1993-03-23
.. -=-~ ------
'--
,./ -/
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 23RD. 1993
INDEX
Subdivision No. 5-1993
PRELIMINARY STAGE
John L. Polk. Jr.
1.
Subdivision No. 1-1993
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Edward & Mary Cardinale
6.
Subdivision No. 7-1993
SKETCH PLAN
Cindy Jarvis
10.
Site Plan No. 8-93
Douglas Petroski
14.
Site Plan No. 11-93
Richard Egglestonl
Thomas Stimpson
16.
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
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 23RD. 1993
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN
CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY
ROGER RUEL
CRAIG MACEWAN
EDWARD LAPOINT
CAROL PULVER
MEMBERS ABSENT
KATHLEEN ROWE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN
PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I WR-1A CEA JOHN
L. POLK. JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF
ASSEMBLY PT.. ON EAST SIDE OF CANAL BAY AND HARRIS BAY PROPOSAL IS
TO DIVIDE EXISTING LOT INTO TWO CONFORMING LOTS. WESTERLY LOT WILL
CONTAIN TWO EXISTING COTTAGES AND APPLICANT WILL CONVEY A LOT TO
DAUGHTERS OR OTHER PARTY. EASTERLY LOT WILL BE RETAINED BY
APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV .8-1993 (APA) TAX MAP NO. 6-3-1
LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 5-1993, John L. Polk. Jr.,
Meeting Date: March 23, 1993 "Pro;ect Description: The applicant
is proposing to subdivide a 2.14 acre parcel into two lots. One
lot will be 1.0 acres and the second lot will be 1.14 acres. The
property is located off of Assembly Point Road on Harris Bay (Lake
George) and is zoned WR-IA. The subdivision required several
variances. The smaller lot received a variance to allow two
principal buildings on it where only one is allowed and received
relief to allow for less than a 75' shoreline setback for the two
principal buildings. The larger lot required variances to allow a
lot with less than 40' of frontage on a town road and to allow less
than 75' shoreline setback for the principal building. pro;ect
Analysis: The main issues regarding this subdivision were
addressed during the variance proceedings. The septic systems for
the two lots are existing and no modifications are proposed. Since
lot 2 has frontage on a town road, access to the lot should be via
the town road. This would eliminate the need for access easements
and would make the property more accessible for emergency vehicles.
Currently the buildings are seasonal. Recommendations: Other than
the issue regarding access to lot 2 from the town road there does
not appear to be any outstanding problems associated with this two
lot subdivision proposal. Providing access off of the town road is
provided for lot two, Staff can recommend preliminary approval."
MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Martin
Auffredou. I'm an Associate with the Law Firm of Bartlett,
Pontiff. Stewart. and Rhodes in Glens Falls. on behalf of the
applicant, John Polk. I'd like to point out that John Polk is also
with us this evening, and he's prepared to address the Board. if
the need arises, and give his input on it. Scott is correct that
the variance application addressed most of the major issues which
- 1 -
r
arise in this application. I'd certainly like to point out that as
far as the road access, which seems to be the only issue remaining,
that's the way the property has been for many, many years. The
large cottage which you see. the larger parcel was built around the
first of the Century. That easement extended from that area, into
that area, from Assembly Point Road since that time. During the
variance application, Staff asked for some input from the Fire
Warden, the Fire Chiefs responsible for emergency access. and
responsible for covering these areas. There was a report issued by
those officers that they had inspected the area and that they did
not feel that the driveway presented any problems with emergency
access. It's true that a town road does abut the larger lot.
However, at the present time. the applicant has no intention of
extending a drive to that town road. It's seasonal use only. At
this present time. he just doesn't feel that it's necessary. If at
some point in the future. a subsequent owner of the property wanted
to do so. by all means they could. There is one restriction, I
think, that should be noted, is that there is a septic area, a
leachfield area, that maybe would present a problem for a driveway,
if it was extended to that town road. but at the present time, Mr.
Polk has no intention of putting a driveway to that area. We just
don't think it's necessary.
MR. BREWER-Is it strictly seasonal, the cottage?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Strictly seasonal.
MR. BREWER-This looks like an awfully long driveway. If somebody
were to convert that cottage into a year round home.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I think the easement would run with that property.
If someone wanted to eventually convert it, they would be aware of
the restrictions that the road would present, and they have the
option of creating a new driveway if they feel that that's
necessary. With the use that we intend for the property, we just
don't think that it's necessary for us.
MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any questions? This is a public
hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone from the
public that would like to comment on this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Do we have to do a SEQRA on this?
MR. HARLICKER-SEQRA was done back when we did the variances.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MRS. TARANA-I wonder if the applicant would be willing to stipulate
that if it goes from seasonal to year round. then they would
connect with the town road, use the town road as access?
MR. AUFFREDOU-He just doesn't have any intention to do that, to
change. I think this is the way the property has been used for
years. He would like to continue, and intends to continue using it
on a seasonal basis only. He intends to convey the smaller lot,
the one acre lot. which has the two existing cottages on it.
MRS. TARANA-This one?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. It may be that that conveyance is to his
daughters. However. that's not finalized at the present time.
MRS. TARANA-So he could convey it someone else who makes it year
round?
- 2 -
'-..."
MR. AUFFREDOU-Certainly. That's certainly possible. and it's
certainly possible that a future owner could come forward and say,
I'd also like to build on the footprints of those two cottages.
That would be permissible. If there is someone who would like to
come in and build a year round single family residential residence
on that property, I think there would be some variances that would
be required, and I think that that would be a subject of an
application for review by the Town.
MRS. TARANA-I don't know. Scott has made note of the fact that he
feels that this should be access through the Town road.
