Loading...
1991-04-16 /.-'~ '--' ~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16TH, 1991 INDEX Site PJan No. 7-91 GJoria CaJdaroni 1. Subdivision No. 14-1990 FINAL STAGE Inspiration Park Adams Rich Associates 1. Site PJan No. 14-91 Robert Northgard, Jr. 2. Subdivision No. 11-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE WhippJe Subdivision Owner: Robert W. WhippJe 4. *Subdivision No. 1-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Robert Northgard, Jr. 9. Site PJan No. 18-91 C.D.K. EJectric, Inc. 10. Subdivision No. 4-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE The Batting Range FiJtom Corporation 16. 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. *Expedited Matter --- '-.--- ~EEllSBURY PLAMING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN NICHOLAS CAIMANO JAMES MARTI N JAMES HAGAN EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY- KARLA CORPUS SENIOR PLANNER-LEE A. YORK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-Before we get started, with regard to Site Plan No. 7-91, Gioria Caidaroni, for a pizzeria restaurant on the northwest corner of Richardson and Main Street, that has been withdrawn. Okay, that being done, minutes of February 28th, does anybody have any questions, comments, additions or retractions? MR. CAIMANO-Minutes? MR. CARTIER-Yes. Do you want to wait? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Lets do aii our minutes next week. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How about March 19th, do you want to wait on those? MR. CAIMANO-Lets do aii our minutes next week. MR. CARTIER-Wen, okay, then iet me make one change in the February 28th. Page 25, my comment in the middie, fifth iine down, in reference to gifts we decided we did not want. It was very pooriy phrased on my part, and I wouid iike to go on record as having said what I said is not what I meant. MR. CAIMANO-Are there gifts that you'd iike to take? MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's the way it came out. The point of an of that was that we wouid not accept gifts. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Not that we wouid not accept gifts that we do not want, and I'm not going to say anymore. One other change on the March 19th, I'n get these now so you guys can deai with the rest of these, okay. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-On the March 19th meeting, the bottom of Page 5, iast comment, Mr. Nace's comment, Mr. Nace says, "that is correct", and the rest of that iine is Mr. Cartier, okay. Okay. We can get into the reguiar agenda here. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION (I). 14-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-20 INSPIRATION PARK ADAMS RICH ASSOCIATES OWNER: ANTHONY P. CAROL A., AND ROBERT RICCIARDELLI, JR. SOUTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD, APPROX. 0.1 MILE (l)RTHEAST OF WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD FOR A 42 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP (I). 148-1-7.1, 7.3, 7.4 LOT SIZE: 22.48 ACRES FOR A RE-VOTE, EXTENSION OF TIME: UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 1991 (7:03 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-And we have in front of us a motion from when we iast acted on this and the probiem was we had oniy three votes avaiiabie to us. Let me read the motion, "Motion to extend Subdivision 14-1990 Inspiration Park, six months from the deadiine date or untii September 30th, 1991, introduced by Nichoias Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin". If anybody wouid ii ke to reintroduce that motion, I think we can vote on that. 1 JlJTION TO EXTEND FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1990 INSPIRATION PARK ADAMS RICH ASSOCIATES SIX JlJNTHS fROM THEIR DEADLINE DATE OR UNTIL SEPTÐIŒR 30TH, 1991, Introduced by Nichoias Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duiy adopted this 16th day of Aprii, 1991, by the foiiowing vote: MR. CARTIER-Are those two dates one in the same, six months from the deadiine date or September 30th, 1991? MR. CAIMANO-I think that night we went through a bunch of gyrations and it was. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint ABSENT: Mrs. Puiver (7:05 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 14-91 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 ROBERT NORTHGARD, JR. OIØIER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF WISCONSIN AND CENTRAL AVENUES TO CONSTRUCT A 2 STORY, 2 FAMILY DUPLEX TAX MAP (I). 127-8-1 LOT SIZE: 1.183 ACRES SECTION 4.020 E (7:05 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-The pubiic hearing was aiready heid March 26th, but I know this was tabied and the pubiic hearing has remained open. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Pianner, Site Pian No. 14-91, Robert Northgard, Jr., dated Aprii 11, 1991, Meeting Date: Aprn 16, 1991 "The site pian is to piace a dupiex on a iot on the corner of Wisconsin and Centrai Avenues. The iot currentiy hoids one singie famiiy home, one dupiex, and there is approvai for a second dupiex. The appiicant was apprised by the Board that further deveiopment of the iot might be prohibited because of an an over deveiopment pian which addressed the total lot buiidout. The zoning is MR-5. The appiicant is requesting a waiver from the stonnwater management criteria. The Board can oniy grant waivers from the Subdivision Reguiations. Any deviation from the standards of the Zoning Ordinance has to be submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeais. The submission regarding stormwater and waste water win be addressed by the engineer. The Board aiso requested that the Beautification Committee review this as a muitifamiiy compiex. That ietter is attached. This appiication was reviewed per Section 5.070: 1 - The structure is in a denseiy deveioped neighborhood. This structure and the other dupiex's on the iot are iarger than most structures in the neighborhood. The density is aiiowabie by zoning. 2 - There is adequate traffic access. 3 - There is adequate parking. 4 - Pedestrian access is handied by a waikway. 5 - Grading and stonnwater management wiii be addressed by the engineer. 6 - The dupiex win be on Town water. The engineer wiÏl address the adequacy of the septic system. 7 - The Beautification Committee report wni address p1antings and buffering. 8 - Fire and emergency access is sufficient. 9 - The appiicant shou1d maintain erosion controi measures during construction. The app1icant is required to pay recreation fees to the Town of Queensbury prior to receiving a bunding permit. The Board shou1d make this part of the motion." MR. CARTIER-I don't know that we need to do anymore of this, simpiy because. Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm 100king at your first comment, here. He's requesting a waiver for stonnwater management. but this is not within the purview of this Board to grant this waiver. MS. CORPUS-Yes. it is. MR. CARTIER-It is? MRS. YORK-Not from the Zoning Ordinance. Karia. MR. CARTIER-Not from the Zoning Ordinance. Subdivision. MS. CORPUS-They're aii Subdivision Reg's. MRS. YORK-He's not subdividing. This is a site pian. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. This is on1y a site pian. We've iooked as that, as a resuit of the request, and from the infonnation the appiicant's provided. it appears, and it's our opinion that the need for stormwater management doesn't exist because of the low permeab1e area ratio as wen as the highiy permeable soiis. Therefore. it's reany not an eiement that needs to be considered for this site pian review, that there reany is no variance required as a resuit of the facts surrounding this particular site pian. That's our opinion. 2 MR. CARTIER-Are you comfortab1e with that? MRS. YORK-Yes. I've spoken to Tom and I'm comfortab1e with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Then iet's go on. I'm sorry. Tom. your comments, piease. MR. YARftDWICH- In addi ti on to that. there's another eiement of thi s i etter whi ch is a resuit of recent discussions with the Buiiding and Codes Enforcement Officer. Mr. Hatin. The Town is eiecting to utiiize the New York State Department of Heaith Standards for muiti famiiy residentiai deveiopment where the individuai systems are 1,000 ganons a day or iess. So, I'n temper the cOnmJents in Item Number Two accordingiy. The decisions were made yesterday and discussed with Mr. Hatin and myseif. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated Aprii 10, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the fonowing engineering comments: 1. A waiver has been requested for stonnwater management. A SWM waiver is justifiabie based upon the iow impermeabie area ratio and the highiy permeab1e soiis. 2. Regarding sub-surface sewage disposa1: a. The percoiation tests indicate a rate faster than 1 min./inch. In accordance with current NYSDEC Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works. 1988 Tabie 10 on page 55. the sub-surface disposai system win require soiis to be modified by biending or repiacement to obtain a properiy permeabie son. in the range of 5 to 15 minutes per inch, to reduce the infntration rate. The design percoiation rate shouid be the rate of the modified son and shouid conform to the NYSDEC criteria for Fin Systems on pages 62 and 63. The area that soiis shouid be modified shouid extend 5 feet from an trenches and to a minimum depth of 2 feet beiow the bottom of the trenches. b. Conforming septic system iayout pians and design detaiis for a fin system need to be provided. This shouid inciude the separation distances measured from the edge of the fiii. c. Comment 2 (d) from our previous ietter dated March 21, 1991 has not been addressed. The absorption fieid iocation shouid be shown on the pians with an required separation distances maintained. 3. Comment 3 from our previous ietter dated March 21, 1991 has not been addressed. Show the proposed stone driveway modification on the pian." MR. CARTIER-Okay. So. in other words. there are stiii some outstanding issues on this appiication? MR. YARftDWICH-Yes. Severa1 of the comments that we made regarding the septic system design were not fuiiy addressed by the response the appiicant gave for our review. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and we do not have an appiicant before us to address this. What's the Board's feeiing. here? Do you want to tabie this? MR. CAIMANO-Wen. I wouid be in favor of turning it down, because there's no way that we can pass it and there's no way we can tabie it except for one thing. I wouid suggest that we just deiay this for a iittie bit more time. Mr. Northgard is supposed to be here for another project under New Business and just to give the appiicant the necessary time. I wouid just suggest that rather than turning it down, that we just hoid it aside for some period of time to give the appiicant some time to get here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm hearing you saying we can't tabie this. Why can't we? MR. CAIMANO-I don't that we can. I thought we had to tabie with the appiicant's consent? We don't? MR. CARTIER-No. MS. CORPUS-No, the Board has the option to tabie the matter without the appiicant's consent. The appiicant's consent is not necessary. MR. CARTIER-The oniy difference is, if we tabie it without the consent of the appiicant. we have to act within 30 days, correct? MS. CORPUS-Six months. MR. CARTIER-Six months? Okay. MR. MARTIN-Weii, I agree with the first comment there. Maybe just hoid off untii the next issue. MR. CAIMANO-Just give the guy his chance. That wouid be the fair thing. wouid it not? MR. CARTIER-Sure. The oniy other thing, keep in mind. he may not show up because his next item is an expedited matter and we ieave it to their option to show up. MR. CAIMANO-In about 10 minutes we can do them both. MR. CARTIER-Fine. Okay. So we're going to put a hoid on 14-91. (7:11 p.m.) 3 SUBDIVISION (I). 11-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE MR-5 WHIPPLE SUBDIVISION OWNER: ROBERT W. WHIPPLE NORTH SIDE OF WALKER LANE NEAR TOP OF HILL FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO 3 LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-13.5 LOT SIZE: 2.09 ACRES TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (7:11 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner. Subdivision No. 11-1990. Robert WhipPle. dated April 10. 1991. Meeting Date: Aprii 16, 1991 "At the March 19th meeting several issues were raised regarding this project. 1 - Is variance needed for the driveways? Dave Hatin's letter addresses this issue. Brian LaFiure's letter aiso addresses this issue. 2 - Is a variance needed for construction on s10pes greater than 15%? Construction on slopes greater than 15% requires site plan review not a variance. 3 - Is there sufficient parking? The plan shows sufficient parking for three units per lot. 4 - What impact wiil this proposal have on traffic? The density in this zone would anow 17 units on this size parce1. OnlY nine are proposed. Given the number of units on the south side of Waiker Lane this project win have minimal impact on traffic generation. 5 - Win there be a negative visual impact? Because there win be large setbacks from Waiker Lane and clearing along the road win be onlY that necessary to provide safe access, there should be minimal visual impact." MRS. YORK-I have a letter from Brian LaFlure. Would you like me to read that? MR. CARTIER-Yes, please. MRS. YORK-It's from Mr. LaFlure who is the Chief of the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company, to Lee York, Senior Planner, dated Aprii 7, 1991 "Dear Lee: This letter is to confirm our previous discussion of the fire apparatus access to the rear buiiding of the Whipple subdivision off Waiker Lane. After a lengthy review by my iine officers, we feel that minimum requirements are needed for muitifamiiy buiidings with long driveways or access roads that do not fan under the 'town road' requirements. As you reca1i. we dealt with a simi1ar problem with the Wiiey Project off West Mountain Road and I believe a suitable sOlution was found there. It is our opinion that any mUltifamilY dwelling or buiiding that has a single access drive that exceeds 100 feet, the drive must be paved twenty (20) feet wide with ten (10) feet cleared on each side. You are aware of our reasons for these requirements, but I win be glad to attend the next Planning Board meeting for this subdivision to explain them in person. " MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We also have a letter from Dave Hatin. MRS. YORK-Okay. This is from Mr. (Dave) Hatin, Director of Buiiding and Code Enforcement, to Planning Board Members, dated March 26. 