Loading...
1991-11-19 --- -../ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGUlAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19TH, 1991 INDEX Site Plan No. 47-91 Myron S.' Rapaport 2. Site Plan No. 51-91 Dr. Randall S. Lockhart 3. Freshwater Wetland Permit No. FWI-91 Franz O. Sundberg 5. Subdivision No. 15-1991 SKETCH PLAN Ronald and Mary Susan Raynor 8. Subdivision No. 8-1990 FINAL STAGE Adirondack Industrial Park, Inc. 17. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ,/ '-- ----- IJ,IEENSBURY PlANfIING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGUlAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES LAURICELLA JAMES MARTIN TIMOTHY BREWER EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT NICHOLAS CAlMANO TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PlANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-I will start by officially welcoming Mr. Lauricella who has joined us. He's been at a lot of meetings already, but I believe this is the first time he's sat at the table. We're delighted to have him, and we thank you for signing on. He comes to us with some planning background already from another community in the state. CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 26, 1991: NONE September 30, 1991: NONE October 22, 1991: Page 3, top line, where it says, from the with regard to that joining of lots, sib from the attorney with regard to that; Page 15, Mr. Yarmowich's first comment, second line, which says, which is 60 minutes per hour, sIb 60 inches per hour MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MINUTES AS AMENDED, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Lauricella ABSENT: Mr. Caimano October 15, 1991: NONE November 6, 1991: NONE November 13, 1991: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MIfllTES, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella ABSENT: Mr. Caimano 1 '- .....-" OLD BUSIflESS: (7:10 p.m.) SITE PINt NO. 47-91 TYPE I SEQRA REVIEW DONE ON 10/15/91 WR-lA MYROfI S. RAPAPORT OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE ROOTE 9L TO OLD ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, LEFT ON BURNT RIDGE, ENTRAfICE TO HOUSE IS AT THIRD -MY CAJF- SIGN. TO CONSTRUCT A 13.6 FT. BY 24 FT. BEDROOM. OLD BEDROOM IS BEING USED FOR ADDITIONAL CLOSET SPACE, A DRESSING AREA AND A SMLL DESK. FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. (i6\RREN COONTY PINtNING) TAX MAP fIO. 5-1-18 LOT SIZE: 1.4 ACRES SECTION 179-60 [3] HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 47-91, Myron Rapaport, November 14, 1991, Meeting Date: November 19, 1991 liThe request is to add a bedroom to an existing nonconforming structure. The Planning Board has determined that there is no environmental impact associated with this development and variances have been granted. There are no alternatives for this expansion because of the topography. The planning concerns were environmental in nature and these were addressed through the SEQRA process. Staff has no further comments. II MR. CARTIER-Okay, and Warren County Planning Board, they approved, I assume? They looked at it already. MRS. YORK-Right. They said IINo County Impact". MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would someone representing the applicant like to address the Board, please. MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz, attorney, with offices in Lake George. I represent Myron Rapaport, the owner. I believe that all the Board members are familiar with the situation except Mr. Lauricella. He's new to the Board. The house is on the east side of Lake George, and to clarify some of the notes that were read, it's not really adding a bedroom. It is adding a room to the house, Jim, on the south side, but it's going to be the third bedroom. Presently a third bedroom, a smaller room inside the house, is being used for other needed space. So, while they're adding a room, they're not going from three to four bedrooms. It'll still be three bedrooms. The additional room needed a SEQRA Review and that's been successfully managed, and it also needed an area setback variance which was also approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Those environmental concerns that were raised were addressed during the SEQRA process and I really don't have anything further to add. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Does the Board have any questions or comments on this application? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody who would care to address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COIIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Okay. The SEQRA has been done. If nobody has a question or comment, we can proceed to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PINt fIO. 47-91 MYRON S. RAPAPORT, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: To construct a 13.6 ft. by 24 ft. bedroom. Old bedroom is being used for additional closet space, a dressing area and a small desk. For expansion of a nonconforming structure. Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Lauricella ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. KRANTZ-I would like to thank the Planning Department, and, as I do once a year, I do sincerely, to thank you, on behalf of the public, for volunteering your time. You're not paid. I know what it's like, having volunteered my time. You sometimes have very hard decisions to make and you get a lot of grief and you're in the middle and people don't appreciate that you're here just trying to do the best that you can, and you should be thanked more often for what you do for the Town. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. 2 '-- --,,' MR. KRANTZ-It's the same with the Zoning Board of Appeals, the same with school boards. People in the community don't realize you put a lot of hours in and you don't get the thanks, I think, that people deserve. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We appreciate that very much. In the event that somebody has an old agenda, as r do, the next item, Subdivision No. 11-1991, Sketch Plan, Sunset Hill Farm, Owner: Paul Knox, III of Know Road on Assembly Point has been moved to the 26th of November, that's next week. Okay. (7:14 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 51-91 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA DR. RANDALL S. LOCKHART OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE 19 HOMER AVENUE FOR OFFICE EXPANSION FOR LOCKHART CHIROPRACTIC PRACTICE. (BEAUTIFICATION COIIUffiE) (IMRREfI COUNTY PlANNING) TAX MAP NO. 107-1-4.2, 36 LOT SIZE: 0.65 ACRES SECTION 179-79, 179-26 KURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:14 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 51-91, Dr. Randall Lockhart, November 4, 1991, Meeting Date: November 19, 1991 "The applicant has moved the handicapped parking as requested by the Board. All parking issues have been addressed. If there are no outstanding engineering concerns, approval is recommended." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Engineering comments, please. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, November 13, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Test pit data indicating depth to groundwater at the SWM basins should be provided to ensure the groundwater will not interfere with infiltration. Time of year testing was performed and depth of perc test hole should also be indicated. 2. Although the drawing notes indicate that snow from major storms be removed from site, it is appropriate for the Board to stipulate specifically that snow not be be deposited in SWM areas. II MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Warren County Planning already looked at this the last time around, correct? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-And they approved. Do we have anything from the Beautification Committee on this application? I don't have anything in front of me. MRS. YORK-As I understand it, the Beautification agreed with all the plantings that were proposed. MR. DUSEK-I have a copy of their report, if you'd like it. MR. CARTIER-Sure, because we need to incorporate that into the motion. Thank you. Okay. They approved. IIThis COl111littee approved planting plans as presented by the representative of Cushing, Dybas, Associates for Dr. Randall Lockhart, by way of site plans dated September 25, 1991. No changes or stipulations are indicated. II Mr. Dybas, would you care to address the Board, please. MR. DYBAS-Yes. My name is Kurt Dybas. I'm with the firm of Cushing, Dybas Associates. The questions raised on the handicapped parking, that has been resolved in site plan, and also the one way traffic for entrance and egress has also been incorporated on the site plan. The two points brought up in the engineering comments, had Leon Steves, his firm, dig a test pit yesterday and they hit groundwater at 36 inches below grade, which is at the same elevation as the top of the stream bed, and as far as the snow removal in a major storm, just stipulate it and it will be followed. Dr. Lockhart currently removes the snow in heavy storms and will continue to do so. No further questions? MR. CARTIER-Tom, does that? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. The issue of the stormwater management and infiltration and groundwater is satisfactorily addressed. I just, my second comment was to clarify the, even in minor storms, it wouldn't be appropriate to plow snow into those areas. There's limited spaces. As long as the applicant understands that and the Board may want to include that in some sort of a motion. There's very limited site space to store any snow there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The public hearing was left open. Is there anyone here who would care to address that? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMÞENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 3 ',----, -- MR. CARTIER-I don't think we did the SEQRA Review on this, did we? MR. LAPOINT-No, we didn't. MR. CARTIER-So, we've got to go back and do the SEQRA Review. RESOWTIOII ItIÐI DETERMINATIOII OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MDE RESOLUTIOII NO. 51-91, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DR. RANDALL S. LOCKHART, for an office expansion for Lockhart Chiropractic Practice, 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 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 19th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Lauricella ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion with regard to this application, and I think we may want to stipulate the Beautification Committee recommendations, along with reference to snow removal, if somebody would care to make that motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PlAN NO. 51-91 DR. RANDALL S. LOCKHART, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For office expansion for Lockhart Chiropractic Practice, with the following stipulations: That the test pit data developed by Van Dusen and Steves be included on the final plat and that a drawing note be included on the final plat that snow will not be deposited in the stormwater management areas, and that the Beautification letter of October 14th be included as part of the motion. DUly adopted this 19th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Lauricella ABSENT: Mr. Caimano 4 -.., - MRS. YORK-May I have a copy of the final plat with changes tomorrow, or sometime in the near future? Thank you very much. (7:18 p.m.) FRESHWATER IETuutDS PERMIT NO. FIfl-91 FRANZ O. SUNDBERG BODY OF WATER/STREAM INVOLVED: GF19 VACANT lAND, 9.54 ACRES PROPOSAL TO PlACE FILL UP TO 30 INCHES DEEP IN AN AREA 130 FT. WIDE BY 350 FT. LONG ADJACENT TO FRESHII\TER IETLAND GF19 A CLASS II IETLAND. THE SITE IS LOCATED ADdACEJfT TO MEADOWBROOK ROAD 0.3 MILES FROM CRONIN ROAD. FRANZ O. SUNDBERG, PRESENT (7:18 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, FWI-91, Franz O. Sunberg, 11-4-91, Meeting Date: November 19, 1991 liThe applicant received a wetlands permit from DEC, which acted as lead agency for SEQRA review. II MR. CARTIER-Thank you. There were no engineering comments, here. Is there somebody here to represent the applicant? Okay. Do you feel you need to make any comments on the application at all? MR. SUNDBERG-Not unless you don't accept it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-I just have one question. Okay. The DEC conducted the SEQRA Review for this project? MR. SUNDBERG-Franz Sundberg. I guess so. MR. LAPOINT-And it's not included in our packets. MRS. YORK-Yes. You have it. MR. LAPOINT-I have the permit, but the SEQRA Form is in there? MRS. YORK-No. They did not submit that. They just sent over the permit upon their review. MR. LAPOINT-So, granting the permit indicates that they have given it a negative declaration? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Thank you. MR. SUNDBERG-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-I'll open a public hearing on this permit. Is there anybody here who'd care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. MARTIN-No. I would defer to DEC on something of this nature. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Basically, all we need here, is a motion that approves the issuance of a Freshwater Wetlands Permit, and what we normally do is reference, in our own motion, that the special conditions cited by DEC be met. So, if somebody would care to make that motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHII\TER WETLANDS PERMIT fIO. FWl-91 FRANZ O. SUNDBERG, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: For proposal to place fill up to 30 inches deep in an area 130 ft. wide by 150 ft. long adjacent to freshwater wetland GF19 a Class II Wetland. The site is located adjacent to Meadowbrook Road 0.3 miles from Cronin Road. With the following stipulation: That the special conditions beginning on Page 3 of the four page permit from DEC be met and conformed with. Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE 5 ',,-~ ~ ABSENT: Mr. Caimano (7:27 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-Mr. Sundberg, did you say you had a question? MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. First I want to thank you. Now, I can maybe sell the property. The other is on my mother and father's farm stand where they sold vegetables on the Cronin Road. MR. CARTIER-On the Cronin Road, across from Regency? MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. MR. CARTIER-With all the lawn, behind it. I know what you mean. MR. SUNDBERG-If that gets into operation next summer, what kind of problems, do I have to get a permit, or is this a grandfathered thing~ or what is that? MRS. YORK-Has it been in operation, continually, every summer? MR. SUNDBERG-Well, not the last two years, as is. We haven't really sold, but we've had a garden there, but my mother came down with cancer. So, she hasn't been out on the stand, but. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What's the zone? Do you know what zone that is? Is that SR-l, or is that SFR? MRS. YORK-I think it's, well, basically what our Ordinance says is that if anything goes out for a period of 18 months, but since it was an infrequent use to begin with, I'm not sure if that holds true. MR. DUSEK-That always holds true. If it's 18 months lapse complete. The only cases we've had is where they've had spotted use throughout the 18 months, but if you can show a 1 apse of 18 months, soli dl y, then it's not, theoretically, it is, under our Ordinance, a nonconforming use, which is no longer allowed, but the question is whether or not you have 18 months. MRS. YORK-There are some zones that allow these farm stands and I think, can you come in and talk to me? MR. SUNDBERG-Well, I was just wondering, is this one of them that's allowed? MR. CARTIER-If it's SFR. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's SFR-IA. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. What you have to do is show her the exact location so that she can make that determination. She's not sure what zone it is. I don't think anybody else here is. MRS. PULVER-We don't have any maps here. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It's SFR. MR. MARTIN-I have my zoning map. MR. SUNDBERG-But~ I mean, do I just have to make an application or something like that? MR. CARTIER-I think, and Paul correct me if I'm wrong, what is going to have to happen here, if it has been out of operation for more than 18 months, then you've lost the ri ght to operate. That then requires, since it's an SFR zone, I believe, a request to, an application to the Zoning Board for a variance. MR. MARTIN-A use variance, yes. MR. CARTIER-A use variance. MR. SUNDBERG-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Does that also require that it come back to us for site plan after the variance? It's a commercial venture. MRS. YORK-Yes~ it's a nonconforming use. MR. DUSEK-I'm just checking it out, now, for you. MR. MARTIN-I'm fairly certain it does, under site plan. MR. CARTIER-It does, what? 6 -- --./' MR. MARTIN-I'm fairly certain it does. MR. CARTIER-Come under site plan also. MR. MARTIN-Yes, as a nonconforming use. MRS. YORK-Probably the best person to talk to, Mr. Sunberg, is Patricia Crayford, the Zoning Administrator, and what she'll do is give you a referral form that tells you exactly what you have to do, and then once you get that, come on down and speak to me and 1'11 help you go through the paperwork. MR. SUNDBERG-Okay. I'll do that. Yes, we were going to get it back in operation next summer, if we could. MRS. YORK-Okay. Well, we have the winter months. MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I would suggest that you don't wait up until the beginning of planting season, that you start, find out. MR. SUNDBERG-The reason I ask you now is because there was a problem on 149, I think, with a couple of garden stores, and I wanted to get this straightened out. MR. DUSEK-Just from a quick glance, here, if I may, it does not appear there would be a site plan review, and the reasoning behind that is that it's not allowed in the SFR zone as it stands now. So, what you're in essence doing is putting a new use in that zone, and there's no regulation which would require that new use to undergo a site plan review. So, it'll be up to the Zoning Board to decide whether or not they want to refer it to you, which they very well may. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but if I understand the situation correctly, his first step is going to the Zoning Board to gain a use variance. MR. DUSEK-If he can't prove, you know, if it's definitely lapsed for the 18 months, yes. MR. MARTIN-And if it's determined to be a use that is nonconforming with what is already allowed. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. MARTIN-That's the big determination. MR. CARTIER-And by lapsed, we mean that no vegetables have been sold out of there in the last, more than 18 months, is that correct? MR. DUSEK-Are we talking just a vegetable stand? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. DUSEK-Okay. Wait a minute. Sorry, I'm on the wrong wavelength. Vegetable stands have certain exemptions under the, I think it's the Ag and Market Law. I can double check that, but he may be exempt entirely, and be able to do it anyway. MR. MARTIN-I would like a copy of that law, if that's possible. MRS. YORK-I would, too, Mr. Dusek. MR. MARTIN-Because something is amiss, here, and I think it's got to be tightened up, and we're getting off on a tangent, here, I realize, but we're talking about, like, for example, on 149, there's a vegetable stand there that has not had to meet any requirements for egress and ingress, site lines down the road. I mean, we're in the middle of a 55 mile an hour speed zone, here, and cars are pulling in and off the street and just because it's some vegetable stand, it's allowed to create all these hazardous situations that any normal commercial use would have to go through stringent review. MR. DUSEK-That is, you know, I think the issue at this point is two fold. One is, I'd be happy to furnish you with a copy, it is in State law and I believe there was, somewhere, I thought, in our Ordinance it was addressed as well, I may be thinking of the Transient Merchant Ordinance, but there's, 1 i ke, 7 - --" I remember I got into this once before, two or three months back, and there were, like, at least two places, maybe even three, where it was addressed, and it fell into the type of vegetable stand that was a temporary nature~ put up just to sell vegetables during the season and then taken down. It was generally exempt, and I d be happy to provide you with copies of all of the legal background for that. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I'm not very happy, then, with the definition of the word "temporary". I mean, temporary from April through October. That doesn't strike me as very temporary. MR. DUSEK-Well, the answer there is to take a look at what we have if it's possible to make reV1Slons or desired to make revisions to the legislation that's currently on hand, that's something we can always take a look at, too. MR. CARTIER-Okay, which leaves Mr. Sunberg with his question still unanswered. Paul, would you have any objection, if you had time, to do a 1 ittle research on thi s and get an answer to Mr. Sunberg, if he could call you, or your office? MR. DUSEK-Not at all. In fact, what I'll do is I'll just pull out the sections of the law that apply. It won't be hard to do that, and I can photo copy them, give them to the Board members, as well as Mr. Sunberg, and 1'11 send a copy to the Zoning Administrator and then I'll leave it to Mr. Sunberg, from that point, to communicate with the Zoning Administrator, and then Board will have it and everybody will be apprised. MR. CARTIER-Great. Thank you very much. Okay. You don't have an answer yet, but we'll get you an answer. MR. SUNBERG-I don't expect an answer tonight. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. (7:33 p.m.) Okay. The next item on the agenda is Adirondack Industrial Park. I don't see anybody here for this. Do you want to put a hold on this until the end of the meeting? MR. LAPOINT-Lets go to the last item. MR. CARTIER-Okay. NEil BUSINESS: SKETCH PINt SUBDIVISION fIO. 15-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ROIW.D AND MRY SUSAN RAYNOR OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE CLEARVIEII lANE, OFF OF HAVIlAND ROAD FOR A 4 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP fIO. 54-5-6.51, 6.1 LOT SIZE: 5.6± ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS l \ ...\4 ~'t , MELANIE FIERST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 15-1991, Ronald & Mary Susan Raynor, November 14, 1991, Meeting Date: November 19, 1991 liThe application is for a 5 lot subdivision off of Haviland Road. One of the lots has an existing residence on it. The zoning is SR-IA. Individual wells and septic systems are anticipated. The plan appears to lack some data which is required and should be provided. This includes the setbacks from the lot lines (Checklist E) and a sketch drainage and grading plan (Checklist F) The property slopes to the north and the Board needs these sketch plans to determine if fill or drainage will be an issue. There appears to be a strip of land next to the Freiberger lot which is unaccounted for. The strip should be identified as to intended use and to whom it will belong. Clearview Lane is a Town Road and the Highway Superintendent will be asked to comment on the subdivision. II Would you like me to read his comments? (Memo to Lee York, Sr. Planner, from Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent, RE: Clearview Lane, Dated: November 18, 1991) IIWe have a question in regards to where North Eastern Land Survey Co., Inc. of Ballston Spa, came up with the measurements in regards to the property line submitted on their proposed map. On our subdivision map dated September 18, 1979, the distances do not match with some of their proposed distances shown on the existing deed and map enclosed." And they have submitted what was deeded over to the Town of Queensbury some time ago. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Engineering Comments, please. ENGINEERING REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, November 13, 1991 IIWe have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Side and back lot line setbacks must be indicated for all proposed lots. 2. A sketch grading and drainage plan is required at this stage. Lots lower than the street shall be graded to provide a driveway high point at or near the right-of-way of the street to prevent street runoff from entering the lot per Subdivision Regulations A183-25 B. 3. The Board should ascertain the proposed relationship of the two ten foot wide residual strips of land. If these strips are proposed as individual remnant parcels then they would be nonconforming lots. The ten foot strip at the north end of Clearview Lane should be considered for dedication to the Town A "--- --..-/ under Subdivision Regulation A183-23 F. 4. A location plan indicating all parcels and property owners within 500' of the subdivision boundary is required per Subdivision Regulation A183-25 B. (2)(C).1I MRS. YORK-Okay. First of all, did you advertise your subdivision, as required? MISS FUERST-Hi. I'm Melanie Fuerst from Northeast Land Surveying and Land Development Consultants, and I represent the Raynors as their agent. MRS. YORK-I'm sorry, Melanie. I'm at the wrong point, here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Yes, waul d you care to address the comments that you've gotten, so far, from some Staff? MISS FUERST-The drainage was shown on the Sketch Plan. They were arrows with a D on them, showing the proposed drainage, which would have effected the lots, according to the topographic features. The 10 foot strips, at the time, the Raynors only owned the left hand side of the road on Clearview Lane. Then they sold a piece to the Town for highway purposes, which the Town has dedicated and is Clearview Lane, now, and then, in the future of that time, they bought a piece of the property up on the north end, which would be on the right hand side of Clearview Lane, and their purpose of creating that 10 foot strip was so that future people would not be able to develop without them selling them a strip of land to the north, because at that time it was Gary Bowen, for the Hiland Golf Course, and the other parcel to the south would have been, they had enough room to create one more lot. So, they were holding that as a retainer piece for whatever the term is when you have a strip of land. MR. CARTIER-A right-of-way? MISS FUERST-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. It sounds to me like what has to happen is that those 10 foot strips have to be incorporated into one of those lots. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. A lot line adjustment can be done later on without review, in these cases. MR. CARTIER-You can stipulate that that 10 foot strip remain a right-of-way, can you not, on that piece of property, but rather than having it stand as a separate 10 foot strip isn't going to work. MISS FUERST-It's a nonconforming building lot, but it's not for the purpose of building. A 10 foot strip will, obviously, never have a building. MR. CARTIER-I understand that, but by Ordinance, and Paul correct me if I'm wrong, we cannot approve a subdivision whereby we create nonconforming lots, okay. MISS FUERST-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Right. MISS FUERST-There's two options that I had thought of, that can be done. One, that whole L-shaped strip can be conveyed to the Town, initially, right off the bat, and then the Town would own a 60 foot wide Town road. The second thing would be lots three and four, three would be the way I have it shown on the plan, that strip going all the way down, and four include the other little 10 foot strip which heads to the west. MR. CARTIER-Are you asking us if we have a preference as to those options? MISS FUERST-I guess I would be asking if you had a preference to that. MR. YARMOWICH-There would not be any interest in the Town's maintaining the additional 10 feet of right- of-way for the southerly part of Clearview Lane. They would have definite interest, and consistent with the Subdivision Regulations, provision should be made for continuing right-of-ways, if in fact future development would lend itself that way, and that may apply to the lands to the north. MISS FUERST-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-I think that a lot line adjustment for lot number three, in the future, if that were to take place between the Frieberger property and any property owners or the Raynors would certainly be the appropriate way to go. For this 10 foot strip to the north, the Town may want to accept that as part of their right-of-way. MR. CARTIER-Does that answer that question for you, in terms of preference? MISS FUERST-Preference would be, I guess I'm not sure, quite yet, on the preference. 9 ~ -- MR. BREWER-Three and four. MRS. FUERST-Lot 3 and 4. MR. CARTIER-Lots three and four. MR. RAYNOR-These two. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. RAYNOR-To incorporate this 10 foot strip. MR. CARTIER-Correct, into each of those lots. MR. RAYNOR-Yes. I'm not concerned i)bout this, of course, I'm not, but these are the ones that you're concerned about, more than these two, because, obviously, we don't use those to access those properties. This, I suppose, would have to go to this land owner? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. RAYNOR-This would have to go to this land owner, because the Town doesn't want it, at all. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MRS. PULVER-Well, move the road over. Take the 10 foot on the other side and give it to those people. MR. MARTIN-There you go. MR. RAYNOR-Take the 10 foot on where? MR. MARTIN-What she's saying is move the road over, and then you have a 10 foot strip going down here, and you can give that to these two properties. MR. BREWER-The road's there, though, isn't it? MR. CARTIER-That still involves a property transfer, though. MR. RAYNOR-This road is an existing road. MR. BREWER-So, you can't really move the road. MRS. YORK-Yes. It is already a Town road. That's a clever idea, but we can't do it. MR. YARMOWICH-It would still require the deeding of property back and forth between the Town, which was. MR. MARTIN- Yes. MR. RAYNOR-What I had thought was this property would incorporate this 10 foot strip, with this piece of property, okay, and incorporate this 10 foot strip with this piece of property, okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I understand that, but, with regard to that short strip at the top. MR. RAYNOR-This one? MR. CARTIER-Yes. Within our Subdivision Regulations, correct me if I'm wrong, we specifically discouraged that, doing something that prevents the continuation of a road, okay. So, that's our problem with that. MR. RAYNOR-Okay. MR. CARTIER-So, that 10 foot strip, yes, needs to go, I guess, the most likely thing is to go to the property owner to the north, correct? We can't separate out that piece. MR. RAYNOR-Okay. Well, this would be, what, Gary Bowen? MR. CARTIER-I don't know who owns that. MR. RAYNOR-It was Gary Bowen, the last I knew. 10 -- -.-/ MISS FUERST-Sure. MR. BREWER-How does somebody end up with a piece of land like that? MISS FUERST-When the Raynors first bought their first piece of land from, is that Meadowbrook Road over there on that one side? What is that? MRS. PULVER-Rockwell. MISS FUERST-Rockwell Road, yes. From Rockwell Road, they bought the property behind the church, and they bought 300 feet, is what it was, and it went to the back line of the 10 foot strip there. MR. BREWER-They owned it to here, and then they just deeded this to the Town? MISS FUERST-Yes. Their first deed came from the back of a church lot, and it was 300 feet in width, which came all the way to the edge of the 10 foot strip, here, all the way up and around, and included this. They built a house here and lived in it for, probably, two and a half to three years, according to my records, and then they sold this lot out, by getting a survey and getting a variance, and sold it out and somebody now lives there, which is Mr. and Mrs. Purton. Then, in order to do that, though, they went through the same process and conveyed to the Town a Town Road, and at the time the Town Road specification was a 50 foot right-of-way, and so they conveyed, you know, Clearview Lane, leaving this 10 foot strip, because they didn't own this parcel of land over here. This parcel of land. This parcel of land came afterwards, and then, now they want to subdivide it. They had already tried to subdivide it before, but now they've got kids in college. They definitely need the money. They need to subdivide, and that's where, I know it's really confusing, those 10 foot strips. MR. LAPOINT-That makes sense, now. MR. MARTIN-Paul, could the Town, as part of their Recreation Fee associated with this subdivision, include these 10 foot pieces of land as, in that regard or through that mechanism? I know it wouldn't meet the whole value of the Recreation Fee, but in lieu of. MR. DUSEK-The Town Board certainly has the opportunity to. consider the dedication of land, instead of the Fee. Whether or not they'd be interested in it, I think it's something that would have to be run by not only the Town Board, but perhaps even the Recreation Committee. MRS. YORK-I think the Highway Superintendent, too. MR. DUSEK-Maybe the Highway Superintendent. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I know, I'm not saying it's the whole thing, but just some mechanism to convey those two 10 foot strips over to the Town. I mean, it's just crazy to. MR. CARTIER-In other words, they convey those stri ps, .el.!:!!. a reduced fee, some combination of. Okay. MR. LAPOINT-It doesn't seem too appropriate for a recreation, though, I mean, right off the top of my head. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-I agree with the philosophy, but for taking some amount out of that, I'm not entirely sure. MRS. PULVER-Well, I have the feeling the Purtons, when they bought that home and that lot, were told that that 10 foot was going to buffer them from that property behind, from any, you know, I don't know what they talked about, townhouses, senior citizen homes, or whatever, and now if the Town of Queensbury owns that 10 foot, you know, we know that the Town is exempt from any kind of zoning or whatever. They can go in and do what they want. They could open it up and open up to the back, and now we've got another whole neighborhood disputef here, at the Town Hall. MRS. YORK-Well, be apprised that the Subdivision Regulations do encourage, to a great extent, leaving areas so you can have access from one subdivision to another, okay. MISS FUERST-But the subdivisions that are already in this area are dead end subdivisions. You've got Martell Road, just to the northeast, which is a turnaround. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-But are they also, by deed, prevented from extending that road? MISS FUERST-Yes, because the people that own all the way around them, there's no way. MR. MARTIN-It's a cul-de-sac. 11 ",- --- MISS FUERST-Yes. Everybody owns around the cul-de-sac, and the Town's already got it's conveyance. There's no way these individual owners, unless, you know, probably for a lot of money, would continue out through the back, which would be the same back. The parcel of land that's behind Clearview Lane, as you continue straight out, is a large parcel of land. It probably wants to be up for some development in the future. That 10 foot strip is very important for the Raynors to hold on to, because if they can come up with a loop system of building and road and being able to loop right back out into Clearview, that's going to save the developer a lot of money, because you can get a lot more lots in that way, and you can loop out instead of going in and building a cul-de-sac or going in and building Y road, you know. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The question, for me, then becomes, are we willing to put defacto restrictions on that piece of property by leaving this 10 foot strip, here, and blocking the road? MRS. YORK-Let me just say that the Subdivision Regulations state, "the arrangement of streets in a subdivision shall provide for the continuation of principle streets of adjoining subdivision and for the proper projection of principle streets into adjoining properties which are not yet subdivided, in order to make the necessary fire protection, movement of traffic, and construction or extension presently or later required, or of needed utilities and public services such as sewer, water, and drainage facilities. Wherein the opinion of the Town Board, topographic, or other conditions make such continuation or projections undesirable or impractical, this requirement may be modified. Approved future connector links shall be dedicated at the same time the principal streets are dedicated." MR. CARTIER-And you're reading out of the Subdivision Regs, correct? MRS. YORK-Yes, I am. Do you want the page? MR. CARTIER-No. That's okay. I just wanted to be sure where we were. MR. DUSEK-Just a comment on that, and I just want to make sure I understand something. First of all, I guess the real question, here, in addition to, I mean, obviously, the law says what it says, in terms of Subdivision Regulations, but I think one of the issues you should consider is whether or not, in fact, there is something to be had, here, on the other side of this, do you know what I'm saying, in terms of, is there supposed to be, like, a turnaround, and you're saying it's impossible for this to go through? Is that the idea, or no? MR. CARTIER-They're trying to prevent it from happening. MR. DUSEK-No, but is this vacant, now, up at this other side of it? MISS FUERST-Yes. It's vacant land. MR. DUSEK-So, it is possible, if that land was developed, that it may be something the Town wants to follow through on? MR. LAURICELLA-Yes. MR. DUSEK-What I guess I was getting at was, it's not necessarily, then, if you requi red that as a condition of your approval, that the road be structured in a certain fashion to allow a possible way through it, that it's not all in vain. It's possible that it may develop into something that does give a through way through there, and then it becomes a consideration of this Board whether or not that's something you want. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and I guess, really, what it comes down to is the question before us is, are we willing, in looking at this particular subdivision that we're looking at, to leave that 10 foot strip of land which prevents all of that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well, it's up to the applicant to tell us what they want to do with it. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, it can't be left as a nonconforming lot. MR. LAPOINT-Right, well, you just erase a line and it becomes part of lot four. MR. YARMOWICH-That's right. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, but that's there. We can't approve it as a separate piece. That's out. We can't do that. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. DUSEK-That's out, but you could, I think you have sufficient authority, if creating this subdivision is going to cause traffic concerns to arise, and that's the issue, and that's what you would have to decide, but if you feel that there are adequate traffic issues, here, to warrant leaving this as a possible out, I think you have sufficient authority to require that. 12 ''"--' -- MR. CARTIER-Yes. I agree. What's the zoning north of there? Are we still in SR-l or is that Rural Residential? MISS FUERST-It is still SR-l. MRS. YORK-It goes into Rural Residential. MR. MARTIN-Again, even if you incorporate that as part of lot four, then we're getting into this flag shaped lot issue and all that type of thing. Like I said before with the previous applicant, last month, you don't knowingly, that's why you go through this process. You don't knowingly create a lot with that kind of configuration. That's why we're here. MR. CARTIER-Can we give the applicant some sense of where this Board wants to go with this 10 foot strip. Do they want to see it deeded to lot four? Do they want to see it eliminated and donated to the Town or dedicated to the Town? MR. LAPOINT-Again, I think that they have to come tell us that. They haven't. Well, what's in front of us is unacceptable as a nonconforming lot, and that's all we should say is that it's unacceptable the way it is, and then they have to come back and let us know what they want to do. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but what I'm saying, Ed, is I don't want to, I'd like to see the Board give some direction, at this point, rather than postpone it until the next time around, and then they come in with something that we decide is unacceptable, or acceptable. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I'm open to anything they suggest, even the next time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Except leaving it as a 10 foot strip. MR. LAPOINT-Well, they know they can't do that. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, that's a rule that, it's not going to happen. It won't be in front of us as a 10 foot strip next time. It will be something else. MR. CARTIER-You're saying you could live with it if that 10 foot strip were attached to lot four? Is that what you're saying? MR. LAPOINT-If it's their desire to block off the end of that road, that's their responsibility to tell us, right? I mean, I do not know what their motives are or what their intent towards an adjacent property is, because, I mean, to me, that's, they've got to tell us. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but at some point, we have to decide, whether we're going to accept that or not. MR. MARTIN-Well, it's not like there's a myriad of options, here. There's three options available. Deed it over to the Town. Make it a separate lot, or make it part of lot four. MR. CARTIER-There's only two options. We can't make it a separate lot, because then it would be a nonconforming lot and we can't do that. MR. MARTIN-All right, well, then there's two. MR. DUSEK-I don't think you can force them to deed it over to the Town. MRS. PULVER-I was just going to say. I don't think I want to be responsible and say, all right, give your land to the Town. MR. DUSEK-Well, that's taking property without due process. MRS. PULVER-Right. I don't want that kind of authority. MR. LAPOINT-Right. So, again, they should be telling us and we should be passing judgement on what they propose. MR. DUSEK-Right. MISS FUERST-So, it seems like the only thing that they can do is deed it over to the Town, and that's the only way they're going to get away. 13 - --..../ MR. LAPOINT-Yes, again, I mean, I'm not saying that, but I mean, you have to take everything we've said into consideration, all the technical stuff, start from there, and tell us what you think's going to get approved. MISS FUERST-Right. MR. CARTIER-And that's why I, I think we're on the same wavelength, here. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. CARTIER-What I'm trying to do is give the applicant a sense of what direction this Board is going to go with regard to that particular strip. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think there's the two options. It either becomes part of lot four, or gets deeded over to the Town, but they have to make the decision. Those are the only two ways to go. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. If anybody else wants to make a recommendation, feel free. I'm not going to make a recommendation. MRS. PULVER-I mean, are you going to tell them that they have to deed it to the Tòwn? MR. CARTIER-No. I'm not going to tell them their going to deed it to the Town. MRS. PULVER-No, and you're not going to tell them they can, you'll accept it at lot four. MR. CARTIER-But I have problems blocking off a road like this, because that does severely limit what we are going to be able to do as a Planning Board later on, with this property to the north of us. MR. LAPOINT-Well, then we disapprove. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm talking for me, now. I'm just trying to get everybody to have some input on this, so that this lady can walk away with an understanding of what she ought to be coming back with, so that she's got a chance of getting past us. MR. BREWER-For me, personally, if they were going to deed anything to the Town, it would be both 10 foot pi eces or none. I mean, if they say they're goi ng to deed thi s pi ece, the north pi ece, to the Town, because we won't accept a flag shaped lot number four, we can't very well accept number three. So, I would either say both pieces or none. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAURICELLA-That's right. MR. MARTIN-I have no problem with saying that. I think it should be deeded to the Town. Call it what you want, that's the best thing to do. MISS FUERST-Personally, that's the way I think it should go, but sometimes, monetarily, for an owner, it might be different. MR. MARTIN-There is no development value to that, to anybody, and all it is is a blocking, and there's other ways around, access to that rear lot. I mean, they could, there's several different ways you could get at that rear lot, either off of Rockwell Road, potentially, or by going on the lands of Dennis and Jane Purton, here. So, that makes, you know, it has no value, and if it came right down to it, I mean, at a future point, the Town could take it. I mean, there's mechanisms to do that. MR. DUSEK-Right, if you wanted to go through a condemnation action, at some point. MR. MARTIN-I mean, that's nasty and dirty, but. MR. BREWER-There is another option. They could sell this 10 foot piece in front of the Friebergers. I don't know how much it would be worth to them. MISS FUERST-Right. The Friebergers tried to subdivide. They had the lot listed for sale, not realizing that they were land locked to do it, and maybe they would be still willing to do so. MR. MARTIN-That would be fine also. MR. BREWER-They coul d get ri d of that one 10 foot pi ece and then deed thi s, or whatever they wanted to do with that. MISS FUERST-Okay. 14 '-' --" MR. CARTIER-Do you have a sense? Jim, we haven't heard from you, yet. Do you want to make any comments, here, at all? MR. LAURICELLA-I agree that, I believe that that 10 foot strip probably would not be a good option to leave in there. MISS FUERST-It's a hard pictoral to come in with, because that's what the deed recites. MR. MARTIN-You're in a tough spot. MISS FUERST-I am. MR. MARTIN-And so are your clients. MISS FUERST-It's really strange. or what. didn't even know if I was going to do it as two separate subdivisions MR. MARTIN-See, I think this is a wonderful opportunity for this to be cleaned up, because this is just something that, through purchases, and over the years, has just resulted in this, and it's an opportunity, now, for the whole situation to be cleaned up. MISS FUERST-I think the purpose here is to get the subdivision underway, whatever it takes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Great. MR. LAURICELLA-There is one other item, here, on Paul Naylor's letter. Did you read that? MISS FUERST-I just received this. I didn't read it yet. Which section are you in? MR. LAURICELLA-The Highway Superintendent's letter. MRS. YORK-Basically, what Mr. Naylor is saying, and there's attached documentation, is that what you're representing on the plan does not match up to his deed, okay, and that's something you're going to want to check, too. MISS FUERST-Right, okay. MR. LAURICELLA-So, maybe those 10 foot strips aren't correct. MISS FUERST-Excuse me? MR. LAURICELLA-Maybe that 10 foot strip isn't correct. If he's. MISS FUERST-I will have to get and see exactly what he's talking about, because I have not had a chance to talk to him prior to this meeting. MR. LAURICELLA-That may not be correct. MISS FUERST -Pl us, he says they were proposed di stances, too, at the time. He says there were proposed distances, down here. So, I will have to get together with him and see what he's talking about. MR. CARTIER-Okay, ma'am, do you have any other questions you'd like to ask the Board or Staff while you're here? MISS FUERST-Yes. What do I do next? MR. CARTIER-Okay. First of all, we have to take action. What's the Board's druthers, here? We can approve this and get it all cleaned up at prelim, or we can table this, options I'm talking about. We can table the Sketch Plan, and take another look at Sketch Plan. What's your druthers, here? MR. MARTIN-I'd rather table the Sketch Plan, so the applicant has an opportunity, without spending a lot of money, to come back to us again, and if things work out at the next review of that, then we can move right through preliminary and final. MISS FUERST-Right. MR. MARTIN-That's just my opinion. MR. CARTIER-Right. I would agree with that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I think you've got plenty of comments, here, to work on, both the Rist-Frost letter, the Town's letter, and the Highway Superintendent's letter, that yoU should be very close to preliminary with the next Sketch Plan. 15 '--' - MISS FUERST-Sure. Okay. MR. CARTIER-Understand, we need your agreement to table this. MISS FUERST-I would prefer to be able to come back in with a preliminary, because I think that it's so far along, as far as survey, logistically, out in the field, topo out in the field. Everything is logistically so far along, I would, personally, prefer to come back in with preliminary. MR. CARTIER-Which is not unusual, but I think, what I'm hearing from the Board is that they would table, and with regard to your agreement to table, if you disagree to table, basically all that means is that we have to action this application within 45 days. We would have to take some action on the application within 45 days, which means we would be voting on the Sketch Plan as presented. I don't see that going anywhere. MISS FUERST-Okay. Exactly. So, my option is to agree to the tabling. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I'm glad you called it an option, too. Thank you. Would anybody care to entertain a motion with regard to this application? Offer a motion, not entertain. MOTION TO TABLE SKETCH PINt SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1991 RONALD AND MARY SUSAN RAYNOR, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For a 4 lot subdivision, pending the applicant's further review of the plan as submitted, especially in regard to the two 10 foot lots that are shown on the plan, and also allowing for an opportunity for the applicant to clarify this deed issue as raised by the Highway Department, and also an opportunity to further review the engineering comments as listed in the Rist-Frost letter of November 13th. Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. Now, to go back to your question of what do you do next, do you understand what happens next? MISS FUERST-Now I have to go, under the procedures, to talk to the Raynors. They come up with a decision, and then upon their decision, if they are in favor, too, I go through the procedure to convey that 10 foot strip to the Town, then the Town owns that land, then I can proceed with the subdivision and there's no 10 foot strips. MR. CARTIER-No, no. You're way ahead of yourself. All you're going to do is come back in with a revised Sketch Plan. MR. MARTIN-You don't have to go through conveyance and all that. MISS FUERST-You don't have to go through all that? MR. CARTIER-Not yet. MISS FUERST-Okay. MR. MARTIN-You show that on the plan. MISS FUERST-Okay. I thought I had to get all that done. MR. CARTIER-Not yet. All you're going to do is come back to us with a revised Sketch Plan. MISS FUERST-Okay. MR. MARTIN-That's why we tabled it, so we could make it as. MISS FUERST-Okay, that means next Wednesday's the deadline. I can come back, if I get it in. MRS. PULVER-Right. MISS FUERST-Very good. Thank you very much everybody. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. (8:03 p.m.) We can go to the second to last item on the agenda. 16 ~ '-"" OLD BUSINESS: (Continued) SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1990 FINAL STAGE LI-lA ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC. OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE WARREN/WASHINGTON CDUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK, COUNTY LINE ROAD, LOTS 54-60, lEST SIDE OF COUNTY LINE ROAD, % MILE SOUTH OF HICKS ROAD. RE-ZONED BY TOWN BOARD: JULY 9, 1990 FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 13 LOTS TO BE USED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS. TAX IMP NO. 55-2-20 LOT SIZE: 25.2 ACRES TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 8-1990, 11-4-91, Meeting Date: November 19, 1991 "All staff and engineering CORments have been addressed. Final approval is recommended. II I do want to mention, and I do not have something in writing for the Board. Mr. Naylor contacted me today. He is preparing a letter. I don't think he realized it was for tonight. His concern was, he explained to me, he went to the property today, regarding the request for waiver, and he says, well, what he expressed to me was that he has no problem with the Board granting the waiver from the slope requirement, but he would request that the Board ask that there be guide rails or other safety devices at the points of steep incline, and that's, he didn't write anything, but that was what he expressed to me. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Engineering Comments, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, IIWe have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. A waiver has been requested from the 1:4 fill slope requirement at the north edge of Marcy Road. The applicant proposes to increase the fill slope to 1:3. We recotmrend that this waiver be granted. 2. The contours and/or length of the 18" culvert crossing Marcy Road (sta. 0+35) should be adjusted so the ditch downstream from the culvert is shown lower than the outlet invert and proper slopes are maintained. All other previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed. " MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nace, if you will, please. MR. NACE-Okay. Let me react to Mr. Naylor's comment first. The area we have requested a waiver for is a section in your Subdivision Regulations that is intended as a guideline, and really shouldn't be a regulation, to be quite frank. The guideline is that for slope, or fill slopes, where the amount of fill is six feet or less, they want a 3:1 slope. Where it's six feet or more, then you're allowed to go to a 2:1, or, I'm sorry, a 4:1, versus a 3:1. Is that right, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. The lesser the fill, the flatter the slope that's required. MR. NACE-Yes. For six feet of fill, you have to go to a 4:1. If you are over six feet of fill, you can go to a 3:1. We only have four feet of fill, but we have a very restricted space to work in. So, I requested a waiver to be able to go to a 3:1, for that one little area. It's right along the adjacent property line at the north end of the project. If Paul really wants a guide rai 1, we'll put it up, but a guide rail on a slope that's only four foot high is really not required by any transportation agency I know of. MR. MARTIN-What's the speed limits in through there? MR. NACE-The speed limit will be posted at 30 MPH or less. MR. CARTIER-Is the road banked there at all? Is that curve banked? MR. NACE-The curve is super elevated, I believe, yes. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. I don't know what that means. I'm not an engineer. MR. NACE-That's banked. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thanks. MR. NACE-No, I take that back. It is not banked. MR. CARTIER-It's flat. MR. NACE-It's flat, because of the low speed. At any rate, if he wants a guide rail, it's simple to put a guide rail up, and we will be glad to do that. MR. LAPOINT-About how long of a stretch are we talking there? 17 -- '-/ . . . MR. NACE-About 100 feet or a little less than 100 feet. MR. CARTIER-Did Paul give you any indication as to how long this guard rail was supposed to be? MRS. YORK-He just indicated to me it would be the length of that slope, in the area that the waiver was requested. MR. NACE-Okay. Could we leave it this way. We will agree to build the road and review it with Paul during construction. When Paul sees it during construction, if he wants a guide rail at that point, we will put up a guide rail. MR. CARTIER-But he's already told us he wants a guard rail, I guess, is my comment. MR. NACE-Okay. MRS. YORK-I can get you something in writing tomorrow. MR. MARTIN-Putting you on the spot, here, Lee. How emphatic was he? MRS. PULVER-I think if you leave the option open. MR. LAPOINT-Then he can make a decision. MRS. PULVER-Right, a decision when he sees it. He's not an engineer. MR. CARTIER-Can we do it this way? If you would agree in writing, that you will install a guard rail, pending Mr. Naylor's inspection after the road is built, and he still says he wants a guard rail, you would put one up. MR. NACE-Why don't I make it even simpler. We'll show it on the plans. During construction I'll review it with him. If he agrees, at that point, that we can leave it off, we'll leave it off, but we'll show it on the plans. MR. DUSEK-I think that's a fine solution, except, just to save everybody some, technically, if you change the plans, you've got to come back in before the Board. So, you might want to also put a note on the plans indicating what you just said, show the guide rail, and then put a note on the plans, and then it can go either way and everybody's set. MR. MARTIN-Right. I think that's fine. MR. NACE-Okay. Fine. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. NACE-The other comment I guess we need to respond to, engineering comment, is a valid comment that Tom had, is that the culvert extension I've shown here on the existing entrance that we're redoing needs to be longer than it is. So, we will lengthen that by 20 feet. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do we need to get a further submittal to show that, or? MRS. YORK-If you just bring in a file copy, with the changes indicated, that will be fine. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? This is Final Stage, so we're done with the public hearing. Wait a minute. This is the application where we got a letter from someone asking, they would like to postpone things in order for them to be able to address. I did, in fact, leave the public hearing open for that purpose. Did anything come in? MRS. YORK-I don't believe I've received anything. Mr. Nace, did they contact you? MR. NACE-They contacted me. I have walked the adjacent property with the, it's the bank that's in recei vershi p of that property. I've walked it wi th thei r representati ve, and he di dn' t seem to have any problems at the time, but I have not heard anything further from him. MR. CARTIER-Well, we complied with this request, in terms of leaving the public hearing open, giving him an opportunity to address any comments he wanted to, to the Board. We have none. So, at this point, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 18 ,-,"- MR. CARTIER-Does the Board or Staff have any other questions or comments? If not, we can entertain a motion, here. SEQRA's been done. MOTION TO APPROVE FIflAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1990 ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK, IflC., Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a subdivision of 13 lots to be used for light industrial buildings, with the following stipulations: That on the final plat, a longer culvert shall be shown, per the Rist-Frost letter dated 13 November 1991, Item Number Two, and that a note be placed on the drawing for a provision of 100 foot guard rail along the one on three slope, pending post construction discussions with Paul Naylor as to its required installation. Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Lauricella ABSENT: Mr. Caimano (8:13 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-Dave Hatin talked to me yesterday and asked if he could have a few minutes to address the Board when we're done with the agenda. Mr. Sundberg? MR. SUNDBERG-I'd like to know what a nonconforming lot is. MR. CARTIER-A nonconforming lot is a lot which does not conform to the Ordinance, and there's no specific definition of a nonconforming lot. It depends on the zone. For example, in a one acre zone, it would be a .9 acre lot, that sort of thing. MR. SUNDBERG-Or not enough road frontage. MR. CARTIER-I'd have to think about that. MRS. PULVER-Well, no, you have to have a minimum of so many feet on the road to have it be a lot. MR. MARTIN-Fifty feet. MR. SUNDBERG-But if you don't have that, then it's nonconforming. Is that right? MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-No, no. You can have a conforming lot without access. You just simply can't develop it. MR. SUNDBERG-You talk like a politician. I'm talking about a lot to put a house on. If it doesn't have the proper road, enough road frontage, then it's nonconforming. MR. MARTIN-Well, then, that's what I'm saying, you can't build on it. MR. SUNDBERG-It's nonconforming then. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-If you can't meet the setbacks or any of that, you can't build on it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. David. DAVID HATIN MR. HATIN-I just want to take a short few minutes, tonight, to address the Board on something that came out of, I guess, an Executive Session you had last week regarding two prior submissions before the Board. Number One is Dr. Kana who was represented, at the time, by, I believe, John Hughes and Frank Sears, who represented himself. First of all, I'd like to talk a little bit about Dr. Kana's. When I read the motion that came out of the Executive Session, I was a little bit upset that nobody had bothered to call me and find out what the particulars were and I talked to Peter about this and explained the situation to him. I told him I would explain the same thing to the Board. Dr. Kana, it sounds like a simple thing of, just that they haven't complied with the site plan, but it's not as simple as that. Some of you might recall Mr. McNairy who is a neighbor adjacent, behind Dr. Kana who had voiced some strong opposition to the clearing of trees and had also requested that some brush between Dr. Kana's property and his be removed at the time John Hughes was doing the subdivision. Then he went for a variance for a fence and at the time the Zoning Board questioned why he wasn't complying 19 '-' --../ with site plan and I got involved in it. So, I had a meeting with Dr. Kana, John Hughes, and I had also talked to Mr. McNairy at the time, although he was not involved in the meeting, and we walked the property and then I was filled in on the whole story which basically involved Mr. McNairy had come to John Hughes, when he was clearing the property, and said, look, there's this scrub brush in here. Would you clean it out for me. I don't like it. I want to get rid of it, and John said, well, it's supposed to stay. He said, well, I don't care. Go ahead and get rid of it. I don't want it. So John did and he left the trees there. There was also a drainage ditch. from the original site plan, that I recall that was supposed to be in there. In order to put that drainage ditch in, they would have had to clear out about 10 to 15 trees. Mr. McNairy was dead set against that. Why he didn't speak at the public hearings when this was proposed, I don't know, or if he did, obviously, that wasn't addressed. So, we had a situation where, do we want to have an upset neighbor who is threatening a lawsuit against John Hughes, Dr. Kana, and the Town if we go ahead and make him put this drainage ditch in, or do we try to resolve the problem and not by any means compromise what the Board approved. So, I've decided that, I wrote a letter and I have the letter with me tonight to Dr. Kana and said, look, if the drainage runs the way it's supposed to, is somewhat handled the way it's supposed to, and I get no complaints, will allow you to appease the neighbor, keep what you want and go ahead and leave it the way it is. If I get any complaints, you'll have to comply with the subdivision approval. So, I left an opening there. About 30 days later I get a letter from the attorney saying that's not good enough, representing Dr. Kana. We want something in writing that says you're going to bless this off forever. So, I went down and had a meeting with Dr. Kana. I told him that wouldn't happen. I said, if you want something in writing, it will either be that you go back and amend your site plan or the subdivision, or you do what the subdivision calls for, and John Hughes has no problem doing the work. He is more than wi 11 ing to do the work. He's just trying to keep everybody happy and so am 1. So, I know Peter's had a conversation with Dr. Kana. I just wanted the Board to realize that there was more than just the fact that this hasn't been complied with, and I was trying to work out a problem between neighbors without having lawsuits being thrown back and forth, and still accomplishing what the Board wanted, which is the drainage be taken care of, which it is. It is still handled. There is no drainage problem. Nobody has any complaints with the water. I've talked to Mr. McNairy. He doesn't have any complaints. Dr. Kana seems happy. John Hughes has no problems in the subdivision, he knows of, and nobody else has complained. So, that's the story behind the story, I guess. So, I don't know exactly what Peter told you last week, but that's how everything evolved to where it is today. I just wanted the Board to know that that's something that I took upon myself to work out, without bypassing your approval. Still leaving that door open, should there be a problem, and I refuse to give the attorney the letter saying it's good. Don't worry about it. I'll take it on my shoulders. I won't do that. 50, I still have left the door open for you people, and the drainage is being handled, as far as I know, with no problems. MR. CARTIER-I just went back and read the motion, and maybe we can solve some potential future problems here. You seem upset by what you read there. MR. HATIN-Yes. The way it was relayed to me was that the Board was wondering why we weren't doing any enforcement on the subdivision approval, as well as, why was the Town Attorney involved in something that was really not a Town Attorney matter. MR. CARTIER-Well, I can answer that. When we talked about it that night, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, for those of you who were there, we were going to look at it, and I was buried with stuff, and I asked Paul if he would be willing to look into it, strictly on an informal business. MR. HATIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-This was not a formal process. MR. HATIN-All right. That's not really the way it came back to me, the way I understood the resolution when I read it. It just sounded like we were saying that, you know, and I know I talked to Paul, briefly, about it, too. MR. DU5EK-I was going to say, the only thing I'd like to add in this, just to make sure that we have the bases covered, is that, whatever your perceptions were, it's because you read something in the resolution. My contacts, I indicated to the Board that I would, and I explained this to Dave, too, today, I guess it was, but when we talked to the Board my understanding, Peter, was exactly as yours. It simply got raised. Nobody was making any accusations. They just wanted to know why it is that this was still outstanding. MR. HATIN-Okay. MR. DUSEK-And I did, in fact, contact, it just so happened the first one I came across was Pat Crayford. I advised Pat of the Board's concerns, and she was going to look into it, and I left it with her, of both matters. Later, when Dave found out about it, I guess he found out, not through Pat, but through reading the motion and through what his feelings were when he read the motion, but it certainly wasn't anything that certainly I conveyed, because I tried to convey it the way you just indicated, Peter. 