MR. LAPOINT-Would this access mean cutting trees. that type of
thing?
MR. AUFFREDOU-A significant amount of trees. It's a wooded area.
There would be quite a bit of clearing.
MR. LAPOINT-Right. You would have to drive all the way around the
septic area, so you'd have to put it within a certain distance of
the lake to clear the septic area?
MR. AUFFREDOU-That's right. and I can't emphasize enough that the
fire inspectors of the area did go and issue a report, correct me
if I'm wrong. they did issue a report that they didn't think that
access was a problem.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I recall that.
variance proceeding.
That was brought up during the
MR. BREWER-And that is on file?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. It would probably be in the variance file.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-I guess I'm of the opinion that the less clearing we
do. associated with this. and if it's not his intent to.
MR. HARLICKER-Are there any conditions on the easements, for
maintaining the easements? Lets say the two smaller units remain
seasonal, and for whatever reason the larger house becomes year
round. who would be responsible for maintaining the easement across
Lot Number One, for access to it?
MR. AUFFREDOU-It would be my opinion that the owner of the larger
lot would be responsible for maintaining the easement.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
MR. RUEL-Is that fact documented anywhere?
MR. AUFFREDOU-It' s not necessary at this point. Nothing has
happened. That would be a matter which would be addressed at such
time as the deeds were conveyed.
MR. RUEL-And you feel at that time, then it could be made a
condition?
MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm not sure that it's a condition. I think it just
naturally is part of the common law. It's not necessary to be made
a condition. The easement has to be maintained. It doesn't seem
to make any sense for the owner of the property not to maintain it.
if he's got to use it. It's in his interest to maintain it.
MR. LAPOINT-I've got one quick question for our Staff. Jim, we're
just doing Preliminary tonight.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
- 3 -
-
MR. LAPOINT-Even though the applicant has asked for Final. there's
no way we can approve that?
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. MARTIN-It's not typically done.
application on file. that I'm aware of.
no. We have no final
You have submitted it?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They submitted all three at the same time.
MR. MARTIN-They did?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Ye s. We don't want to create any precedent here,
that the Board's not comfortable with. We can come back up next
week.
MR. LAPOINT-Right. I mean. nothing's stamped here.
MR. MARTIN-Well, there is no next week.
April.
This would be it until
MR. AUFFREDOU-There is nothing stamped, right. We would just ask
that the matter be addressed as expeditiously as possible.
MR. MARTIN-It's really the Board's discretion.
MR. LAPOINT-No, put him through one more time.
MR. MARTIN-I have enough faith in the Board. If you want to do it
now, and bear in mind the precedent setting nature.
MR. LAPOINT-No. I wouldn't do that tonight.
MR. BREWER-Can I just ask one other question? Why was the easement
not given down in here, by the septic, and he could come across the
shortest distance of this land to the garage? Is that more
appropriate, rather than have this driveway come way over here?
MR. AUFFREDOU-I guess I'd like to point out, the driveway exists.
You know that.
MR. BREWER-All right, and then this would be cutting trees and?
MR. AUFFREDOU-That's right.
MR. BREWER-It's very wooded there?
MR. AUFFREDOU-That's right, extremely.
MR. BREWER-Well, you're caught both ways, because the septic system
here. and the leachfield here.
MR. AUFFREDOU-That's right.
JOHN POLK
MR. POLK-My name is Mr. Polk. I own the property. I'd like to
clarify the point that we have no intentions of parting with this
property here.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. POLK-My daughters will have this property, or whatever may be
for someone else. However. we will maintain this road. as we have
done 90 years in the family. So I want to clear that up. If at
such time that this property should change. these people do not
want this easement here, we will then come through here, if we have
to.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
- 4 -
'- -/
MR. POLK-But we'd prefer not to, obviously.
MR. BREWER-I'm just looking at the shortest distance, rather than
have a 1.000 foot driveway.
MR. POLK-Obviously, but you don't realize that we intend to
maintain this property.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. POLK-We are clear of the septic system.
MRS. TARANA-If you did have to road. you'd have to probably use it.
move the septic area closer to the lake.
MR. POLK-This map is not right. The septic system's here.
MR. BREWER-For this lot.
MR. AUFFREDOU-No. This is the septic area, John, for the larger
cottage.
MR. POLK-No, it isn't. It is back here.
MR. AUFFREDOU-No, according to Leon Steves. you 2,000 gallon tank
is here, and then you have a leachfield here.
MR. POLK-We have no leachfield there.
later map.
It was corrected on the
MR. BREWER-Do we have that map on file?
MR. POLK-Yes, you do. You have the new map.
MR. AUFFREDOU-This is the latest map that Leon has drafted.
MR. POLK-No.
MR. HARLICKER-They made some changes after Sketch Plan, showing
what the. to mark off the septic area. extending the utility lines,
and I think that was it.
MR. AUFFREDOU-This area was drawn in here, as septic area. That
was a change. and also connecting the utili ties to the main
cottage.
MR. BREWER-Well, if the man that owns the property says that's not
here. it's up here.
MR. POLK-But my point is that this property, we expect to maintain
for the rest of my daughters lives.
MR. MARTIN-If we have something that's not right. we'd like to have
that right by Final.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, right.
MR. LAPOINT-It will be in our motion.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I can only go on what the surveyors told us.
MR. BREWER-Yes. Okay.
MR. MARTIN-If there is a matter to be clarified.
MR. AUFFREDOU-We'll correct that for Final.
MR. MARTIN-If it's right, then we just want clarification. if not.
change it.
- 5 -
""" -'
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. RUEL-Is it possible to introduce a condition where the occupant
of the easterly lot will maintain the existing drive into the
westerly lot?
