The URL can be used to link to this page

1991-03-26 --" '--' o CJ,IEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 26TH, 1991 INDEX Site Plan No. 17-91 F.T. Collins 1. Site Plan No. 49-89 Anthony Russo Ottavio Estate 5. Site Plan No. 13-91 Haanen Packard Machinery. Inc. 6. Site Plan No. 14-91 Robert Northgard, Jr. 9. Site Plan No. 15-91 Joseph Lucarelli 15. Subdivision No. 3-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Vermont Avenue Subdivision Joseph Nudi, d/b/a Today's Modern Homes 17. Site Plan No. 16-91 Richard Morris 20. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. -- '"---,, QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 26TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES MARTIN NICHOLAS CAIMANO EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT JAMES HAGAN DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-The first order of business. the last item, Site Plan No. 17-91, F. T. Co11ins owner, 278 Bay Road. to convert the vacant warehouse into retail space has been withdrawn. He failed to get a variance. MR. CAIMANO-Two things before we get started. Mr. Chairman. Number One, do you have minutes? MR. CARTIER-We have no minutes. that I'm aware of. MR. CAIMANO-Okay~ The second thing is, the agenda is extremely small. We've got one knocked off already and there's another application under Old Business which is relatively short, and I wonder why the Whipple application has not been brought back tonight? If you'11 remember, last week we tabled the Whipple application and it appears. from some correspondence and some discussions, that it's possible that we erroneously tabled that and I wonder if the Planning Department has discussed it and whether or not that should not have come before this meeting again tonight, in view of the fact that the applicant may be wasting their time by not being here tonight, and money, by the way. John, anything happening with Whipple? Why isn't Whipple back on the agenda? MR. GORALSKI-Wen, my understanding is that Whipple was tabled at the last meeting. I was not here, okay. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. GORALSKI-They were tabled for clarification of whether or not the driveways needed to be built to Town standards. Is that correct? MRS. PULVER-No, whether the road was a road. MR. CARTIER-That and I guess there were some other issues. I can't pu11 them out of the air right now. MR. MARTIN-It was an interpretation as to whether it was a driveway or in fact a Town Road. MR. YARMOWICH-The public hearing was left open on this. MR. GORALSKI-In fact, in discussions with the Zoning Administrator, with the applicant's agent and with Lee York, the determination has been made that those are in fact driveways and do not have to be built to Town Road specifications. MR. CAIMANO-If that determination was made. then why wasn't the applicant brought back tonight? MR. GORALSKI-We can't put something on the agenda. MR. CAIMANO-Is there not some mechanism whereby the Board can be alerted of this, certainly the Chairman, and get it back on the agenda, rather than have the applicant wait another month, especia11y since we made the mistake. 1 ~ "'--' MR. GORALSKI-Well, the only one who could place something on the agenda would be the Chairman. Now, I don't believe that this resolution to the problem was brought to the Chairman's attention. MR. CARTIER-No, it was not. I saw the letter, today, that Tom wrote, Mr. Nace wrote. and I know Lee was working on a response, but I don't know, Tom, maybe you could help me out with this. I don't know that that was the only issue for which it was tabled. There were other issues. were there not? TOM NACE MR. NACE-There were engineering issues and other issues which could, in my opinion. I don't know, you're the Board, could have been handled between Preliminary and Final and been addressed. I think the primary reason for tabling. to my knowledge. was the zoning issue. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Well, not to make a speech, but I guess I will. We are here to serve the Town, the people of the Town, and if we have made a mistake, especially in this case where the applicant came to this hearing last week and was surprised by the Planning Department. It would seem to me that we would have made every effort, somehow, to get this applicant back on the agenda, because we constantly are subjected to. and many times properly so, criticism for delaying things improperly. for no reason. and causing expenditures for no reason, and this appears to be one of those cases. MRS. PULVER-And I just want to say. John. I've asked several times that if somebody didn't get on the agenda, for whatever reason, would we be told or would we be notified and was told we would be. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I mean, the application was tabled last month. They weren't supposed to be on this month's agenda. MRS. PULVER-No. It was last week. MR. GORALSKI-Last week, and, therefore, they were never scheduled to be on this week's agenda. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. GORALSKI-Now. I was not involved in the conversations. Nobody ever asked me to put them back on the agenda. MRS. PULVER-No, but the reason they were tabled was more because of the Planning Board then themselves. MR. GORALSKI-I would agree with that. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So then they would have liked to have probably been on tonight, just so they could continue on. MR. GORALSKI-I was not involved in any of these discussions. MRS. PULVER-They're another whole month behind, now, is what it is. MR. GORALSKI-I understand that. MR. CARTIER-I think the question becomes, how do we solve the problem. We understand what the problem is. What's a proposed solution to the problem? One of the things I'm hearing is, and it's true, the Chairman decides what gets put on the agenda or not. I would certainly strongly request some direction from this Board regarding what I put back on the agenda and what I don't put back on the agenda. I'm uncomfortable making a unilateral decision on my own about doing that. MR. MARTIN-I sympathize with the point being brought up and I agree with it, but I think something's got to be borne in mind, here, that we did have people at that meeting that night who came up during the public hearing portion of the meeting and expressed their opinions on the applicant's project and I think we would have had to have some review times or a public notice time frame to meet in order to put it on this agenda again. in order to properly notice the public, would we not? MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's true. MRS. PULVER-Well, the public hearing was still left open. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but, I know it was left open. but still, to the public's knowledge. That it was left open. meaning that it would not come before the Board again until next month at the earliest. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I think the real crux of this, without belaboring it. is the fact that an error was made, here. The applicant came before the Planning Department. had gone through the Zoning Administrator, and everything seemed to be fine, and then shows up at the meeting and an error is made which delays the applicant and causes, A a delay in time and B a delay in money for everyone and because of that bad call this applicant is at a disadvantage and is angry and rightfully so. 2 ~ -- MR. CARTIER-Let me toss out a potential solution. here. If and when, hopefully it's not going to happen very often, but it will, if and when we get into a situation li ke this at a meeting, can we decide at that meeting, as a Board, when we are going to see this application? This is Monday morning quarterbacking. but might it not have been appropriate, that night. for this Board to say, we'll get a determination of this between now. meaning last week, and tonight, and we'll re-look at this application again? MR. CAIMANO- This particular Board member leans heavily on the professionalism and the background of the Planning Department. I do not profess to be an expert in planning. but rather a civilian review board and the head of the Planning Department made a totally incorrect call which overrode the Zoning Administrator and as a result of that, we have an applicant who is unnecessarily delayed. That's my only comment and I don't know how to solve that.' MR. CARTIER-Okay, but understand that that decision that the Senior Planner made was based on a previous situation that involved another application, in terms of the Karp application. The same sort of scenario was gone through and those were required to be brought up to Town Road specifications and I think that was what she was basing here decision on last week. MR. CAIMANO-It wasn't a Town Road. Why was it a Town Road last week and it wasn't a Town Road three days later? It was a driveway, and why did it come up all of a sudden? If this was such a big deal, why wasn't it brought up to begin with? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. All I can suggest is, nobody's perfect. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. I didn't say that, but we're asked for a decision. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well. how about, in terms of my proposed solution, does that sound reasonable? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I will say that if it's a Staff decision, like in this case, it needed to be determined whether they needed a va ri ance, di dn 't need a va ri ance, it shoul d be brought up to road standards or whatever. something that was handled within the Queensbury Town Staff, we could have said. okay, within the week and if it's solved within the week they can be on next week's agenda. Not everything will be that simple. MR. CARTIER-Right. MRS. PULVER-But I think. yes. I certainly would agree to that and I think the applicant probably would because he doesn't want to be held up another month. A week is a week. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The only other thing I would point out here is that recognize that that is what these meetings are for, are to bring out all of the issues that revolve around a particular application. I'm bothered by the fact that we seem to be faulting Planning Staff, here. MR. NACE-Pete, may I say a few words, since I seem to be at the center of this? MR. CARTIER-Sure. MR. NACE-Okay. My purpose in bringing this issue up is not to criticize individuals. necessarily, not to criticize this Board, but simply to try to get the complete, not just Planning Staff, but the complete Town Staff review of projects involved in making their decisions at the proper stage. okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NACE-I feel very strongly that doing it after the Preliminary application has been submitted. review comments written is just not the right time, okay. and the request that came beyond that, that zoning issue request to go back and look at, maybe, some totally different design for the subdivision should have come even prior to sketch plan, in a coordinated effort for the developer, the developer's agent, and the Town Staff to work together hand in hand for better development, not working against each other. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I agree. I have no quarrel with the fact that you brought the issue up. I would hope that we can walk away from this and at least minimize it and eliminate situations li ke this in the future. Thank you. MR. CAIMANO-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Anybody else? Okay. So what I'm hearing is, whenever we get into a tabling issue, we are going to be very specific about when we are willing to look at this again, correct? I think what I would like, so that there is no misunderstanding about that, I would like to do that with every tabling that we go through. 3 -.-' ',-- MRS. PULVER-Well, yes. if it's a tabling because of the applicant. then it's tabled until the applicant can. X. X, and X. If it's tabled because of Staff, you know in-house comment or something, then, you know, if we can possibly get them on in the next week or the next agenda or something like that. MR. CARTIER-Sure. MRS. PULVER-Because the Staff can certainly research it in a reasonable amount of time. MR. CARTIER-I agree. It's just that I want the applicant to walk away that night knowing when we are going to be prepared to look at it again. MR. GORALSKI-In order to elaborate on that, every time you table an application, the last sentence of that tabling should be, tabled for one week, tabled for one month, tabled until the applicant meets the next submission deadline, tabled until the Zoning Administrator makes a decision. In other words. put a time frame at the end of each tabling motion. MR. CAIMANO-Good point. MRS. PULVER-The other thing, Peter, before you go on, is I kind of thought that any time an applicant made a request to get on the agenda or had a problem that it would come to you, as Chairman, and then. as Chairman, you would poll the Board as to whether or not the Board wanted to add it on the agenda or not add it on the agenda. MR. CARTIER-Do you want me to do that? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes, I think I do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-I'm speaking for myself. I don't know about you guys. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but what I may ask Staff to do is to do the telephone polling to let you know exactly what the application is about. MRS. PULVER-That would be fine. MR. CARTIER-They will have the details much more than I will. MRS. PULVER-But I think that you need to be notified first, in that, get your approval that they make the phone calls. MR. CARTIER-From Staff, you mean? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm hearing something different, here. Are you giving me the choice of saying no, Staff don't poll the Board? MRS. PULVER-No. I'm saying that the Chairman needs to be notified that someone wants to be on and then you give them the authority to make the calls. MR. CARTIER-Right. Okay. Fine. I don't have a problem with that. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Are we also talking about adding a possible ninth item? MR. CAIMANO-I don't know. MR. CARTIER-We have agenda control. MR. CAIMANO-I think we play it as it we go and see what happens. It depends on the call at that particular item. MR. GORALSKI-You can add items to the agenda at the prerogative of the Board. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. I think when you poll the Board, I think you're going to have to make them aware. we've only got seven items on the agenda or we have eight items or it looks like a long meeting or whatever. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. 4 ----. '-' MRS. PULVER-Well, hopefully, the Board will have the agenda, right? So we will be able to look at it. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Possible. All right. Anything else? All right. Would the Secretary introduce the first item, please. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN rII. 49-89 TYPE: UNLISTED He-lA ANTHONY RUSSO OTTAVIO ESTATES ROUTE 9, ~ MILE NORTH OF ROUTE 149 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BILLIARD PARLOR (12,000 SQ. FT.) FORMERLY A VACANT EXISTING TAVERN. (THE BUILDING BURNED rIIVEMBER 1989.) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-2-1.2 LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K PARTIAL APPROVAL FROM THE AUGUST 15, 1989 PLANNING BOARD MEETING. THE ABOVE APPLICANT IS RECJ,IESTING AN EXTENSION OF APPROVAL. HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have no Staff Notes for that, do we? MR. GORALSKI-No. I just have a couple of things to say. One is that, beyond, possibly, the economic conditions when this was approved, there are no changes. There have been no changes as far as the Zoning Ordinance is concerned in that area. There have been no changes as far as the site is concerned, and there's been no real changes as far as the intensity of development in that area and one other item. On the agenda, this was inadvertently listed as a 10,000 square foot billiard parlor when in fact the approval was for a 12,000 square foot billiard parlor. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and since this has not run out, we are not re-approving this. at a request for an extension because it was approved June 26th, 1990. Okay. questions or comments on that? We don't have the old motion in front of us. need to have that. We are merely looking Does anybody have any I don't know that we MR. GORALSKI-I wouldn't think so. MR. CARTIER-Okay. It's just a matter of granting the extension. MR. GORALSKI-If you'd like. I can take it out of the file and read it for you. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody need to hear the old motion? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CAIMANO-No. We're just extending it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the applicant care to comment? MR. KRANTZ-The applicant's are not here. Howard Krantz, representing Anthony and Linda Russo, who's also an owner of the parcel. As John mentioned, it is 12,000 square feet which was approved last year. The two area variances which were a rear setback allowing five feet and a front setback allowing five feet of relief were renewed and approved last week by the Zoning Board of Appeals and other than that, there is no change that I am aware of at all. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. If nobody has a question or a comment, I think we can entertain a motion for extension of Site Plan approval 49-89. MR. GORALSKI-And I would put a time frame on that. MR. CAIMANO-To when? MR. GORALSKI-Probably one year from when the original approval expires. MR. CAIMANO-Which is? MR. CARTIER-June 26th, 1991, I would assume. Approvals are good for. what, one year? MR. GORALSKI-One year, right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So we're looking at an extension to June 26th, 1992. MR. CAIMANO-Or June 25th. 5 --- '--' MR. CARTIER-Or June 25th. 1Ø1l01 TO EXTUD SITE PLAN (I). 46-89 ANTHONY RUSSO OTTAVIO ESTATES, Introduced by Nich01as Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Car01 Pu1ver: For construction of a Bi11iard Par10r (12,000 sq. ft.) on Rt. 9. Extension to June 25th, 1992. Du1y adopted this 26th day of March, 1991, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN fI). 13-91 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA "AMEN PACKARD MACHINERY, INC. OWNER: DONNA HAANEN 253 BAY ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,200 SQ. FT. MIUIIFACTURING FABRICATION ADDITION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP fI). 107-2-1, 2, 3 LOT SIZE: 0.964 ACRES SECTION 4.020 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior P1anner, Site P1an No. 13-91, Haanen Packard Machinery. Inc., dated March 13, 1991, Meeting Date: March 26. 1991 "The request is to construct a 3,200 sq. ft. manufacturing fabrication faci1ity addition to an existing bui1ding 10cated on Bay Road in Queensbury. The zone is Light Industria1. The app1icant received a variance to reduce the setback requirements. The app1icant is providing 16 parking spaces. The information submitted in the site statistics indicates 8 emp10yees and a 1,200 sq. ft. office which wou1d require 12 spaces. The p1an does not show 10ading areas. My understanding is that there wi11 be overhead doors into the faci1ity. The Board shou1d discuss this with the app1icant. I reviewed this submission with regard to Section 5.070. 1. The site is compatib1e with the bui1ding. The 1ighting wi11 be sUfficient1y screened so as not to pose a prob1em. 2. Vehicu1ar traffic and access shou1d not be a prob1em. The off street parking is sufficient. Most pedestrians wi11 enter into the office end of the faci1ity. The shift workers have adequate access and parking in the rear. 5. The engineer wi11 address adequacy of stormwater drainage. 6. The engineer wi11 address the adequacy of the water supp1y and sewage disposa1 faci1ities. 7. The buffering appears to be adequate. The Beautification Committee approved the site p1an. 8. Fire and emergency access is adequate. 9. There does not appear to be a susceptibi1ity to f100ding on site. Erosion contr01 measures shou1d be provided during construction." MR. GORALSKI-The Warren County P1anning Board approved. The Beautification Committee approved. The Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped 1etter, addressed to the Chairman. "Handicapped parking shou1d be 8' wide with an access is1e of 8' and shou1d be on direct route c10sest to the entrance of the bui1ding." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated March 21, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the fo11owing engineering comments: 1. The drywe11s appear adequate1y sized to manage increased runoff from the site, provided the soi1 and drywe11 infi1tration rates used for SWM design are substantia1. 2. It appears that runoff from the roofs is to be directed to the drywe11s. It is not c1ear how the roof drainage re1ates to the site grading to achieve this." MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. Tom, wou1d you care to comment? MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, with Haanen Engineering here representing Haanen Packard Machinery. Let me first address Staff Comments. I think there was a question regarding 10ading docks. We wi11 have, not 10ading docks, but simp1y at grade access to the bui1ding with overhead doors. We have not fixed our 1ayout of the inside of the bui1ding yet, so I'm not sure. but those doors wi11 probab1y be here and probab1y one in the back. Erosion contr01 wi11 be provided. I have not shown it, but we wi11, obvious1y, have to provide a 1ine of hay ba1es or a si1t fence a10ng the edge of this ditch back here and engineering comments, the drywe11 infi1tration rate, some documentation to substantiate that, Tom. I wi11 have to provide to you. I do not have that at hand. Obvious1y. I've used, in the ca1cu1ations, the same infi1tration rate that I've used in simi1ar situations or simi1ar app1ications for this type of soi1. I wi11 provide you with a reference to substantiate that. MR. CARTIER-You're referring to Tom's Item Two? MR. NACE-Item Number One. 6 '--' ~ MR. CAlMANO-Item One. MR. CARTIER-One, okay, I'm sorry. MR. NACE-Item Two, the roof drainage, there are two drywells located at the back of the buildings. This is all within a gravel, paved area. The building roofs presently pitch toward the back and the new roof will do the same. We will either collect that with a gutter along the back and convey it to the drywell or simply let it splash down on the gravel pavement and grade that gravel pavement to the drywell for collection roof drainage. MR. CARTIER-Does that satisfy your engineering concerns? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-How much space is there between those parki ng spots that you see on thi s si de and the potential overhead door on the side of the building? MR. NACE-Here? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. How much space between the end of the parking lot spot and? MR. NACE-About 30 feet. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. So, certainly enough, if you had an 18 wheeler in there. to make some kind of a turn, if you were going to do that. I don't know if you are going to have that. MR. NACE-Typically, we would not. Most of our deliveries are light delivery trucks. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, not steel or construction? MR. NACE-Occasionally, we do get a steel truck. I will not kid you, and presently they pull in and the highway is extremely wide here. The only way they can get in is to pull up on the shoulder area in the back end. For the record, I have a letter I will provide to the Planning Staff which is from Mike Scoville. one of the neighbors who got notification of the project and he simply jots down that he has looked at the plans and has no objections. MR. CARTIER-Is there going to be any retail use of this proposed building? MR. NACE-No. MR. CARTIER-Are retail customers going to enter this building at all? MR. NACE-No retail customers, no. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, in effect, we need not provide handicapped parking for this proposal, do we? MR. CARTIER-No. We presently have a space that is available for handicapped access to the office building. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Great. Does the Board have any questions or comments? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on this project? ED KERR MR. KERR-My name's Ed Kerr. I live at 47 Garrison Road. which is just adjacent to the proposed addition to Haanen. I have a couple of questions. One, from listening to the comments, here. tonight, is that to be 28 parking spaces in total? I heard 12 and 16. MRS. PULVER-No, 16. MR. GORALSKI-Sixteen. MR. KERR-Sixteen total. Okay. MR. CAIMANO-He needs to have 12. He's got 16. MR. KERR-Why does he have the extra four spaces, since it's not a place where people are going to go in and out of, as it was just mentioned. it wasn't retail. MRS. PULVER-It's just there. 7 ~ --../ MR. CAIMANO-It's there and he just marked it out. I don't know. MRS. PULVER-The space is just there for 16, if he wanted to have 16. MR. CARTIER-Maybe this will answer your question. He already has six existing. MR. KERR-On the north side. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. KERR-Right. MR. CARTIER-And he's adding ten. MR. KERR-Okay. My other question was, I couldn't see where the loading was. Is that on to Bay Street? MR. NACE-No. The loading is off the south side of the building. toward, there's a Niagara Mohawk Substation over there between our building and Kubricky's. So it will be off that side, at the back of the building, and probably off of the back of the building itself. You know where our present loading dock is and how that's used. It's very rarely that we get a tractor trailer delivery. It's miscellaneous steel if anything comes in on tractor trailer and in fact the loading area will be further back on our lot than our present, okay. Our present overhead door is right about here. MR. KERR-Right. MR. NACE-This will probably be further back. toward the back of the lot. MR. KERR-Okay. I see. MR. NACE-They're on the same side. MR. KERR-All right. What's the height of the building? MR. NACE- The hei ght has not been fi xed yet, but it wi 11 probably be about three to four feet hi gher than the existing shop. MR. KERR-Which is the taller of the two sections. MR. NACE-Yes, that is correct. MR. KERR-So that would be about 20 feet. MR. NACE-Very close. The existing one. I believe. is about 15 feet. MR. KERR-Okay. Do you have a rendition of what the front of the building will look like? MR. NACE-No. I don't have a rendition yet. Our intention is to make the front of it match the existing machine shop area. So it will be a brick facade on the front of the new addition. MR. KERR-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd care to comment? MR. GORALSKI-Would you like me to read this note? MR. CARTIER-Certainly, please. MR. GORALSKI-"I have looked at the application at the Queensbury Planning Office and have no objections to approval. Merritt Scoville" PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Okay. We need to entertain a Short Form SEQRA. RESOUJTION WHEN DETERMIIATIOR OF II) SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION fI). 13-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a 3200 sq. ft. manufacturing fabrication addition to the HAANEN PACKARD MANUFACTURING, INC. cœpany, and 8 "--- -..../ 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 March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-We need to entertain a motion with regard to this. IIJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-91 HAANEN PACKARD MACHINERY, INC., Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For construction of a 3,200 sq. ft. manufacturing fabrication addition with the condition that the engineering comments in the Rist-Frost letter of March 21st, 1991 be met and also that erosion control measures be performed on site. Duly adopted this 26th day of March. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint ABSENT: Mr. Hagan SITE PLAN JI). 14-91 TYPE: UNLISTED ROBERT Jl)RTHGARD, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF WISCONSIN AND CENTRAL AVENUES TO CONSTRUCT A 2 STORY, 2 FAMILY DUPLEX ON LEVEL CLEAR LAND. TAX MAP JI). 