Loading...
1991-05-23 ~ "---' ~ ~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 23RD. 1991 INDEX Subdivision No. 9-1990 FINAL STAGE Madison/Diamantis 1. Site Plan No. 14-91 Robert Northgard, Jr. 2. Subdivision No. 11-1990 FINAL STAGE Whipple Subdivision 3. Site Plan No. 23-91 Site Plan No. 24-91 Site Plan No. 25-91 Cynthia Guardiola 4. Harris Bay Yacht Club 6. Margaret F. & Theodore M. Hans 15. 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. ~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 23RD. 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO EDWARD LAPOINT JAMES MARTI N JAMES HAGAN DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-Good evening. I'll call the meeting to order. Before we go any farther, Site Plan No. 26-91, Dick and Helen F. Cutting, for replacement of a 9 ft. by 36 ft. retaining wall, next to the Betty Monahan residence is off the agenda. That is required to go to a variance to the Zoning Board first. CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 16th, 1991: NONE April 23rd, 1991: Held off until the end of the meeting May 8th, 1991: Held off until the end of the meeting MOTION TO APPROVE THE APRIL 16, 1991 MINUTES, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA MADISON/DIAMANTIS OWNER: CURTIS L. MADISON, JR. ELAINE A. MADISON, LLOYD DIAMANTIS, RENE DIAMANTIS SOOTH SIDE OF HAVILAND ROAD, OPPOSITE SOUTHERLY END OF MARTELL ROAD PROPOSED 4 LOT SUBDIVISION: TWO LARGER LOTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. TWO LARGER LOTS TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED. TAX MAP NO. 54-5-6.6 LOT SIZE: 18.8 ACRES CURT MADISON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Subdivision No. 9-1990, Curtis Madison, May 14, 1991, Meeting Date: May 23,1991 "The applicant has received the necessary D.E.C. Freshwater Wetlands Permits and the necessary Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permits. The Town Board of Health has also granted a variance from the minimum separation distance between a well and leach field. If all engineering comments have been addressed I recommend final approval of this subdivision." MR. CARTIER-Any Engineering Comments? MR. YARMOWICH-There are no further Engineering Comments. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would you care to address the Board? MR. MADISON-Hi. My name is Curt Madison and I've got before you a final application for a subdivision and it's been a long drawn out process and I hope that everything can be resolved totally. I think that I've done a lot of work to get this application through and with all the permits and everything that were required, it was an uphill battle for me, being final and hoping there's no problem. 1 MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do any members of the Board have a question on the application? MR. CAIMANO-No. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUIIJIVISION NO. 9-1990 MADISON/DIAMANTIS, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For a proposed 4 lot subdivision: two lots for construction of single family residences, two larger lots to remain undeveloped. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 14-91 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 ROBERT NORTHGARD. JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF WISCONSIN AND CENTRAL AVEflJES TO CONSTRUCT A 2 STORY, 2 FAMILY DUPLEX ON LEVEL CLEAR LAND. TAX MAP NO. 127-8-1 LOT SIZE: 1.183 ACRES SECTION 4.020 E MR. CARTIER-This was tabled from a previous meeting. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 14-91, Robert Northgard, Jr., May 16, 1991, Meeting Date: May 23, 1991 "This application was tabled on April 16, 1991 pending receipt of an updated site plan. The application is for development of a duplex on a lot containing a single family residence and two previously approved duplexes. The Town engineer has indicated that the low impermeable area ratio and highly permeable soils make stormwater management unnecessary. This application was reviewed per Section 5.070. 1. The structure is in a densely developed neighborhood. This structure and the other duplex's on the lot are larger than most structures in the neighborhood. The density is allowable by zoning. 2. There is adequate traffic access. 3. There is adequate parking. 4. Pedestrian access is handled by a walkway. 5. Grading and stormwater management has been addressed by the engineer and is adequate. 6. The duplex will be on Town water. The engineer will address the adequacy of the septic system. 7. A Beautification Committee report has addressed plantings. 8. Fire and emergency access is sufficient. 9. The applicant should maintain erosion and sediment control measures during construction. The applicant is required to pay fees to the Town of Queensbury prior to receiving a building permit. The Board should make this part of the motion." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 10, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. New percolation test data reveals that the perc rate is 1 min. 49 seconds and not 30 seconds as stated in previous submissions. Therefore comments 2(a) and 2(b) from our previous letter dated April 10, 1991 are no longer applicable. An approval of this site plan should contain the stipulation that all septic system construction will conform to New York State Department of Health Waste Water Treatment Standards for Individual Household Systems. We note that the current site plan indicates no intention to relocate the gravel driveway adjoining the existing two story frame house. 3. Soil erosion and sediment controls should be required in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Is there somebody here representing this applicant? Well, what's the Board's druthers, here? MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't think there's any questions, except that if you give approval, you have to stipulate that soil erosion and sediment control should be required in accordance with New York State Guidelines. Those are all things that would be in with the approval. MR. MARTIN-Did we do an environmental review on this? MR. CARTIER-Yes. SEQRA review has been done. MR. MARTIN-In all fairness to the appl icant, I bel ieve, I've seen him out, when I'm in the grocery store, and I think he's a delivery man for Freihoffers and I know those things can typically run into the evening hours, especially in the nicer weather. MR. CAIMANO-We've had to put this off before. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to put this on hold? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. 2 -' MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can do that. So, we'll put that on hold for now. So, we don't hold anybody up, is there anybody here, I know the public hearing was left open, who cares to address this at all? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We'll come back to that at the end of the meeting. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED 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 STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Subdivision No. 11-1990, Robert Whipple, May 14, 1991, Meeting Date: May 23, 1991 "A note indicating a minimum of ten feet will be cleared on both sides of all driveways has been added to the plan. The limits of clearing have also been changed to reflect the grading that will take place." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 13, 1991 "I. The applicant proposes to address cORlllents 2 and 4 of our previous letter, dated April 11, 1991, at site plan review. We take no exception. 2. The additional calculations that derive the infiltration capacity of a drywell do not include any allowance for hydraulic performance changes over time due to clogging and other effects of age. The precise design infiltration rate used for SWM drywells can be resolved at site plan review. 3. All other previous engineering cORlllents have been satisfactorily addressed." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Is there someone here to represent this applicant? MR. HAGAN-Wasn't this the application that did not give proper notice? MR. CARTIER-Proper notice, correct. We're going to have a public hearing, for sure. The only thing that bothers me is we don't have an applicant here who may care to respond to public questions. MRS. YORK-If I may make a statement here, that even though it was duly advertised some time ago that your meetings start at 7 o'clock instead of 7:30, there may be some people who are still not aware of that. I know it's been going on for months, but there may be some people that are not sure about that. MR. CARTIER-Are you talking about the agent for the applicant? MRS. YORK-Yes, I am. MR. CAIMANO-I think he's been here before at 7, though, Lee, to tell you the truth. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-It bothers me to hold up people who may be here to address this, however. Do you want to put it on hold? MR. CAIMANO-I don't think it's going to take us long to whip through the rest of this, anyway. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Fine. We'll put that one on hold. MR. CAIMANO-I mean, I think most of the people here are for this. You're here to hear this one, right? (Audience) Yes. MR. CAIMANO-We'd rather have you here with the appl icant here too, then try to do this twice. So if you don't mind, we're going to just hold for a while. SITE PLAN NO. 23-91 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA CYNTHIA GUARDIOLA OWNER: CURTIS C. & CYNTHIA GUARDIOLA MR. CARTIER-We really need to have the agent for the appl icant here because he may be the only one who can answer your questions, okay. Okay. Thank you. Let me raise the question first. Is there somebody here representing the next applicant for Site Plan No. 23-91 Cynthia Guardiola? MR. CAIMANO-Maybe they were all here Tuesday night? MRS. YORK-No. These individuals received the agenda with the dates on them when they are told specifically to be here. 3 '-'" MR. HAGAN-On Guardiola, does anybody have any questions that they think will hold this application up? Because Staff Comments and everything have been cleared, as far as I can tell. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-And the site review, I don't think anybody could find anything objectionable. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me try something. Is there anybody here to address that one, from the publ ic? This is Cynthia Guardiola, for expansion of a bedroom(8 ft. by 10 ft.) and the addition of a closet? Okay. Do you want to go through this one? MR. CAIMANO-Why not? MR. CARTIER-Okay. Fine. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 23-91, Cynthia Guardiola, May 16, 1991, Meeting Date: May 23, 1991 "The site plan if for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The applicant desires to add an 8 ft. by 10 ft. addition which basically fits in a corner of the existing structure. The structure is nonconforming because it does not meet the front yard setbacks. Thi s appl ication was reviewed with regard to Section 5.070. 1. The location, arrangement, and size of the building is compatible with the lot. 2. Vehicular traffic access is not a problem. 3. Off street parking is not a concern. 4. Pedestrian circulation is not a concern. 5. Stonnwater drainage facil ities are not a concern. 6. Water and sewer facilities are not a concern. 7. Plantings are not a concern. 8. Emergency access is not a concern. 9. Ponding and erosion are not a concern." MR. CARTIER-Okay. This is not subject to a variance, correct? MRS. YORK-No, this is not. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-I'm sorry. The applicant previously received a variance. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll formally open the public hearing on this. Is there anybody who wishes to address this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does anybody on the Board have a question? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-If not, I believe we need a Short Form SEQRA on this. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF 10 SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 23-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: for expansion of a bedroOl(8 ft. by 10 ft.) and the addition of a closet, 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 4 -....../ 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Secti on 617.11 of the Offi ci al Compi 1 ati on of Codes, Rul es and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 10. 23-91 CYNTHIA GUARDIOLA, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For the expansion of a bedroom( 8 ft. by 10 ft.) and the addition of a closet. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE (OLD BUSINESS) MR. CARTIER-Okay. Mr. Northgard has arrived and we'll go back to Mr. Northgard's application. Mr. Northgard, we have gone through Engineering Comments and Staff Comments. Looking at Engineering Comrr,ents first, Item Number Two? MR. NORTHGARD-Bob Northgard. No, we have no intention to move that adjoining driveway. We had gotten a more complete survey and found that it was not necessary at all. The setback requirements were met. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Tom, does that take care of that for you? MR. YARMOWICH-That's fine. MR. CARTIER-Okay. With regard to Planning Staff Comments, recreation fee. MRS. PULVER-Just that they should maintain erosion control measures. MR. CARTIER-And erosion control, thank you. I think we're plowing old ground. I think we talked about this the last time. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. NORTHGARD-I believe so. MR. CARTIER-The public hearing was left open. There's no one here to comment on this anyway. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does the Board or Staff have any questions? MR. HAGAN-You don't have any problems with the engineering comments in Paragraph 1 and 3, do you? You mentioned Number Two, but. MR. NORTHGARD-No. I have no problem. 