MR. BREWER-If you want to. I don't know that it's necessary. If
he doesn't maintain it. then there's no way that he can get to his
land.
MR. AUFFREDOU-It's all right with me.
MR. RUEL-Well, the occupant is in Lot 2. right?
MRS. PULVER-I don't think it's binding, though, unless it's on a
deed. I mean, you can make that a restriction, but it wouldn't be
binding unless it was deed restricted.
MR. RUEL-It wouldn't?
MRS. PULVER-No. It would have to be deed restricted. There's no
purpose to it either, at this level.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, it sounds to me like we're trying to fix
a problem that doesn't exist.
MRS. PULVER-Yes. or create one.
MR. RUEL-AIl right. We'll leave it out.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
motion?
Anybody else?
Would anybody care to make a
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE JOHN
L. POLK. JR., Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan:
Proposal is to divide exi sting lot into two conforming lots.
westerly lot will contain two existing cottages and applicant will
convey a lot to daughters or other party. Easterly lot will be
retained by the applicant, with the following condition: that when
the applicant files his final plan, that he have his surveyor
confirm the approximate location of the septic system on Lot 2, the
larger lot.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel,
Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE
EDWARD & MARY CARDINALE OWNER: SAME AS
ANN ROAD. 200' NORTH OF WINTERGREEN ROAD
LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 119-6-34
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
TYPE: UNLISTED
ABOVE LOCATION:
PROPOSAL IS FOR A
LOT SIZE: 7.88
SFR-1A
PEGGY
THREE
ACRES
MARK BOMBARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-1993, Edward & Mary Cardinale,
Meeting Date: March 23, 1993 "pro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant
is proposing to divide a 7.9 acre parcel into three lots. Lots one
and two will be 1.0 acres in area and the third lot will be 5.9
acres. The project is located on Peggy Ann Road just west of
Wintergreen Road and is zoned SFR-1A. Each of the lots will have
- 6 -
frontage on Peggy Ann Road. Lot one will have 49 feet of frontage.
lot 2 will have 40 feet of frontage and lot 3 will have 75 feet of
frontage. Access to the three lots will be via a common drive with
branches off of the main drive to service lots one and two.
Pro;ect Analysis: The project does not involve the construction of
any streets. The lots will be serviced by Town water and on site
septic systems. Emergency accessibility was discussed with the
fire department and the design of the proposed drive is acceptable.
The applicant should indicate future subdivision plans for the
remaining 5+ acres. Should the land be subdivided further. there
is wide enough access to the interior of the property to allow
construction of a road to town specifications. It appears that lot
3 is large enough to be further subdivided into three more lots for
a total of 6 lots. The applicant is also going to regrade the
access drive so that it ties in with the realignment of Peggy Ann
Road. Recommendation: Staff recommends preliminary approval of
this subdivision."
MR. BOMBARD-My name is Mark Bombard, from the office of Coulter &
McCormack. and Mr. Cardinale is here also
MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions?
MRS. PULVER-One thing, you're going to have to incorporate some
sort of easement for the driveway?
MR. BOMBARD-Yes. In the letter of intent, which should be with the
application, it addresses those.
MRS. TARANA-Could you tell me what the future plans are for the
rest of the property?
MR. BOMBARD-We are not sure, right now. That would be up to Mr.
Cardinale. Right now, he just would like to build a single family
residence on lot three, as was stated from Staff. It has ability
for future development. It was looked into. but at this point,
nothing is planned.
MRS. TARANA-Could I ask the Staff. how many lots would trigger a
town road being required?
MR. HARLICKER-Well, what would happen is, if further division of
this land back here was to be done, they'd have to have frontage on
a town road, and the only way to do that would be to extend in and
build a road in there.
MR. MARTIN-I think the important thing to note here is that the
plan here. as it appears for you right now, is conducive to
installing a town road. I mean. everything is there. He's got the
proper widths to accommodate a town road, and this design lend
itself to a cul-de-sac design. If he did divide up the remaining
5.72 acres there, it could be very easily accomplished. That would
be the main thing in my mind, that you see a design here that
accommodates that future action.
MRS. TARANA-So, if there were one more lot added, would that, then,
necessitate a town road?
MR. MARTIN-I don't see how he couldn't get around, because it's a
requirement to have 40 foot minimum frontage. So, I don't see how
he could do that without that, not unless he goes after a variance,
because lot three now has 75 feet of frontage. There's not enough
there for two 40 foot widths.
MRS. TARANA-And lot three is going to maintain that long driveway?
MR. BOMBARD-Yes. That's also in the letter of intent. It will be
maintained as a dirt drive. or a gravel drive. I would say. until
the time lot one or two are sold, at that time, it would be paved,
according to town specs.
- 7 -
'--
MRS. TARANA-And is there provision made in the event that the
owners of property of the third lot are away or something, and what
happens to that road then, if they're not available to maintain it?
MR. BOMBARD-I would say that it would have to be maintained by
whoever is assigned to plow their driveway, and it will be written
into the covenants, into their deed, and it should be all that's
left to it. I mean. if it's in their deed. then it should be
maintained by the owner of lot three.
MRS. PULVER-I just would like it to go on the record that my letter
of intent is not signed.
MR. BREWER-And neither is mine.
MRS. PULVER-Is anybody's?
MR. HARLICKER-The one in the file is signed.
MR. BOMBARD-The original is signed.
MRS. PULVER-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Should we read this into the record, Jim?
MR. MARTIN-Sure. That would be a good idea.
MR. BREWER-The letter of intent, do you want to read it, Corinne?
