DUSEK-Okay. but, it's one thing of asking for information. It's another thing, basing a decision on something that is not in the law, okay. I think that's very important that we recognize. What I'm hearing, unless I'm misunderstanding something, I thought I was hearing that, well, weill just make it a policy that we will just require that they go through a subdivision process to readjust a line, and what I'm saying is that you can't do that, unless the law says that. MR. MARTIN-No, not a subdivision process. an application for modification. MRS. YORK-No, the Board is not saying that. MR. DUSEK-Now, if it's just a matter of gathering information, you can, of course, require, I mean, a great deal of information, there's no question about it, but you're final decision. on whether to approve or disapprove, or whether, even to require them to do something, has to be based upon what the Ordinance says you can do. MR. CARTIER-Sure, okay. MR. DUSEK-That's where your limitations are. MR. CARTIER-We've got something else to talk about, unfortunately. With regard to the special meeting, on re-zoning of the mall, what is it, exactly, that we want to look at? What do we want to get from Staff? What do we want to get from applicants? I'm still concerned about this blending of this. I guess what I think we need to establish is, our perspective, here. MR. MARTIN-I would like to see the narrative of the new district, the reasoning for the new district, as a starter. MR. CARTIER-How it fits into the Master Plan, where is it supported in the Master Plan. MRS. PULVER-Where else can you have it in the Town, besides this one. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think, after you read that, that'll give you some indication as to what it'll do. 60 '--- -- MRS. YORK-Also, Mr. Dusek, can you tell us if the Town Board is considering having a scoping session and should the Planning Board be considering items that they would like to have discussed at that or brought up or items of concern? MR. DUSEK-Okay, I can safely say that the Board would not, yet, get to the point where they would be considering a scoping session, because the first decision that has to be made is whether or not there's any significant impact. If the Board determines that there .i! a significant environmental impact, then you get into the scoping session to decide how broad or how narrow the Environmental Impact Statement will be. that's developed to address that issue. So, scoping is related to the EIS. The first question that the Board will consider is whether or not there is an impact. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. YORK-Okay. and there is, already prepared, an EIS for the Board? MR. DUSEK-The package that was given to your department, Lee, would contain a Long EAF Form, filled out by Pyramid, together with the copies of the proposed Ordinance. MRS. YORK-Right. I just want the Board to be aware of these things. MR. MARTIN-Now, how wide has the distribution been on this proposed language for this new District? Has that gone to the Planning Department? MR. DUSEK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Alright. I think we should have a copy of that. MR. CARTIER-When are we going to see this? When are we going to get this? MRS. YORK-As soon as you want it, I'll have it delivered to your homes. MR. MARTIN-And I also would like an analysis of that language and, if it's fitting, and, maybe, from a legal standpoint, also, if it's in the best interest of the Town and the Master Plan, so on and so forth. MR. CARTIER-I have a concern, in terms of spot zoning. Somewhere, rattling around in the back of my head, that I picked up from the New York Planning Federation Newsletter something to the effect that this kind of thing was knocked down, once, because it was considered spot zoning. MR. DUSEK-The first question you have to ask, and rightfully so, anytime you see a small parcel and I mean, small, by, or maybe a parcel under single ownership, either one, is you do ask that question, is it spot zoning? That's the first question that comes into my mind, too. You've had two cases, now, this being the second one, where I can safely say that I feel it is not spot zoning, based upon my review of the cases. One case, obviously, was the case that was before you, tonight. Inspiration Park, thatls a very small parcel, but, after reviewing many court decisions on that, as well as, relative to this, it just so happens, because I did it for one, I've done it for the other. The courts don't merely look at ownership and size. They look at other issues. They look at whether it's a benefit to the community. They look at whether therels a need for a new zone. They look at all the issues, then they decide whether or not it's spot zoning. My overview of the issues, as I understand it, today, leads me to believe that spot zoning is not a problem. MRS. YORK-I have a question. The applicant has submitted plans for the mall and the EIS and the whole nine yards, and requested to be put on an agenda for November, for a Site Plan Review. Until a new zone is created and this particular parcel is re-zoned to that zoning, we cannot advertise this appropriately. MR. DUSEK-You're right. The Site Plan would come after the re-zoning. Now, the only thing, though, that I would caution the Board on is that, the SEQRA part, since it will cover the Site Plan, you really want to know a little bit about the Site Plan, which may be why they're trying to get it to you, because you're going to have to make some SEQRA judgement calls, early on, that will effect this Site Plan, which, although it'll come later,.... MR. MARTIN-That get's me back to my original point is, I don't know how we can do a SEQRA Review on a Zoning District that we know nothing about and has not, officially. been adopted. MR. DUSEK-Well. there's a proposal, and I think you would operate off the proposed. MR. MARTIN-Not officially adopted, at least, in some firm language. MR. DUSEK-It is in firm language. Lee has it. 61 '---' ..