1991 "In reference to the WhipPle Subdivision 11-90 and the concern with regards to whether this Subdivision requires Town roads to be constructed to each muitifamiiy unit, it is the opinion of this Department that Section 7.030 B-1 does not applY because these are not to be considered public roads. Therefore, the driveway would not be required to meet Town standards for pubiic roads, but onlY the criteria agreed to with the Planning Board for width of driveways and materials that the driveways are to be constructed of. It is the opinion of this Department that these driveways to these bui1dings win not be thoroughfares for the general pubiic to use but win service these individual units as most driveways serve a particular unit. roads generany serve a muititude of units. Should you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me." MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. Tom? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer. dated Aprii 11, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the fonowing engineering comments: 1. SWM design infi1tration rate references have been requested. The appiicant indicated that these win be provided with the fina1 stage submission. 2. CUlvert sizes under driveways are governed by upstream areas and win not be affected by any increase in runoff from this subdivision according to the SWM concept. CUlvert sizing is felt to be appropriate to insure a concept compatible with driveway grading and existing grades along Walker Lane. Stabilized cUlvert inlets, outlets and ditches may be necessary due to the slope of Walker Lane. 3. The clearing plan shows much more residual woods and brush than will remain upon site grading according to the grading plan. 4. All lOtS have proposed slopes exceeding the 3 to 1 maximum slope permitted under Subdivision Reguiations Section VIII G.l. The slopes proposed at the west and northwest sides of lOtS 1 and 2 are extreme and therefore would be subject to erosion. and would be difficult if not impossible to safelY and properly maintain without special landscaping and stabi1ization treatments. 5. Regarding Sub-surface Sewage Disposal:" As a note, I wou1d iike to include in my comments the interpretations given yesterday by Mr. Hatin. "Absorption percolation design rate must be no less than 1 minute/inch. Sewage disposal system sizing note 2 should be corrected." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nace? 4 --/ MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Haanen engineering representing Robert Whippie. I think the oniy issues that need to be addressed at this time wouid be the engineering issues, and of those, the cuiverts under the driveways I guess are the first that we need to address verbany. The present drainage area for this side of the road is somewhere about center iine of road here down. There's very, very iittie drainage area, and in fact having iooked at these again after receiving the engineering comments, where we wi11 be going directiy up from the road without having to pi ace any fin in the driveways, we may eiect to omit the cuiverts and simpiy grade those the same way as has been done on the opposite side of the street where there's a rock fined ditch iine and a siight depression in the driveways to anow surface flow to continue down. I think on this iot, when we get the site pian review, we wiii have to put a cuivert because we're going to be on a iittie bit of fin with the driveway. So here we wouid have a cuivert, but it'n probabiy be no more than 12 inches due to the smaii drainage area. MR. YARftDWICH-I interpret that expianation to mean that you're not going to be needing to dig any deep ditches, put in structures that the Town of Queensbury wouid be concerned about with Waiker Lane? MR. NACE-No. I think probabiy the Town Road Department has been the one who's aiready improved some of the drainage up here and a11 they have done is used very shaiiow rock fined ditches. and I mean very shanow. MR. YARftDWICH-With that response, I feei that the sizing or the treatment of those flows with the driveways is adequate to be deait with at site pian. MR. NACE- The second issue is very accurate. We, somewhere aiong the way in making changes on the drawings, did not pick up a revised grading pian when we were doing the finai ciearing and in fact there is a iittie bit of ciearing in here, a significant amount of c1earing in here, and some in here that win have to be done to accommodate the grading pian and does not show correctiy on the c1earing pian, but our concept of trying to maintain some buffer up front where the driveway and the additionai width request for fire access is the oniy c1earing that's done up on the front of the iots. We're going to stay with that concept. I win correct the grading pian for finai submission. The issue with grading on the iots. We wiii, at site pian review, be deaiing with that and Tom is correct, there are some areas that are reiativeiy steep. The area above the tiie fieid, here, we wiii do some siope stabiiization with speciai pianting and maybe even a sort of a iog crib retaining waii aiong the bottom of it. In the back, here, there was a turn around for peopie to back out here that was accidenta11y put in too deep. I win correct that and in the site pian here we'n probabiy have a iittie bit of a retaining wan around that turn around area. Those are the two major areas where I feei that we're going to have to deai with that, but I do beiieve we can deai with it at site pian review, and the note on the percoiation rate to be corrected and the notes on the septic system win be taken care of at finaL The percoiation rate tests that we did were weii over one minute. So. I don't expect that to be a probiem. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I have a note, here, in reference to Mr. Nayior. Does Mr. Nayior have any concerns on this. or were they addressed? MRS. YORK-Mr. Nayior did not give me anything in writing. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. Does the Board have any comments or questions? MR. CAIMANO-Not, on that. I just want to hear the comments on Brian LaFiure's ietter. MR. NACE-We11, I think we've aiready tried to take care of that. Before revising this Preiiminary submission, we knew that the driveways were going to have to be widened and we did provide additional ciearing aiong the driveways. So they now have been widened to 20 feet and the ciearing iimits that he has asked for are shown. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any other questions or comments? The pubiic hearing was ieft open on this appiication. Is there anyone here who wishes to address the Board with regard to this appiication?? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HAGAN-I have a question. It's out of ignorance, but what does TF mean? MR. NACE-Tiie Fieid. MR. HAGAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. NACE-Or absorption fieid or septic system. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct a SEQRA. 5 '-- RESOWTlON IftIEN DETERMINATION OF rI) SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE . RESOWTIOlf NO. 11-1990, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: MR. CAIMANO-(Referring to SEQRA) "Impact on Water Win the proposed action effect any water body desi gnated as protected?" MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CAIMANO-"Win proposed action effect any non-protected existing or new body of water?" MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. How far away are you from Old Maid's Brook, here, more than 500 feet? MR. NACE-No, not more than 500. It's a couple of hundred feet. It's at least 2 or 300 feet. MRS. YORK-Yes, I'd say a couple of hundred. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. WHEREAS, there is presentlY before the Planning Board an appiication for: WHIPPLE SUBDIVISION for a subdivision of 1and into 3 lots north side of Walker Lane near the top of the hill, 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 Compiiation of Codes, RUles and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board wiil 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 16th day of April, 1991, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint ABSENT: Mrs. PUlver MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion with regard to this Pre1iminary Stage. IIJTlON TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1990 WHIPPLE SUBDIVISION, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For a subdivision of land into three lOts, with the foiiowing contingencies: That the stonnwater management design infiitration rate references be provided at the final stage. That the clearing plan be in compliance with Comment Number Three of the Rist-Frost letter of April 11th. DUlY adopted this 16th day of April, 1991, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier 6 -~ NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint ABSENT: Mrs. PUlver (7:30 p.m.) . MR. CARTIER-Mr. Northgard is here, now. So we can go back to Site Plan No. 14-91. Mr. Northgard, I think we're at the point where we need to hear from you in reference to engineering comments. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. What can I answer for you? MR. CARTIER-Let me back up, please. Go back to, you have the Staff Comments in front of you? MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Second page of Lee York's cormnents, last paragraph, just to make you aware of that. "The applicant is required to pay recreation fees to the Town of Queensbury prior to receiving a buiiding permit." Okay. MR. NORTHGARD-Right. MR. CARTIER-You are aware of that. Okay. With regard to engineering comments, Item One has been taken care of. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. CARTIER-We need to hear from you on 2 a., b., c., and Comment 3, please. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. I have no problem with A. We're aware of the percolation tests and that the soii wi 11 have to be mixed. B refers to the septi c system layout. I assume that the layout that we have is not acceptable. We 'n have to modify that and the absorption field. If I could get a iittle explanation on what you're looking for there. MR. CARTIER-Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-The detaii which you provided with your letter, to respond to the cormnents made at the previous review, shows a septic fin system which doesn't provide the blended modified soii beneath the trenches. The intent is, is that the soii be blended to a depth two feet below the trench and the entire area all around the trenches within a perimeter distance of five feet and that that particular blended son area be perc tested and demonstrated to be in the range of five to fifteen minutes per inch. MR. NORTHGARD-After the soil's been mixed? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-This is a requirement of the Department of Health standards that became effective December 1, 1990. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-Item 2b. relates to the need to develop a septic system layout plan that in fact you can complY with the separation distances. In particular, the edge of the fill is the measurement that's critical. You are showing a 15 foot separation distance from part of the attached garage. That should be 20 foot minimum. MR. NORTHGARD-And you're looking for 20. MR. YARMOWICH-It must be 20 foot minimum. MR. NORTHGARD-Yes, I understand that. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. NORTHGARD-And that will be 20. In regard to the absorption field? MR. YARMOWICH-The absorption field detaiis are those which you attempted to provide with your letter which are not sufficient to complY with the requirements of the DOH regulations for a fnl system. You'n need to provide some additional detans on the plan in order to provide a plan that would be permittable. 7 MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-And the last corment, Number Three, regarding the proposed stone driveway modification, we were looking for you to show us exactlY what it was you were going to be doing with that so that any other related items such as the stormwater issue, we would know enough about that to make sure that those particular cOIIDTlents were not in any way effected negativelY. What is it that you intend to do with that stone driveway? Would you be willing to show that, I guess, on a final plan? Instead of just saying, removed, you indicated that it was going to be modified. We'd like to know how. MR. NORTHGARD-It's simplY going to be straightened to be closer to the building, to the single family home. MR. YARMOWICH-Wen, for the purposes of construction, the Building and Codes Department needs to have a plan that reflects the improvements that you intend to make as a result of this approval. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-The issues that are before you to address are relativelY straight forward. There's nothing here that indicates the site isn't suitable for development of what you propose. MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-It's a matter for the Board to decide whether or not they would grant an approval to you with the understanding that you'n have to make additional information submissions for engineering review until you have satisfied the concerns we've expressed. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. Wen, I think what we need here, once again, is a better site plan, an together. Now, we can either provide that to you, table this again, provide it, or I can provide it prior to receiving any building permits. MR. CARTIER-Thank you, Mr. Northgard. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. CARTIER-So you're agreeing to a tab1ing. I would just add one other comment here. I don't think we got this on the record that the Beautification ComrrHtee approved this. Okay. So, we can entertain a motion to table, and we aho decided we were going to indicate, from now on, a date, tabling until. When's the deadline submission for next month? MRS. YORK-The last Wednesday, April 24th, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. CARTIER-If we table this to the first May meeting, we need that submission by the 24th of April. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. CARTIER-You have no problems with that? MR. NORTHGARD-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Does anyone care to make a motion with regard to tabling? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN (I). 14-91 ROBERT NQRTHGARD, JR., Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Pending receipt of an updated site plan by April 24th at 2 p.m. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We'" leave the public hearing open on this. DUlY adopted this 16th day of April, 1991, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. PUlver (7:37 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: 8 ~- EXPEDITED MATTER SUBDIVISION NO.. 1-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA ROBERT NORTHGARD, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF DIVISION STREET AND CORINTH ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP (I). 147-1-10 LOT SIZE: 1.14 ACRES ROBERT NORTHGARD, PRESENT (7:37 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 1-1991, Robert Northgard, Jr., dated Aprii 11, 1991, Meeting Date: Aprn 16, 1991 "The subdivision has been determined to be an expedited matter by the staff. The request is to divide a 1.14 acre parcel into two lotS. This property was re-zoned in 1990 to Light Industrial One Acre from SR-20. This lot contains two existing structures which wnl be subdivided. Aii utiiities and faciiities are existing. There wiii be no changes to the property. The subdivision is simplY to aiiow the appiicant to seii the residences separatelY. An area variance was obtained in February to anow the appiicant to subdivide." MR. CARTIER-Assuming the Board has no questions or comments, I'll open the public hearing. Does anyone have a question or comment from the public that they would wish to make on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL H. NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-Paul H. NaYlor, I live east of Mr. Northgard and I'm for this. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Does anybody else care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a SEQRA Review. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION rIJ. 1-1991, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presentlY before the Planning Board an appiication for: ROBERT (l)RTHGARD, JR., for a two lot subdivision on the corner of Division and Corinth 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 Compnation of Codes, RUles and Regulations for the State of New York, thi s Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board wiii 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 16th day of April, 1991, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. PUlver 9 '-- ~ MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion for disposition of this Preliminary Stage. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1991 ROBERT NORTHGARD, JR., Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For a 2 lOt subdivision. DUlY adopted this 16th day of April, 1991, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. PUlver MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. Being as there win be no changes to this plan, can we move ahead to a final approval? MR. CAIMANO-Tonight? MR. CARTIER-Tonight? Not tonight. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. CARTIER-There will have to be are-submission. MRS. YORK-Yes. You have to fill out a final application and applY for that approval. MR. NORTHGARD-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-I would assume, however, that will also be an expedited matter, at this point? MRS. YORK-I would assume so. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-Potentiany, if the Board has no problem with it, Mr. Northgard maybe could come back next week. MR. CAIMANO-That's fine with me. MR. HAGAN-It's okay by me. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to do that by motion? MRS. YORK-I would appreciate it. MR. CARTIER-If someone would care to make a motion to that effect. JlJTION TO ADD FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1991 ROBERT NORTHGARD, JR., DIVISION STREET AD CORINTH ROAD FOR A 1WO LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE tIlVED TO THE APRIL 231m MEETIJIG AGENDA, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: DUlY adopted this 16th day of April, 1991, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. PUlver MR. CARTIER-Just a quick comment, here. We may want to think about modifying the expedited matters to make that automatic. If they're in at the first meeting, they automatical1y are put on the final or whatever. That's something to think about later on. MRS. YORK-However you want to do that. SITE PLAN (I). 18-91 LI-lA C.D.K. ELECTRIC, INC. OWNER: ESTATE OF GLADYS IRENE SMITH SOUTHERLY SIDE OF THE LOWER BOULEVARD TO USE THE EXISTING BUILDING FOR OFFICE AND STORAGE FOR A ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING BUSINESS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP (I). 112-1-13 LOT SIZE: 6,650 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 N 10 ',-- --.-/ MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Site Plan No. 18-91, C.D.K. Electric, Inc., dated Aprii 11, 1991, Meeting Date: Aprii 16, 1991 "The proposal is to develop a electrical contracting business in a Light Industrial zone on the Boulevard. The structure is currentlY vacant. The applicant intends to construct a 36 by 26 foot addition at the rear of the existing structure for enclosed parking and storage. The appiicant received an area variance to reduce the setbacks on February 20. The Zoning Administrator has determined Section 7.072 Off Street Parking Schedule does not address parking requirements for a construction company. Therefore, the Planning Board should estabiish the parking required. Mrs. COllard's letter is attached. The applicant in the statement/checklist, M, indicates there are sufficient spaces available per the Ordinance. This appiication was reviewed per Section 5.070 E: 1 - The site compatibiiity with the proposed structure may be a concern. The lOt is 50 feet by 133 feet. The existing structure is 38 by 26 with a proposed addition of 36 by 26 making the buiiding 74 feet by 26 feet. The appiication indicates this win be an increase of almost 1,000 sq. ft. The existing structure wnl be incorporated into an enlarged faciiity which wiil have two levels. The former use of the property was residential, however, the zoning is Light Industria1. The uses which are to the east and south are iight industrial. On the west the uses are sman lOt residences. The structure is rather large for the lOt, however, it does meet the iight industrial criteria. A face iift for the existing structure wiii be an improvement. 2 - Vehicular traffic access to the Boulevard wiii be adequate. The driveway is a right-of-way situation and not part of the property. Traffic circulation for this lot win not be a problem. Some industrial faciiities to the rear of this lOt wiii also be using the same access road. Should there be further development in this area the Board may want to review it as an industrial park rather than site by site. 3 - The location arrangement and size of parking will be determined by the Board. 4 - There appears to be adequate pedestrian access for the employees who wnl use the facnity. 5 - The engineer wiii address storm water drainage. 6 - Sewage disposal faciiities are existing. Any concerns regarding this win be addressed by the engineer. 7 - The Beautification Committee has disapproved the aPPlication since data for landscaping, screening, and plantings was not submitted. Oetter attached) 8 - There appears to be adequate emergency access to the sides and rear of the proposed structure. 9 - Erosion control methods should be adhered to during construction. The property to the rear of the lOt abuts the Feeder Canal and D.O. T. has taken exception to discharges into the canal in the past." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does anybody have any questions on the letter from Pat? I don't know that we need to read that into the record.. MR. MARTIN-I think she did a fairlY good job. MR. CARTIER-Okay. For the record, the gist of it is basicaiiy the fact that we need to determine parking. Okay, Tom, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated Aprn 12, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the foiiowing engineering comments: 1. The NYS Uniform Fire Prevention and Buiiding Code Section 1101.5B requires handicapped parking spaces to be an 8' width with a adjacent access aisle 8' wide. 2. The type of subsurfacing, both existing and proposed, for the access roadway within the deed R.O.W. should be indicated on the construction drawing PlOt plan. 3. The type of surfacing proposed for the parking area should be indicated on the construction drawing PlOt plan. 4. Regarding stormwater management: a. The site plan sketch included in the SWM, the plOt plan on sheet 2 of the construction drawings, and the narrative statements regarding the appiication checkiist are confusing with respect to access surfaces and SWM to be instaned as part of this site plan. The appiicant's agent has verbany clarified that the dedicated parking area is to be paved. and gravel wnl be placed between the new garage doors and the travel surface in the deeded access R.O.W. SWM concepts and the calculations submitted with the appiication have been reviewed on this understanding. b. The SWM concept utilizing stone filled infiltration trenches is suitable for this site. The infiltration trench detan should be on the construction drawings. c. The 30 If of infntration trench proposed wiil have adequate storage and infi1tration for new roof runoff from a 50 year return storm. d. SWM design should be based on a 50 year return storm. e. The infiitration rate used for design should account for 3 square feet of infntrative surface associated with a standard perc test. This win govern the length of infiitration trench required to store and infiitrate a particular increase in runoff. f. If the 3 car outside parking area by the Boulevard is to be changed from gravel to paving as it is understood, then a drywell or infiltration trench may be necessary to infiltrate runoff. g. A limited addition of a semi-pervious gravel surface between the proposed garage doors and the existing deeded access R.O.W. travel surface wiii create a minor increase in runoff and wi11 be insignificant. 5. son erosion and sediment controls should be shown on the plOt plan on sheet 2 of the construction drawings. 6. Existing and proposed contours should be shown on the plOt plan on sheet 2 of the construction drawings. 7. If the Planning Board approves this site plan, the Board should stipulate a condition that the appiicant win show, and submit for verification, an requested information on the construction drawings. CurrentlY, this information is largelY in the sketches contained in the SWM report submitted for review." 11 -- ---- MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Warren County Planning indicated No County Impact. We have a letter from the Beautification COßUllittee and as Lee has indicated it was disapproved because they did not appear before the Beautification Committee. Would the applicant care to corrnrent, please. MR. AUFFREDOU-Good evening, ladies and gentleman, members of the Board. My name is Martin Auffredou. I'm an attorney with Bartlett, Stewart, Pontiff, Rhodes, and Judge in Glens Fans. I'm here tonight on behalf of C.D.K. Electric and I'd like to point out that Cliff Harriman is here. He's the President of C.D.K. Electric. Also with us this evening, Jim Hutchins, the engineer who is here on behalf of Mr. Harriman and also Jim Pepper, the architect who drew up the plans. As far as the project goes, let me point out, Mr. Chairman, with regards to the Beautification Comn:ittee, I met with Mr. Eddy yesterday. I believe he submitted a letter to the Planning Board. MR. CARTIER-I just found that in the file. You're correct. MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. Just for the record, then, I would Ii ke to point out that I did meet with Mr. Eddy yesterday. We discussed the fact that there was a misunderstanding between Mr. Harriman and Mr. Eddy regarding whether Mr. Harriman would even need to be present at the Beautification COßUllittee meeting in earlY April. Be that as it may, we did meet yesterday and we went over some plans for landscaping and it's my understanding that the Beautification Committee has, in essence, removed its statement of disapproval and simplY said, if the Board is to act favorablY tonight, it would be on the condition that Mr. Harriman would come before the Beautification Committee in May. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Let me read the last paragraph (Beautification Corrnnittee letter from Robert L. Eddy, Chairman, to Queensbury Town Planning Board, dated Aprii 15, 1991). "The applicant is in a time bind in connection with the purchase of the property, so would like your approval of this application with the provision that he win meet with the Beautification Committee at it's May meeting on May 6." Okay. Thank you. MR. AUFFREDOU-Regarding some of the corrnrents that have beEn made, what the applicant proposes to do and what he's received a zoning approval to do, a variance approval to do, is to place a 36 by 26 addition onto what has to be considered an eye sore, an unsightlY building and in a state of disrepair. It's on Lower Boulevard, as has been pointed out and as the Staff COrmTents have pointed out, this is going to be an improvement and I just wanted to make sure the Board was aware of that as wen. As far as the parking goes, it's my understanding that because the construction com~any is not a listed use as far as the regulations go for parking, the Board has to determine, tonight, what parking is going to be adequate. It's Mr. Harriman's position, being 13 years in this business, that he reallY onlY needs a couple of spaces. His business is such that he onlY has four fun time employees. Two of those employees are in trucks and are never at the site. They're never at the office. They're never at the storage area. Those trucks that these employees use are driven from their homes in the morning to the job sites and driven from the job sites to their homes in the evenings. So it's very rare that there are more than one or two cars, employee cars at the project, at the building. Mr. Harriman is in fact out on these sites a good c!eal of the time as well. The applicant has proposed six spaces, three in the front, including a handicapped space, as wen as three garage spaces where the trucks can be stored during the day, where in fact the employees parking can be used as well during the day, which would open up the three spaces that are proposed for the front. We aren't trying, as far as the needs go, we see six as an that is reallY needed, perhaps it's more than is needed. There is room for more parking, but we don't feel that it's necessary. The parking that is needed is onlY for those employees that are there during the day. This isn't the kind of business where a salesman or clients are coming to the business to talk to Mr. Harriman. Mr. Harriman is going out on sites, going to meetings, making proposals and much of his business is done through the mail , through the Fax machine and on the telephone. So the parking that we've proposed we feel is adequate. As far as any of the engineering concerns, I did speak with Mr. Yarmowich last week and not being an engineer, I tried to provide him with the information that I knew \l'as going to be placed on the plans and as I read the letter, it doesn't seem like there's anything that can't be dealt with here this evening and as long as we provide the Board with the information, the written information, and sort of transpose it onto the plans, I think that's an that is caned for. It's a lOt of information I would submit, but it doesn't seem to me to be anything that's insurmountable and something that we can't provide the Staff for final review. MR. CAIMANO-One of the things that Tom is saying is that there are no plans. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the construction plOt plan which is on drawing number 2 there reany just shows a building location and as was mentioned before, tonight, the Building and Codes Department needs more information than that to monitor the construction for com~lliance with any approval given by this Board. That would be the reason for showing grading plans and the types of surfaces to be instaned. To summarize what we found when we reviewed the applicant's information, it is in essence completelY contained in the apPlicant's information. It's unfortunate, at this stage, that it didn't appear on the plOt plan which win be used as the construction drawing. The information that they submitted appeared to be quite correct and the explanations given to me to clarify that during the review made it obvious that what the applicant's information contained would support the use and the development of the site according to the storrnwater management requirements grading, paving of surfaces, and access of traffic. So we don't take any exceptions to the concept being proposed. We do feel that it's important that they provide a PlOt plan showing the improvements as they include them. 12 --.,/ MR. CAIMANO-So it's a matter of reducing it to writing is what you're saying? MR. YARMOWICH-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-A drawing is what we're after. MR. CAIMANO-A drawing. okay. The other questi on I had is the number of spaces. As far as I can see, we're going to invent the wheel, here, today and I just want to make sure that we have a proper amount of spaces and when you teii me that you're not going to have meetings there, this is a company and there are going to be times, I suspect, when customers win come in. Just make sure you have enough pa rki ng spaces. CLIFF HARRIMAN MR. HARRIMAN-My name's Ciiff Harriman, President of C.D.K. Electric. At the time I looked at this buiiding to buy it, I caiied Pat Conard on the phone and explained to her what I had intended to do and she said, well, the thing that you need to do is to be up front with the Board and tell them exactlY what it is you plan to do. So I came up to see Pat COllard and she looked at the plan and I explained to her that the buiiding without an addition on it reany wouldn't be of any use to me because there was no room there to store my materials or that if one of the feiiows did come from the job with materials, he had no place to puii in off the road and therefore she expiained to me that if I was to put an addition and put inside parking places in my addition, that they would be considered parking places and she explained to me that somewhat we need to have around 150 square feet, or one parking place for every 150 square feet of construction buiiding that I was using and that's where I came up with this determination for having three parking places in the bunding. Personaiiy, I drive a pick up truck. I'm going to park in the garage. I have one secretary that's fuii time that works wi th me and she drives a car. She's going to park, probablY eight months out of the year, she's going to park in the garage. If you look at the plan. we have one overhead door in the midd1e that has a 10 foot door and that door there is the door that we would bring our left over materials from the jobs. Basicany, the onlY materials I have are the materials left over from the jobs that wiii go out on to the next job and the tOOlS that I am required for the business. The tools I intend to store in the basement area of the existing buiiding. As the realtor pointed out to me, that is trying to seii me this piece of property, it's kind of an ideal building for what I need. I don't need a lOt of parking places. If a salesman does happen to stop by, and it's very rare because I ten them that when I bid jobs, I bid on jobs iike this buiiding, here and we have a set of plans to work from. I make a iist of what materials are needed and I Fax it over to them and they price it back to me. It's very rarelY that I have a customer stop by. MR. CAIMANO-I just want to make sure you have enough spots, that's all. MR. HARRIMAN-Yes. I do have enough spots. Right now, I'm located at 151 Main Street in Hudson Fans. I share an office with Mike Gazzino. CPA. We park off the street. My secretary parks there. I park there. I'm in and out an the time. I very rarelY hit the two hour parking iimit. I reany don't need an immense amount of space. I'm not in the retaii business. I'm an electrica1 construction company. MR. CAlMANO-One last question, though. I don't see any material safety data sheets and I'ii just ask the question. There's going to be no cleaning? There's going to be no trichlores? There's going to be no cleaning of old equipment or anything like that? MR. HARRIMAN-No. MR. MARTIN-Well, I can verify, somewhat verify. You have a Mr. Ganter that works for you? MR. HARRIMAN-Bob Ganter, yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. He lives down the street from my mother and he drives his truck back and forth to work an the time, from home. I would just iike to say. I think if we have to create this parking number ourseives, I think this most closelY fits the wholesale storage definitions that we have in our parking schedule and that would be one space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area PiUS one space appropriatelY sized for each company vehicle and I'm not saying that this is verbatim, but I think the appiicant is using that as a rough guide and maybe crossing over to other schedules where we can for one space for each employee. I think that he's met those, if not exceeded them, but the onlY other thing that I'd iike to add is that, again, I harp on this. but when we size these parking spaces for this buiiding, we have to bear in mind that we're not just doing it for this appiicant and this particular owner, but it's for any future use of this buiiding as it wiil be sized due to the addition. MR. CARTIER-Wen, if there were to be a change of ownership and if there were to be a change in use, they would have to come back in for site plan approval for a change in use. 13 ----' MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. YORK-It's a light industrial zone, so you could anticipate that most uses in that zone would be light industrial and are listed under the light industrial criteria. MR. MARTIN-I think that six spaces for this building and this use is more than adequate. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Because converselY, on that subject, the previous owner had more of a retail business than he's going to have. How did he get away with it? MR. CARTIER-In that buiiding? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I thought that was a residence? MR. CAIMANO-It's a residence, isn't it? MR. AUFFREDOU-CurrentlY, a residence. MR. HARRIMAN-Well, at this point it's vacant. Current to that, it was a residence and current to that, it was part of the Hudson Transportation Company. That is the way that I see it, looking back through the deed. MR. CARTIER-The onlY question I have with regard to parking is, I don't see an eight foot strip for the handicapped parking SlOt in there. Is that there? MR. HARRIMAN-On the piot pian, we've indicated that one of those parking places would be for handicapped parking and we've indicated there would be a ramp up to the door. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but what I'm referring to is the handicapped parking has to be eight feet wide, twenty long and also an eight foot access next to it and if I'm reading this right, I'm iooking at a 10 feet wide. You need to pick up six feet here some place next to that handicapped parking so that somebody can get in and out of the vehicle. MR. MARTIN-My one suggestion to help out in that regard, if it's at an possible and, again, I'd like to see, if any correction was to be made at an, is to maybe pun one of those spaces off the front and put it in that back open area there behind the building. Move it from one of these here, potentiaiiy back in here, but again, that's up for discussion. MR. HARRIMAN-That would be, I think I wouid prefer to do that myself and that would give you the extra room that you need. MR. MARTIN-That extra six feet. MR. HARRIMAN-There's no reason that we can't. I wouid prefer to do that. MR. CAIMANO-Are you going to pave the driveway in and out? MR. HARRIMAN-The original plan is to pave the driveway. If that is a probiem. I don't have to pave it. MR. CAIMANO-That's not a problem for me. I'm just wondering if it's a probiem for you, with the yellow transit using that same driveway. MR. HARRIMAN-No. it is not a problem for me. MR. CAIMANO-Because you've got to pave it for them, too, because they're going to be dragging eighteen wheelers over it. MR. HARRIMAN-Yes, they probablY, once we are using that parking area, are going to become used to, they cut across there because there's nothing to stop them from cutting across there. MR. CAIMANO-Is that your iand, deeded? MR. HARRIMAN-It's a deeded right-of-way, twenty five feet. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. 14 --- ---- MR. HARRIMAN-And next to that 25 feet, the gentleman from Genessee has another right-of-way. So there's actuany probablY 40 feet from the edge of my property that are right-of-ways. I don't know how Mr. Genessee, how his right-of-way reads with the transportation company, but that's just always been cut across there. I've noticed that. I've looked at it and if there's a car parked there, obvious1y, they will go around it. There is room there. It's a big wide road. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think Jim's suggestion is good. Leave one back there and that will open up, provide you with the handicapped space that you need. MR. MARTIN-PIus it will pUll away the parking lot being so close to the road. MR. CAIMANO-So, six total, but one was a handicapped on the back side of the bui1ding? MR. HARRIMAN-No. MR. MARTIN-No. The handicapped remains where it is, just widened and pu11 one. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So we are agreed on that. Does anybody e1se have a question on the Board, here? I'll open the public hearing on this apPlication. Is there anyone here who would wish to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NOCOflENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Okay. We need to conduct a SEQRA. First, is the Board prepared to do that? Are we at that point? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Do we? It's not listed there. MR. CAIMANO-Do we need a SEQRA on this? MS. CORPUS-Short Form. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION NO. 18-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: MR. CAIMANO-(Referring to SEQRA) "Could action resu1t in any adverse effects associated with the fonowing: existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise leve1s, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposa1, potential for erosion, drainage or f100ding problems?" Stop right there for a second. There is a problem that was not addressed in the engineering comments regarding (referring to Staff input) "The property to the rear of the lOt abuts the Feeder Canal and D.O. T. has take exception to discharges into the canal in the past." MR. CARTIER-That doesn't abut the Feeder Canal. It's not right up against the Feeder Canal. MRS. YORK-No. C.D.K. Electric's property is adjacent to, if you remember.... MR. CARTIER-That big, brown building. MRS. YORK-You've got it. Do you remember when we reviewed the Genesee Refrigeration? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MRS. YORK-There was substantial problems because of materials being put into the cana1 and stormwater drainage and D.O.T. was very inv01ved in the review of that. I just wanted to make the Board aware that D.O.T. is very concerned about this area and that stormwater drainage should be maintained and taken care of on your site so that there is no problem with that. MR. HARRIMAN-Jim Hutchins, he's the engineer, is here. He can comment on that. MRS. YORK-I think the property was owned by Mr. Granger, if you recall. JIM HUTCHINS 15 '--' MR. HUTCHINS-Jim Hutchins. I beiieve we designed an erosion control plan to preclude sediment from going off the property during construction and I be1ieve, as you say, if the stonnwater management facilities ~maintained, they are designed to have no discharge off property. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-AII right. Thank you. WHEREAS, there is presentlY before the Planning Board an appiication for: C.D.K. ELECTRIC, INC. to use the existing building on the southerly side of the 10M!r Boulevard for office and storage for an electrical contracting business, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Pianning 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 Compiiation of Codes, RUles and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board wiii 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 16th day of April, 1991, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. PUlver MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion on this app1ication. We have a number of items that need to be added to the construction drawing plOt plan, pending a parking space and also pending Beautification Committee, okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN fII. 18-91 C.D.K. ELECTRIC, INC., Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To use the existing buiiding for office and storage for an electrical contracting business, with the fonowing stipulations: Number One, that the app1icant must meet with the Beautification Committee and obtain their approval at their next regular meeting. Two, that the applicant will show and submit for verification an requested information on the construction drawings as outlined in the Rist-Frost letter of Aprii 12th, 1991. Three, that one of the three parking spaces currentlY shown in the front of the buiiding be moved to the rear and that the handicapped parking space be widened by six feet to allow for proper access. DUlY adopted this 16th day of April, 1991, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. PUlver (8:10 p.m.) SUBDIVISION fII. 4-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA THE BATTING RANGE FILTOM CORPORATION OWNER: DINGMAN, MASON, DUELL LOWER DIX AVEflJE, NEAR INTERSECTION OF DIX MD HIGHLAND AVENUE FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF A BATTING RANGE. TAX MAP fII. 110-1-3.1 LOT SIZE: 2.03 ACRES 16 -- RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING FILTOM CORPORATION, PRESENT (8:10 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Subdivision No. 4-1991, The Batting Range - Filtom Corporation, dated April 9, 1991, Meeting Date: April 16, 1991 "The applicant wishes to subdivide 14.57 acres into two lotS. One of 2.03 acres and one of 12.54 acres. The 2.03 acre lot will be used to construct a Batting Range. This is an allowable use in this zone and it appears that all other apPlicable zoning requirements have been met. Article VIII Section F Number 12 of the Subdivision Regulations states: Where a tract is subdivided into lots substantiallY larger than the minimum size required in the zoning district in which a subdivision is located, the Planning Board may require that streets and lots be laid out so as to permit future re-subdivision in accordance with the requirements contained in these regulations. Given the fact that this property was the subject of a previous subdivision, the Planning Board should consider the overall development of the 14.57 acre parcel. The Board should determine whether the proposed layout is inconsistent with or diminishes the potential for future development of the property. Also of concern is the proximity of the road cut to the curve on Dix Avenue. The site distance traveling east on Dix Avenue is less than 200 feet. If the small lOt were made 100 feet wider at the road, it would increase the site distance while allowing for a future road R.O.W. and a 200 foot lOt." MRS. YORK-And we have, I believe, a letter from Warren County D.P.W from Roger Gebo. Would you Ii ke me to read that? MR. CARTIER-Yes, please. MRS. YORK-(Letter from Warren County D.P.W., Roger Gebo, to Richard E. Jones Associates, dated April 10, 1991) "This Department reviewed the preliminary site plans for the proposed batting range and we offer you our comments as listed below: A. The site distance as one leaves the proposed batting range to the east is approximatelY 250 feet. The site distance to the east should be 530 feet (2 lane road at 40 MPH) as per enclosed site distance chart. Since the intersection of Highland Avenue and Dix Avenue is an accident prone intersection (due to roadway geometry and poor site distances), we request that you relocate the proposed driveway entrance to the west to coincide with the enclosed site distance chart. Perhaps the relocated entrance will not onlY serve the proposed batting range, but also serve other interests the property owner may have. We will be available to discuss the above at your convenience." MR. CARTIER-Let me ask you a quick question on that site distance chart. It says Passenger Cars and Trucks at 850. Are we talking about trucks turning 1!!.. at that point? If this were a truck entrance, is that where the 850 comes from? Do you see where I am on the table? MRS. YORK-(Referring to Chart) A lOt which allows vehicles to enter safelY, "SITE DISTANCE ALONG MAJOR ROAD FROM DRIVEWAY TO ALLOW VEHICLE TO ENTER SAFELY." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I did not read that. MR. CAIMANO-Whiie you're sitting there, I' n ask you another question. You may not know the answer. How can they possiblY move the entrance any further west than they have? As I read it, it's on the western edge of the property. MR. CARTIER-No. They've got this whole piece of property. MR. MARTIN-They've got this whole thing. MRS. YORK-They are in ownership of both. They are subdividing out a portion of that lOt. MR. CAIMANO-I was looking at it onlY from here. MRS. YORK-What you may want to consider is an allover development plan with an interior road instead of numerous driveways along that roadway. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think a question that's going to come up, here, when we get the applicant in front of us, is what's p1anned for the rest of the property because I think a number of us have questions. Okay. Tom? 17 ---- -...-/ ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated Aprii 12, 1991 "We have reviewed the project with respect to subdivision concerns onlY on the understanding that site plan review win be required separatelY for the Batting Range facilities proposed. We have the fonowing engineering comments. 1. Contours of the entire parcel are required by Subdivision Reguiations unless waived by the Planning Board. 2. Existing wens and/or septic systems on adjoining property within 100 feet of the parcel boundary should be identified. 3. The stormwater management approach win utilize on-site controis. A drainage area map for the entire parcel win be sufficient for subdivision review purposes. Depth to groundwater data will be necessary to confi rm the SWM concept validity." MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. What do you mean by "entire parcel"? Are you talking about the 14 acres? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. We would need to make sure that an on-site stormwater management approach is appropriate, given that there may be other areas of this entire parcel which could impact this site and vice versa. This site might impact other areas of the parcel. Not that we need a detailed drainage study, just enough information to know the relationship of the topography of this particuiar part which is to be subdivided from the larger parcel. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. "4. The percolation test resuits appear to indicate suitability for sub-surface sewage disposal however, soil test pit data is necessary to confirm the validity of the proposed sewage disposal approach. A soil profile description, depth to groundwater, and dates of test pits and perc testing shouid be given. 5. Detaned son erosion and sediment control plans win be subject to site plan review. 6. An other site development aspects wni receive detailed review during site plan review. 7. Preliminary stage approval from an engineering standpoint is appropriate subject to the applicant sati sfactorily resolving Items 1-4." MR. CARTIER-I'd like you to take us through your letter, too, to John, dated April 11th. Do you have that in front of you? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, I do. MR. CARTIER-I think that's appropriate. MR. YARftDWICH-And, again, this is in regard to the introduction to my review comments for this project in that this project was reviewed for subdivision concerns oniy. (Letter from Thomas M. Yarmowich, P.E., Rist-Frost, to Mr. John Goralski, Town of Queensbury Planning Department, dated April 11, 1991) "Dear John: As you are aware the Town is processing proposed Subdivision No. 4-1991 in relation to the proposed Batting Range project. We have conducted preliminary stage subdivision review and note that the site plan development is advanced if not nearlY complete in most regards. From the preliminary stage subdivision review of engineering aspects it can be anticipated that site plan review will involve a complete review of SWM, grading as well as other potentiai features. The opportunity to take advantage of a constructive pre-agenda site plan review of engineering aspects is availabie to the applicant. The overall goal of this would be to save site plan application processing time. Of course, the outcome of Planning Board actions on the pending subdivision application couid affect the entire project. None the less, it is our suggestion that this project could benefit from a pre-agenda review of the site plan. The Planning Department may feel this is a worthy suggestion and bring it to the applicants attention." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has the applicant been made aware of that? MR. YARMOWICH-I believe they have been by this being included in their information packet tonight. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. Thank you. Would the appiicant care to comment, please. MR. JONES-My name is Richard Jones and I'm from Richard Jones Associates. We're representing Filtom Corporation. Some of the confusion, I think, on this stems from the fact that Fntom is iooking to purchase a portion of that parce1. In our preliminary dealings with the Planning Board, we had talked with both Pat Conard and John Goralski about the approach to take on this because it reany didn't fit into a subdivision and it was more of a site plan review and I think that's why we have taken the approach that we have. Fiitom is not free to purchase any portion of that property. They're dealing with that one portion and that's why we're 100king at the upper corner of the property. A site distance of 500 pIUS feet is not possible with the location of the property. MR. CAIMANO-You're renting this? MR. JONES-They're purchasing this portion. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Right now, though, the 10t is currentlY under the ownership of whom? 18 --- ---" MR. JONES-Of the three owners that are listed on that group. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. MR. HAGAN-But this is still part of their subdivision. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm trying to get at. MRS. YORK-Wait a minute. Excuse me. It says on your appiication that the appiicant or subdivider is Fiitom Corporation and the owners name is the same as the appiicant, okay, but then on your authorization, Mrs. Duell authorizes VanDusen and Steves to act as her agent. MR. JONES-That's correct, and we're working with VanDusen and Steves for Fiitom Corporation. We are not actuallY working for the three individuals who own the property. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but the apPlication, then, is in error, isn't it? MRS. YORK-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-The appiicant can be Fiitom Corporation. The agent can be VanDusen and Steves. That's not a problem, but the owner's name is then not the same as the apPlicant. MR. JONES-We were asked to fin out a new, I beiieve, authorization form by John, which I'm hoping you have because we did bring that up. MRS. YORK-Okay. Tom Egan, I have one for Tom Egan. MR. JONES-Tom Egan was the original one. MRS. YORK-Okay. Then I have one from Betty S. Duell, etal. MR. JONES-Yes. MRS. YORK-And she authorizes VanDusen and Steves to act as the agent. MR. JONES-Yes. We were asked to do that by John Goralski. MRS. YORK-But Mr. Jones, you are not VanDusen and Steves. I mean, you are obviouslY affiiiated with them in some form, but you are a separate corporation, are you not? MR. JONES-We're independent from VanDusen and Steves, that's correct. MR. HAGAN-I don't see how we can act on this apPlication or how the apPlication could have even gotten this far until the entire subdivision has had final approval, or am I way out in left field? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARTIER-We're in a situation, again, here, where we're looking at a piece of property where it's goi ng to get subdi vi ded bit by bi t and thi s Board has taken a stand, in the past, in reference to that, in that we don't just start lopping off pieces and do a site plan sort of deal and then lOP off another piece and so on. That is one problem I have with this. MR. CAIMANO-Wen, just to add to that, Peter, if you'jj excuse me. On John's letter, the very first page, the paragraph that starts, "Given the fact that", the last sentence, "The Board should determine whether the proposed layout is inconsistent with or diminishes the potential for future development of the property". We had a big go around, here, one night, and we said two things, reany. One, the appiicant must understand that at some point, that whatever he or she is left with and it's unsalable, that's they're problem. However, we did say that night, and we went around, who's subdivision was that, on Bay Road? MR. LAPOINT-Hughes? MR. CAIMANO-Hughes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-That they had to, first of an, have a subdivision. What we said was, we could change the lines. If that applicant were to come in with a subdivision and it had lines drawn on it, he could easiiy come in and change those iines, provided he knew that the last piece could be unsalable, but first they had to have a subdivision. Otherwise, where does this go? MR. CARTIER-Yes. 19 "'--' -.../ MR. MARTIN-You have to have a subdivision first, and I would like to see the owner here or his agent as directed by the owner here before us to speak about the issue of the subdivision. I appreciate the fact that they have gone a little bit ahead here and indicated the proposed use and actuallY reallY done a site plan for that site. MR. JONES-That's basicallY what we were asked to do by Pat COllard. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and that's an wen and good, but I just don't think we have the appropriate agent here. MR. CAIMANO-Is this piece right here the piece that's owned by Filtom, just this little piece? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Filtom's the developer, not the owner. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-In effect, what we're being asked to do here is to approve both a preliminary subdivision and a site plan in one. MR. CAIMANO-By someone who's not the owner. MR. CARTIER-Wen said. Yes. So I'm hearing this Board in that they want to see this thing in terms of preliminary, but I don't want Mr. Jones walking out of here with the understanding that, okay, he goes through the subdivision process and then comes in with this site plan again for this particular lot, because I know some of us have problems with what is actuaHy there at site plan and it might be worth giving him our comments on that also. MR. JONES-Yes. I would appreciate that. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, we'll do that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. HAGAN-You do intend to purchase this property? MR. JONES-Yes. It is their intent to purchase that parcel. MR. HAGAN-You see, that's the point that has me hung up. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. HAGAN-How can he purchase it when the present owner hasn't had this subdivision approved? He can't do it. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. What's he purchasing? MR. JONES-He has a sale contingent upon that subdivision approval. MR. CAIMANO-What subdivision approval? MR. JONES-For this parcel. MR. LAPOINT-This is, I mean, he's dividing it into two lOtS. MR. MARTIN-I can understand the concept of him being the developer and he's purchasing in lieu of this subdivision going through, but what I want to see is a properly fined out application that has the proper owner and the proper agent acting as the owner at this point. This is a subdivision, and then Filtom can come along, later on, and do their site plan. MR. CAIMANO-And do their site plan, because what Ed says is right. It is a two lOt subdivision, but the wrong person is here applying for the two lot subdivision. MS. CORPUS-If I could address the Board for a minute. It sounds to me as if your concerns deal with some of the comments made that both the Staff and the Engineer that deal primarily with this lot in its enti rety and WOUI d have to be answered by the appli cant or the owner or the owner's agent because this subdivision is a proposal and this Board does have the power to change the lot lines on the proposed subdivision or whatever, depending on the recommendations of the various agencies. It sounds Ii ke because your concerns deal mainlY with the ownership of the property and the development of the entire parcel that it would be in Mr. Jones's best interest to get a representative of the owners here to also answer your questions. 20 '---- ----/ MR. CAIMANO-Sure. MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly. MS. CORPUS-The issue of the application being fined out is not a major legal problem, but because of the issues involved in this particular case. it's essential that, it sounds to me as if the Board says it's essential that the owner be here. MR. CAIMANO-We're being asked, Karla, to approve a two lot subdivision. For example, just to go through the SEQRA. How do we answer the SEQRA questions on here? The owner isn't even here. MS. CORPUS-Right. The questions that need to be answered for SEQRA and for the subdivision are not things, necessarily, that particular applicant may be able to answer. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, but you have a good point. We can answer his questions. MR. CARTIER-Yes. We need to divorce this, so that everybody's crystal Clear, here, including myself, okay. MR. JONES-Okay. MR. CARTIER-What we need to see first is a subdivision application onlY and we get that through the process, fol1owed by a site plan appiication for a particular lot in this subdivision. Have I stated that correctlY? MR. CAIMANO-I think so. MR. JONES-I guess we got our misdirection. then, from Pat Conard and we were very specific when we asked her how to approach this and her comments were, wel1, we know it's not real1y a subdivision, which in effect it is, but... MR. CARTIER-What isn't is. MR. JONES-Yes. I know. So you onlY have to do these things that applY to that particular site and that's what. MR. MARTIN-You obviouslY cannot perform development on a lOt that does not legallY exist yet. MR. CARTIER-Which win onlY exist legany by having gone through the subdivision preliminary and final stage. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Even if we didn't know law, just logic would ten her, I would suspect, that you're subdividing the land, but. that's all right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lets get down to a specific "site plan" issue here with regard to this Batting Range and I'll give you mine, just to get this thing started. I'm bothered by the fact that this is bumped right up against residential property. There is, I beiieve it's Bruce and Powers. I'm not sure what the name is. We're creating something that I assume is going to be used at night. There are going to be lights. There's going to be some degree of noise and so on. That certainlY, as far as I'm concerned, has to be moved some considerable distance from those residences. In spite of the fact that those residences may exist in a commercial zone, nevertheless, they are stin residences. That will also sOlve the problem of an entrance, okay. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-If I had my druthers. I'd like to see that at the other end of that lOt, simplY because you already have commercial property at that end. You've got a nursery and you won't have that. MR. CAIMANO-You mean the whole thing at the other end? MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. MARTIN-You could just simplY perform a mirror image of this and put it at the other. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. JONES-Yes. I think the problem for Filtom may be that she may not opt to sell the other side. MR. CAIMANO-That's why we can't approve this whole. 21 -- -- MR. MARTIN-But if that is the case, then stin bearing Pete's comments in mind, and I concur, if the lot to be subdivided could be widened and, therefore, widen your side lot distance, so to speak, from the residential lots and the actual batting cage, and that would also push the access further west, as suggested by the County. MR. CARTIER-I'm also going to be concerned about how this thing is going to be iiluminated so that it doesn't impact any residential areas, nor does it create traffic problems, glare. I'm also going to want to know something about noise. I'm going to want to know something about hours of operation and I'm certainlY, and it's been mentioned again, here, I'm going to look for a significant, not just a nominal buffer. I'm looking for a significant buffer here between that development and the residential properties. That's mine. Has anybody else got anything? MR. CAIMANO-Weii, the traffic problems, but depending on what you do, the traffic problem may become aiieviated, but there is, you know as wen as I do, and so does anybody else who travels that road that the cross section of Highland and Dix, on that curve, on the 40 miie an hour highway, is a very dangerous intersection and I would be reluctant to vote anything in there that close. I would be very reluctant to do so, simplY because of the danger involved. That doesn't mean that it can't be done. It just means taking another look at it. The other thing is, I would be wiiiing to, there was tail< in there about the, what was the very first thing that Tom said, regarding contours. CertainlY, on his part of the subdivision, given what he's going to put in there, I wouldn't see any reason why we couldn't waive that, but that's, I mean, there's no reason not to. I'm just trying to give them as much information as I can so when they come back here they won't have to waste their time. MR. CARTIER-Who owns that back chunk, that very large back chunk? Is that still Dingman, Duell, Mason? MR. JONES-That entire parcel is owned by the three people, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So we want to be careful that we don't somehow... MR. CAIMANO-Land lock it. MR. MARTIN-I think your initial comment as to what type of use is proposed for that other lOt, any information they could give us would be helpful. MR. CAIMANO-But it would be improper for us to land lock, even though the owners aren't here. MR. JONES-I agree. MR. CARTIER-Anybody else on the Board? Lee? MRS. YORK-Mr. Jones, instead of the Board waiving the topography, what I would usuany suggest is that the appiicant do 10 foot contours an over the property, rather than the two, if the Board does not feel that that's significant. MR. YARftDWICH-I don't think, in this case, that 10 foot contours are going to yield a whole lOt of information. The reason that contours could be important to the Board might be instances where physical features, water courses, other drainage ditches, steep areas which would make access to other parts of the parcel difficult. The Board probablY had some first hand knowledge through observation of what this land is like and I think that their judgement on the need for contours can be made on that basis. MR. CARTIER-Off the top of my head, too, is this a high groundwater area or are we kind of getting out of that? MR. YARMOWICH-It is potentiany, yes, and that's why we're asking for that information, as part of identifying its suitabnity for subdivision approva1. When we looked at this thing, we were careful to be somewhat blind to what the batting cage is all about and look at more as what the land can support in terms of its use. There's a good probabiiity, we know that there's other uses in the area and that through advancing the design of site plans, there's no reason to suspect you can't use it, but there are some basic data that the Board should be looking at in order to make that verification. MR. CARTIER-Yes. In terms of long term planning, here, I think we need to be very careful with recreational. things near residential areas because I would stronglY suspect that if and when something like thfs goes through, it's certainlY going to draw other kinds of recreational faciiities. So we need to pick our way through this. I do want to open a pubiic hearing. Does anybody on the Board have any other comments? MR. CAIMANO-Weii, go ahead and say that, but I question whether we even need to open a pubiic hearing, because we're not reallY officiallY. MR. CARTIER-Well, we have a public hearing scheduled. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. 22 ---- MR. CARTIER-I believe there are people who may be here to speak and I think in fairness to Mr. Jones. MR. HAGAN-It might give him additional input. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone who would care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LAWRENCE POWERS MR. POWERS-My name is Lawrence Powers and I own the property on the east si de of that and when he was around last winter, when he was talking about looking for some property, he said they wanted to buy the piece of property next to the nursery, that side of the field and I tOld him then that it would be almost impossible for him to get in and out of the road on that section because I live right across the road there. I've lived there an my iife and sometimes it takes 20 minutes to walk across that road with the traffic to get across from one side to the other, and when the Town has got the playground in back of the firehouse, there, and those chiidren from there, they're in the field over home an the while and if this thing goes in there, they're going to have it on both sides. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. POWERS-And Earltown owns in back of that, on the back of that belongs to Earltown. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. POWERS-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAGAN-So your specific objection to this is the increase in flow of traffic that this would cause? MR. POWERS-Well, that's one thing, then the other thing is with the noise and their playing ball there, if they're that close to there, theY'll be over in our field and Mr. Bruce's garden next door there. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Jones, I'm not famiiiar with a batting situation 1i ke this. Is there a way that these bans are kept on the property. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, there is. MR. CARTIER-There is? MR. JONES-It's a totany caged system. It has a cage an the way around it and it conects the bans in the middle and then they're brought back by a pneumatic system to the batting portion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-It's reallY a lOt of fun. MR. CARTIER-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would care to comment? It's a strange situation, here. I guess I'll leave the public hearing open for whatever transpires beyond that. MR. CAIMANO-Well, there's no tabling to be done because there's nothing to hear. MR. HAGAN-Well, that's not the applicant's fault. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. I'm not saying it is. I'm not making a moral judgement, here. MR. HAGAN-Well, I think we have to show him the courtesy of doing something formal on this. MR. CARTIER-Yes. We have to take ~ action. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. All right. MR. LAPOINT-Like suggest he re-apply. MR. CARTIER-Or the appiicant could withdraw the present appiication. Would you care to comment on that? You see, I don't understand what we'd be tabling, here. We have a strange situation. MR. JONES-Yes. I agree. 23 -'--' '--.../ MR. CARTIER-And I think the most appropriate thing to do, in a nonjudgemental way, is request that he withdraw and start the process over. MR. MARTIN-From the standpoint of a subdivision, clearly. MS. CORPUS-May I ask a question? Can I ask, Mr. Chairman, why you believe that there isn't anything to table? MR. CAIMANO-What's there to table? This is not a legal site plan. We have no subdivision. There's no site plan to have on the subdivision. What's there to table? MS. CORPUS-There is a subdivision application. MR. CAIMANO-He can't speak for the subdivision application. He's not the owner. This is the man who is going to have a site plan for a small portion of the subdivision. He can't speak for the subdivision. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Jones is here representing the site plan apPlication, not the subdivision application. MR. CAIMANO-Not the subdivision. The owner is not here and he doesn't represent the owner. MR. CARTIER-We do not have before us an agent who is legal. MR. HAGAN-Right now, in my opinion, the present owner of that property is out of order in even putting thi s property up for sale because he can't legany do it. He doesn't have a legal approval on hi s subdivision. MR. CARTIER-Well, we can make it subject to. MR. JONES-They have a contract that is subject to the approval. MR. MARTIN-That's fine. MR. CAIMANO-That's fine. An I'm saying, Karla, is that this man can't, there's nothing to approve or disapprove or table because this man, this applicant, can't appear for what this thing says, which is a subdivision. He can't appear for the subdivision. He doesn't even know what the subdivision is. He's not the owner, nor are they the owner, nor is he the agent of the owner. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Jones can appear before us again, for the site plan. after the subdivision is taken care of. MR. CAIMANO-There's nothing to approve or disapprove. MS. CORPUS-Also, the owner could designate Mr. Jones as the agent. MR. CAIMANO-He could. MR. MARTIN-Sure. MR. CAIMANO-He could designate God. I don't care, but tonight he hasn't. MR. CARTIER-That has to happen before we can go anywhere on this. Back to my original question. Would you consider withdrawing this application and starting over? MR. YARMOWICH-He can't withdraw this application either, Mr. Chairman. He's not an agent. MR. CAIMANO-He doesn't have an apPlication. It really is a non-issue. MR. CARTIER-We have an agent that can't even withdraw. Okay. MR. CAIMANO-I'II tell you what we can do, though. We can allow this applicant. because it's not their fault, to appear at the earliest possible moment for the site plan review, the earliest possible moment after we approve a subdivision. I mean, we shouldn't penalize them. It's just not their fault. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Wen, I think what it's coming down to, if I'm hearing right and if I'm thinking correctlY, the onlY option open to this Board at this point is to disapprove what is before us. MR. CAlMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-If we are going to take action on this, we have to disapprove this. MR. CAIMANO-Right. agree with that. 24 ---' MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else have a comment. MR. LAPOINT-I agree. MR. MARTIN-Before we get into that, you just want to make sure you have, think of how you want to word it. MR. YARMOWICH-If they disapprove it, though, you can't come back with the same appiication, under any circumstances. MRS. YORK-There's going to be, there are substantial changes. MR. YARMOWICH-Right. They have to know that. MR. MARTIN-If we disapprove what? MR. YARMOWICH-They can't come back with the exact same application, if you disapprove it. MR. CAIMANO-He's not going to because he's not going to come back here for a 2 lot subdivision. He's going to come back here for a site plan review of a batting range. MR. CARTIER-Right. He's certainlY not going to come back with a subdivision that shows us that batting range in the same place. MR. YARMOWICH-Next time the legal owner or their designated agent can't come back with this particular configuration. MR. CAIMANO-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Correct, and I'm sure Mr. Jones.... MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. Not this use, but this configuration of lot line. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-I'm sure Mr. Jones has taken our comments regarding location of that batting range into account and I think that problem is taken care of. MR. CAIMANO-Wait a minute. Before you go any further, do you understand what he's saying? MR. JONES-Yes. I know what he's saying. MRS. YORK-Mr. Jones, if I can be of service to you, please cajj and come on in and tail< to me about this. MR. JONES-Okay. One question I have. To come back before the Board with a new preiiminary for subdivision, I'm understanding, we would then go to final, assuming approval, and then site plan. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-Right, for development of that site. MR. JONES-Right. Is it possible to incorporate the final for the subdivision and the site pian at the same time? MR. CARTIER-Let me answer it this way. I don't iike the word "incorporate". You can, at your own risk, come in for final approval and site plan approval the same night. Understand that If. something is wrong with the final approval, the site plan is wiped off the agenda. MR. JONES-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-But you could come in that night, which is what I said before. MR. JONES-Okay. MR. CARTIER-But please do not read anything into that by inferring in any way that if you come in for final and site plan you've got a pretty good shot at doing it. I do not want you to get any inference at an from that. You have the right to do that. People have done that in the past and it's gone both ways. MR. JONES-Could we do it, I know you have two meetings a month. Could we do it on subsequent meetings? MR. CARTIER-If you meet the deadline. 25 MR. CAIMANO-Sure. MR. JONES-Yes. That type of thing. Would that be better? MR. CAIMANO-Work it with Lee and she'll do the best she can to get you in there. MR. CARTIER-Be careful because you're getting preiiminary on the first meeting and coming in for final at the second meeting. You've got some submission deadline problems here. MR. JONES-Well, we probablY wouldn't do that. We would come in for preliminary one month. The fOllowing month we would go for final and site plan. MR. CAIMANO-Sure. MR. JONES-To me, that is more realistic because there are problems with preliminary. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It is more realistic. MR. JONES-That's what I was looking for, being able to do final and site plan review at the same time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-Have you had all the questions answered that you need to have answered? Okay. Thank you. IIITlON TO DISAPPROVE PRELlMUIARY STAGE SUBDIVISIOf( NO. 4-1991 THE BATTING RANGE FILTO" CORPORATION, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For the purpose of construction of a batting range, on the grounds that it is an inappropriate appiication. Neither the owners nor the agent for the owners appeared with a plan for subdivision of the property prior to any site plan. DUlY adopted this 16th day of April, 1991, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. PUlver MR. CARTIER-I would make a comment, alSO, that I thank the appiicant who was before us for the understanding in this situation and this in no way was adversaria1. Thank you. A bunch of bits and pi eces. We're done wi th the agenda, but I do have a number of bi ts and pi eces. Let's ta ke ca re of the formal stuff, first, here. We have a request to change the May 21st meeting to May 23rd because there's something else going on here that night. I don't recall what it is at the moment. MR. CAIMANO-It's the tax hearing. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. If there's no questions or comments or discussion, what we need to do is entertain a motion to the effect that we're going to change that meeting from May 21st to May 23rd. Staff needs enough lead time to deal with that. MR. CAIMANO-So moved. MOTION TO CHANGE THE MEETING OF MY 21ST, 1991 10 MY 23RD, 1991, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: DUlY adopted this 16th day of April, 1991, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. PUlver MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Checkiist, Zoning Administrator, you have aii been receiving an of the materials, 1'm sure, the letters that have been going back and forth. We also have, tonight, a letter from Pat Crayford in reference to this and a request to meet with us in executive session. What is your pleasure. 26 '- -.-/ MR. CAIMANO-Correct me if I'm wrong, executive sessions are for personnel matters and finances onlY. I am not anxious to meet ;n an executive session with her. I certainlY would be wi1iing to sit here after everybody else is gone and talk. I'm not anxious to meet in an executive session. MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't know if we qualify for executive session, right? MR. CAIMANO-I don't know if we qualify either. MS. CORPUS-I don't perceive this matter as a personnel matter. It's more or less a poiicy matter. We reviewed aii the suggestions in our Department and. basicaiiy upon evaluating them, aii of them are legaiiy sufficient and as you know, the Town Board has the final say as to any particular form that would be used. Paul will talk to the Town Board on Thursday. The Board's hOlding a special meeting on Thursday for other matters. So as far as our office is concerned, we believe it's a pOlicy decision to be decided between the Planning Board, the Town Board and the Zoning Administrator because an of the choices that have been put forth are legaiiy sufficient for the purpose for which they've been proposed. MR. CAIMANO-Weii, I think what this letter, though, Aprn 15th memo from Pat Crayford talks beyond just the form. It says, "You obviouslY have concerns about the zoning review process as it relates to items on your agenda". We obviouslY do and tonight was a very good example. There is a certain lack of communications and there's a certain lack of fundamental understanding between, I'm not saying either one of us is right or wrong, but there's a certain lack of fundamental understanding when an appiicant comes before us and has been tOld something that is so blatantlY wrong. There is something wrong. MS. CORPUS-Weii, the Board has different options. You can always divorce the checkiist issue from that particular issue. Also there is the possibiiity of the Board either meeting with Mrs. Crayford or a subcommittee of the Board meeting with her. There are numerous choices. Executive session is one of them, alSO, if you wanted to discuss that particular thing before the Board, but I would recommend to the Board that you take the checklist issue just as it is, separatelY. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. at this meeting. I'm not interested in meeting in any executive session. I'd be giad to meet, here, I'd be glad to meet as part of a committee of the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-A workshop session. MR. CAIMANO-A workshop session. I'd be glad to do that, but I will not be part of any executive session. 1 will not be part of any executive session. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else on the Board care to comment? MR. MARTIN-I just don't think it qualifies. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-That's what I'm talking about. MR. CARTIER-Anybody e1se? MR. LAPOINT-Agreed. MR. CARTIER-I agree, basicallY. So what's your druthers? MR. MARTIN-I'd love to meet with her. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MS. CORPUS-Well, as I said, our Department has said that all four are legally sufficient and basicallY it is a poiicy issue. The Town Board wiii have a chance to look at an of the options also and they will be discussing it. I believe Paul said he would talk to them on Thursday. MR. CAIMANO-I'm perfectlY wi1iing to meet in a workshop session and obviouslY so is Jim and so are the others with the Town Board people and with the Zoning Administrator to clear up the issues. MS. CORPUS-I can pass that on. MR. CARTIER-My preference would be, and I'm just tossing thi s out. I haven't thought about it yet. Before we have a workshop sessi on wi th the Town Board, I'd I He to have a workshop sessi on wi th Pat. Then maybe go into a workshop session between the Planning Board and the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and not waste their time. 27 MR. CARTIER-I want to keep it simple, to start, that's my quick reaction. MR. HAGAN-I don't know as this contributes anything to the prob1em, and I think it is a prob1em, but this Board has repeatedlY stated the reasons that they wou1d like to have this checklist used and in an the correspondence and static that I've heard, neither the Board nor the Zoning Administrator has given one good reason why they don't feel that this checklist shou1d be used. MR. CARTIER-You refer to the Town Board. MR. CAIMANO-When you say "Board", you're taUing about the Town Board. MR. HAGAN-What did I say? MR. CAIMANO-You said "Board". I wanted to make sure. MR. HAGAN-Well, I meant the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-There has not been one sing1e reason given, on their part, as to why they do not think this checklist is a good idea. MS. CORPUS-I don't know whether that's been brought before the Town Board yet. I'm not aware of whether it has or not. MR. CARTIER-I missed what you said, first. MS. CORPUS-I said I have no information as to whether the issue has been brought before the Town Board. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. HAGAN-It's been brought to Mr. Borgos and Mr. Borgos has not given one good reason why it shouldn't be used. MR. CARTIER-I believe the letters that I have written have been addressed to Town Board members. So all Town Board members shou1d at least be aware of it and should have a copy of it. MS. CORPUS-As I said, there is a plan for them to actuallY bring it up in an open forum out, and speak at a Board meeting regarding, I don't know if members of this Board wou1d want to attend. MR. CAIMANO-Wen, since Mrs. Monahan, who is a member of the Town Board, is in the audience, and was out of the room when I made my statement, I will say it again. I think that what happened here tonight was a prime example of why we need to have a c10ser communications. Any Zoning Administrator who would taU to an applicant and give them that information, if indeed she did, and I have to say if indeed she did, is not in sync with what we're trying to do here. BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Could I make a suggestion? I think in the interest of trying to make this a smooth process where everybody's fee1ings and so on and so forth and peop1e will learn to work together, cou1d I perhaps suggest that two members of your Board who know why you want this checklist and the reasons for an these, you know, and I know, but I'm saying so that you can express this, meet with Paul Dusek and Pat to see if you can't, in that type of a communication arena, perhaps get a IitUe further than you have with the method in which it has been taken so far. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I would modify that slighUy. I wou1d not like to 1imit it to just two members, but we would have to keep it 1ess than a quorum and so we're talking three members. MRS. MONAHAN-The reason I said two, I wasn't even thinking of open meetings, quorum, or ail that. I just thought that perhaps you could keep a 1itt1e bit more think tank one on one nonadversariai. We've got a prob1em to sohe, a job to do it and how do we sit down and do it and accompiish the most in the least aggravating, the least threatening type of way is why I put it that way, to be honest with you. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-WeI1 said. MR. MARTIN-Just to refresh my memory. The Zoning Administrator position that was just recentlY created is under whose direct purview, control? MRS. MONAHAN-It under nobody's, as it was created now. 28 '- -.../ MR. CARTIER-Well, the Town Board, at this point. MRS. MONAHAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. MONAHAN-But what I'm saying is, the person who does it acts independentlY. Nobody oversees those. Nobody checks on them. MR. MARTIN-An right. To restate the position that I stated so emphaticaHy at the last meeting. I don't see why we always need to over-burden the Legal Department with attendance at these meetings. We as a Planning Board can meet directlY with Pat COllard and adequatelY, we already heard the technical opinion on, aH forms that have been submitted are legaHy correct. Therefore, there is no more need for the Legal Department to be burdened with this. I think this is an issue, now, that can be resolved via compromise or whatever between us as a Board and Pat COllard directlY. MS. CORPUS-Mrs. Monahan, I don't know if you were here, but that was Paul's position. He asked me to state that to the Board, that as far as our Department goes, we believe that it now rests as a pOlicy issue between the Town Board, the Zoning Administrator, and the Planning Board. MRS. MONAHAN-Okay. When did Paul communicate that to you? MS. CORPUS-This afternoon. MRS. MONAHAN-This afternoon. Okay. MR. CARTIER-Let me be sure I'm translating that correctly. The Legal Department is stepping out of this issue? MS. CORPUS-Our position is we've done an we can. We've given aH the legal advice that we were requested to. MR. MARTIN-Right. MS. CORPUS-As far as evaluating the forms. We also came up with our own suggestion and we also evaluated the one that the Committee came up with, the other suggestion that you just received this evening. As far as we are concerned, they're all legallY sufficient for the purposes. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute, we received this evening? MS. CORPUS-Well, there was a, the letter from Pat said that Mrs. Potenza suggested a signed statement. MR. CARTIER-This is her April 15th letter? MS. CORPUS-Right, April 15th letter. MR. MARTIN-Because my whole position about this is, and in her April 15th memo, she seems to go to great length to explain to us the very involved and lengthy process which is gone through from a zoning review standpoint. So if that is, in fact, the case, then any form, no matter how detailed and lengthy it is should be a breeze. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. MARTIN-If she is, in fact, being that detailed and arduous, then that form we gave should be a simple matter of check marks and a brief comment and it's done. MR. CAIMANO-But Mrs. Monahan brings up a very good point and that's the fact that we keep talking through an intermediary and maybe we ought to sit down and talk together. MRS. MONAHAN-And that's why I think I suggested that Paul be there, because I think, to be very blunt, you have, right now, an adversarial position. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's why I was going to suggest that who's ever control that the Zoning Administrator is under, that they act as the mediator. Maybe this Town Supervisor or somebody Ii ke that is better suited, but I just hate to always burden the Legal Department. MR. CAIMANO-You say adversarial. Let me just make the point, again. It isn't a matter of adversarial, in terms of, we just can't seem to get together. MRS. MONAHAN-This is what I'm saying, I mean, is I foHow this communication back and forth, you know, there are certain things that you people want and you've got your reasons for the reasons that you want those. I think you need a communication type of thing who says, you know, this is why we consider this necessary. 29 ---....-r MR. CARTIER-All right. Let me make a suggestion. I don't mean to interrupt you. MRS. ftDNAHAN-No. That's reany what I'm saying. You people who know what you want and why you need it. I mean, you're working with this all the while. You know why you've made this request. You know, I used to make out an awful lot of forms for the Federal Government, jOb authorities, and everything else. I had to make out the forms that were necessary, and I think it's an attitude towards forms. So I think you have to get through the attitude problem. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay, but there's another issue. MRS. MONAHAN-I realize that, but that's also a part of an attitude. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Okay. Let me toss out another suggestion. Betty, what I'm hearing about your suggestion is Legal Department.... MRS. YORK-Would you like us to turn the tape off? Do you want this on tape? MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that. MR. CAIMANO-I don't have a problem with that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, because we're just going around and around. MRS. YORK-Yes. Turn it off. MR. CARTIER-(Tape turned back on)...conversation with the Zoning Administrator. MR. CAIMANO-Details to fOllow. MRS. YORK-Do you want the Planning Staff to be there? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-No, that's fine. MR. HAGAN-OnlY if you want to be. MRS. MONAHAN-I would say yes. MR. CARTIER-It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Let's do some homework, though. Let's not go into this thing cOld. Let's have an agenda in our minds, anyway and lets go at it, as Betty suggests, in a non adversarial way. Lets lay the problem out and look for sOlutions. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Why not be specific when you're laying the problem out and bring up specific examples. MR. CARTIER-You have before you another form. A draft copy of the Change of Petition to Zone, with a copy, cover letter draft. We're submitting this to the Town Board, remember? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Has anybody got any questions on that? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Can I forward that to the Town Board for their consideration? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, can I request a copy? 30 -.-' MR. CARTIER-Certainly. I'm sorry, I should have put that on there. Lee, the cover letter with regard to the Petition for a Change of Zone, all I'm saying to you is, that could go forward to the Town Board now, the draft letter whenever. Okay, there's that. Rourke Letter, where are we with the Rourke Letter? Is there anything we need to deal with there, with regard to the 19th application. MRS. YORK-Okay. What is going on, it is on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for, I believe, tomorrow night. It's the last item on the agenda. The Zoning Board will review the request. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. SEQRA Review process for the ZBA. That's coming up the first time around the next. MRS. YORK-Right. I wrote very detaned notes on the Spenburg case for you for the Board so hopefuny it will expedite the whole thing for you. The Zoning Board win be hearing that tomorrow night. What they win do is simply pass a resolution saying that, in fact, yes, they want this Board to take Lead Agency status, as far as SEQRA goes and also incorporate any concerns they have about the project to hand to you for you to incorporate into the SEQRA Review. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-You will get that on the next meeting, which is the 24th, and then you wnl review just the SEQRA portion. After you review the SEQRA and pending modification of plans due to the SEQRA Review, then it win go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals who win review it for the variances and then come back to your Board for the site plan. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Will the Board of Appeals get copies of our comments, in addition to just the SEQRA? MRS. YORK-Yes, they will. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MRS. YORK-We will give them your whole dialogue. MR. HAGAN-In other words, we can question the applicant before we even make the SEQRA Review? MRS. YORK-Yes, you can. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Agenda Control Law, where are we with that? Betty, has the Town Board heard anything on that yet? The Planning Board requested that it be reinstituted. MRS. MONAHAN-I know you did, and it was brought up and if my memory is correct, it was Mr. Borgos' s suggestion that since your agenda's did not seem very heavy now that probablY you did not need an Agenda Control Law and we could let it lapse. MS. CORPUS-But we do have the extension of the decision time frames, also. MRS. MONAHAN-Wen, apparentlY, that wasn't brought to anybody's attention. I'm just tening you, to the best of my memory, what happened. MR. HAGAN-If you let it lapse, isn't that going to blow things wide open? MR. CARTIER-If we let it lapse, that means we could be sitting here until one or two o'clock in the morning, to put a very seifish attachment to it. How does the Board feel about the Town Board letting it lapse? MR. CAIMANO-Wen, we had this argument last meeting. I was the one in favor of letting it lapse and you guys all convinced me it was the wrong thing to do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-So, I'm convinced. MRS. YORK-The Town Board did receive the minutes of that portion of the meeting. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So what I'm hearing, I guess, is that, does the Board want to pursue the Agenda Control Law or not? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. 31 '--' MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I need a vote. MRS. MONAHAN-I think, to add to what I said, it was also a thought that if at any time the agenda got late again, it could be re-implemented. MR. CARTIER-How long does that take? MS. CORPUS-A public hearing has to be held. MR. CAIMANO-Just out of curiosity, was Mr. Dusek at that meeting and did he speak on behalf or against? MS. CORPUS-I don't know, Mr. Caimano, I do not attend Town Board meetings. MR. CAIMANO-I was asking the Town Board member. MRS. MONAHAN-I don't recall. This is just memory, now. MR. CAIMANO-The reason I ask is because he was a very strong advocate, after I said lets let it drop, of keeping the Agenda Control. He gave us all the reasons why we should keep it. MRS. MONAHAN-This is something we looked at a whne ago. It wasn't anything, again, recently, and you discussed it. MR. CAIMANO-Last meeting. MRS. MONAHAN-Well, when we discussed it was before then. MS. CORPUS-No, it wasn't last meeting, because I was here and we did not discuss it. MR. CAIMANO-No. It was the last meeting that he attended. Whatever the last meeting that he attended was. MRS. MONAHAN-It was discussed after we got a memo from your Board about extending the Agenda Control. MS. CORPUS-Prior to April 1st is more likelY. MR. CAIMANO-I think I'd like to request that the Chairman re-contact the Town Supervisor and say, rethink the Agenda Control Law. MR. CARTIER-I will draft a letter. MR. MARTIN-Using those minutes as a reference and highlight those and enclose them. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I don't remember what minutes those are? MRS. YORK-I 'n look it up. MR. CARTIER-One other quick item, I think. Stonnwater Management Model Ordinance prepared by the Lake George Park Commission. I talked to two of you when we were doing site visits about a workshop session on that and I talked to John Goralski and he said that I don't think you guys need a workshop on that. That's engineering stuff. MRS. YORK-Yes. My Department and the engineer will be getting together and looking at it. MR. CARTIER-All right. Does anybody have anything else? MR. MARTIN-Any news on a seventh member? MRS. MONAHAN-There was another interview the other night. That's about all I can tell you. MR. MARTIN-Good. Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay, because last time, the Affordable Housing thing. Next week you have four members. Does anybody else have any other business? If not, thank you for your time everybody. A motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned, RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 32