MRS. TARANA-Letter of Intent, the undersigned. being the co-owner
of a 7.88 acre parcel, located on the southwesterly side of Peggy
Ann Road in the Town of Queensbury proposes to subdivide said
parcel into three lots. Two of said lots to be offered for sale,
and the third lot containing 5.72 acres to be retained by the
Cardinales as their home lot. It is the further intent of the
Cardinales to construct a 12 foot wide gravel driveway within a 24
foot wide cleared area, extending from Peggy Ann Road to the
proposed house location on Lot 3. and to install, according to Town
regulations. a six inch water main on the northerly side of said
driveway, and underground electric, telephone. and cable t.V. lines
on the southerly side of said driveway, extending to Lot Number
Three. Additionally, the applicant will convey to the owners of
lots one and two a 50 foot wide right-of-way to provide access to
Peggy Ann Road. The deeds to lots one and two wi II contain a
provision stating that the applicant will pave that portion of said
dri veway which abuts said lots one and two. at the time of the
conveyance of either of said lots. Also that the applicants will,
at their expense, maintain and plow said driveway until and if said
driveway and right-of-way is conveyed to the Town of Queensbury.
Edward K. Cardinale"
MR. BREWER-All right. Okay. There is a public hearing. Does
anybody have anything else? I'll open the public hearing. Is
there anyone here to speak on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Okay. We have to do a SEQRA.
MRS. PULVER-Long Form?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 1-1993, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for
- 8 -
its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an
application for: EDWARD & MARY CARDINALE. the proposal is for a
three lot subdivision,
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas
of environmental concern and having considered the criteria
for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that
the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993. by the fOllowing vote:
AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe
MR. BREWER-Okay. Would someone care to make a motion? The only
thing I'd like, you said we do have a letter from the fire company.
Jim. that's in the file?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, I believe, previously, from Sketch Plan, or maybe
not, on this one.
MR. BREWER-I think we asked for it, but I don't know if we ever got
it.
MR. MACEWAN-I vaguely remember it.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. What it was. was they had made these
recommendations on a subdivision that they had done before, the
same sort of situation.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. It was from the Fire Marshal. that's what it was.
MR. HARLICKER-The Fire Marshal.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
- 9 -
....,... ~------'
MR. HARLICKER-And it was a 24 foot wide cleared area. and a 12 foot
wide drive.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-So they meet that on the drawing, so there'd be no
reason to put any conditional?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Can anybody come up with anything else? I have
none.
MR. BREWER-I have nothing.
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE EDWARD
& MARY CARDINALE. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
The proposal is for a three lot subdivision.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint,
Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1993 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A CINDY
JARVIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF
INTERSECTION OF WEST MT. RD. AND LUZERNE RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A
FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION. (APA) TAX MAP NO. 121-1-57 LOT SIZE: 6.78
ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JEFFREY G. MARTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
MR. BREWER-Remember we tabled it last week. and they were going to
give us a new map?
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
MRS. PULVER-I know, but I don't have it on my agenda.
MR. BREWER-I don't have it on mine, either.
MRS. PULVER-So I didn't bring my stuff.
MR. BREWER-It was just added. It carne in our packets.
MR. MACEWAN-Delivered Thursday of last week.
MRS. TARANA-This wasn't in our packets.
MR. BREWER-It was in the Staff notes, it was attached. the map was
the last thing in our Staff notes that we received.
MR. LAPOINT-Got it.
MRS. PULVER-But I'm just saying. I don't have any updated agenda
with that on it.
MR. BREWER-Nobody does.
- 10 -
..........-
MRS. TARANA-Nobody does.
MR. BREWER-It was old business, and we just threw it in before new
business, Carol.
MRS. PULVER-I could have very easily left it home, because it
wasn't on the agenda.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1993, Cindy Jarvis, Meeting
Date: March 23, 1993 "Pro i ect Description: The applicant is
proposing to subdivide a 6.78 acre parcel, located at the corner of
West Mountain Road and Luzerne Road, into 5 lots. Four of the lots
will be approximately 1 acre in size; the fifth lot will be
approximately 2 acres in size. Lot 5 will have 40' of frontage and
access on West Mountain, but will have shared access drive. lots 3
and 4 will have frontage and a shared access on Luzerne Road. Lot
2 has an existing single family residence on it. The property is
zoned SR-1A and is serviced by municipal water. Each lot will have
an individual on- si te septic system. Pro j ect Analysis: The
applicant should provide information regarding the site's septic
sUitability; lot 2 has an existing septic system. the remaining
lots are vacant. The property is currently wooded and clearing
should be limited to the area where the houses are proposed to be
located. There are no streets proposed as part of this
subdivision. The access drives are located far enough away from
the intersection. the closest one is 146' away, so they should not
pose a hazard. The property is fairly flat, a change in elevation
of < 20 from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. The
property drains to the northeast towards Clendon Brook."
MR. HARLICKER-We'd just like a little clarification. here. on these
maps. If you could explain the proposed retention areas.
MR. BREWER-Could I ask one question. before we get into this? Does
this have to go to Warren County?
MR. MARTIN-Subdivisions don't go.
MR. BREWER-Subdivisions don't.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. RUEL-I have a question about what you just read. You say Lot
5 will have 40' frontage and access on West Mountain Road, but will
have shared access drive.
MR. HARLICKER-That' s, "lots one and two" should be inserted in
there, will have shared access drives.
MRS. PULVER-Yes. This is the one that's shared.
MR. RUEL-No. he's talking about Lot 5.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's a typo in the Staff Notes, lots one and
two will have the shared access drive on West Mountain Road.
MR. RUEL-Lot 5 should be Lot 2?