5 ~ ---./ MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Any further questions? If not, we can entertain a motion that needs to include a stipulation regarding recreation fees, septic system, and soil erosion and sediment control. JlJTlON TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-91 ROBERT NORTHGARD, JR.. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To construct a 2 story, 2 family duplex on level clear land, with the following stipulations: One, that the construction of the septic system conform to New York State Department of Health Waste Water Treatment Standards for indivi dual househol d systems. Two, soi 1 erosi on and sediment control s wi 11 be required in accordance with New York State Guidel ines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control, and, Three, the applicant pay recreation fees to the Town prior to receiving a building permit. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: MR. CARTIER-Before I call for a vote, I have note to myself on here with regard to SEQRA. Was the SEQRA done on this? MRS. YORK-I believe so. AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, NOES: NONE (NEW IIISINESS) SITE PLAN NO. 24-91 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-42A WR-lA HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE BAY ROAD NORTH TO ROUTE 9L AT DUNHAM'S BAY ON LAKE GEORGE, RIGHT ON 9L TO HARRIS BAY THE USE WILL REMIN THE SAlE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS FOR RENOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT TO THE EXISTING SITE. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF lVO PARKING LOT LIGHTS, CONSTRUCTION OF THREE WOOD FENCE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES TO REPLACE THE EXISTING DETERIORATED ENCLOSURES AND REPLACEMENT OF THE PRECAST CONCRETE BOAT LAUNCH RAMP. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 10-1-1.1, 1.4 LOT SIZE: 43.69 ACRES SECTION 7.012 C JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 24-91, Harris Bay Yacht Club, May 16, 1991, Meeting Date: May 23, 1991 "The Yacht Club proposal is to replace a precast concrete boat launch ramp and put up two new lights in the parking lots and enclose 3 dumpsters. The Yacht Club zoning is LC42A and WR-IA. The application states that a DEC permit has been received. It further states that no APA or LGPC Permit is required. The concrete boat launch facility is to be replaced with precast concrete sections and there will be no expansion of the facil ity. The excavated material s will be removed from the site and silt fences and hay bales will be utilized to contain sediment into the lake. The lights in the parking lot should be placed so that they illuminate the parking area and do not reflect into the roadway. The dumpster enclosures are per a Town of Queensbury Ordinance. This application was reviewed per Section 5.070. 1. The buildings on the site are existing. The lighting should be designed to illuminate the parking lot and not reflect unnecessarily on the lake or roadway. 2. Vehicular traffic access is not a concern. 3. Off street parking is not a concern. 4. Pedestrian circulation is not an issue. 5. Stormwater drainage will not be increased because of the proposed development. 6. Water and sewage facilities are not an issue. 7. Plantings are not a concern. 8. Fire and emergency access are not a concern. 9. The development will not impact the structures and roadways which have a susceptibility for ponding, flooding, and/or erosion." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We also have, from the Warren County Municipal Center, an approval with no comments. Engineering staff, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 13, 1991, "We have reviewed the site improvements narrative provi ded by the appl i cant and have the following engineering cOlllllents: 1. The intended procedure and equipment to be used for removal of the existing ramp, excavation and placement of the sub-base should be outlined. If not already part of the NYSDEC permit, the stipulation that all work be done from the shore and that no excavating equipment be all owed to operate di rectly in the water is recommended. 2. A spun bound synthetic filter fabric, not woven silt screen, should be specified and used for effective containment of suspended sediment material disturbed during construction operations in the lake." MR. MILLER-My name is Jim Miller, representing Harris Bay Yacht Club. Your report sounds fairly complete. We have received all of the other approvals or letters of non-jurisdiction. We have the 6 '-.--- ~ permit from DEC for the replacement of the ramp which also included a detail of the silt screen. We could use the spun bound fabric. They did not specify a particular fabric, and we would comply with that. We have di scussed the excavati on process wi th our contractor and we can indeed use a 1 arger backhoe so that we will not be operating within the water. One of the issues that the County dealt with the type of 1 ighting to be used. The 1 ighting is going to be added in the remote corners of the parking lot for security in both pedestrians and of the cars that are left there while members of the club are out on their boats overnight and the type of lights will be a flood light, which are adjustable and we've agreed that they will be adjusted in a way that they will not shine into the roadway or out onto the lake, but will be directed downward toward the parking area we're trying to light. MR. CAIMANO-Is it a hooded light? Are they hooded lights? MR. MILLER-It's hooded, but it's a flood type light. It's not the cut off type of light. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, you are in concurrence with both the comments from Engineering staff and you have copies of those in hand? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I'll open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here who wishes to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMt£NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any questions or comments? Well, then we can entertain a Short Form SEQRA, I guess. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 24-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: by the HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB for the installation of two parking lot lights, construction of three wood fence dUlpster enclosures to replace the existing deteriorated ençlosures and replacement of the precast concrete boat launch ramp., and WHEREAS, thi s Pl anni ng Board has determined that the proposed project and Pl anning Board acti on is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: DEC 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having consi dered the cri teri a for determini ng whether a project has a si gni fi cant envi ronmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: 7 --- --/ AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion addressing the engineer's concerns. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-91 HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: For the installation of two parking lot 1 ights, construction of three wood fence dumpster enclosures to replace the existing deteriorated enclosures and replacement of the precast concrete boat launch ramp, with the following provisions: That work will be done from the shore and no excavating equipment will be allowed to operate directly in the water. In addition, a spun bound synthetic filter fabric will be used for effective containment of suspended sediment material disturbed during construction operations in the lake. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE (OLD BUSINESS) MR. CARTIER-Mr. Nace is here now. We can go back to the Whipple application. Normally, we conduct a public hearing at Preliminary review of a subdivision application. This has gone to Final. Because of some confusion regarding public notice, we will open a new public hearing on this at Final, and for the Board's information, based on that public hearing, we're going to need to determine whether or not we need to re-open the SEQRA Review process, but we can make that decision later. Mr. Nace, what we've done so far with regard to your application is gone through Staff Notes. Do you have those? MR. NACE-Yes, I do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would you care to comment on those? MR. NACE-I don't believe there's any comment necessary. It seems like all the Staff and Engineering comments have been answered previously. First of all, let me apologize for being late. I had no idea you'd make it that far down the agenda that quickly. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. I will open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here who would care to address the Board in regard to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED IRV GREEN MR. GREEN-My name is Irv Green and I live at 53 Wal ker Lane. Now we are very, very concerned about the fact that Mr. Whipple is placing, or intends to place, many units in a 2. some odd acres. The traffi c there wi 11 be murder. As it is ri ght now, we have 60 fami 1 i es travel i ng up and down Walker Lane and that's the only access and exit for these people over at Bayberry or Bay Ridge, whatever it is, and we're very concerned, One, traffic, two, what is happening to the trees that are along side the road the Town owns and where the septic system is going to go that will not endanger our septic or if the two small creeks that go through there, and there are other things that, I'm sorry, I haven't got it all in front of me right at the present time, but we would like to have answers to where the roads are going and how Walker Lane is going to be changed to take care of the excessive truck traffic and so forth and so on. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We'll get you those answers. What I'd like to do is take all of the public comments first and then we'll turn Mr. Nace loose again to answer those questions. Is there anyone else who would care to comment? EDIE GREEN MRS. GREEN-My name is Edie Green. My concern is what kind of building is he planning? What kind of construction? Is it going to be low housing? Is it going to be something that will be more to our type of homes or is it going to be a senior citizen? What type of building is he planning for this area and is it going to downgrade our property? Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. GREEN-All right. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else? 8 GINGER DENNY MRS. DENNY-My name is Ginger Denny and I live at 57 Walker Lane. I think. we have to apologize. We know of a project going in there, but we don't have any information about it at all. So, it's kind of hard to ask the questions. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think there is a blueprint of the development. If you'd like a minute to look at that, what I can do is ask Tom to address some of the questions that have already been raised and then we can go back to any other questions you might have. Tom. MR. NACE-Sure. As I heard them, the questions, I think, center on, what type of a building, who's going to live there, how much traffic, what's going to happen to the existing trees, and are the septic systems going to interfere with adjacent lots or the streams. Let me take. first, the architecture. The proposed buildings will be very similar to those individual residences existing along the north side of Walker Lane. They'll be probably, again, this is only subdivision review, and there's no architectural plan review in the Town. So, this is just the owner's existing concept of what he wants to do with the property. They'll be vinyl sided. They'll probably be two stories with a garage underneath. There will probably be a straight ridge line, three units side by side, two story units. I have some pi ctures of a simil ar buil ding that the appl i cant has vi ewed and thinks he mi ght want to consider. Again, these are not set in concrete, so to speak. MR. CAIMANO-I'll tell you, it boils down to two questions. It boils down to quality of life and economics. Can you kind of paraphrase all that? MR. NACE-Sure. As far as quality of life, the quality of life could be impacted by the traffic and the view, okay. The view, we are doing everything we can to take the units, get them well back away from the road, screen them, leave as many trees as we can. You can see here we're leaving as much tree cover along the frontage as we can. In fact, we originally had more. The Town requested that for emergency access we widen the driveway strip back into each unit. We've done that, but our intent is still to leave the lots with as many trees as possible, and the units are not all set in a row right up front. You'll see that picture. Quite frankly, although the unit looks nice, the bunch of units together look like wooden soldiers. That was not our desire. We wanted to get the units spaced back and hidden as much as possible. Traffic, we'll have nine units in there. Nine units compared to, I think the number was thrown out that there are al ready 163 units across the street. The nine is insignificant. MR. CARTIER-We're talking about nine living spaces? MR. NACE-Nine living spaces. MR. CARTIER-Nine living spaces. I would like the members of the audience to understand that we're talking about an MR-5 zone, here, in which, potentially I'm not saying this is going to happen, potentially eight units per acre could be built. In other words, there could be a potential for 16 living units on this piece of property and we're looking at nine. As a matter of fact, this is all that this is being approved for is nine units, not sixteen. MR. NACE-The other issue is septic systems. The septic systems are designed in accordance with Health Department standards. They're kept more than the required setbacks away from property lines, away from streams, water courses. So I do not believe there should be any impact from the septic systems. MR. CARTIER-The closest septic system to Old Maids Brook? MR. NACE-Is quite a ways. Old Maids Brook is down about here. So it's several hundred feet. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-The other issue that I brought up was economic and so did they bring up and I know that you're not ready yet, but do you have any idea of the price ranges or anything like that? MR. NACE-Approximately $6 to $800 a month per unit for rent. So that will give you some idea. MR. CARTIER-Six to eight hundred_ dollars does not qualify as low income housing. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. MARTIN-Tom, could you give the people any idea as to the dimensions of the structure, height, just ball park. MR. NACE-The height, would be two stories plus a basement underneath. So that's above ground. It's approximately 22 feet, I guess, or 20 feet. The overall outside dimension, I think, is about 30 by 60. It's no bigger footprint than most good sized ranch houses. 9 ------ '--' MR. HAGAN-I'm a little confused. I thought we were discussing, here, subdivision of land. MRS. PULVER-Yes, that's right. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MR. HAGAN-And that's all we're discussing. MR. CAIMANO-That's really all we're discussing. MR. CARTIER-But some questions have come up. MR. HAGAN-When the time comes for the buildings that will have to be reviewed and approved or disapproved at that point. MRS. PULVER-No. We won't even see the buildings. They'll just go for a Building Permit. MR. CARTIER-At this point, right. MR. MARTIN-Because it's going to be a conforming use. MRS. PULVER-Right. He will have to conform to the regulations to set the building on the land. Queensbury doesn't have an architectural review board. MR. HAGAN-But really the buildings are of no concern to this Board. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CAIMANO-Not really. MR. YARMOWICH-There will be site plan review because they're multi family units. MR. HAGAN-Yes. Well, that's what I thought, and they're saying no. MR. CAIMANO-Say that again. Is there going to be a site plan review for individual buildings? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Then I think that you should, if I may be so bold, tell the people that they can go away and do whatever and come back, right? MR. CARTIER-Well, I want to be sure that whatever questions they have will be answered tonight and we can clarify whatever needs to be clarified here, because I think we have some people who are strongly concerned, here, and I'd like to allay their fears. MR. CAIMANO-My point is that they need not fear that the questions that don't get answered tonight is the end of, the world because there is another venue. That's my point. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and I agree with you, but we are having a public hearing and as far as I'm concerned, people have a right to bring up whatever question they want to bring up. ELIZABETH MCNAIRY MRS. MCNAIRY-I'm Elizabeth McNairy and I live on Walker Lane. Am I understanding the Board? You are only, now, tonight giving a site plan review? MR. CARTIER-No. Let me explain this. Maybe I should have done this before. What we're approving tonight, maybe, is a subdivision review, which is a division of the property itself, okay. We're looking at an application to legally divide up the property a certain way, in this case, 2.09 acres into three lots, okay. At a future date, when someone wants to come in and build these buildings on this property, the applicant will be back for what is called site plan review. That is, we will be looking at the application for each lot. MRS. MCNAIRY-Each lot would be a site plan? MR. CARTIER-Correct. Does that answer that question? MRS. MCNAIRY-Thank you. 10 '-, --- MR. HAGAN-And then we can speci fically di scuss the type of structures that are goi ng up, thei ruse, and any questions that you'd have in your mind at that time. MR. CARTIER-Does anyone else have any questions at this point? This does not preclude your coming back at a future public hearing. MRS. GREEN-My name is Edie Green. I was here before. MR. CARTIER-Right. MRS. GREEN-Okay. These pictures, he said perhaps they're going to be like this. MR. CARTIER-Yes, ma'am. MRS. GREEN-In other words, this particular meeting is not a final thing. I mean, this doesn't mean that tomorrow he can go in and start building? This is what I want to know. MR. CARTIER-We're going to act on final subdivision appl ication. That is, again, we're going to act on a final application for dividing up the property along lot lines and then later on, again, we'll be looking at site plan review where we'll be looking at individual lots, at what is going to be built on the lot and at that point we'll be talking about things like, is the building set back properly from the lot lines, are the septic systems located properly and so on and so forth. It'll be very specific. MR. MARTIN-Right, and I think it's important to emphasize, we've been trying to explain what we can review, but there are things that we cannot review in the context of the Town's Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. MARTIN-And we cannot review the architectural nature of these buildings. MRS. GREEN-No, but we'll have some idea, then, of what is going to go in there. MR. MARTIN-We can get an idea, but he is not bound to any architectural design that he shows. MRS. GREEN-All right, now let me ask another question. We have a whole 1 ine of trees, just in front of his property. MR. CARTIER-On the north side of Walker Lane, you're talking about. MRS. GREEN-Well, north? MR. CARTIER-On his side of the property. MRS. GREEN-On his side, yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. GREEN-Okay. So we have all these trees which are really lovely old trees that belong to the Town. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. GREEN-Those cannot be destroyed, can they? MR. CARTIER-Some are goi ng to be removed at the requi rement of thi s Board because of emergency access to these buildings back here. Tom, can you give us an idea how wide that access is going to be? Maybe I can allay your fears in this way. If you're under the impression that all the trees along the north side of Walker Lane, here, are going to be cleared out, the answer's no, okay. MRS. GREEN-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. Each one will be the width of the driveway, 20 feet, plus 10 feet on either side and there'll be three driveways going back through. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Over a total frontage of how much? MR. NACE-Almost 300 feet. MR. CARTIER-Over 300 feet we're going to be removing, if my math is right, 120 feet. MR. NACE-One hundred and twenty feet. MR. CARTIER-For access. 11 '-' -----' MR. CAIMANO-Something else we should keep in mind is the fact that he's making an investment. An investor, it's not in their best interest to make, especially if you're going to charge $6 to $800 a unit, to make things look bad. MRS. GREEN-Of course, I can understand, but I mean, these here, maybe. That's what my concern was and my concern was the trees. MR. MARTIN-The other level of review for this, it will also go through the Beautification Committee, which is also subject to public hearing also, right? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. MARTIN-But their publicly noticed meetings, though. MRS. YORK-No. The Beautification Committee is an advisory body only. They do not publish their meetings. The only people invited are the applicants. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Just one further note is that this is an MR-5 zone. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MRS. PULVER-So he can have multifamily residences on this property. MRS. GREEN-I understand that, certainly, yes. MRS. PULVER-He is entitled to that. MRS. GREEN-But we're concerned about the traffi c because there are a lot of chil dren on Wal ker Lane and, by the way, the traffic there, some of the people use it like a drag strip and you know that rentals, people don't care as much about that as they do for their own homes, okay, that's my point. MR. CARTIER-If you have traffic speeders, fortunately, this Board has nothing to do with that. MRS. GREEN-I know, that's not your problem. MR. CARTIER-And there are appropriate agencies to deal with that. MRS. GREEN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Tom, I thought we did, somewhere in all of this, we did a traffic count or traffic numbers came up and we generated how many cars per hour were going to be in and out of here. Do you remember what that was. MR. NACE-With nine units you'll have about 14 cars an hour. MR. CARTIER-Fourteen cars an hour. MR. NACE-Maximum. MR. CARTIER-Maximum, that's peak. MR. NACE-When people are headed out to work in the morning, within that period of 7 to 8 o'clock. MR. CARTIER-Okay, all right. MRS. GREEN-We have 64 units now and we also have a lot of traffic. There's one road over at Dorlan Drive which is not finished by the Town. It's supposed to be a Town road. Walker Lane 1! a Town road, but the other one Dan Valenti owns and it was supposed to be finished. It is not finished and you really can't travel there. It's a very bumpy, bad road. MR. CARTIER-Fourteen cars an hour translates to one more car every four minutes. MRS. GREEN-That's a lot of cars. Okay, thank you gentlemen and ladies. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? JOYCE HUNT MRS. HUNT-Am I correct in assuming that if you accept this plan, the lots will be forever limited to three units? 12 -- MR. CARTIER-Correct. MRS. HUNT-Or could that be increased in the future? MR. CARTIER-No. This is a subdivision and he will not be able to come back and re-subdivide. MRS. HUNT-And that's it, all right, thank you. MR. CARTIER-I am correct in that, am I not? MR. HAGAN-Well, that wasn't her question. Her question was, would it be restricted to three buildings on each lot and 1'm not sure we could say yes or no yet. MR. CARTIER-No. I didn't hear that. I heard three lots. MRS. HUNT-No. meant three buildings on each lot. MR. CAIMANO-Three buildings on each lot. Well, we could. MR. MARTIN-Once you create the lot, it's still bound under what the zoning will allow. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Based on the lot size. MR. CAIMANO-Lets hear it over there from the Staff. Are we right or wrong? MS. CORPUS-With regard to how many lots or how many buildings? MR. CAIMANO-Can we limit the numbers of buildings on the lot by motion? MR. HAGAN-I don't think you can on this application. This application is for a division of land only and I think that's all we should consider tonight. The future will be governed by this Board depending on what they present on their building plans. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but speaking individually only, I'm looking at an application that shows nine units and I'm going to vote on that subdivision based on the idea that we're being shown or it's being offered to us that there are going to be nine units, total, built here. If there were going to be the maximum number of units built here, I would be looking at this in an entirely different light. Now, I'm making the assumption when I vote on this application that when this comes back in for site plan review, I'm going to be looking at nine units totally. MR. CAIMANO-Me, too. MR. NACE-May I say something? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. NACE-Okay. The nine units were established because of the constraints of the site, okay. One of those constraints, and the one that governed how many units could go on, is the septic system. If this particular owner, for some reason, doesn't develop this in the next 10 years and somebody else buys it and comes back in 15 years and wants to develop it and there are sewers, I think it's unreasonable, then, to limit those lots to three units per lot. MRS. PULVER-Yes, I think if the lots are divided that they are . MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm going to stay in real time, here, and assuming, you know, I understand what you're saying. MR. NACE-Well, but you still have review over this at site plan, okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NACE-If it comes back at site plan, conditions haven't changed, and somebody proposes five units per lot, then you can show your concern and vote it down. MR. CARTIER-Sure. Okay. MRS. HUNT-But you're saying that is a possibility? MR. MARTIN-It's just not something we can control in the context of this application. 13 '-.-- MR. CARTIER-Before us tonight. MRS. HUNT-Yes, but you keep mentioning the nine units, but it's really three lots and it could be many more than nine. MR. CAIMANO-The motion, here, tonight is going to be about three lots. MR. MARTIN-Where you're talking in an MR-5 zone is you're going to have three new lots, if it's approved tonight, you're going to have three new lots, basically a half an acre ranging to almost a full acre and the zoning is one dwelling unit for every 5,000 square feet of land and a square acre is approximately 43,000 square feet. So, you're looking at anywhere from, going strictly by the zoning, four units to eight units per lot, potentially. MRS. PULVER-So you could have 16 total. MR. LAPOINT-Then, again, there's a limiting factor from the site. MR. MARTIN-For a septic and. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. HAGAN-If we were talking site plan, I think this would be an important issue, but tonight we are only talking about a- subdivision of land. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but we're trying to allay fears, rather than have another when we're trying to allay fears. MR. MCNAIRY-Yes, I'm John McNairy and I'm interested in knowing the size of the lot, I meant the property. How much footage is there on Walker Lane and how deep is it and what is the diagram of the property? MR. NACE-Okay. Tom Nace, again. The overall property to the back, it's an odd shape. The outline of the overall property is this outside line, here, okay. This is Walker Lane. It's 80 plus 85 is 165 plus 127, is 290 feet on Walker Lane, okay. The depth, here, is 443 feet. MR. MCNAIRY-That's the east side of it? MR. NACE-That's the east side. The depth on the west side, if you were to go up the middle, here, is 255. If you were to go up the very west side, is about 114, okay. MR. MCNAIRY-Yes, but there's a lot of hills in there, too, isn't there, on a hillside? MR. NACE-Yes, it all slopes this direction. MRS. MCNAIRY-What about that water from the stream that comes down? MR. NACE-No. The stream does not come down through this property. The stream is over on the, in fact, it's a good ways over. MR. MCNAIRY-Is some of that wetlands? MR. NACE-It may be on over, but you can see from the topo, here, we've taken that topo more than 100 feet off of the property and it's still all sloping down this way. The stream comes down in behind John Hughes' property, which is really sort of almost over here and comes down and crosses Walker Lane, quite a ways. I'd say 400 to 500 feet below the lower end of the property we're talking about. MR. CARTIER-Any further questions or comments from the audience? GEORGE ROHRWASSER MR. ROHRWASSER-I'm George Rohrwasser from 33 Walker Lane. Does Mr. Whipple own all the way to the Brook? MR. NACE-No. He does not. MR. ROHRWASSER-How far from the Brook does he own? MR. NACE-That's what I was just explaining. Where the Brook crosses Walker Lane, I believe, is well off this map, here. I believe it's about 4 or 500 feet from Mr. Whipple's property. MR. ROHRWASSER-So, how far on Walker Lane is Mr. Whipple going to own? How many feet? MR. NACE-He owns 290 feet. 14 --.-- MR. ROHRWASSER-You know there is wetlands additional to this and I mean, the drainage, we're thinking about the drainage of the sewer into the wetl ands and eventually getting into the Halfway Brook and has the EPA been notified, or the APA? MR. CARTIER-Not the EPA. The EPA would not be involved, here, or the APA. This is not within their jurisdiction. It is within the jurisdiction of this Board to consider that and we have considered that in terms of the environmental review that was done on this and it was, you may wish to accept or not accept this answer, but the Board was satisfied that that issue was adequately addressed and that there would be no impact on those wetlands or that stream. MR. ROHRWASSER-I know it was a question on the Valenti property at one time. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ROHRWASSER-And that had to be recognized. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It's a question that came up. I can assure you of that. MR. ROHRWASSER-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else have any questions or comments? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Again, with the reminder that you will, in fact, when this does come for site plan, be notifi ed, thi s time, wi thin 500 feet, the fi rst time around, and there wi 11 be a publ i c hearing with regard to that, okay. Does the Board have any further questions or comments on this application? Has the Board heard anything that makes them feel we need to re-open the SEQRA process on this application? MR. HAGAN-No, I'm just curious. It's not a formal question, but I'd like to get an idea of when the applicant thinks he's going to start site plans? MR. CAIMANO-Site plan, not construction. MR. NACE-Three months, 60 to ninety days. MR. HAGAN-All right. Then he will be submitting plans this year? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. HAGAN-I'm just trying to put some qualms to rest, here. MR. CARTIER-In other words, and maybe this is what you're getting at, we'll be looking at plans prior to the installation of sewer lines on this property, to this property, correct? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MARTIN-So, all the immediate neighbors will be re-notified again some time in the next three months. MR. CARTIER-It depends on when the applicant walks in the door, okay. Okay. Any further questions or comments? Does Staff have any comments they care to add, questions? If not, are we prepared to entertain a motion, here? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-90 WHIPPLE SUBDIVISION, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a subdivision of land into 3 lots. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint (NEW BUSINESS) SITE PLAN NO. 25-91 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA MARGARET F. I THEOOORE M. HANS OIlIER: SAME AS ABOVE SUNN LANE, CLEVERDALE TO REMODEL A PREEXISTING HOME AND ATTACHED GARAGE. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-16 LOT SIZE: ±1 ACRE SECTION 5 -~3~' 15 - WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN MASON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 25-91, Margaret F. & Theodore M. Hans, May 15, 1991, Meeting Date: May 23, 1991 "The appl ication is before the Board for a SEQRA Review. The Zoning Board of Appeals has requested that the Planning Board take Lead Agency Status in this matter. The applicant has a nonconforming structure and has applied for variances from the shoreline setbacks and from expanding over 50 percent. The applicant is proposing a 30 foot setback in lieu of the required 75 feet from the lake. The current structure is 1,964 square feet and the proposed structure is 2,844 square feet. The project is in Cleverdale in a Critical Environmental Area. The applicant purchased the property December 27, 1989. The lot is 0.42 acres (18,295 square feet). The applicant has made some property improvements since the purchase of the property. These i nc 1 ude a 36 by 40 foot cri b dock and boathouse/deck and a new septic system (4-1,000 gallon holding tanks). I reviewed this application with regard to the resource maps available in the Planning Department. Water Resources: Lake George and lands within 500 feet of the shoreline have been declared a Critical Environmental area by the State of New York. The Slope Map: 0-3 percent slope - moderate development suitability. The Long Form SEQRA submitted by the applicant that 100 percent of the project site slopes toward the lake. Depth to High Water Table: 0-18 inches - low development suitability. The applicant has indicated that the depth to the water table is over 4 feet. The Board may want information on this. Since the applicant put in a new septic system they may have site specific data. Depth to Bedrock: Over 60 inches - high suitability. Percolation Rate: 0.6 to 6 inches per hour. Limited to unsuitable for development. Intrinsic Development Suitability Composite Map: Low suitability; major planning changes needed. The Master Plan on page 61 defines Low Suitability - Major Planning Chanqes Needed: These areas will be difficult to develop. Bedrock, high water table, steep slopes, and/or fast percolation characterize these areas. The lowest densities should be considered for these areas to allow for suitable sites for consideration. The Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan has a number of goals, policies and strategies which are related to the water resources and associate shorelines in the Town. These are attached. The SEQRA Long Form Part 2 was reviewed. The Board should also consider comments submitted by other involved agencies. Impact on Land: The project will result in a physical change to the land. The square footage of the current structure is 1,444 square feet (living space). The proposed structure will be 2,844 square feet of living space. A change of 1,400 square feet. The change in impermeable area goes from 1,964 square feet to 2,632 square feet (proposed square footage minus the deck and second floor). This is a change of 668 square feet or 25 percent on a 0.42 acre lot. The Planning Staff requested a permeability review of the project by Mrs. Crayford, the Zoning Administrator. On May 14, Mrs. Crayford indicated that the proposed structure will maintain 66 percent permeable area on site." MR. CAIMANO-Excuse me, Mrs. York. Is that on record? Is there a written document on that? MRS. YORK-Mrs. Crayford told me that. She did not submit anything in writing. MR. CAIMANO-Thank you. "The requirement in the WR-IA zone is 65 percent. The applicant indicates that there are 10 off street parking spaces on the site (SEQRA question B.F.). The appl icant has indicated that 100 percent of the site has slopes between 0-10 percent. The applicant has indicated that the water table is over four feet. The suitabil i ty maps show the area as 0-18 inches." MR. CARTIER-Hang on, Lee. Let me interrupt you here, again, one second, and go back to the 66 percent. Thi s says, "the proposed structure wi 11 ma i nta in 66 percent permeable". I s there any other, bes ides the structure? MRS. YORK-Yes. should have said the application or the site plan. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-That is my understanding, that Mrs. Crayford did take into account the ten parking spaces and the driveway. MR. CARTIER-Okay. "The appl icant may have specific information about this. (And I bel ieve that more specific information has been submitted to you at this time.) Impact on Water: Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Lake George is an AA classified body of water and is protected under Article 15 of the Environmental Conservation Law. Double A is the highest classification a water body can receive. It indicates water which is a drinking water source. The Board will have to consider whether the proposed action will affect the adjacent water body. Siltation into the water body will be a concern. Also, whether the action will alter drainage patterns or surface water runoff or whether the action is compatible with existing drainage patterns. The applicant has provided a stonnwater management plan. Staff has requested a review of this by the LGPC engineer. (The LGPC also reviewed 16 --./ this, but I've discussed their review with our engineer and we felt it advisable not to discuss that at this time) The LGPC is not an involved agency, however, their Stonnwater Regulations are being reviewed for adoption. Impact on Air: It would not appear that there will be an affect by the proposed project on air quality. Impact on Plants and Animals: There are no endangered or threatened species on the site. The Board may want to encourage the limitation of pesticides or herbicides adjacent to Lake George. Impact on Agricultural Land: Resources: The proposed action will not affect agricultural land. Impact on Aesthetic Resources: The Board will have to consider whether the proposed changes will be in sharp contrast to the current land use patterns. Also, whether the project will reduce the aesthetic enjoyment of the resource. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources: The project does not appear to be in an area of historic, prehistoric, or paleoanthropological importance. Impact on Open Space and Recreation: It would not appear that the proposed project would significantly reduce open space or recreation opportunities. Impact on Transportation: It does not appear that there will be significant increase to the transportation system because of this development. Impact on Energy: There will be no impact on energy because of the expansion. Noise and Odor Impacts: The project should not increase noise or odor impacts. Impact on Public Health: The project does not appear to propose any threats to health or safety. (The Board may want to request that the appl icant use low water use toilet and bathroom fixtures) Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood: The Board will have to decide if the project will change the character of the neighborhood. Also, if it conflicts with officially adopted plans or goals or whether this action will set a precedent for future projects. This is a large structure on a lot which is less than half of the current acreage required for this area. The Board may wish to review alternatives and determine if it is possible for the applicant to construct a conforming structure and meet all setbacks and other requirements on this lot." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Before we go any farther, I want to raise a procedural question here that goes back to what was done on the Spell burg thing on the 23rd of April. I know Paul Dusek said it was okay to go ahead and approve pending approval by the ZBA and Paul's not here tonight, unfortunately, to answer this. My question is, does that put us in a bind with Article V, in that, in Article 5.070A, Paul raised the issue, does that put us into a confl ict, because according to 5.070A, we have to find that the application is in compliance with all pertinent Zoning Ordinances. Now, do we create a problem for ourselves by conditionally approving something based on ZBA approval? MS. CORPUS-No. I have discussed this matter with Paul and basically the Board has the option of hearing the matter and having a conditional approval. The condition being whatever is needed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance, in this case, being a variance. Legally, it's been our office's opinion that there is no legal impediment to doing so. The Board also has the option not to hear it and not to make a conditional approval. That is up to the Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I guess the question 1'm raising for the Board, here, then is this changing our procedure? Up to this point, we have said that we're not going to look at anything until it's gone through the variance process. That's been the policy in the past. If we're going to do SEQRAs for the Zoning Board, are we also going to conditionally approve them? Are we changing our policy here? I'm raising the question. MR. HAGAN-I thought we were being asked to take action on the SEQRA review only. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MS. CORPUS-If I might just add one more thing. The items that this Board must look at for SEQRA purposes are often times very much the same items within, if not all of the same items within Article V. Therefore, this Board should consider very carefully when it does the SEQRA Review before issuing a Neg Dec, in that, when the site plan comes around again, you could be limited to what issues could be raised on site plan, if you've already given a certain project a negative declaration for environmental impacts. MR. CAIMANO-Could we have a clarification, here? It does say site plan. It does not say SEQRA only. MR. HAGAN-That's right, and I don't think we can review a site plan until the application has received the variances that are required. MR. MARTIN-We're only doing SEQRA on this tonight? MR. HAGAN-Correct me if I'm wrong, as I understand, the Zoning Board of Appeals asked that we be the Lead Agency on the SEQRA Revi ew and we had no objecti ons to that, but I don't think thi s Board can, legally, take action on this site plan tonight until the application has received all the variances that are required. MR. MARTIN-So, are we only doing SEQRA tonight? MS. CORPUS-Let me reiterate one more time. This Board can hear the site plan. Our legal oplnlon from our office is, there is no legal impediment from the Board hearing this. If an approval is given, it must be made contingent, obviously, upon a variance being given. The practical effect would be that a site plan would be given. If a variance is not granted, that would not be used. 17 '---- ----' MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. There's no legal impediment to that, but that doesn't mean. MS. CORPUS-Right. This Board has that option. The Board should decide whether or not they want to do that or not. MR. MARTIN-I feel very uncomfortable with going through a site plan exercise that is supposed to consider setbacks and so on and so forth and then without any variance approval and this is obviously not in conformance with the existing, there's no barometer by which to measure. There's nothing to go by. MR. HAGAN-Because there are too many precedents. If this is approved, it's changing too many precedents, in my opinion, to allow us to take action on this. MS. CORPUS-The Board also has the option of requesting the Zoning Board be lead agent. MR. CARTIER-No. That's not the issue. MR. CAIMANO-That's not the issue. We'll do the SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-The issue then, what I'm hearing is, if I understand this, correct me if I'm wrong, the Board wants to continue the policy it has of not approving site plans or subdivisions unless they have meet the variance requirements and gone through the variance process. Is that correct? MR. CAIMANO-I feel more comfortable. It puts an implied pressure on the ZBA, otherwise. MRS. PULVER-I was just going to say. It implies to the ZBA that, you know, it's okay. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-I just want to reiterate that the Board, when doing SEQRA Review, has to look at many if not all of the same considerations that it would look at at site plan review and in doing so, when making a negative declaration, would preclude certain environmental issues from being brought up at a site plan review. MR. CARTIER-Well, I don't know if I would agree with that either. MR. HAGAN-Well, I agree with it wholeheartedly, because if we agree, there are certain questions in SEQRA that if we say, we accept it, I mean, if it's a negative impact that we give it, then there would be certain questions that would be excluded. MR. MARTIN-I agree with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I agree with that. MR. HAGAN-And I think that's what you're saying. MS. CORPUS-Yes. MR. HAGAN-So when we do the SEQRA, we want to keep in our minds those questions that we would be disqualifying, if we say yes to the SEQRA questions. MR. CAIMANO-Or if we say no. MR. HAGAN-Or no. MR. CARTIER-All right. So, I want to be sure we're all on the same wavelength, here. MS. CORPUS-I would just recomrr.end the Board do a resolution on that particular issue. MR. CARTIER-I don't know that we have to, Karla. The policy is already there, unless you're talking about specifically in reference to doing SEQRAs, that we're going to do SEQRA only and not site plan. I hear what you're saying, but I think we're covered, in that, I know we've made resolutions a couple of times in the past in reference to that, that we're not going to approve things until they go through the variance process, and I don't see any change in policy, here. So, I don't know that we have to do a resolution. MS. CORPUS-That's up to the Board. I'm just making a recommendation. You don't have to follow that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. Thank you. So, we're all clear, here, that we're doing SEQRA only. It's going to go to the Zoning Board and so on. Okay. 18 --- MR. CAIMANO-It's interesting. I said that there's an implied pressure to the ZBA. There's also a protection for the applicant, it seems to me. I don't want to get a little too far a field, here, but if we approve it, there is the potential for the ZBA to react, I'm not saying that they're bad people, but to react differently than if it goes by the process the way it should go and that's get the variance first and go get the site plan review. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We have an approval from Warren County. Okay. Tom, you're comments, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 13, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The stormwater management plan does not address increase in runoff from impermeable areas. Runoff should not be allowed to leave the site in excess of that which existed prior to construction. The concept of stone filled infiltration trenches at gutter downspouts appears to be consistent with appropriate SWM methods if suitably designed. 2. Erosion control measures in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control, should be provided." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant or the representative of the applicant care to comment, please? MR. REHM-Thank you. I'm Walter Rehm and I represent Theodore and Margaret Hans who are the applicants. I understand that this is a SEQRA Review and I'm more than willing to cooperate with the Board and take issues one at a time if that's easier for you, and if it is, I will just make some very brief introductory comments and then perhaps if you could suggest the issue that you would like to look at, in terms of SEQRA, maybe we could do this a little more efficiently, if that's the pleasure of the Board. MR. CAIMANO-I think that sounds reasonable, don't you, Pete? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. REHM-As the Board knows, Mr. and Mrs. Hans, a couple of years ago, purchased a parcel of property at Cleverdale, which is .42 acres. This is located in a one acre zone, and on that lot was an existing seasonal dwelling that is reasonably safe to say is somewhat aged and tired and in a state of disrepair. It is not year round. It is not insulated and it would be unsafe to use it for year round purposes in its present condition, probably not legal. A year or so ago, we came to the Board with a site plan review appl ication to construct a new dock and I know that a number of members of the Board, those that were on the Board at that time, visited the site and it's my understanding that some of the members of the Board visited the site last Saturday. The proposal is to remove a portion of the existing structure and to substantially renovate the portion that is not removed and to provide some additions and on the board I have placed a large copy of the site plan which is included in the appl ication. The area that is outlined in yellow and cross hatched is the portion of existing building to be removed. The Lake being on the 1 eft si de of thi s di agram. The area that is cross hatched, but not outl i ned in yellow is the portion of the existing building to be retained and the two areas which are not cross hatched, but are outlined in red are the proposed new structures. Now, there's a little bit of history associated with this appl ication, since we originally made an appl ication. I'm not going to go into it, but it has been a challenge for the representatives of the Planning and Zoning Department and it's been a challenge for us. Let's put it that way. Nevertheless, now before the various Boards are applications for two variances and also for site plan review, site plan review because of the remodeling of the existing structure and the size. The two variances are, one, a setback variance from the lake and two, a vari ance because of the increase in excess of 50 percent. The ori ginal appl i cati on that was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals a couple of months ago proposed a completely new structure that was situated substantially closer to the lake than this structure. After looking at the Planning Comments and tal king with the Planning Department and 1 istening to the input from the Zoning Board of Appeals, it was decided that this thing should be looked at again and that was done and it was decided to move the entire structure back and to save a portion of the existing building. The setback problem exists because of this new portion of the building, here, which is located at it's nearest point, which is only a corner, within 30 feet of the lake, and that is because the shoreline comes around like this. The existing structure is about 28 feet back. So there's a very small decrease in setback, in terms of distance. A substantial decrease in setback, in terms of gross floor area. I have given you the lake elevation of the building. It is a two story building, typical of Lake George where dormers are used in the second story and you have and I have larger copies of the other elevations if you're interested in looking at it. MR. CARTIER-Well, maybe you can answer a question for me right there, because that's a question I have. What's the present height of the building? MR. REHM-The present height of the building, I believe, is about 22 feet. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and what is the proposed height? MR. REHM-About 31 feet. 19 ~ --/ MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. REHM-And I think in that zone the maximum, under the Zoning Ordinance, is 35 feet. I think that is the case. I don't know if the Planning Department has given you a copy of the letter that was recently submitted breaking down the floor area, that's dated May 22nd? MR. CARTIER-Just got it, tonight. MR. REHM-Okay. The Planning Cormnents had some figures and there were a number of different figures discussed. I think these are the most accurate figures available and you can see that, in terms of gross floor area, there is in excess of a 50 percent increase and thus it seems, under the Zoning Ordinance, that a variance for that purpose is required. MR. HAGAN-Do you have a picture of the present structure, now? MR. REHM-This is a picture of the present structure looking to the south. MR. HAGAN-I go by it almost every day. MR. REHM-I know you do. MR. HAGAN-There's a point to that. MR. REHM-We don't have a picture, unfortunately, of the present structure, looking at it from the lake. MR. HAGAN-The point that had me confused, I never considered that garage attached. Now, maybe technically, it is, but I never thought of it as an attached garage. All four walls are independent, aren't they, in that garage? MR. MASON-The roof is all connected. MR. HAGAN-The roof is attached, but the four walls of the garage are independent of the house? MR. MASON-I see what you mean, the front walls. MR. HAGAN-The four walls of the garage are independent of any walls of the house? MR. MASON-I don't understand. MR. HAGAN-Well. John, very simple. When you have an attached garage, one wall serves as a wall for the inside of the house and also the inside of the garage. To me, that's an attached garage, but when a garage has four independent wall s, none of them serve any purpose to support the house or connect to the house, then I don't consider that an attached garage. MR. MASON-Fine. MR. HAGAN-I'm just trying to personify the truth in the present square foot. You say attached garage 400 square feet. It's really not attached, so you're making it part of the dwelling, and in my opinion it's not part of the dwelling. THEODORE HANS MR. HANS-Why did you ask the question, Jim? MR. HAGAN-Because I'm trying to purify the truth, if you want to put it that way. MR. HANS-Well, we want that, too. We want that 100 percent. MR. HAGAN-I want to compare basics with basics. When you say the proposed house has square foot that includes attached garage. Everything is included. MR. HANS-Yes. It's very unusual, there, the set up. You can call it an attached garage, if you will. It's a place to put my car. One wall is the wall of an outside bathroom, a second bathroom for the facility and the other, that's attached to a tool room, all connected to the main house by a cOllll1on roof. MR. HAGAN-We have a Zoning Law that says a nonconforming structure cannot be expanded more than 50 percent and that's the point that bugs me. MR. HANS-I understand. 20 -- --- MR. HAGAN-To break this or to change this would establish a precedent that would effect the entire 30 some miles of that lake. MRS. PULVER-Excuse me. Jim, you're trying to take this 400 feet out of the square footage, is that what you're trying to do? MR. HAGAN-Well, in comparison. MRS. PULVER-Well, because I believe that's an attached garage. That has one roof and there are many houses that have the house and a breezeway and a garage with one roof and it's an attached garage. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Any other questions or comments? Mr. Rehm, do you want to continue? MR. REHM-I just have a couple of exhibits to show you, quickly. First of all, one of the Planning Comments had to do with the size of the house and the height of the house both this time out and the previous time. So we took a copy of the Tax Map and went up and down the lake from the site. The site is the area in about the middle of this diagram which is not colored. The pink area is the Kittredge house which is the property just to the north, and the yellow areas are residential properties both north and south. The houses on each of these properties, some of which have more than one house, each are two story houses. The only house, primary house, in the area that is one story is the Kittredge house which is just next door and as you know, on the Kittredge lot, there are really two dwellings. So, in terms of changing the character of the area architecturally, with respect to the one story versus two story situation, I think there is no change, or no substantial change. Secondly, we've prepared two other exhibits that give you an analysis of the impact of the proposed structure on the view of the properties to the rear and also the Kittredge house. The first one happens to be from the Kittredge house and it's difficult to see, I understand. MR. CARTIER-I'm trying to figure it out. Go ahead, you can explain it. MR. REHM-Well, I'll tell you, the red lines are the existing views. MR. CARTIER-For the existing structure. Okay. MR. REHM-And the green lines are the proposed views. So, if you take the primary Kittredge residence, the view from the primary Kittredge residence is substantially improved, that is, their view line is across the front of the proposed structure which is further back so they have a better view. MRS. PULVER-As I recall, though, they had very little windows on that side, didn't they, when I was there? MR. REHM-They have a porch and their letter raised the issue of view. MR. CARTIER-Do we have a copy of a letter from the Kittredges? MRS. YORK-You should have a copy in your packet. MR. CAIMANO-Not me. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'll tell you what, lets hold that until we get to the public hearing portion, then we can do it then. MR. REHM-And a similar situation exists in the back. Their view out toward the lake, to the front of the lot is substantially improved. Their view in back of the house is decreased a 1 ittle bit. Basically, there's, I think, an overall improvement in view. The Parisi house, which is back here, you can see that, to the south, there's really no change in view. To the east there is a substantial improvement in view because the house is moved back, but the angle of their view was increased. The Schlesinger house, in the rear, is much the same situation. No change this way, and a 1 ittle bit of a decrease in view this way, but, again, no substantial decrease in views from any of these properties. MR. CARTIER-Horizontally, but there's some impact on vertical height. You're going to be looking at, what, a nine foot higher building. MR. REHM-They will be looking at a nine foot higher building, but, and I can't speak, really, to this, but I think that the building that exists pretty much impacts their view at this time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 21 --- -/ MR. REHM-We had Dick Mead prepare a landscaping plan, which I'll also submit to you, but you can see, and I'm sure all of you are familiar with Meads work, the proposal is to do some substantial landscaping on this property, including the planting of some major trees to soften the impact of the building, and I'll hand any of these up that anyone is interested in looking at specifically, and finally the sewage disposal system. The sewage disposal system currently exists. It has a 4,000 gallon capacity and it was constructed by Mr. Hans when he purchased the property. The system that was there at the time that he purchased, while legal, was not moral, I guess you can say. It was certainly not an up to date system and he had the option of putting in a mound system which would have required a fair amount of soil and a big mound. The separation to ground water, seasonally, when it's seasonal high groundwater, is about two feet. So instead of doing that, he opted to put in four 1,000 gallon holding tanks and that has worked quite well. Somebody mentioned the use of low volume devices in the house and I'm sure that's no problem at all. That makes sense around the lake. As far as runoff is concerned, using the figures, I think, that the Planning Department used, there's about a 4.7 percent increase in impermeable area, by reason of this project, a very small increase. I talked to the Lake George Park COIIIT.ission about when you have driveways that are crushed stone, how do you figure those? Do you figure those as impermeable areas? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. REHM-I know the Town of Queensbury dOes. However, the Lake George Park COlllllission says, no, that you should be given about a 50 percent credit for that because in fact they are not impermeable. MR. CARTIER-Okay. It has been and I suspect it will continue to be the policy of the Town of Queensbury that they will be considered impermeable. The rationale behind that is that with time they pack. MR. REHM-I'm sure they do and I'm sure that the actual truth is some place in the middle, there, some place, but the fact of the matter is, I'm not going to argue with you about it. I know better than that, but even using the 100 percent factor, we still comply with the gross permeable area on the lot. I think maybe I should turn it over to you and if there are some issues that you would like to specifically discuss, I would be happy to do that. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think what I'll do is open a public hearing first and see if there are any issues out in the public and I will. I will open the public hearing on this issue. Is there anyone who would care to raise a question or comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-Has this, in fact, been advertised? Do we have proof of advertising? MR. REHM-I don't think it's been advertised. MR. CARTIER-This has not been advertised? MRS. HAGAN-Yes. I received notification as a neighbor. MR. CARTIER-You better hope it's been advertised, because if it hasn't, this comes to a dead halt right now. Has this been advertised? MRS. YORK-It has been advertised. MR. CARTIER-It has been? MRS. YORK-Yes. We advertised it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have proof of notification? MR. CAIMANO-Jim saw this. MRS. PULVER-No. He got his notice within 500 feet. MS. CORPUS-Publication is included in advertisement for public hearing, under the Zoning Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-In the event that we get into a situation in the future, here, please be aware that SEQRA Reviews require public notice. MRS. YORK-I have the notice of public hearing right here in my hand. MR. CARTIER-Okay. It's all taken care of. Thank you. We can go on. Okay. While we are in the public hearing, Lee, I believe. correct me if I'm wrong, what you just handed me were letters that we have received regarding this application. Is that correct? 22 - '---"'- MRS. YORK-Those are the letters. Would you like me to read them? MR. CARTIER-No. I'll go through them here. I've got them. Letter dated May 15, 1991, "Dear Pl anning Department, I understand you are having a hearing tonight regarding the proposed expansion of the single story home owned by Margaret and Ted Hans. I am glad that it has been moved 10 feet farther from our property line to the recommended setback line. Other than this, I do not see the proposed house as substantially different than the first proposed house. Therefore, my other concerns as stated in my earlier letter about size, amount of land covered by house, large and imposing size, nearness to garage, to my vegetable garden continue. Likewise, we would like to be notified if our property is to be used or damaged in the building." I assume that refers to, this is from Nancy Geiser. Where are they located in reference to this? MR. REHM-It's the Kittredge property which is the pink property. MR. CARTIER-The Kittredge. I assume you're not going to be crossing that property in construction or anything? Okay. "In this new plan, there is a map of stonnwater management. We are very concerned that no water come onto our property as the result of this new building." Will that happen? MR. REHM-No. That will not happen and I will also say that we will fully comply with any reasonable engineering recommendations by the Town Engineer and also we will comply with the Lake George Park Commission's Stonnwater Regulations. MR. CARTIER-Okay. "We have sustained heavy damage from water flow onto our property from a hose laid across Gunn Lane draining basement water from our neighbors to our east and also with the change in ground level from the Wells home. A foot of soil was added to build up the land and this has caused problems for our flooring, septic system, and house foundation." Was the foot added to the Hans property? That's some other property. "We hope you will consider these things. Sincerely, Nancy Geiser, 6 Melvin Road, Natick, MA." Letter dated May 15, 1991 "Dear Planners: I have had the opportunity to review the Hans' house plans and plot plans for the work they hope to undertake at Gunn Lane in Cleverdale. I have no objection to the house plans or the house location. Sincerely, Frank Parisi, Gunn Lane, Cleverdale" Letter dated May 21, 1991, Dear Planners: I have had the opportunity to review the Hans' house plans and plot plans for the work they hope to undertake at Gunn Lane in Cleverdale. I have no objection to the house plans or the house location. Sincerely, Don Eletto" Letter dated May 21, 1991, "Dear Planners: I have had the opportunity to review the Hans' house plans and plot plans for the work they hope to undertake at Gunn Lane in Cleverdale. I have no objection to the house plans or the house location. Sincerely, Cornelia Eletto" Letter dated May 8, 1991 "Dear Planners: I have had the opportunity to review the Hans' house plans and plot plans for the work they hope to undertake at Gunn Lane in Cleverdale. I have no objection to the house plans or the house location. Sincerely, Gerald Hewlett and Ethel W. Hewlett" Letter dated May 11, 1991 "Dear Planners: I have had the opportunity to review the Hans' house plans and plot plans for the work they hope to undertake at Gunn Lane in Cleverdale. I have no objection to the house plans or the house location. It's a great improvement to the entire area. Sincerely, Rosemary Faulkner, Paul Faulkner, Gunn Lane, Cleverdale" Letter dated May 10. 1991 "Dear Planners: I have had the opportunity to review the Hans' house plans and plot plans for the work they hope to undertake at Gunn Lane in Cleverdale. I have no objection to the house plans or the house location. Sincerely, Harry Ruerker" Letter dated May 6, 1991, to John Mason, "Dear Mr. Mason: This is to certify that I have no objections to the Hans' project, provided that the planned construction as indicated on page 8 (dated 4/22/91) of plans sent to me in letter of 4/23/91 remains in effect. Sincerely yours, Dr. David H. Schlesinger" Okay. If there's no one else from the public who cares to comment, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Is that all the letters, Lee? MRS. YORK-Yes. I believe so. MR. HANS-That last letter was written by Dr. Schlesinger. He lives directly behind me. He has a small portion of lakefront property, but he lives directly behind me and he's approving what I'm doing. I just say that for the idea that I'm not building this monstrous thing in front of him, but what I think is a nice retirement cottage. That's what we want to do. We want to live here year round. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-What's the Board's pleasure, here? What we can do is take ourselves slowly and carefully through the SEQRA process. Does the Board have any other cOl1ll1ents or questions they care to raise? MRS. PULVER-I just want to ask one question. The variances are for a setback from the lake? Is that what you said the variance was for? MR. REHM-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Seventy five required. They're showing 30. 23 ~ MR. REHM-Plus there's an expansion in excess of 50 percent. MRS. PULVER-Right. Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF 10 SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 25-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: MR. CAIMANO-(Referring to Long Form SEQRA) "Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site?" MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-"Examples Construction on land where depth to water table is less than three feet." MR. CARTIER-Yes, and that raises a question that I had. We got a letter from John Mason indicating that depth to water table is two feet. Is this going to have a foundation? Are we talking cellar foundation? What are we talking about? How are we going to cope with the two feet below. MR. MASON-It will have a crawl space and the crawl space will be above that high water mark as well as above the waters of Lake George, which are probably very close to two feet down. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-So, what's the answer? MR. CARTIER-Well, the question is, what's the impact? MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Is it small to moderate, potential large? Can the impact be mitigated by project change? Does this Board feels that there needs to be a change to the project because of this impact? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. HAGAN-I don't think there's any impact on that because he has holding tanks. If he was going to have anything else, we would have an impact. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. So the impact is mitigated by the project change? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Anything el se under "Impact on Land"? You're not going to continue this project of construction for more than one year I hope? MR. MARTIN-No. He's already got in there four months. MR. CAIMANO-"Impact on Water Will the proposed action effect any water body designated as protected?" MR. HAGAN-Yes. It will. You have an engineering comment, but I think it could be mitigated. MR. CAIMANO-What does the engineering comment say? MR. HAGAN-It says, "The stonnwater management plan does not address increase in runoff from impermeable areas." That will have an effect on the water, but I think it could be mitigated if this is addressed. MRS. PULVER-Well, don't we need to know if the water's going to run into the lake, though? I think that's what that question means, doesn't it? MR. CAIMANO-Well, it's not going to run into the sky. MRS. PULVER-Well, maybe it's going off the back side. MR. CAIMANO-To where? I mean, everything, eventually, has to go to the lake. MRS. PULVER-Well, I'm thinking of direct runoff. 24 -- MR. HAGAN-The water table is too deep. So, no matter where it goes. MR. CAIMANO-It's going into the lake, period. MR. HAGAN-Correct, but it can be mitigated. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. I think this can be mitigated by the project change. MR. HAGAN-If the engineering notes are addressed. That's one of the things you didn't do. That's my fault. We should have reminded you. MR. REHM-I think that we've indicated that the impermeable area is only increased 4.7 percent. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but you're on a nonconforming lot of a very small nature. So, any increase is. MR. MARTIN-You wouldn't have any trouble conforming with the engineering comment, right? MR. REHM-No, and we're improving the situation sUbstantially over what currently exists. MR. MARTIN-That's all I wanted to know. MR. CARTIER-Well, I have another question in the same area that was brought up by Planning Staff in regard to pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and so on. Are you going to do some significant construction? Are you going to be re-seeding any of this area or how much of this area are you going to be re-seeding and I certainly would strongly reconmend 0 pesticides. Pesticides covers the whole range of things, herbicides, fungicides, and so on. That's why 1'm using that term, and chemical fertilizers not be used in reestablishing a lawn. Are you saying you agree to that, that you will not be using any of that when you reestablish a lawn? MR. HANS-We do not use anything like that now. MR. CARTIER-And you will not be using. MR. HANS-We did seed a year ago, after the dock and freshened the place up and it looks very nice now for what it is. The future, I'm going to need some help from you and the builder or the contractor. We're talking, should I sod it? MR. REHM-The answer is, you're not going to use it. MRS. PULVER-You're not going to use any on it. MR. CARTIER-I need to get this on record. Mr. Hans, what I need to hear you do, I guess, is agree with my statement that you are not going to use any pesticides, chemical pesticides on the lawn. You're not goi ng to use any fertil izers to .reestábl ish the 1 awn, anythi ng that woul d have a negative impact on the lake, because whatever gets used on the lawn up there, some of that is going to end up in the 1 ake. MR. HANS-I agree with that, Peter. MR. HAGAN-However, we're discriminating, because most all his neighbors already do. I don't, but a lot of our neighbors do. In fact, they were in there spraying yesterday. MR. CAIMANO-So, it's mitigated by the project change. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-"Will proposed action effect surface or groundwater qual ity or quantity?" MR. CARTIER-Well, the potential is yes, but I think it's been addressed. I think my concerns have been addressed, in terms of what Mr. Hans just said. MR. CAIMANO-Right. Halfway down it says "Proposed action will adversely effect groundwater but it's small to moderate and it is mitigated." "Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?" MR. CARTIER-Is the pattern of drainage being changed at all by this project? Is the runoff being increased by this project? MR. REHM-The drainage pattern is not being changed. I don't think there's any appreciable increase in runoff. As a matter of fact, I think there will be a decrease in runoff because of the proposal to put eaves trenches, which do not exist with the existing dwelling. So I think there will be more infiltration into the soil, into the groundwater, as the project is proposed, as opposed to what currently exists. 25 -- -----' MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-We would like to see your design for eaves trenches. It's merely an 18 inch square pocket. It's an erosion check at the gutter down spout at which the details now show. You need something substantial to deal with those increases. MR. REHM-Okay. We'll get that to you. MR. CARTIER-For site plan, are you talking about? MR. YARMOWICH-As any part of approval or prior to approval as the Board pleases. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. "Impact on Aesthetic Resources Will proposed action affect the aesthetic resources?" "Proposed land uses or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns whether man made or natural." So the answer is that there is an impact, but it's been mitigated. MR. LAPOINT-And I don't think it's a sharp contrast. MR. CAIMANO-Well, no. MR. MARTIN-Well, he's gone to great lengths to show us the visual impacts and there is some minor impact, but it's been mitigated to the greatest extent possible. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: to reIIodel a preexisting home and attached garage of MARGARET F. & THEODORE HANS, Gunn Lane, Cleverdale, 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: The Zoning Board of Appeals and the Adirondack Park Agency 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: MR. CAIMANO-Okay. This is new ground to me. Can we include these stipulations in that resolution? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-Well, we're not going to do a motion to approve. Are we going to do a separate motion to include some stipulations? MR. CAIMANO-We're not going to do anything other than SEQRA. MS. CORPUS-Just the SEQRA motion, Mr. Chairman. MR. CAIMANO-That's going to come back to us after the ZBA. MR. CARTIER-Okay. As long as the applicant understands that we're going to need to look at that, fine. Okay. 26 --- AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. Karla, you gave me some resolutions. Can you take us through this, please. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, has Mr. Cutting withdrawn his application? MR. CARTIER-The application has not been withdrawn as far as I understand. It was put off the agenda by me. MS. CORPUS-Okay, because I consul ted with the Pl anning Department. The publ i c heari ng noti ced were mailed. It was published and it was not taken off the agenda the last time I checked with the Planning Department and I bel ieve there is at least one person here who wanted to speak on the item with the public hearing. MR. CAIMANO-Where? MR. CARTIER-Who? BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-But if you wish to conduct the public hearing at another time, that's fine. MR. CARTIER-All right. Understand that it was put on the agenda. It came to my attention that there was a variance involved in that. A question was directed to me as to whether I would be will ing to leave it on the agenda, I said no, it will come off the agenda based on the fact that the Planning Board Chai rman has authority to set the agenda. I put it off the agenda on the basi s of the fact that a variance was required and it has been this Board's policy, and we reestablished it tonight, that we're not going to look at anything prior to the variance process. Have you been sitting here, Betty, all night waiting to talk about that? MRS. MONAHAN-No. I thought I heard you say earl ier you were going to pull it off the agenda, so I stayed to hear the rest of it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. MONAHAN-So, I would have verified it before I left. As long as there is going to be a publ ic hearing where I will have an opportunity to speak, or I am here as an agent, also, for Diane Barber, who is my daughter, and as long as that opportunity is going to be given in the future, fine. MR. CARTIER-Sure. That will be there. It will now go to the Zoning Board. They will do whatever they will do on it and then it will come back to us again. Thank you. Excuse me, Karla, resolutions? MS. CORPUS-These resol uti ons are rel ative to the resol uti ons you di d on May Sth, which I di dn I t attend that meeting, but I read the minutes, and I drafted those, which was to set a public hearing for certain amendments to the Subdivision Regulations. Now, I didn't attach it. I don't think there's another copy attached, of those changes to the Subdivision Regulations. MR. CARTIER-That's okay. I know what you're talking about. MS. CORPUS-The first one is a SEQRA resolution and the second one is the adoption resolution to adopt the amendments to the Subdivision Regulations. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would somebody care to introduce the non-significance first? This is a resolution regarding, "Whereas, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury..." These are changes to amendment, all these minor changes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. "Is desirous of amending Subdivision Regulation of the Town of Queensbury and...", right? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAlMANO-I don't know which one we're reading? MRS. PULVER-We're reading the little two page one. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. This is where I was confused before when you called me in to sign this thing. MS. CORPUS-No. You just signed the first part of it. The second part, you haven't filled that out yet. 27 --- MR. CARTIER-Well, we're not lead agency. I thought the Town Board was lead agency on those. MS. CORPUS-No. For the Subdivision Regulations the Town Board did adopt a resolution, and I can pretty much verify that, making the Planning Board lead agent in this particular case for Subdivision Regulations. MR. CARTIER-Okay. For changes in the Ordinance, for changes in the Subdivision Reg's we made. MS. CORPUS-Right. Not in the Ordinance, but in the Subdivision Regulations. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions about this? MR. CAIMANO-Yes, because Carol is reading the two page one, you're reading the 19 page one. I want to know which one we're doing. MS. CORPUS-The long one. MR. CAIMANO-That's all I want to know. MR. CARTI ER-We' re doi ng the long one ri ght now, and we've got to do the SEQRA on thi s before we do the resolution. MS. CORPUS-There's a Part II. I have the original EAF with me, by the way. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. We don't have a motion on this yet. RESOWTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN OF ~EENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: , 1991 INTRODUCED BY: WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the action of the adoption of certain amendments to the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has been designated as lead agent with respect to compliance and with SEQRA which requires environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board, after considering the action proposed herein, reviewing the Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in Section 617.11. and thoroughly considering said action with respect to potential environmental concerns, determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute Part III of the said Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and BE IT FURTHER 28 r- -- RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby approved and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with the provisions of the general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation." JlJTlON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF fION-SIGNIFlCAIICE OF CERTAII AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN OF ~EENSBURY, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have a second resolution to adopt certain amendments to the Subdivision Reg's of the Town. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE T(JIN OF ~EENSBURY RESOLUTION NO. , 1991 INTRODUCED BY: WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of amending Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed amendments were presented to the Planning Board at the time the Resolution was adopted, which set a date and time for a public hearing, and WHEREAS, on May 23rd, 1991, a public hearing with gard to said amendments was duly conducted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 272 of the Town Law of the State of New York, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury, subject to the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that said amendments to the Subdivision Regulations shall take effect upon the approval of said Town Board." MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION TO ADOPT CERTAIN AMEJl)MENTS TO TIlE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF TIlE T_ OF ~EENSBURY, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. Other short bits and pieces. We have a letter from Mrs. Genthner regarding a request to table. She wanted to be taken off this meeting and be tabled to the June 1991 meeting. Did we ever table this in the first place? MRS. YORK-I believe Mrs. Genthner asked to be tabled. previously. MR. CARTIER-All right. I guess what I need to know is, do we need to have a motion to defer the tabling of this thing until June? MRS. YORK-I think it would be appropriate. 29 ----- -- MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION OF ALICE GENTHNER OF BIRCH ROAD, GLEN LAKE RESIDENCE, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Tabled until the June meeting. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. The only other thing I have is I assume you have copy of a letter dated May 10 to the Town Board regarding the final version of the Queensbury Planning Board Petition for a Change of Zone? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Has anybody got any questions on that or comments? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. MARTIN-No. read it and it looks fine to me. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're all set. Okay. Now, Karla, what else is this? MS. CORPUS-What else is what? MR. CAIMANO-We've got a letter from Karla Corpus. MR. CARTIER-May 17. We don't have to do anything with this. This is just info for us. MS. CORPUS-No. If the Board has no objections to the Town Board being lead agent for certain amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, there are general code miscellaneous items, I believe. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. CORPUS-I would just request that the Board adopt a resolution designating the Town Board as lead agent to those particular amendments. MOTION TO DESIGNATE THE Tœ.N BOARD AS LEAD AGENT FOR CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, GENERAL CODE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Let me just slow down for 10 seconds here so I understand what we're doing. We're going to conduct a public hearing? MS. CORPUS-No. There will be a public hearing held, though. MR. CARTIER-By the Town Board? MS. CORPUS-By the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MS. CORPUS-And it's informing the Planning Board if any members wish to attend. MR. CARTIER-All right. Thank you. Does anybody have anything else? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. I do. I apologize to the Board for missing the meeting on May 8th, 1991, but I'd 1 ike to call to your attention something that happened. You were there, but I was asked to read the minutes, as all of us were, and I'd like to just go over about five lines of minutes and I think we may resolve a little problem. There is a discussion between this Board and Mrs. Crayford regarding the use or non-use of a checklist, and I'm on Page 3. Mrs. Crayford says, "It's not my feeling, it's what the Zoning Ordinance says. Mr. Martin says, "Right, your interpretation". Mrs. Crayford says, "No, my decision". Both the word "interpretation" and "decision" are underl ined and I presume from 30 - -- the underlining that, since I wasn't there, there was some heat in both of those words. Mr. Hagan, "Well, wouldn't it be kind of nice to enlighten us _as to how you reach certain decisions and that, in my mind, was what I thought this checkl ist was for." Of course, Mr. Hagan, as always, hits the nail right on the head. Mrs. Crayford says, "All right. I guess what you need to hear from me or have in written form from me is I've checked with the parking. I've checked everything you need to check, what is it, parking, setback, permeabil ity, anything that may cause a person to come for a variance." Mr. Cartier, "You're reading things from our checkl ist. You just gave us things off the checkl i st. " Mrs. Crayford, "That's right, but what I was frustrated wi th thi s checkl i st about was I've done all of this. It wouldn't be before you if I hadn't. So, why do you need a checklist?" Mr. Cartier, "Well, do you do it on paper?" Mrs. Crayford, "No." Must be the only person in the entire Town or any business in the world whose decision, and we call it a decision, means something and it's not committed to paper, and I think that is the crux of the entire matter. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we no longer call it an experiment, but require that the Zoning Administrator, if the Zoning Administrator is going to play such an important part in our decision making, reduce her decisions, in this case a her, to paper, like the rest of us do. I cannot imagine Mr. Dusek or Ms. Corpus or anybody else handing down any kind of a decision on anything, especially having to do with the public, where it isn't reduced to paper. MR. HAGAN-This is all brought out, if you read on, in the minutes. MR. CAIMANO-Right. I did. MR. HAGAN-And I think, Nick, lets break this thing down. She says she's going to try it for a period of time. Now, lets assume that this will enl ighten her as to why we want it and she will continue to use it. If, at the end of this period she says she isn't going to use it, then we can take her to task on it then. Lets not make problems before they happen. MR. CAIMANO-I'm not making a problem, and I agree with you, except that I'm suggesting how could this even be? How could such an important situation, such an important person, be allowed to make decisions without reducing them to writing? The rest of us have to do that. MR. CARTIER-I agree with everything you say. The problem I'm having is how do we go about doing that? The Zoning Administrator is not under our authority. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. Lets continue to do what Mr. Hagan says. If we find that for some reason it's dumped, then I for one, as a member of this Planning Board, will refuse to make a decision on anything that is not reduced to writing. We get writing from the engineer. We get writing from Town Planner. We get writing from the Town Attorney. We get writing from the Town Board. Now we have a Zoning Administrator, we've got to divine what this person says. If she insists on divining, then I insist that she sits here so that I can ask her a question or I will not make a decision. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else care to comment? MRS. PULVER-I just want to make a comment about that, and I guess I didn't know until I just heard it that she di dn' t wri te anythi ng down. I was assumi ng when someone came in she had somethi ng, I've reviewed this and it didn't need a variance, at the very minimum, but to refuse to address an applicant that's in front of you because the Zoning Administrator, I mean, whether it's complete or incomplete, I'm going to assume it's complete, but you don't have anything from the Zoning Administrator. It really does put a hardship on the applicant. MR. CAIMANO-Sure. MRS. PULVER-So, I think it has to ,go before that point. I mean, you have to get it resolved before the applicant gets here. MR. CAIMANO-Fine, but I don't think we should be making decisions where there's a judgement, a decision, that's not in writing, and we can't even ask a question about it. MRS. YORK-If I may address the Board. A lady came in tOday, Mrs. Judith Bartkowski. Mrs. Bartkowski developed this property some time ago, in 1987. She came in. At that time we were under the previous Ordinance which did not require subdivision approval for anything called a minor subdivision which was under four lots. The lady and her husband subdivided the property on paper, received three building permits in 1987 and a water permit to hook up to the water surface. They received driveway permits. They received certificates of occupancy. Unfortunately, their lawyer never filed the plat in Warren County. Mrs. Bartkowski went to sell a lot and discovered this was the situation. The zoning changed on the property in the interim and her lots, the lots that she had anticipated creating, were substandard. These are the pictures of the existing houses which you can look at, that are currently on the lots. This is down near the Hudson River. MRS. PULVER-You mean, she had sold two, Lee, already, and she was about to sell the third one now and found out she couldn't? MRS. YORK-Yes. 31 -- -'" MRS. PULVER-I mean, so there's two houses already there? MRS. YORK-She was living in one, I understand. A relative was living in another, or some such situation. I really didn't discuss the intricacies with her, and she was informed that she needed to have a subdivision. She first had to get an area variance for these lots which were now substandard, which she did. I'd like to read you the motion of the Zoning Board and it's dated May 15th, 1991. "I feel there are special conditions that apply to this property and the first is that the applicant was under the impression that, through a previous legal attempt to divide this property, that it was divided and met the 30,000 square foot requirement of the zone at the time of the subdivision. It appears that the actual recording of this subdivision never took place and as a result of that, the three existing single family residences came to be situated on one 2~ acre site. Because of this situation, a practical difficulty exists, that being that the three homes cannot be sold individually. This variance does not appear to be detrimental to the Ordinance. In fact, it may be an improvement over what the original subdivision called for. The improvement being that one of the lots would now become a conforming lot of one acre. This appears to be the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. It does not appear to be detrimental to the neighborhood. There is no neighborhood opposition and this does not have any adverse effects on publ ic facil ities. The Short EAF shows no negative impact." And the Zoning Board voted unanimously to approve the variance. Mrs. Bartkowski has come in and talked to me about her subdivision. Usually if it's over two lots you want to see three steps, Sketch, Preliminary, and Final. I would like to talk to the Board and suggest that possibly Mrs. Bartkowski could just do Preliminary approval and Final approval in this unique circumstances. MR. CARTIER-And as an Expedited Review. MR. HAGAN-I have a question, though, that might squash this whole thing. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Even though the lawyer screwed up when the land was subdivided, when the land was sold, each of the owners, I assume, had a deed, and those deeds were recorded. Were those deeds recorded before the change in the zone? MRS. YORK-There are no deeds. MS. CORPUS-There are not separate deeds. MR. HAGAN-There's no deeds? MS. CORPUS-The map was not filed and the deeds were not filed. There's one deed. MRS. YORK-Nothing was filed, so it was left as one lot. This woman fully believed that she could sell these properties up until about two months ago. What happened, at that point, was a lot of tears. At any rate, I decided that, in the interest of justice, here, since a map very similar to this except that the line was formerly where you see this dotted line here, was filed in the Town of Queensbury in the Building and Codes Department since 1987. That was the map the Building and Codes Department was working on when they gave the building permits. At that time, she only had to file a subdivision, not go through any Planning Board review or anything. So, subsequently, I felt it might be appropriate for me to talk to the Board about looking at waiving some of your standards in this case, such as topography. There is going to be no change on the property. Everything is there. It's preexisting. I don't know hOw-you want to go about it. MR. CARTIER-I'll bring a question out. Does this even need to go through engineering review? We need to save this woman some money. MR. HAGAN-There was no devious act performed, was there? MRS. YORK-No. It was perfectly innocent. It was just human error. MR. MARTIN-I would have her just submit the application. I would certainly accept the Preliminary and just submit the application with a request for a waiver on certain issues. MR. CARTIER-Could we not also do it at Preliminary one week and Final the second week? MRS. YORK-That's what I was also going to ask the Board if we can do it in one month? MR. CARTIER-Sure. MR. HAGAN-Who were the lawyers when the people bought the property? MRS. YORK-Mrs. Bartkowski 1 ives in one structure. I believe a relative was 1 iving in the other. She went to sell the third lot. 32 -.../ MR. HAGAN-But you don't buy anything without a deed. MRS. YORK-No. She was in ownership of the property. When she went to sell one of the lots, that's when she discovered it had not been legally subdivided because nothing had been filed. MR. HAGAN-Nobody made a search before they bought the property? MRS. YORK-Nobody bought the property. MR. HAGAN-She wants to. MRS. YORK-In 1987, we were not under the Ordinance we currently are now. That was passed in October 1, 1988. TI MOTHY BREWER MR. BREWER-Yes, but if you're going to build a house through the bank, you still have to have a search. MRS. YORK-The bank gave her funding for three separate houses at different times. You've got to realize that there was no legal requirement for review then and the bank probably was looking at the same map that was in the Building and Codes Department. I really can't understand it, but. MR. CARTIER-What you need from us, basically, is a motion to waive the subdivision regulations at the discretion of the Planning Staff? Do you want to do that? MRS. YORK-Well, I don't know if I need a motion. I was just going to ask you if you had any problems with me. MR. CAIMANO-Move it through. Go ahead. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, regarding certain elements of the Subdivision Regulations, the Board can take that up during the time that it hears the application. If, however, you are going to vary the requirement for Sketch Plan, I would recommend a motion be done. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, otherwise somebody else will come and do it. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Well, can we do a motion that covers everything. just so we're covered. JlJTION IN THE MATTER OF JUDITH AND FRANK BARTKCIISKI, WHOSE PROPERTY IS ON BIG BAY ROAD, THAT lIE WAIVE THE NORMAL PROCESSES OF SKETCH PLAN BECAUSE OF THE UNI~E CIRCUMSTANCES AND ALLCII THE PLANNING STAFF TO DETERMINE WHICH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SHOOLD BE WAIVED IN THIS CASE, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1991, by the following vote: MRS. YORK-Would you mind looking at a map like this? MR. CARTIER-Not at all. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Does anybody have anything else? The next meeting is this coming Tuesday. If there's nothing else. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 33