Loading...
1991-06-25 "--' ~ QUEENSBURY PlANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25TH, 1991 INDEX Site Plan No. 25-91 Site Plan No. 32- 91 Site Plan No. 31-91 Margaret F. & Theodore M. Hans 1. Frank Sears 3. Nigro Real Estate and Empire Video Superstore 9. Site Plan No. 36-91 Frank and Kathleen England 11. Subdivision No. 5-1991 FINAL STAGE EXPEDITED MATTER Judith and Frank Bartkowski 13. Site Plan No. 37-91 Harold Lansburg 14. Subdivision No. 8-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE James R. & Joann Curcio 17. Subdivision No. 6-1991 FINAL STAGE Bowen Subdivision Gary D. and Suzanne F. Bowen 21. Site Plan No. 38-91 Joan M. Lee 21. Subdivision No. 7-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Ferguson Subdivision Robert E. Sharp, D.D.S., D.M.D. 23. Off Premises Sign Permit No. 3-91 J A P Auto Fix 28. Site Plan No. 39-91 Eugene Zielinski 31. 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. - --../ QUEENSIIJRY PLAMING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO EDWARD LAPOINT TIMOTHY BREWER JAMES HAGAN JAMES MARTIN DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: /.A\ ~,~!) SITE PLAN NO. 25-91 TYPE I WR-lA MRGARET F. I THEODORE M. HANS OWNER: SAME A$ ABOVE GUNN LANE, CLEVERDALE TO EXPAND A PREEXISTING HOME AND ATTACHED GARAGE. (WARREN coom PLAfÙlING) TAX MP NO. 12-3-16 LOT SIZE: 1:1 ACRE SECTION WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 25-91, Margaret F. and Theodore M. Hans, June 21, 1991, Meeting Date: June 25, 1991 "On June 19, the applicant received variances for shoreline setbacks and for an expansion of over 50 percent. A SEQRA Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Board previously. The project is before the Board for a site plan review and was reviewed with regard to Section 179-38 (formerly 7.070). 1. The location, arrangement, and size of the building has been found to be compatible with the site. 2. Vehicular access is not a concern. 3. There are 10 parking spaces identified on the plan. There appears to be a lot for a residential site. Since the permeable area on the site is very close to the minimum allowed by code, the Board may want to consider reduction of the parking spaces to increase the permeable area. 4. Pedestrian access is not a concern. 5. The engineer has commented on the drainage. 6. The lot has a new holding tank which is adequate for the structure and an existing well. 7. The applicant indicated that they had a landscaping plan for the site. Since it is a waterfront property with other residences behind it, the Board should make sure that any proposed trees do not infringe on the neighbors view. 8. Emergency access is not a problem. 9. Erosion control standards should be adhered to during construction." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, June 20, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. SWM management to address increased runoff from proposed additional impermeable areas is adequate with 70 feet of eave trench." MR. CARTIER-I believe there's someone here representing the applicant? MR. REHM-I'm Walter Rehm and I represent Mr. and Mrs. Hans. As the Board knows, we went through this project in some detail, last month, on the SEQRA evaluation, and I would just inquire as to how much detail you would like. Would you like just kind of an overview and then do this on a question and answer basis? MR. CARTIER-Well, if someone else wants an overview, but I don't need one. I would suggest maybe you may want to comment on Staff Notes, particularly Item 3 and 7. MR. REHM-I haven't seen the Staff Notes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. REHM-(After looking at Notes} That doesn't really bother us at all. I mean, we can reduce the number of parking spaces to, there's parking in the garage, we can reduce it by 50 percent, I would think, to five parking spaces. 1 "--' MR. CARTIER-Great. MR. REHM-These are permeable parking spaces, but are not counted as permeable in Queensbury? MR. CARTIER-In Queensbury, correct. MR. REHM-And the other one was? MR. CAIMANO-Seven. MR. REHM-Just to clarify, it would be a maximum of five parking spaces. John was just mentioning to me that he doesn't think it would even be that many because of the landscaping plan and so on, but if the Board is satisfied with a maximum of five, we would not exceed that. Well, you'll recall that we presented a site line evaluation at the last meeting. MR. CARTIER-Yes. That had to do with the building itself, however, not any landscaping. MR. REHM-I think it's fair to ask the question. I'm not so sure what the answer is, other than saying that Mr. and Mrs. Hans will trim the trees that are put in, to the extent that they will not unreasonably interfere with the view of the lake from the people in the back. It's the houses in the back that are most impacted and perhaps the second Kittredge house which is a 1 ittle cabin on the back of that lot, but I don't know what else we can do. We're trying to landscape the property to make it aesthetically pleasing. On the other hand, I think no tree in an area where it impacts a view would exceed some predetermined height. I don't have an answer for exactly what that height would be though. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think it's a valid point by Mrs. York because we're putting up a much larger building here that does have an impact on the view. We've dealt with that and we want to be sure that we don't do thi s anymore. I understand that the nei ghbors behi nd have no objecti on to thi s appl i cati on, but looking long term down the road, unfortunately, we don't all live forever and there are going to be other people living in those places at some point. MR. CAIMANO-Could we go back, though, for a second, and lets put some reality into this. We already talked about the things that we could do something about and that's the building and we agreed that the line of site was proper. We're talking about trees that are going to grow. We can no more determine here what's going to happen than any other property on the lake. I mean, everybody has to be a neighbor to everybody else. I think it's a pig in a poke, frankly. There's nothing we can do about that. We can't determine how high the tree is going to grow. MR. CARTIER-Well, we can say that the trees will not be placed in such a way as to further reduce line of site behind that. We certainly have that right to do that. MR. CAIMANO-I think we're going way out of bounds. MR. REHM-Well, I would simply assure the Board, Mr. and Mrs. Hans are here, and I would simply assure the Board that they will exercise restraint and common sense. If a tree gets to the point that it does materially interfere with the view of one of the houses and it's made known to them, I'm sure that they would cooperate. 1'm not sure that the Town of Queensbury wants to get involved in making the determination as to what portion of what tree comes off. MR. CARTIER-No, we don't. MR. REHM-As a matter of fact, I'm very sure of that, but other than that I really don't know what else I can say. I did mention, at the SEQRA meeting and also at the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I'll reiterate tonight, that there will be no use of insecticides or pesticides on the property. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Or fertilizers, we also mentioned fertilizers. Thank you. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions or comments on Staff? If not, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We have done the SEQRA on this already. Anybody on the Board have any questions or comments? MR. MARTIN-I think the applicant's gone to quite an extent to prove, or to make sure that the site lines and all that are favorable for the neighbors. I don't have any problem with the plan as it is, and I will take him up on his offer of the 50 percent parking reduction. MR. CAIMANO-Right. 2 '- MR. CARTIER-Great. Okay. I guess we just need to incorporate that into a motion, then. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 11). 25-91 MARGARET F. I THEOOORE M. HANS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To expand a preexisting home and attached garage, with the following notations: Number One, the parking of 10 spots be reduced 50 percent to five spots, and Two, a record is to be made of Mr. Rehm's comments tonight, indicating that the Hans' will take due diligence in their landscaping. Number Three, no pesticides or fertilizers are to be used on the property. Four, 70 feet of eaves trench to be installed. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-We're going to step off the agenda, here, the one that you might have seen tonight, to go back and pick up some Old Business from last week. SITE PLAN NO. 35-91 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-2O FRANK SEARS OWNER: CHRISTINE SEARS SOOTH END OF STEVENS ROAD, 1 MILE PAST (WEST) ON CORINTH ROAD FROM rfORTlllAY, LEFT ONTO STEVES ROAD TO THE VERY END. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX. TAX IMP NO. 147-1-44.41 LOT SIZE: 2.28 ACRES SECTION 4.020 G MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT; FRANK SEARS, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-A question came up, last week, in reference to this property, as to whether or not a business was being operated there, and we have a letter from the Zoning Administrator. I'll read that into the record, this is to the Planning Board from Pat Crayford, Zoning Administrator, date June 25, 1991 "I met with Frank Sears on June 24, 1991 and also reviewed the transcript of his appearance at the June 18, 1991 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Sears stated that his son placed an ad in the Post Star to test the waters for responses. He also stated that he does use the equipment at his own site, but does not operate a business at his home. David and I did speak with Mr. Sears, nearly a year ago, about operating a tree service at his property on Stevens Road. Mr. Sears insisted that he is not operating a business and there was no proof to dispute this. He had no equipment with his name or phone number and there was no advertising of this service. As of today, there is an ad in the Post Star that reads 'Action Tree Service, Frank Sears, call 793-8466'. I have determined that the storage of heavy equipment at Frank Sears property is associated with Action Tree Service. Heavy Equipment Storage is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as 'the exterior or interior storage and maintenance of large operational equipment, such as trucks, bulldozers, backhoes, engines, compressors, and other similar machinery for use on another lot'. This is a permitted use only in a Light Industrial zone. It is not permitted in a suburban residential zone." So the problem we're confronted with, here, is that we have a business that's being operated in a Residential zone and there is no record of approval of that business with regard to variances or that sort of thing. In the yellow pages, there's also a Keith Norton who is advertising a tree business of some sort with a Stevens Lane address also. I don't know if this is the same building or not. Is there someone here representing the applicant? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. I'm here, I guess, primarily to address the issue that you just brought up, not necessarily to address the site plan itself. Mr. Steves, from VanDusen and Steves, has been presenting that. I think if you look at the memorandum of Pat Crayford, you will find that there is very little in there that we dispute and really the only indication in there that there is something that's in the operation of a business is the ad that was placed in the Post Star, which Mr. Sears explains as being an ad placed there at the request of his son who operates a tree business in Saratoga, to test the waters to see if it would justify him trying to open up a branch of that business in Saratoga some place in the Town of Queensbury, based upon the competition that's here. They used Frank's address and phone and made a mistake in doing so. MR. CARTIER-Are you representing to us that no heavy equipment trucks go down Stevens Road to that garage? MR. O'CONNOR-Not in the operation of a business, and I have an affidavit to submit to the Board. MR. CARTIER-Well, are there heavy equipment trucks that go down Stevens Road to that garage, irregardless of business? MR. SEARS-There has been. MR. CARTIER-Why do they go down that road? MR. SEARS-Because I own them, sir, and I live there, and if I need something sometimes I go home to get it. 3 '---" -- MR. CARTIER-Could you identify yourself on the record? MR. SEARS-Frank Sears. MR. CARTIER-How many vehicles go down the road, here? MR. SEARS-I have one large truck and one pickup. MR. CARTIER-I wish you had been here last week. We have a number of residents in the area who are complaining about the operation of heavy trucks on this road in a residential area. What is that garage used for, that big garage that's there? That's a three bay garage? MR. SEARS-Right now, personal equipment. MR. CARTIER-By "personal equipment", what do you mean? MR. SEARS-I have a tractor in it. My pick up's in it, and some equipment I use around the yard. MR. HAGAN-Isn't that related to your livelihood? MR. SEARS-No. I work full time for the State of New York. MR. HAGAN-What do you use bulldozer stuff for personally? MR. SEARS-Well, some of it's left over from the tree business, from when I was in the tree business full time. There's a lot of equipment there that never leaves the yard. MR. HAGAN-See, I have a problem disputing all your neighbors who claim that that building is used for business purposes. and that's the part of the argument I'd like to. MR. SEARS-It has been, in the past. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, can I address that, in the aspect of from this day forward? Apparently, there has been some concern because there has been some outside storage of equipment outside the barn and occasionally if Mr. Sears is not working for the State or working from the State comes back and forth to his house, he does go up and down that road. Sometimes he's driving a heavy duty truck when he's doing that. What we would propose to you is simply that. MR. CARTIER-What is the nature of the heavy duty truck? MR. SEARS-It's a crane. It's a truck crane. MR. CARTIER-It's a truck crane. Used for, in the tree business? MR. SEARS-No. It's used for putting up signs, air conditioners, and roof trusses and that type of thing. MR. CARTIER-Well, do you do that free? You don't do that for nothing, do you? That's a business. That's a business vehicle, is it not? MR. SEARS-Well, it started out to be a business, but it hasn't really worked out that way. MR. CARTIER-But you're operating a business vehicle out of that garage. I don't want to dance around this thing. We've spent a lot of time dancing around with it. What I'm hearing is that there is a crane truck going up and down Stevens Lane that's being used for business, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, a business is, in fact, being operated. We're not going to get into how much business is being done. The fact of the matter is a business is being operated out of that Stevens Lane property, in violation of the Town of Queensbury Ordinances. MR. MARTIN-I don't dispute the point you're making. I think that it's probably pretty much on the mark, but even getting back to the letter, here, it's not just simply the operation of a business. It's storage of equipment, whether it's in support of a business or not. That is why equipment is not allowed in a Residential zone, for no matter what use it goes back and forth on that road. It is simply not supposed to be there, whether it's personal, business related, or not. It's not supposed to be there in a Residential zone because of the danger it can impose on the neighborhood. So, therefore, whether it's business related or it's just simply there for personal storage, it's not supposed to be there. 4 ---.,/ MR. O'CONNOR-I would 1 ike to submit, for the record, an affidavit that Mr. Sears is will ing to make as a condition to his application for this site plan approval. I would also like to advise the Board that as of yesterday and tOday, as I understand it, there have been arrangements to move the equipment that is in question and is objectionable from the property. It is being stored in a Light Industrial zone or will be stored in a Light Industri al zone. Now there is some tree cl earance that's goi ng on on his own property, as part of his plans for construction, and it's being used there for that purpose at this point, but the intention is to remove it from the site, when that's completed, and he has removed some of the equipment already from the site. Part of it's going to a Light Industrial zone in the Town of Queensbury. Some of it's going to an equipment sales operation in the Town of Moreau. MR. CARTIER-So, in other words, we're moving any business operation that's there permanently out of that area? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, sir. MR. MARTIN-And the equipment that's been stored. MR. CARTIER-Correct. Good point. MRS. PULVER-Mike, I want you to know, last week during the public hearing, the neighbors were objecting not so much to the duplex, but that the duplex was going to create additional traffic to the traffic that Mr. Sears already was creating with his trucks. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I haven't seen the minutes of that, so I accept that. Basically, what Mr. Sears is saying, and I won't get into the preliminary parts of it, is that I realize that his past activity has caused some concern. To end this, I am willing to stipulate that I would use this barn for storage of personal property only. All equipment will be removed from site, if not stored within. Any equipment that I am using actively, even in a limited fashion, I will store elsewhere. MR. CARTIER-Great. MR. HAGAN-Would you be willing to add the words "noncommercial vehicles", because I think the objection is that commercial vehicles represent some kind of a business. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don't think our Ordinance, Mr. Hagan, says that you can't take a commercial vehicle home if you happen to drive it as your means of transportation. MR. HAGAN-I'm not talking about pickup trucks. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm tal king about a heavy duty truck. Take a look at the guy who drives for All ied. He takes the truck home and he parks it next to his house. I'd have a problem with that broad a stipulation. I would. MR. CARTIER-Well, what we're saying, basically, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong is, we want to remove any business operation from that piece of property. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I think Mr. Sears is willing to do that. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It sounds like that. Just to be very crystal clear here, my only question would be, what is your definition of personal property? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Bulldozers, earth movers? MR. SEARS-No. I don't have any bulldozers. MR. O'CONNOR-If they're there for personal use, I also don't think that we have anything in our Ordinance that says that you can't have a bulldozer if you're using it for your own personal use on your property. Are we into regulating how big a tractor you have on your yard? If it's not used for business. I am willing to stipulate he will not have any equipment that's there used for business. MR. CAIMANO-You're putting fine edges on this thing. You wouldn't take that to the Supreme Court and you know it. You know what we're talking about and we all know what we're talking about. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This is not an application for business either. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but it's been an issue that's been brought up, and appropriately brought up here, I think. MR. SEARS-Any of thi s equipment that woul d be stored in that barn woul d not be used for any type of business. It would never leave the property. 5 '-.-/ -....../ MR. MARTIN-Again, I want to stress. I don't care if you're in business or not, the plain, of the matter is, there is not supposed to be a crane truck, a double axle crane truck, of that nature on that site in a Residential zone stored there. Plain, simple, period. interpretation of it. simple fact or anything That is my MR. SEARS-I understand that. MR. MARTIN-The business is irrelevant, not to say that the business isn't allowed also, but even if it's storage, it's not supposed to be there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of the appl icant? I know the public hearing was left open. MRS. PULVER-Mr. Sears, when did you build the apartment over the garage? What year was that? MR. SEARS-When the house was built. MRS. PULVER-What year was that? MR. SEARS-'78, '79, somewhere around there. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Would anybody else from the public care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ED NORTON MR. NORTON-I'm Ed Norton, and I 1 ive just up the street from Frank. I've got a couple of questions. He said his son put these ads in. I'll leave them with you. You can look at them. I believe every one of those ads says Frank Sears and his telephone number on all of them. Also on his trucks, Frank Sears, not Mike. Mike Sears has a different telephone number for his business. MR. CARTIER-Do you have a place, Mr. Sears, to store, at this point I'm hearing you have a place to store all of this heavy equipment that you use in your business, correct? MR. SEARS-Yes, sir. I have a place to store all the equipment. The crane was moved today. MR. CARTIER-So, there is no need, if I understand correct, for example, for that to run up and down Stevens Lane to your house. You have a personal vehicle that you can drive to the location, wherever this is parked and drive this to the job, drive it back and park it in a non-residential zone and take your own personal vehicle home. Is that correct? MR. SEARS-Yes, sir. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SEARS-Sir, it was on the property because we were using it taking trees down on the property. MR. CARTIER-In connection with this duplex construction, correct? MR. SEARS-Yes. We were clearing lines for the power. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, once this duplex is built, there won't be any other heavy equipment involved? MR. SEARS-The crane is out of there now. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I have a letter, and it says, "To Whom it May Concern: I reside on Stevens Road. I am home all day long and trucks from Sears Tree Business are up and down Stevens Road from morning, noon, afternoon, and evening. Signed, Geraldine Dwyer" MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SEARS-Well, somebody's making a mistake, because very rarely does even my pickup go up and down the road. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I think you get the sense of where we're coming from, here, where the neighborhood's coming from at this point. If, in the future, a piece of heavy equipment goes down that road, I suspect 6 -'--' '--' that somebody in the Town of Queensbury is going to get a phone call. Okay, and somebody will be driving out there to talk to you again, and I hope what you're representing to us is going to be held to, that there is going to be no business operated. There is going to be no heavy equipment stored there in any way, shape, or form. MR. SEARS-That's right, sir. MR. CARTIER-Great. Okay. MR. NORTON-The other thing, last week, we were talking about was the size of this garage, when he got a variance for the size of the garage that all these vehicles are in. Now, he did take his crane out, today, and it's down at Arrowhead Equipment right now. His chipper went out probably about 7:30 this morning. He still has a stump grinder. I didn't see that go out tOday. That's been there, but the garage was something we were supposed to find out about this week. The one that's on his property plan, where it's cut so the new property is going to include that garage in it. Remember, last week we were going to find out whether that ever had a building permit or a variance to put that large of a garage in there? I'm within the 500 feet and I never got notice of a garage going in there, of that size. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's a separate enforcement issue and I'm not really sure where we need to go with that. MR. CAIMANO-Well, it may be a separate enforcement issue, but it goes to the heart of the matter of veracity here. Why don't we let Mr. Sears prove his worth first, get the stuff out. Find the place for it, show that he's going to be a good neighbor and then come back. MR. NORTON-As long as his equipment is out of there, I've got no complaint about his new duplex whatsoever. I am interested in that garage, the way it's cut out to go to the new property, if he's indeed going to keep a business and he's going to move into the new house, then he's still got his garage for his business. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's a future situation we can't deal with tonight. You certainly can deal with that in the future, if and when, and I don't think it's going to happen, a business shows up there. MR. NORTON-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I don't know if we can do anything about the size of the garage, either. That's a preexisting structure. That doesn't come into the context of this review. MR. SEARS-Sir, there's still a couple of pieces of equipment there that have to be moved. It will probably be tomorrow or the next day. I think what our plans are, in the future, as soon as the duplex is built, is to get a permit to remove the garage from the property. It's kind of an eyesore to us, now. MR. HAGAN-That would solve everything. MR. SEARS-And it's exhausted it's use. It's too big. I'm being taxed on it. So that was our next move. MR. CARTIER-Great. JOHN SENECAL MR. SENECAL-My name is John Senecal and I also live on Stevens Road and I don't have any problem with Frank at all, and I don't have any problem with Mr. Norton, or excuse me, Keith, having his business there either. If they're both going to move them out, then that's fine with me. The only thing I have a problem with is with the trucks going up and down the street as they do. I have a six year old, and I worry about that. We also have a little blind girl on the street and I wish that if, you know, any success he has, I have no problem with the duplex whatsoever, but I wish that they would keep in mind what they've talked about doing tonight, because we do have our children there. MR. MARTIN-I've got a question for you. to be a lot of businesses on this street. As a pure resident, I hope, on the road only, there seems How many are we talking about? MR. SENECAL-Well, this isn't Beverly Hills. This is Queensbury, NY and we all don't have jobs like you have. We have to earn a living, too. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I know, but how many heavy equipment related businesses are operating on this street? MR. SENECAL-Just the two that I can see. I have my pickup, there, which is a commercial vehicle. It's not a bulldozer. 7 ~ --../ MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I'm beginning to think that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, here. MR. SENECAL-That's true, and I admit to Mr. Sears, I have a small compressor, that fits on the back of my truck in my storage shed out back, okay, which I do use for my business, but it's not heavy equipment. MR. CARTIER-Understand, if there is a business operating in this neighborhood that is not allowed, this Town cannot do anything about it until we know about it. Okay, but we're not going to clear up everything tonight. We have just this one site plan we're dealing with. Is there anyone else who would care to comment from the public? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any other questions or cOlll11ents? Well, we need to conduct a SEQRA Review and then make a motion that's going to be a rather long motion, I think. MRS. PULVER-Well, I was just going to say, if this was going to be a motion to approve, I'm somewhat leaning toward what Nick said. Maybe we wait. I think I would feel better, in this case, having the equipment. Going back, checking the site again, and I don't have any questions about the duplex. I don't have any problem with the duplex. MR. O'CONNOR-Is it possible that you might accompl ish the goal that the Board is talking about and also not necessarily delay the appl icant by indicating that the Building Department were not to issue a Building Permit until they had ascertained that all construction equipment had been removed from the site, per your approval? MRS. PULVER-No, because that could be a year. MR. CAIMANO-Right. and the answer is wrapped up in the SEQRA Review. We can't possibly put a negative dec SEQRA on this thing knowing what we know right now. No way. MRS. PULVER-But I could vote for giving them, like, two weeks. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I don't have a problem with the time limitation either. I'm just trying to do something tonight as opposed to coming back next month and saying, have you done what you've said in your application. Every applicant comes in and makes representations to you, and all we're saying is that we are going to comply with the representations that we have made to you. If you want to put a time limit on it, that's fine. If you wanted to put a secondary review of it, in the sense that compliance is shown, compliance, then that's fine. MRS. PULVER-No. I could live with a time limit to have all the equipment removed in a specific amount of time. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We can live with two weeks, if that's satisfactory to yourself. MR. CARTIER-I think we can do a SEQRA if we are willing to agree that the concerns have been mitigated and will be mitigated by the removal of the heavy equipment from storage. MR. CAIMANO-Is it a Long Form? MR. CARTIER-It's a Short Form. MR. CAIMANO-Lets try and see what happens. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF 10 SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 35-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: MR. CARTIER-Carol's just brought up a good point. Tom, did we ever go through your engineering notes on this? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. Mr. Steves took the advantage of addressing Items A, B, and C, quite thoroughly during the last meeting. Items D and E would be corrected by simply erasures on his plan to address the proposed conditions. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a duplex frœ CHRISTINE SEARS, south end of Stevens Road, 1 .11e past (west) on Corinth Road frœ the Northw." and 8 '-' -..../ WHEREAS, thi s Pl anning 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: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion. tllTlON TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-91 FRANK SEARS, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: With the following stipulations: That all heavy equipment present on the site, and as defined in the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, be removed from the site to an acceptable location within the Town or elsewhere, by July 9th, 1991. Number Two, that he adhere to the affidavit as presented during this meeting and dated June 25th. Number Three, that New York State Erosion and Sediment Control measures be adhered to during the construction of the proposed duplex. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-We have one other piece of Old Business tonight, also. SITE PLAN NO. 31-91 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-lA MR-5 NIGRO REAL ESTATE AND EMPIRE VIDEO SUPERSTORE OWNER: JOHN NIGRO RooTE 9, UPPER GLEN STREET, 500 FT. SOOTH OF AVIATION ROAD FOR A 1,000 SQ. n. ADDnlOl TO EMPIRE VIDEO STORE. FOR EXPANSION TO ACCOtll)l)ATE INCREASED MOVIE DISPLAY AREA. (WARREN CooNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 99-2-1 TAX MAP NO.. 102-1-2, 3, 4, 23 LOT SIZE: 11 ACRES SECTION 4.020-J MACK DEAN, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-We had some minor details that we wanted to get cleared up. As I recall it was traffic patterns, signage. Lee did you have any further notes on this? I don't believe you did. MRS. YORK-No. MR. YARMOWICH-There is a letter addressing the engineering concerns. MR. CAIMANO-In the stuff we just got? MR. LAPOINT-No. It was attached to the revised drawing Lee passed out. There should be a single thin package. 9 -- '-' MR. HAGAN-Stamp dated June 24th. MR. LAPOINT-It was just passed out here tonight. MR. CARTIER-Right here? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. From Tom Yarmowich, "We've reviewed the revised project and engineering concerns have been adequately addressed." Thank you. That's it, right? MR. YARMOWICH-That's it. MR. CARTIER-There was signage. That appears to be taken care of. Traffic, Lee, refresh my memory if you can. Didn't we also talk about arrows on the pavement? MRS. YORK-On the pavement? Yes, we did. MR. CARTIER-And that's been shown. Anything else? Mr. Dean? MR. DEAN-Just for the record, my name is Mack Dean from Morse Engineering representing Nigro Real Estate and Charlie Mench from Empire Video and I have, at this point, no comment. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. CAIMANO-Can I ask a question? Was this discussed at the meeting I wasn't present at? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-What happened to the rear entrance? MR. CARTIER-It's still there. MRS. PULVER-It's there. MR. MARTIN-It's there. MR. LAPOINT-They put it in. When he was here, we were discussing it. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I know I left the public hearing open. Is there anyone who would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We did not conduct a SEQRA. SO. we can do that in Short Form. RESOWTlON WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 31-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a 1,000 sq. ft. addition to EMPIRE VIDEO STORE for expansion to accœ.odate increased lIOYie display area, OtiIned by JOIfIt NIGRO. Route 9, Upper Glen Street, south of Aviation Road, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 10 -"--' --- 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Would somebody care to make a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAI NO. 31-91 NIGRO REAL ESTATE AND EMPIRE VIDEO SUPERSTORE, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a 1,000 sq. ft. addition to Empire Video Store. For expansion to accommodate increased movie display area. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have one other piece of business from last week. There was an item on the agenda that needed to be put on this agenda instead. SITE PLAN NO. 36-91 TYPE I WR-lA FRANK AID KATHLEEN ENGLAND (lØ(ER: SAME AS ABOVE HILUMI ROAD, CLEVERDALE, 210 LEFT OFF CLEVERDALE ROAD FROM ROOTE 9L FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DEN, GARAGE, AND PORCH. RESIDENCE WILL BE OWNER OCCUPIED. PART OF THE DEN AND PORCH ARE WITHIN 75 FT. OF THE LAKE. PART OF THE DEN IS WITHIN 13 FT. FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 12-3-34.1 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 9.010, EXPANSION OF A NOICONFORMING STRUCTURE FRANK ENGLAND, PRESENT MRS. YORK-This was a little bit confusing and I want to make the Board aware that when the Englands came in, they were not even aware that they had an approved site plan on the books. We were all surprised at this. What happened was the Englands had a variance over a year ago and then they had a site plan review some time later. Their variance lapsed and they re-appl ied for their variances which they have received. So when I went through and looked at this, I realized that the modifications that would be going on, that they had, Number One, an existing site plan. The modifications to that site plan were very minor in nature, and so it could possibly change the SEQRA determination. However, when we made the determination that it was a Type I, we were unaware of this. So, I've left it up to the Board to make a decision, but I wanted you to know I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with Karla or get her thinking on it since Staff Review because of the constraints in my office at the time, and I wanted you to be aware of what went on. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but we have a letter from Karla, now, too, which boils down to that we're going to decide, I guess you're in agreement that it's. MRS. YORK-Okay. I did help the Englands do a Long Form and we have a Short Form. So whatever your decision is on this, we're prepared. So, would you like me to read my comments? MR. CARTIER-Yes, and then we'll get back to that issue. STAFF INPUT 11 '--' -../ Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 36-91, Frank & Kathleen England, June 19, 1991, Meeting Date: June 25, 1991 "The Englands had a site plan review approved for substantially the same addition on 11/20/90. The appl icants variance for a 10 foot side yard setback expired and in their new plan they have re-positioned the den and garage so they need less of a variance (13 feet from the shorel ine). The appl icant received the new variance on June 19. The only difference between the plan before the Board and the approved one the applicant has is that the den will be expanded out to the north end of the garage, rather than stopping at the north end of the house. This addition to the plan is an area ±1O ft. x 5'4". The applicant has placed a new septic system on the property. They have already agreed to put three drywells to handle the increased storm water runoff from the addition and existing structure. The applicant has undertaken to mitigate any environmental impacts. The Deputy Town Attorney wanted this project listed as a Type I action for SEQRA purposes. Upon review of the file the Planning Staff felt that the Board may want to consider this a Type II action. The reasons being 1) This is in actuality a minor modification to an existing site plan approval. 2) The Board has already done previous SEQRA determination on the project 3) Section 617.13 of the SEQRA provisions state that a Type II action is (a) Actions or classes of actions which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment are classified as Type II actions and do not require environmental impact statements or any other determination or procedure under this part. Under this Type II heading is: (8) Construction or placement of minor structure accessory or appurtenant to existing facilities, including garages, carports, patios, home swimming pools, fences, barns or other buildings not changing land use or density including upgrading of buildings to meeting building or fire codes. When the SEQRA determination was made the Staff was unaware that the applicant had an existing approval and was simply modifying it." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lets deal with that right now. Type II for this modification we don't do a SEQRA. What's the Board's feeling? Type I we do a SEQRA. Is this Board satisfied that the SEQRA? MR. LAPOINT-I think it's definitely a Type II. MR. CAIMANO-I do, too. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So no SEQRA is necessary. Tom, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, June 14, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Gravel drives and parking areas and sidewalks are considered impermeable for the purposes of "green" space requirements. Including these areas in the calculations results in a 72% "green space" and is in compliance with zoning. 2. Site plan 10-90, for similar improvements to the England residence, included drywells to manage runoff from the driveway and roof. It is suggested that the included SWM drywells be stipulated as a part of this site plan. 3. Soil erosion and sediment control for disturbed areas should be provided in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We have a letter from Warren County Planning Board indicating "No County Impacts", and Karla's letter, basically, has been dealt with at this point. Mr. England, would you care to address the Board please. MR. ENGLAND-Actually, the reason we came back to you is because we had your approval the last time and by the time the architect drew the pl ans up and we had it checked, we found out that the way the architect had drawn the plans up, we were two feet too close to the septic system. So we went back and had them re-drawn to meet it and at thi s time it turned out the den was going to be about 8 by 9 so we figured we might as well go out to where the garage was. Then that was when we came back in to see the Planning Board and the Zoning Board to see what we had to do. Other than that, everything's the same. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who'd care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any questions or comments? MR. CAIMANO-Just a question to Mr. England regarding Tom's Number Two note. There was a suggestion by Tom that he include drywells to manage runoff. Tom's suggestion is that, "the previously included stonnwater management drywells be stipulated as part of this site plan." Do you have any problem with that? MR. ENGLAND-No. If you look at the site plan in our application, we've got the same ones back in there again. 12 --- --.-" MR. CAIMANO-Fine. Okay. MS. CORPUS-I would recolIITend to the Board that since you have decided it's a Type II action, if you could just mention that in any resolution that you adopt with regard to the approval. MR. CARTIER-Okay. If there are no other questions, we can entertain a motion on this application. JlJTlON TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 10. 36-91 FRANK I KATHLEEN ENGLAND, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: With the following notes: Number One, it is a Type II action and no SEQRA is needed. Number Two, Mr. Yarmowich's letter of June 14th is to be complied with. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Brewer MR. MARTIN-I think the applicant is to be commended for his sticktoitiveness and good hearted attitude during all of this. It was very much appreciated. MR. ENGLAND-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're back on the agenda. NEW IIJSINESS: EXPEDITED MATTER: BARTKOWSKI (illER: SIZE: 2.57 ACRES SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1991 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA JUDITH AND FRANK SAME AS ABOVE BIG BAY ROAD FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MP NO. 143-1-1.7 LOT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 5-1991, Judith and Frank Bartkowski, June 11, 1991, Meeting Date: June 25, 1991 "This 3 lot subdivision on Big Bay Road is an expedited matter. The subdivision was built in 1987 with all appropriate permits being issued. Due to human error the mylar and deeds were never filed. This error was discovered a few months ago and the applicant had to re-apply for subdivision approval for 3 lots which will have no further development. There are no planning issues involved in this division of and staff recommends approval." MR. CARTIER-This is an Expedited Matter. If the Board has no questions, I'll go directly to a public hearing. Is there anyone who'd care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-This is simply to establish some legal lines, here, basically, is all it amounts to. MR. CAIMANO-Are these all the same way, or just this one? MR. CARTIER-Just this one. MR. MARTIN-This is a very unique situation. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Do we need to do a Short Form on this? MRS. YORK-I think you did it at Preliminary. MR. CAIMANO-This is Final isn't it? MR. CARTIER-That's right. Thank you. Okay. We can entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1991 JUDITH AND FRANK BARTIallSKI, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For a 3 lot subdivision. 13 '-' -../ Duly adopted this 25th day of June. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 37-91 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA HAROLD LANSIIIRG (lINER: SAME AS ABOVE UPPER SHEIUM AVENUE, ACROSS FROM SMOKE RIDGE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 1110 FAMILY HOME. TAX IMP NO. 121-4-3.2 LOT SIZE: 5li ACRES SECTION 4.020-G HAROLD LANSBURG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 37-91, Harold Lansburg, June 24, 1991, Meeting Date: June 25, 1991 "This application is to place a duplex on 5~ acres on Upper Sherman Avenue. The zoning is SR-IA and duplexes are allowable with site plan review. The applicant has provided information stating that the lot will remain treed and clearing will be minimal. Also, due to the acreage, drainage should not be a concern. It is indicated that the septic system will be in accordance with Town of Queensbury standards. This application was reviewed with regard to the site plan criteria. 1. The location, arrangement, and size of the structure is not a concern. 2. The Board has had a recommendation from a fire chief that any multifamily structure with a driveway over 100 ft. keep a cleared 10 ft. accessway on either side of the driveway. The driveway goes around the structure in rather an unusual design. It would seem to be a difficult entrance way and could possibly be improved. There seem to be a number of unnecessary angles. 3. The residences both have carports and there should be sufficient parking. 4. Pedestrian access is not a concern. 5. The lot size as compared to the structure, as well as the distance from the surrounding structures makes stonnwater drainage not a concern. 6. The structure will be Town water and have a conforming septic system. 7. The area will be heavily treed. 8. Emergency access seems sufficient. 9. The land is not susceptible to ponding or flooding." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom. ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Tom Yarmowich, Rist Frost, Town Engineer, June 13, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Regarding Subsurface Sewage Disposal: a. The septic tank located beneath the driveway should be designed for traffic loading. b. Percolation test with test pit data and date performed should be provided with test location shown on the plans. c. The septic system sizing criteria (i .e. number of bedrooms in each proposed unit) should be stated." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Mr. Lansburg. MR. LANSBURG-What do I have to do? MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess what I'd like you to do is address the comments the Staff have made. MR. LANSBURG-The driveway comes up the lot line and makes one turn into the back and it's plenty wide. MR. CAIMANO-They're concerned about the little zig zags. MR. LANSBURG-There's only one turn in it. To explain it, you come up the lot line like this and you go into the back. That rear area is a parking area. MR. MARTIN-It seems to me like you've just drawn a bunch of angles because you're trying to make a straight lines. It's just going to be a curved driveway that curves all along the back of the building, right? MR. LANSBURG-There's one curve on the back of the building where you come up the lot line and you just turn into the back of the building. There's no entrance way from the front, from the road. It's just grass. MRS. YORK- I guess, Mr. Lansburg, what we're saying is, I think you just took a rul er and drew thi s, but it's actually going to be a curved driveway, right? If you could just see this, then I think you'd see. Do you see what I'm talking about? MR. LANSBURG-Yes. Actually, the way it is, it's just like this. The way I drew this was to stay out of the way of all this other stuff, you know, so you could read it. MRS. YORK-Yes. Okay. Would you just go up and show that to the Board, please, on the plan. 14 --- MR. LANSBURG-Well, what I had in mind, here, see, I had to draw this so that you could see where the carport is, just out of the way of everything. It's just going to come up the lot line and this whole rear area is going to be a parking area. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is this septic area going to be under the parking area? MR. LANSBURG-Yes, right, but it has nothing to do with the driveway itself, it's in the back of it. MR. CARTIER-But nobody's going to be driving over that? MR. LANSBURG-No, they won't. MR. CARTIER-Tom, does that take care of your concern? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, if, in fact, the septic tank is not located in a travel area, it doesn't need to be designed for traffic loading. If the septic tank is to be located 10 feet from the house, as normally shown, it could very well be. You should be aware of that when you construct it because that's what the Code requires. MR. LANSBURG-Okay, but this is a proposed plan. The actual plan will be done by a licensed surveyor, which I'll give the Board a copy of when it's done, if they want it, but I can't do that until the house and the septic is in because they won't do it. MR. HAGAN-No imagination. MR. LANSBURG-No, I asked them. They won't do it. It has to already be in. MR. MARTIN-Yes, they have to have the footings in place before they'll. MR. LANSBURG-Yes, because I was going to kill two birds with one stone, but they wouldn't do it. MR. LAPOINT-I guess I don't understand why you can't have the drawings done ahead of time? MR. LANSBURG-Because the structure has to be there. When they stamp the plans, it has to be there. They're saying it's there. That's what they told me, because I was going to have it done. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I don't know if I agree with that. MR. MARTIN-Well, no, it's typically done. Like, I'm building a house now. I have to do the same thing. The surveyor has to come back once the footings are poured and show where the house actually sits specifically on the lot. MR. YARMOWICH-That's usually a requirement of a lending institution. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-As opposed to legally necessary for filing this kind of information. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I understand what he was trying to say. Maybe it was explained wrong to the surveyor, but I understand what the surveyor says. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but as long as a septic tank is not going to be under any portion that's being driven over. MR. LANSBURG-No, it's not. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think that answers that question. Does anybody else have any questions? MR. MARTIN-Do you have any problem with providing the percolation test data on the plan? MR. LANSBURG-No, but no one else has there. My rear lot line borders Queen Victoria's Grant. There's probably 95 units there, one on top of the other. I have 5 and a half acres. My two best friends own on both sides. They're not complaining. They didn't have it done. There's a couple of them still under construction right across the street. As far as I know, they didn't have it done. MR. CAIMANO-Well, the subdivision had it done, didn't it? MR. LANSBURG-I mean, whatever you say, I'll do. MR. CAIMANO-Didn't the subdivision have it done? 15 -../ MR. YARMOWICH-You will be required, in order to obtain a septic system installation permit, to have a test done to verify the suitability and have the appropriate length of leachfield as a part of that permit. So, it'll all be indicated on there. MR. LANSBURG-Like I said, whatever the Town requires is what it will be. MR. CAIMANO-Just so you don't feel put upon, though, I think the subdivision, when it was approved, had to have that. That's what you're asking for is approval of a subdivision. Now, each individual house that went in didn't have to do it, but the subdivision did. Correct me if I'm wrong, there. MR. LAPOINT-This is a site plan, but he still needs that. MR. MARTIN-Nick's right, though. When Queen Victoria's Grant, prior to that being built, they had to do a percolation test and a test pit and all that. You probably might not have seen it, but it was done. MR. CAIMANO-For the area where they were bUilding. MR. LANSBURG-Okay, then what do I have to do. That's what I don't know. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, there's little doubt that this area supports the type of disposal system that you want to use for an individual subsurface. The concerns here are very fast perc rates, in excess of one minute. If in fact that occurs, you will find yourself being faced with a different septic system design in order to meet the Ordinance. You may find yourself dealing with a little bit different kind of design. If it's the pleasure of this Board and they decide to approve this plan, you should be aware that you would then be subject to what the Building Department determines is required of you, as opposed to you knowing that before this approval. MR. LANSBURG-Yes, I put that in the application, that I would do that. MR. YARMOWICH-You wouldn't get a permit until that test was done and a suitable design was furnished to the Building Department. MR. MARTIN-So those last two comments of yours, Tom, Band C, will be taken care of prior to the septic permit, right? MR. YARMOWICH-How many bedrooms are proposed here, guess, is the question that we should know? MR. LANSBURG-Two in each unit. Four bedrooms total. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. There's no reason to suspect that the site wouldn't support an adequate septic system. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? If not, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who'd care to address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct a Short Form SEQRA. I believe. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 37-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a two fa.ily home by MR. HAROLD LANSBURG, Upper Shenran Avenue across fro. SIIoke Ridge, 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. 16 -..../ 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation implementing the State Environmental Qual ity Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-90 HAROLD lANSIIIRG, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Provided that the test data, as requested in Mr. Yarmowich's letter of June 13th, be performed, and a correction should be made to the drawing on file, showing the curve of the driveway, and the applicant has agreed to a 10 foot accessway on either side of his driveway for fire. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: MR. LANSBURG-I'll provide the Board, when the surveyor comes, with what he gives me for the back. MR. CAIMANO-Good. MR. LANSBURG-It'll be stamped, but I have to have it in before he'll do it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. You can give that to the Planning Department. MRS. YORK-Just bring me a copy. I'd appreciate that. AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA JAMES R. I JOANN CURCIO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF TEE HILL ROAD AND HALL ROAD FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MP NO. 48-3-24, 25 LOT SIZE: 3.44 ACRES LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 8-1991, James R. & JoAnn Curcio, June 20, 1991, Meeting Date: June 25, 1991 "The request is for a three lot subdivision at the intersection of Tee Hill Road and Hall Road. It appears from the plan that lot A will be increased to 1.12 acres. This parcel is already developed. The tax maps indicate that this lot is currently 108 ft. by 150 ft., so this addition of property brings the developed lot into closer conformity with the standard of one acre. The two other lots will be one acre and 1.32 acres respectively. Lot B will have an entrance onto Tee Hill Road and onto Hall Road. The Highway Department reviewed this driveway and did not have any concerns about it. The well is shown as being at the eastern corner of the lot. The water will be piped under the proposed driveway to the house. The water line should be placed so that traffic going over it will not be a problem. Lot C has a 225 ± driveway from Tee Hill Road. The Board has expressed concern over driveways of this length in the past. Various fire chiefs have suggested that to allow for emergency access a cleared area of 10 feet on each side of the driveway be maintained for emergency access. An agreement of this nature should be clearly stated on the mylar. Since this lot will ultimately be sold, the Board may also want to request that the applicant make this condition a deed restriction so that any future owner is fully appraised of this. The proposed 225 ft. driveway will also be about 25 feet from an existing house (Vitouski). The development could affect this neighborhood. The Staff reviewed placing the driveway in another location which might be less intrusive and el iminate 17 '---' -- the dog 1 eg curve. Entrance from Hall Road woul d create an even longer driveway. Fl ag lots are not to be encouraged, however, this piece of property is uniquely shaped. It might be less intrusive on the neighbor if the driveway for lot C could be moved south. A suggestion that the Board may want to discuss with the applicant is to modify the northern lot lines of lots A and B so the driveway could be moved south, and be about 35 feet from the Vitouski house. A small portion of lot B would be cut out to allow for the 10 foot clearing. This small piece of land could be then replaced by moving the line on lot A. The driveway would then also have less of a dog leg. The Vitouski residence was placed close to the lot line, however, it has been there for some time and has enjoyed a rural view. Perhaps some vegetation could be placed near his property 1 ine as screening. The topography on lot C shows that there is a 10 foot rise in elevation within ±135 feet. It does not appear that this will be a significant problem. The applicant has requested waivers from the storm water management report and the two foot contours. I will let the engineer decide the appropriateness of this request." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, June 13, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The increase in stonnwater runoff is anticipated to be minimal. The applicant may wish to request a waiver from stormwater management requirements. We would recommend that a waiver be granted. 2. Regarding Subsurface Disposal a. According to current NYSDOH Wastewater Treatment Standards - Individual Household Systems, a garbage grinder is equivalent to one (1) bedroom for septic tank sizing. Other requirements for tank configuration apply when garbage grinders are used. b. The septic tank sizing for four (4) bedroom and larger units should be corrected to conform to NYSDOH Standards." MR. YARMOWICH-An item not indicated in my letter, I would recommend that the Board grant a waiver for two foot contours because of the land configuration. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We also have a letter from Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Department, dated June 12, 1991, to Queensbury Planning Board, "Dear Members: After reviewing the plans of the applicant, I would like to make the following recommendations about the drive-way because of its length. The drive-way should be at least ten feet wide. It should be maintained so that fire apparatus and ambulance can use it if needed to provide emergency services to the occupants. Because of the size of fire apparatus, trees should not grow over the drive-way that might block the road way. A turnaround area should be considered so that an ambulance could turn around and drive out. I hope these recommendations will be helpful in the design of this appl ication. Yours truly, Gary A. West, Chief, Bay Ridge Vol. Fire Company" Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Hi there. I'm Leon Steves from VanDusen and Steves. Tom has pointed out some boiler plate problems I have in the AutoCad which I have to correct. The 1250 septic tank size and the increase of the size of the septic tank by one bedroom equivalent, when you would put in a garbage grinder, that's no problem. The Staff COIIIIIents of the driveway, and I think that Lee is referring to the, basically, her concerns are on the long driveway, here. We, perhaps, could help that a little bit by bowing the driveway slightly within the strip so that it hugs the soft line as much as possible, as it comes by the house. The applicant was here earlier, but had to leave, and he's told me that he has talked with his neighbor who has no problems whatsoever with this subdivision plan as shown, but we have no problems, either, in moving the driveway, just putting a bow in it right there, so that it's as far away from that house as we can get it and still maintain it within that strip. MR. MARTIN-Would you have any problems with taking Mrs. York's suggestions to the full extent and moving the boundary line of the lots there, or is that something you'd rather not get into? MRS. PULVER-Well, they've probably already surveyed it. Didn't you already survey it? MR. STEVES-Well, nothing's cast. We won't cast anything in concrete until we get a stamp of approval. Well, really, I guess I have no problem in doing that. I see no reason or improvement of it, if we can just crowd the side of it. MRS. YORK-Yes, if you could just maybe show Mr. Steves that little sketch I drew. It's not too intrusive. It's not a big difference, Leon. See what I'm saying. MR. MARTIN-She's just saying to move this property line over some. MR. STEVES-Well. is it necessary to move the property line, Lee, if we just move the driveway as you've indicated it here? MRS. YORK-No, but I think if you could. the Fire Chief would like some cleared area on both sides. I think that's where you would get into trouble. MR. STEVES-And what is he looking for on each side? MRS. YORK-About ten feet on each side. 18 '--/ MR. STEVES-Ten feet on each side? MRS. YORK-Their concern is if they get an emergency vehicle in there and there's snow banks on either side, they may have a situation where they have to lay another line in there, which means another truck passing the first one on a driveway and they need to have that width to get two trucks in there. MRS. PULVER-I read this as the driveway should be at least ten feet wide, not ten feet on each side. MR. CARTIER-Yes. They want a ten foot wide driveway and ten foot clear on each side. That's the normal. That's what they usually request. MR. CAIMANO-It's not 30 feet. MR. BREWER-No. It's just got ten feet wide. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MRS. PULVER-He's only got ten feet wide. MR. CAIMANO-The Bay Ridge letter says a ten foot wide driveway. MRS. PULVER-Yes. That's all that's really required to get a fire truck. MRS. YORK-Right. I know Mr. West wrote that letter. We've had a couple of letters from Mr. West and he has suggested ten foot clearing on either side. Whether this was an error in his writing, whether this is really what he wants, I can't say, but I know the standard has been to clear ten feet on each side, and Brian LaFlure has requested this Board have a policy on that. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It's not a 30 foot wide driveway. It's a ten foot wide driveway with vegetative clearing and ten feet on each side of that. MRS. YORK-Right. We don't mean for you to pave or anything. MR. STEVES-Okay. If we did that, we could sti11 maintain a ten foot buffer, then, along the north 1 ine. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. STEVES-And not move any of the lot lines. MRS. YORK-Okay. Whatever you can do. MR. MARTIN-All right. That's fine with me. MR. STEVES-Is that kind of meeting with your requirement? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, that fits. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. STEVES-Why don't we do it that way then. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MRS. PULVER-I still think ten foot wide on each side of the driveway is a little over-kill for clearing. MR. CAIMANO-I don't know where it says that. I'd like to see a clarification of that. MR. HAGAN-Carol, it's only on driveways over 100 feet deep. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I'm still thinking in terms of snow. MRS. YORK-I will get the letters. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Lets clear it up. MRS. YORK-Okay. I'll get the 1 etters from Bri an LaFl ure out that suggest that thi s Board have a confirmed policy on it. Okay? 19 '-..-' MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any more questions or comments? Okay. I'll open the publ ic hearing. Is there anyone here who would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-If the Board's satisfied that all the matters have been resolved, here, we can do a SEQRA. MR. CAIMANO-Long Form? MRS. YORK-Yes. RESOWTlON WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTlON NO. 8-1991, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a 3 lot subdivision, JAMES R. I JOANN CURCIO, northwest intersection of Tee Hill Road and Hall Road, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion that needs to involve waivers from stormwater management, two foot contours and incorporate the driveway design changes and engineering concerns. JlJTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1991 JAMES R. I JOANN CURCIO, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a 3 lot subdivision, with the following comments: Number One, that the waiver for stonnwater management pl an be granted. Number Two, that the waiver from two foot contours be granted. Number Three, that the engineering comments of the Rist-Frost letter dated June 13th, specifically Items 2a and 2b, be incorporated into the final plan. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: 20 ---../ AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1991 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ß(IŒN SUBDIVISION GARY D. AND SUZANNE F. BOWEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HILAND DRIVE, BElVEEN HILAND DRIVE AND RIDGE ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 54-3-10 LOT SIZE: 25 ACRES LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 6-1991, Bowen Subdivision, June 20, 1991, Meeting Date: June 25, 1991 "The applicant has received preliminary stage approval. All environmental concerns have been addressed through the SEQRA process. There are no outstanding planning concerns. The agent for the appl icant was requested to indicate the stream corridor setbacks on the final pl an. If that is done and there are no engineering concerns, I would recommend approval of this subdivision." MR. CARTIER-Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-I have made the changes, as I told Tom I would, on the plan, and I haven't re-submitted anything to you, but rather I am displaying that, and it's hardly noticeable, is it. MR. CARTIER-You do have the stream setbacks done? MR. STEVES-Yes, I do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. CAIMANO-No. engineering concerns? MR. CARTIER-They were addressed at Prelim. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? If not, we can entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1991 BOWEN SUBDIVISION, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a 2 lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 38-91 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA JOAN M. LEE OIlIER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF SHERMAN AVENUE AND LEO STREET TO ENLARGE HOME BY ADDING ONE BEDROOM. TAX MP NO. 120-1-50 LOT SIZE: 0.162± ACRES SECTION 4.02D-G JOAN AND JEFF LEE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 38-91, Joan M. Lee, June 24, 1991, Meeting Date: June 25, 1991 "The appl icant wants to enlarge a nonconforming structure. The residence is on Leo Street in a SR-IA zone. The 22 ft. by 12 ft. proposed addition will be 5 ft. and 6 in. from the neighbor to the east and property 1 ine. A variance has been obtained to allow this. This appl ication was reviewed with the criteria for site plans. 1. All of the units in this area are located on small lots. This addition is generally compatible with the character of the neighborhood. 2. Vehicular traffic is not a problem. 3. Off street parking and loading is not a concern. 4. Pedestrian access is not a concern. 5. The applicant has stated that drainage has not been a problem. The Board may wish to hear this directly from the applicant. 6. The house is on Town water. Mr. Hatin has a letter concerning the septic system. 7. Plantings are not an issue. 8. Fire access is adequate. 9. Erosion control standards should be utilized during construction." MR. CARTIER-And there were no engineering concerns on this, correct? MRS. YORK-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and we have a letter from Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Codes, dated June 13, 1991, "This memo is in relationship to the addition of a bedroom of Joan Lee into her current dwelling. As I understand it, she currently has a 1,000 gallon tank with a six foot drywell, unknown whether 21 --' this is six feet in diameter or depth. This would not be in conformance with today's standards for a new two bedroom house whi ch woul d requi re at 1 east two 6 by 8 pits or one 8 by 10 seepage pi t. However, there are no requirements in the Sanitary Sewage Ordinance for a person adding a bedroom to upgrade their septic system as long as it is not fail ing and is currently working properly. I trust that this will answer any concerns you have." Is the septic system functioning at present? MR. LEE-Yes. MRS. LEE-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Is that pretty sandy down there? MR. LEE-Yes, it's all sand. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It's all, high perc'd stuff. MR. LEE-Nothing but sand, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would you care to comment? I need to get you on the record with your name and that comment. MR. LEE-I'm Jeff Lee. MRS. LEE-I'm Joan. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and you're representing to us that that septic system is fully functioning? MR. LEE-Yes. We've been there ever since the place was new and we've never had any problem with it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How many bedrooms are there now? How many people are living in the house right now? MR. LEE-There's four of us. MR. CARTIER-Four? Okay. Does the Board have any questions or comments? MR. MARTIN-I'd just like to say, I think Lee York's Coment Number One is especially appropriate in this case. I know we're pressing things here. They al ready have a variance and, having been there, I think that's a good comment, that this is an appearance that would be compatible with the existing neighborhood there. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anybody else? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to entertain, I believe, a Short Form SEQRA on this. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MlU}E RESOWTION NO. 38-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an appl ication for: JOAN M. LEE, to enlarge home by adding one bedroa., corner of Sherman Avenue and Leo Street, 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. 22 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board wi11 have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-91 JOAN M. LEE, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To enlarge a home by adding one bedroom. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 FERGUSON SUBDIVISION ROBERT E. SHARP, D.D.S., D.M.D. OWNER: NORMAN C. FERGUSON WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, OPPOSITE ACC FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-4.1 LOT SIZE: 1.63 ACRES RUSSELL SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 7-1991, Ferguson Subdivision, June 21, 1991, Meeting Date: June 25, 1991 "The request is to divide property along Bay Road into two lots. The applicant intends to construct a roadway on the subdivided parcel. The development would take place on a lot to the rear which is currently owned by Mr. Grahl. There is currently an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding the Grahl property. I recommend that the Board take no action on this subdivision until the appeal has been settled." MR. CARTIER-Let me do this a little bit out of order. This was advertised, was it not? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay, for public hearing. Is there anyone here who would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-Mr. Scudder, would you care to address the Board, please. I'll leave the publ ic hearing open on this, anyway. I believe you are familiar with the letters that have been traveling back and forth between myself and the Zoning Board and hither and yon. MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-I guess, at this point, we're wondering where we stand. MR. CARTIER-Well, I bel ieve, tomorrow night the appeal goes to the Zoning Board, so we should have a resolution of this by tomorrow night. 