- MR. MARTIN-Yes, but it's only been, has any change been made, by any member of the Town? It's just strictly come from the developer. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Well, it's come from the Town Board, because they're forwarding it on to you, at this point. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I mean, has it gone under any analysis, any scrutiny? MR. DUSEK-The developer. MR. CARTIER-Okay, it's coming straight from the developer, alright, and it's being passed on. undiluted, if you will, through the Town Board to us. MR. DUSEK-Right, which is not to say the Town Board won't take a hard look at it. MR. MARTIN-No, 11m not saying that. MR. CARTIER-Do you have enough to go on, in terms of what we want? Is there anything else we need to see? MR. CAIMANO-If we see it, we'll have more to tell you. MRS. YORK-Yes. will have the information delivered to you, tomorrow. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Keep in mind. something, here, too, the fact that welre looking at this next, 5 November, doesn't mean that we're going to come up with a recommendation. We may decide that we need more information. MR. DUSEK-Maybe, too. if I could just, trying to be helpful, I guess, at this point. It would seem to me that there's going to be two major issues before the Board. One being. whether or not you're in favor of the creation of a new zone, because that's one of the things that you're being looked to, under the Statute, a recommendation, in that regard. The second issue being, that of, what do you need. in terms of SEQRA information, to make your decision in Site Plan. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Acting Chairman 62 ~ LOCATION MAPS October 25th. 1990 Planning Board Meeting OLD BUSINESS: '.'- subdtvision No. 7-1989 FINAL STAGE Farm to Market Commons John A. and Stephanie B. Mason (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 63-90 Wayne and Dawn Viele (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Subdivision No. 10-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Kelly Subdivision (See Staff Notes and Map attached) Subdivision No. 9-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Madison/Diamantis (see Staff notes and Map attached) NEIl BUSINESS: Petition for a Change of Zone No. P9-90 Martin G. Gallup, Marilyn Matriccino. Kay Kuebler (See Staff Notes attached) Nt \-~fJItØ~ 4'N~~ \ -- - I f'µ'~\ ~~~ ~. \ I 1Ü/ØØ Site Plan No. 80-90 William Threw (See Staff Notes attached) Site Plan No. 81-90 John M. Hughes (See Staff Notes attached) CI.U~ ~1). k.. . ( <i,)' A.c .c. b", ctc! .~ HAuf~"'O .... W""LI«It I LA._ n ~': d z:. ï. - '--' LOCATIOII MAPS October 25th. 1990 Planning Board Meeting NEW BUSINESS: (Cont'd) Subdivision No. 14-1990 Sketch Plan Inspiration Park Adams Rich Associates (See Staff Notes attached) -- Ii Itt ~ -i ¡: o c Z -i » Z ;;c !=' EXIT 18 CORINTH ROAD -- TO GLENS FALLS f- eCI .-: cr: ~ z VICINITY MAP 0~ ¡VI. ~ -,? t..::: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO 79, 9 cJ J. M. Weller Associates, Inc. . ~ "--- UPPER BAY ROAD · P.O. BOX 2015 . GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 · PHONE 518-793-3509 October 15, 1990 Town of Queensbury Planning Department Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, New York 12804 Re: F . W. Webb Project, _ Tax Map No. 110-4-1.2 Joe Roulier, Property Owner Gentlemen, . "'UG~'."~ ~~~ DEPARTMENT fILE COpy It is my desire to withdraw the Application for Site Plan Review for the referenced project. We have found it necessary to make miscellaneous revisions to the plan. Hopefully we will be able to re-submit in time to be given consideration in November. Sincerely, m.cj(~ Weller, P.E. /hn . - -- ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlAnning Department F1Lt ,... -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: October 22, /990 By: Stuart Baker Area Variance _ UseVariaDce _ Sign Variance _ Interpretation Other: -1l- SubdiYision: _ Sketch, _ PrelimiDary, ~ FiDal Site Plan Review - Petition for a CbaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit Application Number: Subdivision No. 7-1989 Applicant'. Name: John and Stenhanie Mason Meeting Date: October 25. 1990 ............................................................................................ This 3 lot commercial subdivision received conditional Preliminary Stage approval from the Planning Board on September 20, 1990. I have reviet.¡ed the changes in the subdivision plat, and I have the following comments: I) The access onto Rte. 149 has been eliminated. The applicant has submitted a copy of a permit from Warren County DPW for the proposed roadcut on Bay Road. 2) All drainage will now be handléd by retention basins and eave trenches. Exact sizing for ·stormwater management will be done for each lot at site plan review. 