MR. HARLICKER-No. Lot 5 is Lot 5.
MRS. PULVER-This is, it's a typographical error. These are the
shared driveways. on lot one and lot 2. and lot 5 is separate.
They typed it wrong.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The shared drives refer to lots one and two.
MR. RUEL-Okay. That didn't agree with the map.
- 11 -
'-
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. BREWER-Go ahead with what you were saying, Scott.
MR. HARLICKER-I just was wondering what the, they have proposed
retention areas listed on these lots. I was just wondering what
they referred to. and that's in the Staff Notes. This is Sketch
Plan. If you recall. he carne to the meeting last week with this
revised plan, and you asked him to come back this week. after you
had a chance to look at it. So here he is, ready for your
comments.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions at all?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
Preliminary?
We are at Sketch Plan, just moving towards
MR. BREWER-Correct.
MR. RUEL-Just one question. What is the distance between the
property line on Clendon Brook? Do you have any idea? Is it
nearby, or quite a distance?
MR. JEFF MARTIN-I went out there about three to four hundred feet.
and didn't hit it. I believe it's in excess of 600 feet.
MR. RUEL-Because the property drains in that area. in that
direction, doesn't it, towards the Brook?
MR. JEFF MARTIN-Yes. The whole region drains towards there.
MR. HARLICKER-Drains towards there. Yes.
MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JEFF MARTIN-It's not nearby.
MR. JIM MARTIN-Just for the Board's knowledge. this will be going
to the engineer at Preliminary. It's at Sketch Plan now. That's
why it hasn't gone there yet.
MR. LAPOINT-Could you answer Staff's questions about what the
retention areas were intended for?
MR. JEFF MARTIN-We assume that when portions of the lots are
cleared, and the house is built. we're going to be increasing the
stormwater runoff from the sites, and while we haven't worked out
all the computations yet. we assume there's going to have to be
some area set aside for retention. Our gut feeling, at the moment,
is that the existing, wooded nature of the site is such that any
water that runs off the lawn. is going to hit this section of
woods. and soak in. So there will be a fringe of woods around
there, which would serve as a retention area. Should the
calculations show that we do have to put in a little swale or
something, just a little swale area with a slight berm, we have
room for it.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
Preliminary.
That'll come, more specific detail, at
MR. JEFF MARTIN-At Preliminary, yes.
MR. BREWER-Could I just ask, why is there a proposed culvert here,
in the driveway? Is there a low area?
MR. JEFF MARTIN-Yes. There is a low area, what appears to be a
seasonal runoff area. It such that it does not appear to run every
year. In another week or so. we're going to start looking very
closely at this, because this year we're going to have much more
runoff than usual.
- 12 -
'--
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MRS. PULVER-You haven't asked for any waivers, have you?
MR. JEFF MARTIN-No.
MRS. PULVER-Okay.
MRS. TARANA-Well. I just wanted to say, I'm not real thrilled with
this plan, to be perfectly honest with you. I mean. I just don't
like all these shared driveways. I think that when they made that
reg, that it was a mistake. and I think we're seeing more and more
and more of them. and I just don't think they're a great idea.
MR. HARLICKER-Well. the alternative, then, would be to have each
lot with an individual cut on it, which would.
MRS. TARANA-You don't think there are other alternatives? I mean,
it seems to me there could be a reconfiguration of the lots.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes, well, I was just referring to the. you made the
comment about the shared driveways.
MR. MARTIN-I think. you know. beyond a Town road being installed,
with a cul-de-sac, which would be, that's the classic alternative.
It's often times expensive, and that's why it's not shown by the
developer.
MRS. TARANA-Well, but I think we're seeing subdivisions of a number
of lots that are getting away Town roads by putting in these shared
driveways.
MR. BREWER-Six lots triggers the Town road?
MR. JIM MARTIN-I believe so, yes.
MR. LAPOINT-The advantages are, I think it results in a lot less
clear cutting. and you're left with more of what's in character.
than if you had a cul-de-sac, even with just one cut, either onto
Luzerne Road. or West Mountain Road.
MR. BREWER-Well, I guess, corning back to that, is there going to be
some kind of agreement. like we had in the previous application.
about maintaining the driveways, at Preliminary?
MR. JEFF MARTIN-Yes. We will be supplying you with copies of the
covenants and restrictions that will go into deeds, and then as the
attorney earlier said, there is a whole body of law that covers
shared driveways.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there some way possible we could get a letter,
kind of like the one we got previous, a letter of intent for the
driveways?
MR. JEFF MARTIN-Yes, whether it is in the form of a letter. I
have a copy of the covenants and restrictions.
MR. BREWER-Both.
MR. JEFF MARTIN-Here sirs, here are a copy of the covenants and
restrictions.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
motion?
That's fine.
Would somebody care to make a
MOTION TO RECOMMEND SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1993 SKETCH PLAN CINDY
JARVIS PROCEED TO PRELIMINARY STAGE, Introduced by Edward LaPoint
who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver:
To subdivide 6.78 acres into five lots.
- 13 -
-4 _
'"-,,
Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993. by the fOllowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer
NOES: Mrs. Tarana
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 8-93 TYPE I WR-1A DOUGLAS PETROSKI OWNER: SAME
DtlItB°XE 12 J.°fAi~QN kCRllHW~LBoldk ·0'¡1flr.JrtNt:, 2~~0~0~ ìlbHè~
CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-1993 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.