23 ~ MR. SCUDDER-Okay. Can we discuss anything tonight, or shall we? MR. CARTIER-Well, what's the Board's druthers? We can certainly give you engineering comments. You understand the nature of the appeal and the situation? MR. SCUDDER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-It's not that this thing is never going to get approved. It's just the process by which it has to go through. I think it would be to your advantage to get engineering comments and any other comnents that the Board may have. Tom, do you want to take us through your comments, please. ENGINEER. REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, June 13, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The design of the 52" diameter culvert crossing Old Maids' Brook should be provided indicating inverts and slopes demonstrated to function adequately under anticipated stream flow conditions. Details should include inlet and outlet stabilization of the culvert. A scale cross section of the stream crossing proposed should be provided. 2. The 100 year floodplain for Old Maids' Brook should be plotted on the drawing. 3. All proposed grading contours between Old Maids' Brook and Bay Road should be corrected to properly tie into existing contours. 4. Because the proposed driveway culvert is to be located in the Warren County Bay Road Right-of-Way, the appl icant shoul d obtain Warren County D. P. W. approval for the proposed cul vert. 5. Percol ati on tests with test pit data should be provided in order to evaluate the suitability of proposed lot 2 for subsurface sewage disposal in the event the applicant is unable to obtain additional lands." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Would the Board care to comment? We are in a nether world, here, until, basically, tomorrow night. Would you agree to table this until we get this resolved? MR. SCUDDER-That's fine. If I could just respond to these? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. Go right ahead. MR. SCUDDER-No trouble with 1, 2, or 3. Number Four I should cOßll1ent that the approval from Warren County D.P.W. has been received. It's contingent upon receiving the Stream Disturbance Permit from the DEC, which we've also applied for. That's up at Tom Hall's office, Regulatory Affairs, in Warrensburg. Number Five concerns me a little bit. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the intent there is to ensure that this Board, or to advise this Board that they may be creating or allowing a subdivision to occur which would, in fact, record a lot that could possibly be unusable in the event on site subsurface sewage disposal was not feasible. I'm advising the Board that in the event that a suitable location couldn't be found with appropriate distances and separations from the Old Maids' Brook as well as property lines, because of the limited land available, that they may want to consider this in the approval. It's usually, well, it's not permissible under the Town Codes and Ordinances to subdivide land that can't be used as such. MR. SCUDDER-Right. Okay. MR. CARTlER-I think that may helped by, if it's resolved tomorrow night such that you do have to go through the subdivision process, that'll be addressed at that point. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And we'll find out then. MR. SCUDDER-With me is Dr. Sharp who is buying both pieces of property. That's his intent, and I think I can speak for him in saying that if he does not get the subdivision approval on the second lot, that the first lot issued will also fall by the way side. So they're a combined deal in that sense, anyway. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I hope, Dr. Sharp, you understand that this is as much for your protection as it is anything else. ROBERT SHARP DR. SHARP-Yes. MR. CARTIER-This is not just a bureaucratic procedure, here. There are some concerns about putting you in a very difficult situation. DR. SHARP-Yes. I just wish we'd known four months ago that we had to go through subdivision. 24 ~ MRS. PULVER-I have a question. The Ferguson Subdivision, that is going through our normal procedures for subdivision, right? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MRS. PULVER-So, what we're looking at is the Grahl part that really, whether or not it should also go through the normal channels. MR. CARTIER-That's the issue, correct. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And we certainly don't want to go through a subdivision on the first piece if he can't get the second piece behind. MR. SCUDDER-That's right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board have any other questions or comments? Well, the applicant has agreed to table this until we get this issue resolved tomorrow night. Lee, maybe Thursday you could contact Mr. Scudder and let him know the outcome of that. MRS. YORK-He'll be there. MR. SCUDDER-I will not be there, myself, but I believe Dr. Sharp's attorney will be at the ZBA tomorrow night. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. SCUDDER-I would ask, if it's possible, how can we determine where we will be on the agenda next time? Dr. Sharp's concerned about that. MR. CARTIER-Before this Board, you mean? MR. SCUDDER-Yes, assuming we, I don't know what the options are. If the ZBA, tomorrow, lets say turns down this appeal, is it dead at that point? MR. CARTIER-Well, no. It's not a question of turning it down. They're going to decide one way or the other. MR. SCUDDER-And they are referring their decision to you for ultimate? MR. CARTIER-No. What will happen is they're either going to decide that Pat Crayford was correct in her first determination. or they're going to decide that the Grahl property has to go through the subdivision process. MR. SCUDDER-I see. MR. CARTIER-Now, if it has to go through the subdivision process, then you institute a subdivision application for that piece of property also. Deadline for the July meeting is when? MRS. YORK-Tomorrow at 2 o'clock. MR. SCUDDER-You see, we have this dilemma. MR. CARTIER-Well, considering that this is partially an internal problem, would this Board be amenable to waiving deadline on this application? MR. HAGAN-I don't think we have a choice. I think we have to. MR. MARTIN-I think that's fair. MR. CAIMANO-It's the only fair thing to do. Actually put them on the agenda as if they're going to be on, and the only way they can get off is if there's a negative. MRS. YORK-Well, this subdivision will be tabled. I think what you're speaking to is what if Mr. Grahl has to submit something to subdivide his property? MR. SCUDDER-We've talked about this a little bit. It's my belief that the work that needs to be done for Mr. Grahl's property can be expedited, can be completed assuming we can get the equipment in to do the subsurface work within the next week or so, and that would give us a little time to get things in to the Planning Department so everyone could see them ahead of time, but I'm a little reluctant to commit to that because there are things beyond my control. Obviously, I'm not going to go out there and dig holes by hand. 25 ------ t<;R. CARTlER-I think what we can do, maybe, is establish, Lee, if you are amenable to this, establish a deadline date and include them on the July 16 agenda? MRS. YORK-Sure. I would have no problem with that. MR. CARTIER-Well, you're going to be reviewing a subdivision, here. How much time do you need, and Tom? MRS. YORK-Well, I would want to have it in as soon as possible, probably by next Tuesday. Can you do that? MR. SCUDDER-A week from today? MRS. YORK-A week from today. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. We'll endeavor to do that. If I run into some difficulties, may I call you? MRS. YORK-You can call me. MR. SCUDDER-I think that the surveying work that is needed is largely done already. MR. CARTIER-Understand this. Maybe this will help. We're going to establish a deadline date by motion tonight. MR. SCUDDER-Fair enough. MR. CARTIER-And if you don't make that deadline date, it's a washout. MR. SCUDDER-I'd push for Friday, under those circumstances, if I could. MRS. YORK-Right. I have Staff Review, at which time all the Department Heads get together and review the project. MR. SCUDDER-Is that Wednesday? MRS. YORK-So, that's why I'm asking you to have it in by Tuesday. MR. SCUDDER-All right. MR. MARTIN-So, say Tuesday at the close of your office? MRS. YORK-Please, make it before that. MR. CARTIER-Well, don't we usually use 2 o'clock? MR. SCUDDER-Two o'clock, that's fine. MR. CARTIER-Two o'clock Tuesday, July 2nd. MR. SCUDDER-We have a different owner involved, also. MRS. YORK-He would have to submit under his own name, or through an agent. MR. SCUDDER-Right, and so there's a little, I'm nervous about the time and just getting in touch with him. He's in New Jersey getting his authorization back and so on. MRS. PULVER-He can fax it to you. MR. SCUDDER-Fine, if you'll accept fax. MRS. YORK-It's considered a legal document. MS. CORPUS-Well, it's not. You'd have to follow up with an original signature. MR. CARTIER-The second scenario is that the Zoning Board agrees with Pat Crayford and you just come back in with what you have. MR. SCUDDER-I see, okay. MR. CARTIER-Don't bet any money on that, though. MR. SCUDDER-Okay. I'm not. 26 ------ MR. HAGAN-The appeal may be thrown out and you won't have to go through any of this. MRS. PULVER-If the Zoning Board agrees with the Zoning Administrator's determination tomorrow night, then they will be put on the next agenda? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-Either way, they will be. MR. CARTIER-Either way, they will be. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I mean they will be put on for this? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-As is currently configured. MRS. PULVER-Now, will they also be put on for this, this is Preliminary now. Are they going to be put back on for Preliminary? MR. CARTIER-Yes, because we will not have reviewed it. MRS. PULVER-We're reviewing it right now. MR. CAIMANO-No, we're not. MR. CARTIER-No, we're not. We'vé got to find out what the Zoning Board's going to do tomorrow night. MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Cartier, are you able to interpret the two lot subdivision rule to me? MR. CARTIER-With a two lot subdivision, you don't have to go through Sketch Plan. Instead of a three step process, it's just two. MR. SCUDDER-It's just two. I see. MR. CARTIER-You would come in for Prel iminary approval and then Final. Now, what you can do, and do not in any way assume that there's a guarantee here or anything, but you can come in for Preliminary the first meeting of the month, then Final the second meeting of the month. Sometimes that works. Sometimes it doesn't. If you have all your ducks in a row at Preliminary, you don't have a problem at Final. MR. SCUDDER-I see. MR. CARTIER-That's a possibility, but there are some serious concerns with this back piece of property, in terms of wastewater and so on that are going to have to be very carefully addressed. MRS. YORK-Also, we're going to want your DEC permit, too. MR. SCUDDER-You mean before a Final approval is granted? MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's what Final means. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. SCUDDER-Yes, I think, time wise, we should be in pretty good shape. We applied for that about a month ago, now. Sixty days is the norm and we should be in pretty good shape. MR. CARTIER-Aren't they under time constraints 1 ike we are? They have to issue something within a certain time? Okay. Any other questions? Does anybody else care to comment? tllTlON TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1991 FERGUSON SUBDIVISIOIf, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For a 2 lot subdivision, pending the outcome of the Planning Board's appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Should the ZBA determine that a formal subdivision application is necessary, the submission deadline for a subdivision application regarding this project will be Tuesday, July 2nd, at 2 p.m. to the Planning Office. 27 ,--- ---.../ Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. SCUDDER-One comment just popped into my head as you were tal king. Assuming the ZBA wants to go through subdivision, will that come in under New Business and this under Old, or will they both be New or how will that work? MR. CARTIER-Which Board are you talking about, here? MR. SCUDDER-It will come back to the Planning Board, ultimately. MR. CARTIER-I would assume it would come in as. MRS. PULVER-One would be new and one would be old. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Grahl would be New. MRS. YORK-This will be tabled under Old, and then that would be considered new business, a Grahl subdivision. MR. CARTIER-That's kind of strange. MRS. YORK-It's a new subdivision. MS. CORPUS-Yes, it's new. It's a totally different owner. MRS. YORK-We can just place them back to back on an agenda. MR. CAIMANO-It doesn't make any difference. MR. MARTIN-I don't think it makes any difference. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. I kind of understand, what I'm hearing, here, is maybe the Grahl thing ought to go first. MRS. YORK-I see what you're saying. MR. CARTIER-That's going to be the big issue. MRS. YORK-Right. MS. CORPUS-He could consent to have the Ferguson subdivision at the end of the meeting with the other. MR. CAIMANO-Put this one on the Old Business. We'll agree to move it to the end of the agenda. Go through the Grahl, and then we'll get to it at the end of the agenda. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Why don't we make the whole thing part of New Business, one item of New Business. MRS. YORK-Okay. Would you like that? MR. CAIMANO-That's fine with me, too. MR. CARTIER-It'll be two subdivision applications under New Business, okay, and we'll do the Grahl one first, and the Ferguson one second. How's that? MR. SCUDDER-Thank you. Very good. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you very much. OFF PREMISES SIGN PERMIT NO. 3-91 TYPE II J A P AUTO FIX 15 MILLER HILL (OFF ROOTE 9) OWNER OF LOT: CHARLES ÞlJORE TO PLACE AN OFF PREMISES SIGN LOCATED AT 15 MILLER HILL (OFF ROOTE 9) IN ~EENSBURY. TIM HOOD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 28 ----- Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Off Premises Sign No. 3-91, J A P Auto Fix, June 24, 1991, Meeting Date: June 25, 1991 "The placement of this conforming sign does not appear to impact traffic visibility on Route 9. This is a commercial area and the property owner has agreed to the placement on his residential lot." MR. CARTIER-Okay, and we have a letter from Warren County Planning indicating "No County Impact". Is this scheduled for public hearing? MRS. YORK-Yes, it should be. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I thought so. Let me open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who would care to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COÞlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPOINT-How tall is this, off the ground? MR. HOOD-Tim Hood. I'm the Service Manager. We don't really quite, as yet, know an actual height. I mean, is there any restrictions that we need to put the sign at? MRS. PULVER-You have to come in and get a Sign Permit. MRS. YORK-Yes. You have to be in conformance. We do have an existing Sign Ordinance, which details how large your sign can be. MR. HOOD-Right. It's already actually made. MR. LAPOINT-It's 5 by 2, but I was just curious as to where it's going to be on the horizon. MR. MARTIN-What are the height of the poles? MR. LAPOINT-The height of the poles. MR. HOOD-Right. Well, quite honestly, I don't have any poles, as of yet. I mean, whatever the restrictions are, I certainly will conform to that. MR. CARTIER-I think your concern is site view on that corner, right? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Again, I read Lee's comment and I came out of that road and it seems to me the height of that would put it right on the horizon of that rise coming up Miller Hill. MR. BREWER-I think we looked at the, there's two poles on that corner right there. I looked at it again tOday, and I think that's the wrong place where we looked at it. Because if you look at the map, here, it shows it further down by the motorcycle shop. The one we were looking at is right here on the corner of Montray Road. MRS. PULVER-Montray, right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. If that's the case. MR. BREWER-It would be down under the hill further, right there. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Okay, then, I guess the height doesn't make that much difference as long as we're within the Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, as long as he conforms with the Ordinance, he should be all set. MR. HOOD-And also, given the latitude from Mr. Moore, there, I really don't have any, I put that extra. I actually drew that on myself. It's certainly not really specific. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I made a mistake. I assumed it was right on the corner of Montray Road and that would have been a problem. I was wrong. MR. HOOD-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else have a question or a comment? This is a Type II. We need not do a SEQRA on it. I have to ask this. In some places, the term Jap is considered a derogatory term. You've heard this before, I take it? 29 ~ ----- MR. HOOD-Yes, unfortunately, I have. Not from too many people, but I've addressed it before. JAP is strictly an abbreviation. That's why we have the period after the letter P. I, myself, am from south Florida, and we have a store also down there in Hollywood in which we have received really no complaints whatsoever as to the name. MR. CARTIER-It's an abbreviation of what? MR. HOOD-Japanese. It's strictly Japanese Auto Fix. We answer the phones, Japanese Auto Fix. MR. CARTIER-Okay. You've satisfied my curiosity. Thank you. A motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. ~91 J A P AUTO FIX, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: To place an Off Premises Sign located at 15 Miller Hill Road. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: MR. CARTIER-Do you want to say something about Ed's concern about site view? MR. CAIMANO-He withdrew it. MR. LAPOINT-As long as it's in conformance with the Ordinance. MR. HOOD-Yes, we certainly will assure that, you know, I mean, really there's no exact position where we plan on placing the sign. Certainly, it will be placed in an area where it won't interfere, whatsoever, with any view. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you very much. AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. HOOD-One quick question. When you say 15 feet, is that off the edge of the road? MR. LAPOINT-Check with the Building Inspector. MR. CAIMANO-You've got to go to the Building Department and get a Sign Permit. They'll answer the questions. MRS. PULVER-Yes, and they'll tell you exactly. MR. HOOD-Okay, but this is, in fact, an application for a Sign Permit, right? MRS. PULVER-No, it's not. MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. HOOD-No? MR. LAPOINT-It's an Off Premises Sign that we have to review as part of our Ordinance, that you're putting a sign off your premises. We've just given you approval from all of your SEQRA aspects and that type of thing. You have to get the Permit from the Building Inspector. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You ought to go the Building Inspector's office tomorrow morning. MR. HOOD-Will there be a permit actually there waiting? MRS. PULVER-No. You go down and make out an application and it's, what, $25 and they will say, now you have to be so many feet from the road, so many feet. You can only be so high, so whatever. MR. HOOD-Okay. MRS. PULVER-And so you adjust it within that area. MR. HOOD-Okay, and that Building Inspector is right at this building here? MR. MARTIN-Yes. He's right next door, in the building next door in the basement. MR. HOOD-Okay. Any idea how long it will take? 30 '-' '---"- MR. MARTIN-You should get it on site, that day. Pay your fee. Fill out the permit, and you're all set. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but he's going to want to know how high it is. MR. HOOD-Right now, yes, certainly. I just had heard from Mrs. Crayford that upon approval from you folks that within the next day I could actually put the sign up. So I wanted to make sure there wasn't anything more. MRS. PULVER-No. You need to go get your permit. MR. MARTIN-Well, you need to go to see him. Then you can put the sign up. MR. HOOD-Okay. Great. Thank you. MRS. PULVER-I have one question, and this happened to bring it to my mind. When you are changing, going from one use to another use, but it is the same use, but a different owner, do you need to have site plan for that? MR. CARTIER-No, as long as it's not a change in use. MRS. PULVER-So if you went from a rib house to a breakfast house, but it's a new owner, but it's still a restaurant. MR. CARTIER-You wouldn't have to come for site plan. MRS. PULVER-You don't have to go for site plan. SITE PLAN NO. 39-91 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 EUGENE ZIELINSKI (lINER: SAJŒ AS ABOVE 73 MAIN STREET, 4TH HOOSE EAST OF PINE STREET 01 NORTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET FOR CHANGE OF USE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO/FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. (WARREN CooNTY PLAMING) TAX MAP NO. 130-1-27 LOT SIZE: 0.7 ACRES SECTION 4.020-L JIM PEPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 39-91, Eugene Zielinski, June 24, 1991, Meeting Date: June 25, 1991 "The requested review is for a change of use in a CR-15 zone. The use is a residence and the proposal is for conversion to a professional Real-Estate office. This change of use fits the purpose of the zone which is to allow transitioning from residential to Highway Commercial uses on narrow arterial roads. The applicant intends to remove a pool, garage, and concrete terrace. This would be replaced with 14 parking spaces. This appl ication was reviewed with regard to Section 179-39 (formerly 5.070). 1. The location, arrangement, and design of the structure fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Lighting should be of such intensity and be directed so it does not interfere with the residential uses around it. Also, that it does not cause a problem for motorists. Any signage should conform to the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance. 2. Vehicular traffic access is adequate, although adding any traffic to this road is a concern. 3. Off street parking appears to be adequate, however, handicapped parking has to be identified and placed appropriately. 4. Pedestrian circulation is not a concern. 5. The engineer will coment on adequacy of stonnwater drainage facil ities. 6. The structure is on Town water. The engineer will comment on the adequacy of the septic system. 7. The applicant indicates that shrubbery will be placed on either side as screening. This should be of such height and width that it does in fact screen the adjacent residential uses. 8. Fire access is adequate. 9. The engineer will comment if stonnwater facilities are necessary." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, June 14, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The applicant proposes to continue the use of the existing subsurface sewage disposal system most recentlY serving a residential use. Proposed sewage flows are probably less than those from use of the existing residence. Because flow to the existing sewage disposal system from a proposed office use will remain of domestic sanitary composition, and will be at a lower flow, no modifications are necessary. 2. An increase in stonnwater is anticipated from the gravel area. The applicant should be required to provide a design for a gravel parking area sloped to a drywell separated at least 50 feet from the existing septic system seepage pits and sized to accommodate the increase in runoff." MR. CARTIER-We have a comment from Warren County Planning Board, approval with the stipulation that the garage be removed as depicted. 31 ------ '-' MR. PEPPER-I'm Jim Pepper. I'm an architect, but I'm here in a dual capacity, really, because I'm also a realtor. I'm the broker/owner of Caldwell Banker King George Realty in Bolton Landing and it will be a real estate office. I will be renting it from the Zielinskis. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Let me open the public hearing. Does the Board have any questions or comments on this application? Is there anybody here who would care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-We have a couple of letters, here, from a Mrs. Bernard Dingman. Let me read the letter. "Dear Sirs: In today's mail I received a notice from a Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury. As I am not in the best of health, I am unable to attend the meeting on June 25th. As this notice is about putting another real estate office at 73 Main Street, as I already have one real estate next to me, Woodland Real Estate, 79 or 77 Main, I am very curious how this will effect my property as I have 1 ived in this house for 53 years come June 26th, 1991. It certainly will not be the same. When the lady from the Woodland once asked me if I would sell my house I answered no. She is a wonderful neighbor. I like her very much. I don't expect to be pressured by another real estate to sell my home. I'm very much aware that this is a very busy road from probably about 12 to 4 and it's 50 cars in 15 minutes. I counted them. Sometimes I get the impression that some people don't care for the elderly, as long as they can do their thing. I will sell my home when I deem it necessary. I hope that you will please let me know about my question as soon as it's convenient. If you care to reach me by phone, you can call 792-5514. Sincerely yours, Mrs. Bernard Dingman" I'm very curious as to how this will affect my property, would you care to address that? MR. PEPPER-When you said Mrs. Bernard, I wasn't familiar. I think it's Devenoux. She's the neighbor to the west. A very nice lady. I only met her once. I can promise that we won't ask her to sell her house. I have no idea what, she did mention that Mrs. Goodwin from Woodland Real Estate had asked her about selling her house. That's obviously not our interest at this point. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I assume that your going to landscape the place. You're going to paint the building. You're going to tear the garage down. I would guess it's going to end up looking better than it does at present. Correct? MR. PEPPER-It certainly will, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That may address or allay any concerns she may have. We also have an indication of a phone call June 24th between Sue Davidson in the Planning Department and Robert Charlotte Smith of 71 Main Street regarding this application. 71 Main Street resident states that he has no problem if a real estate office is going in. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any questions or comments? MR. PEPPER-On the Preliminary site plan that was drawn, I had indicated that the pool would be removed and that was my intention. The only question that I have is that the bank, there's a mortgage on the property and the bank actually may consider that as having some value. I took a second look at the garage, that's no problem. The garage is virtually worthless. I would like to know if that has to be removed, because if not, I think, just to pacify the bank, I may wish to move the parking area a little further to the north. The pool is fenced. It's proper. It's legal. It's protected. MR. CARTIER-Well, the only thing I can go on is we went through this with an application not too long ago. MR. MARTIN-Is this an above ground pool? MR. PEPPER-No. It's an in-ground pool. MR. CARTIER-And we thought of it as an attractive nuisance and considering that there was going to be business people on the property, it might be in your best, other people going into this property for business, it might be in your best legal interest to fill that pool in, and that's what we've done on that one. I don't know what the Board wants to do here. MRS. PULVER-However, it's not mandatory, part of our Ordinance. How tall is the fence? MR. PEPPER-It's four feet. It's the proper enclosure around the pool. In fact, Mr. Zielinski is an insurance agent. He owns an insurance brokerage firm, and I asked him about that and he seemed to indicate a preference for not filling it in and I have done the site plan work prior to that, just making the assumption that the pool wasn't necessary, wasn't part of it, and he indicates that the 1 iabil ity situation isn't anything unusual and as far as 1'm concerned, if I were the owner of the property, I would get rid of the pool. 32 ~ MR. CARTIER-Yes, well, the thing is if it's a residence, there's somebody there in the evening, at night and so on. With a business where it closes at 5, 6, or 7 at night, that thing can become an attractive nuisance to kids in the neighborhood, especially if there's nobody occupying the building in the evenings. MR. PEPPER-I agree. Well, there will be lights, outdoor lighting that could be kept on low. MRS. PULVER-But there are other things. They don't need to uncover it either. MR. PEPPER-That's true, too. MR. CAIMANO-They don't need to put the water in it either. MRS. PULVER-Right. I mean, they can still have the pool and not have to actually get rid of it. MR. CARTIER-Well, I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, but it seems to me, I hear you saying, it's your preference to fill it in. It's certainly mine. MR. MARTIN-It's certainly mine. I have a strong preference for that. MR. CARTIER-What's to stop us from doing that? MR. PEPPER-The only thing is that the bank having granted a mortgage on it. they should have assigned some value. We would need a release from the bank, which brings another party into it. It would be much the same as tearing off a wing of a building. You're depreciating the value of the bank's collateral. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but what's the value of the property, if it's a commercial property that has an unused swimming pool on it. MR. MARTIN-I think if we're going to make the change of use. here, it's got to be complete and thorough. We just can't have this. MR. CAIMANO-I don't like to see him making a change in the application. MR. CARTIER-So what are you saying? I don't understand. MR. MARTIN-He's saying that it's depicted, in the plan that was submitted, as being removed. MR. CAIMANO-Don't change the application because all that's going to do is cause us trouble down the road. MR. PEPPER-All right. Lets do this, if you will, go along with it as being removed and just grant me opportunity if for some reason the bank really locks us in. MR. CARTIER-Sure. MR. CAIMANO-That's not a problem. MR. CARTIER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 39-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: change of use fro. residential to/for professional office by EUGENE ZIELINSKI, 73 Main, 4th house east of Pine Street on north side of Main Street, 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 33 "-'" 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-91 EUGENE ZIELINSKI, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For a change of use from residential to/for professional office, taking into account all of the notations on Lee York's memo of the 24th, and include Mr. Yarmowich's letter of June 14th, and that the applicant submit an acceptable design by July 15th. Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-We have a number of other items to go through. The guy who was not here last week, Mr. Betit, his agent, Mr. Potenza, called me Saturday and wanted to get on tonight's agenda and I said we had kind of a loaded agenda. He's going to be on July 16 agenda. MRS. PULVER-Why was he not here? Did he say? MR. CARTIER-He said that Mr. Betit tol d him he had to get three approval s. He had three approval s and thought he was all done. I don't what his three approvals were. Warren County's one. I don't know what else, but he'll be here the 16th. Okay. Zoning Administrator Checklist. You are in receipt of a letter from Pat Crayford in regard to not using it. She didn't want to use it because it was revi sed. You shoul d have in hand a revi sed checkl i st. What is the Board's druthers? Do you want to requi re, do you want to make a resol uti on to the effect that we want her to use that revi sed checklist? MR. LAPOINT-If this is the one that we've finally settled on. MR. CARTIER-Does it have the PUD on the bottom of the back? MR. LAPOINT-PUD. Yes, it does. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay. So that's it. All we did was add some things. Paul had brought some concerns up about things that ought to be on there and we added those and that's it. (END OF FIRST DISK) 34 ~ '--'" MR. HAGAN-So, we're talking about Zoning Administrator Form 62591. MR. CARTIER-It has a number now? Great. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, right here. MR. CAIMANO-Lee just handed it to us. MR. HAGAN-That's what we're talking about? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Does this Board wish to have her use that revised form? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And include it as part of the application package? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Then we need a resolution to that effect. MOTION THAT WE REQUIRE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR COMPLETE CHECKLIST FORM NUMBER ZA/62591. THAT ALL OTHER PROFESSIONALS IN THIS PROCESS ARE RE~IRED TO REDUCE THEIR DECISIONS TO WRITING AND IT CERTAINLY SEEMS THAT THE KEY PERSON III THIS SYSTEM SIDILD ALSO REDUCE HER/HIS DECISIONS TO WRITING, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Lee, would you make a copy of that resolution and forward it to Pat, along with a copy of the Checklist? Thank you. You've got a whole pile of changes in the Ordinance, okay. Does anybody have any interest in having a Workshop Session to go through those? MR. LAPOINT-The stuff we just received, tonight, from Karla? MS. CORPUS-Okay. There was a delivery made to the Board, I think it was Friday, of a 17 page packet. I just gave you another Page 6 to replace the old Page 6. Okay. There were some additional changes made there and I explained them in the little memo. This is due to go before the Town Board for a public hearing July 30th, at 6:30. This Board has requested, there's two requests, actually, is to review and make any comments that this Board would like to have presented to the Town Board. Also, regarding SEQRA, whether to adopt a resolution either at this meeting or at the first July meeting, regarding SEQRA, whether this Board would consent to the Town Board being designated Lead Agent. MR. CAIMANO-Wait. Are we doing two things, then? MS. CORPUS-You don't have to do them now. I t's just those are the two concerns and the two thi ngs that have to be done. MR. CAIMANO-I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that on this proposed amendment, all these proposed amendments, I would suggest that you designate a committee of one or two people to simply read that, go through it, whoever might want to volunteer to do that. That way he or she or both can report back. That's my recommendation. MR. .CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else care to comment? MR. LAPOINT-Sounds like a good idea to me. MR. HAGAN-I think it behooves us all to do it and get comment. MR. CAlMANO-Well, you can read it, but I think we should have someone. MR. CARTIER-Are you saying that you will be satisfied with whatever comments these two people care to make to the Town Board regarding those, or do you want them to come back? MR. CAIMANO-Come back to us. 35 '--" MR. LAPOINT-And provide us a synopsis. MR. MARTIN-I will volunteer to be on that committee. MR. CARTIER-I'll get together with you. Now, do you want to take care of the Lead Agency Status on that right now, while we're at it? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, we need a motion to provide the Town Board with Lead Agency Status for the changes in the Ordinance. Does somebody care to make that motion? MS. CORPUS-It would be to consent to the Town Board being designated Lead Agency. MOTION TO HAVE THE TOWN BOARD DESIGNATED LEAD AGENCY FOR THE CHANGES IN THE zmtlNG ORDINANCE, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's approved. The ZBA, tomorrow night, is dealing with our appeal and I hope as many members of the Board could be there as possible. MR. MARTIN-I just have a question, Karla. Who drafted this language on the club and restaurants and taverns and bars? It is in exact, direct conflict with recommendations of this Board? MS. CORPUS-I don't know. I think it was a concerted effort between Town Board and I know that there was input from Planning and Zoning and Building and Codes. MR. MARTIN-I'm glad the issue on those areas was raised so they could make the exact opposite. MS. CORPUS-I have one more item. As you know, the Draft EIS for the roller coaster has been submitted. Lee York will not be involved in the review procedure. I don't know if the Board is aware of this, but she will not be involved. She will be a private citizen, and so as someone to review this, the Town Board already has adopted a resolution for John Goralski to be retained in that capacity to review the Draft EIS for completeness and other things and I didn't know if the Board knew that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MS. CORPUS-And the first thing that would have to be done under the SEQRA Reg's is that the Draft EIS has to be determined to be complete and John did ask me that this Board give him as close to the maximum, the maximum is 30 days. If another 30 days is needed, you can ask for another 30 days, to determine whether the Draft EIS is complete and you do that before a public hearing is set. Does the Board have any comment on a time they woul d 1 i ke to have John report back, regarding compl eteness of the Draft EIS. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. I'm confused, now. We have 30 days to set a public hearing on this? MS. CORPUS-You have 30 days to determine whether the Draft EIS is complete. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. CORPUS-And if it's not complete, you have another 30 days to, and any requirements that are made of the appl icant, and then at that time is when a certificate of completeness is issued and a publ ic hearing is set. MR. CARTIER-Is this something that we could handle at a regular meeting, tack on to a regular meeting? I don't mean the public hearing part. MRS. YORK-I think in the memo I wrote to you the regular meetings are after the 30 days. MR. CARTIER-So we do have to have a special meeting, then. How about if we do that the 11th, when we're going to make site visits? Can we take the first half hour? MS. CORPUS-Well, John Goralski would have to be present to give his report as to completeness. MR. CARTIER-Well, yes, maybe I'm doing this backwards. I know. It's got to be done before the 16th or 19th. 36 ,,- -- MRS. YORK-Right. MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Suppose we scheduled that for the first half hour of our site visit day from 4 to 4:30, John could give us a report to that effect? MS. CORPUS-Okay. Can I just ask where? When? MR. CARTIER-Lower Conference Room, 4 p.m., July 11th. Is that amenable to everybody? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Basically, John is going to review this thing and he's going to indicate to us whether it's complete or not. I would suggest to Board members that they take the time to go through that monster themselves and if they have any concerns that ought to be addressed, to pass them on to John by way of the Planning Department. Some things have already showed up for me, I know. MS. CORPUS-Rist-Frost will be there also. MR. CAIMANO-Just two quick things. Number One, something came up tonight on the agenda and I first wrote down a note to say, why was this guy made to wait until the end because it was so simple, but Number Two, it also brought up a Mike Baird type of syndrome. This poor gentleman was sitting here tonight on a simple little problem and hadn't a clue where he was going. He had actually created a sign and he doesn't even know whether that sign is in, that's not right, and he thought he was coming here to get approval to put a sign up for a sign that he doesn't even have approval to make yet. There's something wrong with that and that's how we get in trouble. I don't know how he got here. but he shouldn't have gotten here. He made a sign and that sign may not be in conformity with what they're going to tell him to make. MRS. YORK-I know that. MR. CAIMANO-Fortunately, he's pretty savvy, but he was here clueless, and it's not his fault. MRS. YORK-Yes. I have never met the gentleman or tal ked to him prior to this evening. He obviously got a referral form from the Zoning Administrator. got the paperwork from her and submitted it to my office. MR. CAIMANO-Would you do me a favor, would you do this Board a favor, before the Supervisor beats us over the head. Some time tomorrow, would you call this gentleman and say, did you understand? Because he didn't, and I think that's the right thing for us to do. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-And put him in the right direction, not that you have to it for him, but push him in the right direction and say, you've got to go over here and do this now. MRS. YORK-Well, some time ago, I wrote up a description of what happens at site plan review and I believe Pat has been giving that to everyone who applies. It goes through the steps and that you go to Warren County. You might have to go to Beautification, the rationale behind site plan review and things like that and it was my understanding she was giving that out so that everyone would be well apprised of the process and the same goes with the Zoning Board applicants. MR. CAIMANO-He was clueless tonight. MRS. YORK-I will give him a call. MR. CAIMANO-Thank you. I appreciate it. My only other comment was, maybe I just read this wrong, was Dave Hatin's letter which kind of smelled of Pat Crayford's letter. This letter in regard to Joan Lee Site Plan 38-91. If you read this. it is a non-determin~tion and we've got to make a determination, at least that's the way I read it. "This would not be in conformance with today's standards for a new, two bedroom house which would require at least two 6 by 8 pits or one 8 by 10 seepage pit, however, there are no requirements in the Sanitary Sewage Ordinance for a person adding a bedroom to upgrade a septic system as long as it...I trust this will answer any concerns you have." Well, it didn't answer my concerns. MR. LAPOINT-What he's saying is, if you're building a new house, you need those two. With an existing structure, if the sewage system is adequate, then it's adequate. MR. CARTIER-In other words, what we did tonight, basically, was take the word of the applicant that the septic system is functioning. 37 ~ '"-" MR. CAIMANO-Yes, right. MR. CARTIER-We could have required that it be tested by an engineer and certified. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. As long as we understood we stuck our neck out. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The issue of the evening has to do with the SEQRA Review on re-zoning. I have no set format for this. I think maybe what might be worth doing is if anybody would like to state their position on this, we can go down the line and do that and then get into a discussion and see where we're going to go. Does anybody want to start? MR. LAPOINT-I've just got four quick comments, and it's regarding our motion to assume SEQRA Lead Agency Status on the Diehl project, PI-91. I think we made an error by not granting the Town Board Lead Agency Status, and pending this discussion, I intend to make a motion to defer that Lead Agency Status to the Town Board. I think it's important that we separate the review process from the individual projects. Each applicant should be subject to the same criteria, regardless of our personal feelings on the project and in the past and on subsequent re-zon1ng issues, we've granted the Town Lead Agency Status and I think that reviewing our discussions of May 8th seems to infer to me that we prejudged the project. So, pending this discussion, I think I'm going to make a motion to defer to the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anybody else? MR. MARTIN-Well, I disagree. I think that two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. If we've been doing this type of thing in the past, if's wrong. I counted up tonight, for example, we did a total of eight SEQRA determinations tonight in the course of one meeting, regarding planning issues. We are about to enter into a major Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a review of that. I just believe that, from a Planning standpoint, we are more qual ified, and especially on a project of this nature where there can be the so called "political element" to it, and that's not necessarily to say, and I'm sorry to see that the Town Board has taken thi s as an insult, that they are a pol itical body by their nature. They're an elected body, and that's not to say that that's a negative comment, but this is a politically sensitive project, and therefore should be in the hands of an objective Board, that's not elected, that deals with these planning issues month in and month out, and I think we are eminently more qualified to deal with this particular SEQRA Review. MR. HAGAN-Jim, to add to that, what would be your comment to the fact that this Board still gets the chance to perform the SEQRA Review when that particular site plan comes before us? MR. MARTIN-Our participation is only as a commenting agency. It's not as the agency who makes the determination and that is where the bulk of the power lies with this type of decision. MR. CAIMANO-No, but he's saying, when the subdivision is approved, that then they have to come back for site plan review. MR. LAPOINT-Re-zoning. MRS. PULVER-Yes, the re-zoning is approved. MR. MARTIN-But by that time the principle issue is already passed, and that being the density is already doubled and then our hands are tied, we're restricted. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I've got to tell you that I suspect, I'm listening to both, and I hear both of you, but I suspect that if you take the individual site plan, politics does enter into it with with a small "p". I feel strongly, I personally have felt strongly that the Town Board shoul d do something to correct the problem that we have now with the affordable housing. That is, we have no vehicle to handle the affordable housing issue, as it comes up, and rather than face that issue, we're going to do it hand to mouth, and they're going to do it again hand to mouth. So, I'd be the first one to say, in this particular issue, I'm using it as a block. I'm not afraid to say that I would use it as a block because I want the Town Board to think about what they're doing, that instead of facing the issue, and that is an overlay zone or whatever, they continue to stumble and bumble along and leave it to the next Board or whatever. That bothers me. MR. MARTIN-Well, the issue that I want brought out, in terms of these so called "affordable housing projects", is I want, I don't believe that the first quick fix method to make housing so called "affordable" is to automatically reduce the lot size and cut the lot size in half. There are many, many, many, many, many elements that go into the cost of a home, especially on a project of that scale, and it is not the Town's responsibility to make that man's project affordable, from the standpoint of doubling the density. It's not the Town's responsibility to provide that affordable housing. If that's what he wants to do, then there are other measures that can be taken. If those are exhausted, then, fine, maybe a density issue can be looked at, but there's too often this quick fix method of just going, well, I'm going to double the density. 38 -- ~ MR. LAPOINT-So, what we're implying, here, is that we will use SEQRA to block this project. MR. MARTIN-I'm not implying that. MR. CAIMANO-I implied that. He didn't. I implied that, on an individual basis, which is what you were arguing against. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, but that's one issue. The other issue is a general issue of who should be handling SEQRA. MR. LAPOINT-I agree, and, to me, it should be separated from an applicant. We shouldn't put the appl icant through an unfair criteria. I mean we, in the past, have always given it to the Town Board, and on subsequent issues, have given it to the Town Board. On this particular applicant, we have decided to keep it for ourselves, and I think that's almost worse than what we're accusing the Town Board of doing. MR. CAIMANO-So, you're saying, lets get rid of this first and then go at the major issue? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. If you wanted to make a separate issue that we should take re-zoning in general, us as Lead Agent, I would be agreeable to that, but to put one appl icant through a different set of criteria and every other applicant we've put through, I think, is unfair. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I feel that the re-zoning for the senior complex was just as important, the SEQRA on it, as the re-zoning for the affordable housing, and we allowed the Town Board, or we gave the Town Board Lead Agency Status on that. I am very much with Ed. If we're going to be Lead Agency, we're going to be Lead Agency from this time on, and that's the way it's going to be. I mean, we just can't single out this one applicant. MR. LAPOINT-It's a whole separate issue. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-A whole separate issue. MR. CAIMANO-He makes a good point. That makes good sense. MRS. PULVER-And I think, at this point, it makes us, we're prejudice against the project, and it's obvious, and I don't think that we could do a good job. MR. MARTIN-Nobody said that I was prejudice against the project. MR. CAIMANO-I'm not prejudice against the project. MR. MARTIN-I'm not prejudice against the project, either. MR. CAIMANO-I'm prejudice against the way it's being handled. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. If we weren't prejudice against the project, then what's the problem with the Town Board be Lead Agent? MR. CAIMANO-Well, I think you make a good point. MR. LAPOINT-It's just what we're accusing them of. MR. MARTIN-If what you are saying is true, then the process would not allow for this type of consent. I said this to you during site review. The process, by its nature, is acknowledging the fact that this is not always clear sailing, that it's not always the best thing for the SEQRA process, to have the Town Board review it, or the elected, governing body. That is why the Planning Board has a chance to comment, and that is why some projects may go through a different set of review standards than another project. Call that singling one out, if you want, that's, sure, but. MR. LAPOINT-Well, yes, I disagree, they should be the same standards. I don't believe in different criteria for different projects. MR. MARTIN-That's why, I'm not saying different criteria, but I'm saying, in one case, one Board may be better qualified than another Board, and I do think this project is different than even the senior housing project. There are many things that are different about this than the senior housing project. MRS. PULVER-They are, but it's are-zoning. MR. MARTIN-But it's a different project by it's nature. 39 ---- ---- MRS. PULVER-Well, it's a re-zoning for a special need. MR. LAPOINT-For a special purpose. MR. CARTIER-My turn? First of all, I've been very impressed with the quality of this debate. I really have. I think Jim and Ed have done a good job of clarifying it, and what may be one person's dissension is, in fact, as far as I'm concerned, healthy debate. I'm hearing two separate but very related issues, you've pointed it out tonight, whether the Board should assume Lead Agency Status for all re-zoning appl ications and whether it should start with the Diehl appl ication. For me, I always fall back on what's gained and what's lost, and what's in the best long term interest of this Town. That's what the Planning Board is charged with considering and, to me, it's in the best long term interest of this community for the SEQRA process to be removed from the political arena, and it has to start somewhere. Now, I'm sorry that the Town Board members are offended by that. There's no offense intended on our part. MR. MARTIN-That's right. MR. CARTIER-But since affordable housing is, in fact, a politically sensitive issue, my position is that it start here. There is a procedure in place at the State level for situations just such as this, and it seems to me it would be appropriate for us to take advantage of that procedure and let the DEC Commissioner decide, and then we go from there. As has been brought up by another Board member, we have been, a comment was made somewhere along the line, that we're holding up this applicant, by some other Board member, and has been pointed out by a member of this Board, this thing could have gone to DEC a long time ago and the DEC Commissioner, by law, must make a determination within 20 days. MR. MARTIN-That's right. MR. CARTIER-So, this could have been dealt with and been done with a long time ago. MR. MARTIN-We made our decision May 8th, and if that was handed over to the DEC Commissioner within a few days of that, then this would have been resolved and the process could have been up for a site pl an revi ew by now, or subdivi si on, and I want to know, what is the reason for the del ay? Why is it being held up and all this pressure building for no apparent reason? MR. LAPOINT-Well, I think they gave us a chance to reconsider, to tell you the truth, because I disagree with Pete. We have handled two re-zonings since Diehl, where we have deferred to the Town Board. So, I think it would be inconsistently continues to march along in time and I think that the specter of us debating with the Town Board in front of the DEC or anyone else, for that matter, is inappropriate. MR. MARTIN-It's not inappropriate. MR. CAIMANO-I don't agree with that at all. MR. MARTIN-Because the process allows for it. That's why you're asked to consent, and if you don't consent, then it's just a simple process. MR. LAPOINT-It's such a small issue. It is a very small issue. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we have an easy way out, here. Why don't we take the high ground, here. We admit, I think all of us or most of us admit, that the big issue is, who, in the future, will handle the SEQRA. The minor issue, or the other issue, the peripheral issue is, as you have pointed out. We may be in error in holding somebody up to criterion that he didn't know about beforehand. So, why don't we take the high ground. Why don't we take the high ground and say, we're going to stand our ground. This is how we feel, however, we will not embarrass or hold up this applicant. MR. LAPOINT-I think we should correct the error we made, first, and then, again, because I see two different debates, here. I see that the error we made with the applicant, and then the discussion on whether we should send it to re-zoning. MR. MARTIN-How much fairer is it going to be? When are you going to, then, make the decision? When are you going to say that, well, on the next appl icant, we're going to not consent to the Town Board taking Lead Agency Status on a zone change? MR. CAIMANO-IlI1IIediately. We say, fine, the hell with Diehl. That's out of our hands. It's already been, but from now on, this is it. From this day forward, June 25th at 9:45, that's it. MR. HAGAN-I thought that's what we already decided. MR. LAPOINT-No. I seconded that motion on May 8th, and I feel poorly about that and I want to correct that situation and then deal with the next situation, which would be, if we want to handle all re-zonings. 40 r- -- - --./ MR. MARTIN-Yes, but it's no less unfair to that applicant than it is to Diehl. Then the next guy who comes along is caught up in what you're describing as this terrible morass that we've created. MR. LAPOINT-No. I say we handle it separately. Before we consider another re-zoning, we make a determination as to whether we want to be Lead Agency from here on out, and not put another appl icant in the middle and subject to unfair standards that we don't put other applicants through, because we have changed horses in the middle of the stream, here, with the last two we did. MR. MARTIN-No. We will be changing horses now. We had a unanimous decision, May 8th. Now we will be changing horses. MR. LAPOINT-We changed it at the last meeting when we voted to give Lead Agency Status to two re-zoning projects. MR. CARTIER-But those were grandfathered. Those were in the pipeline prior to our discussion. MR. MARTIN-And I said that before I voted yes on that. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, you're right. That's a good point. MR. LAPOINT-Why shouldn't Diehl have the same criteria established. MR. CAIMANO-Do you want to know the truth? MR. LAPOINT-Why shouldn't he have the same criteria? MR. MARTIN-He's not going to be subjected to any different criteria. What I'm saying is, he has a better review with an objective Board. MR. LAPOINT-Well, see, I think we've inferred, already, our displeasure with them. MR. MARTIN-I'm not going to hold him to a different set of criteria. That's not legal. MRS. PULVER-The thought that crosses my mind is that I have not been involved in most of the discussion because the first time this came up, of course, Nick and I were not here, or involved in the voting, but if it is beginning to appear to me that it is we against them. I don't like that feeling on this. I just don't like that. MR. CAIMANO-We against them, meaning the Town Board? MRS. PULVER-The Town Board against the Planning Board, you know, they ~ a political body, yes, they ~ elected, and they probably got our votes, and I am very much in favor of this Board passing a resolution to be Lead Agency on all re-zoning projects from this day forward, but I don't like the idea that this Board, it seems that you're making an issue out of the Diehl case. I mean, you voted to be Lead Agency, for whatever reason. I was not at the meeting, and now it's become an issue and you're going to hang onto it until the bitter end. MR. MARTIN-If you were thinking that the Town Board would not be just as upset with us if we were to, on the next application say, they're going to be upset with this resolution saying that you want to be Lead Agent, now, on all zoning. MRS. PULVER-That's it. That's right. MR. LAPOINT-That's still open for discussion. I think we've got to clear one hurdle at a time. MR. MARTIN-That's going to fall on just as much disfavor as this one applicant. MRS. PULVER-I haven't said I wanted to be Lead Agency on everything. I'm just saying that if the Board could pass a resolution to do that. MR. MARTIN-Right, on every re-zoning, that's going to fall on just as much disfavor. MR. LAPOINT-Well, it's open to debate and it doesn't put an applicant on an unfair position. MR. MARTIN-And I'm saying, if we're going to bite the bullet, lets bite the bullet and stick with our decision as made on May 8th, because it's going to hit the fan sooner or later. MR. CARTIER-Well, see, I don't hear us resolving this issue with the Town Board, let alone among ourselves, here, and that's why there's a third party alternative available to us. MR. LAPOINT-Well, no. If I make a motion to defer Lead Agency Status to them, and we come up with a majority, then we have resolved that particular issue without DEC, which is what I'd like to do. I don't think we need to bring them in. I think it's a mistake. 41 ~' MRS. PULVER-If you have a gun, you don't shoot it just because it's there. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to know, where does this perception come from that this going to the DEC Commissioner is like the most awful, terrible thing in the world? It's just a procedural matter. He probably does it all the time. MR. LAPOINT-Do you deal with them very often, like every day? MR. MARTIN-Yes. If he's bound to a 20 day review time, what's the big deal? MR. LAPOINT-I don't think we should have kept the SEQRA to begin with. MR. MARTIN-All I'm saying is I just can't help, but feel that, you know, they feel like their toes are being stepped on and we're infringing on their power and it's this big power play thing and I don't want it to be that type of thing. I just want the best possible objective SEQRA Review for this project, and now it's gotten into this big issue, well, you know, Planning Board members are running for office, and this that and the other thing and they're trying to make it into a political thing. I might remind you that on that night, the two Pl anning Board members who are running for office weren't even there to vote. MR. LAPOINT-That doesn't enter into it. MR. MARTIN-Well, it is entering into it. MRS. PULVER-We haven't voted on either. We haven't voted on anything. We haven't even been there. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MR. MARTIN-So, I just think, somebody's nose is all out of joint for no reason at all. It's just a matter of, you have two people who want to do Lead Agency Status, let it go to the Commissioner and let him decide. MRS. PULVER-Exactly. So, now that we're all here. Let's have a motion. Let's all vote. MR. LAPOINT-I think we can take care of it tonight, rather than the 20 day wait for the Commissioner, who I don't think would review this in any kind of depth or anything. I mean, to them, this is nothing, and they would not even give it, I mean, they would probably defer to the Town Board, is my guess. MR. CARTIER-We don't know that. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, to put the State through that. I know what kind of work load they have. To put them through something like this is just inappropriate. MR. HAGAN-That should not be your guiding light, though. MR. LAPOINT-It's not my guiding light. My guiding light is we made an error at the cost of an applicant, and that's what I think we did wrong. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm ready to hear the motion. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Does anybody else want to make a comment? Okay. Go. MOTION THAT THE PUUtNUIG BOARD CONSENTS TO ESTABLISHING THE TM BOARD AS LEAD AGENT FOR PI-91 PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF lONE, THE DIEHL PROJECT, Introduced by Edward LaPoint, MS. CORPUS-Ed, procedurally, what you would do is vote to withdraw the prior motion, first. MOTION TO RESCIND THE IIJTION OF MAY 8TH ASSUMING LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano NOES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer MS. CORPUS-No action. 42 ~ -...-' MR. CARTIER-So, what does that leave us, in terms of Roberts Rules? MS. CORPUS-That's, technically, a no action vote, which is not sufficient to rescind the motion. Mr. Brewer, if he does feel that he could get fully informed on the matter, could participate in a further vote some other time, if he wanted to. That's up to him. MR. CAIMANO-Maybe I can help this a little bit, and I'll make a statement, here. 1111 vote to rescind it in order to clear up the matter, but I would not vote for your motion the way you said it. If we're going to rescind this, then I have to be satisfied with the motion that leaves Diehl alone, but handles the whole matter in one motion. Otherwise, it's possible that we could drop the Diehl project and never get a vote on the other. So, I voted to rescind, but I'm waiting to hear your motion expanded, not just for Diehl, I buy Diehl, but I want it included here. MR. LAPOINT-He can't do that, can he? MR. CAIMANO-I'm just telling you how I feel. MS. CORPUS-No. It's dead. MRS. PULVER-Ed is talking about making two motions. The first one to rescind, or to have the Lead Agency Status turned over to the Town Board. A second motion to have the Planning Board be Lead Agency in all re-zoning matters. MR. CAIMANO-I understand that, but I don't want them separated. MR. CARTIER-Understand that that second kind of motion doesn't go anywhere unless the Town Board grants us that status. MR. MARTIN-All you're saying is you're automatically not going to consent to the next one that comes along. MR. CARTIER-Exactly right. MRS. PULVER-But then, guess what, they're warned. MR. MARTIN-All you're saying is that you're automatically not going to consent to the Town Board being Lead Agent on the next re-zoning, no matter what the project is. MRS. PULVER-Well, then they know. MR. CAIMANO-On re-zoning. MR. MARTIN-Yes, right. MRS. PULVER-But then they know. MS. CORPUS-I just have a question. Now that the previous resolution stands, has this Board decided whether to submit this to DEC? MR. LAPOINT-That's not our choice. MR. MARTIN-That's not our choice, is it? MR. CARTIER-That's a good question. Who is responsible for submitting this to DEC? MS. CORPUS-That's a good question. I'm not really sure. There are also a couple of potential issues that have to do with representation and whatnot, that the Board may want to discuss in Executive Session, furthering the discussion before the DEC, as it's quasi judicial in nature and it's quasi litigation, so to speak. There might be certain i~sues the Board would want to discuss in Executive Session, with regard to DEC, regarding Counsel and whatnot, if the Board wishes to retain any. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I hear you. I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm not sure if we're at that point yet, but it's a good point and it's one to hang on to, because we'll come back to it. MR. MARTIN-I would just like to say, I don't think there's any reason why this can't be sent to the Commissioner and get this issue over with. MR. CAIMANO-Which is what we just did. MS. CORPUS-Well, this Board won't meet in time to decide the issues of representation and whatnot, within that 20 day period. 43 '--" ---" MR. WlRTIN-Karla, has there been any word back from the Town Board, as to our request for separate Counsel? MR. LAPOINT-We didn't make a request for that, did we? I hope not. MR. HAGAN-Yes, we did. MR. LAPOINT-Did we vote on that? MRS. PULVER-I wasn't here. MS. CORPUS-I do not attend the Town Board meetings, but I can find out for you. MR. HAGAN-Weren't you here when the Town Attorney said, he even recommended we have independent counsel. MR. CARTIER-I bel ieve you're getting into an issue that we discussed in Executive Session al ready, if I recall. MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. LAPOINT-I don't think we should be hiring attorneys and all that stuff. MR. HAGAN-Well, you voted for it. MR. LAPOINT-If I did, that was another error. MRS. PULVER-Was there a quorum present, though, because I don't think I was there. I don't think Nick was there. MR. LAPOINT-We made a vote to? I would have said no to retaining another attorney. MR. CAIMANO-I don't know that we actually took a vote. We discussed it. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. I think we're, again, one step ahead of ourselves here. I have to give the Town Board an answer as to whether we're going to meet with them and discuss this with them. That's where we're at now. Now, we don't necessarily have to entertain any kind of motion to go to DEC at this point. We can decide we want to have a meeting with the Town Board and push that around the table some more, or we can decide, no we don't want to have a meeting with the Town Board and we can lay a motion on the table to go to DEC. MR. MARTIN-I'll put this out that will threaten my very position as someone who voted no, maybe a meeting with the Town Board would break the deadlock, here. MR. LAPOINT-It's in the Town Board's hands, right now, to appeal to the Commissioner, not ours. MR. CAIWlNO-Say that again? MR. LAPOINT-It's in the Town Board's hands to appeal to the Commissioner, not ours. MR. CARTIER-I assume that's correct. MR. LAPOINT-The ball is in their court, then. MR. CARTIER-I assume that's correct. MR. WlRTIN-It has been since May 8th, I should note. MR. LAPOINT-Since May 8th, yes. I just tried to correct that, tonight, to no avail. MR. CAlMANO-I think, again, the high ground says that we try to get together with the Town Board. MS. CORPUS-Did the Town Board ask you to make that determination tonight, about meeting? MR. CARTIER-I got a 1 etter from Steve saying that they wanted us to meet one more time to see if we could not resolve the issue internally, ourselves. If not, then, he wanted a special meeting. MR. CAlMANO-He's talking about Board to Board, not in a phone booth somewhere, right? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAIWlNO-Okay. 44 -- -- MS. CORPUS-Okay. I was not aware of that. That's fine. MR. CAIMANO-Lets do it. MR. CARTIER-Lets do what? MR. CAIMANO-As Jim says, lets take the high road and meet with them. MR. CARTIER-Have a Town Board meeting? MR. CAIMANO-Sure. I'm happy. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. Does anybody care to make a motion to the effect that we get together with the Town Boa rd. I don't even know if we need a motion. A 11 we have to do is 1 et the Town Boa rd know we haven't resolved this issue among ourselves. MR. MARTIN-And instruct you to set up a meeting date. MR. CARTIER-Well, he's the one the one who wants to call a special Town meeting and invite us to it. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. Let him do that. MRS. PULVER-May I also ask our Senior Planner if she could just get the application and give it to Mr. Brewer so he might be able to look it over. MRS. YORK-What application? MRS. PULVER-Diehl's. MS. CORPUS-He'd need all the minutes, too. MRS. YORK-Do you want to get involved in this? MR. CARTIER-Well, I understand what you're trying to do, here, but lets not put our newest member in a tough situation. MRS. PULVER-Well, he's going to be faced with it sooner or later. MR. CARTIER-Well, maybe, maybe not. Let's let Tim decide what he wants to do about that issue. whether he's going to continue to abstain or vote or whatever. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think he should have an application anyway. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Where are we at here? We're going to leave it, the Town Board can set up a special meeting. Can you inform Steve that we did not come to a resolution and if he wishes to set up a Town Board meeting and invite us to it. MS. CORPUS-Does this Board have any prefer,ence as to time and whatnot? Their first regular meeting is the 8th. I'm not sure whether they were thinking of before then or not. MR. CARTIER-I don't have any problem with anything. MR. CAIMANO-I'm happy with that. MR. CARTIER-The sooner, the better. MR. CAIMANO-Tell him to call the meeting and then we'll let him know. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's a very real possibility. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Call him, you know, we could go back and forth forever on dates. Just call the meeting. If we can be there, we'll be there. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We'll make it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anything else? MR. CAIMANO-However, I would debate that with you. I think that given a main motion with an amendment, we could get that done. MR. CARTIER-Get what done? What's this? 45 -- ~ MR. CAIMANO-Karla doesn't think I could do what I wanted to do. MRS. PULVER-They're right, an amendment to the motion, right. MR. CARTIER-Run it by us again. What's your idea? MR. CAIft\l\NO-My idea is that I would go along with LaPoint on the deal, specifically on the Diehl, but I would want it amended to the point that, from this point forward, all zoning would be, we stand by our rights of wanting to do the SEQRA for all other re-zonings. MRS. PULVER-Now what has to happen though is, he has to start the motion and after he makes his motion, then you have to amend the motion with whatever it is. MR. CAIft\l\NO-Yes. I mean, we could do that. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to try an amended motion, Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Okay, so I make another motion to withdraw. MR. CAIMANO-No. The withdrawal is dead. You can't get by with that, unless Brewer votes. MS. CORPUS-Unless somebody votes differently. MRS. PULVER-So, now you're going to pass a new motion. MR. CAIft\l\NO-Well, my point is, we can't do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Karla has just brought up a very good point. Is anybody going to change their vote based on a change in a motion? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARTIER-I'm not. MR. HAGAN-No. MR. CAIMANO-Well, then, it's moot. MR. CARTIER-Exactly. So, we don't have to worry about it. Does anybody have anything else? If there's no other business before the Board, we can entertain a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 46