3) If engineering concerns have been adequate ly addressed, I would recommend approval. SB/pw ~ t'~~ST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4146 518.793-4141 -- ..uc.L...-.... ~~~1!' ;)LANNING . ZONINC" DEPARTMENT October 22, 1990 RFA #89-5000.507 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Farm to Market Commons Subdivision 7-1987 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Easements for driveways and drainage easements must be shown o~ - the final plat. 2. Peak runoff rates were calculated for individual lots using a 25 year event. If retent ion/detent ion is used, a 50 year event shall be used according to Subdivision Regulations, Article VIII 1.2. However, detailed individual retention/detention areas designs will be required at site plan review. 3. Regarding the subsurface sewage disposal system the following items will need to be addressed at site plan review: 6" of aggregate below and 2" of aggregate above the perforated pipe lateral should be shown on a detail. Absorption laterals should be designed in accordance with NYSDEC Design Standards, Table 13. Volumes should be indicated between pump turn on and off levels ånd should be in accordance with NYSDEC Design Standards (Pg. 68 - Distribution Systems). A 50' separatiòn distance from the proposed retention area to the mound system is required on Lot 1. Very truly yours, a) b) c) d) RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. "-- \ ! ~ I,A",.,."",!...\ Thomas M. Yarmowich,' P.E. Managing Project Engineer TMY/cam @ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH ~ . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY r .. ,J E 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804·9725 (518) 792-5832 r n r: '1 , ' SUBDIVISION NO. 7 -/9~7 October 5, 1990 FINAL PLAN James W. Hotaling, Chief Local Government Services Adirondack Park Agency P.O. Box 99 Ray Brook, New York 1Z977 RE: Subdivision No. 7-1989 Farm to Market Commons Final Stage Dear Mr. Hotaling: Enclosed please find the following information regarding Town of Queensbury Subdivision 7-1989, Farm to Market Commons: 1. Parts 1 and Z of the Long EAF, completed and signed. Z. Planning Board Resolution 7-1989, Determination of Non-Significance. 3. Negative Declaration, Notice of Determination of Non-Significance. 4. Final Stage Subdivision application with maps and supplemental information. Please be advised that the Final Stage Subdivision Plat will be reviewed by the Queensbury Planning Board during the month of October. If I can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, SGB/sed Enclosure "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 .._---------~ -- ........" '.'2-7 (2I87}:-9c 817.21 Appendix F Stlt. Envlronmentll QUlllty A.vl.. NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non·Slgniflcance SEQR Project Number Subcli9i8ica No. 7-1989 Date lO/ZO/90 This notice Is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article e (State Envlronmenta' Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The To.. of·QueeDøbury PlAnning Board . as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: seaR Statue Type I 0 Unlisted ~ Conditioned Negative Declaration: 0 Yes []J No DelCltptlon of Action: Far a 3 lot COIIIIDerc:ial8llbdi9i8ica of a 3.79 acre pan:eL Location: (Include street add,... and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale Is also recommended.) Dœtheut ~DeI' of Bay Road aDd Route 149. QueeDøbury. Wuren County -- ~ --- ~R. Ne~atiYe Declaration Page 2 R.asons Supporting Thl. Determination: (See 617 .6(g) for requirement. of this determination; see 617 .6(h) for Conditioned Negative Declaration) See attac:hed. TOWD of Queeaøbury pt,..,,,n.g Board Resolution No. 7-1989. If Conditioned Negative Declaration, provide on attachment the.peclflc mitigation mea.ure.lmpoHd. For Further Information: TOWD of QueeDabury PI--ø.g Department Contact Person: StwIrt G. Balter, A8BÍat8,Dt 1'1--- Addres.: 531 Bay Road, QueeMbury, New YœIt lZ8CM-97Z5 Telephone Number: (518) 79Z-583Z For Type I Actions and Condit..... ptegat.. Declaratlone, a Copy of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 Appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the Chi.f Executive Officer of the political subdivision In which the action will be principally located. Applicant (If any) Other involved agencle. (If any) .---------- - - - "--' ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY :plAnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A.· York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: OC tober 17. 1990 By: John Goralski Area VuiaDce Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: SubdiYiaioD: -Sketch. Prelim' - mary, X Site PIaD Review - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 63-90 Applicant'. Name: Wayne and Dawn Viele MeetiDg Date: October 25, 1990 ............................................................................................ This dumpster. building. site plan has been modified to show the exhaust fan and the The handicap ramp has been relocated to the easterly side of the The parking has also been redesigned. There are now 17 spaces provided. 