41-1-11 LOT SIZE: .434 ACRES SECTION 119-79F
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff , Site Plan No. 8-93, Douglas Petroski, Meeting
Date: March 23, 1993 II Pro j ect __pescription: The appl icant is
proposing to construct a 12' x 12' screened in porch on an existing
22' x 28' home. The pro j ect is located on Glen Lake off of
Fitzgerald Road. The property is .434 acres in size and is zoned
WR-1A. Variances were required for shoreline setback because the
house and porch are located within 75' of Glen Lake. Site plan
review is required because it is an expansion of a nonconforming
structure in a CEA. Since the project is located within the Glen
Lake Critical Environmental Area, it is classified as a Type I
action under SEQRA and requires a long EAF. Proiect Analysis: The
project was compared to the following standards found in Section
179-38 E of the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arrangement, size,
design and general site compatibility of bUildings. lighting and
signs; The screened porch should be compatible with the existing
structure. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic
access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; The project will
not affect vehicular traffic. 3. The location, arrangement.
appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The
project will no affect off-street parking or loading; 4. The
adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and
circulation, walkway structures and control of intersections with
vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; The project
will not affect pedestrian access. 5. The adequacy of stormwater
drainage facilities; The project will not affect stormwater
drainage. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal
facilities; The project will not affect water supply or septic.
7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other
suitable plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual
and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands,
including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and
maintenance including replacement of dead plants; The project will
not require landscaping. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other
emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The project
will not affect emergency access. 9. The adequacy and impact of
structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility
to ponding. flooding andlor erosion. The project is not in an area
that is susceptible to ponding. flooding or erosion.
Recommendation: The Planning Staff recommends approval of this
site plan."
MR. BREWER-Okay, and we do have an approval from Warren County
Planning Board. Is there someone here for this application? Can
we proceed without someone here. Jim?
MRS. TARANA-That's why it was tabled at the ZBA. wasn't it? I
thought it was tabled at the ZBA?
MR. MARTIN-No.
was approved.
This wasn't tabled.
Leemilt's was tabled.
This
- 14 -
'--,
MRS. TARANA-Did it go twice to the ZBA?
MR. BREWER-No. It came to us last month, for the dock and this
application, and then he had to go back and get a variance. So
that's why he's back this month.
MR. MARTIN-The variance was approved. just last week.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. MARTIN-I don't know that we need anybody here to represent.
MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any questions?
MR. MARTIN-If there are any questions, then you can simply table
it.
MR. BREWER-Well, if there's questions. we can table it.
MRS. PULVER-I don't have any questions.
MR. BREWER-Okay, Ed, do you want to go through the SEQRA?
MR. LAPOINT-Public hearing first.
MR. BREWER-I'm sorry. I'll open the public hearing.
anyone here to speak on this application?
Is there
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 8-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an
application for: DOUGLAS PETROSKI. to build a 12' by 12' screened
in porch on an existing 22' by 28' hoae. 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 is 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
- 15 -
'-
-'
the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel.
Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe
MR. BREWER-Okay. Does someone care to make a motion? I would just
like to add that possibly we could put something in for protection
of the lake during construction, as a condition, and possibly, does
he have any, I don't have the plan in front of me, eaves trenches
or anything on the house, to vent the runoff into the lake?
MR. LAPOINT-Again. it's hitting a roof. which is clean.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-93 DOUGLAS PETROSKI, Introduced
by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger
Ruel:
To build a 12' by 12' screened in porch on an existing 12' by 28'
home. with the following conditions: That during construction the
applicant provide for erosion and sediment control in conformance
with New York State Standards.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan,
Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe
SITE PLAN NO. 11-93 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS
STIMPSON OWNER: ALBANY SAVINGS BANK ZONE: HC-IA LOCATION: EAST
SIDE OF BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR OPERATION OF AUTO COLLISION
REPAIRS (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 59-1-1.1 SECTION
119-23 D(3)(b)
MICHAEL MULLER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 11-93, Richard EgglestonlThomas
Stimpson, Meeting Date: March 23, 1993 "Project Description: The
applicant is proposing to convert a vacant building into an auto
collision repair business. The building is on a 33.550 square foot
lot located on the east side of Bay Road just south of Cronin Road.
The building is 4,636 square feet in size. The front of the
building will be used as office area (1,100 sq. ft.) and the rest
of the building (3,500 sq. ft.) will be used as the collision
repair area. The project will also involve the removal of
underground fuel storage tanks and contaminated soils. The
applicant will have to conform to DEC and Fire Department criteria
for the removal of the fuel tanks. Pro;ect Analysis: The project
was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E
of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design
and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and signs;
There is to be no new construction. The applicant is locating
their business into an existing building. 2. The adequacy and
- 16 -.
",--
'--
arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including
intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic
controls; The applicant should indicate on the plan how traffic
will be directed around the curved drive in front. It would seem
that the southern access should be the entrance to the site and the
northern access the exit. 3. The location, arrangement,
appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The
applicant states that there are 12 parking spaces; these spaces
should be indicated on the plan and marked on the parking area. 4.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and
circulation, walkway structures. control of intersections with
vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian
access to the building should not be a problem. 5. The adequacy
of stormwater drainage facilities; The applicant is not going to
al ter the existing site drainage. According to the applicant.
stormwater sheet flows off the paved area and on to the grass area
to the north and east areas of the site. 6. The adequacy of water
supply and sewage disposal facilities; The site is served by
municipal water and sewer. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement
of trees. shrubs and other sui table plantings, landscaping and
screening constituting a visual andlor noise buffer between the
applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of
existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead
plants; Landscaping is proposed for the entrance of the building;
no other landscaping is proposed. Consideration should be given to
providing landscaping along the road frontage and property lines.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the
provision of f ire hydrants; The site appears to be adequate in
terms of emergency accessibility. 9. The adequacy and impact of
structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility
to ponding. flooding andlor erosion. The site does not appear to
be susceptible to ponding or flooding. Recommendation: The
Planning Staff recommends approval of this application."
