Loading...
1992-08-25 ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25TH, 1992 INDEX Site Pian No. 40-92 Dr. Hyung & Eieanora Kim 1. Petition for a Change P2-92 of Zone Generai Miiis Restraurant, Inc. 2. SEQRA Review Only John l. Po i k, Jr. 6. SEQRA Review Oniy Charies O. Sicard 11. 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. '- --- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 251H, 1992 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY CORINNE TARANA TIMOTHY BREWER MEMBERS ABSENT EDWARD LAPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-ROBERT PARISI SENIOR PLANNER-lEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MARTIN-We have a request for tabling that we could dispense with right away. NEIl BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 40-92 TYPE I WR-lA DR. HYUNG & ELEANORA KIM (lßlER: SAME AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD ON GLEN LAICE TO EXCAVATE 25' OF SHORELINE FOR PLACEMEIT OF RETAIlING WAllS TO PROVIDE BEACH AREA. AlSO REMOVE STONE IfAU APPROXIMTElY 25' FROM SHORELINE FOR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES. (1fARRE1 coom PLANNIIG) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-6 lOT SIZE: .079 ACRE SECTION: 179-16 ZACK VANNIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. PULVER-Dr. Kim has asked to be tabled. MR. MARTIN-Is that right, lee? MRS. YORK-Right. I'll just read my notes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. STAFF NOTES Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 40-92 Dr. Hyung & Eleanora Kim, August 24, 1992, Meeting Date: August 25, 1992 "The staff has spoken to the applicant. They will be applying for a DEC permit and have agreed to be tabled pending receipt of such. The "beach area" is proposed to be immediately adjacent to their small wooden deck which goes out over Glen lake. There is also a Right-of-Way which should be indicated on the plan. The applicant has indicated that the development will not infringe on this but the Board may want to get a direct indication of this from the applicant." MRS. YORK-Also, I have one letter sulJnitted tonight from the neighbors. "Dear Mrs. York: Pursuant to n¡y receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing in the above matter on August 19, 1992 and n¡y telephone conversation with you this morning, I am sulJnitting n¡y concerns and objections for the Planning Board's review. Based on the Notice and our telephone conversation, Dr. Kim did not include our entrance road (right-of-way), which is directly in front of his residence along the waterfront, in his excavation plans to the Town. I do not understand this omission since shortly after Dr. Kim built his home, I had an occasion to discuss our mutual right-of-way with him. Also, he has continually witnessed our use of our road, thus he is totally aware and fully familiar with the roadNay. My right-of-way has been in use and existence since it was deeded to n¡y father- in-law, Ralph A. Pike, by louis H. Davis on September 14, 1926. In November of 1990, I also received a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the RaylOOnd Erb property and was advised at that time also that n¡y legal right-of-way was not included in the plot plan. I sent my concerns to the Board at that time also and the plans were re-sulJnitted to include my right-of-way. You advised that you would be doing a site check this afternoon to gain a clear picture of the property and the right-of-way situation. As you will witness, in some places, the road is situated within 3 to 4 feet from the lake and also elevated several feet above the lake. Dr. Kim's inclusion of a beach would make excavation of al'\Y kind of totally and completely incompatible with n¡y existing entrance road-right-of-way. Therefore, I am opposed to al'\Y construction that would interfere with, block or alter, «t «nr t1.e, my legal right-of-way to n¡y property. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Hal Rathbun" And Mr. Rathbun has given me a series of deeds tonight, which I'll make part of the file, going back to 1919, that indicate that this right-of-way has been in existence a substantial amount of time. Dr. Kim is aware of these concerns, and he will be amending his plan and going to DEC for his permit before coming back to the Board. 1 - .-' MR. MARTIN-And I assume that's the basis for the tabling? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, do we have a request in writing, or is someone here from the applicant to indicate as such? MR. VANNIER-My name is Zack Vannier. I'm representing NuViews landscaping, and I'm here on behalf of Dr. Kim. Yes, we want to table the matter because we are pursuing DEC appHcations at this time. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, we have a request for tabling, if someone wants to present a I1Dtion to that effect? MOTION TO TABLE SHE PLAN 110. 40-92 DR. HYUNG I ElEANORA KIM, Introduced by Carol Pulver who I1Dved for its adoption, seconded by Til1Dthy Brewer: Unti1 he receives his DEC permit, for 30 days. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 1992, by the fo11owing vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint MR. MARTIN-Okay, then we'11 get right back on the agenda as scheduled. OLD BUSINESS: P2-92 REVISED RECOMMENDATION ONLY GENERAL MILLS RESTAURANT, IIC. PROPERTY IIYOlVED: CORNER OF AVIATION RD. AND GREEflllAY NORTH. CURRENT ZONE: SFR-I0 PROPOSED ZONE: HC-lA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RED LOBSTER SEAFOOD REST. TAX IMP NO. 98-2-1, 98-3-1, 5 TO CONSOLIDATE THE THREE EXISTING PARCELS INTO ONE lOT OF APPROX. 4.377 ACRES. THE DEVELOPMENT ifIll CONSIST OF A 8,336 SQ. FT. BUILDING, LANDSCAPING. PARKING FACILITIES. PLAN REVISED SO AS TO PROVIDE A 100 FT. BUFFER AlONG GREENWAY NORlH AND OLD AVIATION ROAD AND A 75 FOOT BUFFER AlONG THE REAR OF 1HE RESIDENCES ON BIRCH LANE. AlSO, ELIMINATION OF THE VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO GREEIlllAY NORlH. (BEAUTIFICATION COfIUTTEE) (WARREll coom PLANNING) JOHN lEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MARTIN-Okay. Just to refresh everyone's memory, here, this was before us last I1Dnth, and we had a tabHng, at the request of the appHcant, due to the lack of Board members, and we have fa i1ed to improve upon that, try as we may. We have a very unusual situation. The Town Board was very quick in acting on our request for new members, but the two new members resigned Htera11y on the same day, and we have another gentleman who was scheduled to be here, but he got tied up at work, I just found out. So, we're left with four again. So, we have no improvement. I don't know what the Board's feeHng is, or the app1icant. I'm sure we'11 hear about that, and we'11 see what we can do with this, if a nyth ing. MR. lEMERY-Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Board, my name is John lemery. I appear for the appHcant, and General MOb, and unfortunately, I'm going to ask you, again, to table this. I feel very badly about it. We've got our consultants here from far away. Bob Parents, who's General MiHs site manager, site development manager, real property manager is a11 the way up from Florida. He came out of Orlando this morning, and I feel badly for a11 the neighbors who've come out here and their Counsel. but I think we are in the same situation we found ourselves the last time. I understand two members of the Planning Board were appointed, then they resigned. We think this is very important, and we respectfu11y request your indulgence to table it again, untH the next meeting when we hopefuHy can have a fun Board to look at this situation. We think it's very important to the Town and to the appHcant, as weH as to the neighbors. So, with your permission, I guess we'd Hke to table it again. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. What's the Board's feeHng on this? Tim, how do you feel? MR. BREWER-I don't know. We tabled last month because we didn't have enough members to suit everybo<tY, but I mean, things happen. I think we should just go on with it. SANDRA AllEN MS. AllEN-Sandra A11en from Miner, Mannix. If I reca11 last I1Dnth, it was agreed that this tabHng wouldn't go on forever, and I beHeve that it was specifica11y agreed by the appHcant that they would just table that once. and take their chances at this meeting. I just think that we should go with what we agreed on last time. 2 MR. PARISI-Could I Sð,y something if I may? At the last meeting, I didn't bring the minutes with me, but I did review them today, and I beIieve you made a motion to vote on this issue on the 25th, if you had a quorum. MR. I>1ARTIN-Yes. I remember reading those minutes as wel1, and I think that was definitely the jist of the motion, to be sure. So, Tim, you'd like to go on with it. MR. BREWER-Only because this isn't whether they're going to get approved or denied. This is a recommendation to the Town Board. They're ultimately going to make the decision, and I think that we should just. MR. lEMERY-Yes, but this is very serious. This is a serious project that has a substantial imp1ication to the Town and to the appHcant, and if certain people are predisposed to look at one thing one way, then it seems to me that we ought to have a fair and level playing field, and our position is that we're entitled to have the fun board, or as many as can be here look at this, because obviously we beIieve that your decision here has great weight to the Town Board, and there are people here who obviously have concerns about this situation. There are other people here that we've dragged back here again tonight to speak on behaIf of this project, and everybocly's getting tired, but it seems to me that a month here, a month there, is not dispositive of something that's going to have a long term effect for the cOl1m,lßity. We didn't presume that two people would get appointed and then two people would resign. So, I think that we ought to have the opportunity to have as many people on the Planning Board as possible look at this, and vote on it, because it does have some far reaching impHcations. It doesn't seem to me that in view of the overal1 pIan of the Town of Queensbury, that another 20 or 30 days ought to make a difference, and it seems to me it's far out-weighed, in terms of giving the appHcants here a fair and impartial hearing, as to this entire situation. So, with that, I mean, obviously, we abide by your decision, but we hope you'l1 think about that. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MRS. PUlVER-I kind of feel that last month, when we did say the tab1ing would not go on forever, and I don't know if I said that or not, but I think the other Board members beIieved that, we had a Board member sitting on our Board who was sitting in at that time, plus there was the promise that Mr. laPoint would be here. So there would at least be six Board members, and, again, if the appHcant is not comfortab1e with four Board members, we are a seven member Board. There was that implication there would be at least six members sitting here this month. There is not. I don't think that we should penaIize them and force them into having this project come to term tonight, when they obviously aren't comfortable with it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Corinne? MRS. TARANA-I voiced my objection to postponing last time, based on the fact that, if we have a quorum, we can meet. We can decide things, and I feel the same way that I felt last time. We don't know, next time, if even having two new Board members here, appointed, that we'l1 have everyone else here, and I just don't feel that, if we don't have a quorum, we can't take action, but if we have a quorum, then we should hear whatever is scheduled on the agenda for that night. MS. AllEN-I think two things. First of all, I think that Corinne is right, that this might be an ongoing problem. We've already had two just go away in one day, and who knows how many people wil1 be on the Board next month. The other problem is, whiIe the appHcant has the problem of continuany bringing people to this meeting, all these neighbors who are here to speak tonight have come and got baby-sitters, and made arrangements and everything, and I think that they deserve to have the Board act tonight. Thanks. MR. MARTIN-Wen, there's a disadvantage to my formal practice here of always poning the Board. I always get IWself in this position of being a tie breaker here. Well, I would Hke to go with the motion as it was made last month. I think we owe it to the public. It's our own fault that we can't get the Board here as we'd Iike, as a full Board, and maybe it's nobody's fault. Some things happen that are out of our control, but I feel comfortable, we have a experienced members that are here tonight. They've been on quite a long time, and I think we can give it a fair view, with the people we have here, and I think to say that we're going to table it again is an indication that maybe we wouldn't, and I don't think that's true at al1. So, I would Hke to go forth with hearing the project tonight and in coming to the point of making a recomendation. So, I guess that's an informal three to one, so to speak. I'd like to go ahead with it, and I think that's a majority view here. CHARLES WOOD MR. WOOD-I'm Charles Wood, and even though I have all kinds of representatives here, people taU about having baby-sitters and costs to come. I've brought a man from CaHfornia the last meeting, brought a man from Florida this meeting, brought a traffic man from New York two meetings, at very, very expensive cost and certainly greater. I'm a big tax payer in this area, turn in a lot of sales tax money, and feel that it's very unfair to require that we would have to get four votes out of four people to be approved, and if we only get three votes, we just are defeated in what we've tried to do and what we've tried to change. I've gone to the expense. General Mills agreed to stay with this project if I would 3 -- -....../ pick up the expense to have all the design work done, the legal work done, all expenses, and I've gone, I've dropped the price of the property one third of the cost. That's a lot of money, because I feel that it's needed here. It's for the public. It's going to create jobs. It's going to create taxes. It's going to help on the sewer project. Nobody feels sorry that I feel sorry that I paid $67,000 in sewer tax at the Howard Johnson Motor lodge, and this would help to lessen the burden. I don't think there's anybody in this room that would like to be in the position to have to pay a $67,000 sewer tax. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. lEMERY-I think it was all understood at the last meeting, Mr. Martin, that you'd have more people here. It's not your fault, and it's not our fault. If certain people on the Board are predisposed one way, we know, standing here tonight, that we're at a disadvantage, and I don't think that's fair. MR. MARTIN-Well, this is only for recommendation. MR. lEMERY-It doesn't matter. It's very important. MR. MARTIN-You don't need four 0 or anything like that. MR. lEMERY-I know that, but it seems to me that we want to try to go to the Town Board, if at all possible, with a recommendation from this Board, because obviously, there'd be no need to have a Planning Board of what it had to say about certain projects had merit, and I don't understand what the issue is here. If both parties to an application have spent time and money and one asks that it be adjourned again because of an understanding we thought we had, I don't understand the problem here with a 30 day delay. I don't understand where the problem lies. Everybody goes home a little earlier, and we're back the next time, at our expense and cost. I just don't understand why an applicant like this can't get another tabling. MR. MARTIN-Do you have the file with you, lee? MRS. YORK-I can go to my office and get a copy. MR. MARTIN-Does anybody feel that would help? MR. BREWER-I think it would. MRS. PUlVER-WeH, I stiH believe that we are a citizens Board. We are here to serve the Town and I don't think we serve the Town very well when we're not a full Board. TED BIGELOW MR. BIGELOW-Ted Bigelow, Vice President of Woodbury Development Group, and Partner in Basser Associates. To my way of thinking, as we aH know, this is a very controversial project. It has far reaching implications, as far as zoning and the sewer district and the economics of the Town. I think it's incumbent upon the Town to have as much representation as possible to be fair to both sides. I can appreciate the fact that people have spent money to be here tonight for baby-sitters and whatnot, and I can certainly appreciate the fact that the developers have spent thousands of doHars without any kind of decision. I think, out of fairness to both sides, you should have fuH representation here, at least six Board members, what is it, seven Board members for full? MR. MARTIN-Yes, seven Board members for a full Board. MR. BIGElOW-I think this Board would be doing an injustice to the Town if they don't have that kind of representation before they make a decision. We have a project on Glenwood Avenue, the homes at Westwood. We're getting killed with sewer taxes, literally killed. It effects our marketability of our townhouses, and we don't have to puH the wool over anybody's eyes. They need a four 0 vote for it to go to the Town. That's very important. I think, from the scuttle that I hear right now, it's three one. So, why wouldn't the Town agree to at least have full representation. So, a decision can be made, either way, but with good representation. It's just my personal opinion, because of the economics involved with both sides. I'm reaHy miffed that the Town didn't address this particular pi ece of property when they di d thei r re- zoni ng a few years ago, because that's when it shou I d ha ve been addressed, and they passed the buck on it, but now you should wait until you have at least six Board members. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MRS. TARANA-I feel like I have to make this comment, that whatever this scuttle is that he's heard about the vote being three to one as it stands now, I don't know how any of thes~ people feel about the Red lobster. I'm sure they don't know how I feel about the Red lobster. I've never discussed it with them, and they've never discussed it with me. So, how you can come here and say that the vote is three to one, is really very annoying to me, and the fact that you feel that there's a predisposition against the project or whatever you feel. I honestly don't believe that's the case, unless you've heard something I haven't heard. 4 '- ~ MR. BIGELOW-It's for exactly that reason that you ought to wait until you have six members. MR. MARTIN-I think there's a couple of things, as a practical matter, to bear in mind here. Number One is, a quorum is present, so legally a Planning Board meeting is going on here and we can take action. Secondly, as a practical matter. we have, I see a majority of the Town Board here. just in glancing, and they're the ones who are going to be, ultimately, responsible for this decision, and I think it is useful for them to hear the exchange that's going to occur tonight, and that's going to weigh as heaviìy in their mind, I would think, as a recommendation of four or five or six or seven members of the Planning Board, and those are the people who are going to be held ultimately responsible for the final decision on the re-zoning, and, again, I don't have a problem with moving forward tonight. The group is here. I have enough faith in the process here, and in the membership of this Board, that whatever happens will be done for the best interest of the community. Does anybody on the Board have anything else they want to add? MR. BREWER-lets wait until lee gets back, and look at the motion that was made. MRS. PULVER-Well, if it's less than a 4 zero vote, actually, there becomes no recommendation by the Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-So, to the Town Board, there would be no recommendation. MR. MARTIN-Right, but again, I stress as a practical matter that the Board is here, for the most part, that I can see, and they are going to hear the exchange, and they're probably going to hear it again at their public hearing they'll have for their re-zoning. So, the substantive issues will be addressed. I think the vote, really, is only a part of the whole process here, especially in this particular project. MR. PARISI-I'd like to say something if I may. The idea of having applicants looking at the Planning Board and based on the composition of the Planning Board, deciding whether or not they want to go through with an application on a given night is absolutely ridiculous. Whether the project is large or small, if you're going to allow a large project to do this, I don't see how you can ask someone that comes in for a pool variance or site plan review for a pool not to have the same privilege of saying. there's only four members, I want to come back when there's six. There's no way we can guarantee how many members are going to be here next month, whether there's going to be four, five, six, or three, or seven. This could go on indefinitely. It also sets a very dangerous precedent of allowing applicants to say, well, I think there's only four people there, I think three of them might be against me, they might be for me. lets try it next month. Maybe we'll get a more favorable vote. It's a very unreasonable thing to expect. MRS. PUlVER-I don't believe that's the case, though. Bob. I mean, this is an unusual circumstance where you are short Board members. It happened one other time about three and a half years ago, when I first came on the Board, and we were perfectly agreeable then to the applicants to table until Board members could come up to speed with the information that was given to them, so they could actively vote and active on the applications. I just think, we're a seven member Board, and the more Board members here, the better off we are, the more heads we put together. MR. MARTIN-lee, could you repeat the motion there? MRS. YORK-Well, what happened, the discussion went: MR. PARISI-If on the August 25th meeting you don't have a full Board, are you going to set some sort of a policy for how you're going to deal with that/ MR. MARTIN-Well. how does everybody feel? MR. BREWER-August 25th, lets just do it. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Whether there's four of us here or seven of us here, we'll vote on it, or not vote, and make a recommendation. MR. PARISI-All right. MR. BREWER-We'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and give them one tabling. That's fair, for whatever reason. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Then would somebody like to offer a resolution for tabling. Which is offered, and Mrs. Tarana voted, I'll vote yes, with mY objection noted. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, it was a unanimous decision, but it definitely is the tone of the discussion there that it would be at this meeting, whether it was even said, even if there is four. Okay. Well, with that brought to highlight here, I think we should move ahead here. So, would the applicant like to make a presentation to the Board, here? MR. lEMERY-Mr. Chairman, we're going to withdraw the application tonight, and we have modified the plan again, with respect to ingress and egress, and what we'll do is we'll. MR. MARTIN-But that has not been reviewed by the Department? MR. lEMERY-Well, that's correct. We were going to offer an alternative tonight, but what we'll do is weill make that in a formal modification to the application to the next meeting. MR. MARTIN-I would feel more comfortable with the Staff looking at it anyhow. 5 '---" MR. lEMERY-Because we think what we've done meets the DOT requirements here. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Can I ask, Mr. Schachner, this letter I was given tonight, did the Staff get a copy of that letter as well? MARK SCHACHNER MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-All right. So, that will go in for next time. MRS. YORK-let me just clarify something. If he is re-submitting a new application and a new plan, all this information is null and void. MR. MARTIN-Right. It has to be re-submitted. MRS. YORK-It's a new application. We start over again. MR. MARTIN-In terms of any public comment or anything like that, anybody who was issued letters, I would advise you to reissue your letters, because this will be looked at from Ground Zero again, with this type of action by the applicant. So, just to alert the public to that. MR. lEMERY-If that's what we have to be put through, it doesn't seem to me to be reasonable, but okay. MR. MARTIN-That's fine. MR. PARISI-One other thing, I just want to make a note. The deadline for September, for one of the two Planning Board meetings, is tomorrow at 2 o'clock. MR. lEMERY-Okay. MR. PARISI-All right. You'd have to submit this information by then. MR. lEMERY-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MARTIN-You already have it all prepared. So, that shouldn't be a problem. Okay. MR. lEMERY-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. The application is withdrawn. NEIl BUSINESS: r; q'L.sElJIA REVIEW ONLY lIR-lA JOHN l. POLK, JR. (lINER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SHE OF ASSEMBLY POINT CROSS ß9J r REFERENCE: AV '43-1992 FOR AN EVAUJATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW AND A DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ON THE REQUEST FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. (IIARREN CCUITY PINIfIIIG) TAX MAP 10. 6-3-1 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION: 179-16(C), 179-60(B)(1)(C). 179-7OA MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF NOTES Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, SEQRA Review Only. John Polk, August 24, 1992, Meeting Date: August 25, 1992 "The request is for a SEQRA review of an application where a 3 lot subdivision is proposed. Two of the three lots will be substandard and two lots will not have frontage on a Town Road. AB the units are constructed. This is a Critical Environmental Area. They wiB aB share a common septic area. The Board should be provided with information about the size, capacity and age of what is in the ground. A common drive will serve aB the units, easement devices for the septic and road should be provided. There does not appear to be sufficient room to provide on lot septic and maintain the setbacks. In order to mitigate any concerns the staff recommends that any modifications of the three units take place within the existing footprints. This would maintain conformance with the Master Plan. Any perspective buyers could go up a story but there would not be the opportunity for large homes on substandard lots. This would also ensure that the shoreline aesthetics was not impacted. This condition should be placed in the deed as a restriction as weB as documented on the mylar. The staff has checked proposed responses on the EAF." MRS. YORK-I've checked these. I would advise the Board to get definite information on the septic system, first, before going any farther, and perhaps the applicant has that. MR. MARTIN-All right. Do we have someone here from the àpplicant? 6 ~ --" MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Martin Auffredou. I'm from the 1aw firm of Bart1ett, Pontiff, Stewart, and Rhodes in G1ens Fa11s. I'm here on beha1f of the app1icant. John Po1k, who's a1so here with us this evening. First and foremost, with regard to the septic systems, earHer this year, Mr. Po1k obtained permits for those septic systems through the Town of Queensbury. He has, under the lake George Park Commission Regu1ations, the Wastewater Regu1ations, which the Town of Queensbury is now imp1ementing, Mr. Po1k now has a five year septic permit for this area here, the septic system which services this cottage. the maximum permit al10wed under 1aw. I have a copy of that in the fHe, a five year permit for this septic system that services this cottage. There is, in fact, a common easement which both of these septic systems use, in this 10t here. The Town Bui1ding Department is aware of that, and ful1y permitted what we were doing. State of the Art techno10gy on these two 10ts, five year permits, the maximum permitted by 1aw, a three year interim permit for the septic system servicing this area. I have copies of the septic system permits in my fHe. I don't have extra copies for the Board, but I wou1d certain1y be wi11ing to supp1y those to the Board. MRS. YORK-Do you just have a copy they cou1d 100k at at this time? MR. AUFFREDOU-I sure do. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and a1so, I'd 1ike to just know, you say State of the Art, I'd 1ike to know what that actua11y is, what type of system are we actua11y ta1king about? MR. AUFFREDOU-It's a system with pump chambers, as I understand. There are thousand ga110n tanks. There's actua11y one, the midd1e 10t, this 10t here has two one thousand, if I may. MR. MARTIN-Are we ta1king about a ho1ding tank situation here, or is it a 1eachfie1d? MR. AUFFREDOU-It's a 1eachfie1d. It's an easement system, actual1y. There are tanks on each 10t. Two tanks on this 10t, a tank here. There is a pumping chamber that takes the wastewater from these two 1ots, pumps it up here into this easement area in this area. MR. MARTIN-So, essential1y then you have a tHe fie1d that is serving two houses. Is that essentia11y it, then, that that 1eachfie1d serves those two tanks, is that the idea? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's. essentia11y. correct. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll pass this around for the Board's review. MR. AUFFREDOU-And if I may, whHe you're 100king at that, Mr. Hatin has designated System One as the system on this 1ot, System Two and System Three. System One is your three year interim permit system. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, I assume that they've been up, they've been to the site to inspect the operation and a11 that, and have no prob1em with it. MR. AUFFREDOU-I be1ieve that's correct. The permits have been issued. MR. MARTIN-Bob, have you got anything to add in this regard? MR. PARISI-No. MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, if I might have one second. That's, essentia11y, how I'm going to address the septic system. We wou1d 1ike to go on record tonight as saying that we beHeve this appHcation is exempt or exc1uded from SEQRA. I be1ieve I wrote a 1etter to you, Mr. Chairman, out1ining the reasons why we feU this was an exc1uded action, why, in fact, we didn't even fee1 it was an action at a11. We have not received a written response from Staff regarding our position on that. However, we are aware that Staff is of the opinion that it..:!.-ª. subject to SEQRA. We're not exact1y certain why they're taking that position, but our position is that, under SEQRA, in order for it to be an action, it has to be something that's going to invo1ve a construction or p1acement or a change in use. Here, we have no construction inv01ved. We have no p1acement of septic systems invo1ved. We have no digging. We have no aUeration, no modification. The on1y thing that Mr. P01k is doing is forever estabHshing boundary Hnes, boundary Hnes which won't be seen, boundary Hnes which real1y, for a11 practica1 purposes, a1ready exist. MR. MARTIN-An right. So, just to c1arify, to get this on the record, a11 three houses or dwe11ings exist today? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's correct, and have for some time. MR. MARTIN-The septic systems exist today, and we're, essential1y, just estabHshing separate deeds for each property, wi11 be the end resu1t? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's correct, Mr. Chairman. MRS. PULVER-There wi11 be no change. 7 -- ~ MR. MARTIN-Okay, and there's absolutely no construction or digging or anything of any sort like that? MR. AUFFREDOU-None whatsoever. MR. MARTIN-lee, do you have any response? MRS. YORK-I'd rather let Mr. Parisi respond to that, but I would urge the Board to just go through with the SEQRA at any rate. There are no significant concerns here to any great extent, and the Board might as well be covered to the greatest extent possible when reviewing anything. MR. AUFFREDOU-Our position, perhaps I didn't make it clear, we simply wanted to go on record as stating that. If the Board is inclined to go ahead and conduct an environmental review. we're here to do that. You have an Environmental Assessment Form that you can use this evening. We pretty much just wanted to preserve our rights in putting our position on the record. that we think it's exempt. MR. MARTIN-I understand. lee said that she made the check marks for us, so to speak, to guide us. or highlight things to consider. MRS. YORK-Right. The only issue I see at all is just expansions down the road on substandard lots. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anybodY on the Board have any questions of the applicant? Again, we're looking at this only in terms of SEQRA. If the variance is approved, will this be back before us for Subdivision? MRS. YORK-Yes, it will. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-We have a subdivision application pending. MR. BREWER-Why are we doing the SEQRA before? MR. MARTIN-It's for the variance, on behalf of ZBA. It's been the informal policy, or maybe non-informal, but typically the ZBA has asked us to do the environmental reviews on their behalf, before they consider the variance. MR. BREWER-I just would have thought that the SEQRA would have been done at the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Yes, well, it probably would be again. That depends. MR. AUFFREDOU-We have a subdivision application pending, as we stated, and we're kind of wondering if there's any way that we can get going on that tonight, if that's possible. MRS. YORK-I don't think you can do that until your variances have been approved. MR. MARTIN-No. I know we don't do that. We wait until the variances are in place before we. MR. AUFFREDOU-If I may. this application has been kind of tossed around for the passed couple of months. I understand your point. Sir, but we really, and I think in all fairness to Mr. Polk, we need to get moving on this. BOB STEWART MR. STEWART-One of the problems we have is what seems like an innocuous application. You may feel different when you review it, but it seems like the simplest thing in the world has just sort of gone crazy at us. You were named Lead Agency, and the Zoning Board of Appeals has referred it to you as lead Agency to complete the SEQRA study, and while you know we don't think SEQRA's applicable, if it is, lets do it, but SEQRA prohibits you from making your final determination, SEQRA prevents you, as a Planning Board, from making your final planning determination until the SEQRA is complete. It doesn't prevent you from going through the Preliminary meetings, the design phases, the Preliminary review. It only prevents you from rendering your final decision, and so I'm just wondering, while you're looking at this, since it's just a simple thing. could we go through the Sketch proceeding or the Preliminary proceeding? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think in something like this, we would certainly consider a request for waiver on the Sketch Plan phase. I know we've done it for two lot subdivisions in the past, and I know now even that's changing. MRS. PULVER-What about having Preliminary and Final in one meeting? MR. MARTIN-We could do that. MR. STEWART-What you see is what you get. That's all there is, is right there. 8 '--- MR. AUFFREDOU-We requested that. MRS. PULVER-And what happened to the request? MR. STEWART-We never heard. I take it back. We did get a response that said, no, we will proceed step by step through the three phase procedure. MR. AUFFREDOU-With SEQRA. MR. STEWART-I don't know. I don't want to press a review that complex, and cut anybody's right to review, but this is about the simplest thing you could ever see, and I'm just wondering why it's taking this, for example, we've been puHed off the County Board two months in a row without our consent. They've never even had a chance to look at it, and they aren't under SEQRA at all. MR. MARTIN-Wen, I think you have to understand the position we're in. We're volunteer members of the Board, and we see the information as we get it, and this is the first I've heard of this being, all these issues coming into play here. MR. STEWART-Okay. Well, lets try to narrow it, then, to what really is on your plate. MR. MARTIN-What I can offer, and I think what Carol was driving at, that win help you out, is that, I think on a project of this scale. the Board would certainly, at least consider waiving the Sketch PIan phase, if a request was made by the applicant, and we have, in the past, deatt with PreHminary and Final on the same evening. MRS. YORK-No, you haven't. MR. MARTIN-No? MRS. YORK-No. MR. BREWER-One week, and then the next week. MR. MARTIN-Okay. One week and then the next week. I'm sorry. MRS. YORK-Yes, basicaHy because the Ordinance states that Preliminary approval is the first step in a two step process. MR. MARTIN-I meant those cases where we do it one meeting one week, and then the final the next meeting. MRS. PULVER-Haven't we, though, sometimes done it the first part of the meeting, and then the last part of the meeting? MRS. YORK-Not under this Ordinance. MRS. PULVER-We didn't? MRS. YORK-No. MR. STEWART-I think I've done it an in one meeting, but I'm not going to state that natly, because it was a couple of years ago. AII right, just so the record is clear, to the extent that we can expedite this matter, and waive the Sketch PIan review, and expedite the second two phases, in view of the simplicity of the application, we would formally request tonight that you do so, and we have requested that in writing before that tonight. If there's anything we can do tonight, obviously, to assist in the SEQRA review, we're here to do that. That's just tine of noes. Will the activity impact water, air, etc.. there is no activity. We're not doing anything except changing the form of ownership, but if there's any questions that you have, we're here tonight, and Mr. Polk's here tonight, to answer that, and I guess that's all that's on your plate. You can't do anything to solve our other problems. I appreciate that. MR. MARTIN-No. I wish we could, but I don't see where we can, but I do think we can consider, here, at the end, doing that two step process a week apart, as we have done in the past. MR. STEWART-We appreciate that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. STEWART-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-AII right, well, does someone want to take us through the SEQRA, here? 9 -- --' RESOUJTION If HEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MDE RESOUJTION FOR SEIJ'A REVIEW ONLY, Introduced by Carol Pu1ver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a variance for JOHN l. POLK, JR., and WHEREAS, this PJanning Board has determined that the proposed project and PJanning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: The Zoning Board of Appeals 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Type I 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 CompHation of Codes, Rules and ReguJations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board win have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the PJanning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint MR. STEWART-Thank you very much. We appreciate that, and we'n be back before you the next meeting, I take it? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-Do we need to pass a motion, now, or a resolution that they'll be on both meetings? MRS. YORK-No, but you should pass a resolution waiving Sketch Plan. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Would you go on record as making that request, just so we have it on record? MR. STEWART-Okay. Yes. Speaking on behalf of the Polk family, the applicants, I would formally request that we waive the Sketch pJan review, since the entire appHcation's already before this Board, and I would request, if it's at all possible, under your scheduling, to schedule the Preliminary and Final reviews as close to each other as is possible, possibly within one week. MR. MARTIN-We have two meetings on the docket for September. right? MRS. YORK-Right. I believe you have to move one of your meetings. MR. MARTIN-Right. Yes, I saw that note, but we will still have the two meetings? MRS. YORK-That's my understanding. It will depend on how many applications we have. MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. MRS. PULVER-Well, we have one for both meetings. So, we are definitely having both meetings. MR. STEWART-May I raise a question? We've been through this quite a few times before. Before you can make your final decision on the subdivision. Traditionally you have liked to have the Zoning Board 10 ',,--, of Appeah render it's decision on the variance because you don't Hke to approve something that would not be legal. I've done it different ways. You approve it contingent upon or back and forth, but I expect what you want to do is to at least have your final meeting where you might render final approval scheduled after the ZBA has rendered its, because if the ZBA's turned down the variance, then there's no point in having the. MRS. PULVER-Are you on the agenda for next month for the ZBA? MR. STE tART-ie were on the agenda last month, and they wouldn't hear us because they sent it to you tonight, but I expect we are on the, aren't we, Mrs. York? MRS. YORK-I would expect. MRS. PULVER-well, then they meet on the third Wednesday. MRS. YORK-I'll request that you be placed on the first agenda of the ZBA. MR. STE~RT-I don't want to trip over timetables. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-But you will have been there before you come here for the first meeting, because our meeting was going to be on Thursday that month. MR. STE\tART-And, Mrs. York, we still have this County Planning Board thing. We still haven't been through them. Maybe they're not having anything, and the 30 days is waived, but I don't want to get into that. Could you see that we get on there for their meeting next month, too? MRS. YORK-I certainly will. MR. STEWART-Thank you very much. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. So, we have a request for waiving of the Sketch Plan phase. Any discussion of that, or do you just want to make a motion to that effect? MOTION TO WAIVE THE SKETCH PLAN PHASE FOR JOHN l. POLK, JR., Introduced by Carol Puher who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For a three lot subdivision, and Preliminary and Final application will be made at the next two meetings of the Planning Board in September. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint (8:21 p.m.) SEQRA REVIEIf ONLY lØ-lA CHARlES O. SICARD OiliER: SAME AS ABOVE GlEI LAKE ROAD, EAST 10 LAKE SHORE ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: AV 168-1992 FOR AN EVAlUATUJt OF 1HE ENVIIØMEflTAl ASSESSMENT REVIEW AND A DETERMINATION OF SICJUFICANCE ON THE REQIÆST FOR A 15 LOT sœoIVISlON. (II'RRÐI COIIITY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 43-1-24.1 lOT SIZE: 9+ ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-30, 179-60 MIKE MUllER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:21 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, SEQRA Review Only, Charles O. Sicard, August 24, 1992, Meeting Date: August 25, 1992 "The applicant is requesting to subdivide a number of existing cottages into substandard lots for the purpose of sale. The lots will be in a Critical Environmental Area on Glen lake. Because these are nonconforming lots and a number of variances are being sought, the Planning Board has been requested to review the long' Form SEQRA. The staff met with the applicant. The meeting resul:tßd in a memorandum of understanding (attached) which win mitigate any of the environmental concerns, since the density is already established." MRS. YORK-Would you like me to read that to you? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's onlY a page, right? MRS. YORK-No. What I will do is read Mr. Muller's memorandum, which he has signed. MR. MARTIN-Okay. 11 ---- MRS. YORK-"Dear Mr. Parisi: Thank you very much for the opportunity to have met with you and lee York concerning Mr. Sicard's application for area variances. We understand from the conference that your preliminary review of what is proposed requires further assurances and our letter of intent with reference to certain issues. Please accept this letter as our letter of intent concerning the following: 1. The domestic water source for each of the cabins as wen as the Sicard's principal residence is presently on a master well. We propose to continue that well and will provide statistics as to its depth, output and a consistent history of satisfactory water potability tests from the New York State Department of Health. In addition to the master wen we propose to provide an additional well of suitable potable water with adequate output on premises all intended to be a backup system in the event of any failure of the primary system. The exact location, depth and output of the backup well is to be ascertained at the time of our submission of an application for subdivision approval. 2. A homeowner's association is contemplated. We would endeavor at the time of making application for subdivision approval to provide what we believe to be the finished copy of a proposed homeowner's association declaration including covenants and restrictions. Some of those restrictions that we intend to include within the subdivision would be as follows: a) limitation of each of the cabins to maximum size of 1,000 square feet. Please note that a few of the units presently exceed that 1,000 square foot limitation. We would consider those to be grandfathered. b) Upon the sale of any particular cabin with proposed lot, the developer would provide an updated septic system in compliance with New York State Department of Health and the Town of Queensbury Ordinances. c) The homeowner's association would be responsible for the maintenance of the private utilities which include the water source, power to the water source, road maintenance including repair, plowing, and general access. The plan as intended to be proposed involves no construction whatsoever. Admittedly, private owners of parcels could eventually make application for building permits. So far as we understand, as long as the homeowner's association limitation as to size was respected other limitations so far as setback, height, etc. would be Hmited as per the waterfront residential restrictions imposed in conformity with the zoning ordinance. Hopefully we have addressed all of the issues that were raised in our conference and this letter of intent is satisfactory for your purposes. If I have missed any particular point or if a new issue is raised prior to board presentation, please do not hesitate to contact me. I understand that as a preliminary matter the applicant's request for multiple area variances would be first presented to the ZBA on a regular scheduled meeting for July 29, 1992. I will be on vacation on that particular evening and unable to attend. I understand, however, that the matter before the ZBA win be a formality in their receipt of the papers and designation of the Planning Board as "lead Agency". Please let us know when the Planning Board agenda will include the Sicard application in order that we might be prepared to proceed at that date and time. Very truly yours, CARUSONE AND MUllER By: Michael J. Muller" MR. MARTIN-Okay. My only question about that is Item 2b. "Upon the sale of any particular cabin with proposed lot, the developer would provide an updated septic system in compliance with New York State Department of Health and the Town of Queensbury Ordinances." MRS. YORK-Right. The person who purchases the lot would be responsible for this. MR. MARTIN-Okay. The purchaser. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I would like to have that amended, then, to clarify that. MRS. YORK-Would you mind, Mr. Muller? MR. MUllER-For this record, I'm Michael Muller and I represent Mr. Sicard. I don't mind, but I believe that it was ~ intent to do it. We, as the developer, as part of the sale. MRS. YORK-You. the developer, intended to do it? MR. MUllER-Right. MRS. YORK-That's wonderful. MR. MUllER-I think that's the preferred method. MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's why I wanted to clarify that. MR. MUllER-That was our understanding with Mr. Parisi. MRS. YORK-All right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does the Board have any other questions? I think this is kind of nice, in a way, to have this kind of worked out to this degree. MR. MUllER-If I can just give you a general comment, it's a lot like the last application you saw. We plan no new construction. Mr. Sicard commenced construction on the units in the 1940's, and zoning 12 '- has now impacted upon it. He, basically, is the owner of 15 units. They are being used as year round residences. We'd like to put lines on the property and convey them out. The predicament is one step further, and that is that there are five adult children who have an expectation that they will receive these. They've been living in them for many years. They've been improving them. So, the time is right to do this. MR. ~RTIN-So, all this is existing. It's just a matter of really, like with the last one, creating deeds for each property, so to speak? MR. fttJllER-Yes. MR. PARISI-Actually, just as sort of an aside, as far as the environmental impacts will go, when these change hands and these septic systems go in up to the current standard, this would actually enhance the environment rather than cause an environmental impact. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We've seen this happen in the past. Anything that, when we see expansions on the lake front or anything like that. people usually update their septic systems and the net effect, in that regard, is actually an improvement over what's existing. MR. MUllER-Yes. The other thing I pointed out to Mr. Parisi and Mrs. York was that finally the Zoning Ordinance, you can take control of these situations if you put lines here. Right now, he can make additions to this thing and it's not imposing upon the side setbacks, because here's one over here, and here's one over here. So, if we get this organized the best we can, within the limitations of what have, then if an applicant comes here, you can say yes or no. Right now I think, in the past, the practice has been. MR. MARTIN-So what exists right now is just one great big huge lot with 15 units on it? MR. fttJllER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, I mean, really, in effect, I guess you could interconnect all of these. MR. fttJllER-I guess so. MR. PARISI-Actually, the subdivision addresses a lot of items, including the private road. You have to go to the homeowners association for maintenance. MR. MARTIN-It sort of cleans up the whole. MR. PARISI-Yes. The water supply, I believe that they agreed to put a secondary water supply that wasn't so close to those four existing units. MR. fttJllER-Right. MR. PARISI-And again, these things are already being used in this manner, and of course the septic systems that would be going in would be on the side away from the shore. So, it really cleans up an existing problem, rather than creating a new one. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Anything from the Board at an? Okay. Does someone want to take us through the SEQRA? Again, we're just doing this on behalf of the Zoning Board of Appeals, at this time. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATIOI OF NO SIGfUFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION FOR SEIJ'A REVIEW ONLY, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board application for: I variance for subdivision for CHARLES O. SICARD, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved: 2. The following agencies are involved: The Zoning Board of Appeals 13 - -- 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Type I in the Department of EnvironmentaT Conservation ReguTations impTementing the State EnvironmentaT QuaTity Review Act and the reguTations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An EnvironmentaT Assessment Form has been compTeted by the appTicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughTy anaTyzed the reTevant areas of environmentaT concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmentaT impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the OfficiaT Compilation of Codes, RuTes and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board witT have no significant environmentaT effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and fiTe as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative decTaration that may be required by Taw. DuTy adopted this 25th day of August, 1992, by the foTTowing vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. PuTver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint CORRECTION OF MINUTES MR. MARTIN-And that's the end of the agenda. We have severaT items, as a side note, here, I just wanted to go through with the Board, here. We have minutes dating back to the 21st of April. up through the 16th of June. I'd Tike to do these as one joint motion, if we couTd, approving these. I have ApriT 21st, ApriT 28th, ApriT 29th, May 14th, May 19th, May 21st, and June 16th, in case anybody hasn't had any Tight reading. Does anybody have any changes? MRS. TARANA-I do. ApriT 28th, correction. I was Tisted as absent. I was indeed here. I was present, and then I had a question about May 21st, on Page 2, Mr. lauriceHa, was Hsted as absent, but he's Tisted as present at the beginning of the meeting. I don't know if he was present or absent. MR. MARTIN-I think that's one he came Tate. MRS. TARANA-He's Tisted as present when the meeting started, but on the vote, he was Tisted as absent. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but Took Tater and see if he's not in the meeting. MRS. CORINNE-No. He continues to be present throughout this. MRS. PULVER-Yes, wen, what he's saying is, he came Tate that evening. We had aTready started the meeting without him. So, he wouTd be Tisted as being present, but he wasn't present for the entire meeting. MR: MARTIN-Okay. Does anybody eTse have any changes or conments on the minutes? Okay. Then I'd Tike to entertain a motion to approve aTT of these. MOTION TO APPROVE APRIL 21ST, APRIL 28TH, APRIL 29TH. MY 14TH, MY 19TH. MY 21ST, AND JUNE 16TH MINUlES, WITH THE ORE CORRECTION NOTED FOR APRIL 28TH, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: DuTy adopted this 25th day of August, 1992, by the foTTowing vote: MRS. PULVER-Yes, except for the dates I was absent. I don't have them in front of me. AYES: Mrs. PuTver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have a request for a change from the meeting of September 15th to the 17th. What's there a confTict with the room, or something Tike that? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anybody have any probTem with the 17th? I beTieve that wouTd make it a Thursday, ri ght? MRS. PULVER-Yes. I don't have a probTem. 14 --- MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, just to bring that to your attention then. The first reguIar meeting win be the 17th. Why don't we do site visits now, whHe we're talking about that type of thing. The 16th at four o'cIock at the PIanning Office. AII right. That takes care of that. Okay. We have a request from Haanen Engineering, on behaIf of Inspiration Park, Subdivision 14-1990. They're requesting a waiver for their phasing, it appears. lee, do you have any background information on this waiver request? MRS. YORK-To teII you the truth, I was not even aware of it, Jim, having been out of the office. MR. PARISI-Excuse me. This is Inspiration Park? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PARISI-From what I understand, I met with them several weeks ago. They had said they had an understanding with the oId Town Board that they wouId pay when funded. None of the members of the Town Board, at this time, are at aII cognizant of this arrangement. In the future, the way we're setting it up, is that these things have to be in writing from the very beginning, and I want you to know that I did have this conversation with them. They didn't have anything in writing that said so, and now the Town Board members came forward and said, yes, this is a fact. So, that's basicaBy aB the information that I have. MR. MARTIN-Is that in regards to their recreation fee? MR. PARISI-Yes. MRS. YORK-Yes. I beIieve that the waiver they're asking for is for phasing because, and I had a discussion with them a few weeks ago, too, and this is just coming to mind, that the reason being they're getting their funding for the entire subdivision and want to get underway with aB the units and get them compIeted by Christmas, at once, and as they expIained it to me, the phasing requirement is made so that the Town doesn't have an interest in subdivisions that aren't soId, that we have unsold subdivisions sitting there, where in this case aB the houses are aIready basicany soId. So there shouIdn't be the concern there for, to do it in a Iimited number and make sure that those have a CO before going on. It's entireIy up to this Board, how you want to react to this. MR. MARTIN-I think with the presence of the grant in this project, it's a pretty tightIy run project, here, in terms of the, Iike he mentions here, they have a performance bond. The infrastructure is aII committed and all that. MRS. PULVER-And I know that an the, I think there's about seven units with no, there was 10 units with no grants, and there's about seven that are pending. They all have applicants, and because they're putting up modulars, or using some moduIation or whatever, that's why they want to be able to do the whoIe subdivision all at once, to bring the trucks in, bring the candIes alI in at once. MR. MARTIN-WeB, the other thing I'm trying to think of is what is going to be gained by us, to see the second phase. I mean, what new information are we going to learn? I really can't think of anything, or what any of the issues are going to be. Can anybody think of any reason why this should? I think we saw it all pretty thoroughIy the first time through. MR. BREWER-They're going to give the recreation fees before they start though, right? MR. MARTIN-WeII, that's tied to the building permit, right? MRS. YORK-They can't get buiIding permits until they pay their recreation fees. MR. MARTIN-Okay. WeB, then I guess the Board wouId grant this request for a waiver, then? Is that what the generaI feeIing is? MRS. TARANA-When was this passed, originally? MR. BREWER-Two years ago. MR. MARTIN-Two years ago. MRS. TARANA-I'm not famiIiar with the project at all, and I would abstain, but I don't want to abstain if it's going to hoId up the vote, if everybody eIse thinks it's okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I think it's been two years, and they've had problem with their getting a grant, with the State budget coming through and an that, or through the AffordabIe Housing Corporation. So, I have no probIem with it. Does someone want to make a motion to that effect? MOTICII TO GRANT THE WAIVER REQUEST BY HMIEI EIGINEERIIG FOR THE PHASIf16 FOR SUBDIVISICII NO. 14-1990 IISPIRATICII PARK PHASE II, Introduced by CaroI PuIver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: 15 -- Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think that's an we had. I know the group from Hudson Pointe is outside waiting for us. What's the Board pleasure? Do you want to let Paul get out of here early and go through this matter of litigation, or do you want to take Hudson Pointe first and make them wait? MRS. YORK-With Hudson Pointe, my understanding is they just need a date for a scoping session. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. YORK-That's all they need. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Why don't we do that, then, Paul, if you don't mind. That will only take a few minutes. Does somebody want to call them in here? MR. DUSEK-lee, I know I was off for a little while there, on vacation in July. So, I'm just wondering, has the Town Board signed off on this, for the SEQRA? Is that what you're talking about, a scoping for SEQRA, or something else? MR. MARTIN-No, this is just as it relates to arriving at a formal Sketch Plan. This is just reany a recommendation for the PUD. MR. DUSEK-I heard the word "scoping" so I thought maybe. MR. MARTIN-No. It hasn't even reached that point yet. An right. Wen, in conformance with our discussion at the last meeting with this application, I believe Mr. Parisi has drafted a letter which lists our issues regarding the Hudson Pointe, and I just want to leave this as a discussion among the Board members here, since this is all inclusive, if there's something here that also needs to be added, and then this can be passed on to the applicant for their response, and it'n be a point of discussion at our next workshop session. Does anybody see anything missing here? MR. BREWER-I was curious about, did we ask for an engineer, traffic study? MRS. YORK-What you asked for is review by your own engineering consultant of the traffic study. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. BREWER-And that has taken place? MR. PARISI-Rist-Frost is probably going to be brought into it this week. MR. MARTIN-Okay, I just want to, safety of children, hairpin turns, site distance, Sherman Island Road becoming a conector street. I want to make sure that they thoroughly look into the potential for shutting down Sherman Island Road, or creating it as dead end, the impact of that, and also looking into the possibility of cutting a new road in to connect with Inspiration Park, or something of that nature, as another access, you know, the creation of a whole new access point. That was just, personalty, my. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think in order to do that, they would have to get permission from Inspiration Park. MR. MARTIN-Right. If that were the case, what would be the impact of the traffic with that in place. Does anybody have anything else on traffic? Okay. Size of lots, third and one acre lots, property values, conformance with neighborhood character, septic system availability, ability to replace septic, advisabiI ity of clustering. I think we were concerned about the soiIs there, right, Bob, in terms of their capacity to? MR. PARISI-Yes, some of the sands, actually, what this is is a list of what you read off. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PARISI-At the last meeting, just an enumeration of that. On the first page, I listed what my concerns would be, in addition to that, and what type of. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I was going to go back through that. 16 MR. PARISI-Yes. Everything that's already here we got right from the record of the last minutes. That's just for clarification purposes for the Board and for the applicants. MR. W\RTIN-Okay. Does anybody see anything there that's missing? AII right, and then we have Bob's comments on the cover page. Do you want to just read that, lee or Bob? MR. PARISI-I can read it. "Dear Planning Board Members: I have met with the developer and in addition to the outHned concerns which are attached I am requiring the foIIowing: In the area of the sandy bowl shaped decHvity which is designated as the high density area, I want to know the type of fiII to be used to reduce the percolation rate. I need to see the test pits open and have very specific information on the depth of such wherever leach fields are proposed. I want to see the results of all test holes made. If there is any topographic re-configuration, I want to see a plan of this showing the setbacks and side lot distances to scale. I want to know the amount of fiII anticipated to be used and how it will be transported to the site in order to protect the neighborhood during construction. I have made it cIear that wherever there are erosion/guIIy Iines (the escarpment over the Hudson) there is to be an additional 50 foot setback in which no disturbance wiII be permitted. In addition 130 feet beyond this setback Hne wiII be considered buiIdable. If there is not 130 feet then we wiII not consider it a buiIding lot. If on site weIIs have to be utiIized then the required radius between the weIIs and septics must be adhered to. The 150 foot minimum lot width required in the WR-1A zone wiII be adhered to as a minimum requirement for lot size. AII of these items have got to be shown on any new submission. I hope the Board finds this of value. Sincerely, Robert Parisi" I wanted to say, just to cIarify this, that the waterfront zone that's there, as it exists now, is a WR-3. It's actuaIIy a WR-3A zone, and what this would redly do is this would reaIIy make the minimum lot size about 34,000 square feet, which is less than an acre. In other words, if you have a perfect site where there aren't going to be problems, I'm talking about on the actual waterfront, on the palisades, it's possible, if there aren't any design difficulties involved with the gulIies, to come right down to about 34,000 square feet. MR. W\RTIN-Okay. All right, and I also want to make sure that the archeological findings are highlighted in any response by the appHcant, and I think that should do it. So, aII of these things wiII then be drafted, your comments, Bob, as weII as the ones enumerated here wiII be drafted in the form of a letter to the applicant? MR. PARISI-Yes. One other thing, the Historian for the Town of Queensbury has augmented some of the archeological information which I'm going to make avaiIable to the appIicant and to the Board. It's something that's just been finaHzed in the last couple of days. I think it might help both parties. MR. MARTIN-What I, personaIIy, am trying to get at here is that we get aII the information out on the table, here, and that everything can be looked at, and that we give the public and the Town Board as much information as we possibly can. So, if you could then, you'll draft a letter, along these lines, to the applicant, and we can set a meeting. First of aH, does anybody have anything else that they want to add to this list, or? MRS. TARANA-I just want to ask one thing, Bob. A geologist mentioned to me that there was a geological map that was given to the Town, and that part of this property is on a fault, and I don't know if that's a problem or not. MRS. YORK-I do have some geological maps. I could check that. MRS. TARANA-Could you just check that out and see if it should go on this list? MRS. YORK-Why don't we add it anyway, at any rate, that that could be a concern that should be addressed. MR. W\RTIN-Yes. Now is the time. MR. PARISI-I wasn't aware of that, but we could certainly add that to the list, if that's a concern. MRS. TARANA-What he indicated to me was that it's close to the dam, and I don't know if that will impact this property or not, but he seemed to think it might be a concern. MRS. YORK-Yes. There is a details of geology, perched bedrock question, and we can add it right there, fault Hne. MR. PARISI-What I had heard a Httle bit about the geology there, I think there's what amounts to a large anticIine there, not actuaIIy a fault, and that's sort of a geological form that foIIows that whole area at the base of West Mountain, which is why there's sand going down along the base of West Mountain, at some parts, 150 feet deep, and then there's actual vertical formations of, I'm not certain of the kind of rock because I wasn't prepared for this question, but I know there's some vertical formations and there's some very odd contours. I don't think it's actuaIIy a fault, and I think what you may have is some very ancient erosion, stemming from the fact that this land form, of actuaIIy West Mountain, there is a very old erogony, I think about 300 million years old, and what we have now is some exposed 17 '- anticlines which are only exposed because of the state of erosion there, but we'll look into the idea of a fault. I hadn't heard that. I was only aware of some anticlines of the area. MRS. TARANA-I may be using the wrong term, but the question came up over an earthquake. MR. PARISI-We have earthquake maps, by the way. We have seismic activity going back quite a ways. We could actually provide that for the applicant, rather than asking them to go dig up seismic. Frankly, I've never looked at those. I don't know of any epicenters that were located there. I know of some in Fort Ann and in Hartford, and a few miles north of here, but I wasn't aware of any epicenters. They're going back, I think, to 1820 or so. I do have an earthquake map that does go chronologically back that far, but we'll re-check it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-I don't understand. "I've made it clear that wherever there are erosion/gully lines (the escarpment over the Hudson) there is to be an additional 50 foot setback in which no disturbance will be permitted. II MR. PARISI-What that is, is, I know it's a little ambiguous unless you were there. The setback is actually from the escarpment, not from the road. The 50 feet is, if you've got gullies, say this is the escarpment right here. There are some, what amounts to washes, erosion of land forms that are caused from the sand. We want to see, if there's a gully here and a gully here that washes it out, you would draw a line in between them and go 50 feet from here, not to touch it with a bulldozer, not to do anything that's going to exacerbate the obvious erosion that excavation would cause, like putting in leachfields. That was their specific question, could we put leachfields in there, and the answer would be, no. We wouldn't want to see that because the whole problem there is really along the ledge. In other words, there is an ongoing erosion problem. It's all sand, and if the vegetation is removed there, it's going to accelerate the geologic process that's already set into motion. So, that's really the biggest concern on that whole waterfront project is staying away from the escarpment. When we do the site visit there, it'll be much clearer for you, exactly what the issue is. MR. MARTIN-Well, I've been out there. MR. BREWER-I've been out there, also, but I don't understand is what you're saying it's going to be 180 feet back from that? MR. PARISI-No, essentially to the lots. The depth of the lots could be a minimum of 180 feet, 130 to the 50 foot setback line. If you count the 50 foot setback line. There's a 50 foot setback from the escarpments. If there's a gully in the escarpments, you would measure the distance between both gullies and start with 50 feet from there. So, the minimum depth of any lot is really 180 feet by 150 feet, which is well under an acre, keeping in mind this is a WR-3A zone to begin with. So, it's possible, if you have, like, an ideal situation here, you can go like with 34,000 square feet, and it would work. If, on the other hand, you have some deep gullies, you may have to go, like, to an acre and a half. That's really what it calls for, because the limiting factor really is staying away from those gullies and maintaining a 50 foot distance from the closest point to the escarpment. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, then you will draft this in the form of a letter? How soon can we expect the applicant would, this would be out to him? MR. PARISI-He'll have the letter by the end of the week. MR. MARTIN-By the end of the week. Okay. So, that would take us to what date? MRS. PULVER-The end of the week would be the 29th. So, we're into September. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, say that goes out, at the worst case scenario, by Friday the 29th, the applicant would receive it sometime earlier that next week, the thirty first, the first or the second. I'm just here to ask the applicant, what kind of response time would you need to develop your response to this, or? ALAN OPPENHEIMER MR. OPPENHEIMER-Well, our preference, as we indicated before, to have a good workshop session, we've got, a lot of this information has already been prepared. We're responding to some specific comments. MR. MARTIN-I just want to allow you enough time. That's all. MR. OPPENHEIMER-I think, ideally, if we could schedule a time convenient for you, towards the middle of September, that would be terrific. MRS. PULVER-It would have to be the 10th or the 24th. 18 '- -- MR. MARTIN-Yes, the 10th or the 24th, because we have meetings in the middle of that next week, and there's conflicts with the Zoning Board and so on. MR. OPPENHEIMER-I think that, with those two dates, just to be sure that we have aH the proper information, it may be more productive the 24th. MR. MARTIN-The 24th. Okay. All right. We'll say, the 24th, we'll attempt to get this room here. That's a Thursday. We'H attempt to get this room here. If not, you'H be notified of a change, but it should be this room, and it' H be the 24th at 7 p.m., and you' H have that letter, hopefuHy, the beginning of next week, and I think that's all the point of this was. I didn't want to get into anything else at this time. MR. OPPENHEIMER-Okay. That's fine. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-For the record, Mr. Martin, I would Hke to note our presence, just for the record of your meeting. I'm Michael O'Connor, from the law firm of little and O'Connor, and I've been asked to join the team that's making the presentation to you. With me tonight, and who has already spoken, is Alan Oppenheimer, from the Michaels Group, who is acting as the developer for the owner, Niagara Mohawk, and also Rob Sotherland from Saratoga Associates. We just saw, briefly, Mr. Parisi's letter. The one comment that we had outside, with regard to the letter, and which we would understand is that when Mr. Parisi was speaking about the minimum lot width of 150 foot being his suggestion, he was speaking about the area that was immediately above the bJuff, which is the WR-JA zone, and not the land that lies to the back of the development. MR. PARISI-That's correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Just so we understand that. As to your question as to whether or not Mr. Parisi couJd have a letter to the developer, with the understanding that you have added just a couple of things to it, consideration of the geological fauJt, and I'm not sure. MR. MARTIN-The archeologicaJ findings. MR. O'CONNOR-The archeoJogical findings, and your comments that you spoke of, as to perhaps making Sherman Island Road a dead end, or shutting it down, and an aJternative entrance through Inspiration Park, and looking c10sely at the sons capacity, we would understand that we have that information now. A formaJ letter wouldn't be required. Mr. Parisi has supplied us with his comments. MR. MARTIN-Yes. In terms of traffic, I'm thinking of that more as, I know we have your traffic study, and that's fine, but I'd like to see a third party objective review of this, from a traffic standpoint, to clarify some of those numbers, and make sure that all those do in fact stand up, more for this Board's benefit. MR. O'CONNOR-We don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying, I don't see the need, unJess you want to have it for your record, any more formal of a letter from Mr. Parisi than what he's already submitted and given us a copy of. If you want to do it, fine, but we. MR. MARTIN-I'd tike to do that, just to have it as a record in the fiJe. I think it would be appropriate. MR. PARISI-Essentially, it'll only be a reiteration of what I've just handed out. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's fine, but I'd still like to have it. MR. PARISI-That's fine. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If that's your request or desire, that's fine. The other comment we would have is, we understand that the Town Board has taken a position that they desire to be the Jead agency on this project, and I don't know if you responded to them on that at aH, or if you've gotten formal notice. We wouJd like to kind of move that along if we can. MR. MARTIN-I don't know. Those usuaHy come from Paul's office, those requests for consent. I don't think that's been formally done yet on this. MR. DUSEK-I don't know that that resolution's been adopted,Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Brandt has told us that that's their position. I don't know if there is a resolution beyond that. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that this Board's going to have a problem with that. I certainly don't. That's been tried and tested. 19 "---' - MR. DUSEK-If the Board wanted to adopt a resolution on that issue this evening, certainly, I think that would be proper in any event, because that is an issue that's going to come before the Town Board. So, you don't have to wait until another month goes by on that issue. MR. PARISI-Also, if the Town Board is going to be the lead agency, they really should organize and set the times for the scoping sessions themselves, and actually administer that. MR. ~RTlN-The only thing that's required of us at this time is the consent to lead agency status, right? MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. MARTIN-Because the Town Board, then, would be responsible for scheduling a scoping session. MR. PARISI-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I don't have any problem with that. I mean, if it'll speed the process up, no sense waiting for the formal request. We could do that. MR. BREWER-Do we have to make a recommendation before they? MR. MARTIN-No. They'll still review it. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but we haven't made a recollll1endation to them yet. We would make a recommendation before we had a scoping session, or after? MR. PARISI-Excuse me. They may simply say that they want to delegate a lead agency status to the Planning Board. That's very possible. They may keep it, but they may give it to you. Why don't you wait for them to have their next meeting, and we could put it on the agenda for them to give notice to you. I think that would be probably agreeable to everyone. That's next Monday. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We've been told that they desire to be lead agency, if there is a formal resolution, I don't know. Maybe you would follow up on that, if you would, Paul, for us. MR. DUSEK-I think this one, as I mentioned a little earlier, that's why I had some initial questions came in while I was on vacation and some things got started. So, I don't know if the Board actually triggered that. MR. MARTIN-Well, we haven't heard anything official. MR. DUSEK-If, though. Bob thinks that the Board is going to waive the lead agency jurisdiction, then you probably don't want to pass a resolution. However, if they're not, then I think you will want to pass a resolution. MR. MARTIN-Well, if there's a question, then we'll just wait, if there's some question as to what they're going to do. Anything else? MR. O'CONNOR-No. Bob, you did mention that Rist-Frost is going to be brought on board. Is that for the purpose of the traffic study, or for the soil capacity, or do you know what their role is going to be, at this point? MR. PARISI-What their role is going to be? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. PARISI-I assume that they're going to review the engineering findings, and they're also going to be very interested in the traffic study, probably reviewing that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The EIS that has already been submitted, is that what's going to be submitted to them at this point? MR. PARISI-The positive declaration is something that we're going to be doing, essentially, all over again, as far as the second part of the SEQRA Form. Okay. On August 24th, we received the Part I draft from the Michaels Group that was yesterday. At that point, we began working on Part II. Part II leads, inevitably, to Part III, which is the Environmental Impact Statement. I can't say, at this time, that it's going to be any different than what you've already done. It may not be, or it may not be different to the point that it'll require anything more than what you've already done, but I've only gotten it as of yesterday afternoon, Part I. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I guess our point would be, we would want it to be as coordinated as it can be, between the Town Board and the Planning Board, it's going to fall. We have no real preference. We're just trying to make sure that we know who is going to be lead agency. Who's going to be coordinating, 20 -- and try and avoid some duplication if we can, as we go down the road with the project. MR. PARISI-Obviously, the question reaHy comes down to this. For logistical and practical reasons, it may be a good idea for the PJanning Board to be the Iead agency, since they're going to be giving the reconrnendations to the Town Board as to the uItimate direction the project goes, and it sort of becomes sort of a, it could be arguable that there's reaHy no reason to separate the SEQRA process from the recommendation process, since they're both obviously very tied together. On the other hand, it' n be the Town Board that win make that choice themse1ves. My suggestion is they may indeed just give the SEQRA process to the Planning Board, and that way it'll be part of their recommendation process. That way, they wiH have the entire Preliminary review, Iets say, in their court, so to speak, prior to the Town Board getting it for a re-zoning. It seems to me that that's logica1. I don't know if that's going to come off, but that's how I feel anyway. MRS. PUlVER-Well, the Town Board meets on Monday. Why don't we just put it on the agenda on Monday/. MR. PARISI-Yes, which is why, I just wanted you to know where I'm coming from. We're going to ask them to make a decision on Monday, as to whether they want to be the Iead agency, or whether they want the Planning Board to be the Iead agency. MR. W\RTIN-I'm aho going to ask that they attend our workshop session. I'm going to make that invitation. MR. O'CONNOR-I have nothing further. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, then we're in agreement on a meeting date, and you'll have that Ietter formally, although you have substantially all the questions already. So, we'll just see you on the 24th. Thank you for coming, and I'm sorry it took this Iong to get to you. Okay. I'd like to accept a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss a matter of Iitigation. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A MATTER OF LITIGATION, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint MOTIOff TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSIOfI AND GO INTO REGULAR SESSIOfI, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint MOTIOfI TO AUTHORIZE PAUL OOSEK TO STIPULATE TO SETTLE THE ARTICLE 78 BROOGHT ON BY JERRY 8R(IftI'S USED AUTO, PARTS, IIIC., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: The Town of Queensbury wiH not require site pIan review because the appeal time went past the 30 day time period. Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 1992, by the foI1owing vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint MOTION TO GIVE lEAD AGENCY STATUS TO THE QUEENSBURY lUll BOARD CONCERNING PERMITŒD RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY USES IN COJIIERCIAUINDUSTRIAl ZOfES, AID THE BOARD fURTHER RECOMJEfIDS THE QUEEIISBURY TOIII IØRD PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMEIITS, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 1992, by the foI1owing vote: 21 ~ AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. laPoint On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFUllY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 22