20 -- ---" MR. HATIN-I guess what I just wanted you to know, with both issues tonight, if that happens, we're only a phone call away. We can give you the background. The Sears matter. This boils down, basically, to a family feud. Carol, I know you got a lot of phone calls on it. What I'm sure the Board doesn't realize is there is a personal problem between these two families, and the Board is being used as a pawn, and so am I, to try to solve a a family problem. MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute, Dave. neighbor against neighbor or not. It is not permitted within the zone. Sears, it's not permitted. I don't care whether it's MR. HATIN-No. See, you don't understand the whole facts, Carol, and that's the problem. The facts are that Mr. Sears has complied. Mr. Sears leases a space down on the Boulevard in the former area of Arrowhead Equipment. He has a signed lease that he's brought in to Pat Crayford. I made a visit to the property last week. There was no equipment on the property. I looked in the garage where this was previously stored. There was no equipment on the property. We did threaten Mr. Sears with court action to get rid of the equipment. I will agree with that. He did play games with us, and he probably will play games with us in the future. MRS. PULVER-He is now, because I've seen the equi pment there. I dri ve down there and I see it there a 11 the time. MR. HATIN-The equipment does go down the street, and I cannot stop him from doing that, and that was to Mr. Norton's complaint. Mr. Norton forgets, though, that when we originally contacted him, he had seven pieces of equipment on his property. It took him over nine months to get his approvals and we had to drag him to this Board because he conveniently forgot to submit to this Board, so, and, again, this all boils down to the family feud. It's got nothing to do, other than the fact that they were both in competition with each other also. So, I can't stop them from driving the equipment home at the end of the work day, any more than anybody can stop me from driving my Town truck or Paul Naylor from taking a dump truck home from the Highway garage at the end of the day, or somebody that drives, Tim, where you work, driving one of your cars home from your business at the end of the day. I can't stop that. If he stores it on the property, per your agreement in the garage, yes, I can stop that, but I cannot stop somebody from driving equipment home at the end of the day, and that goes for anywhere in this Town, all right. It can't be done, and that's the problem that this Board doesn't realize. There are two separate issues here. One is storage on the property. The other is driving the equipment home at the end of the day. I told Mr. Norton, his son can drive his logging truck home at the end of the day, as long as he just drives it home, parks it, and leaves the next day, but if he stores the equipment on the property, that's a different thing. MRS. PULVER-Yes, well, a stump remover isn't something that you drive. It's something you. MRS. HATIN-It's towed. MRS. PULVER-Right, and when it's there, and it's overnight, and it's there for two or three days, now is that storing it, or is that driving it home after work? MR. HATIN-I know Mr. Sears called us last week, called Pat the week before, and said, look, I'm using my equipment on my property where I'm building my duplex. The equipment is going to be there. You're probably going to get calls on it. I want you to know the equipment is there. Four days later, I drove by. The equipment is nowhere on the property. So, he removed it, and he does have a signed lease that he showed us. I mean, it's one of these things that these two are going to go at it from now until the day one of them moves. MR. CARTIER-I also drove down there last Saturday morning to see if there was any equipment there, and I did not see any equipment. I didn't go and peek in the garage, but I didn't see any equipment. MR. HATIN-Frank almost lost his mortgage because he was not complying. That's what was the final lever that got the equipment off there. When the attorney called Pat and said, what's the problem, she said, if he doesn't remove the equipment, we're going to take him to court. He said, well. if he doesn't remove the equipment, he's not going to get his loan, and that's what the final lever was to get him to remove the equipment. That's when he finally, everything hit home, but it was up to court action to get rid of the equipment. I'm not a cop. I can't go arrest him. I can't go take his equipment. I have to go through the legal procedures, and Paul knows it takes us sometimes nine months. We've got a case, right now, that's over a year old. and we still don't have compliance. It's not a simple thing, but it is not being overlooked either, and that's what I want this Board to understand, because this is the way it's being represented to you, that it's being overlooked and it's not. I told Mr. Norton that we did everything we could. Mr. Sears is allowed to drive his equipment up and down the road, just like everybody else is, but Mr. Norton said, well then I'm going to bring all my equipment home, and I said, if you do that, then you're going to be in violation. So, we've got a, the simplest word to use is pissing contest going, all right, and I don't know how to stop it. I can't stop it. All I can do is, what you said was no storage on the property. If he stores on the property, he'll be cited for the violation, but right now he's not storing on the property. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What would you suggest the Board members who get phone calls from Mr. Norton do? 21 '-- ------ MR. HATIN-Right now, call me and at least get my side of it also. MR. CARTIER-No, I mean, what would you suggest we tell Mr. Norton? MR. HATIN-I don't want to put words in your mouth, but all I can tell you is Mr. Norton is off base, here. His complaint to you is not legitimate. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Dave, I do believe that Sears is playing games. I've been over there. I've seen the equipment the next day I'm there. The equipment is still there and it hasn't been moved. MR. HATIN-I'm not going to say he isn't, Carol, and, like, Peter and I were there last week, and there's no equipment there. MRS. PULVER-Yes, and I mean, I believe that he probably has an agreement with Arrowhead, you know, I mean. MR. BREWER-Well, he bought a building down on the Boulevard. MRS. PULVER-But I think he's doing both. MR. BREWER-They're like two kids. MRS. PULVER-Right. I think he's moving some and I think he's playing games with the Town and he's got all of us into it. MR. BREWER-I know both of them, and I know that Norton is sitting on his porch and Frank drives the truck down just to tick him off. MR. HATIN-That's what it is. That's exactly what it is, and, unfortunately, Art will get all wound up, and then he calls Carol and Peter, and he threatened to bring me to the State. I said, do it. I said, I've got nothing to hide. It's the games, and we get dragged into the games, and I can't afford to play games every day. MRS. PULVER-Well, it's a game, but I still think that Sears is taking advantage of the Town and storing his equipment there at some time. MR. HATIN-But, if he doesn't put it in the garage, and that was the issue before the Board, then he's not in violation of your stipulation either. MR. CARTIER-If he does put it in the garage? Is that what you said? MR. HATIN-If he doesn't put it in the garage, technically, he's not in violation of your stipulation, either, because the garage was involved in the storage, as far as I remember. MR. CARTIER-But that's not in the motion, I don't think. I don't think there was anything in the motion about the garage. MR. HATIN-There was something about the garage, I believe. MRS. PULVER-Yes, he was going to tear the garage down or something. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but I don't think that showed up in the motion. MR. HATIN-No. It didn't, which was the other thing we were asked, why wasn't he tearing down the garage. There's no motion, there's nothing that says he has to tear down the garage. MR. CARTIER-Right. Paul? MR. DUSEK-I was just going to, maybe, try to help in addressing the question that was just raised, what do you do when he calls, or when somebody calls on a complaint, and I think there's two thoughts that come to my mind. The first, and most obvious, perhaps, is if it's a complaint about the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, I think that a Board member can certainly take that and convey it to Mr. Hatin and indicate to the person who's called them that they will do that, out of courtesy, and that way you've responded. As a second issue, though, and that's rightfully so, because your body's not an enforcement body. However, I could understand that your Board would have concerns that if you're going about approving site plans and subdivisions and if you're making conditions on those, I mean, you would want them upheld, on your own, in addition to just simply passing the buck, so to speak, to the Enforcement Officer, you, rightfully so, have concerns of, why are we doing all of this if nobody's enforcing it. I think, though, once again, still the appropriate recourse is to go directly to Mr. Hatin with 22 '--" ---' the complaint and indicate that this is the problem, and if he doesn't resolve it to your satisfaction, or to the people's satisfaction, and if they keep call in! and complaining to you, I think you take reasonable action with Mr. Hatin, and if you don't like the results that Mr. Hatin is giving you, you, obviously, have some legal recourse of your own, but maybe even a better solution may be to go to the Town Board, at that point. MR. HATIN-And, in both instances, here, I have nothing to hide. I've told you the facts as they are. Unfortunate ly, thi s is a constant game I get into wi th the Town, whi ch nObody understands is, I am not a policeman. okay. I do not carry a gun. I don't carry handcuffs. I can cite a person for a violation. That doesn't mean the violation is going to go away tomorrow. They can play games all day. As Paul knows, we've got one that's over a year old right now, and the guy's violated judge's orders. Now, what am I supposed to do, all right. I can't arrest him. I can't take the equipment or the property away. That's the other situation which a lot of people don't realize. MR. DUSEK-That's a different issue, I think, though, too. At least, like the one that you're citing, it's in the courts. It's being worked on. Everybody knows that, and then if a citizen raises a question, you can you, you know, there .i! something being done. I think the issue with Sears and the other one, it was just a question that started off the ground is, was there compliance or is there not compliance. So, I think that's where the question's at, at this moment. MR. HATIN-Yes, and the other thing is, I can't park on the street 24 hours a day either. MRS. PULVER-All right. I was not at this meeting, as you notice, when they were discussing it, but I have talked with Dave and Pat, several times, over this Sears thing. This last time, I got the call and Norton told me, that day, he had also talked to Peter, and we were having site plan. MR. HATIN-Which was probably the day after he talked to me and I told him, look, you know. MRS. PULVER-Right. We were having site plan and Peter said that he was going to bring it up again. So, I guess my frustration is that it just seems to take so long. MR. HATIN-You have to realize that all we can do is cite and take them to court. Right now, it takes me an average, to get a person in court, three months to get a trial. That's if they plead not guilty. I have to get them in court. They have to plead, either guilty or not guilty. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but in the mean time, aren't they on their best behavior? MR. HATIN-What am I going to do, Carol? I can't do a thing to them. A man could build a building without a permit, and the best I can do is issue a court summons and take him to court. MR. DUSEK-Well, that's not entirely true. MR. HATIN-Well, no, but I'm just saying, you know, if you put it in that perspective, all right, there's only so much I can do, because I'm not a policeman. I can't arrest the guy. MRS. PULVER-Well, Dave, I'm listening to you and I'm thinking, my goodness, then why do we have all these zoning laws and everything if, really, we can't do anything. I mean, we can't enforce them. MR. HATIN-The enforcement is not the problem. The time that you're talking about .i! the problem. The time that it takes to get compliance is, as Paul can tell you. crazy. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I'm almost hearing from you that it takes so long that you don't want to be bothered. MR. HATIN-I didn't say that and I've never said that. I'll be bothered with anything that you bring to me, and I'll take it whatever route it has to go, but I have no control over the court system, nor the legal functions of this Town. I put it through the process. If the person pleads guilty, then he's under a judge's order. That takes it out of my hands. If he pleads not guilty and it goes to trial, it took me four months to get a junk car complaint handled, ~ months, and the neighbors calling me every other week wondering what's going on. It's in the legal system. I can't touch it. It took me two months to get a ruling from the judge. What am I supposed to do? MRS. PULVER-I guess, just going back to what my frustration is, is that when there are complaints that are made, I often feel that maybe then they should be cited, rather than in two months, when it just didn't work out. I think that they out there, the citizens of Queensbury, have figured out how to get away without complying to our laws. MR. HATIN-I'm not going to say they haven't. There are loopholes, legal loopholes. MRS. PULVER-Right. It's not fair, because it's not fair to everyone. MR. HATIN-But is it not fair to me or is it not fair to the system. Who is it not fair to, because I can only do so much. That's the problem. I am not a cop. I can't arrest them, like a cop sees you doing a DWI, he can arrest you right there. I can't do that. 23 '- --,' MRS. PULVER-I know, but, again, back to it, if citing them, issuing them a summons, or whatever it is, maybe that needs to be done sooner. If it takes three months, you know, like I say, it almost sounds like you don't want to be bothered, because I'm hearing you say, look, it takes three months, it takes six months, it takes nine months. MR. HATIN-I know. I'm just saying that I want you to realize the time frames that I'm up against. I've never been bothered. I've never ignored this Board, and please don't insinuate that, all right. That bothers, because that's not what I'm here for. What I'm here for is to explain the situation with Mr. Sears and with Dr. Kana and tell you that if it has to go the legal route, it's not going to be an overnight process, which is what a lot of people expect when they're on the receiving end of giving the complaint. When they're on the receiving end of getting the complaint, they tell me just the opposite. We're too quick. We don't give them enough time, and we're too strict, and my Department is called storm troopers and every other name under the sun that they can think of. That's the opposite side of the coin. You don't realize. I'm in a no win situation, here. I either piss the person off that's being complained about, or the person that's complaining is pissed off because I'm not doing it fast enough. So, where do I win? I don't win, all right, and I'm caught in the middle. MRS. PULVER-Well, that's the job, though. MR. HATIN-That's the jOb and I understand that, but people have to understand, that is the job, and a lot of people don't. They say, why can't you do something about it. I'm dragged into a manure pile that's stinking, right now, and the lady's wondering why I can't do anything about it. I don't have any local laws on manure piles, all right. That's how ridiculous things get in this Town, all right, but then they're looking at me. You're the enforcement officer. Why aren't you doing anything about it. You've got to realize. There's a black and white issue, and then there's reality, which is life, all right, and I deal with reality. You deal with the black and white issues. You can put all the stipulations you want on a project. I'm the one that has to enforce it. If I can't get enforcement, then I have to take the legal route, and that's what's not easy, and I just ask the Board that if you have a question or a problem, I'm not hard to find, you know, call me, but understand that you might not get the answer you're looking for the next day, or you might not get the compliance you're looking for, and if you get the harassing phone calls, I have no control over that, you know, we're wondering why these things are going on. I have no control over that. MRS. PULVER-No. My phone calls were never harassing. It was always very nice about it. MR. HATIN-No, I mean, they feel like, you know, Mr. Norton swore at me, hung up on me, you know, he used every word under the sun at me, and I'm sitting there trying to explain that, look, there's a legal way we can do this, and then there are things that are not violations, and he refused to listen, you know, and when he's screaming and ranting and raving on the other end of the phone and hangs up on me, what am I supposed to do? MRS. PULVER-Well, he's frustrated, too, you know. MR. HATIN-But Mr. Norton also created his own frustrations because Mr. Sears played the same game with him when Mr. Norton was going through the process, and wondering why we weren't taking any enforcement against Mr. Norton because he was going for the variance and site plan review, and we told him that, and he was doing the same thing to me. So, it's a no win situation, and, like Tim says, here you've got two people that love to antagonize each other, and there's also a personal thing in this, too, and that's what this Town has been dragged into. It's another family feud that you're dragged into. MR. CARTIER-Tell me if this is appropriate or not, because I haven't thought about this. This is right off the top of my head. Would it be appropriate, and I'm not going to initiate the call, but if Mr. Norton were to call back, would it be appropriate to tell Mr. Norton, start the documenting every time you see a piece of heavy equipment on site. MR. HATIN-He can do it. MR. CARTIER-And keep a log, keep a diary. MR. HATIN-I have no problem with that. MR. CARTIER-In other words, what he's got to do is come up. MR. HATIN-He's got to establish a record that it's going on. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. HATIN-The guy driving, like Tim says, I know Frank, and I know him well enough to know that if he knows that Ed will get upset when he drives his grinder up and down the road, he'll do it 10 times that day just to make him, and wind him right up, and then we'll get a phone call about it. I mean, that's the way these people play. 24 - MR. CARTIER-You just answered my question. I don't think I'd suggest that. MR. BREWER-Because then he'd have something to bring to us, Pete, and say, well, look, here's my documents where he drove up and down the road 90 times, why didn't you do something about it. MR. LAPOINT-But it's something he goes to the court with, eventually. MR. HATIN-That's it. 1J[ it goes to court, now I have some evidence. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, I mean, he can file a complaint himself. Am I correct? MR. DUSEK-Yes. The practice that has been employed by the Town is for the Building and Codes officers to go ahead and initiate any actions on their own. They usually handle them right up through to the point of trial, and then I take over at the trial. So, they're free to cite, at the appropriate times. Obviously, when you're looking for zoning compliance, I think you're looking for a situation where you try to get voluntary compliance before you utilize the summons, and that's always been my recommendation to the Building and Codes Department, but if there comes a time that the violation exists, I mean, you can't ignore it, and you enter the summons, and I think, Dave, from what I've seen is a lot of them are cleared up after you issue summons, and we never go to trial. MR. HATIN-Usually we end up, yes, the court summons takes care of it, but. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but I mean, Norton can file a complaint. MR. DUSEK-Norton has a right, as a citizen in the Town, to sue for enforcement of our zoning laws, if that's your question. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, he can file one directly against Frank Sears, can't he, I mean, he can file some type of a. MR. DUSEK-For nuisance or something of that nature, you mean? Are you tal king about lawsuit, or are you talking about just filing a complaint with Mr. Hatin? MR. LAPOINT-No, with the court, I mean, leaving the Town out of it. I mean, he has actions. MR. DUSEK-Sure. He has certain rights. MR. LAPOINT-If one of my neighbors is doing something illegal, I can take an action independently. MR. MARTIN-Well, it's just like Keith Harris who was in here. All those neighbors sued him for his logging company and it went to the point of a court, and what it finally resulted in was the court told him a specific area in which he can raise his pigs. I mean, it's hardly great use of even court time, but some people will push it to that point. MR. LAPOINT-On the Hughes thing, good job. Keep doing that, in my opinion. Again, if we can ease up on a piece of our site plan, if there's no impact, and it makes everybody happy, I'm for that. MR. CARTIER-Basically what Dr. Kana is looking for is a release from any future liability should drainage problems on this piece of property create problems off site, and, basically, I said to him, if I recall, or he mentioned to me, can I come in for a revised site plan, and I said, well, I think what you have to do is have Mr. Hughes come in for it, because he owned the property at the time, then it was pointed out to me that Mr. Hughes no longer owns the property. Dr. Kana now owns the property. Now, legally, can Dr. Kana come in, as owner of that property, seeking a revision to an approved site plan. Can he do that? MR. DUSEK-I think so. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That answers his question. MR. LAPOINT-Again, if he wants something long term and binding, that's what he's going to have to do, but I'm all for what happened in your first statement of what you did. I'm all for any type of compromise you can make to keep everybody happy without all that. MRS. PULVER-And back to Mr. Norton, here, what everyone needs to be aware of is that he did comply. He does have the equipment off. MR. HATIN-But he threatened to bring it back because of Mr. Sears. MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't think he ever will, because he went through site plan. He's built a building for it. MR. BREWER-Have they built it yet? I don't think they've built it. 25 '- -/ MR. HATIN-No, they haven't built the building, but the equipment's down on the property. MRS. PULVER-Well, yes, all the equipment is over there. bothers him most is that they both were in violation. It cost him a great deal of money to move. They're not going to, but I mean, that's what He feels he's cleaned up his act. He moved. MR. HATIN-He has, within certain reasons, too, and if you go by his property any time of day, you'll see the log skinning truck out back unloading logs and splitting equipment and whatever, so, I mean, they're both playing the game, within reason, and that's what it is. It's a game, and I guess what I'm trying to get out of this Board is, if something like that comes up, call me. Call me at home. Call me whatever. At least get my side of it before you hear the one side of it. So, now you've got the whole story instead of half the story, because what frustrates me is that this Board hears the one side that sounds like we're not doing our job, and that's not the case. I don't refuse to do, you know, Paul sometimes wonders why I do what I do. I'll listen to anybody and if I feel I have a ri ght to do it, I'll take it on, but I don't ignore anybody and they always get an answer back one way or the other, and I'll stand behind that decision, and I don't avoid anybody. I don't sit behind a locked door. I don't run up to the Lake and hide in the woods. You know where I am. You can find me, and I'll stand behind anything I say. MR. CARTIER-Okay. While we've got you here, Beautification Committee, we are now incorporating any approvals they give into our motions. Do you have any problems enforcing those? MR. HATIN-No. In fact, I recollll1ended that to them a long time ago. Just one thing to keep in mind, and this is something that I've tried to convey to them, and I see in their last Board meeting, they still throw it in there, is I cannot tie trees and shrubs into a CO. I can do the enforcement through the courts to get compliance with Beautification, but I have to issue a CO once the building complies with zoning and building codes, okay, but I can still get the Beautification Committee results, if the people refuse, by going through the court system, so, and threatening legal action. It still will get done, but the problem I've got is this time of year, okay, people don't put trees, grass, and shrubs in until the spring, so why should I hold up their CO. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't recommend doing that. Having been somebody who's gone through the process, I wouldn't appreciate that at all. MR. HATIN-No, and that's what we get into, a lot of people don't like that. MR. DUSEK-Well, I can go one step further, that I don't think, I think it would be improper for him to hold up a CO based on a Beautification site plan. The answer is to take action on the site plan, if that's warranted, but you can't hold up a CO, because a CO is dedicated for the specific purpose of compliance with the building code, and I don't think we should mix the two vehicles. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HATIN-But as long as it's in your approval, it will get pushed through, and I've asked the Beautification Committee to help me out by going out and reviewing projects after they get built to make sure that it's exactly what they approved, and if they don't, call me and we'll take care of it. So, I'm not refusing to do it. MR. CARTIER-Is there anything we can incorporate any differently into our motions, that will help you do anything easier? MR. HATIN-No. I think what you have to do, though, is you have to make the applicant understand that they are complying with, a lot of the complaints I get about Beautification is that they'll say anything and do anything to get their approval sometimes, then when it comes to doing it, they don't want to do it. So, make sure they understand that it has to be done, that's all. Make sure that they're, that's why you're putting it in the motion because you want it done, at some point at the end of the project. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anybody else? Anything else? MR. HATIN-Thank you for your time. MR. CARTIER-Thank you, Dave. Okay. Back to the Stark issue, George Stark, with regard to the possibility of a variance. Have you had any contact on that issue? MR. DUSEK-Yes. I'm familiar with it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 26 -- -.-" MR. DUSEK-Where are we at? I don't know where we're at. MR. CARTIER-Well, we started out the meeting just, very briefly, talking about it. Lee, basically, laid out the situation for us, and the question we have to decide is whether, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, we're going to kick this to the Zoning Board, on appeal, to get a clarification of the position. It seems appropriate, to me, that we get something in writing from the Zoning Administrator, as to how she made that determination. MR. DUSEK-Has she decided it? The last I knew, she hadn't decided it. MR. HATIN-I'm not intimately familiar with the situation, although I was involved in it, and had George Stark right off a tree when he found I was on his property measuring his buildings, but, last I knew, and as of discussion with Pat yesterday, she has made a decision, in consultation with Ted Turner, as far as I know, that there is no need for a variance because the overhang on the building, the proposed two story building, would be no closer than the overhang on the one story building that exists now. There is an overhang on the one story building. This will just be a second story set on top of the existing building, on that side that is nonconforming, and the overhang will be the same as what's there now. MR. CARTIER-Can we get that in writing, that decision in writing from her by next Tuesday? MR. HATIN-I think so, yes. I'm sure she'll give it to you in writing. I know she has called George Stark and told him no variance is required. I asked her that specifically. MR. CARTIER-Well, frankly, that's not my concern. My concern is with the Zoning Board, if the Zoning Board has signed off on this thing. MR. HATIN-Well, the Board has a whole, no. Ted Turner has been consulted about it, and Ted and I did ta 1 k bri efly about it, and when I ta 1 ked, he sa i d if there is an overhang there now and the overhang is going to be in the same location, then there should be no need for a variance. If there's no overhang now, and he's going to have an overhang, then he's going to need a variance, and the overhang is there, and as far as we know, it's going in the same location for the second story. MR. DUSEK-The only thing I can offer on this is, the last time I spoke to Ted, I didn't know that he was a little fuzzy on the whole thing. MR. HATIN-This was Friday, I believe. MR. MARTIN-After reading the nonconforming uses and structures provision of the Ordinance, here, I would agree that it does not require a variance. This specifically says, IIsubject to the provisions of this Article, a nonconforming structure or use or structure containing a nonconforming use may be continued or maintained in reasonable repair, but may not be altered, enlarged, or extended as of the date of this Chapter it becomes law, except by site plan approval of the Planning Board generally as follows: II And it goes on down through, lIan existing structure which violates only the area requirements of this Chapter may be altered, enlarged, or extended, so long as such alteration, enlargement, or extension does not violate the area requirements of this Chapter", and I think that's the provision under which this falls. MR. HATIN-Yes, and, again, this relates back to the same thing with two story camps. You have had two story camps before you on Lake George that are going one story on top of the other in the same location within the setbacks, and there's never been a variance, that I know of, required for those, as long as they were not encroaching on the line any further. MR. MARTIN-See, what that is in fact saying is, is if that is the only problem with it, then a variance is not required, but if there is something else wrong, and this, then a variance is needed. It still needs site plan review. MR. HATIN-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Well, not any more. That law's been changed. Now, you're reading from an older copy, Jim. MR. MARTIN-Okay, yes. I only have this. MR. DUSEK-You should get an update for that. They're out. The system is that you should be receiving these updates. MR. CARTIER-Yes. We got them. Are you talking about the revisions? MR. DUSEK-No. They should actually be supplements to your book, at this point, Pete. I have them in mine. MRS. PULVER-No. We haven't gotten those. 27 '- --' MR. CARTIER-No. MR. HATIN-I don't know if this is out of Lake George Park, though. MR. DUSEK-No, but the thing is, is that, I'm just saying that the section he read, it's basically the same. I mean, for the point of this discussion, it doesn't really matter, but I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. You may want to check with the Town Clerk for the supplements. MRS. YORK-I'll check tomorrow. MR. DUSEK-I think the point is, though, if the addition itself increases in some fashion, like, say if you have, if this table's the building and it's right at the setback line and you want to go this way with it, then you're obviously in violation. If you wanted to build an addition on the back, everybody I think is clear that, no problem, because there's no setback. That's the line. The only issue in this case is, can you, if this is where you're at, can you bring it straight up, okay, and the argument is really basic, and that is, if that's where the building is now, and let me give you a better example. Lets assume the setback line is right here. You'd have to be 10 feet away from it. The question is, is, if you go straight up, this is now an addition. Is this addition something new that's violating this 10 foot perimeter, or, because you're going straight up, do you really, technically, measure from the footings, basically, if you're building, no matter how high you go, you're not increasing the distance. Now, as I explained it to Pat, I said, my gut reaction, in looking it over, first of all, I told her, I said, I think there's a little bit of a judgement call, here. I think, though, a rationale decision, if she were to decide that that was not, that going straight up, as long as they stay perfectly even with the building, and I said this to Ted, too, that as long as they went straight up, I think a rationale decision would be that that does not further violate a setback requirement. If the line is over here, 10 feet to here, if you go straight up, fine, because your control is in the Ordinance where you control the height of buildings. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes. It's very plain, because, you know, a lot of people, when they read something like this, they forget, and this is the updated version. IIAn existing structure which violates only the area requirements of this Chapter may be enlarged or extended so long as such enlargement or extension does not violate the area requirements of this Chapter", and people get, they lose sight of the fact that the entire Ordinance is the Chapter. It's not just this one specific section, and that's what leads them astray. So, in other words, as long as the area requirements are not violated, for that particular zone and the Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. DUSEK-Which means going up, too. MR. MARTIN-Yes, then it's fine. Now, an example where this would require a variance is if this were a Waterfront property where a 50 percent, anything over a 50 percent expansion requires a variance, then you have a case where the area requirement is violated, and you need a variance. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, is this Board comfortable with, understand what's going on here, and I don't mean this in any pajoritive sense, here, but, basically what's just happened is the Zoning Administrator and the Town Attorney have made an interpretation of the Ordinance, and the question is, is that a fair statement? MR. DUSEK-We had this struggle back a few months ago. Whenever you read the Ordinance, I think you're interpreting it, and sometimes we can interpret it altogether and agree that it's black and white. Sometimes when you read the Ordinance, one person's going to say it means this. Another person's going to say it means that. It is the Zoning Administrator's job to make the call as to whether, in the first instance, a variance is needed. She has read the Ordinance and she has concluded, by reading the Ordinance, that it's not needed, is that an interpretation, well, you know. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I guess, let me re-phrase that. What we're talking about, here, is the Zoning Administrator has made a decision with regard to the Zoning Ordinance, following a discussion with the Town Attorney and so on, that this does not need a variance, okay. Are we satisfied with that, as a Board? That's the question we have to decide. MR. MARTIN-And we're going to still have an opportunity to comment from site plan review. MR. CARTIER-True. If we're satisfied, things go forward the way they are. If we're not satisfied, we go the appeal route. So, there's our two options, again. MR. BREWER-I'm satisfied with the explanation that we've gotten. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-For whatever reason, she's right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we can blaze ahead, and Mr. Stark will be delighted. Thank you for your input on that. 28 '--" ~ MR. HATIN-No problem. MRS. YORK-I do want to make one comment on this. Because of the situations that occurred with this applicant, he was placed on the agenda for this evening, okay. After Staff Review, the Zoning Administrator removed him from the agenda because she felt that there may be a variance needed, and then she researched the whole thing and came to the conclusion that, possibly, a variance was not needed, at that point in time. I had the opportunity to put them on for your meeting of the 26th. However, during the interim, he missed the Warren County Planning Board meeting. So, I know how you feel about this. I just wanted to make you aware of that. There are engineering concerns on the project, I think, that may hold it up, at any rate, but I did want to make you aware that there is another complication here. MR. CARTIER-Because of this time involved in reaching a decision with regard to variance or no variance, basically. MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. When's the next time the Warren County Planning Board meets? MRS. YORK-The second week of next month. MR. CARTIER-Are they on the same kind of time constraints, in terms of getting on their agenda? MRS. YORK-Well, you can approve, I mean, you have the option of approving, contingent on their recommendation. They are just making a recommendation to you. MR. CARTIER-Well, on the one hand, I hate to set precedent. We haven't done that before, but on the other hand. we have a situation that has been partially created by an internal situation, if you will, in terms of deciding whether or not this thing, well, I guess I will take a minor firm position, maybe this might be a time where we can make adjustments for that, in terms of looking at this prior to Warren County Planning's looking at it, again, with the understanding of Lee's comments, with regard to the thing may get tabled, because of large engineering concerns, and if it gets tabled to December, that wi 11 give Warren County Planning a chance to have looked at it by the time we get it back. Is that a fair description of the process? MRS. YORK-That's fair. MR. SUNBERG-Could I ask you a question? MR. CARTIER-Does anybody want to, okay. Real quick, Mr. Sunberg, if you don't mind. MR. SUNBERG-When I put in my application for this wetlands, I went through everything that I had to, and I got up to the Warren County Board, and they've got more than seven people. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-They have 14, or something like that. MR. SUNBERG-But they did go along with me, and they said that they would approve my application. MR. CARTIER-Pending some other. MR. SUNBERG-Of the State. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SUNBERG-And they also said that if, I said, what if you refused it, and they said, well, you have the option of going back to the Town Board, and with a majority plus one vote, they will overrule the Warren County. MR. CARTIER-Town Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-This Board. MRS. PULVER-This Board. MR. SUNBERG-Yes. So, why bother with Warren County. I mean, you could take care of this tonight and say it's allover with, we're going to do it whether you want it or not. MR. CARTIER-Why don't you toss that question out to the County. I think the County needs to be involved, in terms of looking at it from a County impact perspective, and that's basically what they do. They're looking at it in terms of what effect does this have on the County, in terms of highway, traffic, all kinds of things, and there are times when we get very strong recommendations from them, with regard to. 2q ~ - MR. SUNBERG-They seem more interested in Lake George and the APA area than they do down in this area. MR. CARTIER-Possibly. Okay. MR. LAPOINT-I say that we go ahead with, and get them on our agenda and take care of them, and I think I agree with Carol that I don't think there's going to be a County impact on this project, anyway, and we can go on that assumption. MR. MARTIN-I think it's worth the risk. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we're going to go ahead. It's on the agenda for the 26th. We're going to go forward with it, correct? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I have made you aware, I believe, that Mr. Brandt has requested a meeting with this Planning Board, between this Planning Board and perspective members of the Town Board, to be. When would you like, he would like to have a meeting as soon as possible, and what I said to him was, well, we're going to get together and, we had talked about making some goals for the Planning Board, and what I'd like to do is do that first, before we meet with you guys. He said, yes, okay. That sounds fine with him, but lets meet as quickly as we can. Can we set a meeting date for that? Actually, what I'd like from you is two alternative dates, okay. I tried to pin him down a little bit, in terms of when would your crew be available or not available. He said, you set the meeting, and rather than set one meeting date and they can't make it, and I have to go through all of this again, lets come up with two alternative dates which would be acceptable to us. MRS. PULVER-Peter, I have December 3rd as a Planning meeting date. MR. CARTIER-That's when we get together with Warren County and everybody else and solve the Million Dollar Mile. MRS. PULVER-Okay. That's Warren County. MR. LAPOINT-Lets make it the Monday before that as one date. So, that's the Second. Monday, the 2nd, for Brandt, as the first date, just to keep things moving? MR. CARTIER-Okay, 12/2. Thank you. MRS. PULVER-And 12/4. MR. LAPOINT-And 12/4. MR. CARTIER-And 12/4. MRS. PULVER-12/5's good for me, too. MR. LAPOINT-12/5's out for me, but. MR. BREWER-The Second's out for me, I think. MR. CARTIER-No to the Second. MRS. PULVER-Okay, the Fourth. MR. BREWER-The Fourth is, what, a Wednesday? MR. CARTIER-That's a Wednesday. MR. BREWER-That's all right. MR. LAPOINT-That's fine with me, too. MRS. YORK-The Zoning Board of Appeals has a Special Meeting, here, on that date. (End of first disk) 30 '-" ~ MR. CARTIER-Well, do we have to meet here? MRS. YORK-You do not have to meet here. MR. CARTIER-Because there's going to be six of us and five of them. MRS. YORK-Do you want to use the meeting room downstairs? The Zoning Board probably will not be that long. There is another room out here, too, you could potentially use. Whatever you feel comfortable with. MR. CARTIER-Okay 7 p.m. If it's the Second, it can be here, correct? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-If it's the Fourth, we'll be in Conference Room 5. MRS. PULVER-Well, we'll have to have a memo on it when it's confirmed. MRS. YORK-Forget this facility altogether. You're going to be downstairs in the lower level of the building next door. You can meet either in the kitchen or in the Conference Room. MR. CARTIER-Great. Find us a room. So, we're going with the Second and the Fourth, correct? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. CARTIER-All right. Lee, could you get a memo out to us? Would you also be willing to contact Mr. Brandt and Company, or I think. if you let Mr. Brandt know, he can take it from there. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And get back to us, as to which of those two dates we're going to meet. MRS. YORK-All right. MR. LAPOINT-His agenda? MR. CARTIER-No, ~ agenda. This is a Planning Board meeting, okay. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I think there should be an agenda, though. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I don't know what the agenda is. MR. LAPOINT-Well, if it's our agenda, we better come up with one. MR. CARTIER-No, our agenda, basically, we're meeting at, do you want to do this? I never really asked you that question. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. If he asked us, then it should be his agenda. MRS. PULVER-Right. He needs to have an agenda, to send it to us. MR. CARTIER-We are a public board, and we have to run the meeting. MR. LAPOINT-No, but we can meet informally, can't we? MRS. YORK-I'll just advertise a Workshop Session to discuss goals and priorities for the coming year. MR. LAPOINT-Perfect. MR. CARTIER-Great. MRS. PULVER-Okay. He's asked for the meeting to talk with the Planning Board. I think that it's okay to ask for an agenda. In other words, what is it that he wants to talk about. We don't want to all get together and talk about our summer vacation, you know. I'd like to have something in front of me. MR. LAURICELLA-Should we let the newly elected Board also know that we're having that meeting? 31 '- "--..../ MR. CARTIER~Yes. That's what he's going to do. This is not just Mr. Brandt. This is all of the new people. MR. LAURICELLA~Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. This is the Planning Board meeting with the new, as of January, Town Board. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Are we all set on that? MR. LAPOINT~Set. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Martin, you're up. Goals for '92, Planning Board goals for '92. MR. MARTIN-All right. Where this came from is, I was talking to Peter after one of our Special Meetings we had here during the past month, and I was thinking about this. I thought what would be a good idea for the upcoming year is to have the Planning Board, rather than just sit here and do these mundane things every month, in terms of application review, and, that's all well and good. I'd like to add to that by listing a set of priorities or things that we've learned over the past few months that seem to be a problem, list those as priorities, and just attempt to tackle, maybe even just two or three of those in the upcoming year, and say, yes, this is what we're going to do, to contribute, to make things better. We're here. We see things first hand. We know what problems there are, potentially, better than anybody, and, you know, rather than just sit back and be the subject of all this criticism, lets try and make things better so things flow smoother, and we'll hopefully do some good planning as a result, and I've just been kicking around a few ideas I had. First of all, I think the Sketch Plan Review procedures for subdivision should be reviewed and loosened up some. You hear applicants before us all the time saying, well, the Sketch Plan Review, I mean, it's the same as Preliminary. There seems to be no difference, and it seems to be very onerous and puts a lot of emphasis, it's too heavy, in terms of what we're looking for. Sketch Plan should be simply that, and I think that could be loosened up. Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, that's certainly something we could push for. I know some of these things may require, probably all of them will require the Town Board to undertake them ultimately, but, you know, I think if we try and do two or three things in the upcoming year, we can push it through. Application procedures, again, I think the application format can be improved upon and simplified and made more user friendly, and I'm still not convinced that there's enough things in place to make that happen. I think it can be greatly improved. A traffic plan, this is something that's been made mention of before, in the past year, and I'm not talking about a study. I'm talking about an actual plan that says something, and when I say plan, I think the Planning Board should approach the Town Board, ask for authorization and appropriation of funds, and this Planning Board develop a scope of services, or a work scope, that we want to see accomplished with that traffic plan, and that is, we just don't want to know how many counts per hour and all this stuff. We want, in writing, some rock hard, solid recommendations and actions to be taken in certain hot spots of the Town, that these are the things that need to be done in the event that these types of development occur, and if these things are not done. then that development should not be allowed to go forward, and I'm talking about the Million Dollar Half Mile, obviously, the Aviation Mall area, the business district all around that. There's certain things that can be done, and we sit here, as lay people, and we just, we're bombarded with all this information by these experts, and you always sit here with the feeling that, gee, maybe things are being twisted or, you know, what's the cumulative impact of these incremental projects here and there and there, something like that would give us something to work with and a reference document to work from. I think it's time to reinstitute the minor subdivision regulations. I know they were done away with because developers were abusing them and ultimately using them as a tool to undertake large subdivisions, but minor subdivision regulations can be written in a proper fashion, that that is eliminated, and, again, we don't have this onerous process for, you know, a grandmother wanting to convey a lot to her granddaughter, and have her go through all these expensive and onerous subdivision regulations as someone who's doing a 100 lot subdivision. I think that is something that could be looked at. So, just several things, any two or three of which, and I'm not saying these are all inclusive, you know, I'm sure other people have other ideas, but just something to expand what we do here and make things better, because we hear about all these complaints. We hear about all the things that we do wrong, or how the process is wrong, but yet year in and year out, we just plod along the same way, with change coming very slow and, you know, lets be the driving force and undertake a couple of things in the next year, and get it done, so we can sit here in December of next year and say, yes, this is what we did to make it better. MRS. PULVER-One thing that I want to add to that. I think it would also benefit us if we asked the Town Board to sit down together and to come up with what they think their goals are, in terms of planning, for the next 12 months. MR. LAURICELLA~Well, you're going to have that opportunity. MR. MARTIN~Well, I think it should come from this Board. 