13 spaces are required. The parkin~ lot has been moved back from Corinth Road due to the high volume potential of this type ,of business. I recommend at least 4 additional spaces b~ located at the easterly portion of the proposed parking lot. This will help to insure that there will be ample parking during peak hours. Finally. the revised plan indicates that the swimming pool will be filled in. JG/pw ~ \ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4146 518.793-4141 '-.-' ~ ...uc;~,....,· ~~!~ October ZZ. 1990 RFA #89-5000.063 ~LANNING . ZONINC DEPARTMENT Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Wayne and Dawn Viele Site Plan 63-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the site plan and have the following engineering comments: 1. The Board may wish to stipulate that prior to issuance of a building permit that percolation tests with test pit data are required for verification of the subsurface disposal system design. 2. Previous engineering concerns have been addressed. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. k _. ~ ' ( ¡ ,--- ! ( ',--'~.-. !',,'._.\'\I\.".~ ;;-....,..~..._,\ Thomas M. Yarrnowich, P.E. Managing Project Engineer TMY/cam e GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA. NH · " '-" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY OOMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION --- fiLE COpy Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 11 Owen Avenue Queensbur,J. R. Y. 1280J Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12803 To I (X) Warren County Planning Board Da te , 9/10/90 (X) QUeensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (X) APplicant Rei Site Plan #63-90 Wayne and Dawn Viele d/b/a Rib Cage Corinth Road We have reviewed the request for, ( ) Variance, (x) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendationsl (X) Approval ( ) Disapproval The revised plan was submitted showing handicap parking near the handicap ramp which has been changed to the west side of the building. Other parking has been moved farther from the curbcut which has been changed to the west of the building to replace the existing one to the east. The previously planned parking area nearer the highway will now provide a wider curbcut and will provide space for a grassed area in it's place. Flowers will be planted in front of the building on either side of the handicap ramp. The dumpster will be at the rear of the building and will be fenced. On the east and west property lines existing trees will be retained augmented by additional trees where necessary. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approvel 1. Non-conforming signs, ~ 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attaohed plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~( ctfully submitted, <. ZclL1 Ro15 rt L. Eddy, Chá£tman Wayœ: ð~!/¡eLe- SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. (ß -9 () -- F 1 '- E COP)' Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped October 16. 1990 Df.ANNIH I DIPARTM:~:'Nr. Present: Margo Burrell Nancy Calano Joseph Denig Recommendations Dear Chairperson: Re: Site Plan No. 63-90 The New York State Codest Rules and Regulations states that parking for the disabled should be 81wide with an access aisle of 8lwide. Curb cuts should be provided and accessible restrooms also. Respectfully submittedt Nancy Calanot Secretar7 on behalf of the committee cc: Stephen Borgos. Town Supervisor Lee Yorkt Senior Planner Dave Hatint Code Enforcement Admin. Pl~nning Board Committee - 1 f I 24 A l 15 I 208 100 200 I " II} rl ,(I ~ :" _ IOU._~OO ( ª 15 ~~~ 30 ~~~ 14 (14) \.J I!I- 0 J.- . !~~. 39___ - o 13 (131 o ~ 18/.47 o (/ll Q 12 0 186.56 º ~ ~'ðTEfT.(! It: (II) <t ~r 3 3! ª I., " 0, . ~ 0 -' ;"~L -= (,)' 9' f! (101 S' 3q ---¡gGlXJj ª 35 Jog. , . ~ ª J If. \ j /9/12 w 0 16 :v 0 8 - '" 1/51 If") CD ;Jt OJ r; 4,/OAC I !O .. ( ---- ----.--- 34 3.23AC. 36 5.25 AC ., lSIO .- - - - --- I . I~ , 34 , _.-. _.. . J8 ,-- ". II' '0. 115 117 -çÓR1AJ:III R 0 Hf . 'J(J RSI f4C " , t \; , o o N 9 (91g (\ '83;~_ 181 u 2 o 2 u o 7 18¿ f 152. o 0'1 0 (2) O'Ic . :z 2 o -f !!? -< '.1'- I':' t' " ....... )~ .1/ 20.15 1.13 A(; .(5) '" .... 80 146.76 EW£1t-·· /,87 fJt,,,(~ (J A Y N ¡-¿ A rJ D D A v.J"¡ V: e \ e. 06 o º (j --=_.¡EL., 192.36 (,¿13I 28 ~ ü º ·---í9f4S'·- 8 (29 29 19054 (j 0 I 0 30 18963 IT ª 31 8 188.73 f3 32 / 185.09 o 2 36 - Ïš4:rø- ª 37 183 38 /83.37 39 /81.41 40 180! 41 18 7. 3~ 42 241,4; .. II) .... .. ~1 - '~ -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department " .. .i-..... COpy -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: October 24. 1990 Stuart Baker By: Area VariaDce Use Variance == Sip Variance _ InterpretatioD Other: x Subdi't'Ï.lliolU _ Sketch, .!.- PreJimiDary, Site PIaD Reriew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit FiDa1 ApplicatioD Number: Subdivision No. 10-1990 Applicant'. Name: John C. and Nancy A. Ke 11 y MeetiDg Date: October 25, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicants are proposing a two lot residential subdivision. I have revietled the application. and I have the following COI11r.1ents: 1) A utility easement should be provided giving cable access to lot A across property in lot B. 2) Proposed clearing limits should be provided on the final plat. SB/pw " -....--.