Loading...
1991-07-16 '''-/ -..-' ~EEllSBURY PLAMING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO EDWARD LAPOINT JAMES MARTIN JAMES HAGAN TI MOTHY BREWER DEPUTY T(IIf ATTORNEY- KARLA CORPUS SENIOR PlANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 28th, 1991: NONE June 18th, 1991: Page 1, Introduced by Carol Pulver, seconded by James LaPoint, sIb Ed LaPoint; Page 40, Mr. Cartier's first comment from the top, second line, the word that says imProved sIb !pproved MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 33-91 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-lA JAMES BETH (lifER: ALEX POTENZA MILLER HILL PLAZA BEHIND EXISTING SHOPPING PLAZA, ROOTE 9, NORTH OF AVIATION ROAD ACROSS FROM RAY SUPPLY. TO USE AN EXISTING FACILITY FOR A DETAIL BOOY SIKF AND SMALL REPAIR SHOP. (WARREN COONTY PLAMING) TAX MAP NO. 72-7-2 LOT SIZE: 4.5 ACRES SECTION 4.02D-J ALEX POTENZA AND JAMES BETIT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 33-91, James Betit, June 12, 1991, Meeting Date: June 18, 1991 "The request is to locate a detail body shop in an existing facility at the Miller Hill Mallon Route 9. The applicant received a variance for two years for this use at the site. The Zoning Board wanted to reserve the right to review the use after two years to determine if there were any problems. A detail body shop is not an allowable use in a Plaza Commercial zone. Concerns which were raised at the Zoning Board meeting were: 1) If access was to be from Route 9, then a guard rail should be placed along the driveway and the slope should be stabil ized. 2) Storage of vehicles should be screened from neighboring properties and the roadway. 3) Patrons should be encouraged to exit by the unpaved road on to Montray Road. It is the understanding of the staff that these concerns were agreed to by the applicant, however, they are not part of the motion of the Zoning Board. The Planning Board may want to discuss these previously raised concerns with the applicant. Also. the Material Safety Data Sheet contains a list of chemicals to be stored at the site. The storage and containment of these should be discussed. This is one reason that body shops and car repair are not allowable uses in Plaza Commercial zones. This appl ication was reviewed with regard to Section 5.070. 1. The building is currently in existence. The appl icant' slighting of the parking area should be designed so as not to cause a glare on the roadways or any neighbors. The signage appears to be intended for the corner of the interior roadway and Route 9. This should be in conformance with the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance. 2. A circular traffic pattern should be encouraged. Access on to Route 9 from the interior roadway would be more hazardous than directing individuals toward Montray Road. Signage could be used to accomplish this. A- body shop is not a high traffic business and traffic could most likely be handled very easily. It is understandable that the applicant wants the access point and signage at the front of the mall that he is in. 3. There are existing parking spaces adjacent to the facility and unpaved parking spaces which can also be utilized. These appear to be sufficient. The applicant has previously testified that his business does not have a number of cars parked and 1 ---- -- waiting for service or waiting to be picked up. 4. Pedestrian access is not a concern. 5. All storm dra inage facil iti es are in exi stence. No changes to the si te are anti cipated. 6. Water and sewer services are existing. 7. Visual screening from any residential neighbors should be provided. The grade drops ~ff so that this portion of the mail is substantiaily hidden from view. Noise impacts from the buslness have not been identified. A discussion of potential conflicts arising from noise should take place. 8. Emergency access is sufficient. 9. Ponding and flooding is not a concern." MR. CARTIER-We have nothing from engineer on this one. Is that correct? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-We also have from the Warren County Planning Board, approval with the condition that Montray Road access point only be used in case of emergency and also that all equipment be designed, installed, and maintained with applicable OSHA standards. MRS. YORK-Okay. I talked the County about this and they were concerned that traffic, if it got to be a high traffic volume business, that it would be an interruption in a residential neighborhood. MR. CARTIER-In terms of Montray Road? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any other Staff Comments on this application or any letters? MRS. YORK-No. That's it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Sir, would you care to address the Board? MR. POTENZA-Certainly. This is James Betit. My name's Alex Potenza and I'm the owner of the property. Before you begin the review process, I'd reaily like to make a statement and, probably, it's more out of frustration. This has been probably, or close to, 18 months to get to this particular point with three different tenants, or perspective tenants and putting it very mildly, I am incensed that it takes this long to get through a review process, some of which was our own fault, to put a business in this particular community, and I am to the point of being so incensed that I wiil put the property up for sale and I will move my business out of Queensbury to a business community that it totally more receptive to the businessman, and I wanted you to know that before we started the review process. MR. CARTIER-Basically, I think what we need to hear is reactions to Staff Comment. MR. POTENZA-I don't need to hear anything, Mr. Cartier. I'm just teiling you exactly what I feel, and answer any questions so that we can get James in that particular property. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Before we get into the public hearing, does the Board have any questions? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. MARTIN-I have none. MR. CARTIER-While the Board's thinking about this, let me open the public hearing on this and we'il take comments from the public, if any. Is there anybody here who'd care to address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any questions of this applicant, or comments? MR. MARTIN-It seems a reasonable use of the site to me. MR. CARTIER-Are you going to have a spray booth in there, an approved spray booth? You're going to do paint and body work and so on and so forth. MR. BETIT-Well, they said that as long as I stay under a gallon, I wouldn't have to have, like, a $15,000 spray booth. See, what I'm doing, it's going to be a spot painting and stuff like that, which I don't use, I'm lucky if I use a gallon a week. MR. CARTIER-Who's the "they" you refer to? You said that "they" you wouldn't have to. MR. BETIT-The Fire Marshal. MR. CARTIER-The Fire Marshal. Okay. 2 ~ -' MR. MARTIN-What about storage of paint thinner? MR. POTENZA-He has a storage container already purchased. It's approved. MR. BETIT-I've already got a storage, fire proof cabinet he told me to pick up and all that stuff. to be all legal and they come in and inspect it. It's all going to be inspected and all that stuff. So everything is going to be up to standard. It's going to have filters in where the existing fans, ~here they didn't have any, and we'll have filters that catch all the dust, the paint dust, going out lnto the air, and all that stuff. All that stuff's going to be installed. MR. CARTIER-Okay. It is going to be. MR. BETIT-Right. MR. CARTIER-All right. MR. BETIT-It's not going to be an original spray booth, but it's going to be as efficient as one, because it's going to have the filters, as the original does. It's going to have the collectors and all that stuff, to collect the dust and stuff. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I don't have the Staff Notes in front of me, but reference was made to a guard rail? Is that correct? I just want to make sure we pick up on everything. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Traffic should be encouraged, that paragraph. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Mr. Betit, I'm looking at the second paragraph, here. Concerns raised at the Zoning Board meeting, if access is to be from Route 9, which I assume it will be? MR. BETIT-Right. MR. CARTIER-Then a guard rail should be placed along the driveway and the slope should be stabilized? Okay. You have no problems doing that? MR. BETIT-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Storage of vehicles should be screened from neighboring properties and the roadway. I believe this place is on a property where that's relatively simple to accomplish, is it not? MR. BETIT-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Patrons should be encouraged to leave by the unpaved road onto Montray Road. How does the Board, we're getting one thing from Staff, here, and another thing from Warren County. What's your pleasure on that issue? MR. CAIMANO-No. They're consistent, aren't they? They both say the same thing. MR. CARTIER-Only in case of emergency. It sounds to me like what the County is saying is they don't want the Montray exit used. except for emergency. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MRS. YORK-It's really up to the Board. I just felt that that incline back up the hill was difficult to make and could be hazardous, but this is not going to be a high traffic business anyway, it's my understanding, and so it's probably not a serious concern. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Depending on the vote, here, if we have five or more votes on this thing, we can override the County, here. It would be my own personal impression that it would be safer to use the Montray Road exit to get out of there. especially in the winter time. MR. BETIT-Right. I would say so, too, in case it does get icy there, because the water does drain off from way up above, off the other road. You can put salt and all that other stuff down, but, you know. MR. MARTIN-I would rather encourage the Montray Road usage. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I would, too. All right. MR. LAPOINT-Excuse me, sir. Do you operate a detail shop, right now, in another location? MR. BETIT-No. I don't. MR. LAPOINT-But you intend just to do small detailing type work? 3 '-' __""i MR. BETH-Right. That's like buffing and cleaning and final finish on the cars. Like if somebody's got a tarnished car and they want to get it all cleaned up like brand new, again, that's what we do. MR. LAPOINT-Now, you won't be ripping and air hammering off body panels and roofs? MR. BETIT-Sometimes. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, major work on cars like that? MR. BETIT-No, because I usually do small dent repairs and stuff like that. See, I usually do my work, it's all through dealers, so most of it's just detail and taking the dents out and spot repairing and painting them and all that stuff. Once and a while, we get into air hammering the rear quarter off or cutting it off, but stuff like that, if the noise bothers, we'll just close all the doors down when we're doing that kind of work. MR. LAPOINT-You're not going to do, like total wreck type rollovers and that type of thing? MR. BETH-No. It's all small like maybe a fender and a bumper and maybe a hood. There's not going to be any great big wrecks. I don't like those kind anyway. I like the small jobs, in and out. That's where the money is. MR. HAGAN-All the work will be done indoors, though? MR. BETH-Yes. Just for, like, washing the cars and maybe waxing them outside, and stuff like that, but all the major stuff, like sanding and all that stuff, most of that stuff will be inside. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lee's Item Number One comment, the building is currently in existence. The applicant's lighting of the parking area should be designed so as not to cause a glare on the roadways or any neighbors. Is there lighting on the building already? MR. BETIT-Yes, there is. There's one great big light, but I don't think it would bother anybody, because it's sitting down in the hole, there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I agree. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board have any other questions or comments? If not, we can entertain a SEQRA Review on this application. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTlON NO. 33-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JAMES BETIT to use an existing facility for a detail body shop and Slall repair shop, Miller Plaza behind the existing Shopping Plaza, 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 4 ~ -..-' 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 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. Before we get into a motion, Mr. Potenza, I'd make just a quick comment to you in regard to your opening statements. If you would provide us with a letter detailing the concerns you have and being very specific, maybe there are some things we can deal with. From your comments. I am under the impression that there are some things that did not involve the Town of Queensbury, but we can't do anything about comments Uke that unl ess we know specifically what you are referring to, and if you would be willing to address a letter to this Board, spelling out specific concerns, I'd be glad to take a look at that letter and see if there's anything we can change. MR. POTENZA-I'd appreciate that, Mr. Cartier. I certainly will do that. MR. MARTIN-And I agree. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're ready to entertain a motion on this application. tlJTlON TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-91 JAMES BETIT, Introduced by Nichol as Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: To use an existing facility for a detail body shop and small repair shop, Miller Hill Plaza behind existing Shopping Plaza with the rider of the guard rail on the entrance from Route 9 is to be installed and the associated slope stabilized. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1991 (EXTENSION) PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA SHERMAN PINES OWNER: CHARLES A. DIEHL SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVENUE 1,490± FT. EAST OF WEST JIT. ROAD, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF ADIRONDACK PLANTATIONS, PHASE I. FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 46 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS IN TIIIIHOOSE DESIGN, FOOTPRINT ONLY TO BE SOLD, HOMECllŒR'S ASSOC. TO OWN OPEN SPACE AND COIID ACRES. TAX MP NO. 121-2-22 LOT SIZE: 48.28 ACRES WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have a letter, here, from Wilson Mathias, received June 24th, "Gentlemen and Ladies: As you know, Preliminary approval of the above referenced 46 unit subdivision was granted on July of 1990. Because of Mr. Diehl's pending request for a change of zoning, application is hereby made to extend the time within which the application for final plat review must be submitted. If further information is required, please do not hesitate to contact me. Mr. Mathias. would you care to make any comments? MR. MATHIAS-I really have nothing further to add, other than to state for the record, my name's Wilson Mathias. I'm a lawyer with offices at 525 Bay Road, and I appear on behalf of the applicant, Charles A. Diehl. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you have any indication as to the length of the extension your client is seeking? MR. MATHIAS-Well, I would hope it would be a minimum of six months, I think. As you know, we've got an application for a re-zoning and I think, depending on the outcome of that, we'd obviously discontinue one plan and start up with the other. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and what's the Board's druthers, here? I know we've given extensions up to a year. We have a request for six months. Does the Board have any que.stions about this application, or this request for an extension? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. LAPOINT-Six months seems reasonable. MR. CAIMANO-Under the circumstances, I think six months is reasonable. MR. MARTIN-I have no problem with that. 5 ---- --J MR. CARTIER-Okay. Karla, I don't need a public hearing on this, do I? MS. CORPUS-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, if the Board so desires, we can grant the extension by motion, for six months, just reaffirming the approval and granting an extension. Would anyone care to make that motion? MOTION TO APPROVE EXTEllSION OF SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE SHEIUM PINES, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For the development of 46 single family units in townhouse design, footprint only to be sold. Homeowner's Association to own open space and COmmon acres. For an extension of six months from this date. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver NEW IIJSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 40-91 TYPE II WR-lA PAUL KNOX, III OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, PROPERTY LOCATED DEMEl SERIVO (TO THE SOOTH) AND MILLER (TO THE NORTH). TO CœSTRUCT AN 8 FT. BY 40 FT. CRIB DOCK WITH STAIRS LEADING FROM ASsEMBLY POINT ROAD TO THE DOCK. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZE: 1:20 ACRES SECTIœ 179-16-D-A-2 PAUL KNOX, III, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 40-91, Paul Knox, III, July 11, 1991, Meeting Date: July 16, 1991 "The request is for construction of a crib dock off of the Assembly Point Road. This accessory use is incidental to a 'single family residence located on about 25 acres. The applicant will also need permits from the Corps of Engineers, DEC, and the Lake George Park Commission. The Planning Board policy relating to construction in wetlands or water bodies has been to request the appl icant get the other necessary permits prior to applying to the Town. The reason being that the Planning Board does not have the specialized personnel available to evaluate the impacts and can more comfortably prepare a negative SEQRA determination if a plan has been approved by other involved agencies. This policy should be adhered to in this situation. The Board may wish to table this application until the applicant receives his other permits." MR. CARTIER-Okay, and we have comment from Warren County Planning Board, approval with no comments. Sir, would you care to address the Board with regard to this application? MR. KNOX-I'm Paul Knox. I own the property in question. 1'm fil ing for a permit to construct an 8 by 40 ft. crib dock on my 50 foot of lake frontage. MR. CARTIER-Okay. On your application it says family use. Could you define that for us just a little bit, please? Are we talking about it's going to be used exclusively by members of your family to tie their own personal boats? MR. KNOX-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Do you have another dock somewhere else on the lake? MR. KNOX-Yes, I do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-On this same frontage? MR. KNOX-Well, you're talking about 25 acres. MR. HAGAN-No. I'm talking about the 50 feet that your application is applying. MR. KNOX-No. The 50 feet is part of the 25 acre parcel of land. MR. HAGAN-Okay. I'm only concerned with the lake frontage. 6 -.../ MR. KNOX-Yes. Fifty feet there. I have no other dock. MR. HAGAN-MY question is, you already have a dock on that 50 feet? MR. KNOX-No. I do not. MR. HAGAN-You do not. MR. CARTIER-But you do have other lake frontage? MR. KNOX-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And how long is that? MR. KNOX-It's a total of 351 feet. MR. CARTIER-Including the 50 feet that we're talking about here? MR. KNOX-No. In addition to. MR. CARTIER-So, we're talking, what, a total of 401 feet, ball park. MR. KNOX-No, it's including the 50 feet, excuse me. MR. CARTIER-It's including that piece that we're talking about tonight? MR. KNOX-Yes, it is. MR. CARTIER-So, you've got a total of 351 feet. MR. KNOX-Yes. MR. CARTIER-How many other docks have you got? MR. KNOX-Three. MR. CARTIER-You have three other docks? MR. KNOX-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Karla, are you ahead of me on that? MS. CORPUS-I believe it's a different piece of property, Mr. Cartier. MR. HAGAN-It's not continuous? MS. CORPUS-It's not contiguous. MR. HAGAN-No. We're only talking about 50 foot frontage. One appl ication for one dock on 50 foot frontage. MS. CORPUS-Yes. The other property is separated. MR. CARTIER-It's subdivided off? MS. CORPUS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-It's not all one piece of property? MS. CORPUS-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That answers that. MR. KNOX-It is contiguous. MS. CORPUS-To the 300 other feet of lake frontage? MR. KNOX-Yes. MR. CORPUS-It is? 7 '- --./ MR. KNOX-Well, it's a question in my mind, because you have Knox Road that would separate it from the, the 50 feet of lake frontage is part of, if you look at the tax map, it's part of one parcel that includes 351 feet of lake frontage. Now, Knox Road, essentially, bisects that parcel and separates, if you will, but on your tax map, it's one parcel. MRS. YORK-It indicates that it is the same tax map number here. Am I correct? MR. KNOX-That's what I'm saying. MRS. YORK-You pay one tax bill? MR. KNOX-That's right. MRS. YORK-Okay. It's one parcel. MR. CARTIER-You have one piece property, okay, that includes the strip that goes down to the Assembly Point Road? MR. KNOX-Right. MR. CARTIER-Karla, do you understand what I'm trying to get at, here? We're talking about three docks, now. MR. KNOX-If you had a tax map, I could show you exactly. MR. HAGAN-We spent over an hour trying to locate the property. That's why we're kind of confused. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. If you use your drawing, could you show us where the 300 feet is on that drawing? MR. KNOX-No, I can't, because. MR. LAPOINT-It's on another part of the lake? MR. KNOX-When I went to the Warren County meeting last week, they had a tax map, and, based on the tax map, I could show you. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, that dock comes off the flag pole end of this lot, 50 feet on the lake, and the other 300 feet is somewhere else? MR. KNOX-Right. It's to the south, but it's part of this one large parcel. MR. LAPOINT-And the lot is bisected by Knox Road? MR. KNOX-It's bisected by Knox Road, but it's part of one tax parcel. MR. LAPOINT-So, essentially, you have a U-Shaped lot? MR. KNOX-Well, this is one little 50 foot finger of 25 acres. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Karla, I'm on Page 18024 of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm on the same page. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Top of the page, Karla? MS. CORPUS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Item 7, the number of private docks permitted to be constructed per residentially used lake front lot is limited as follows: Now, 251 to 500 feet, he's allowed three docks. MS. CORPUS-That's a determination that has to be made by the Zoning Administrator. MR. CARTIER-What's to be determined, here? MS. CORPUS-Well, I guess if all of the frontage is considered one lot for zoning purposes. MR. HAGAN-Are the other three docks used for family use? MR. KNOX-Yes. MR. HAGAN-And how many boats do you have in that family? What I'm trying to ascertain is that all of these docks are going to be used for private family use and not to be rented out commercially, because we are getting inundated with docks on the shores of Lake George, for just such purposes, and it's not allowable. 8 --.../ MR. KNOX-Well, my family background is we've owned the property for 90 years and a few years ago, when the taxes more than tripled, I felt that it's now time to start using that 50 feet of property that we have never used in 90 years and it's my intent to build a dock and use it for family use. MR. HAGAN-What about the other three docks? MR. KNOX-They're used for personal use. MR. CARTIER-Okay. You're a step ahead of us, because we've got to back up, here. There's a problem. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Cartier, there's a letter from Mrs. Crayford, the Zoning Administrator. MR. CARTIER-A letter? MS. CORPUS-Do you have a copy of that? MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. CARTIER-I have a Checklist only. MRS. YORK-You have the file. Would you just look in the file, regarding this. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Cartier, never mind. It doesn't pertain to this application. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I want to be sure you understand where we're at, here, and what we're trying to sort ourselves through. We have, in the Ordinance, the number of private docks permitted to be constructed for a residentially used lake front lot is limited as follows: 251 to 500 feet you're allowed three docks. Now, we're talking a total of 351 feet of lake frontage, here, and we're confronted with a fourth dock, which, the only way, at this point, you could get, is by variance. Correct? MS. CORPUS-If this lot is considered one entire lot for zoning purposes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, we have some issues that need to get cleared up here, obviously. That's number one. Staff has already made comment about other approvals that are necessary. MR. MARTIN-What do you mean, "lot for zoning purposes"? A lot is a lot. MR. CAIMANO-A lot is a lot, isn't it? MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. CARTIER-I think what Karla's referring to, is this considered a single piece of property in single ownership. MR. BREWER-It's broken by the road, but it's still one piece of property. MR. KNOX-It's broken by the road. MR. CARTIER-But it's still one piece of property. MR. KNOX-If it's broken by the road, there are no other docks. MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. What? MR. KNOX-If you consider the road as separating this parcel from the rest of my property, then there are no docks on this parcel in question, that includes the 50 feet. MR. CARTIER-But we're talking about one single parcel in ownership. You own one single parcel of land that happens to front on two sections of the lake, basically. MR. KNOX-Yes, right. MR. CARTIER-But it's still one lot, with a total of, if I'm hearing your numbers, 351 feet of shore frontage, okay, and by Ordinance, you are only allowed three docks. MR. MARTIN-Could you come here, Mr. Knox, and clear something up for me. You own this lot, here? That's one of your docks, right? MR. KNOX-Right, but that is non contiguous with, you see, this is my property. MR. MARTIN-Yes, this is your property, here, that goes like this. 9 ~ MR. KNOX-The parcel I'm talking about starts here and wraps around. MR. MARTIN-And extends down here 1 ike this, across the lake there, over, and across the lake here, and over like that. MR. KNOX-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I understand that. MR. KNOX-That's a separate lot. MR. MARTIN-Why do you have a dock, here, then? MR. KNOX-Well, because when my great grandfather bought the property in 1902, there was a dock there. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right, but this isn't your lot, here? MR. KNOX-That is a lot. MR. MARTIN-So, what I'm getting at is. this lot, here, currently has two docks on it. MR. CARTIER-Is this, in fact, a separate lot by deed? MR. KNOX-Yes. it is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. KNOX-It has a separate tax parcel number. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, what we have to do is subtract out the shore frontage on this, then, and consider only this shore frontage. MR. KNOX-Yes. When I mentioned 351 feet, I didn't even include this. MR. MARTIN-It appears to me that you've got roughly 159, here, and 164 there, and that 164 is referring to this dimension. MR. CARTIER-But wait a minute, that shows ~p differently. Here's the property line. All I see, here, is 50 feet. MR. KNOX-If you had a tax map, I could show you. MR. MARTIN-This is a tax map. MR. KNOX-That's part of the tax map. MR. MARTIN-Is this where you're proposing the new dock to go? MR. KNOX-No. That's an existing dock. MR. MARTIN-And these two are existing? MR. KNOX-And those two are existing. Th~ 50 feet is over here and the parcel wraps around like this. MR. CARTIER-See, he comes around and flags down to the lake, here. MR. KNOX-The reason I'm applying now, to be honest with you, is because I see the restrictions on the lake increasing to a point where my children will not be able to build a dock on that 50 feet and as the zoning regulations increase, our rights to use the property decrease, and at this point, the way I read the regulations, my interpretation was that I could construct a dock to be used for personal use. MR. CARTIER-I have no argument with that. MY Question has to do with the amount of lake frontage you have and the amount of docks you are allowed, based on that lake frontage. I have a serious question about whether you are entitled to a fourth dock, based on the lot frontage you have. So, that's certainly got to get cleared up before this application goes anywhere else, as far as I'm concerned. MR. CAIMANO-There's another clarification which we didn't let him finish, before. Mr. Hagan was following a trend of thought and you started to say something and you started to talk about the fact that the taxes had gone up and, therefore. and I got the impression that you were going to go for the fact that you were going to rent out some of these docks. Is that the idea? 10 MR. KNOX-No. My point is that if I'm paying triple the taxes, I want to be able to use, I'm being taxed for that 50 feet of lake frontage, and the only people benefiting of that 50 feet are my neighbors, and I would like, you know, because I'm not up there swimming off that 50 feet, and I would like to be able to construct a dock so that, as my children get older, I have a young, growing family, that I won't have to come before the governmental bodies to be and be declined based on stricter regulations than what I interpreted to be in place, now, by the Park Commission, and by the Town, and by DEC and by the Army Corp. of Civil Engineers. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, and can I back up even further than you gentlemen and try to find out where you are in the application process with each one of those agencies? MR. KNOX-I've received approval from DEC and the Corp. and the County, when I went to the meeting last week, there was two actions approved. One was for the approval of the application for a permit from the Park Commission, and the other one was for me. The only one, really, is the Town, and the comment period with the Park Commission is over, and I've spoken with the people there, and they lead me to believe that it was imminent. I was surprised that, I don't know the procedure, when I went to the County meeting last week, that the Lake George Park Commission had submitted paperwork to the County. Apparently, they want to see approval from the County level before they'll stamp approval. So, I assume that I will be getting Park Commission approval based on the County approval. MR. LAPOINT-A waiting period of some type, based on? You, traditionally, receive all of this before it comes before us, correct? MRS. YORK-No. I would not necessarily receive it from the Park Commission. MR. LAPOINT-But the applicant would normally supply that as due course? MRS. YORK-Okay. YeS. The applicant indicated in his paperwork that he had applied to these agencies, but usually the Board wants to see the permits before they issue their approval. MR. LAPOINT-For purposes of SEQRA, correct? MR. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Well, not only that, but recognize that what we do here is give final approvals and all the ducks ought to be in a row. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. Well, that's what I'm trying to get at is exactly where, I mean, he's telling us now, verbally, he has the other three approvals, which, to a degree. MR. KNOX-Well, I have the DEC approval. MR. LAPOINT-You're waiting on the other two? MR. KNOX-My understanding is, when I submitted the application to DEC, it's a joint application with the U.S. Army Corp. of Civil Engineers. So, I'm assuming that they go hand in hand, because I've gotten the permit from DEC. Lake George Park COJll11ission, as I said, I feel that, they lead me to believe that's coming. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Before we go any further, whatever we do here tonight, make sure you get cop;es of those to Lee York, just as you get them, because, again, she's making a point, here, that we really can't do much with SEQRA without them. So, what you want to be doing is forcing the issue with them and making sure that Lee gets those, because, again, I think we've done this with previous docks, where we've had actual copies of County approval and State approval right in our hands, before we? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. HAGAN-But, in addition to that, don't we need a variance for this? MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm looking at Zoning Administrator's Checkl;st, here, and under Docks and Moorings, Number, Configuration, Shorel ine Frontage extending off shorel ine width, and size and all there are are check marks, but Mr. Martin has just added up total frontage and appears to come up with, what, 373 feet? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Which still entitles you only to three docks. So, I think what's going to have to happen, here, is that you're going to have to go back around and if you want this fourth dock, you're going to have to apply for a variance. 