MR. BREWER-And we do have, "No County Impact", from Warren County.
Is there someone here representing the applicant?
MRS. PULVER-I have a question.
Beautification Committee?
Did this go before the
MR. HARLICKER-Yes, it did.
MRS. PULVER-And what was their? My only other question was. when
we looked at the site, there were two garage doors, or two open
doors, but the plan shows three. Are you going to make some minor
alterations, and put a third.
RICHARD EGGLESTON
MR. EGGLESTON-There's two existing there now.
MRS. PULVER-Yes. Right.
MR. EGGLESTON-We had the possibility, and we really can't
determine, engineering the inside of the building. as to whether
we'll need another door or not. That was put on there just.
MRS. PULVER-Okay, because on here it says, no new construction, but
then when I look at the plan and see the building, there is a
difference, but you're not planning, unless it's necessary?
MR. EGGLESTON-Unless it's necessary, correct.
MR. MARTIN-The Beautification Committee approved on March 8th.
MRS. PULVER-Okay.
MR. RUEL-It mentions driveways. Is there a sketch with driveways?
Is this it?
- 17 -
"---
-
MR. MULLER-There sure is. There's a survey map.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MR. MULLER-And all of the blacktop that's shown on the survey is
there today. and we intend to keep it in that configuration.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Could you please state your name for the record?
MR. MULLER-My name is Michael Muller, and I represent Mr. Stimpson
and Mr. Eggleston. who are the applicants. and Mr. Eggleston is to
my right.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Craig?
MR. MACEWAN-Could you explain to me, a little bit better than what
the map shows. a description as to how you're going to handle the
hazardous waste, paint chemicals and thinners, and such like that,
for storage?
MR. EGGLESTON-Those type of substances will be removed on a weekly
to bi-weekly schedule. by a commercial. Safety Clean. I believe. is
the company.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. What kind of an enclosure are you going to store
them in until they're removed off the site?
MR. EGGLESTON-I believe what OSHA recommends now is some kind of a
55 gallon container. drum type.
MR. LAPOINT-Fireproof locker?
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. MULLER-Yes. We're going to keep it in a fireproof locker, and
for the record, it says that the hazardous materials stored on the
premises consist mainly of lacquers and paints, and are stored in
a hazardous fireproof locker. The locker is an Eagle FM, that's
the brand name, with externally vented, fireproof, metal cabinet.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't notice that on there.
MR. MULLER-Okay, and then it says that a company by the name of
AirCo Hazardous Wastes removes. all of the stuff that's hazardous
is removed by Safety Clean. Corp. once a month.
MR. MARTIN-And I think before a CO is issued. you'll be getting a
visit from the Fire Marshall. He'll review all that. also.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess I want to know how many cars you plan on
keeping there. In other words, if you have 30 or 40 wrecks coming
in there. we don't want to make an eyesore of it. Is there a
proposed place for storage of them?
MR. EGGLESTON-We wouldn't be taking that many vehicles in.
MR. BREWER-Well, I just use that as a high number, but.
MR. EGGLESTON-I think we're, the Beautification Committee addressed
that also, I think we're going to. between 10 and 12 is the most
that we feel that we could handle on the side there. We wouldn't
bring the work in anymore than that.
MR. BREWER-So you wouldn't have a problem if we stipulated that. 12
cars maximum?
MR. EGGLESTON-No. It's a scheduling type thing. anyway.
MR. MULLER-Mr. Stimpson. who's not here this evening, when he was
asked the same question by the Beautification Committee, his answer
- 18 -
----
~
--
was. our business is to get the cars in and out. We don't intend
to store any of them there. Although there will be outdoor storage
from time to time. and probably people are wondering, well. what do
they expect to see. Their real, real ugly ones are not out on the
road. okay. and there may very well be some brutal looking wrecks.
MR. BREWER-The only reason I say that is because when I go home at
night, I go by Dave, Barnes. and if you know where I'm talking
about, he's got a large lot, and he must have 20 cars in there, and
it's not appealing to drive by and see that, and this is right on.
MR. EGGLESTON-And that isn't the type operation we intend on doing.
MR. BREWER-I understand that. I just wanted to bring that up as a
question to you.
MRS. TARANA-I'm just curious, these real ugly ones that you said
would be there. where are they going to be, if they're not outside?
MR. MULLER-You bring them indoors if it becomes a security
situation. Sometimes a door is torn off. and you've got a lot of
valuables in the vehicle. You don't leave it outside.
MRS. TARANA-So, how many can you fit inside your building?
MR. MULLER-I was told by Tom. 20.
MR. EGGLESTON-Probably.
MRS. TARANA-You can store 20 vehicles in that building?
MR. MULLER-Yes.
MRS. TARANA-And you have 12 parking spaces.
would be for employees?
How many of those
MR. EGGLESTON-As it is right now, we have three employees, three
spaces.
MRS. TARANA-So you could store 20 cars inside and 9 cars outside?
MR. EGGLESTON-Approximately. depending on what size and what type
of vehicle they are.
MR. MULLER-And you did ask us for the maximum. We're not going to
be storing 20 cars. We could fit 20 cars.
MRS. TARANA-And you could have nine cars outside?
MR. MULLER-Right.
MR. RUEL-How many parking spaces. 12?
MR. BREWER-Twelve.
MR. BREWER-Three for employees, and nine for.
MR. LAPOINT-Do you have any problem with a big bright yellow arrow
for "in" on the southerly part of the drive, and "out" on the
northerly, as Staff suggests?