----- ~ R/ST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P,C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4146 518.793-4141 -- ...uc.......,.. ~)~W[~1~1 ~ OCT241990 1W ~LANNING . ZONINC October 23, 1990 DEPARTMENT RFA #89-5000.510 Town of Queensbury Office BUilding Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Kelly Subdivision Subdivision 10-1990 - Preliminary Stage Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. A request for a waiver from a stormwater management plan has been made. We agree that the stormwater runoff will be minimal and should not significantly impact the site. We recommend that the Board waive the stormwater management requirement. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~L Thomas M. Yar 0 ich, P.E. Managing Proje Engineer THY/cam @ GLENS FALLS. NY-l.ACONIA. NH ------------- ~-- ~ 125 )"" {II;?) ~J, J:~- ~,I r" >' '~~'.n 8 .F~" :~:."' 1..- _~. ~ ,.., rJ ( .) c; "I) .. r ( - I... , _ .... :,',' if ~;:'~~"; ~='~;5. ':~ \,; : .. /\C ((,~ .,¡ I t I -- I I I I ~, ? h ,--.- j( i~ '. -)1 tr :-'\ ~~9, R2'0,J~1 2 ''j.'ì . .' - j ~:! (' -' " ' , "'j' xr 1~._0. n ~J --, ~ '. 0 ~ 1:;, 1 (r,i () ,; Q, t) - '~·ò 5 IZ-¥ !.; !'." -' ~) rT.', i I ,'" c· I' . ::: f= - 7 (0-...1 o c' y~() ',' ,¡ :; ':7 y " , ' I ¡ ¡ I ~.~_.!;G .I';è,; ':::0.::" ~ I C' ,. i i I )1 L.. j:'L' i __"~_._ ~~_L_ ' =~~ ( : .80, ; .;,', ir, ~ t f L " ¡-.-.. , rT ", C\ " c tl! ,~ I~ ~~ ùi ~, \.¡I r- ' '1 f4 15 ! ILL ....'\ ,~ :?L 71? .<,; ECTIO~ /47 3t 1Jf ; ,f .t· ..",. f~ i, I ¡,\ I d 2 P..W I' t, F",,"v " P..m.. J" 1 1\1\ r,¡ t. 1\,¡, (-, r' 1 1 .Iv t;ltll t'on JDhll C. '--" ìj7j09 (~>6) 00 ~) C 1/ J' 206 <:.> i f I Sf) 1', , . ~G " 10111P(,37) . _~_ _j.5 º-_ I ,./0 I; ] - IS ~ ~-". n I ''I :.; r ' 'H I ~~;- ( 7.<3) ._-'~~ ] 1 ~ (1 . ,; I I! éJ t"·, 'f, ~ ;n .~.j7 '-- (y)) o 9 '.0 (4{)) ~-~-ç_.., ~- , ~ c, ( I I I , I l'j(¡ , , ,'1 ,1./ . _..L. _ . f - If"": ! :3<) 1(1/48 '. 1(1055 ,'~ II ·1, '" 1'37 3~ ~ ,n ~_..--._._"._- ~ ~ '~ l) ~ i ¡ . - --..--- î¡' , . ~ --_._... --- I" _...__--A._._ _____ II' '--.--..-. --,--------- 7 A·l- ,¡ I-- 1"2. . ¡ $¿:::~I')I) r4C:, I Î .'1 ... ~~t Pllld11 ~.. ¡.df¡f·. Jt1f.""II~hurj' ~t"ph""llp J,':\r\I' (; 1,·,1" F.. I I", J' ,( I H· ¡x "J 7'·4 L I.."r. F.. 1 I" Ar\ 1) /ffrIru ry A , ke 1/ ;! - -- - .. - - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PlAnning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. J obn S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: October Z3, 1990 By: John S. Goralski Area VmiaDce Use Variance == Sip. Variance _ IDt~¡aetatioD X SubdiftsioD: Sketch. - Site Plan Rmew - - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDda Permit X Prelim' - mary, FiDal Other: Application Number: Subdivision No. 9-1990 Applicant'. Name: Madison/Diam antis Meetmg Date: October Z5, 1990 ............................................................................................ The Zoning Administrator has determined that this proposal meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit \vas obtained by the applicant. It appears that the design standards in Article vm of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. I recommend continuing the haybale dikes between lots 1 and 2. to insure that any siltation cause be the construction of the septic systems will not impact the wetland. There do not appear to be any outstanding planning issues. The Town Engineer should discuss whether his previous comments have been satisfactorily addressed. JSG/sed .-----_.----_.. .... ~ 'RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793-4146 518.793-4141 '--' ....-- ...Ua:;....(·h"'... J)~awr~l~ ~~ OCT24 '990~ ")LANNING a-ZONINr DEPARTMENT October 22, 1990 RFA #89-5000.509 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roðds Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Madison/Diamantis Subdivision 9-1990 - Preliminary Stage Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Well location on Lot 2 should be shown on the plans with required separation distances indicated. 2. Pump station design should be included with the subsurface disposal design. 3. Wells and septic systems on adjacent lots should be shown, if within 100~ Otherwise a statement to the affect that none exist shall be on the drawings. 4. All structural openings to the new buildings shall be a mlnlmum of 2' above the most recent estimate of the 100 year frequency flood in accordance with Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regula- tions, Article VIII I.l.a. 5. A grading plan should show proposed lot grading. 6. Hay bales used for erosion control should be in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Erosion control measures shall be left in place until all disturbed areas are Qroperly stabilized. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST AS~OCIATES, P.C. \ ' I ~i'I' "I -- \ ,! j"1 ' / ',,' ~ ,:. ' " 1'/-" Thomas M. Yarmowich, P.E. Managing Project Engineer TMY/cam $ GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH ....,----~-_.- '-' - .......,.-.,.-,....'fIII¡II..IIiIIr'. "'............,.. ~ t....I I.....~__ 154'5-',~~ ~ ~ ~·5-('·1 " ~"·6·&' ,4t- ~ ~ $"" ·('.4lz _0._-_____ ~4-~·I'.Z ,.. , '-I , " , ':!J " ~ , ~ ,........... ~ I ~ I I I -... ~ ----:- ___---t-- --- , , I I I , ,µ, /- 5' , , , I , , /' ~/ .. -" - 5t -.s·".