11 ~' ~ MRS. PULVER-I don't understand. He only has two, and one. MR. CARTIER-He has three now. MRS. PULVER-No. One is on the lot, which is a separate deed, and two are on the property he's trying for and he wants a third. MR. MARTIN-No. MR. LAPOINT-Even if it all is one lot, it's an odd situation in that these are fingers to the lake, in that I have a tendency to agree with him, that I would like to be able to utilize that 50 feet, especially if I'm paying taxes on it. Regardless of how many you have existing, now, this is a separate piece of lake front. It may be the same lot, and that's on paper, but it's still a separate piece of 1 ake front. MR. CAIMANO-Notwithstanding the validity of his argument, everyone who owns lake front property could use that same argument, and it really has no bearing, here. MR. HAGAN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I've got to go by what it says in the Ordinance, right here, okay, and I think this has to go back around and get clarified. So, your options are, you only have one. You don't have options. MR. KNOX-Excuse me. Is it up to interpretation, as far as what constitutes a lot? For example, Knox Road, essentially, bisects my property and if that, in fact, has created a separate parcel, then this 50 feet has no dock on it. MR. CARTIER-It has to be lot by deed, though, correct? MS. CORPUS-Not all the time. This really would take some investigation and you really should talk to Pat Crayford. We could sit down when she comes back on Thursday. I could ask her if she has reviewed this and make sure that this particular question was covered, because the checklist that they have does not indicate, in-depth, exactly what sort of considerations were made and why the decision was made. Only Mrs. Crayford can answer as to what the decision was made. MR. CAIMANO-Well, she may be able to answer, but my problem is, my problem, personally, is he's already been to her. We have this form which tells him absolutely nothing. It's nothing but check marks where there ought to be answers. MR. KNOX-She's impressed me that she would stamp it, but it's subject to Planning Board approval. So, that's why I'm here. MS. CORPUS-The only other choice is for this Board to take an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. CARTIER-Well, lets get it cleared up, before, and lets be very sure of what her determination was, and if this Board disagrees with that determination, then we go to the Zoning Board with a request for an interpretation. Okay. MR. CAIMANO-In the meantime, though, the applicant can get all the rest of his ducks in a row, so when it falls, you're ready to go, you know, all the other approvals. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I agree. Does anybody else have a question or a comment? MR. KNOX-So, I'm not sure. What's the next step? MR. CARTIER-Well, let me open the public hearing first. We will answer that question. That's an excellent question, and we will get you an answer to it shortly. I'll open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here who would wish to address this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BEN BROWN MR. BROWN-I'm Ben Brown. We own the house three lots up north, and that road is restricted to parking. MR. CARTIER-Excuse me, because we're talking about a lot of roads, here. We're talking about Assembly Point Road? MR. BROWN-Assembly Point Road, right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 12 ~ -J MR. BROWN-Restricted, no parking in that area, except that, I happen to 1 ive on the corner and you can park on that street. So, we find, are they going to require off street parking, or are they going to just come up and park along by my lawn there? MR. CARTIER-There is no street parking allowed in the Town of Queensbury. That does not mean to suggest it doesn't happen. On street parking is not allowed in the Town, by law. MR. BROWN-Okay. MRS. PULVER-If they park there, it's an enforcement issue. Call your local authorities. MR. BROWN-Well, it's a street that people park on. Sometimes they go camping. They take off. Leave their car there and they're over on Long Island for a week. MR. CARTIER-They shouldn't be parked there. MR. BROWN-I didn't know that, but it's hard to mow the lawn. MR. CARTIER-They're parking on your lawn? MR. BROWN-Well, it's lawn right to the blacktop and sometimes they come over so they don't get hit, so they come on over. MR. CARTIER-I'd put a sign out that says, Parking $50 a day. MR. BROWN-Well, at any rate, when you build a dock like this, will the people have off street parking, because there's nothing there but a long lot and it's sort of undeveloped. It may be a little like a dip. So, I'm wondering if it will have off street parking. Can you ask that? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. That's an appropriate question, and that will have to be addressed. MR. BROWN-Okay. Good. That was the question I had. That's all. Thank you very much. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd care to address the Board on this application? RICHARD MILLER MR. MILLER-My name Richard Miller, I own the property adjoining the 50 feet that we're questioning. I would address the Board that it is the American way to make a buck, and this property has been in the Knox family since 1902. There is no question. Yet, due to the timing, through time, houses have been built, and built, and built, and Mr. Knox and his family have sold these lots to people, in years gone by, until now he was left with the 50 foot strip. On the Town maps, that, and my map, said it was a proposed road, and this is how, and my knowledge from the Town is that this had been always proposed. Now then, we come to the issue at hand. Mr. Knox is having to pay more in taxes, no question. Your book of instructions says that you have 20 feet on each side, without a variance, that you may build a building, except this 50 feet is a ravine, somewhat. So, we have a slight building problem with a 10 foot wide building that goes back 25 acres. Behind, immediately behind, my lot is 280 feet, there is a hell of a swamp, a real pond, which now says that there is no way that this can go, really, from our road to Assembly Point Road, back through his property, joining. So, I will say that the maps create a problem with this real swamp. So, now we come to the SEQRA Review. Everyone of those questions that were asked earlier would be answered, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Without revocation, everyone of those questions would be impacted. Now, what else do we have? He says that this dock is going to be for family use, yet he already has three docks. I would like to address Mr. Knox, are you renting any of these docks to outside people, currently? MR. CARTIER-You need to address the Board. MR. MILLER-Okay. I'll address you, but I'll address him. MR. CARTIER-The question has already been brought up. MR. MILLER-And I heard no answer. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but we will get an answer. MR. MILLER-I know, for a fact, that docks are rented by Mr. Knox. My concern is that I have already heard that people have inquired about this new dock for rental purposes. So, now I have Shore Colony, next to Ben, over here, in which we have a Coney Island type of scenario. Now these are nice people, don't get me wrong. They are lovely people. They have houses back in, but we have concentrated a tremendous, amount of people in a small area, and you have boats, upon boats, upon boats, and people upon people swimming and getting around, and if you check with the LG how many complaints 13 have been filed with them regarding the boating crowd that will buzz our docks going 35 miles and hour, ten feet off of the dock, and we have a major prob1 em in that area. Now, we're bringing in another 40 feet. Now, you realize, from the corner of my property, if you're talking 50 feet, with an 8 foot wide dock in a 13 foot boat, on each side, that's 26 feet plus 8 is 34. That certainlY doesn't leave a lot of space for manipulation for me to get my boat out and our next door neighbor over here to get their boat out and still have any room. I mean, I feel Mr. Knox is a fickle finger of fate. That we're down to 50 feet. We have big boats, now, instead of canoes, and at one time I proposed to buy this 50 feet from him, and the answer was no. Now, that's fine. He wanted to keep it, for what purpose I know not, or we could split it with my other neighbor at that time. I had an interest in doing so, because it was, in my opinion, of no value to this person to maintain this finger with the swamp in the back. Now then. and I think, the Park Commission did not tell me that any review, not that they had to, it was happening. I got Lee's letter that said this was going to be here tonight and that's why I'm here, because I would be extremely unhappy to have two or four, I'm looking, basically, the man is trying to skirt the law. That he's either going to skirt the Marina Law, which he already has done, or to now try to condominimize this thing and now have four people owning one quarter of everything there. I have four boats that are right in my back yard between Lee and I. I mean, that's about as far as we would be apart, with these types of boats, and it is a real problem. whether it's my property or the neighbor next door or Burmaster's or Ben. We all have a problem in that area. It is concentrated. I mean, we are getting more and more people and more and more people are renting docks. You can get $1500, $2000. I mean, that's not bad on this. Mr. Knox could get $8000 very easily, if he had the ability to rent them out, and that's a lot better than having taxes being assessed on a worthless piece of property that currently it is. Now, I don't know what can be done under current laws. That this man can build a lQ foot wide house, but you do need a bathroom there, if you're going to go swimming and it's detached from and you've got a road, now. You see, the road is right in front and it drops off, straight down. I mean, you'd have a rock that goes right down. Like Ben said, where are we going to park the cars, Number One, but lets say we level out the hole and the ravine and we get parking there, where are we going to go to the bathroom? Are we now going to build an outhouse? Are we going to put in an approved septic system? What are we going to do, since this is so far detached from the residential area, and even proposed residential area that could be built? So. for all these reasons, and I'm sure I'll think of more later on, I think that we're trying to evade, avoid, get around, the existing laws in order to put a dock in place. So, with that, I'll say, thank you to the Board and I very violently disapprove of this and I thank you for listening to my spouting off. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Just to address one quick item in there. If docks are, in fact, being rented, and Karla check me out on this. If I'm wrong, tell me. I'm in the same Section of the Ordinance that says no more than three docks shall be constructed per commercially used lake front lot. So, if we have commercial use of a lake front lot, in terms of rental of dock space, then we've got another problem. So, we're looking at two requests for variances. MR. HAGAN-Well, plus the fact, if he has two or more boats at his docks that are not registered in his name, he should be operating under a licensed marina. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is there anyone else here who would care to address this Board with regard to this application? If not, Mr. Knox. MR. KNOX-Well, Mr. Miller is in error when he says that that 50 feet of property that I own is part of a proposed road. I have to ask him, where i.s that 50 feet going to go? MR. CARTIER-No. Lets not worry about a proposed road. Lets deal just with this dock application. MR. KNOX-Also, I'd like to ask Mr. Miller if he in fact rents his dock, and I think the answer will be yes, and I think the answer will be yes for most of my neighbors. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I don't know what to do with that. MR. HAGAN-Well, the rest of your neighbors are not applying for an additional dock. I don't think we can entertain that or even discuss it. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. KNOX-Also, I'd like to comment on my neighbors. neighbors have, lets say, 100 feet of lake frontage. 1 ine all the way to the other, and their dockage runs example, has an F-Shaped dock which I have seen three fact he rents his dock. For example, if you've been up there, a lot of They had buil t from one side of the boundary from right along the lake and Mr. Miller, for to four boats, on occasion, and I know for a MR. CARTIER-I don't want to get into a contest, in the middle of a contest, or whatever you want to call it, between neighbors, here. MR. KNOX-I know, but I feel that, I think it's wrong that, his comments are wrong. A1 so, I'm sorry that he was not notified by the Lake George Park COlll11ission. On my application, I specifically put 14 -- ------ Mr. Miller and his wife and Serivos, who own to the south, and copies I got confirming my application with the Park Commission Jndicated that they would be receiving comments or they would be notifying the Lake George Association, both my neighbors, and Mr. Desormeau, who is to the west of this property. To my knowledge, it's not my responsibility to notify my neighbors. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Procedural question. Does the Park Commission hold public hearings when they look at applications, do you know? MRS. YORK-Yes. I believe there is a public hearing held in certain cases. Sometimes the Commissioners just make an educated decision, but I believe they do have a public hearing. I don't know what their advertising procedure is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's between you and the Park Commission, then. MR. KNOX-And, also, with regard to cars, since I own that 50 feet of property, plus I own 164 feet further to the south, accessing Harris Bay, I, on numerous occasions, have contacted the police to tell them to ticket people who constantly park on the road. So, I am a major proponent for keeping the cars off the road because it is a narrow road. Now they have, the Town has put up signs about every 50 to 100 feet. It's almost too much, but it has cut down the on the parking. What typically happens is in the winter time the fisherman park along the road. I have no trouble with that, but that Harris Bay property that I have, they just run right over it with their snowmobiles, and that's fine. I don't mind that, but when they come back off the lake after the day, they throw their trash on my property. So I end up, in the spring, loading up a pickup truck full of trash. MR. CARTIER-Again, that's an enforcement issue, and I appreciate your frustration with that kind of situation, but there's nothing, that's not within the realm of this Board to do anything about. MR. KNOX-But I resent Mr. Miller's comments that my family has, basically. painted ourselves into a corner with this little 50 foot of property. Mr. Miller bought that property, only recently, and he was fully aware of the road. He was fully aware of Shore Colony. He was fully aware of the traffic. he was fully aware of the dockage that existed when he bought, and I know fully well that he has rented his dock since purchase. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you rent dock space, at present? MR. KNOX-The Harris Bay dock that I have was buil t about 100 years ago and, yes, I do rent that out, to help pay my taxes, but let me answer this, with regard to constructing a crib dock 320 square feet of solid or tiered cribbing. space cribbing, and staircase coming down from the road, is probably going to run me, and I haven't gotten an estimate yet, but close to $10,000. Now, plus the maintenance, plus the taxes, plus the unknown in the spring. when the ice comes out, it could tear that dock up. So, it is not a money making proposition. MR. CARTIER-I'm not suggesting it is. All I wanted was an answer to the question, do you rent dock space. Is that the only dock you rent out? MR. KNOX-That's correct. Yes, on that parcel. MR. CARTIER-That's the only dock you rent out on that parcel? I'm thinking like a lawyer, here. MR. CAIMANO-I think we're going around and around in a circle, here. MR. CARTIER-That's the only dock you rent out on that parcel? You don't rent out any other dock space? MR. KNOX-But the parcel in question that's, the Harris Bay dock. It's been there for 100 years, and, yes, I do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-I, personally, think we're straying from the point. The point is there's an application here for a permit to build another dock on a 50 foot lake front. MR. CAIMANO-Right. think there's certainly evidence, here, to turn this application down. MR. HAGAN-Number One, it's my opinion that he needs a variance. MR. KNOX-I think that's what it boil s down to, and I'm sorry for wasting everybody's time because if I had known that about the zoning, I wouldn't be standing here. I would be filing for a variance. I wasn't aware that there was a certain, I was looking at the regulations pertaining to, I think. the minimum of 45 feet of lake frontage necessary to build a dock. If I had known about the other regulation, I wouldn't have been. MR. CARTIER-There is a section called Supplementary Regulations, 179-60, and that's what you want to get into. 15 '- MR. HAGAN-And don't forget the regulation, two or more boats. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's all part of that Supplementary. MR. HAGAN-Right. MR. CARTIER-What's the Board's druthers here, because I have to decide what I'm going to do with the public hearing. MRS. YORK-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, there were also some letters submitted. I believe I gave them to you. MR. CARTIER-Is this just the one? MRS. YORK-No. I believe there are two there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll read one. You read the other? MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Dated the 16th of July, 1991, Regarding Site Plan No. 40-91, "Dear Planning Board Members: Attached hereto is a reduced copy of part of a tax map number 8 Section No. 7 on which I have indicated approximate locations of docks currently owned by the appl icant. Being that the appl ication states that the proposed new 8 by 40 crib dock will be for family use, I am requesting the Board to inquiry as to why any of the existing docks are not available for family use now or in future years. Sincerely, Frederick W. Hardt, Assembly Point, address, 6 Wing Road, Rexford, NY" MRS. PULVER-Okay. This one is Town of Queensbury Planning Board, pertaining to the application of Paul Knox for an 8 ft. by 40 ft. crib dock on the Assembly Point Road between the properties of Serivo and Miller, "Mr. Knox states that the proposed dock is for family use, since his house is on Knox Road, generally facing west. I do not understand why he should be allowed to have a dock in addition to the pier complex he already has much closer to his home. I would judge the proposed dock is at least one quarter mile further than his existing docks, two piers, rock filled, covered. This does not make any sense to me in its present proposal. I would urge the Board to reject the proposal until a clear picture or plan can be establ ished concerning this 25 acre parcel. Thank you for your consideration. Constance Langford, Jamaica Road, Schenectady, NY." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Any others? Okay. What's the Board's pleasure, here? I'm hearing two different things. I'm hearing table and get a variance. I'm hearing consider a motion to approve. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO DISAPPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-91 PAUL KNOX, III, Introduced by James Hagan, who moved for its adoption For construction of an 8 ft. by 40 ft. crib dock with stairs leading from the Assembly Point Road to the dock. I think the applicant has already made it clear, by the use of his existing docks, that his whole application, in my opinion, has not been submitted in a truthful manner. MR. CAIMANO-Let me just stop you, there, just a second, Mr. Hagan. I think none of us here, certainly not me, can look into his mind. It goes a little deeper than that, and we would get blown out of the water in any court of law. The fact of the matter is, the application was tainted from the very beginning. We could turn it down on some very stringent regulations. Number One, of course, it's incomplete. Number Two is the fact that, according to our own Ordinance, it does not meet the criterion, whether for a residential or a commercial and I think I would certainly back your motion if you did it on a strictly on the Ordinance, because there's nothing right about this application. It's unfortunate that our Zoning Administrator, again, lead an applicant astray, but that's neither here nor there. We'll take care of that later on. I think that this application has no merit on its surface. So, I don't know why we even continue to entertain it. MR. MARTIN-I agree that it should be disapproved, but I make no inference to the applicant's truthfulness. I think he was, I think he's honest when he says that he honestly thought there was one dock all owed for every 45 square feet, or 45 1 inear feet of lake frontage and I can understand where you can get lost in this, as a layman. MR. KNOX-You know, I haven't hired an attorney. MR. MARTIN-And I understand how you approached this. However, looking at this strictlY from the standpoint of the Ordinance, 179-60, I do bel ieve that is one lot. Unfortunately, 50 feet of it is out there on the fl ag 1 i ke that wi th the 1 ake frontage, but I do thi nk you are 1 imi ted to the three docks you have, according to the Ordinance, and that's why I would disapprove it, according to the Ordinance. 16 --- MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Lets retry this again. If we can strike this, if you don't mind, Mr. Hagan, and go strictly by the book. MR. HAGAN-That's all right. MOTION TO DISAPPRDVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-91 PAUL KNOX, III, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by_James Martin: To construct an 8 ft. by 40 ft. crib dock, in as much as it violates 179-60, Section 7. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: MR. CARTIER-Whether you consider the rental of one dock commercial usage? MR. CAIMANO-It doesn't make any difference. Either commercial or residential, it does not conform. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Lets leave it at that. MS. CORPUS-I just feel obliged to give the Board some legal advice at this time, and, again, purely legal advice, for whatever it's worth. The Board does have the option, if it chooses, and I see where you're going with this, but I do feel obliged to let you know, that you could conditionally approve this, given the fact that a variance, in this Board's opinion, would be necessary. I'm just giving you that particular advice. Legally, there's nothing to restrict this Board from approving this conditioned upon obtaining a variance. MR. CARTIER-Correct. I understand that, but I think that would fly in the face of what has been standard Planning Board policy in the past and we have never granted approvals pending variances. We've decided that the variances need to be required to be fulfilled first. That way, we can clear it, in terms of our motion, by way of what used to be Article V. I have no idea what is now, by saying that it meets all the criteria, it meets all the Ordinances. MR. MARTIN-Plus, he still is not restricted from making that application for variance now. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I mean, normally, hasn't it been our procedure to table an application upon determination from the Zoning Administrator as to whether or not a variance was needed? MR. CAIMANO-Well, the only reason I'm not doing that is because the Zoning Administrator has already made a determination which we find faulty, and rather than send it back through the ZBA and appeal it. MRS. PULVER-I thought we didn't know, though, what the Checklist did not really explain what she made a determination on. MR. HAGAN-For the record, before you go any further, I withdraw my motion, in lieu of the motion made by Nick. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me try something to expedite this. We have a motion on the floor. Lets get a second. Lets call the vote. I f we don't go anywhere with thi s, in terms of numbers, then maybe we can get into what Carol's talking about. AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver SUBOIVISION NO. 9-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 OLDE COACH MNOR C(JI)(JJfINIUMS (litER: SAME AS ABOVE 392 BAY ROAD, WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD ADJACENT TO HUGHES OFFICE SUBDIVISION FOR CONVERSION OF EXISTING APARTJDT COMPLEX INTO CONDOMINIUMS. TWELVE EXISTING BUILDING INCWOING GARAGES, PAVED ACCESS TO ALL, WELL-GROOMED LAWNS, 4.6 ACRES IIOOOED AT REAR WITH SMLL STREAM IN IIOOOS. TAX MP NO. 60-7-7, 8 I 9 LOT SIZE: 12.6 ACRES TOTAL NO. OF LOTS: 34 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CAIMANO-Before we go any further, not to interrupt you, Carol, but may I just make one comment. I'd like to have you save the paperwork on that last application for the meeting on the 22nd. MR. MARTIN-The Zoning Administrator's Checklist. MR. CAIMANO- The Zoning Administrator's comments, the appl ication, whatever. you. need it saved. Thank 17 ~ STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 9-1991, Olde Coach Manor Condominiums, July 11, 1991, Meeting Date: July 16, 1991 "The appl icant intends to change the existing apartment complex into condominiums. The Ordinance requires that this change be treated as a subdivision. The application indicates that there will be no physical changes to the site, only a change in the form of ownership. The Planning Board has usually requested that any Homeowners Association documents be reviewed by the Attorney's office to assure that maintenance of existing facilities is assured. Prior to final approval this should be done. There are no concerns from a planning perspective. If there are no other issues which are brought forward at the public hearing, the Board may want to consider this an expedited matter." MR. CARTIER-We have no comments from engineer on this application and I don't have anything in front of me, in terms of Warren County. Mr. Nace, would you care to address the Board, please? MR. NACE-Yes, Mr. Cartier. For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering, representing Olde Coach Manor. I would first like to apologize. Through a mix up of my own part, the notifications for the public hearing did not go out. MR. CARTIER-So, you're at a non point, here. MR. NACE-We're either at a non point, or if you want to open the public hearing, leave it open, and re-notify for next month. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NACE-You may want to still look at the project and give us the advantage of any comments you may have. MR. CARTIER-All right. Okay, and lets get as much of this done as we possibly can, then. With regard to the Homeowners Association document, I would assume that would be in hand prior to final application? MR. NACE-That will be in hand prior to final. MR. CAIMANO-Does this mean, Mr. Chairman, that the public would have to read the minutes of this meeting in order to question anything that goes on? MR. CARTIER-Well, we can certainly bring this back up again, if you want to put this whole thing on hold. That's fine with me. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I'm asking a question. The answer requires a yes or a no. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-I would say, yes, to that. If we were to debate any of the substantive issues of this without the public, then we would have to exactly repeat that for the benefit. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-I think it usurps the whole reason for having a public hearing. MS. CORPUS-I would just recommend that the Board open the publ ic hearing, if no Prel iminary comments are made, because I do believe it was advertised in the newspaper. MRS. YORK-It was advertised in the newspaper. However, in Section A183-10 of the Subdivision Regulations it does speak to the issue of the publ ic hearing and the notification done at the Prel iminary Stage of review. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, the only reason I bring these notes up is to make sure we get this Homeowners Association thing taken care of. Well, we can entertain a motion, then. I'll open a publ ic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-It will remain open, and I think we can entertain a motion to table this until such time as public notification. MR. NACE-Okay. Since the public was notified, may you want to ask if there's anybody here that wants to address it? MR. CAIMANO-No, because then the people who are not going to be notified will not have had the benefit of having heard those comments. They've got to read them in the minutes, and you know as well as I do that these minutes are not easy to discern, nor do you get the intent of a written word as you might get in the spoken word. 18 "-" MR. NACE-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-I don't see any other way. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 9-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE OLDE COACH MIUIOR, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: For conversion of existing apartment complex into condominiums, since the adjacent property owners were not notified in a timely manner. The applicant will pay for further notification. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: MRS. YORK-Would you like the applicant to pay for re-advertising in the newspaper? MR. CAIMANO-How much is it going to cost? MRS. YORK-We usually charge the application fee, but I can check into the specifics of it. MR. CARTIER-Well, my question is, it's not Staff that's in error, here? MR. NACE-No. It is the engineer that's in error. MR. CARTIER-Is the agent for the applicant willing to pay for re-advertising? MR. NACE-We will. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Procedural question. Does that require a complete re-submission of all 14 copies. MR. CARTIER-No. This has been tabled. SITE PLAN NO. 41-91 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA EOWIN L. NORTON OIItER: SAME AS ABOVE BIG BAY ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,464 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO BE USED FOR HOOSING TREE EQUIPMENT. HEAVY E~IPMENT STORAGE. TAX MAP NO. 136-1-15 I 16 LOT SIZE: 1/3 ACRE SECTION 4.020-N EDWIN NORTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 41-91, Edwin L. Norton, July 11, 1991, Meeting Date: July 16, 1991 "The appl ication is for placement of a facil ity for tree service equipment in a LI-IA zone on Big Bay _Road. The applicant received a variance to place the proposed garage within 10 feet of the property 1 ine. The applicant intends to phase the construction of his facil ity. The first construction will be the removal of an existing garage and the construction of a 32 x 44 sq. ft. storage facility. At some future date a second attached storage facility of 24 x 44 sq. ft. will be added. The Board is requested to approve the entire site plan. This project was reviewed with regard to Section 179-38. The project has received a variance for setbacks and appears to be in compliance with the ordinance. The development is in harmony with the uses allowable in the LI-IA zone. Public facilities and services would not be effected. 1) The location, arrangement and size of the structures are generally compatible with the site. 2) Traffic circulation is not a concern. 3) Garage parking is sufficient for the use which is basically storage of company vehicles and equipment. The Board may want to address whether employees will need parking spaces and if the existing house will be used as an office. The Zoning Ordinance requires 1 space for each 1000 sq. ft. plus one space for each company vehicle for a storage facility. 4) Pedestrian traffic is not an issue. 5) The appl icant has provided drainage data which the engineer will address. 6) The engineer will discuss the adequacy of water and septic facilities. 7) The area behind the facility is heavily treed and it appears existing vegetation will be maintained. Since the actual work will take place off site noise impacts will not be a problem. 8) Emergency access is not a concern. 9) Flooding and ponding are not a concern. As always erosion control methods should be adhered to during construction, which the applicant has indicated he will do." MRS. YORK-And I want to make one comment about Mr. Norton's application. It really appeared that Mr. Norton spent a great deal of time reviewing what he had to do and what he had to provide, before he submitted, and it was a well done application. 19 --- -~ MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Would you want to take us through engineering comments? ENGINEER REPORT Notes by Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, July 11, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The percent permeable area (green space) upon completion of second phase work will be 48% and is in compliance with zoning. 2. Erosion and sediment control is addressed on the plan. 3. The eave trench design is adequate for the additional roof runoff anticipated. It is understood from Mr. Norton that the eave trench will be constructed along the north side of the existing house and proposed garages, to the west of the proposed first phase garage along the 20 foot dimensions shown, and along the east side of the proposed first phase garage and existing house. 4. The applicant should be required to construct the second phase driveway graded to drain toward a 4' diameter x 6' deep drywell constructed with 2 foot surrounding stone ring to accept additional runoff from second phase construction. 5. Sewage flow to the existing septic system from the proposed use will be less than the previous residential use. The existing septic system is not a concern. 6. Mr. Norton indicated that existing equipment that will not fit in the first phase garage will be parked on the grass area designated for second phase driveway. The business is a two (2) employee operation. Customers do not normally visit the business. Parking should be sufficient." MRS. YORK-And the only other concern there was, as I understand it, Mr. Norton missed his Beautification Committee meeting, or didn't realize he was supposed to be there, and therefore they have disapproved it and requested that the applicant come to their Committee. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Mr. Norton, would you care to comment, please? Let me ask a question, first. The house that's there, is that going to be used as a residence? Are people going to be living there, or will that be an office? MR. NORTON-MY son stays there now, alternately, just for security purposes, and he'll probably do that after it's there, you know, off and on. He lives at home, but he stays there. There's a refrigerator there. There's a bed there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I guess the only reason I'm ralslng the question is, I'm not sure of this, if you have a commercial property 1 ike this physically attached to a residence, is there any requirement? Would there be a fire wall installed there? MRS. YORK-I'll tell you. I am not sure about those Building Code Standards. MR. NORTON-We're planning on a fire wall anyway, so it doesn't make any difference. MR. CARTIER-There will be a fire wall between what is now the? MR. NORTON-Definitely, on the side that's going to be hooked. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I think you're right. I think it is State Code that you'd have to do that. MR. NORTON-Yes. MRS. YORK-Okay. Another thing, I think that one of the Engineering Comments was that the commercial use would require less use of the septic system than a residential use and, therefore, he didn't think there'd be any problem, but if you're going to have kind of combined use there, that might paint a different picture. MR. NORTON-Okay. The people that moved out, there were six people 1 iving there, this would be a far less, you know, it would be only person, probably, two, maybe an employee might use a bathroom or something, but that would be it. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Do you have any idea how old that septic system is? MR. NORTON-It's a new one. There's two septics. There's one in the front and one in the rear. MR. CARTIER-How large? MR. NORTON-I have no idea. MR. CARTIER-Well, how new is new? MR. NORTON-MY uncle had it put in, probably, I don't know, six years ago or so. 20 -- '--.-/ MR. CARTIER-Six years ago. Has the Code changed in six years, do you think? MRS. YORK-I really wouldn't have a clue. Wait a minute. The Septic Ordinance is in here. I can tell you the date of it. MRS. PULVER-I would think if the septic fails, though, they would do something about it. MR. CARTIER-Well, I suspect that it's probably more than adequate. MR. NORTON-It works now. It works adequately. MRS. YORK-I guess our point, Mr. Norton, or my concern about this is that you would have a mixed use sight and you might wind up having some problems because of that. I made an assumption that this would be office space rather than residential because you're, basically, having a light industrial facility, not any longer a residential facility. MR. NORTON-Okay. This is a question we had before the other Board we went to and the first plan we drew up, it was a detached garage, away from the residence and for some reason, they made us change the plan and hook it to the residence because it was a residence before or something, but our first plan was just for a garage by itself in the center of the property. MRS. PULVER-Well, it might possibly have been to get the minimum relief, as far as the variance. Maybe that's why they moved it over. MR. NORTON-And also for beautification, I think. They thought it would look better as one building rather than ~ building and another big building. The septics, I really don't know. There's less people that are going to be there, now, I know that. MR. HAGAN-It's pretty sandy soil down there. MR. NORTON-Very sandy. MR. HAGAN-It takes an awful lot to impregnate the system. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I see one septic indicated on the map. MR. NORTON-Yes. The old one is in the front, and I didn't put that, and also the trees that I should have put on the south side, I have on that little map up there. There's a spruce tree on the south side. Where I've got lawn written, I didn't put the trees in. There's a plum tree, some small bushes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. My question, though, is one of the septic systems being used under the driveway? Is it going to be parked on top of? MR. NORTON-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay, because that's a whole Board of Health issue. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? MR. BREWER-Where would it be if it's not under the driveway? MR. CARTIER-Yes, can you identify it on the map? MR. NORTON-The first septic is here. The one in use is in this vicinity right here. MR. BREWER-The other one's in the front yard, then? MR. NORTON-Right. MR. CARTIER-So, in other words, it's not going to be driven over, that's the concern? MR. NORTON-Neither of them will be, no. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NORTON-Rist-Frost asked me that, also. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board have any other questions? If not, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who would care to address this issue? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 21 -- , '---'~ PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct, I believe, a Short Form SEQRA. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MDE RESOWTION NO. 41-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: EDWIN L. NORTON, for construction of a 2,464 sq. ft. garage on Big ~ Road to be used for housing tree equiPEnt. Heavy equipment storage., 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 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. Before we get into the motion on the application, just going back to Lee's Item 3, "The Board may want to address whether employees will need parking spaces". Did we cover that? MRS. YORK-Yes. I believe the engineer questioned Mr. Norton and he's going to have two employees. MR. NORTON-Right. MRS. YORK-There should be sufficient parking. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We can entertain a motion. I think we want to pick up, in the motion, on the Beautification Committee and also Tom's Number 4 comment. If somebody would care to make that motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-91 EDWIN L. NORTON, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: For construction of a 2464 square foot garage to be used for housing tree equipment. That on the second phase, the driveway graded will be graded to drain towards a four foot diameter by six foot deep drywell, constructed with a two foot surrounding stone ring to accept additional runoff from second phase construction, and that the Beautification Committee be submitted a plan for their approval. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr.Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE 22 "-" ----- MR. CARTIER-We have a lot of minor bits and pieces here. You have in front of you a letter from Tom Yarmowich, dated today, regarding the Ziel inski Main Street Office Site Plan No. 31-91. "On June 25, the Planning Board granted approval to the project and stipulated, among other things, that a stormwater management design be submitted to address additional runoff anticipated from newly created impermeable driveway areas. The Board further stipulated that the applicant was to provide an acceptable stormwater management design by July 15, 1991. The agent for the applicant, Mr. Jim Pepper, contacted me on July 8th requesting guidance to prepare a design. I agreed to assist Mr. Pepper by furnishing a design example from a previously accepted project from which Mr. Pepper could adapt a design of his own for Site Plan No. 31-91. It was intended that Mr. Pepper receive the design example information by mail in time for him to respond and gain a stonnwater management acceptance as required by the date stipulation of the Board's approval. Unfortunately, Mr. Pepper did not receive the information because it was not sent. Mr. Pepper has verbally indicated that he would like an extension of the time to August 6 to comply with the Board's stonnwater management stipulations. As has been indicated, the example design that I agreed to provided was not provided. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Board to consider granting an extension in this matter." Basically, all we're looking for, here, is an extension, a motion to extend the original approval with the same stipulation. MRS. PULVER-To August 6, right? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MOTION TO EXTEND THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 31-91 ÐJGENE ZIELINSKI, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Extended to August 6th. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. Karla, would you want to take us through the Notice of Public Hearing, please. MS. CORPUS-This is a proposed Notice of Publ ic Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the roller coaster. Would you like me to read it out loud? I know you probably haven't had a chance to look it over. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody want this read? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CAIMANO-No. MS. CORPUS-If the Board agrees that this is sufficient, I would request that a resolution be adopted approving this and directing the Town Attorney's Office to notify all the relevant parties. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and while we're here, we discovered and made one minor change in the publ ic comment period. MS. CORPUS-23rd? MR. CARTIER-Yes. The publ ic comment period has to extend for 10 days beyond the publ ic hearing, and we had granted a 30 day public hearing. So, what we did is adjust the days. MS. CORPUS-You could put that in that resolution. I did put August 23rd in the Notice of Public Hearing. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. CORPUS-That would be the public comment period. MR. CARTIER-Just so the Board is aware that it's different from the 30 days. It's longer than the original 30 days. MR. CAIMANO-Good. MRS. PULVER-So, is the public hearing still the original? MS. CORPUS-It's the 13th. MRS. PULVER-The 13th. 23 ~ ~ MR. CAIMANO-So, the 13th, and they have until when? MS. CORPUS-The 23rd to submit comments. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MS. CORPUS-And the Board could adopt a resolution incorporating that amendment. MR. CARTIER-Why don't you word that for us. Word us a resolution for Maria and then we can motion it. How's that? WHEREAS, THE PLANNING BOARD OF TIE TOWN OF ~EENSIIJRY HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED NOTICE OF PUBLIC tEARING ON THE DRAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 91 FOOT HIGH ROLLER COASTER BY ATTRACTIONS LAND, INC., AND WHEREAS THE PLAIIIING BOARD IS DESIROOS OF AMENDING ITS PREVIOOS RESOWTlOII TO EXTElD THE PUBLIC COIIDT PERIOO TO AUGUST 23RD, 1991. N(II THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT TIE PLAIIIING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ~EENSIIJRY IEREBY APPROVES THE PROPOSED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SUBMITTED AT THIS MEETING AID BE IT FURllER RESOLVED, THAT RESOWTION IS IEREBY AMENDED TO EXTfM) TIE PUBLIC COIUEIIT PERIOD TO AUGUST 2311), 1991 AND BE IT FURTIER RESOLVED, THAT TIE T(III ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO NOTIFY ALL NECESSARY PARTIES PURSUANT TO PART 617.10 OF TIE SEQRA REGULATIONS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1991, by the following date: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. Some things, here, bits and pieces. Bob Eddy talked to me a couple of weeks ago about concerns that their Committee is strictly a Board of recommending and that they carry no authority other than that which we assign to them and he requested that when we make motions involving applications that have Beautification Committee recommendations, that we incorporate those recommendations into our approval, if the Board so desires. Secondly, I would note that Bob Eddy is retiring as, is he retired already? MRS. YORK-I think, yes, he has retired from the Beautification Committee. MS. CORPUS-Yes, he has. MR. CARTIER-Okay. It occurs to me that maybe something, considering the number of years he put in for this Town and beautifying the Town, it seems 1 ike it might be appropriate that the Town plant a tree on the Town property out front here in his honor, while he is still here to enjoy that honor. MR. MARTIN-That's a good idea. MR. CAIMANO-I think it's a great idea. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I was going to suggest that maybe this Board might care to make a resolution and forward it to the Town Board. MOTION THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PIA.ING BOARD BE AUTHORIZED TO SEND A LETTER TO THE TOWN BOARD RE~ESTlNG THAT ....IES BE APPROPRIATED TO HONOR TIE RETIREMENT OF ROBERT EDDY AND HIS IMY YEARS OF SERVICES TO THE TOWN OF ~EENSIIJRY AS THE BEAUTIFICATION CHAIRMII. SUCH alES TO BE USED TO PURCHASE AND PlANT A TREE ON THE ~EEIISIIJRY TOWN IIJILDING PROPEm, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. I remind you that we have a meeting July 22nd where we are going to have an Executive Session. I believe, Lee, at the beginning of that meeting, right, from 6 to 6:30? MRS. YORK-I don't know. I haven't seen an agenda. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Whenever that is. MS. CORPUS-It's at 6. MR. CAIMANO-6? 24 "--' MS. CORPUS-6. MR. MARTIN-Then at 6:30 we talk about the Diehl business which is a public hearing, a public meeting, right? MR. CARTIER-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-And where is that held? MR. CAIMANO-Here. MR. CARTIER-Yes. That will be here. MS. CORPUS-It's part of the Town Board's regular, before the Town Board's regular meeting. MR. CARTIER-Okay. August 13th, you know, is the public hearing on the roller coaster. Thursday, Jim Martin and I are going to get together and go through the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and put some stuff on paper. We're kind of running out of time, here. We have to get that done by the 29th. We will not have a meeting of this Board prior to then. If you have some concerns about amendments, please get them to Jim or I by then. We need to change the time of that. Lee's got a meeting at 9:15. Lee, what time did you say you'd be out of that meeting Thursday? Thursday morning we're meeting with you to go over the zoning amendments. MRS. YORK-I have a department head meeting at 9:15. I should be out, I would say. MR. CARTIER-How about 10:30? MRS. YORK-That sounds fine. MR. MARTIN-Fine. MR. CAIMANO-Before you go any further, though, I think that we should, since we're having a meeting Monday night, and since we have these minutes in front of us, these minutes ought to be read carefully before we go argue them in front of Mr. Borgos. MR. CARTIER-Those are the minutes in reference to? MR. MARTIN-The Diehl. MR. CAIMANO-These are the minutes in reference to the last meeting we held where we had a three, three vote to rescind. It would be nice that we had our act together before we got there and got beat up. MR. CARTIER-Yes. and I think the same comments are appropriate with regard to the Executive Session personnel matter and get your ducks in a row. MR. MARTIN-I will make some information known to the Board, in regard to this matter. I called the State Office of Code, or Regulatory Affairs who works under the Conrnissioners Office. This is not such a big deal. What happens is if you have two bodies that cannot consent as to one being the Lead Agent, the Office of Regulatory Affairs will send to the Town a form for each Board to fill out. There will be the same set of questions. and the questions will be framed around that listing of criteria that Paul gave us. It's a written response. We provide that written response, each Board, it's sent to the Conrnissioner, the Office of Regulatory Affairs reviews it, they make a draft reconrnendation to the Commissioner, he reviews the whole situation, and he makes a determination. MR. CAIMANO-Great. MR. MARTIN-So, it's not a big, lengthy, drawn out, legal, where we have to have a team of lawyers down there, and all this type of thing. It's just written comment back to the Commissioner. MRS. PULVER-Well, he has to do it within 20 days. MR. CARTIER-Yes. He's got to get an answer back to us within 20 days. MRS. PULVER-I don't think it changes the situation, though, whether, how long it's going to take or not. MR. CAIMANO-No, but it changes the tenor of some of the minutes. There were some cOßlllents, if you read these, that somehow we were doing some dastardly deed by arguing with another Board when, in fact, we're probably helping the fact. 25 ~ MR. MARTIN-And like going to the Commissioner is a big embarrassment for the Town and there's all this controversy and delay and it's the worst thing that can happen, and it happens all the time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Letter from the Fire Chief, do you want to read that? We don't have to get into that tonight, but that's something for your information. MRS. YORK-I don't even have a copy. The Board requested information from me regarding Brian LaFlure's comments about a policy on lengthy residential roads. MR. CARTIER-Yes. That's basically what this is. We've got a letter from Warren County Soil and Water Conservation, right? Do you have that? Anything else? MRS. PULVER-Yes. I have something. Number One, I would like our Planning Department to provide us a set of Staff Notes for each of us on an application that has been tabled, that is coming before the Board again, since we all can't be trusted to find our Staff Notes, and then we don't have them. MRS. YORK-Remember when you said you wanted them sent home and you swore you wouldn't lose them? MRS. PULVER-No, not those. I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about when we table an application and now we have the Staff Notes and we keep it with the application. A month or two later it comes back, but we don't always have the Staff Notes with it. MRS. YORK-Right, and a lot of times we don't write new ones, thinking that, okay. MRS. PULVER-Right. So, what we would like, if it's on the agenda and it was a tabled item, if we could please have the Staff Notes. Does anybody have the Staff Notes from Betit? MR. MARTIN-No. I've been known to be one who falls into that pit. MRS. PULVER-Yes. So, we can't be trusted on that. MR. MARTIN-I have a comment I'd like to also ask of the Planning Department. A number of people have come up to me in regard to the road side vegetable stand on the corner of Bay Road and Tee Hill Road that is located in the middle of a 45 mile an hour speed zone and there is no parking provided on site. It's merely a drive up stand. There's trees and shrubbery along each corner, and it's a situation that's ripe for an accident, and it's the type of a thing where I think it's there under the Transient Merchant Law, which I don't understand why because this outfit opens up its shop in June and won't close, now, until the pumpkins are picked in October, and they are there every day from 9 until the sun goes down and if you were to try to open up a vegetable shop on that corner you would be disallowed because it's a residential area and it's not an allowed use and because it's under this Transient Merchant Law, apparently, it's allowed to exist there and it creates a terribly hazardous traffic situation and it's created an atrocious amount of erosion on that property, on that corner, due to the cars pulling in and out. I know the neighbor across the street's been horribly upset. He's even put a ribbon across his driveway, at times, to prevent people parking in his driveway and turning around in hi s driveway, and I see these things springing up all over the pl ace, and I'd 1 i ke the Code Enforcement Offi cer or somebody to be informed of that si tuati on and have it looked into and if it's being done under the guise of a Transient Merchant, I think the Transient Merchant Law needs to be looked over and revised, then. MRS. YORK-Well, last year, their signage obstructed visibility up and down Bay Road. MR. MARTIN-I don't care about signage. I just simply think it should not exist on that corner, and I think if you were to have a public hearing on that, you'd have a lot of people down here pretty upset. MRS. YORK-Okay. I will write a memo, tomorrow, to Mr. Hatin and ask him that we get something in response, or this Board get something in response. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anything else? All right. I just want to report two telephone calls I received. Approximately a week and a half ago I got a call from an attorney representing the client who had an eight lot subdivision up on Moon Hill Road. There had been a change in the lot line. He went in to speak to the Zoning Department about what he should do. He was directed to call me for an interpretation. Second phone call was today, from Arrowhead Construction. A question came up with the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator told the applicant to call, not the applicant at that point, Carol and myself for reasons I do not understand. MS. CORPUS-The Zoning Administrator isn't even here. MR. CARTIER-Well, this is prior to her having left, and in both cases, and Carol just indicated that he called her, also. As far as I'm concerned, we pawned them off on Lee, Planning Board members should not be getting calls from applicants or potential applicants with questions regarding applications or anything else. 26 --./ '--' MR. MARTIN-I agree. MR. CARTIER-That needs to be handled in house, here. So, I just want to make you aware of that. Does anybody have anything else? MR. LAPOINT-Are you going to have those applications from the Division of Regulatory Affairs? MR. MARTIN-No. The Town has to respond back that neither Board can consent. Then they send them back, after they've heard officially from the Town. That's the way it was explained to me. MR. HAGAN-Does anybody else on the Board feel that we should get together for about a 15 minute session before this meeting, say we meet a half an hour before, just to discuss this? MR. CARTIER-Are you tal king about the Executive Session or the Lead Agency Status? Because if you're talking about the Executive Session matter, we need to go into Executive Session, now, to talk about that. If you're talking about the Lead Agency Status matter. MR. HAGAN-I'm talking about the meeting of July 22nd. MR. CARTIER-Well, we're doing two things at that meeting. We're doing the personnel matter, and we're also doing the Lead Agency Status. Now, to which of those two items do you refer? MR. CAIMANO-He wants to do both. MR. HAGAN-I think they're both damn important that we sort of come in on the same wavelength. MR. CARTIER-All right. You want to be here at 5:15? MR. CAIMANO-5:15. Can you make it, Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I'll make it. MR. CARTIER-Can we use the Conference Room, Lee? MRS. YORK-Downstairs, 5:15, on Monday? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK-I'll check. MR. CARTIER-We're going to have to start that meeting in publ ic, and we're going to have to go into Executive Session. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman. 27