The URL can be used to link to this page

1991-02-26 J /' CJ,IEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26TH, 1991 INDEX Subdivision No. 1-1991 Robert Northgard, Jr. 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Subdivision No. 18-1990 Eunice Engwer 1. FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 66-90 John and Barbara Lynch 2. Subdivision No. 17-1990 Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. 3. FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 6-1989 Karen J. Witte 4. FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 8-91 Michael Tatko 5. Queensbury Colonial Site Plan No. 10-91 Raymond E. Erb 10. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. CJ,IEENSBURY PLAflNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26TH. 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO JAMES MARTI N EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT JAMES HAGAN PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 20th, 1990: Page 26, third name down, Mr. Hagan sIb Mr. Yarmowich November 27th, 1990: NONE December 18th, 1990: NONE December 27th, 1990: Page 36, bottom line. Ms. Corpus is speaking, last word, first sentence sIb ~licit. not illicit January 9th, 1991: NONE tlJTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-Before we get into the regular agenda, just for anybody who is not aware, under New Business, Robert Northgard, Jr. for a 2 lot subdivision on the corner of Division Street and Corinth Road has been tabled pending variance action. If there's anybody here for that, that will not be heard tonight. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Cartier, if I could just make one other comment, there was a typo on the agenda for February 28th that indicated that the public hearing for the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad addition would be this evening and that public hearing will not be held until this Thursday, in case there's anyone here for that. MR. CARTIER-That was just on? MR. GORALSKI-It was on the agenda incorrectly, the 28th's agenda. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but it didn't get publicly noticed that way, did it? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Okay, on to regular business, here. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION 11). 18-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A EUNICE ENGIIER OIlIER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF MOONHILL ROAD, 500 FT. EAST OF TEE HILL ROAD TO SUBDIVIDE INTO 1110 8.14 ACRE LOTS. TAX MAP fI). 48-1-6.3 ACRES 1 MATT STEVES. REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:04 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes by Lee A. York. Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 18-1990, Eunice Engwer, dated February 14, 1991, Meeting Date: February 26, 1991 "The Engwer's intend to subdivide a 16.28 acre lot into two 8.14 acre lots. The Planning Board resolution regarding preliminary approval granted approval for waivers from the two foot contours and the stormwater management plan. The SEQRA was a negative declaration. The only outstanding comments are engineering. If these are satisfactorily taken care of, I recommend fi na 1 approval." MR. CARTIER-Tom, do we have Engineering Notes? MR. YARMOWICH-The Engineering Comments were introduced at the December meeting. the second meeting in December. It was decided that those particular comments can be addressed with the Building Permit issuance for these particular residential lots that they're proposing. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-So, there's nothing substanti ati ve that's outstanding, in terms of approvaL Thi s is a subdivision. There was one comment. regarding monuments, as far as establishment of the subdivided lots. We presume that was duly noted and we did not review the application for that one item. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-My name is Matt Steves of Van Dusen and Steves and we represent the Engwers in this matter. If you look on the map, regarding the monumentation, you will notice that there are iron rods found and iron rods set. IRS equals Iron Rod Set and they have been set and the lots have been monumented. MR. YARMOWICH-That's satisfactory. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I don't believe the public hearing was left open on this. No other correspondence? Do the Board members have any questions or comments? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARTIER-I guess we're ready to entertain a motion. IllTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 110. 18-1990 EUNICE ENGlÆR, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: To subdivide into two 8.14 acres lots. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan (7:10 p.m.) SITE PLAN 110. 66-90 WR-lA JOHN AND BARBARA LYNCH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1272 BAY PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT LAKE GEORGE FOR THE ADDITION OF A NEW MASTER BEDROOM AND DECK TO BE USED AS A YEAR-ROUND RESIDENCE. AT PRESENT IT IS A SUIlER RESIDENCE. (WARREN COUNTY PLAIIIING) TAX MAP 110. 9-1-22 LOT SIZE: 0.35± SECTION 7.076 MR. CARTIER-Is there somebody here to address that application, an attorney? BILL REYNOLDS MR. REYNOLDS-There was supposed to be somebody here. Apparently, they've been delayed. I'm not sure what the problem is. My name's Bin Reynolds. I'm a Law Clerk with the firm that is representing Mr. Lynch. I'm not really prepared to speak at this moment, though. MR. CARTIER-Fine. MR. CAIMANO-It could be that they're still thinking that this is a 7:30 meeting. MR. CARTIER-Well, if nobody has any objections, we can move this until the end of Old Business and if they don't show up then, we can move it until the end of the meeting. 2 MR. CAIMANO-Fine. MR. MARTIN-That's fine with me. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. REYNOLDS-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA NIAGARA tOHAWK POWER CORP. OIlIER: SILVER BOW RESOURCES AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION COUNTY LINE ROAD, NORTH OF DIX AVENUE, NEXT TO TRANSMISSION LINES FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION TO BUILD A SUBSTATION. TAX MAP NO. 109-5-13.2 LOT SIZE: 75.03 GARY VIOLETTE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (7:12 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Subdivision No. 17-1990, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., dated February 19, 1991, Meeting Date: February 26. 1991 "All planning concerns regarding this project were addressed at the previous meeting. If all engineering comments have been addressed I recommend approval of this application. SEQRA has been previously addressed." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Tom? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated January 30. 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have determined that engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed with the exception of a licensed surveyor's seal. Mr. MacFarlane has verbally indicated he intends to sign and seal the subdivision drawing prior to signature of the original plat by the Chairman." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would you care to make any comments? MR. VIOLETTE-No. I brought the drawings of the display, if we need to. MR. CARTIER-For the record, could you just get your name on tape so we know that someone was here to represent the applicant. MR. VIOLETTE-My name is Gary Violette. I'm an employee of Niagara Mohawk, a Civil Structural Engineer. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Do the Board members have any comments or questions? MR. CAIMANO-No. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I guess we're prepared for a motion, again. Excuse me. let me just back up here. Okay. I just want to make sure this gets into the record, here. There's a letter, with regard to Subdivision No. 17-1990. from Robert J. MacFarlane. "Dear Mr. Goralski: As we discussed, on your advice, the following information is needed to be added to the subdivision map. 1. The property is a part of the Queensbury Fire District. 2. The property is part of the Queensbury Union Free School District. 3. The parcels will be tax map parcel identification numbers - 109-05-13.21 (lands to remain Silver Bow) 109-05-13.22 (Niagara Mohawk) This information will be added to the map prior to February 19, 1991. Very truly yours, Robert J. MacFarlane. L.S." MRS. PULVER-Did you close the public hearing? MR. CARTIER-This was, the public hearing was already held. MRS. PULVER-I know, but was it closed? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay. tOTIOI TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1990 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a 2 lot subdivision to build a substation. The only addition is the letter received by the Chairman which should be entered into the record. 3 Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan (7:18 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1989 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UltLISTED "-5 KAREN J. WITTE (NitER: NORMN I HELEN FERGUSON WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM ACC, SOUTH OF fl)RMN FERGUSON'S RESIDENCE IIHICH IS LOCATED AT 428 BAY ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP fI). 60-7-4.1 LOT SIZE: 2.08 ACRES MATT STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:18 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Subdivision No. 6-1989, Karen J. Witte, dated February 19, 1991, Meeting Date: February 26, 1991 "The applicant has received variances from the shoreline setback requirement and from the requirement for a 75 foot setback from Bay Road. The proposal illustrates that the lot can be developed for an office use. Any development of this site for a cormrercial use would require site plan approval from the Planning Board. SEQRA has been previously addressed." MR. CARTIER-Okay, and I believe we don't have any engineering comments, is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Mr. Steves, you're up again? MR. STEVES-Yes, I am. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you have any questions or comments you wish to make to the Board? MR. STEVES-There were a few. I believe there were questions that were asked last time and that we have shown that the erosion control fence and silt fence down near the stream. the setback requirements. we have got those variances and that construction of a fence and hay fence during construction of the driveway, you know, to prevent any silt or, flowing onto Bay Road that was as per County. I believe. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Those will all be incorporated? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Those are indicated on the plan. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-I have copies of the plan you can take a look at, details of the silt fence and details of the hay retaining wall. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Does the Board have any questions? MR. CAIMANO-No. I have a comment. My comment is why do we bother having a 75 foot setback on Bay Road when we keep giving variances to this. Pretty soon we won't have any. That's just a comment. We can't do anything about it. The variance has been given. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think it's because there's a building there that doesn't meet the setback. Is that correct, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. This lot received a variance because not only is there a requirement for a 75 foot setback from Bay Road, there's also a requirement of a 75 foot setback from Old Maids Brook. That leaves no area on this site to put a building. MR. MARTIN-Hence, the hardship. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. I'm just saying that since the building across the street got a variance and they got a variance. It seems, pretty soon we won't have to worry about widening Bay Road. MR. GORALSKI-The building across the street never got a variance. MR. CAIMANO-Well, either way, they're still not 75 feet back. Other than that. 4 MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? If not, I guess we're ready for a motion. tDTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1989 KAREN J. WITIE. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: For a 2 lot subdivision on the west side of Bay Road. directly across from ACC. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan (7:25 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-We're at the end of Old Business. He's still not here (Representative for the Lynchs). We'll go on to New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 8-91 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA MICHAEL TATKO CJ,IEENSBURY COLONIAL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH ON BAY ROAD TO ROUTE 149, WEST ON ROUTE 149 TO INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 149 AND 9 (BEHIND OONHAM SHOE) TII) STAGE DOOLITION OF EXISTING TII) STORY COLONIAL. REBUILD EACH STAGE FOR RETAIL SALES. ENLARGEMENT OF FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS TO INCORPORATE 330 ADDITIONAL SCJ,IARE FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-1-36 LOT SIZE: 0.7 ACRES SECTION 9.010 LOUIS HAMPL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:25 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner, Site Plan No. 8-91, Michael Tatko. dated February 25. 1991, Meeting Date: February 26, 1991 "The applicant proposes to construct a new building on the existing foundation. There will be approximately 330 sq. ft. of floor area added to the building. therefore, the structure is being enlarged and site plan approval is required. There are two major issues which apply to all properties in this area. One is permeability and the other is traffic and parking. Although the application is not clear about the actual permeable area on the site, the notes on the plan indicate 9170 sq. ft. of permeable area. This would not meet the 30% requirement. Because there are two buildings on this site, the existing condition is nonconforming as it relates to parking. The applicant proposes to create two additional parking spaces to compensate for the new retail spaces created. The Zoning Administrator has determined that this is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Although there is not adequate parking on-site by current standards, there is one aspect of this site that should be considered. This site is directly accessible to parking on the north side of the Dunhams Shoe Building and to the south behind the Log Jam Restaurant. The layout of the area provides a natural flow into these adjacent parking areas. This helps to alleviate the potential of traffic backing up onto Rt. 149. In fact, all property owners in this area should be encouraged to interconnect their parking lots. This would eliminate the necessity of going out onto Rt. 9 or Rt. 149 when traveling between stores." MR. GORALSKI-Warren County Planning Board took no action. They did not have a quorum this month. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and we also have a letter dated February 25, 1991, from Pat Collard, with regard to the parking that you already dealt with. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Would you like me to read that? Yes. Basically it says that they have satisfied the Zoning Ordinance with regard to parking. The Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification disapproval, dated 2/11/91 "This application has been disapproved by our COlllllittee as data for landscaping, screening, and plantings for the above applicant for a Site Plan Review or Variance has not been submitted or is incomplete. Would you please, therefore, refer the applicant to our Committee for approval of its plans prior to granting the application pending before your Board or before construction permit has been granted. You and the Building Department will be notified just as soon as plans have been approved by us. Robert Eddy, Chairman" MR. CARTIER-We'll want to make note of that when we get to the motion. Engineering Comments. please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost, Town Engineer. dated February 14, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The NYS Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code Section l101.5B requires handicapped parking spaces to be 8' wide with an adjacent access aisle 8' wide. Drainage should be directed away, not toward. the location of a handicapped parking space. Ice accumulation at the foot of the handicapped ramp and in the handicapped parking space is a concern. 5 ~ '-' 2. A small increase in floor area is proposed along with a change in use from furniture sales to general retail. Existing septic system size data or Certification of existing system adequacy should be provi ded. 3. Stormwater management is not a concern due to the insi gni fi cant increase of impermeable areas." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Are these first two items, items that need to be addressed before we consider granting approval, you're going to have to see something on paper? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. In both cases. something would have to be seen on paper whether or not the Board would feel that these are significant items in view of other comments. I think the second one is particularly pertinent in that the facility has been vacant and the use of furniture retail may drastically change the use on that septic system and not knowing any information about it, the Board may wish to consider that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would the applicant care to comment? MR. HAMPL-Louis Hampl, representing the owner of the property, Michael Tatko. A comment to Line Item Number Two, Engineering Comments. I'm reducing the amount of fixtures in the bathroom. There will be no tub present. I believe it was originally a residence. I'm using only a water saving water closet which reduces the water demand to three gallons and then water saving fixtures for the lavatory and they're omitting the tub. So I felt that the current septic system was adequate without testing. MR. CARTIER-But I think the question is. we don't have any data on the present septic system. Is that correct? MR. YARMOWICH-Do you know what it consists of? MR. CARTIER-What is the present septic system? MR. HAMPL-I believe it's a leach pit. MR. CARTIER-How big? How long? MR. HAMPL-I don't know. I have a rough layout of its diameter as done by the engineering finn D.L. Dickinson. MR. YARMOWICH-When was the structure last used? MR. HAMPL-That I can't comment on. When was the structure last used? MICHAEL TATKO MR. TATKO-I'd say about a year or so. MR. HAMPL-Approximately a year. MR. CAIMANO-Who was that comment from? You'll have to identify the man who said that. MR. HAMPL-Michael Tatko, owner. MR. CARTIER-Do we have any idea how old that system is or what's in the ground? I think that's what you're trying to get a handle on, here, what's there. MR. HAMPL-That I can't make a comment on. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we're going to have to find something out there. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. HAMPL-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I'll open the public hearing on this application. Is there anybody who wishes to address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 6 ---- MR. HAMPL-Also. I'd li ke to speak to the Committee for Community Beautification. Our application was disapproved by the Community Beautification Committee and it was due to us not filing our site plan with them. just a snaffu. I represent Michael. He didn't receive the application. I have yet to submit an application. but I did meet with Mr. Robert Eddy last Saturday at approximately 6:30. I did give him a copy of the site plan and I reviewed it thoroughly with him and because we're not increasing the building size outside the existing building footprint, and if we are removing old sidewalk and then reestablishing the lawn area after construction, what you have there now is very much similar to what will be there in the future. Also, the tree line which separates the two properties has some dead trees in it which we plan on taking out anyway to just clean up that property line, and yes, we do plan some future plantings, whether they be flowering crabs or borders to catch the rain water as it hits the ground. That hasn't been determined as yet, but we do add not only in beautifying the building, but also the surrounding landscaping in keeping it well maintained. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any comments from Board members? MR. CAIMANO-Yes, I've got a couple. First of all, when I parked there for site plan it seems to me there was no stop sign on that road that comes out onto 149, which is kind of dangerous, but I don't know what we can do about that. I don't recall seeing a stop sign there. MR. CARTIER-There wasn't one. MR. GORALSKI-There is not one there. MR. CAIMANO-How do we get one .2!!1 there so that people who are coming from Vermont who don't know that 149 is a death trap, will stop. MR. GORALSKI-You can ask the owner to put a stop sign there. MR. CARTIER-Right. You can make that as a condition of approval. MR. CAIMANO-Then I would suggest we put a stop sign. I mean, I think that's a dangerous road. It's a high speed highway and you're pulling out onto a main highway and people don't know. MR. HAMPL-I agree. MR. CAIMANO-The other thing was, what about Mr. Goralski's comment regarding, how do we get that started, regarding the inner connection of the parking lots so that people don't have to go out? MR. GORALSKI-Well. my point was that this site happens to be connected to other parking lots. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. GORALSKI-I made the comment just so that Board members could keep in mind in the future that if there are any other site plan reviews in this area that come before the Board that maybe something you could do is require that people provide some kind of connection to other parking lots. As I say, though, in this case, that's already done. MR. MARTIN-My only comment on that. though. is the parking lot that this is connecting to, is that serving to capacity now? MR. GORALSKI-That I can't comment on. I can say that any time I've ever been there. the back parking lot behind the Log Jam has not been full and the north side of the Dunham Shoe Building has never been full. MR. CAIMANO-Actually, as you come around behind the Log Jam Building that, while you ~ come all the way around the Log Jam Building, it is not an improved road. It's pot holey. I don't even think it's paved. I think it's dirt around that back side. MR. CARTIER-Any other comments? Well, somebody correct me if I'm wrong. I think what 1'm hearing is that the engineer wants to see some septic information, what's there, the adequacy of the septic information before we go forward on this application. That's my reading. MR. YARr«>WICH-We'd also like to point out that the drainage situation with regard to the handicapped parking space could be dealt with as well. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Item One or Two. I think if we table this maybe that will give you time to address the Beautification Committee also. MR. HAMPL-I meet with them on March the 11th. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 7 --....' MR. MARTIN-I'd also li ke some investigation into this connecting parking lot. If the shopping areas that this is meant to serve, according to our Zoning Ordinance. you know, if that's designed to capacity. MR. GORALSKI-I can say that, according to our Zoning Ordinance. that is definitely at capacity. MR. MARTIN-All right. Because I'm just concerned in peak times of the season, Christmas, what have you, that you're going to run into a problem, here. MR. CAIMANO-My big concern is coming out, because people are forced to come out of your spot and turn left to go to the other stores, that traffic coming, whatever that direction is, west, I guess, on 149 which is already backed up at the light. Now, we're going to have left turns onto 149 and there's a potential for a traffic back up which doesn't need to be. The other side of that coin of course, is can we force thi s appli cant to correct the sins of the past or what do we have to do in order to get this all done. I don't know. I'm asking. I am concerned about that traffic, though, coming out and turning left and since there's a parking lot there, it seems ridiculous to have to do that. MR. CARTIER-I "m just thinking, what kind of problem would you create if you made that an exit only? Well, that probably wouldn't do it. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I don't think you want to make it an exit only. MR. CAIMANO-You don't want to make it an exit only. You want to make it an entrance only. MR. CARTIER-Right, or entrance only. but then they have to go back out through all that parking. MR. CAIMANO-That's a hardship. I think that's unnecessary. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm hearing four things, two engineering comments, the comment by Mr. Martin, and the comment by Mr. Caimano and the Beautification Committee. Would you be willing to table this application until those issues can be addressed? MR. HAMPL-Yes, I would. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. Can we have a motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN (1). 8-91 MICHAEL TAIICO, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: At the request of the applicant, Michael Tatko. For a two stage demolition of existing two story colonial. Rebuild each stage for retail sales. Enlargement of first and second floors to incorporate 330 additional square feet, with the following: Number One, the answering of the concerns on Mr. Yarmowich's letter of February 14th. Number Two, a statement of approval from the Beautification Committee. Number Three, the showing of a stop sign at the 149 exit. Duly adopted this 26th day of February. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MRS. PULVER-You just mentioned, excuse me, a minute ago, but should this applicant have to take the responsibility for that stop sign? MR. CAIMANO-The stop sign, yes, I think. The rest of it, no. I mean, he is going to cause the traffic to be there, now. The other people are there by accident, but he is going to cause the additional, hopefully for your retail business, a lot of additional traffic. So I would say yes. That's ~ opinion. I don't know what anybody else says. MR. CARTIER-I would agree. MR. CAIMANO-Because nobody else uses that lot, now. It's not used and that's why it hasn't had an accident on it yet. As far as the other one is concerned, I "m not going to put that on there because I don't really think that we can, the only thing we can ask is that this applicant get together with the other owners there and see if they can work it out. I don't know how we can force this applicant. and I don't want to, force this applicant to have to use the other lots. MR. CARTIER-Well. the fact that it's interconnected already means that the public is unaware of boundary lines and they're going to use that anyway. MR. CAIMANO-Right. 8 ~ MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-That's kind of my feeling, is that the public is going to go wherever there isn't traffic, so they can get out. So it's out of your hands. MR. DUSEK-Just as a suggestion for the Board, if you're interested in trying to keep open those accesses. one thing you could do is impose upon this applicant the obligation not to close up the access. So although you might not be able to force him to get the other people to agree, because that's impossible, perhaps, but he can certainly not block it off himself, if that's one of your concerns. MR. CARTIER-That's an appropriate way to handle that, I think. Okay. MR. CAIMANO-And my only answer to that is it would, again, talking from the retail side. I would think that he would not want to block it up. He would want all of it there. So I think that we will put it on the record. It's on the record and you know what we want, but I would think that it would be foolish to block off all that additional potentially commercial traffic that's coming from the other parking lots. MR. CARTIER-Did yours (comment) get in there? MR. MARTIN-No, but before we finish this up, we have a letter here of February 25th from Pat Collard saying that the parking is adequate and then we have John's comment saying that the parking is in nonconformance. MR. GORALSKI-No. I'm not saying it's in nonconformance. The Zoning Administrator has said that it meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. It is, in my opinion, inadequate for these two buildings. MR. CAIMANO-Hold it. Thi s letter uses the word "nonconforming". MR. MARTIN-"nonconforming as it relates to parking". MR. CARTIER-Because it's preexisting. MR. GORALSKI-The existing parking. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Is nonconforming as it relates to this Ordinance. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Ordinance requi res two new spaces which the appl icant is providing for the additional space, okay. MR. MARTIN-All right. Okay. I'm satisfied then. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Tatko, you wanted to make a comment, here? MR. TATKO-Yes. On the septic system, that septic system was updated I think about a year or so ago and that was approved by the Town of Queensbury as an updated septic system. He does have a map of the septic system and it was updated approximately a year and a half ago. MR. CARTIER-Okay, then that's something he could very simply add onto the additional information that's going to be provided. We need documentation to that effect. It sounds like you have the documentation somewhere. It's just a matter of submitting it with these revisions. MR. LAPOINT-He just has to add it to the drawing. MR. TATKO-Right. Now, on this stop sign, I have a problem with the stop sign because if we put up a stop sign and then for one reason or another it gets knocked down by a snow plow or whatever, there's a potential liability of not maintaining that stop sign there as required by this Board and I'm just questioning, will all the future buildings and establishments on 149 be required to put up a stop sign? MR. CARTIER-Not necessarily. I think we're talking about a site specific situation here where we're exiting onto a rather busy intersection and I don't think this Board can blanket say that every business that goes in on 149 is going to be required to put a stop sign out. I think Mr. Caimano's concerns are legitimate, here, in terms of this is a particularly busy place and we want to be sure to flag people coming out there that they're pulling into a busy intersection. MR. CAIMANO-The really bad, onerous part of that corner is the fact that it is used not only by automobiles, but by heavy truck traffic and an 18 wheeler making a right hand turn from Route 9 onto 149 and beginning to accelerate all of a sudden comes upon that driveway, as he's going east bound on 149. That's my 9 '--- ~ only concern, and at the same time, there's people coming around the curve, by the pond, up the hill, again on a blind hill, who are also going by there. It seems to me to be in your best interest. from a safety standpoint, to put that stop sign on. As far as maintenance is concerned. there are thousands of stop signs in this Town and anywhere else in the world and they all have the same problem, somebody has to maintain them. MR. MARTIN-As being a resident who lives on 149, the concern is well founded. MR. CARTIER-Okay. (7:45 p.m.) SITE PLAN (I). 10-91 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA RAOOND E. ERB OIfttER: SAME AS ABOVE 19 FITZGERALD ROAD (GLEN LAKE) FOR A 22 FT. BY 20 FT. ONE STORY FAMILY ROOM WITH A SMALL 9 FT. BY 22 FT. DECK TO THE EXISTING DWELLING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP (I). 41-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.77 ACRES SECTlOII 9.010 RAYMOND E. ERB, PRESENT (7:45 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner. Site Plan Review No. 10-91, Raymond Erb, dated February 19, 1991, Meeting Date: February 26, 1991 "The proposed addition will not detract from anyone's view of Glen Lake nor will it detract from the shoreline. Gutters will be provided so that stormwater runoff is not discharged directly toward the lake. This combined with the revegetation of the slope should minimize any impact on the lake. This is an unlisted action under SEQRA. Because it is located within a Critical Environmental Area, it should be treated as a Type I action. The Board should review the Long EAF. provi ded. " ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated February 14, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Because the site is located in a critical environmental area, stormwater management was reviewed. The applicant has proposed to collect stormwater by rain gutters in order to discharge the runoff away from Glen Lake. Stormwater flow will be further concentrated by gutters, therefore, the discharge should be into a drywell or stone trench to promote infiltration and to prevent a concentration of overland stormwater flow. 2. The proposed expansion does not involve the addition of a bedroom. therefore the existing sewage flow is not expected to increase and sewage disposal system modifications should not be necessary. 3. The Board should stipulate that erosion control measures shall be implemented in accordance with the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control during site disturbance and until disturbed areas are stabil i zed. " MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. and Warren County Planning Board, no action was taken? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. ERB-I'm Raymond Erb, the owner. MR. CARTIER-Are there any comments you care to make at this point, Mr. Erb? MR. ERB- The Ri st-Frost letter that was part of the program there recommending a type of drywell be put in for the rain gutters is a good suggestion. There are actually three gutters that are going away from the Lake and they're not all concentrated in one area, but that should be taken care of. I will see that there is a stone pit or something for the water to go in and on the front towards the water we will put vegetation. crown vetch as well as shrubbery to prevent any kind of erosion into the Lake. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think that Item Three. however, refers more to while construction is going on. MR. ERB-Well. we're going to put bales of hay along the road. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's what that's referring to. MR. ERB-Yes. That's on the sketches that were included. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ERB- The present gutters on the house always went towards the Lake because there was a mountain behind the house and it was more practical to let it run into the Lake. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who cares to address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 10 -' MRS. PULVER-I have one question. Tom. On Number Two you said, "The proposed expansion does not involve the addition of a bedroom. therefore, the existing sewage flow is not expected to increase", but he is adding a bathroom. MR. YARMOWICH-That's right. MRS. PULVER-You don't count bedrooms, only bathrooms? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, if you don't have any more people occupying it, no more bedroom space, it doesn't matter where the flow is distributed. It won't generate additional flow. We didn't mean to confuse you by that, Carol. MR. ERB-It's just to prevent the long line waiting to get in the bathroom. MR. MARTIN-There's not more people occupying the house. So you don't have any more source. MRS. PULVER-Yes, I realize that, but I'm still thinking, you just go and flush once and a while just to get the water through the pipes. All right. I believe that. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to do a Long Form SEQRA on this application. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICAlCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MOOND E. ERR for a 22 ft. by 20 ft. one story fu11y roo. with a 5.11 bathroœ and attached 9 ft. by 22 ft. deck to the existing dwelling., 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 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 26th day of February. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion regarding disposition of the application. tlJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-91 RAYIIl'ID E. ERB, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: 11 For a 22 ft. by 20 ft. one story family room with a small bathroom and attached 9 ft. by 22 ft. deck to the existing dwelling, with the following stipulations: That the stone trench be installed at the time of construction and be monitored by the Building Inspector. That trench be installed as called for in the Ri st-Frost letter of February 14th. That erosion control measures as called for in the Rìst-Frost letter of February 14th be utilized during construction. Duly adopted this 26th day of February. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. ERB-I have a question. This stone trench, is that different than the dry wells that he was referring to? MR. YARr«>WICH-It's much simpler. You just carve out a 2 by 2 ditch, fill it with stone for a certain length and allow your gutters to go into that. That's what we intend. MR. CARTIER-What size stone? MR. YARMOWICH-Just large, crushed stone. MRS. YORK-Gravel. MR. YARr«>WICH-Yes. gravel. MR. ERB-When you say 2 by 2, two feet by two feet, is that what you're saying? MR. YARr«>WICH-Something along those lines, yes, or typically they'd be run along the length of an eave drain, you know, an eave or something like that. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Erb, if you'd come into the office when you come for your Building Permit. I can explain it to you. MR. ERB-Okay. Fine. Thank you very much. (7:55 p.m.) (OLD BUSINESS) SITE PLAN fII. 66-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA JOHN AND BARBARA LYNCH MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I believe we can get back to our missing application. Someone is here to represent the applicant. Is that correct? KEVIN DAILEY (7:55 p.m.) MR. DAILEY-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Let me see if we can unmuddy some, what may be muddy waters, here. MR. DAILEY-Okay. I'd like to, first of all, say hello. I haven't been here since July. My name is Kevin Dailey. I'm a partner with Hinman Straub. I'm also the former Town Supervisor and Planning Board attorney for the Town of Clifton Park. I di dn' t get a chance to tell you that before, with Bill Sheehan, a partner of mine. also a former Zoning Board of Appeals member of the Town of Guilderland and I'd also like to say, Mr. Chairman, hello to John and Tom and Lee and Paul who I've had a long and great occasion to get to know over the past several months. So, for opening remarks, that's it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The question revolves, what was applied for at the Zoning Board and how that differs, if it does, from the application that's before us at the moment. My understanding, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that what was applied for at the Zoning Board of Appeals was an area variance that involved an expansion of an addition to a building that was already there, in existence, correct? MR. DAILEY-What was applied for at the ZBA was a setback variance from the Lake. We conformed, in terms of the size of the lot and the addition that was proposed, in terms of ground coverage and everything else. We conformed in all respects except that it did not meet the setback from the Lake which is 75 feet. It was too close. So that's what we had to get. We didn't go to the ZBA looking for anything relative to size of building. That comes within your purview and we are within the 50 percent rule. MR. CARTIER-All right, but the question that has arisen is that when you applied, and again correct me if I'm wrong, when you applied to the Zoning Board, you applied for an addition on an existing building that was going to remain there. That was the Zoning Board's understanding. !it understanding is that was the Zoning Board's understanding. What is before us, if I read this application correctly, is a demolition and an expansion. okay. So what I'm saying to you is, this application before us is different than the one that was presented to the Zoning Board. Is that an accurate depiction of where we are? 12 -- MR. DAILEY-No. It's not an accurate depiction. MR. CARTIER-Why not? MR. DAILEY-We are talking about an addition of a master bedroom and bath. We're also talking about some rehabilitation and replacement to the existing structure, the existing camp that is there, to make it from a seasonal into a year-round residence. MR. CARTIER-That building is not going to. the presently existing building is not going to be torn down, is that what you're saying? MR. DAILEY-Portions of the building are going to be taken down, yes. The major beams and the fireplace, of course the foundation. everything else is remaining. Much of the insulation, there really isn't any, but it's going to be insulated, sided. and there's going to be new lumber put into it. MR. MARTIN-So, what you're essentially talking about is a gut rehab, where you're going right down to the.... MR. DAILEY-I don't know if I would term it a .9!!!. rehab. We're talking about a major rehabilitation of the existing camp and your Zoning Ordinance contemplates that when you are going from a seasonal to a year round structure, that there will be major rehabilitation and one of the principle reasons that we're here tonight is that when you do go from seasonal to, lets say. year round habitation, it does require site plan approval. I think that is the reason that we feel that we're here. So, we feel that we are making application for site plan and anything that would be covered relative to the construction would be covered in Mr. Hatin's office, by the Building Permit process. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well. I guess what I'm addressing here is Dave Hatin's letter of August 29th, third or fourth paragraph, "I would also like to advise the Board that it does appear that this will be a total replacement of the existing structure and the addition of the additional living space so the Board should not have it in their minds that they are going to add to an existing camp and maintain the old camp, and from the drawings that I've looked at. it does appear that there will be a total re-construction of the old camp along with the additional living space and portioned deck area." MR. DAILEY-Let me deal with that. Mr. Hatin is using the word, "camp". It will no longer be a camp. It will be a home. It will be a year round structure. The plans that he looked at. which he only looked at for probably three or four minutes which he's basing his opinion on, I have with me tonight. We wanted to show them .!Q. you so that you could see what the character of the building would look like and show you where the change would be. if you wish to see them, but Mr. Hatin saw the same plans and I think he concluded that we were completely removing the building and putting the new building up on the same foundation. That's not the case. The building that will be there is the same building that is there today, however, with some major renovations which require site plan approval. MR. MARTIN-I think that it might be a good idea, then. if this is the crux of the matter, here, to see those plans. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DAILEY-Absolutely. BILL SHEEHAN MR. SHEEHAN-If I could say. these were before the Board at the September 26th meeting and we did present them. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. SHEEHAN-This is not new. MR. DAILEY-This is the existing building. What is proposed to be new, and of course I don't know if you got our letter in the mail, but Mr. Hunt, who is the designer, who designs these in Adirondack fashion has designed this. The new area is here. That's the master bedroom, of course. From a front elevation, we see the screened porch. There's the back elevation and here's the new addition, over here. The side elevation, one of the questions that Lee asked about was. is Mr. Lynch going to be adding some kind of second story upstairs to the new master bedroom and I think you can see right here that it's one story. This is from the side and, of course, here's the deck and the porch. Here's the other side of the building. MR. DUSEK-Kevin, could I just stop you for a moment. Just so that when we ultimately, if we ever have to go back through and read minutes. I just want to make a note in the record at this point that Kevin Dailey is referring to several pages of proposed elevations shots. The drawings are dated July 31st, 1990, drawn by Ideas Company of Hunt Enterprises. 13 MR. DAILEY-The next page. and this is where Dave Hatin and I spent some time. The area outlined in pink is the existing structure, first floor, second floor. This is really what we were concerned with, the new master bedroom and bath and here is the deck and the screened porch. So this is what is proposed as new and of course you can see that, what it would look like from the front. MR. CARTIER-These walls are going to stay, is that what you're saying to us? MR. DAILEY-These walls all stay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. They're not being replaced. They're going to be insulated is what you're saying? MR. DAILEY-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I remember going out there on site visit and I, to be quite honest, some of the appearance changes because of different window treatments and so on. but the lines of the building, except, naturally, for the addition, are as I remember them. MR. SHEEHAN-That's what he asked, specifically, the designer to do is create it in the Adirondack style following the original lines of the house. MR. GORALSKI-I need your name for the record. MR. SHEEHAN-Bill Sheehan. MR. DAILEY-That is pretty much what Mr. Hunt indicated in your minutes of the August 25th meeting, when you were here. Peter, I think Hunt's comments are indicated in there. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I've been through that. MR. DAILEY-Okay. Now, here's what Dave Hatin said. I'll show you. Here's the foundation, okay, the foundation plan, the existing foundation. Now, reinforcing the structure, new wood, new lumber, you know, it's an old place, probably dating from the 1920's. If you're going to put that kind of money into it, you wouldn't put good money after bad without putting in new lumber and new insulation and new insulation and a new roof. but the main beams are going to stay. The fireplace is staying and we're building on the same foundation. MR. CAIMANO-Go back to the pink and the blue outline. please. MR. DAILEY-Sure. In the letter, this is 400 plus. This is about 400 plus and this is... MR. LAPOINT-416 for the deck. 481 for the living space? MR. DAILEY-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-481, 416. MR. DAILEY-800 and we've got 2159 existing. I think this is helpful to look at this. Dave and I actually sat down and we looked at it. That sort of cleared up a lot of questions that we both had. MR. CARTIER-All the floor joints are going to be replaced on the first floor? In other words, you're going to leave a shell? You're going to have a shell there and you're going to completely rehab the interior? MR. DAILEY-Yes, that's right. MR. CARTIER-But the shell is going to stay? MR. DAILEY-Yes. The shell is going to stay. The fireplace will stay. MR. MARTIN-I think from a site plan review standpoint. as long as the footprint is the same and the building height is the same. MR. SHEEHAN-The height is the same. MR. DAILEY-That stays within the rules. MR. MARTIN-That's where site plan review would come into play. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Staff Comments, please. STAFF INPUT 14 --" Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 66-90, John and Barbara Lynch. dated February 22, 1991, Meeting Date: February 26. 