127-8-1 LOT SIZE: 1.183 ACRES SECTION 4.020 E . BOB NORTHGARD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Site Plan No. 14-91, Robert Northgard, Jr., dated March 13, 1991. Meeting Date: March 26, 1991 "The request is to construct a two family home on 1.183 acres in an MR-5 zone. The Board has reviewed this parcel in the recent past for placement of two other duplexes. The location is the corner of Wisconsin and Central Avenues. The property currently has an existing single family residence and duplex. The Board approved a second duplex which has not been constructed. The units have been identified as rental units. The existing stone driveway to the single family unit will be removed to allow for the placement of the leaching faci1ities for the proposed duplex. I reviewed the application with regard to Section 5.070. 1. The structure will be in a densely 9 '---" "---" developed neighborhood. The density is allowable by zoning. The duplexes which are being constructed are larger than most of the structures in the area. The applicant has created a multifamily complex on this lot. 2. There is adequate traffic access to the site. 3. There is adequate parking. 4. Pedestrian access is handled by a walkway. 5. Grading and stormwater management will be addressed by the engineer. 6. The duplex will be on Town water. The engineer will address the adequacy of the septic system. 7. The Board should discuss plantings with the applicant since a multifamily rental complex has been created. If this project had been reviewed as a total proposal, the Board would have wanted this type of beautification information. Since three different site plans have segmented the lot, buffering and plantings have not been addressed. 8. Fire and emergency access is sufficient. 9. The applicant should maintain erosion control measures during construction. There are no other concerns about flooding or ponding. The applicant is required to pay recreation fees to the Town of Queensbury prior to receiving a building permit. The Board should make this part of the motion." MR. GORALSKI-The Warren County Planning Board indicated there was No County Impact. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer. dated March 21, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Stormwater management has not been addressed. A SWM concept should be indicated due to the amount of development on site and should include spot elevations or grading that indicate where runoff will flow. 2. Regarding subsurface sewage disposal: a. Percolation tests and test hole data is necessary to evaluate the adequacy of the septic system design. b. Design criteria for the disposal system should be provided, including the number of bedrooms within the duplex. c. Applicable design details. in accordance with the 1988 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works, should be provided. d. An absorption field shall be 20' from a dwelling in accordance with Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance. 3. The proposed access to the existing 2 story frame house in the northwest comer of the property should be shown since the existing stone driveway is proposed to be removed. 4. The scale of the drawing is not indicated." MR. CARTIER-Would you care to comment? MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. My name is Bob Northgard, and in reference to the scaled drawing, did you not get a complete site plan? MR. YARMOWICH-What I have is a two part xerox. There's really no legend, nothing on here. MR. NORTHGARD-It doesn't look like you've got a complete site plan there, you know, something like what I had put up here which shows the entire parcel with the three units on it and the proposed. MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe that was submitted with the application. MR. NORTHGARD-That was not submitted? MR. YARfIOWICH-What is the scale of this drawing? Is this a scaled drawing? I guess we were looking at it from a couple of separation distances. Can you indicate that to us now? MR. NORTHGARD-One inch equals twenty. MR. YARfIOWICH-Okay. It's supposedly scale drawn, not just a rough sketch. MR. NORTHGARD-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. So we can take the layout and the relationship to the improvements that exist as well as those that are proposed to be. relatively to scale? MR. NORTHGARD-Yes, relatively to scale. within an inch or so. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I have a question. That was not submitted? We do not have that in the Department? MRS. PULVER-No. I believe that we have it, only we have it cut down. Peter. MR. MARTIN-We only have a portion of that. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. NORTHGARD-You have it reduced just to show the isolated section? MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. That's where I was getting a little confused. 10 "--' '--" MR. CARTIER-My question is, did Staff get that? MR. GORALSKI-We have a copy of that in the fiie from the previous approvais. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. CARTIER-In other words, when Staff reviewed this. this is what you iooked at for review? MR. GORALSKI-Wen, we iooked at this as the individuai appiication. but we aiso reviewed the previous submissions, aii of the previous submissions. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I just want to be sure we're not getting something new tonight, is what I'm getting at. MR. GORALSKI-No. Not at aii. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. NORTHGARD-It seems to me that one of the biggest probiems we have is in the subsurface sewage disposai. I think what we couid do is to provide a revised septic system engineered and taiiored for this project. okay. something that wouid meet with the Board's approvai. MR. YARMOWICH-We know this site to be suitabie for this sort of use. What we're iooking for, here, is the documentation that reany naiis down for this particuiar use. It's not a question of whether or not you can do it here. That's not the point of raising the issue. We need to compiete the fiie for each and every site pian with that information. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Northgard. do you know if that information is provided for your previous dupiexes? MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-I beiieve it was. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, then it wouid be basicaiiy the same information. MR. NORTHGARD-Right, and if in fact I was deaiing with the same contractor I beiieve that it wouid have. We've been through this a coupie of times, so we kind of know the driii, but I myseif, not being a contractor, I don't know an the ins and outs to what's actuaiiy needed, but I can see that this is a probiem so I wouid have no probiem with updating this with a proper sewage disposai that's engineered and taiiored for this site and wouid meet with your approvai, okay. As far as stormwater management, we're iooking for water runoff and things iike that, direction of fiow. on the site pian. Is that correct? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. that's reany what we have in mind. Knowing the background and the history of the deveiopment of this site, this site has not what appears to be maxed out its utiiization. in terms of coverage. We do, however. feei that because it appears there won't be anymore room and there have been previous references to doing this one site pian at a time, it ought to be shown to us exactiy how the fiow from these various deveiopments, both proposed and existing. reiate to this site. The appiicant wouid be free to request a waiver of stormwater management which couid be justified depending on how the fiow is distributed on this site and how it reiates to the roads. MR. NORTHGARD-If we were to show the fiow on a map, we couid waive this, if I'm understanding you correctiy? MR. YARMOWICH-If you can give us an idea of the concept of how stormwater that's deveioped from the site is handied, it may be justifiabie to waive that. MR. NORTHGARD-Aii right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think it might aiso heip. for you down the iine. there is a potentiai, at some point, where you may wish to seii off one or more of these houses. MR. NORTHGARD-Aii right. MR. CARTlER-I think what you need to do is iook at this appiication from the perspective of a subdivision. Make sure that what you do now aiso meets subdivision reguiations for iater on down the iine. I hate to have you, iater on, come in for a subdivision of this parcei and find out that we've run across something that prevents its subdivision. 11 '--' -' MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I think that would be to your distinct advantage. MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. I've read the criteria. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I be1ieve, at this point, it has, whether it's by accident or not, it's been designed that way. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I just want to get it on the record so that at some point, again, if we do look at this as a formal subdivision. all the ducks are in a row on this thing. Okay. Staff Comments. I think you've addressed engineering comments. Staff Comments, do you have a copy of those? MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. I didn't see any big problem with the Staff Comments. I don't know exactly what to do as far as the beautification of this area. MR. CAIMANO-Maybe what you ought to do is sit down with Bob Eddy and with the P1anning Department and go over this thing again. Let me ask you a question, John. I don't know if you even know the answer. This was written by Lee. Number One of her comment. "I reviewed this app1ication with regard to Section 5.070. 1. The structure wi1l be in a densely developed neighborhood. The density is allowable by zoning. The duplexes which are being constructed are larger than most of the structures in the area. The app1icant has created a mu1tifami1y complex on this lot." What? I mean, is this just a recitation of fact or what? MR. GORALSKI-I think so. MR. NORTHGARD-It sounds like it. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. I di dn' t know whether there was a questi on there or whether there was just the recitation. MR. GORALSKI-No. I think it was just an indication that in fact this is one lot with several dwellings on it. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I think she's going through each of the items in 5.070 and responding to each of those. MR. CAIMANO-Great. MR. NORTHGARD-And in regards to the beautification of that block. so to speak. If it's within reason, we're not going to have a problem with a little shrubbery and things like that to enhance that block. It's adjacent to some mobile homes. It's adjacent to a home across the street with a large fence around it. So I don't see where we're going to have a big problem in meeting the expectations of that area as far as the beautification of it. MR. CAIMANO-Not only that, but it's in your best advantage, A. for rentals and B. for selling and the neighborhood. It's to our advantage. MR. NORTHGARD-Certainly. Right now. all I've got it sited for is to be all grassy area, okay, no flowers, no shrubs, no rock beds or anything like that. It's just going to be all grassy area. MRS. PULVER-But you wouldn't object to any shrubbery, putting some shrubbery in? MR. NORTHGARD-No. MRS. PULVER-That area could use a little enhancement. I mean. you're bui1ding some lovely bui1dings, lets. MR. NORTHGARD-Within reasonable 1imitations. I mean. I don't want to put up 100 feet of hedge, but within certain limitations, I don't have any problem with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think the suggestion was good that you sit down with Lee and get some detai1 from Lee in terms of what she was referring to. MRS. PULVER-How about as part of the motion that you make it that he. I don't know if you can do it, no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued unless a beautification plan has been submitted and approved by the Beautification Department. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we can't go anywhere toni ght anyway because he's got too many engineering things to do. 12 ~ MRS. PULVER-No, but I mean as part of the motion, to do that. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NORTHGARD-Can we bring this forward to an approval or not an approval contingent upon that septic system being brought up to date? MR. LAPOINT-I have a quick question. The septic information that's on that drawing is for a previously approved unit? MR. NORTHGARD-On the units, these existing units, the septic systems have been approved. MR. LAPOINT-Right. and that's on the left hand side of this drawing, right? MR. NORTHGARD-Right, okay. but this is the proposed. All right. We drew this out meeting the criteria as far as the number of feet in the leach and the tank and so on and so forth, but obviously this is not enough. It's close. but it's not enough. We want to have it re-done, engineered, and tailored to that site plan. MR. GORALSKI-If I could jump in for just a second. Tom and I have been talking, here. On previous site plans they had the test hole, the perc tests and the soil tests done. That information was not submitted this time, okay. I think, basically, if you're building the same duplex or the same number of bedrooms. if you provide that same information so that we can, basically, fill in the blanks in our file, that's all we need right now, correct me if I'm wrong, Tom. MR. NORTHGARD-All right. If we could have gotten a full site plan to you. which I don't know why it wasn't, but if the full site plan, it does have on there what the perc test results were. all right, for that entire lot. I'd be happy to leave it with you so that you've got it for your files. MR. YARMOWICH-We don't contest that, but we feel it's important that it be part of the approval of the site plan. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-We don't dispute the fact that it's entirely suitable for the sort of use that you want to put it to. What we do want to make sure is that all the necessary information is there so that this Board is making an approval conditional or after they satisfy that, whichever they elect to do and that it's there and that it's properly documented. MR. NORTHGARD-All right. MR. GORALSKI-My point is, I don't think he has to go and hire an engineer and do all the tests all over again. I think he's got the information already. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-If the size of the septic system which Mr. Northgard proposes is smaller than the others. then he may realize some economic advantage in engineering it for that particular purpose and it may be justifiable that, there was another Site Plan, No. 6-91, which was recently done. that had an engineered system, and I don't know how the number of bedrooms in that particular part of this project relate to what's being proposed with Site Plan No. 14-91. It mayor may not be in excess. It may be adequate. It may be identical. We would need to know the number of bedrooms and to have that information replicated and submitted for us to at least look over. As far as the Board's concerned, I think it's one of those issues which is strictly technical in nature and I don't think it really impacts the context of this development and the way they intend to act on it. MR. CAIMANO-But he needs a stormwater management concept. too. MR. YARMOWICH-We may be able to discuss that more if the applicant has any information which hasn't been presented that relates to lot permeability in terms of overall. What I had previously mentioned was that for this particular type of zoning, MR-5, the allowable density and green space would appear to permit much greater than what's presented here. If there's some evidence presented to us by the applicant as to how much green space is on this entire parcel, how much is permeable, impermeable and what the relationship is between these various structures. the roads and the grades. It may be sufficient for me to render an opinion to the Board that a stormwater management waiver would be acceptable. MR. CAIMANO-But it seems to me that there is an awful lot, how big is the agenda for April? Do you know yet? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know yet. Tomorrow is the big day. 13 ~ '-- MR. CAIMANO-Well, I guess what I'm saying is. there's so much kind of up in the air. here, that we're almost abdicating the responsibility of this project to you guys and I feel a little uncomfortable with that, frankly. MR. GORALSKI-That's up to you. MR. CAIMANO-That's me. MR. NORTHGARD-Well. all I'm looking for is, you know, if the site plan itself is acceptable and all we need to do is to get a better system in place for the sewer septic, you know. a conditional approval is all I would be looking for. This information, as far as permeable soil. we've calculated as being 79 percent. MR. CARTIER-Say that again? MR. NORTHGARD-Permeable soil on that entire lot is calculated at 79 percent. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. I don't understand that. MR. YARMOWICH-If there's a 79 percent green space or permeability, it would suggest that need for a formal and rigorous stormwater management concept is not indicated here and that there shouldn't really need to be anything else. MR. LAPOINT-But you haven't submitted that 79 percent for our review, though. have you? MR. NORTHGARD-No, except in regards to the site plan. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Yes, I think that's what you have to do is to get those details together and get back to us as quickly as possible. I would be willing to look at this again in April. myself. MR. CAIMANO-So would I. MR. LAPOINT-But to me, you have to get all your ducks in a row, first. There's, I think, three issues here, the septic, the stormwater, and landscaping. MR. CAIMANO-Not to mention. while he's at it, he might as well look at the subdividing, as you mentioned before. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-One other issue that I hadn't heard Mr. Northgard di scuss was what's going to be the disposition of that driveway to be removed and how do you handle that? MR. NORTHGARD-Well, removed is really an incorrect word to be put on that site plan. Altered is a correct word. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I would say zip through it one more time real quick and just, item by item. get them right on the drawing and make sure we get the right drawing this time because, again, I see it all laid out there fairly complete in how it, again, relates to this particular site, we need to know that for our benefit. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think if we agree to look at this again in April. all we have to hear from Staff is that these four issues have been addressed and we can go from there. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-And whether or not Mr. Northgard wants to go for a subdivision of this property, right? MR. LAPOINT-That's his option, right. MR. CARTIER-That's his option. MR. LAPOINT-We've explained to him his problem with selling it if he makes that error at this stage. MR. CAIMANO-My only point is it's his option. and if he chooses to go that way then I think that we ought not to do the SEQRA Review because it would be a totally different SEQRA Review. then. MR. CARTIER-Right. Okay. Are you willing to table this until the first meeting in April? 14 '----" --/ MR. NORTHGARD-Well, if I cannot get a conditional approval. I guess we'll have to. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll take that as a yes. Let me open the public hearing, however, in case something else pops up. Is there anyone from the public who would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED fl)COMMENT MR. CARTIER-Okay. There being no one, I will close the public hearing. MR. CAIMANO-I would suggest that you leave it open if he takes the option of subdivision. MR. CARTIER-I don't expect him. at this point, to take the option of subdividing. MR. GORALSKI-If Mr. Northgard decides to subdivide this property, he would have to make subdivision application and start at Sketch Plan. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Yes. All I was trying to point out was. if at some point in the future he decides to subdivide. he wants to make sure that he can do it. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-I think we can entertain a motion, please. tÐTION 11) TABLE SITE PLAN fII. 14-91 ROBERT (l)RTHGARD, JR.. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: To construct a 2 story, 2 family duplex on level clear land on Wisconsin and Central in order to, One, answer the questions brought up by Tom Yarmowich in his March 21st memo and, Two, to submit a planting design for approval to the Beautification Committee. It is the intent of this Board to review this application at the first April meeting. All information should be in to the Staff no later than April 3rd, 1991 before 9 a.m. Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan SITE PLAN (I). 15-91 TYPE II WR-3A JOSEPH LUCARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L, LAKE FRONT, APPROX. % MILE TOWARDS LAKE GEORGE VILLAGE FROM THE 9L/BAY ROAD INTERSECTION TO REMOVE A 7 FT. BY 42 FT. 6 IN. ROCK FILLED CRIB AND BRIDGE PIER. NEW 7 FT. BY 8 FT. CRIB TO BE tÐym 4 FT. 9 IN. EAST OF PRESENT LOCATION. INSTALL A L-SHAPED 11 FT. 9 IN. BY 42. FT. 6 IN. ROCK FILLm CRIB AND BRIDGE PIER. TO INSTALL A NEW 16 FT. BY 32 FT. (W/SKIRT) OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE WITH 3 FT. BY 16 FT. STORAGE CLOSET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP (I). 2-1-7 LOT SIZE: 4.78 ACRES SECTION 4.020 0 WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Site Plan No. 15-91, Joseph Lucarelli, dated March 13, 1991. Meeting Date: March 26, 1991 "Given the slope of the land and the character of the shoreline, the location and design of this dock seems compatible with the site. As has been brought out previously. there is no limit to the size of an E-shaped dock in our Zoning Ordinance. This proposal is for approximately 55 sq. ft. of additional dock area. Visual impact should also be considered. Once again, given the slope of surrounding land and the shape of the shoreline there should be no impact on neighbors views of the lake. The new boathouse will obviously change the view of the shoreline from the water. The Board should determine if this is a significant impact. This is a Type II action and no SEQRA is required. The Board should be aware that this is also an expansion of a nonconforming use structure. However, this proposal has no impact on the nonconformity." MR. CARTIER-One minor comment. lest Mr. Mason walk away from this with a misunderstanding. when you say there's no limit to the size of an E-shaped dock, you are referring to square footage. MR. GORALSKI-Right. 15 '-- '-' MR. CARTIER-It still has to be a maximum of only 40 feet from shore, correct? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. Warren County approved. We have no engineering comments. Would the applicant care to address the Board? John this is listed as a Type: Unlisted. It's really a Type II, is it not? MR. GORALSKI-Well that would, in my opinion, be a mistake on the agenda. This is an accessory use, an accessory structure and therefore could be considered a Type II action under SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-That's how I would consider it and, traditionally, that's how the Board has considered it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Sir. MR. REHM-Good evening. I'm Walter Rehm and I represent Mr. and Mrs. Lucarelli. This property is located at Dark Bay, property formerly owned by the Gushes and recently purchased by the Lucarelli's. We have given the Board an outline of the dock as it exists and also showing an area proposed to be added to the dock. I'd like to point out to the Board that there is presently an existing valid permit for everything that you see on this map other than the four foot nine inch strip on the right hand side. together with a boathouse that would cover both slips of the dock. (Referring to site plan map)The proposal is this, to remove this small area in the right hand slip to increase the width of the slip and simply to add a four foot nine inch extension to the dock on the right hand side. In exchange for that, if there is such a thing as an exchange, the proposal is to modify the plan which called for the building of a boathouse to cover both slips, to a boathouse that would only cover the left hand slip and so that which would be built will be somewhat less obtrusive than that which is currently permitted to be built. So basically to sum up. the plan is to extend four feet nine inches to the right hand side of the dock and to reduce the boathouse by approximately one half. It's a pretty straightforward plan and it's really simply a modification of the existing permitted plan. MR. CARTIER-Okay. the public hearing. Does the Board have any questions or comments? Is there anyone here who wishes to comment? Thank you, Mr. Rehm. I '11 open PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-The Staff has recommended and the Board has accepted their recommendation that this is a Type II action and therefore does not require a SEQRA Review. Therefore, if the Board has no other comments or questions, I believe we can entertain a motion with regard to this application. JlJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAI fI). 15-91 JOSEPH LUCARELLI, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To remove a 7 ft. by 42 ft. 6 in. rock filled crib and bridge pier. moved 4 ft. 9 in. east of present location. Install a L-shaped 11 ft. crib and bridge pier. To install a new 16 ft. by 32 ft. (w/skirt) by 16 ft. storage closet. New 7 ft. by 8 ft. cri bs to be 9 in. by 42 ft. 6 in. rock filled open sided boathouse with 3 ft. Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: MRS. PULVER-Could I ask one question before you go on? It says. the boathouse has been changed in size. Did this come before the Board before because you said, we've cut down from full cover to one cover? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, under the applicant name of Victor Gush. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I remember seeing that because I slipped walking down to that dock. MR. GORALSKI-Site Plan No. 59-88. So, it was in 1988. MRS. PULVER-All right. That was before my time. and, what. is was suggested not to have the full covered boathouse at the time or what? MR. GORALSKI-No. I think they just decided not to do it. 16 "--" "-'" MR. REHM-No. The full covered boathouse was approved, but the current owners, the Lucarelli's, have decided they just want half of the dock covered by a boathouse. MRS. PULVER-I understand, now. MR. CARTIER-So this is a modification of an approval by a previous owner? MR. REHM-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any further questions or comments? Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 VERMONT AVENUE SUBDIVISION JOSEPH NODI, D/B/A TOOAY'S tIIDERN tIIBILE HOMES OWNER: TOOAy'S IÐDEU NJBUE HOME SALES, INC. VERJI)NT AVENUE, OFF OF LUZERNE ROAD, EAST OF ADIRONDACK fl)RTHWAY FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION: WO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES EACH ARE 24 FT. BY 48 FT. TAX MAP JI). 128-3-6 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES JOSEPH NUDI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner, Subdivision No. 3-1991, Joseph Nudi - Today's Modern Homes Vermont Avenue Subdivision, dated March 13, 1991, Meeting Date: March 26, 1991 "The applicant proposes to create two 10,345 square foot lots in an MR-5 zone. The proposal appears to meet all Town of Queensbury requirements. There are no planning concerns." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost. Town Engineer, dated March 21, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. In accordance with current NYSDOH Wastewater Treatment Standards Section 75-A4a (3), the subsurface disposal system will require soils to be modified by blending or replacement to obtain a properly permeable soil to reduce the infiltration rate because permeability of the existing soil is less than 1 min/inch. The design percolation rate should be the rate of the modified soil. The area that soils should be modified should extend 5 feet from all trenches and to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the trenches." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would the applicant care to comment, please. MR. NUDI-There's not really much to say other than it is a, this is in a unique area in the Town of Queensbury where it does allow mobile homes to be, and that's what I'm proposing. The drawing shows two double wide mobile homes, but I would like to let everybody know that there still would be a possibility of single wide mobile homes going on those sites. We are seeing, just like everybody is. a down scaling in what people can afford to buy and it's not just in houses. We see that same thing happen in our manufactured housing industry, too, but I am proposing a project that does meet all of the Queensbury requirements and, here again. it's in an area that is zoned for mobile homes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Mr. Nudi, do you understand the permeability requirements? MR. NUDI-I heard what he said and, yes, I'm sure I can get together with the engineer and come up with some type of system that will be suitable for them. There are plenty of houses in that area that do meet the requirements. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, this is a relatively new requirement and what it requires is that you modify the soil prior to construction of the system so that you don't have an excessively fast percolation rate and this is something that's been required as of December 1st, 1990. MR. NUDI-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-And the Building Department will be involved in the construction of these projects as you request building permits for the particular jobs that you, homes you construct. MR. NUDI-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Now, he's talking about two singles? Four singles. 17 --- '~ MR. CARTIER-Two houses. MR. NUDI-Yes. Two separate units. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. but if you go to singles.... MR. NUDI-It will still be two separate units, yes, that's all. MR. CAIMANO-That's all I wanted. MR. NUDI-One home per each lot. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARTHA BALL MRS. BALL-My name's Martha Ball. We own a house right next to it on the north side and we own another house on the east side across the road from them and I was just wondering if he was just going to put just two. MR. CARTIER-Two single residences. MR. MARTIN-Two single family homes. MR. CARTIER-Right. a total of two. MRS. PULVER-One on each lot. MR. CARTIER-One on each lot. MRS. BALL-Okay. So there wouldn't be any traffic problem that they're backing out? I mean, if they have two cars per family and stuff, they won't have that much problem. MR. CARTIER-Are the driveways located on there? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Each one is a single family home and they're required to be able to park two cars off the road and that's what they have. They have enough to park two cars on each lot off the road. MRS. BALL-They do? Okay. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It looks to me like these driveways are not directly across from other driveways on here. MR. LAPOINT-They're staggered. correct. They're 20 foot by 28 foot drives. MR. CARTIER-So I don't think there will be a problem. MRS. BALL-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does anyone else care to comment? MR. BALL MR. BALL-I'm Mr. Ball. I was just wondering how come notices weren't sent out on this because I know somebody who was at this last meeting and I tried to get a hold of him and couldn't get a hold of him because nobody knew that this was coming down. MR. GORALSKI-The applicant is required to send out the notices at Preliminary Stage. MR. BALL-All that was put up was a sign on a tree. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Mr. Nudi. have you met the mailings? MR. NUDI-I was under the impression that my engineering firm had done that as part of our agreement. MR. CARTIER-Do you have the receipts? 18 '-- -.-/ MR. GORALSKI-I have no receipts. I need the receipts of the certified mailings. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Nudi, I think you need to get hold of your engineer. MR. NUDI-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Because we cannot go forward at this point. Mr. Ban has brought up a valid issue that people must be legally notified and so on. MR. NUDI-Sure. MRS. PULVER-Within 500 feet. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Ball, you're within 500 feet of this property. correct? If I understand you. you should have received. MR. BALL-I'm across the street and I'm right next to it. MR. CARTIER-So you should have received notification. MR. BALL-There was another person that lives right on the back side of the lot where he is. I tried to get a hold of him because all that was posted was a big old sign. That was it. MRS. PULVER-Yes, the subdivision sign. MRS. BALL-We told the Town Clerk and they said they were going to mail them out, but we never received them. MR. LAPOINT-Who said they were going to mail them out? MRS. BALL-We called the Town Clerk. MR. LAPOINT-That's not our responsibility, that's the applicant's responsibility. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Just so your clear that the Town doesn't notify. MR. BALL-Yes. wen, I called them and they said that you should get some kind of verification of it, because I told them all there was was just, like, somebody stuck a sign on a tree. That was it. MR. CARTIER-You should have received a certified letter informing you of this application. Then you sign a receipt and Mr. Nudi's engineer gets those receipts back and turns them in to the Staff, Planning Department. So that hasn't been done. This application isn't going to go forward until that is in fact done. MR. BALL-That's the only question I had to ask. MR. MARTIN-It's a good question. MR. CARTIER-It's a very good question. Thank you. MR. CAIMANO-We can't even do SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-No. At this point, as a matter of fact, I'll leave the public hearing open. MRS. PULVER-They'll have to re-advertise. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-It would have to be re-advertised because if they never got the notices. then the first advertisement didn't really, right, John, it has to be re-advertised? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We'll have to re-advertise in the paper. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're tabling this for re-advertising. Does the Board care to decide when they want to add thi s to a meeting? We I ve al ready added one to the fi rst April meeting. Do you want to add thi s to the second April meeti ng or do you want to just wait and 1 et thi s go the normal route or what? 19 ----' '-- MR. GORALSKI-Well, the thing is, there's nothing new to submit, as far as I can tell. MR. CARTIER-It's just a matter of notice. MR. CAIMANO-Just the notification. MRS. PULVER-And re-advertising. MR. GORALSKI-So he's got everything in that he's got to get in. MR. MARTIN-I wouldn't even mind putting this on that first meeting. MR. CARTIER-Be careful. Don't load yourself up. You don't know what's going to be on the April meeting. MR. LAPOINT-Right. If we're still open on the public hearing. MRS. PULVER-Well, this will be Old Business. MR. CARTIER-You can do whatever you want. MR. GORALSKI-If I could. You can put this on the first meeting. All that means now is you have two items of Old Business on the first meeting. That means you only have room for two more items of Old Business on the first meeting. MR. CARTIER-Well, the point I was trying to get at before was when we add an item, are we going to decide that we are adding it as a ninth item? MR. GORALSKI-I thought you meant if you add it after the fact. Right now, you are adding it before that agenda is set. MRS. PULVER-That's what I thought, too, Pete. MR. GORALSKI-You're saying those are the first two items of Old Business on that meeting. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but then we bump somebody. MRS. PULVER-Well, we don't know that. MR. CAIMANO-We don't know that. MR. CARTIER-Possible. Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Well, the other thing we could do is just say put it on one of the April meetings without saying the first one and let them decide. MR. GORALSKI-If you say that. he's going to be on the first meeting. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Then lets go. MR. CARTIER-All right. So we can entertain a motion to table this with an indication as to what you just said. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1991 VERMa'1T AVENUE SUBDIVISION JOSEPH NUDI D/B/A TODAY'S MODERN HOMES. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a 2 lot subdivision: two single family residences each are 24 ft. by 48 ft. pending proper public notification to surrounding area property owners. Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan SITE PLAN NO. 16-91 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA RICHARD MORRIS OWNER: EMILY D'ANGELO CORNER OF ROUTE 9 AND MONTRAY ROAD FOR A RETAIL NURSERY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 71-2-10 LOT SIZE: 0.75 ACRES SECTION 4.020 K RICHARD MORRIS, PRESENT 20 '-- -' STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Site Plan No. 16-91, Richard Morris, dated March 15. 1991, Meeting Date: March 26th, 1991 "The applicant proposes to locate a retail nursery on the property situated on the corner of Rt. 9 and Montray Road. The parking area in the rear was constructed 30 feet wider than what was previously approved. Therefore. there are ten more parking spaces than are required for the building. The stormwater management facilities appear to be handling the runoff. Parking and traffic generations are the two critical issues regarding this proposal. Access to parking for the nursery will be from Montray Road. This will minimize the potential for traffic backing up on Route 9. The applicant has indicated that ten parking spaces is adequate for this use. Because this is an exterior use it is not addressed in the parking schedule. Depending on the number of employees and the use of the building, ten spaces mayor may not be enough. Since the applicant has an existing facility of this nature, it may be helpful to compare the size and parking of that facility to this site." MR. GORALSKI-There was no engineering review because they were not making any physical changes to the property. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Quick question. I see 20 parking spaces here. MR. GORALSKI-Right. There are 10 that were approved for the existing building. Mr. Morris indicates that 10 additional parking spaces would be enough for his nursery. MR. CARTIER-In other words. that insurance business is going to stay there? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARTIER-We're going to have two businesses on site? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. As far as I know, he won't have anything inside the building. There will just be a nursery outside. MR. MARTIN-There's no retail space inside, enclosed. MR. GORALSKI-Well, you can ask Mr. Morris. MRS. PULVER-It says the applicant is the grandson of the owner of this property which fronts on the Lake George Road. So. he's going to share it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well. lets get through other comments. I guess, and then we can go back to that. Okay. We have a letter from Dave Hatin. MR. GORALSKI-There's a letter from Dave Hatin, to Planning Board Members, dated March 8. 1991 "This letter is to request that you reevaluate the parking on the upper level off Route 9 of this complex. In the development of the original Site Plan Review, only two handicapped parking spaces were permitted in this area, however, upon inspection of the property you will notice there is ample room to turn cars around and park additional vehicles in this area. I would therefore request that the Board reevaluate their thinking of the previous Site Plan approval and possibly allow the parking of a limited number of vehicles in this upper parking lot and the possibility of just one handicapped parking space being required as I believe there are 25 or less parking spaces total for this project. As always, if you have any further questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me. Dave Hatin" MRS. PULVER-Well, he's not going to use the upper level. MR. GORALSKI-No. I think Dave just thought that in reassessing this site you would consider that. That's a question that's come up since your previous approval. Dave's experience has shown, and I really can't comment on this, there is ample room for cars to pull in. turn around, and not be backing out onto Route 9, which was the concern that was previously voiced. That's about it. The Warren County Planning Board and I believe the Beautification Committee approved also. MR. CARTIER-Correct. We have no engineering comments. Mr. Morris, would you care to comment, please? MR. t«>RRIS-Good evening. My name is Richard Morris and I would like to put a retail nursery at this location. We, in meeting with John and going over things, the original parking area that was proposed was 80 by 20 which fit 8 cars which is enough parking. 8 parking spots was enough parking rendered for that building. We will not be using that building. In going and measuring out the parking lot physically, the actual parking lot is 70 by 100 the excavator whoever, Dick Lee or whoever made an awfully large parking lot and that parking lot does exist now. As I've shown on here. there are enough parking spaces. if you go by the 10 by 20, to fit 20 cars there. I'm proposing 10 cars for my retail nursery. I own another nursery in South Glens Falls which, at the maximum on a Saturday usually about six cars in there. They're usually in and out. We'll have one employee full time. On Saturdays there will be two employees. Saturdays the other business is not there. So we would be able to use their 21 <,--" <..- parking spaces. They're closed on Saturdays. She comes in in the morning and does paper work. It is seasonal. It's not a year round thing. The front parking spaces will not be used for my business. The business will be held to the side and towards the back. MR. MARTIN-So you're not going to use any of the space inside the building for your business? MR. MORRIS-No. As of right now, I'm not planning on it. MR. MARTIN-Not even a cash register or anything inside? MR. MORRIS-Well. cash registers, we always bring them outside in the spring time, you know, we're under shelter when we're selling flowers and shrubbery. MRS. PULVER-Under an umbrella, on a table. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MORRIS-We have a building in South Glens Fans that is used for a retail nursery and I don't ever remember going inside with a cash register except for bringing it in at night time. MR. CARTIER-I want to be sure I understand this. The way I'm looking at this is an of the parking on Route 9 is being eliminated. Is that correct? MR. MORRIS-No. There is parking on Route 9. MR. CARTIER-Is that going to stay there? MR. MORRIS-That is going to stay there. That's a handicapped parking area for the building because there's no way possible that any handicapped person could come up from the back. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MORRIS-What Dave Hatin, I guess, had proposed is that parking lot is larger, the excavator put a larger parking area than was proposed. Plowing it has widened the parking space. That I did not know about. MR. MARTIN-It was just kind of hard to tell from the drawing, here. I mean, it looks like you're putting in Kentucky Blue Grass all across the front there and eliminating the parking lot. MR. MORRIS-No. The front of the building which is situated, this would be the front of the building, here. An right, where they pull in, the entrance here. is right here. From here over is an that additional parking. They had only proposed the parking to be here. Now this parking lot has been widened another 10 feet and it's deeper than originally proposed. That's for her parking up there, for handicapped. A handicapped person would not be able to get down to the nursery from where I am at. MR. MARTIN-Right. I saw that. MR. GORALSKI-I know Dave's letter is confusing the issue a little. Dave's letter really has nothing to do with this application except that it's the same site. People have been attempting, not attempting, people have been parking up there. even though it's supposed to be just two handicapped spaces. Dave feels that it is a safe situation from the experience of the past year or so since the approval and would just, so that he doesn't have to keep going there tening people you can't park there. it's only for handicapped, he would like the Board to. in this approval, say that, yes, a couple of cars can park up there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-It's really got nothing to do with his nursery. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MORRIS-Right, and I guess now on to my nursery. My business is landscaping and nurseries. This is not something that's a fly by night thing. We plan on being there a while. I have established a reputation. there. as a very good landscaper. The nursery will be displayed a little different than any other nursery you'll see. There win be landscapes and mobile gardens, water gardens, aquatic gardens, and different types of display gardens for sale of nursery stock. I have some renderings, I don't know if they're goi ng to sway you at an. I don't know if they're needed, but they're renderings. An artist and I sat down came up with some drawings of what the nursery proposed to look 1 i ke. MR. GORALSKI-Why don't you just pass them around to the Board. MR. MARTIN-So this shows that area behind the parking lot, all this area here. 22 -- -- MR. MORRIS-Yes. that shows the area. MR. MARTIN-That will be a vast improvement over what's there. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It will look much better. That's great. Okay. Is this going to be a hard surface parking lot here? MR. MORRIS-It looks like macadam. No. What is proposed, I have in my nursery, it's kind of unique. I have red slate chip and this crushed stone that they use is awfully soft. I'm going to put down the red crushed slate. I like that more. It gives it a nice appeal. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The only thing I don't see down here is handicapped access parking here some place. I think you need to designate at least one place down here for handicapped and you do this simply with signs. MR. MORRIS-Yes, we can designate Number 10. MR. CARTIER-Well, it needs to be 16 feet wide and you can do that simply by signage. The only other question I had is at the site. right here, that crushed stone drops off very rapidly. MR. MORRIS-That's all going to be graded off and turned up neatly. MR. CARTIER-Okay. My concern was people backing in here are going to drop off. MR. MORRIS-No. We have a cedar split rail fence going all the way around the parking lot and around the premi ses. MR. CARTIER-Great. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? I'll open the public hearing and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER- Thi s is unli sted so we need to conduct a Short Form SEQRA, unless anybody has any other comments or questions. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION NO. 16-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICHARD MORRIS. for a retail nursery on at the comer of Route 9 and Montray Road. 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. 23 '-- .......-' Duly adopted this 26th day of March. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion and we want to reference Mr. Hatin's concerns and also handicapped signage below. IQTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 11). 16-91 RICHARD IQRRIS, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For a retail nursery contingent upon installing proper signage on Lot Number 10, as depicted in the Site Plan, for handicapped parking and that the parking space be 16 feet wide and in reference to Dave Hatin's letter of March 8th, that parking for the general public be allowed on the lot accessed by Route 9 and that the parking lot access by Route 9 be allowed to service two cars from the general public and one handicapped parking space, again, properly signed. Duly adopted this 26th day of March, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-Okay. Bits and pieces. John, any significance to the fact that a pizzeria? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know why it was included. no. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That takes care of that. MRS. PULVER-By the way, I have been driving by there every day and it is very clear to me that the restaurant has taken over all the parking over these years and it now has it's nose bent out of shape. MR. GORALSKI-Lee and I are going to be doing a study as I understand you requested. 1'm going to go out and basically locate all of the buildings out there and do a little research as far as any easements or rights-of-ways that we can find out about. Lee is going to interview the neighbors and try to find out what legitimate concerns they have and we will report back to you and the Caldaroni's will be on one of your April agendas. MRS. PULVER-Isn't there. for the restaurant, I heard him say he had 80 seats or something. Isn't there a number of parking spaces... MR. GORALSKI-The Diner? MRS. PULVER-Yes, the Diner. Isn't there a number of parking requirements. because I don't believe he has the number of parking. MR. GORALSKI-He's a preexisting use and he does not have what would be required today. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but he can't park over by the old Aquarium. That's where he's parked today. I saw six cars parked over by the Aquarium. MRS. PULVER-They were mobbed this morning when I went by at 8 o'clock. MR. GORALSKI-Traditionally, he has and nobody from the Town can stop him from doing that. MRS. PULVER-Yes, well, did you ever go in the Aquarium. MR. GORALSKI-That's an issue that the property owners have to settle. I don't think it's for the Planning Board or the Planning Department to solve that problem. MR. MARTIN-Well, they have to work out easements and so on. I would think. MR. GORALSKI-They don't have to. The owner of the pet store or the property the pet store is on can say you can't park. I mean, that's up to them to decide. 24 / '- ~ MS. CORPUS-And the owner of the restaurant can say I have a prescriptive easement for parking because I've been doing it for so long and they can take it to court and settle it between them. MRS. PULVER-But we heard the owner of the restaurant say it doesn't matter if you put up a barricade because we're still going to park there. MR. GORALSKI-But that's up to them. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-That's an issue that they have to settle. Now this Board can also, if there's a controversy, this Board has a right to take that controversy into account. MR. CAIMANO-Believe me, there's a controversy. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but it's on the order of a neighborhood feud and we need to stay out of it. MR. CAIMANO-And one of the things you want to talk about, you weren't here. Neither one of you were here, but when you go visiting, one of the issues that came up, which is a non-issue for us completely, is . the drinking issue. The Church wants to complain about they can't have drinking. That's not our problem. MR. GORALSKI-That's not something that you are approving. MR. CAIMANO-We tried to tell them that, but it didn't seem to do any good. MR. GORALSKI-I might point out that the majority of the people on the petition were from the Church. MR. CAIMANO-I might point out that I would be, under normal circumstances. willing to give her almost anything she wanted. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Everybody's got the letter from Wayne LaMothe? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. You also have in front of you, I hope, a proposed revision to the Town of Queensbury Petition for a Change of Zone. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Can we talk about Wayne LaMothe's letter. first? My only cOlllllent to this, Peter, is as the Chairman, maybe it is important to let the County Board know, well, had we known, properly, what they said, regardless of whether it carries weight or not. had we known what it said, it would have given us more back up to do some other things. I'm not saying we would have. but their decision was not very clear and it's important that we get a clear decision from them, I think, just to help us along. I mean, to give this to us several months later really doesn't help. MR. CARTIER-Well. this is the result of a letter that was written to the County asking for clarification. Yes. we should have gotten it long before this. MR. GORALSKI-They didn't have a quorum. MR. CARTIER-They didn't have a quorum. That's what it was. So they got nothing done. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Petition for a Change of Zone, do you have that in front of you? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The revisions are on Page 3 and those items have been added. That's the questions I sent out to you and we revised them and messed around with them a little bit and Staff. MRS. PULVER-I think 7 and 15 are the same question. MR. CARTIER-What need is being met by the proposed change in zone. Well, I think 7 refers to a specific need. MR. MARTIN-Of the applicant. 25 ..-' -- MRS. PULVER-Wen. see, I'm reading it. what need, you need a gas station because you have to drive too far now and. you know. I was looking at it in terms of that, not as the applicant need. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think 7 is a somewhat narrowly sculpted question and 12 is a broader question. MRS. PULVER-No, 15. MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry, 15 that's what I meant. These come out of. by the way. that information that Lee sent you. MR. MARTIN-Why is the SEQRA attached to this? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. I think because what Lee's talking about is this is the complete application that a person will get. MR. MARTIN-To the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Correct. Okay. Does anybody have any questions or comments or things they would like to revise or change on this? MR. MARTIN-Just as a general comment. and it's nothing really that critical, but I just think we've got to be careful when we develop these things. and this is something I hope to work with John on. In formulating these types of applications. you have to bear in mind that the public at large does not have the least idea what we're talking about with a lot of the key words in these questions. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And something's got to be done to make these things more user friendly. I mean. you talk about a Comprehensive Land Use Plan and that thing is going right over your head and landing on the wan somewhere for most people. I mean. we've got to do something to better explain the intent and the reasoning behind these things and I think people will be more accepting of the Planning process. MRS. PULVER-Wen, last week, Jim, Len and Pegs wanting to redo, how do you suppose they would have answered that question? I mean. they probably wouldn't have. or someone would have had to given them the answer. MR. CARTIER-You mean Question 7? MRS. PULVER-No, Question 14. I don't think they read the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. MARTIN-I mean, I think we, as a Planning Board member. sort of fallout of touch with the objectivity of somebody who has to look at these things. We deal with it month in and month out and feel very comfortable, after a while, with the Planner-ese and an that, but I think we've got to be a little more sensitive to the people out there who have to deal with these applications. MRS. PULVER-I almost see this as the applicant having to answer a few and then the Planning Board having to answer a few. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's how we started out. How I started out with this thing is, lets having Planning Staff go through and answer this and then I said. well, maybe we're kind of submarining the applicant by doing that. Maybe the applicant ought to have first shot at this and if the applicant, as Jim points out, doesn't understand the question, maybe that's when what you're talking about kicks in. They sit down with a Planning Staff member and get some direction from the Staff member. MR. MARTIN-Wen, what I'm suggesting. and it may be far too much to ask, that for every type of application we have, whether it be Site Plan Review, Subdivision. or now a Petition for a Zone Change. that we actuany have li ke an instruction manual with a glossary of terms and that type of thing, that just says, you know, Question Number 14, this is what we're looking for and explain. in real terms, what we're looking for. MR. GORALSKI-An right. I'm going to jump in, here. What you say makes a lot of sense. except for one thing. Like Tom just said, they'n hate us like they hate the IRS. When you get your tax forms and they say. turn to Page 2, now turn to Page 3, now back to Page 2. MR. CAIMANO-That's a good point. MR. GORALSKI-That's what you're going to end up getting. I think what we have to do, in fact, is simplify the application so that the basic information is on the application and then it's up to the Planning Board and the Planning Department to answer some of these questions. The applicant can certainly provide more information than is requested on the application. 26 / --- "-' MR. CAIMANO-Well, let me just take two of these numbers and just try and put them in American-ese, and I agree with, I think Carol brought this up. Number 7. I'm not sure what the word. I mean, where are we going with the term "need". What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? Is it that there is a hardship? Are we getting into that? Is that what we're looking for here? MR. GORALSKI-Those questions. okay, are questions that are basically taken from reference materials that we have. Questions that should be answered when doing a Change of Zone. MR. CAIMANO-I'm not saying that. How can we clarify that? MR. GORALSKI-What I'm saying is, I think, the question is not how should the applicant answer this. More it should be. should the applicant be answering this, or should the Planning Board be answering this? Maybe that's not the applicant's question to answer. Maybe the thing to do is to say. okay, here's the facts we want on the application, the size of the property. what's it zoned now. what's around it and what's on it now. Now, maybe include in the application, these are the questions that the Planning Board is going to be answering and this way if the applicant wants to come and ask about them, they can ask about them. If the applicant wants to answer them or give proposed answers, the applicant can do that. My point is, is that those questions should be considered when you're doing a Change of Zone. What I think that application was attempting to do was give the applicant a chance to answer those questions. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but you just handed me this. The applicant doesn't have this. MRS. PULVER-Yes, that's planning information, not people information. MR. CAIMANO-All right, maybe you've got a good point. The other question. and this is just a very minor point, but it puts people off. Number Nine, how is the proposed zone compatible with the conti guous zones. Probably the better portion of the people in Queensbury who are just coming here to fill out that are going to scratch their heads. Why are we making them scratch their heads? Why don't we just put that in plain language? MRS. PULVER-Well, first of all. they probably don't know how many zones we have. They don't know what's allowed in all the zones. So they really need to get the Zoning Ordinance. MR. CAIMANO-I'm just concerned with the word "continguous". MR. MARTIN-That's why I get back to my original point. Granted. it could very well turn into a tax form. MR. GORALSKI-We've tried it. Believe me, Jim. we've tried it. and what we come down to is, at the end saying, come in and talk to the Planning Department. MR. CAIMANO-That's what you have to do eventually anyway. MR. LAPOINT-The application should just be a fact finding sheet. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. LAPOINT-The applicant should just provide us facts. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. LAPOINT-And, again, you shed lights on what we're going to use those facts for. verbally or whatever, and go from there. MRS. PULVER-I'd almost like to see one question for the applicant. Why do you want to change this zone and leave lines on the whole page and let them fill it in, okay, and then the Planning Board and the Planning Department look at it and say, we look at the more technical stuff. MR. CARTIER-Basically, that's what we have in the old form. It says, in support of this petition, the following statement is made and the following documents are submitted herewith. That's Item 7 and 8 on the old form. MR. LAPOINT-Well. stay in plain English, though, like Carol said. why do you want this change. MR. CARTIER-Well. suppose you did it this way. in terms of what John's talking about. At the top of Question 7. MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute, Peter. Why not you just ask that question. why do you want to make this change, and then you say. now, here's the list that the Planning Board is going to fill out. These are the questions and they're going to find the answers to these questions so that you can be aware of them and it's up to them if they want to look at them or not, but they know. the night they come, that those are the questions we're going to ask. 27 '- -- MR. CARTIER-Sure. That's what I was just going to say. If there were a paragraph at the top of that set of questions, indicating what you just said, in simple language. the Planning Board and Staff will be answering the following questions. You may wish to provide answers to these yourself. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. but they, first of all, have to give you a little essay on what they think. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Right. My point is, the application should not be where, this is my opinion. the applicant makes pitch for his project. The application is a list of facts so that the reviewers. whether it be the Town Board or the Planning Board, are familiar with the facts regarding that site. Then at the meeting, you can discuss. ask questions of the applicant. The applicant can present his case. I think we're getting hung up on these applications. We have 20 page applications. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's what I'm talking about. MR. GORALSKI-We're trying to turn over every stone. I don't think there's any reason for that. MR. MARTIN-We're making the attorneys and the engineers and the surveyors very rich. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. I mean, on a Change of Zone, simply. like Carol said, why do you want this done. what piece of property is yours. what are the dimensions, what is the size, and what are the neighboring properties or something like that. MR. CAIMANO-Something very simple. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Well. they can pitch their idea all they want, but if it doesn't fit in with the other questions that the Planning Board is trying to answer, then it doesn't matter. MR. GORALSKI-Right, but I don't see why they have to answer those questions on the application. MR. CAIMANO-I agree. MRS. PULVER-We don't either. MR. CARTIER-As long as they are aware that these are questions of the applicant. MR. CAIMANO-Right, we're going to ask. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. See if this does it for you. MRS. PULVER-This is your question, why do you want it changed. These are our questions. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so if you left, from the old application, those two items, in support of this petition the following statement is made, Item 8, the following documents are submitted herewith. Leave those in. MR. CAIMANO-Sure. MR. CARTIER-That's what the applicant fills out. MRS. PULVER-What documents do they usually? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. MR. GORALSKI-Usually a Site Plan. Sometimes they bring in. MRS. PULVER-How about if you just put, list the documents you are submitting. MR. CAIMANO-Drop the term. as Jim just said, "Site Plan". Give us a drawing of what you want to do. MS. CORPUS-Well, they could do a Tax Map. What I usually do. when I submit to the Town Board, is just take a Tax Map, put their property. because they're going to re-zone the whole thing, usually, and then the surrounding properties and what they are. MR. CAIMANO-Great, but the term "Site Plan" is meaningful here. not to the average Joe Blow who's coming in and saying, gee, I want Site Plan, what does that mean? And don't, you know, it's easy for you to say that. but. 28 -- -..-/ MR. GORALSKI-Well, I deal with these people everyday. term, to be honest with you. I don't think "Site Plan" is really a problem MR. CAIMANO-But why even muddy it up. Keep it in plain language. MR. GORALSKI-We will change it to a drawing of your property, something like that. MR. CAIMANO-Something simple. MR. GORALSKI-But I just have to tell you that never. in the two and a half years that I have been here, has anyone come in and not known what a "Site Plan" was. MR. MARTIN-John, I had two people call me as a result, they were in the audience the night I submitted my subdivision application and they called me on the phone to help them out with their applications to the Town because they just said, I don't even know where to begin, and that was just one experience, you know. just one person who had been up here for one night and I crossed it. MR. GORALSKI-Well. then they didn't come in and talk to us. MR. CAIMANO-Maybe not. Maybe some people don't do anything because they don't want to come talk to you. Maybe you're used to dealing with the Tom Naces. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm saying. People don't want to come in and talk to you, for whatever reason. They're just scared or they're embarrassed, they're afraid to show lack of knowledge. That's why I'm saying that things should be more self-explanatory, and it's not to say that you aren't very outgoing and trying to get them in. because I know you are. I went through it. but I think there's people who just, they draw back. MRS. PULVER-I mean, I was a little embarrassed that Howard Krantz came tonight to ask for an extension. MR. CAIMANO-Right. That cost $125. MRS. PULVER-Yes, because the applicant probably didn't think he could do it alone. MR. GORALSKI-That's very true. MR. MARTIN-And then they get up there in front of that microphone and that's when tablings occur. MR. GORALSKI-But let me warn you about one thing. Be careful that you don't ask for so 1 ittle information that when you get here you all start looking at me and saying, why did this even get on the agenda, none of this information is here. MR. CAIMANO-It's going to go through you first, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-So now I'm supposed to decide whether or not the information is there? MR. CAIMANO-Well, you know the questions to ask. be asked. I'm not saying that the questions aren't going to MR. MARTIN-What's the matter with that, though? Isn't that part of your role? MR. GORALSKI-What's the matter with that? Because invariably. before probably anyone but Pete was on the Board, when that was happening, we would make decisions and put things on the agenda and then the Board would turn to us and say. why is this even on the agenda. MR. MARTIN-No. I'm not talking about that. I'm saying, what is the matter with, then. you having to interpret somebody's application that they've submitted. your interpretation of what's incomplete and what's complete? What's the matter with that? MS. CORPUS-It's the Town Board, actually, that submits the re-zoning applications to the Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-No, I'm not talking about re-zoning applications. MR. GORALSKI-You're talking about applications in general. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-What I'm saying is. I agree that the application should be simplified and I think that what we do, a lot of the stuff is redundant. A lot of the stuff doesn't apply to every site and should be removed. What I'm warning you against is watering down the application to the point where people come in with a minimal amount of information, okay. Then you say, John, you decide whether it's enough 29 '-' --' information. okay. John decides. John has been talking to these people everyday for the past two weeks. John is intimately involved in this site. John decides he's got all the information he needs. He sends it to the Planning Board and the Planning Board says, why is this even on our agenda, we don't have enough information to review it, and don't tell me it's not going to happen because it has happened numerous times before. MR. CAIMANO-Don't you look at every application and every line now and ask those same questions. whether they're filled or not? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Well, first. let me get back to my original point. I do not mean to water down the application. I am simply saying, put the request for information in terms that people can understand at the same time you get all the necessary information you need. MR. CARTIER-You're talking about phrasing. MR. CAIMANO-Carol brought up an interesting point and God forbid that my neighbor and good friend Mr. Krantz would here this. What's the purpose of a $125 an hour attorney, and they have to make their living. don't get me wrong, having to show up tonight? Why couldn't the applicant. I don't know, maybe he couldn't, physically. MR. GORALSKI-The reason for him was the applicant was on Long Island. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Well, many times the engineer or the lawyer shows up, why. because they're afraid. MR. YARMOWICH-If I may make an observation. it might help. From what I see. dealing with other localities. the regulations, the Ordinances. are incredibly complex. MR. CAIMANO-Absolutely. MR. YARMOWICH- The information you need requires a great deal of detail, whether that comes from the applicant or whether that comes from the Planning Department doesn't change the amount of information you need. You have to have a way to obtain that information. It's typically. no matter where you go, the burden of the applicant. MRS. PULVER-But, Tom, for an extension, he would have come in to the Planning Department. The Planning Department could say. all you need to do is go before the Board. You don't need a lawyer, you don't need a, but we, many times, have people come. MR. YARMOWICH-That's administrative, though, that's not an application. That's an administrative action. MR. CAIMANO-It stems from the same problem, though, fear. MR. CARTIER-That's not a decision. I don't think anybody on the Planning Staff wants to make, to say to an applicant, you don't need. MR. GORALSKI-When someone asks me, do I need an attorney, I tell them an attorney is not required. I tell them, this is the information you need to provide. If you can provide that, and I will help you with every single step of that application. I will fill it out for you, and I've done that for people, and you feel comfortable, then, no, you don't need an attorney, but I'm not going to stand there and say, no, you don't need an attorney because. more than once. even in the past two weeks. people have stood up at that microphone and got told things that were a complete surprise to them and they feel that they need an attorney to protect their rights. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. All right. Well, the point is we just want to get something simple for the people, that's all, and you know what we want, really, right? MR. GORALSKI-I do. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. can we go back to the specific application form. Do you want to drop this idea? Do you want to drop the set of questions? MR. CAIMANO-I think the questions on the top should have a headline which says, the Planning Board will be asking these questions. MRS. PULVER-Yes. 30 ~. -- MR. CARTIER-All right. I have that. Try this, The Planning Department and Board will be answering the following questions regarding this application, as the applicant. you may wish to provide answers. MR. CAIMANO-That's good. MR. LAPOINT-Perfect. MR. CARTIER-And that goes in on the old application, after this new part. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CAIMANO-That's fine. MR. CARTIER-I'll get Staff to put together a new thing for us to look at, okay. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Any questions about my letter to the Town Board about this new application form and Paul's response. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. I got Paul's response before I got your letter and the question I have is, why did those letters even go out since we had discussed this a week ago, either one of those letters? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Because the understanding that I had was that form was being used and it had already been through the pipeline and was being used and we ran into those two applications last week, where, because that was not being used, we ran afoul of that. MR. CAIMANO-The form that Dusek stood up there and held in his hand? He said to us, very specifically. do you like this form? We told him, no. He said, fine. let me go back there and redo it. MR. CARTIER-I'm referring to the new one that we came up with. MR. CAIMANO-The NCR Form? MR. CARTIER-No. The one we designed. The one that we wanted to be used. okay. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CARTIER-It was my understanding that that was, in fact, being used by the Zoning Administrator when, in fact, it was not. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I was just trying to reinstitute whatever is needed to get that done. Now, for some reason, that put Paul Dusek on the defensive and I don't know why. I'm going to get back to Paul and talk to him about that. MR. MARTIN-I've got a question. Why is it so difficult to just say. this is the form we want, without having some Philadelphia lawyer's interpretation of something that's got now into this big hub bubo Now we've got six forms floating around. We had a form. It was fine. We. the Planning Board, liked it. Lets use it. We don't need to know if it's legally defensible. I don't care if it is. It's a form. MS. CORPUS-Well, Jim. Paul asked me to revise the form to come up with the modification because there was a general Zoning Referral Form that Pat has to use for ZBA matters, as well as building permit matters. MR. MARTIN-That form we submitted was not that difficult. It would take her 15 minutes, tops, to fill that out because she's supposed to be doing all that stuff anyhow. Just fill it out, use the form. We're the Planning Board. That's the form we wanted for our review. End of story. MS. CORPUS-It also was lacking a few items. too. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-That's all it is. It's lacking. I'm not saying it's all inclusive. We just wanted to use that one. without going through the Legal Department and then getting into a big delay.. MS. CORPUS-I realize that, but. I wasn't here for that discussion. All I know was I was asked to modify the form and I had some other concerns that I realize that the Zoning Administrator's job was a little bit wider than that form had proposed. Her job includes review of PUDS, the Subdivision Regulations, and some other things that I added. 31 ---" '-' MR. MARTIN-All right. fine, then expand the form, but why is it going to the Attorney's Office, is my question? MS. CORPUS-Because it was my understanding that our office was to prepare a modification or something to that effect. That was my understanding. I wasn't here. MRS. PULVER-Weii. my understanding is Paui just took it on himseif, right? MR. LAPOINT-Weii, I think we asked him for that, didn't we? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-How's this? My first reaction to this is that this is more difficuit for her to fiH out than the other one, okay. Now, iet me make a suggestion, here, that we go back to the form that we originaHy set up and you add to that form the things that were off that form, but in the format of that form. MS. CORPUS-Then it wiii be three pages iong. MR. CAIMANO-I don't care if it's 100 pages iong. MS. CORPUS-If the Board wants me to do that, I can do that. This proposai was just something I drew up for today's meeting for the Board to iook at. Pat's not here. I wouid iike to get her input on this aiso. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I wouid just simpiy iike to say. I don't think we need a Zoning Administrator's checkiist that has to be defensibie against every case iaw that was cited back to 1900 or whatever just for the purpose of this Board to feei comfortabie with the fact that the Zoning Administrator iooked at the Zoning Ordinance. MS. CORPUS-Weii, it has to be practicabie. Jim. for her to use on an everyday basis. MR. CAIMANO-No, it's for us. MS. CORPUS-It aiso has to be comprehensive enough for her to use. I think that was the goai. MR. CAIMANO-That's the point Jim was making. It's for us, it's not for her. MR. MARTIN-It's our request of her to do this. MS. CORPUS-Well, my question, right now, is, is she to use different forms for the Pianning Board? Can I ask for a ciarification? Is the Board saying that you'd iike Pat to use a different form for the Pianning Board issues versus Zoning Board, buiiding permit or other issues that she deais with? Because when she gets a probiem, a question, or an appiication, she's not sure, at that time. whether it shouid go to the Zoning Board. the Pianning Board, the Zoning Board and the Pianning Board or whether it needs a buiiding permit, does not need a buiiding permit. She's first presented with a raw question, sometimes. Peopie come in off the street not knowing what it is they need and what the form. the originai form was ieft open enough for her to make that determination and send it wherever it had to go, Zoning Board, Pianning Board, Pianning Staff, right to Dave Hatin's office sometimes. Now. am I to understand that the Board wants the form that Lee drew up, that speciai because that was designed more for pianning issues. Do you want that to be used. aside from what she wouid normaiiy use? MR. GORALSKI-It was oniy supposed to be used for items on the Pianning Board agenda. MR. CAIMANO-Weii, we wouid hardiy want one designed for zoning. MR. GORALSKI-Wasn't that form just for items that were on the Pianning Board agenda for her to review? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-That's not my impression. My impression was, it was designed to heip her make those kinds of decisions that you're referring to, as to where it goes. MR. CAIMANO-I didn't think so. MRS. PULVER-I didn't either. MS. CORPUS-Okay. I guess that's where it seems that the initiai confusion iies. 32 '-' -.../ MR. CAIMANO-To me. it was a form to be used. as John says. for those items which are going to come to us. MRS. PULVER-So when it comes to us, if there's a problem, you can look and say. ah. the Zoning Administrator said, 16 parking spaces, reviewed it. MR. CAIMANO-Said, did and said this. I don't care, I agree with Jim. I don't care if she takes yellow pages and writes. The problem is, we don't get enough information from her. MS. CORPUS-Okay. So. I want to make sure that I understand this right. Is the Board saying that they want that form to be used after she's made the determination on the regular referral form? For example, it goes to the ZBA first, then it's got to go to the Planning Board, whatever and then uses the checklist for Planning Board items only? MR. MARTIN-I think your comments about the form being remiss in areas of PUD and things are fine. Those should then be incorporated. but I simply don't understand why, we made a direct request to the Zoning Administrator, why can't there be this direct line of communication between us and her. If she has a problem with it, come to one of our meetings, talk it over and we, as a body, will talk to her directly and back and forth and an agreement will be worked out. MRS. PULVER-Yes, that almost would be better, wouldn't it. MS. CORPUS-Okay. That's fine. I'm confused. I'm not sure what the form was meant to accomplish for the Board. MR. CAIMANO-Information we weren't given. MR. MARTIN-Well, I just don't understand, not that I, why does the Legal Department have to be burdened with this? They have more important things to do than look at Zoning Administrator checklists. It just seems like no piece of paper in this Town can move anywhere without first going through the Legal Department at some point in time or another. MR. LAPOINT-Well, this might be the most important piece of paper on a single, like the Docksider, or any other project. This could be the pivotal form. MR. CAIMANO-It could be. MS. CORPUS-It does have a lot of ramifications, depending on how it's used. MR. CAIMANO-But if you take the word "form" out of it, all we really want is more information on how the decision was made. That's all we care about. MRS. PULVER-Only on applications that are coming to the Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-I'll tell you this, though, we expose ourselves to more legal ramifications on a controversial project without any written verification from the Zoning Administrator as to how she looked at it than that form that we originally proposed. MR. CARTIER-We are not going to get into legal problems by having too much information. We're going to get into legal problems by having too little. Okay. Now. Let me ask a quick question, here. Which does this Board, at this point prefer. this type of format or the type of format that we submitted before? MR. MARTIN-I prefer the type of format that we submitted before with the additions of the shortcomings that Karla found with the PUD and so on. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does everybody agree with that? MR. CAIMANO-I wouldn't consider disagreeing with him. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-So we are going to request of Legal Staff that we drop this format, all right. MS. CORPUS-That's fine. MR. CARTIER-And add to the form that was originally presented the missing items. MR. CAIMANO-You didn't answer Jim's question. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. I'm just trying to get a direction going here and give the Staff direction. MR. GORALSKI-I think Jim's point is. why does the Legal Staff have to add them? 33 '-' '-'" MR. CAIMANO-Why are you asking our Legal Department to do anything? MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Why can't. the Planning Department Secretary can type that form up, give it to Pat Collard, say, this is what we'd like to see, and how do you like it and if you have any comments that you don't like it, come to the Planning Board next meeting and discuss it with them. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to go that route? MR. GORALSKI-That's fine with me. MS. CORPUS-That's very efficient. I would recommend that. MR. MARTIN-We're all smart people. MR. CARTIER-In other words, we're going to cut the Legal Department out of the loop. MS. CORPUS-That's fine with the Legal Department. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How's that. John, can we direct you to? MRS. PULVER-Add those three items to the old list, John? MS. CORPUS-It's subdivisions and PUDS and whatever else I've got there, Sign Ordinance, although, that's ZBA stuff. MR. CARTIER-How does all this apply to the reV1Sl0ns to the application for Petitions to Change a Zone? What kind of a torturous route does that have to take in order to get implemented? Do we have to go through the same thing for that? MR. MARTIN-Wen, that's different, now. That's a petition that's made to the Town Board, technicany, right? MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. MS. CORPUS-The Town Board sends it back down to the Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's their ultimate call. MR. CARTIER-So the Town Board has to look at this and approve it. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-That's the Town Board's application. not yours. MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm saying. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So what we're going to do with this is we're going to get a revised, final version of this for next month, okay. Then we're going to look at it and decide if we like it or not and we're going to make a recommendation to the Town Board that they accept this form. Is that correct? Is that what we're going to do? MR. GORALSKI-You got it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has anybody got anything else? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 34