~1 - - - --............... ~"'-5·(. .ZI .... ~ ~ \. " , .s4- ~ / ~ " \.0 51'5 ""33 54-,5-(,..$1 .5 4-05.(,.4" ~ '" ~ ~ " ~. ~ i " , " ~ ' ). , , , \ 54-5 -(,.'N . ~ )/. þ ~ N4VI tAAlD " ~ ,I,' '~ ~d~' -r- - ()¡(/D · , · , · 5<iJ - 5 - 8 , , I I ~--"'- , I , , I I ~<iJ -,5-;J , , , , I , I I -r---'--"·'-- , 'S4-5 -II, / , $C:;; ~...... ' .....,-00· -', /'. / / ,\¡ ~ ~ <¡ ' S4 - 5 ' ~." /~ ~ /~ ..... ç) I :::\ ~ t\ ~ ~ , , t I . , p, - Z-I , , , , \ , \ , \ - '.. , I '...l ....... I I ---.< ~- ~ I . I DO,' I) I I I I 54'~-17 .----. -- ...--- ....... ---- ----- I II = 400 I .5-1-.5-I/·~z fI1 II Di >0;./1 D¡'Af'Y)Aì; S . - c_ ...- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ~ I... ,... ~ .... \...; ,- Planni"8 Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: October 16, 1990 By: Lee A. York Area V8riaDce Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: SubcliYisiOD: Sketch, _ Pre1imiDary, Site P1aD Rmew -y- Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Application Number: Petition P9-90 AppJicant's Name: Hartin G. Gallup, Marilyn Matriccino, Kay Kuebler MeetiDg Date: October 25. ] 990 ............................................................................................ The request is to change the zoninp, on two adjacent parcels of land located on the corner of Meadowbrook and Quaker. The zoning in this area is currently SFR-20. The applicant is requesting HC-IA. The rationale for creating this zone (SFR-20) in this location was to ~rotect an established residential nei~hborhood. The pro~erty in question currently has a residence on it and is desi~nated residential in the Assessor's office. The land in question also has some developMent constraints according to the resource maps. The Terrestrial and' Aquatic Ecology map identifies this area as a wetland/habitat. The Soil Analysis/Percolation Rate map indicates the lot has a !,ercolation rate of 6-20 inches per hour whic~ i~ limited to unsuitable for development. The Soil Analysis/Depth to HiSh Water indicates that the water table is at a depÖ of 0 - 18 inches ,V'hic::' is low suitability for development. The Hater Resources j\;8D shows a AA streare flm.¡in~ t~rough the ¡Jrouerty (Halfway Creek). -1- ...- P9-90 The Intrinsic Development Suitability map shows this area as having a low suitability for development and major planning changes needed for any development to occur. The applicant is correct in that this is one of the rare areas which is not zoned commercial on Quaker Road. The limitations of the property and the residential development existing there are the reasons for this. Also the two parcels in question are not an acre in size and the request is that a rezoning at one acre density be approved. In doing this nonconforming lots will be created. LAY/pw - ,,--,. ..- ~ .:~~ ~ - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P'lSIInning Department J.. L , .... COpy -NOTE TO FILE- By: October 12, 1990 Lee A. York Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdi.øion: Sketch, Prelim' - - mary, X Site Plan Rmew == Petition far a CbaDge of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 80-90 Applicant'. Name: Willia1i1 Threw MeetiDg Date: October 25, 1990 ............................................................................................ This industrial site plan is very confusing. Primarily because of the "site limits" lines which appear to subdivide the property into three distinct parcels. The property is actually one lot of 3. II acres in a LI-IA zone. The request is to build a storage building. The application indicates that the lot contains no buildings. That is incorrect. The 3. II acres current ly contains two buildings which total :I; 7,441 square feet. According to the Zoning Ordinance <Section 4.020 - N Light Industrial) the maximun density is one principal building of up to 12,000 square feet of gross floor: area for single story bui ldings. Calculat ing the site acreage times the allowable square footage indicates that the applicant could have 37,320 square feet of gross floor space on the 3. II acre site. The proposal is for a building of 24,751 square feet. This building size added to the square footage of the buildings currently on site equals 32,192 square feet. The applicant could add :I; 5, 1Z8 square feet of gross floor space on the site and meet the Zoning Ordinance allowable density. However, the applicant should be apprised that he will have the maximum nu~ber of allowable structures on the site. <One building per acre) Any expansion would have to be additions to existing structures and the 3. I! acre site cannot be subdivided without a variance. It would appear that site liMits have been established to differentiate this pé'xticu.lar develo!)r.1ent area from the rest of the lot. This is not possible under the Ordinance without varying the established criteria. -1- -- William Threw The drainage facilities should be designed to take care of the entire site rather than the area inside the "site limits" indicated on the plan. The plan that has been submitted does not indicate any parking, pedestrian access, loading areas. road access, energy transmission facilities. drainage facilities natural ,features, etc. for the two existing buildings on the site. Since the Planning Board is charged with reviewing a site with respect to the existing features and their interrelation, as well as, its intrarelationship with the community, by recommendation is that no Board review take place until all the necessary information is made available. LAY/pw -2- .. ~ RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE SOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518.793.4146 518.793-4141 '-' ....