32 ~ -- PULVER-Yes. Well, certainly, you can ask for all the sewers in the world, but if they're not going to appropriate any money for it, you're not going to get them. This traffic study, the budget's already made for next year. Mike Brandt has to live with it. If he can't find any money for the traffic study or any other study that you may want, you've got 12 months. MR. MARTIN-Lee, do you have anything in your budget like that, in the Planning budget. MRS. YORK-No. There are some things going on that I'm aware of. There is some progress being made, but, once again, it's being done by other agencies with other focuses. It's not a Town wide traffic management plan that speaks to the issues of the Town of Queensbury. MR. CARTIER-But understand, bringing that up now means that they have time to put it into the budget for the following year. MRS. YORK-Right, and the Town Board, please correct me if I'm wrong, Paul, can certainly fund something that was unanticipated at budget time, through the general fund, if they feel it's necessary. MR. DUSEK-Depending upon exactly how the monies are used, I mean, there's always an ability to, perhaps, take money from contingency funds or something like that. So, there is some flexibility. It's not like the Board won't have any ability at all, but a lot of it just depends on what happens, in terms of money expenditures. There's a lot of big issues out there, of course, in terms of landfill and other things, and there'll be a judgement call on the part of the Board. They're the ultimate money managers. They, generally, do have to live within the confines of the budget. Do they have some flexibility? Yes, but what I'm saying is, in part, some of it will be almost forced on them, by virtue of the expenditures that naturally occur. MRS. PULVER-And they all ran on, you know, cutting expenses. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but my point is that when you have an annual budget situation, you have to lead time the hell out of these things, and that's what we're talking about. We might not get a traffic management plan in '92, but we might get it into the budget for '93. MR. MARTIN-Right. Maybe that's the only one of these two or three things I mentioned that would actually call for an appropriation of funds. So like Peter says, maybe you work to get it included in a '92 budget, and the other thing about these things is, we're talking about measures which are ultimate, I'm talking about things that will, ultimately, simplify the process, and, okay it costs the Town, maybe, some money to undertake these things up front, but these are things that will ultimately save the tax payer money in coming through this process, or attempting a development up in the Route 9 area or something like that. So, the people are going to benefit, ultimately. MRS. PULVER-What about, Jim, having some real thorough engineering studies done at various places throughout the Town, for increasing, I mean, expert engineering studies done on the soils and stuff for different locations where we know that they're going to be asking for increased densities and things like that. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-I mean, asking for increased densities and having the engineer coming in and saying, well, we can use fill systems for the septic and we can do this and we can do that, I mean, I'd like a study, a real, honest to goodness study. MR. CARTIER-I think that information's already out there. It's just a matter of pulling it together. We have soils maps. MRS. PULVER-I know, but I mean, I would like the engineers to go out and do it. I think that, to me, is more expert study in the areas. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that dove tails in with this Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. If you're going to ask for areas of increased density, you know, you do the old map of those areas of the Town where deve 1 opment is the most, and Lee has those in her offi ce, a lot of them, where development is, the characteristics are most favorable. MRS. YORK-As far as looking at the applications, I've been thinking about putting a statement on the applications just saying, if you, as an applicant, have any suggestions how to simplify this application, please let us know. I usually just ask people, now. Most of the people who talk to me about simplification are the agents and, unfortunately, most of them, at this point, view the application as I do, from a professional standpoint, and from a professional standpoint, it's not a bad application. If you're the guy off the street coming in, it is very threatening, very overwhelming, and I realize that. I would love to simplify the applications, and I would be delighted to work with you on that. I think it's a wonderful goal, and I think we can accomplish it. I don't think that's one that's unachievable. Also, loosening up Sketch Plan requirements, approximately three and a half years ago, I made suggestions to the Town Board to do that. For example, I don't think you need two foot contours at Sketch Plan. MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly. 33 ''-" -- MRS. YORK-I think a lot of the engineering can be pushed back to Preliminary. I believe that the reason people wanted a solid Sketch Plan, or the former Planning Board did, was because a lot of times things were coming in an extremely loose fashion, and they felt the need to tighten it up immediately. Now, we've lived with what we have at Sketch Plan, and I've realized that I think if a Sketch Plan is a concept, you need to look at it as a concept, not as final engineering on a site. So. to a great extent, a board ~acts to the information they are receiving at the time. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but, bearing that in mind, I would venture to say, in some situations, that maybe we could define what those are, it should be easy enough for someone to come in, you know, with maybe a Tax Map or something like that and say, here's my idea, before we make them go under contract with a surveyor, an engineering firm, and all this stuff, and then we, and they've got something that's a problem, then they feel put out that, you know, I'm paying this guy time and effort, and you're asking me to do all this stuff. MR. LAPOINT-Well, they have to do it anyway, eventually. As a planner, I do all my engineering up front, which is the way everybody should do it, because if you do have a problem, you want to know before you spend any money, right away. MRS. PULVER-You find out right away, right. MR. LAPOINT-So, the idea that if you have to come up with two foot contours, the sooner the better, is my opinion on that, and don't take all this criticism so much to heart. Over the past 14 months I think we've done, since I've been on the Board, an incredible job. Based on our performance, and what we've put applicants through when they've been trying to over-develop and squeeze extra stuff out of their lots, we've done a super jOb in accommodating whatever anybody wants to do around here, and I think all of the criticism is pretty much misguided. Go through this process in just about any other community in the area and see how simple it is elsewhere, and how much business we've done in the past 14 months. It's just an incredible amount of work. I mean, no matter what you do, you're going to make half of the audience angry, on the pig farm. No matter what you do with Knox, you're going to make half of the audience mad. No matter what. It's a given, and that kind of criticism we just have to live with, and not have some type of knee jerk response to it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What are we talking about, here? Are we talking about later on down the line, beginning in 1992, setting Workshop Sessions where we take a goal and we hammer it out? I hear us doing that already, with the Sketch Plan idea, but I think what we're talking about, I hope, we're taking a single topic, we're setting a Workshop Session, and we're getting together and we're hammering out that particular issue and I think one of the important things we need to do to ourselves is to set a deadline. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-That is, we're going to have this thing hammered out by such and such a date, so that we can get on to some of these other things. MR. MARTIN-Don't let it drag on and drag on and drag on. MRS. PULVER-I think it's great. I think we ought to first start, we'll. Jim, have a list of all the goals. Everybody will have it and can add to it. Just put down your thoughts and stuff. MR. LAPOINT-Prioritize it. Like, I like the Overlay, we're close on the Overlay Zone. We should make that Number One priority, right? MR. CARTIER-We can decide that later on. I think Carol's got a good idea. What I'll do is, have you got any more? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. PULVER-Lets get a list, we'll get Jim's list, everybody gets it. You can add to it. You can decide what you think is more important or whatever, rewrite it or whatever. then we'll put it, we'll have it all put together into one master list, and that's what we're going to live with. and then from there we'll go. MR. LAPOINT-Great. Can we do this by the Second? MR. CARTIER-All we're talking about, all I'm interested in doing, at this point, is having a general list of goals that we wal k into with them. I'll get this stuff in to Lee tomorrow and get it typed up, as soon as I get the other list, and what you can do, 1'11 get that master list out to you and feel free to add to it, and then, I don't even think we have to worry about prioritizing it, yet, until after we talk to the Town Board. Do not be limited, this is me talking, by goals for this Planning Board. I think it's extremely appropriate that we talk about goals for the Town Board, too. I think it's okay for us to sit down with the new Town Board and say, look, here are some, at least from Planning perspective, things that we think the Town Board should accomplish, because we're talking about changing 34 '- - an Ordinance, here, and they're going to be intimately involved in that whole deal, anyway. I also think, in terms of Sketch Plan Review, I'm just tossing this out for you to think about, is it might be appropriate, at the meeting where we're revising forms like that, to have some of the people who appear before us giving us comment, you know, somebody like Leon Steves might be somebody appropriate to have as we're going through the process. MRS. PULVER-I have a suggestion, too, that we can start right away, the next meeting, whoever comes before us, Sketch Plan, ask them, right then and there, after they've approved whatever. MR. CARTIER-That depends on how long the meeting's going to be. MRS. YORK-You're next meeting you're going to have Sunset Hill Farm. MR. CARTIER-We're going to have Sunset Hill Farm. We are going to have Diehl, okay. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, see, it was critical that we had all the detail we had on that Knox thing, at Sketch Plan. That anything less than what he showed us would have put us further behind the eight ball, when we got to Preliminary. So, I mean, to me, again, they, as an applicant's point of view, if he's got to pay for the engineering anyway, have him pay for it at Sketch Plan where they do all the contours and do all that work up front. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's where you can distinguish between minor and major subdivisions, too. MR. LAPOINT-Again, if there's a fit for the minor, you know, we change the Ordinance to include that old minor subdivision, so we can sail through some of these conveyances of lots and that type of thing, that would be fine, but, again, you don't want to have somebody coming in with a development like Knox, on the back of an envelope. MRS. PULVER-I feel, sometimes, having the applicant do their engineering first will really save them money in the end. They know exactly what they're dealing with. MR. LAPOINT-It always does. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Something else that I'm going to throw at you coming down the line, here. MRS. YORK-If I could just tell you a secret, here. Mr. Naylor reviewed the Knox subdivision, at my request, and did take a ride out there. He hates the cul-de-sac idea, and it is not legal, but, do you know what he's suggesting to you, and he has submitted a letter, make Knox Road, now that it's undeveloped, basically, and the property is there, into a 50 foot wide Town road. MR. CARTIER-Right-of-way, okay. MRS. YORK-Have the applicant donate the property, because it is available, to make that a decent sized Town road and then you eliminate some of your concerns about traffic safety, and then use your clearing mechanism for the long driveways. MR. CARTIER-Fine. Is he going to get that in writing to us? MRS. YORK-I have it in writing already. MR. CARTIER-All right. You had your hand up, Paul. You were going to say something. MR. DUSEK-I was just going to make a comment. With regard to the thought of having applicants speak to you relative to suggestions at the time they're before you, from the comments that I get, I'll just throw thi s out to you, and thi s may be ri ght or wrong, but from the type of comments I hear about applicants who are anywhere, whether they're in the building process, or whether they're before the Boards, I don't think you're going to get the kind of comments that are really going to do a whole lot of good. They're not going to criticize you in front of you while they've got a project in front of you. MR. CARTIER-All right. MR. DUSEK-Just as a thought. The professionals know they're going to be back before you again, so they're not going to say anything. MRS. PULVER-Suggestions, how about re-wording it, what suggestions would you make? No? MR. MARTIN-The other thing about the professionals, and I, you know~ this process feeds their pocket. I mean, they love this process. This is great, and the thing that bothers me beyond, you know, the one comment, like the New York State Soil Erosion thing should be shown on the plat. How many times have we Sèen that comment from Rist-Frost, and time and time again they forget about it. MR. LAPOINT-That's $100. 35 '- -- MR. MARTIN-Yes, and that's why I'd just as soon leave the professionals out of it in the early stages of review. That Knox plan, you could have just taken that lot and then drew those lines on it for the proposed lot, and I would have said, I don't like it. You could have done that on the back of a napkin and you could have seen right there that it was no good. MR. CARTIER-Well, my only point is, and there may be a better mechanism to do it, we're trying to simplify the process and we should get some feedback from them, and it could be in the form of an open call, letting them know that the Planning Board is considering this, if you have some concerns, put them in writing, send them to the Planning Board and they'll look at them. Somehow there's got to be a mechanism for getting that stuff in. MR. DUSEK-Well, the idea I had in that, and I don't know if it would work or not, but one idea would be is to provide a, maybe just a small stack of papers, suggestion sheets that could be done anonymously and left, you know, at some point, maybe a drop box on the way out, that if they wanted to take some home with them or mail them back or whatever. That may give them a way to have input to you without fear of, you know. MRS. YORK-Reprisal? MR. DUSEK-Well, not that you would do it, I'm not saying that you would, but that's the way everybody thinks out there, you know, that's the reality. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. Let me finish this up. What I'm going to do, tomorrow, I hope, is get this list of goal in to Lee, the Planning Department. They'll get typed up, sent out to you, add your own and have them with you for when we meet the perspective Town Board. MRS. PULVER-And lets not forget to ask Mr. Brandt for an agenda for that meeting. What is it, specifically, he would like to talk about. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-All right. One other thing 11m going to throw at you, down the line here, sometime in December when we get past all this other stuff, is I've been doing some thinking about the way the Planning Board operates, and I'm going to throw out some suggestions to you for next year about changing, making some minor changes in the way we function, but I'll get that out to you on paper, later on, for you to think about. I've got some suggestions about how we could do some things differently, that's all, for you to consider and reject, if you so desire, but I want to toss them out. MR. LAPOINT-Internal type things, right? MR. CARTIER-Yes. Okay. So, that's down the line. Can we entertain a motion to adjourn? MR. DUSEK-I need just a five to ten second Executive Session. MR. CARTIER-Would somebody care to make a motion with regard to Executive Session. MOTION TO 60 INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS MAmRS OF PERSONNEL, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MOTION TO COlE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 36