1991 "The appiicants have submitted a stormwater management p1an and have indicated that they feel a11 the Planning Board concerns have been addressed. I have attached Dave Hatin's letter dated August 29 regarding this submission. The last part of Mr. Hatin's letter indicates that the request is to totai1y replace the existing structure and add 897~ square feet more to the structure. The application states that the ownership intentions (question 4) is to be "expansion of an existing single family residence". This statement is also on the SEQRA form. The Board may wish to change this to replacement per Mr. Hatin's letter. A concern which remains outstanding is the size of the proposed structure in relation to the size of the lot and the visual character. In the minutes of September 25 (page 5), Mr. Sheehan, the applicant's agent. iisted 11 homes in the area which he stated were of the same square footage as the proposed Lynch structure. Thi s was in reference to the concern over nei ghborhood character. We checked the assessment records regarding the cited and contiguous homes and they are as fo11ows. The assessment department also had pictures avaiiable which I felt might be valuable since the last review of this application took place in August. The Board has to complete the SEQRA Type I review and the pubiic hearing was kept open." MRS. YORK-Some of your pi ctures, the copi es of the pi ctures, di d not come out very wel1. I left you what I originally took from the assessment records up there. if you want to look at those. MR. SHEEHAN-Could I respond to that comment, Mr. Chairman? MR. CARTIER-Sure. Lets go through them that way. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay. On stormwater management, we've submitted a concern and as the cOlll11ent states. we feel that the Planning Board concerns have been addressed, but we'i1 let your Town Engineer speak to that. We, basica11y, did everything you asked us to do, the last time, with respect to stormwater management, which was to develop a plan that was acceptable to the Town Engineer and we think we've done that and, again, I will let him comment on that. As far as the replacement. I think the second paragraph of the comments have been addressed just this moment and the idea is to do a re-creation, but keeping the exi sting frame. Now. to address the question about the outstanding concern about the size of the lot and the size of the proposed structure and the visual character. It seems to me that the first point is, on visual character, no one has said, other than in this particular comment. that the visual character of the Lake or of the house or the neighborhood would in any way be effected. If you read Mr. Hunt's comments and you look at the plans. you can see that what they're trying to do is exactly re-create the existing structure. in terms of its roof iine, in terms of its height, in terms of the Adirondack character of that building. It seems to me if you're on Assembly Point in Lake George in the Adirondack Park, visua11y and aesthetica11y, this is going to be a lot nicer than many of the homes in that area simply because it is in the original Adirondack style. Now, in terms of the size of the house in relation to the size of the lot. what I would submit to you is that the Zoning Ordinance has a provision for that and if a house is too big for a lot, a number of things are going to happen. Number One, you're going to exceed the minimum lot coverage for a house. We do not exceed the minimum lot coverage. Number Two, you're going to encroach on the side lines of your neighbors. We do not encroach on the side iines of the neighbors. Number Three. you're going to encroach on the front yard of the Lake. Now there is, but it goes back to 1920, a variance required for the front yard because we don't have sufficient setback from the Lake, haven't since the Zoning Ordinance changed. However, the addition to the structure does not move the house anyway closer to the Lake and the Zoning Board has given us a variance for that. In terms of the height, we meet the zoning requirements in terms of height. So ai1 of the protections that the Zoning Ordinance has built in to make sure that a house isn't too big, we have met. In addition, there's the 50 percent requirement. As you can see from Mr. Hatin's letter, we do not exceed the 50 percent requirement. So we've got that covered. Now, Mrs. York, in her notes, says that "in the minutes of September 25th, Mr. Sheehan, the applicant's agent. listed 11 homes in the area which he stated were of the same square footage as the proposed Lynch structure." I didn't say those were the 11 contiguous homes, but the two immediately contiguous homes that are next to Lynch, Ruffing on one side and Russo on the other. are both larger than their current structure, here, and if you take a look at ai1 of the homes on Assembly Point and the square footages which we have submitted to you and it's contained in Exhibit E of that document that we sent you, if you count them. there are 11 homes which exceed the square footage of the lynch pröperty á§ it currèñt1J exists. So, my comment was exactly accurate. MR. CARTIER-We11. it's not quite that pure. It has to do with the size of the lot. too. It's not just a matter of how big the house is. It's a matter of how large or small the lot is that the house is on. So, it's not quite as linear as you might suggest there. okay. MR. SHEEHAN-We11, I would agree with you, but I think the measure of that is not what the Planning Board might, each of you might deci dei n YCH,Ir own mind is too big a house ,:beeause then we 'd have seven different opinions, but what the Zoning Ordinance says, and if we've met a11 of the requirements, side line height, setbacks, minimum lot coverage and so forth, in terms of size, which we have met, then it seems to me the inquiry has to end there. MR. CARTIER-Not necessarily, because there is a judgemental role that this Board plays and if there were no judgemental role that this Board played, there would be no need for this Board. okay. much to the delight of a number of people I'm sure, but nevertheless. 15 MR. SHEEHAN-It seems to me. to be fair. the judgemental role has to be based on standards and if we've met all the objective criteria, it's very difficult for us to satisfy you. Mr. Cartier, as opposed to Mr. Caimano as to what you think the proper size of a house would be. Now, granted, not everyone on Assembly Point has a year round residence. but the Ordinance specifically permits a year round residence and it's common, when you have a year round residence, that it's going to be somewhat bigger than a camp. That's a fact of life. MR. CARTIER-Don't misunderstand me. I'm not arguing with you, Mr. Sheehan. I'm just pointing out that it is not as cut and dried as you would appear to make it. MR. CAIMANO-And just to set the record straight. I don't give a big rats fanny how big the house is. I don't care if it's got 50.000,000 bedrooms. That's not the point of this at all and it's certainly not germane to my argument in any way shape or form. I don't care how big the house is. My only concern. and you're right. Our only concern is to look at the Ordinance. determine whether or not what you're trying to do goes beyond the bounds of what we're trying to do and that is to protect the Lake and protect the people who are on that Lake, that's all. I don't care how big the house is. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay. What I did, also. Mr. Cartier. we took pictures. They're color photos of most of the homes around Assembly Point. Most of them are listed in Exhibit E and if you take a look at these and you consider the design of what we're proposing, I think you can see that what we're going to end up with here not only is very appropriate for Assembly Point, but isn't any more than anyone else has currently on Assembly Point and I think if we were asking for something.... MR. CARTIER-I don't know that that's the issue, Mr. Sheehan, and again, I'm not arguing with you. 11m just trying to keep this as clear as I possibly can. I'm not sure that the issue is what the building is like. The issue, I think, is how large the building is on the piece of property that's available to them. As far as I'm concerned, that's the issue. It's not the raw square footage of the house, per se, in and of itself. It's the size of the lot that that it's on. too. MR. SHEEHAN-Okay, but what do you use to guide you in deciding that? MR. CARTIER-It becomes a judgement call. It becomes a judgement call in some cases. We have a SEQRA Review to go through and we'll deal with it there. too, but that becomes a judgement call on our part, and that judgement is certainly grounded in the Ordinance. There's no question about that. It's a function of this Board to make judgement calls. MR. SHEEHAN-Let me first give you the actual photographs and ask that they be considered and entered into the record. These are the photographs of the Assembly Point area. Perhaps, I could keep the negatives, so we'll have a copy because I don't have a second copy. MR. CARTIER-Sure. Are these in any particular order? MR. SHEEHAN-Frankly. no. and I've looked through them and if they were ever in an order, they're probably not now, but to the extent that we can. we've written names on the back of the homes, not every single one, but as many as we could, so that you can match the names to the lots in the Exhibit that we submitted as Exhibit E in our recent letter to you. The other point on want to make on size is that you'll note that the immediate adjoining lots to the Lynchs are both smaller lots with larger square footage, currently according to the records that are before you. None of the neighbors in Assembly Point, including the immediately contiguous neighbors. have any objection to the proposal. There are, as I said, no encroachments on side lines, so that they're not moving beyond what the Ordinance would allow. in terms of going closer to anyone's home. There's not an increase in the number of bedrooms. MR. CAIMANO-Well. that point was made, by the way, about none of the neighbors would complain and I submit to you that none of the neighbors would complain because the neighbors like the Stewarts and the Morses would want Mr. Lynch's property to come up to their estimation of what those properties would be. and the ones that are below Mr. Lynchs level are going to be looking for this as evidence that they can do the same thing. So I would doubt that any of the neighbors would complain. I don't know why they would. I wouldn't. MR. CARTIER-Where are the adjoining properties. Ruffing and Russo? MR. SHEEHAN-Ruffing and Russo. MR. MARTIN-Well, the other point that needs to be made here, and I understand your reasons for the comparisons, but the other point that should be made is that the reason for the Ordinance being written the way it currently is is because of all these built up, because of the existing density in these environmentally sensitive areas that have led us to these stringent reviews in this case. MR. SHEEHAN-Well, that's true, but if it's a critically sensitive area, which no one would argue with, they're going to have a stormwater drainage plan, which they never had before. I dare say few of any people on Assembly Point have, that's an improvement. They're going to have a completely new septic 16 -.-/ system which certainly is going to be an improvement over the current system which was built probably around 1920 when the house came in. So, in terms of the protections to the Lake, it seems to me they're there. We're not moving any more people into the house. There are no more bedrooms being put in there, so I don't. in terms of impact adversely on the Lake. I don't think it's there and aesthetically it's not there. MR. LAPOINT-I have a quick question. Was the engineering review included in our package? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. Did you not receive it? MR. LAPOINT-I did not receive that. MR. CARTIER-I haven't got it. That's what I was just looking for, too. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. There is a letter dated February 14th, 1991. information. didn't find it in my package of MR. CAIMANO-I don't have it. MRS. PULVER-I don't either. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, I'll read it to you. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost, Town Engineer. dated February 14, 1991 "We've reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Previously identified sewage disposal system concerns are sati sfactorily addressed. The desi gn shoul d consi der the need for venti ng of the di stri buti on laterals. Pressure distribution of effluent and a close loop network is allowed in the DEC design standards for wastewater treatment of the Lake George Basin and should be considered to promote uniform effluent distribution and minimize any effect of partial lateral clogging. Lateral orifices shall not be less than two and a half feet from the edges of the absorption bed. 2. The proposed stormwater management infiltration gallery appears satisfactory to accommodate additional runoff from the new roof and deck surface as proposed. The stormwater management design does not address the parking area shown on the original plot plan." MR. CARTIER-Say that again, please. MR. YARMOWICH-"The stormwater management design does not address the parking area shown on the original plot plan." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Meaning? MR. YARMOWICH-Verbal clarification given by the applicant's agent indicated that the existing parking area will be maintained, that concrete garage pad will be removed and the parking areas will not increase or be resurfaced. "The Board may wish to stipulate that the parking shall not be increased, relocated. or surfaced with less permeable materials in the event the Board entertains a motion to approve this site plan on the basis of the stormwater management plan submitted. 3. The plan should bear a note indicating that soil erosion and sediment controls in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control will be maintained during periods of site disturbance and until disturbed areas are stabilized." MR. LAPOINT-Can you para phrase that? One is the vent. They need a vent for? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. One is minor modifications to the septic system design. The design criteria, properly evaluated by the applicants engineer. Good job. We make those comments about venting the laterals and closing the loop network as a suggestion to improve the performance of the system, protection of the Lake issue. Two, the stormwater management system that's been designed accommodates only the additional roof and deck surfaces that are part of the proposed site plan. It does not address any additional increase in impervious surfaces that may be caused by parking areas. The stormwater management design for that particular item shown on the plot plan which.!'!!!. a proposed driveway has been indicated to me by Mr. Dailey to not be a part of Mr. Lynch's intention and that was shown by the surveyor whö developed the plan and wasn't part of the actual construction proposed. For that reason, I pointed that out. When reviewing the stormwater management plan and finding that they didn't intend to do that, it didn't become an issue except that no additional impervious surfaces should be permitted if this plan is approved tonight. MR. DAILEY-Well, Tom. along our di scussion, I think we've agreed that that wi 11 be the case. The driveway that is there remains the driveway that is there and the parking area remains the parking area that is there. In fact. I think we'll actually have a net removal of impermeable surface because that concrete pad where the garage used to be is being taken out. MR. YARMOWICH-That's true. 17 MR. DAILEY-So, it's actually a benefit, in terms of drainage. MR. YARMOWICH-There's a slight difference in the topography of that particular chunk of the lot because it drains away onto an adjoining property. That's the primary reason for making that comment. If that particular area where existing driveways and parking areas are now there which are semi permeable or permeable surfaces got paved. it would impact an adjoining property beyond what currently exists and that's the reason for that stipulation that I recommend. MR. DAILEY-Tom, going back on Comment One, the letter from Hutchins on those? MR. YARMOWICH-That's satisfactory. MR. DAILEY-Okay. That's satisfactory. That's been taken care of and this is part of your package. MR. LAPOINT-That's the vent. MRS. PULVER-I have that one. MR. DAILEY-That's the vent, yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So we're clear on the engineering stuff? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think we have things we can stipulate in the motion, there. MR. DAILEY-Those stipulations will actually be fine with us. MR. CARTIER-Where that garage pad is being torn up, it's going to remain soil? MR. DAILEY-Yes. MR. CARTIER-You're not going to put crushed stone or anything down like that? MR. DAILEY-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DAILEY-Soil, probably, just grass. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have a question or a comment? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-We need to finish the public hearing. MR. DAILEY-Mr. Cartier, on the lot size, I think I addressed that on Page Two, Item One of my letter to you. I want to make sure that we all were talking the same language on that. I can read that into the record if you'd like. MR. CARTIER-No. I think we can make this part of the record, though. It's a rather lengthy tone. Okay. I know the public hearing was left open on this issue. Is there anybody here who cares to comment from the general public? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NOCOtlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Have we covered all the correspondence? There's nothing else? Is Lake George Park Commission involved in this? MRS. YORK-No. MR. CARTIER-APA? MRS. YORK-The APA was involved at the point where the variance was applied for. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Paul, did you have a question. comment? 18 MR. DUSEK-If the Board is ready. I just thought maybe with an the legalities and everything else being thrown around, if I may, maybe I can help things out by capsulizing briefly. MR. CARTIER-Please. MR. DUSEK-There's been an awful lot of talk, here, and I just thought maybe if I could clear up things for the Board. When the Board considers these type of projects under site plan. there's obviously two stages that has to be gotten through, here. One is the SEQRA Review. One is the statutory review that's provided for under 5.070 which I know you're an familiar with. The SEQRA Review, in and of itself, is fairly straightforward. I think this Board understands SEQRA, at this point. fairly well. You go down through the checklist of items and you make your determinations as to whether or not you feel there's going to be any significant impact. If you feel there's a significant impact. that means you're going to have to have a positive dec1aration, go through the EIS. etc.. before you can reach a decision. If you feel that there is no impact, then you decide that way. That's the first step of the game. The second step then becomes looking at the project under the terms of the Ordinance. In discussing the matter, earlier, with Lee and just kind of reviewing the situation, I know in the past there appears to be some confusion over Master Plan, Ordinance and Goals and whatnot of the community and I just felt maybe I should emphasize the fact that, to the extent that the app1icant has stated tonight that the Ordinance is controning, in terms of what they can do and can't do, I think that they have a certain amount of correctness in that statement. The real criteria that you're going to be looking at is under 5.070 and it says, first of an, have they complied with an of the Ordinance. Wen, that's up to you to answer. I mean. you go through the provisions of the Ordinance and it's kind of mathematical in a sense, or scientific, if you will, yes, no answers. The second part of the test or actual1y all of the remaining parts of the test under 5.070 are very closely re1ated to SEQRA and I was talking to Lee about that and I don't know how that ever got started, but I have to te11 you that I think if you go through SEQRA and you find that it's negative dec'd then your answers on the rest of the approval pretty much fonows your SEQRA because of the fact that they're an, like, for instance, in D it says that the project win not have an adverse undo impact upon natura1, scenic, aesthetic, ecologica1, etc. Wen, that's almost the same thing as your SEQRA Review. So you I don't think you could have an answer one way in one area and an answer in another, you know, on this side of it another. So, when you get to this stage, then, I guess what I'm saying to you, if you get this far, some of your work is going to be completed for you by virtue of the SEQRA that you've a1ready done. Some of the work you're going to have to take a 100k at the provisions of the Ordinance and decide whether or not this applicant has met those provisions. MR. CARTIER-Will have done. We haven't done the SEQRA on this. (END OF FIRST DISK) '!I ~ :1; 19 '--'" MR. DUSEK-Right. That's what I'm saying. You've got to do all. you've got to do your SEQRA first and then, depending upon where you go. that's when you get to the next section. I don't know if that helped. but I was hoping just to try to capsulize it for you. MR. LAPOINT-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have a question or a comment before we get into the SEQRA? Well, we need to go through the Long Form. Would somebody care to take us through the SEQRA Review? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF II) SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION 11). 66-90, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOHN AND BARBARA LYNCH for the addition of a new .ster bedroœ and deck to be used as a year-round residence. At present it is a summer residence, 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 agencies appear to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-Is somebody prepared to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 11). 66-90 JOHN AND BARBARA LYNCH, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the addition of a new master bedroom and deck to be used as a year-round residence. At present it is a summer residence, subject to the following stipulations: One, the parking area is not to be increased nor is the surface area to be changed to less permeable material. Two, that they practice New York State Erosion Control Measures as per numbers and letters so designated by the Town Engineer Mr. Thomas Yarmowich. Three. that it is in accordance with Section 5.070 A, B, C. D. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan 20 /' ---_/ MR. YARMOWICH-What you ought to do is stipulate that they practice Erosion Control Guidelines for the State of New York on this critical site. Their plan doesn't bear any notes to that effect. MR. DAILEY-We will add that note to the plan when it's submitted to the Building Department. MR. DAILEY-Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, thank you very much. We are deeply appreciative and on behalf of John and Barbara Lynch. they're deeply appreciative. We thank you. (8:25 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-You should have in hand a letter from Adams Rich Incorporated regarding request for an extension of the filing deadline. Has everybody got that? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I don't know that I need to read that. Basically, they're asking for an extension of the filing deadline to June 30, 1991. I don't have any problem with it. If anything. I would suggest a longer deadline because we've done these in the past. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Having dealt with the State many times on these things. you're well advised to. MR. CAIMANO-I think, rather than come back here again, I was going to suggest the same thing. We supply a longer deadline because I just think he's being too ambitious. MR. CARTIER-You want to give him a six month deadline? MR. GORALSKI-Six months from today? MR. CARTIER-No. Lets give him six months from when it runs out, which is 3 March, around the beginning of March. MR. GORALSKI-I believe it's March 1st. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Then lets do it from the time it runs out. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. So that would be September 1st? MR. CARTIER-No. October. MR. CAIMANO-September 1st. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does somebody have a motion to that effect? IIJTION TO EXTEND SUBDIVISION (I). 14-1990 INSPIRATION PARK SIX JlJNTHS FROII THEIR DEADLINE DATE OR UNTIL SEPTBIIER 30TH, 1991, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano. Mr. Martin. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-When does their deadline run out? MR. GORALSKI-March 1st. MR. CARTIER-Jim isn't going to be back until March. He's not going to be here in March. MR. CAIMANO-Now. we need you. MR. DUSEK-Is this a site plan or subdivision? MR. GORALSKI-Subdivision. MR. CARTIER-They want an extension of filing date. They have to file their subdivision by March. what, I? MR. GORALSKI-March 1st. 21 ~ MR. CARTIER-March 1st. They are asking for an extension of that. MR. DUSEK-My name is Paul Dusek. If it's a subdivision, which I was glad to hear because I think you have some latitude there, in the end of the Subdivision Regulations, it allows for you to waive some of the rules. You still need a full Board. I mean, I can't he;p you with that, or not a full Board, but at least a quorum, but, it is my opinion that, since you are allowed to waive those rules, you could also waive that one. after the date of March first. Obviously, you ~ create a bit of a precedent here, inasmuch as that you're doing it after the fact, but I think the precedent could be limited to the fact that you just didn't have a Board to act on it and it wasn't because the applicant failed to notify you timely. So, I think you have latitude of going past the March 1st date to catch it as soon as you can with enough of the people on the Board. MR. CARTIER-In other words, we can give him a retroactive? MR. DUSEK-It is my opinion that you can because of that provision in the Subdivision Reg's. MR. CARTIER-So, we would do that the first meeting in April, correct? MR. CAIMANO-That's the first time we're going to have four members. MR. CARTIER-I would recommend you do it as soon as possible, but I think that will be satisfactory. MR. CAIMANO-That's going to be the first time. MR. CARTIER-Well, my understanding is Jim's not going to be here in March either. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Well. I think, also, given that, is the fact that I doubt that we're going to have anybody who is going to complain about this. It is not a situation that's going to be complained about, so I think we'll, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we should do what he said. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It will be, I think as a result of this meeting, it will be the informal intent of this Board to act on this request in April. and as soon as we have a quorum that can vote on it. MR. CAIMANO-And would you ask. Mr. Chairman, would you ask the Planning Staff to bring this up on the agenda of the first meeting in April. please. MR. GORALSKI-We will. MR. CAIMANO-Thank you. MRS. PULVER-I have a question. Jim. and maybe you can answer it, and I can't remember what happens in the letter, here. Does he have to notify the State that he has an extension. by March 1st? MR. GORALSKI-No, because they didn't even know their approval, their filing time was running out. I called them to tell them. MR. MARTIN-No, that's a local. internal matter. MRS. PULVER-That was my only concern. MR. MARTIN-I would like to introduce a new item for our consideration is that Lee has been kind enough to develop for us a Zoning Compliance Checklist that would be incorporated into all our Staff Notes. Here's a copy for everybody's review and this is something that has been mentioned in our meetings, I know, as a way of us seeing that the Zoning Administrator has, in fact, addressed, in outline form, all the points of a zoning review for a given applicant. MR. CAIMANO-It looks good to me. MR. MARTIN-And I think this would satisfy the Legal Department's concern that we should have a written record of a determination or a decision by the Zoning Administrator on a particular issue should it become a point of controversy. So I don't know what procedure we have to do to make this a formal part of our review. whether it's a policy and procedure decision on the part of the Board or the Town Board has to act on this or what, but I'd like to have this incorporated into the Staff Notes. MR. DUSEK-Because it looks to be something that would be mandated on the Zoning Administrator, it would be my opinion that this is something that the Town Board would have to implement. This Board can regulate itself, people under its control. but the Zoning Administrator is not under your control, so what you tell her/him to do, whatever. MR. MARTIN-That's fine. 22 --./ MRS. YORK-Well, Paul, could they request that the Zoning Administrator do this? MR. DUSEK-You certainly could, yes. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm doing. I don't know if we need a Board motion? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-But I just didn't want you to think that you could somehow direct it and then if it didn't happen, that. you know what I mean? Just so you understand that it's something that only the Town Board could mandate. MR. CARTIER-I think the way to do this is we can have a motion to recommend to the Town Board that they incorporate this into the Zoning Administrative function. Will that do it? MR. MARTIN-Okay. MOTION IN RESPONSE TO THE SUPERVISOR'S AND TOWN BOARD'S REQUEST FOR US TO EXPEDITE APPLICATIONS THAT COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, WE RECOIIDD TO THE TOW" BOARD THAT THE ZONING COMPLIAllCE CHECKLIST AS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S FUNCTION AND ULTIMATELY TO BE INCLUDED IN OUR STAFF fl)TES THAT lIE RECEIVE FOR EVERY APPLICANT, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CAIMANO-Can we start by saying that the reason for this recommendation is that this is in response to the Supervisor and the Town Board requesting that we speed up our approvals. MR. LAPOINT-Expedite. MR. CAIMANO-Expedite. Can we do that? Do you want to do that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I think that's a good idea. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-We told Paul we'd give him an indication about what we wanted to do with the Agenda Control Law tonight, as to whether we want to continue it or not. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MR. CARTIER-I think I tried to make a case, last time, for its continuance, having been on this Board prior to having Agenda Control Laws, when we went to midnight and 1 a.m. frequently. MR. CAIMANO-I would like to make an argument against you and my argument is this. The Agenda Control Law was put into effect at a time when building was blossoming in the Town of Queensbury and the meetings were going ad infinitum simply because of the volume of things coming before the Planning Board. That's Number One. Number Two, it was a different Planning Board. This one has been requested and has acted upon the request to speed up applications and we do so quite regularly. Number Three. as evidence of that are the times of the last several Board Meetings. This one, right now, is running an hour half that we've completed our agenda. Number Four is the fact that we can reinstitute, as I understand it from the Attorney, we can reinstitute the Agenda Control at any time and that being the case, I would suggest that we dump the Agenda Control Law, as being a red flag in front of a bull. MR. DUSEK-The only thing, I just want to make sure we're clear. Although a Local Law can certainly be passed at any time, if this one drops, it would entail the Town Board going through the entire Local Law process. Although I will say that they have to do it anyway. If we wanted to re-implement this. we'd have to do a new Local Law. later on, we'd have to do a new Local Law, but this Board. either now or later, could never. you could ask for it, but you can't implement it. It would be the Town Board, and it's just going to take some time no matter when we do it. MR. CAIMANO-That's good, but my concern here, and I said a red flag in front of the bull, is the fact that we are being held with our hands in the fire as far as slowing things down. If we change the law and the public starts screaming and hollering because there's a whole bunch of things in front of us and they can't get in front of the Board, then we let the elected officials take the heat and not us. 23 '----./ MR. DUSEK-I mean, that's a judgement call for the Board, but I just wanted to point out that a Local Law is the way it has to be enacted and it takes a little while. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I'm trying to remember how long it took. MRS. YORK-Five months. MR. CARTIER-Five months. MR. DUSEK-Well. that was the first one, only because we never did anything li ke that before. We had to study it to death, but it, in the future, is something that could be enacted relatively quickly. The Municipal Home Law Rule requires a minimum of five days public notice, translated into advertising time is probably seven to ten days. A Local Law of this nature, between the two Board Meetings and actually your Board would have to meet because there's a second part of that Local Law. you're looking at, probably, a month, a month and a half, assuming that it was fast tracked. MR. CAIMANO-Again, with reference to the current war, let's shift the blame back to Saddam and get it off of us. That's the only reason for getting rid of the Agenda Control Law, from my opinion. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay, as long as you understand that the Town Board has a right to say no. MR. CAIMANO-That's fine, then don't come complaining to us that we aren't trying to speed things up and get things done. We're trying to get things done expeditiously. That's my only thought in this. Peter, is to get the monkey off our backs. MR. CARTIER-I just want to stay ahead of the curve on this thing. I don't want us getting into a situation where we're getting swamped with applications. Let's understand the ramifications of eliminating the Agenda Control Law. That means that every application that walks in the door of the Planning Department and is complete gets put on an agenda. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we're here to vote. I just offered an argument, that's all. I didn't say we had to do it. MR. CARTIER-Then what you're saying, I'm just trying to lay it out for you. here, the other side of the coin. What you're saying is you are willing, for however long it takes the Town Board to act, by eliminating the Agenda Control Law, what you're saying is you are willing to be here until midnight or 1 a.m. and I don't raise that as a red flag. That happens. That happens. MR. MARTIN-Does that get us back to one meeting a month? MR. CARTIER-No. We were doing that with two meetings a month. MR. CAIMANO-We might have had one meeting this month. though. We might have had one meeting. Well, we couldn't because you couldn't get your work done? I mean. with the size of the agendas, it's possible we could have had one meeting. MRS. YORK-Well, I'll tell you. We had some things taken off the agenda at the applicant's request and a couple, one item taken off the agenda because of the Zoning Administrator's request. MR. GORALSKI-And, to be perfectly honest with you. we cannot judge how long the Board is going to discuss an item. MR. CAIMANO-I understand. MR. GORALSKI-So, you know. we can't put 20 items on an agenda and assume that you're going to talk about each one for five minutes. MR. MARTIN-I would offer another point for thought is that I think we bit the bullet once with getting this Law instituted and in the works and everybody's accepted it now and is starting to live with it. If we ever get into the situation, or we let it lapse, now, and then we say, gee. the roof's falling in again and let's get this thing on the books again and then there's going to be this holy uproar and I don't think it's fair to say well, just because the Town Board will take the heat. that gets it off our backs, so who cares. The public is still going to be upset and we've bit the bullet. Everybody's used to it. It's an accepted way of life now and it seems to flow rather smoothly. If we have to institute it again. he has to go through the whole public uproar and outcry again. MRS. PULVER-I thought what we were going to do is keep the Agenda, this was my idea from the last meeting, keep the Agenda Control. but if there was one extra applicant or something that month and looked like he was going to get kicked off to another month. the Planning Department was going to notify the Chairman who would ask us if we would add an extra one to the agenda. 