- ~~Øå¡f~'~' ~ OCT M 1990~ )LANNING . ZON'NC DEPARTMENT October 22, 1990 RFA #89-5000.080 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: William Threw Site Plan 80-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the site plan and have the following comments: 1. Grading plans should be completed to reflect site plan treatment of all existing pits and stockpiles. 2. Erosion control measures should be provided in accordance with New York State Guidel ines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. '<-\1 l I , "" ".,~.VJ,~.1:., "--_. Thomas M. Yar~wich, P.E. Managing Projeèt Engineer THY/cam @ GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA. NH --.-----~--_.- ~- -- - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION FILE COpy Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 TOI ex) Warren County Planning Board ex) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) Appli cant Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 Date. 10/8/90 ,. ReI Site Plan #80-90 Big Bay Road We have reviewed the ( ) Other - and have ex) Approval Willaam and Rosemary Threw request for. ( ) Variance, ex) 5i te Plan Review., the following recommendations I ( ) Disapproval This very large building to be used to house equipment, instead of having it stand out in the weather, is satisfactorily buffered and planted according to plans. The Committee was i.nformed and the blueprint shows a wooded buffer area toward Big Bay Road which is to remain. South of the curbcut there is an extention of this wooded area. South of the building and the driveway, pine trees will be planted as shown on the blueprint, plus four directly west of the building and four more to the west of the back car park. There is, also, a wooded area to the north which will remain and provide a~buffer to the north of the building. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go oñ record that it does not approve: 1. 'Non-conforming signs. 2. Plastic or arti.ficial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants. All RUbbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~e fully submitted, ~Iê~ oD rt L. Eddy, CH~n .----.-....------.. - . - .--. ~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Planning Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: October 24. 1990 Stuart Baker By: Area VariaDc:e Use Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation Other: Subdi~ Sketch, _ PreümiDary, X Site Plan Review - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetJaDds Permit Final AppJicatioD Number: Site Plan Review No. 81-90 AppJic:ant'. Name: John Hughes - Lot 7 MeetiDg Date: October 25, 1990 ............................................................................................ This lot is part of a commercial subdivision which was approved in 1989. Because this subdivision received an exhaustive review, any impacts related to the use of the property have been addressed. The Town's consulting engineer should comment on drainage and sewage disposal issues. SB/pw ~ RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793·4146 518.793·4141 "- -- J ~ft\~f' ß OCT241990~ ')LANNING & ZONINf DEPARTMENT October 22. 1990 RFA #89-5000.081 Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: John M. Hughes Site Plan 81-90 Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the site plan and have the following comment: 1. Pumping may be required to the fill system absorption field. Inverts should be shown if flow is by gravity. If pumping is required a design of the pump station should be submitted. 2. Stormwater management approved at the subdivision phase relied upon 75% permeable area for lots 7 and 12 combined. The proposed intensity of development results in less permeable area and therefore an increase in 'runoff. Additional stormwater management is needed to maintain predevelopment runoff rates. 3. Subdivision stormwater management with erosion and sediment controls for lots 6, 7 and 12, as depicted on the subdivision drawings, should be constructed and stabilized prior to site plan development. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. '--,\ j ¡ \... -' .,\.., .,:- !::, . Thomas M. Yarmowich, P.E. Managing Project Engineer TMY/cam @ GLENS FALLS. NY·LACONIA, NH -------- _.- - .. .. -- - TOWN OF QUEENS BURY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION Robert L. Eddy, Chairman Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 17 Owen Avenue 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, I. Y. 12801 Queensbury, N. Y. IZaO! To. ex) Warren COUllty Planning Board Date. 9/10/90fILf (x) Queensbury Town Planning Board (0 p y ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (x) APplicant Re. Site Plan #...... John Hughes Lot #7 Baywood Drive We have reviewed the request for. ( ) Variance, (x) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations. (x) Approval ( ) Disapproval Even though this Site Plan will not be on the Planning Board agenda until October, Dave Linehan of Jim Girard Landscaping presented landscaping plans for this property. The Committee is pleased that this building will comform to design of the buildings already approved and the plantings will be coordinated with the first two. Canadian Cherry planting plan and with give an interesting patients trees will be introduced into this the Flowering Crabapple trees should display to passersby and the dental The use of Hetz Junipers was question due to their susceptibility to red mites, but Dave Linehan assured the Committee that they would not be placed where snow would be blown on to them. There will be areas where wild flowers will be planted. This should be an attractive setting for this building. The dumpster is,to be placed at the southeast corner of the building, so th~anadian Cherry may have to be moved to accommQ.dat~ acce..ss to th.e dumpster. . In addition to ~ne aDove iandscap1ng, screening and planting prov1sions. the Committee wishes to go on record that it does not approve. 1. Non-conforming signs. ~ Z. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans). the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~. ctfully submitted, - ~¿: ¿;~ Ro ert L. Eddy, Chain(an ,..-..~--~"" -- ~ ::r¿ A()t 7 --/ I-QO rr, r- (,LL COPy .... ..UCa:~"&h. DEPARTMENT . SITr ~'. ? ··~õ~.' ~O Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped October 16, 1990 Present: Nancy Ca1ano Margo Burrell Joseph Denig Recoll1'l1endations Site Plan No. 81-90 Dear Chairperson: The N.Y.S. Codes. Rules and Regulations states that parking for the disabled should be 8'wide with an access aisle of 8' wide also. Respectfully submitted. Nancy Ca1ano. Secretary on behalf of the Comm1,ttee cc: Stephen Borgos, Town Supervisor Lee York, Senior Planner Dave Hatin, Code Enforcement Admin. Planning Board Committee ~-----~- · -- - . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY pt.ftftiftg Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: October 24. 1990 John Goralski By: Area V8iaøce Use Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation Other: x Subdi.øioa: X Sketch, _ PrelimiDary. Site Plan Reriew - Petition for a ChaDge of Zone - Freshwater Wet1aDda Permit FiDal AppUcation Number: Subdivision No. 14-1990 AppUcant's Name: Inspiration Park - Adams Rich Associates MeetiDg Date: October 25, 1990 ............................................................................................ The Town Board. acting as Lead Agency has issued a Declaration of Non-Significance regarding this project. This property was rezoned to SR-20 by the Town Board. Several conditions were placed on this rezoning. Items which are directly related to your review are: I) The subject premises shall be developed in accordance with the cluster provisions of Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) At least 40% of the property shall remain open space. Sai d open space shall remain as the property of the Homeowner's Association. 3) A 50 foot buffer zone will be maintained along the north and south property lines. 4) Each lot shall have a minimum road frontage of 80 feet. 5) Infrastructure improvements shall be co~~leted within two years. Mr. Naylor has indicated that he does not approve of the 150' road radius at the easterly 1)ortion of the property. A I:'eeting; t...as held between Mr. Naylor and the applicants engineer. A minor change to'the roadway layout was -1- ------_.. ----.- .. " -- Subdivision No. 14-1990 agreed upon by Mr. Naylor and the applicants engineer. indicated that he would not be opposed to a waiver from radius requirement for the curves near Corinth Road. - --- Mr. Naylor also the minimum road JG/pw I would recommend conceptual approval of Sketch Plan 14-1990. .---_.~.~--_...- . ~ . . RIST·FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS POST OFFICE BOX 838 21 BAY STREET GLENS FALLS NY 12801 FAX 518 .793-4148 518.793-4141 - -- 4U"&.I~...- ~~~!o' October 22, 1990 RFA #89-5000.514 ')LANNING . ZONINC DEPARTMENT Town of Queensbury Office Bu il ding Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Attn: Mrs. Lee York, Sr. Planner Re: Inspiration Park Subdivision 14-1990 - Sketch Plan Dear Mrs. York: We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. A waiver has been requested from the Subdivision Regulations, Article VIII.E.9 regarding minimum centerline road radii for horizontal curves on marginal access roads, a 250' radius is required and 150' radii have been provided. The applicant also offers a reduced speed of 25 MPH, which would be the approximate design speed for this road radius. However, engineering acceptability is also dependent on proposed road grades. Long curve tangent lengths may inadvertently promote excess speed. Highway Department approval should be obtained. 2. A road grading plan and subdivision stormwater management plan should be provided. 3. The clearing plan should show the areas to be cleared for houses. 4. Surface runoff on the street shall be 1 imited to a maximum of 350' along the street, as per Subdivision Regulations, Article VIII I.2.e. 5. It should be demonstrated that lots 1, 10, 19, 21 and 29 can be adapted to subsurface sewage disposal system layout. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~-'\{ ,l :'" ~., \'~^""'^"''''.\ . Thomas M. Yarmowich, P.E. Managing Project Engineer TMY/cam * GLENS FALLS. NY-LACONIA. NH