24 '-./' ~ MR. MARTIN-Well, we have been doing that. We did it with the Pyramid Mall. We did it with the Docksider. We've been accommodating. MRS. PULVER-That's my point. I thought we talked about it and said we're going to keep the Agenda Control Law and if it looks like, I mean, for 30 days, for one person. we certainly could accommodate them. Remember we talked. maybe, one meeting might be lighter than the other. MR. CAIMANO-Forget my argument. MR. MARTIN-We also accommodated Inspiration Park. MR. CAIMANO-I withdraw my argument as specious. MR. DUSEK-Not to muddy up the waters for you. Two things, I think, have to be considered. One is that no matter what, the Town Board is going to have to re-hash this and decide themselves. obviously, based on your recommendation. whether they want to reinstitute the Local Law, because they're going to have to redo it anyway. No matter if you wait now or do it later, they still have to redo it in thé same process, and the second thing is. MR. CARTIER-But, let me interrupt you right there before you go on to Point Two. I would much rather have it so it's a continuation rather than a lag time. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. DUSEK-Yes. I mean. that's a judgement call. I don't purport to get into that. The only other element, though, that is of a little concern to me is that when we did adopt that. back in 1989, I guess early '89 because it's two years now, part of the basis of upon which that was adopted, and a significant part of the basis upon which that was adopted is on the grounds that the Board was overloaded with applications and that this was designed to be a temporary stop gap measure to expedite things and help out and that it had what we call a Sunset Provision, meaning it would expire automatically at the end of two years unless the same type of arguments were present. The reason why we drafted it this way is because when we did this Local Law, we were in there monkeying around with the Town Planning Laws, you know. we have a set of Town Laws and they have Zoning and Planning Laws in Article 16 and we're changing those. I think almost every case that's made it to the Court of Appeals has gotten shot down in that area. So we were very careful when we drafted that to add these extra clauses in them to help give us that protection. I guess the only question I would ask the Board to consider is do you still have that same type of pressure that would justify the Law on the same basis? MR. LAPOINT-Well, I mean, we're in a local low spot, now. in February and March. am I correct? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And I'm an optimist. I see it coming back quickly, this spring, is what I really see. So I think we could use it to reinstitute it. MR. CAIMANO-Let's go with it. MR. CARTIER-What's going to happen to us if we dump it is we're going to start sitting here saying. well, we've got 11 applications this month, let's do them all in one meeting, instead of having two meetings. That suggestion is going to be made and when you start doing that, then you're going to start pushing into this. even though it seems like you're doing less, you're extending the meetings and I'm firmly convinced, after 10:30 at night. that we lose it. MRS. PULVER-That late? MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I'm thoroughly convinced what we did with the Pyramid Mall that one evening, we gave them a Special Meeting at the end of another meeting. That was a real big mistake. MR. CARTIER-The other thing it does is gives us a chance to do exactly what we're doing right now. Nobody, at 10:30, 11 o'clock at night wants to deal with anything else. They want to get out of here. IIITION THAT WE REQUEST THE TOWN BOARD TO CONTIflJE THE AGENDA COIlTROL LAW, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: That the minutes of this portion of the meeting be added to the recommendation for the Town Board's perusal. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan 'H: ~ '-' MRS. PULVER-May I also add, too, that. yes, we ask the Town Board to continue the Agenda Control Law, and let them know that the Planning Board is acceptable to adding someone else to their normal agenda for extenuating circumstances. MR. CAIMANO-Well, that's what the minutes will do. MR. CARTIER-I think the point we're trying to make is, right now, the Agenda Control Law is working well. Why change it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. If it's not broken, don't fix it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I have one other item. Does this Board have any interest in establishing a policy regarding the acceptance of gifts? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MRS. PULVER-As a Board? MR. CARTIER-As a Board. MR. CAIMANO-For those of you who don't know where it came from, I will speak up, as I normally don't. I'm reticent to say anything. but in this case, I might say a few words. MR. DUSEK-I would urge extreme caution of this Board trying to get into that area because it is addressed under our Code of Ethics. Gifts and whatnot are addressed both under Code of Ethics and State Law. I would be concerned that you could be subject to an attack that you're out of your jurisdiction in terms of trying to set a policy that would be applicable to any given member. MR. LAPOINT-Agreed. MR. DUSEK-I don't think this Board can tell another Board member, in that fashion. what to do, because I think they're governed by State Law and the Code of Ethics and their own conscience, obviously. MR. CARTIER-Why can't this Board establish a policy saying it will not accept gifts? MR. DUSEK-Because I think a Board member could challenge you on that policy and we could get into a very sticky wicket. in terms of it somebody did decide, and also you get into the whole. you know, I'm hesitant to advise you to get into that. Certainly the Town Board could strengthen its Code of Ethics in that regard, if that were your request. MR. CAIMANO-Why don't we do that. The problem was that we received. as a result of our passing the Aviation Mall thing, we received a very nice letter a couple of cups from... MR. LAPOINT-I wouldn't say it was the result of that. MR. CAIMANO-Hold it a minute. Mine was. My concern was the letter, not the cups. The letter found in any file. one year from now. two years from now, if you read that letter. just read the letter, so opens anybody up to a problem that I found it bad. That was the only reason. I gave it back and wrote him a letter. I didn't think they were improper. I thought that what he did was proper. I said he was proper. but the letter itself which thanked me personally, not the Board and each of you personally and each of the Town members personally, it was a personal letter, written to you. thanking you for your help in making something happen. That is a damning and damaging piece of evidence and if you don't think so, just think back into politics and all the things that have happened where people have accepted things, totally honestly. totally within those guidelines that you talked about and yet it could be used against you and I just, who's to say that those letters aren't going to show up in the lawsuit that is being prosecuted against us and Aviation Mall regarding this whole thing. Who's to say that? And I just think, why even bother with it, for those lousy cups. The letter doesn't even stipulate that the cups. it says, my small token. Well, a small token to Charlie Wood and a small token to me are two different things. I mean. Charlie Wood, God bless him, gives small tokens of Mercedes Benzes. So, who's to say, down the road. what that letter meant and I didn't want to be part of that. MR. CARTIER-Well, taking Paul's comments into account, does the Board want to establish a policy, as a Board, regarding the acceptance or non acceptance of gifts, tokens of gratitude? MR. CAIMANO-I would like to send a recommendation to the Town Board that they review their policy, because I don't care whether it's 25 bucks or $2.50. I think any gift in appreciation for something that we do as a service to the Town. we're serving the Town, is improper. MR. MARTIN-Well. it's a technical function that's required of us. MR. CARTIER-I don't want to draw the Town Board into that. As far as I'm concerned, that's an issue that this Board and nObody else needs to deal with. as far as I'm concerned. 26 ,-.. ~ MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Now, do you want to wait and give it some thought and we can bring it back up Thursday? MRS. PULVER-I don't know. I just don't think it's a big deal. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I think it's an individual, I mean, each of us has individual ethics. MR. MARTIN-I don't think it would hurt, in the context of a motion. MR. CARTIER-The situation will arise, then. where you have some Board members accepting gifts and others not accepting gifts and the inconsistency bothers me. MR. MARTIN-Why don't we think about it for a couple of days and deal with it Thursday. MR. CARTIER-All right. MR. DUSEK-Although I cringe at the thought of a policy of some kind. especially to because you really kind of should, on a policy, go through all the policy procedures, but I guess maybe to soften what I just said, I suppose if the Board wanted to have an understanding or some kind of a mutual. not really binding, do you know what I'm saying, but at least an understanding that nobody is going to accept them. I'm not troubled by that, but I am troubled by a full blown policy because I think that, first of all, you get into the question, maybe, even if we get by the arguments that maybe you shouldn't be doing it. if we can say that you should be, then should you be having a public hearing on it, should it be subject to Town Board approval, you know. all the standard policy things. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's a valid point. If we go that route, though, what I'd like to see do, because the stuff comes into the Planning Department and if there are some of us on the Board who don't want to accept that stuff. I don't even want to know that it came in. I'd like to see it just shipped back to whoever with a letter, with a form letter to the effect that it is the policy, if you don't like the word "policy", it is the practice of members of the Planning Board, and you can word it in such a way that you can leave it to go both ways. it is the practice of Planning Board members not to accept gifts with gratitude and all, you know, boiler plate stuff. MR. MARTIN-I think that would be fine, just appropriate. MR. DUSEK-And if the Board wanted to do something like that, I think I, from a legal perspective, think you can live with that. It's just. trying to go too formal on it was what was bothering me. MR. CARTIER-How about if I fast draft some kind of something like that. loose worded motion. MR. CAIMANO-You'd make him feel even better. and make it personalized. If Carol feels there's no reason for it, to sign that, and if I do. I do, and that kind of thing. MR. CARTIER-This doesn't even have to be signed. MRS. PULVER-No. I don't find a problem with it, Nick. I just, what I'm hearing, I'm thinking that we all probably are not going to accept gifts or we all have our own idea. I don't know, like I kind of agree with Paul, do we need it in black and white in public hearings and? MR. CAIMANO-I don't know. All I know is that people have been nailed before. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I know. for me, personally, I'm speaking purely for me, personally. I don't want to accept gifts and I don't want it out there that, hey here's a member of the Planning Board accepting gifts. As innocent and as wonderful as it might be, for me, it just doesn't, it sticks in my craw and I just want to see if there's some kind of agreement that we can come to. informal though it may be. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, then what he said. MR. CARTIER-All right. I'll see if I can draft up some sort of, something for us to look at. The other thing, this is something to think about for Thursday night. too. Some time ago I gave you some stuff on coming up with some format for reviewing a Petition on a Change of Zone. Let's bring that up Thursday. MRS. YORK-Yes. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 27