MR. EGGLESTON-There's no problem with that.
MR. BREWER-Okay. There is a public hearing scheduled. I'll open
the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak
on this application?
PHILIP HART
MR. HART-Hi.
I'm Philip Hart.
We own the land to the rear. and
- 19 -
our concern is, we have a right-of-way on the southern side which
is 25 feet on the macadam. I just want to make sure they're aware
of it.
MRS. TARANA-Could you show us on the map where that is?
MR. HART-Sure.
MR. MACEWAN-Is that where you're talking about, right there?
MR. HART-On the southern side.
MR. MACEWAN-On the southern side.
MR. BREWER-Where does that right-of-way go to?
MR. HART-It goes to the lot?
MRS. TARANA-This lot. the Pasco lot?
MR. HART-Linda Hart owns it now.
LINDA HART
MRS. HART-My name is Linda Hart, and that says. retained by Pasco,
well. we purchased it in February of '92.
MRS. TARANA-So you own all of this property, and this right-of-way.
MR. HART-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-So that's a landlocked lot back there, otherwise.
MR. HART-Right. They actually have 24 foot from the rear of the
building to our land.
MR. MULLER-I guess, I have to tell you that I'm not aware of it
yet, because I haven't seen the title documents to it. I can only
say that, at this stage, we have not gotten the title documents
from Albany Savings Bank. I know a little bit of the history of
the property, and that is that Mr. Pasco owned the entire piece of
property, and when I say the entire piece of property. where this
building is situated, and where Linda Hart now owns the rear
portion. and there was. it's my recollection. a retained right-of-
way by Mr. Pasco. to get back to hi s property when it was
landlocked. because. as the map indicates, Philip and Linda Hart
own to the north, when two Mr. Zitos owned to the west, and Mr.
Pasco owned what was landlocked. The two Mr. Zitos were foreclosed
against by Albany Savings Bank. and what I do know, because I
checked that on the record, then the two Mr. Zitos had an option on
the back portion. They leased their option, and presumably Mr.
Pasco sold it to Linda Hart, perhaps with the right-of-way. I
don't know. I can't tell you that tonight, because I haven't seen
the title documents. That is that the Bank will send us those
ti tle documents after they find out that we have gotten some
approval from the Town. That's all I can say about that. and as to
who owns it or who will own it. today Albany Savings Bank owns it.
I sure hope so, because that's who we signed the contract with.
They are the party who purchased it after the foreclosure sale,
from their own foreclosure, and Mr. Eggleston and Mr. Stimpson are
the purchasers.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So be fore they can get a CO, we can make a
stipulation that they have a proper map on file with the Town? Is
that possible?
MR. MULLER-There is a survey map.
MR. MACEWAN-If there's question of an easement that these people
have to that property, I, personally. would like to see it
- 20 -
stipulated on there. and make sure that the map that's on file
shows the easement.
MR. BREWER-How much of that 24 foot eats up your parking area and
whatnot?
MR. MULLER-The easement is for, let me see what it says here, it
says here that conveying an easement and right across, 25 feet in
width. What that basically means is, if this is correct. and I
have no reason to doubt it. that Mrs. Hart has a right of access
across, to get to that back property, and we've got nothing here to
block it. It's open space, although there's parking there.
MR. RUEL-But half of it is paved.
MR. MULLER-It's all paved.
MR. BREWER-It's all paved.
MR. MACEWAN-It makes it easier for her to get her property.
MR. RUEL-It's all paved?
MR. MULLER-Sure.
MR. RUEL-The easement?
MR. MULLER-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Not according to this?
MR. MULLER-Yes. Mr. Pasco paved that.
MR. BREWER-When it was Adirondack Power Products. years ago.
MR. MULLER-In the 70's.
MR. BREWER-Yes. So it's not a problem. All she has the right of
way is just to go across your land to get to her land.
MR. HART-Yes. We just want it kept open. That's all.
MR. RUEL-Is this the easement here?
MR. MACEWAN-The easement is from their property line, here, to this
dotted line. here.
MR. RUEL-Yes. That's 25 feet, right?
MR. MACEWAN-Right.
MR. RUEL-Okay, and this area is macadam, right here. right?
MR. MULLER-Yes.
MR. RUEL-So only a part of the easement is paved?
MR. MULLER-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Well, you said it was all paved.
MR. MULLER-Well. it's all paved in the sense that if you wanted to
go in the back, and you wanted to go in pavement.
MR. MACEWAN-It makes it easier access for her. that's all.
MR. RUEL-It's not all paved, it's half paved.
MR. MULLER-Okay. It's half paved.
- 21 -
MR. MARTIN-I think it would be wise to get a site plan that shows
the parking, and it was a Staff Comment that Scott was gOing to get
into. especially in light of this information about the easement.
HR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-If we were to give a conditional approval that the
applicant come up with a larger scale drawing showing the location
of the parking spaces, and the easement to the Planning Staff's
satisfaction.
MR. MARTIN-As long as we had something to go by.
MR. BREWER-By when could we have that. possibly?
MR. MULLER-Yes, less than a week, because we're basically talking
about drawing rectangles.
MR. BREWER-Yes, pretty much.
MR. MULLER-I think we can do that in a day, 12 rectangles. right,
9 by 18?
MR. MARTIN-That'll do it.
MR. MULLER-Okay. We'll be happy to do that, and after this
meeting, we'll be happy to talk to the Harts, to give them whatever
assurance they need. so that we can give you an assurance that we
discussed it and there isn't a controversy. We don't intend to
block.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, we can put that into our motion, if all
things are met by Planning Staff, then they get approval. Is there
anybody else who would like to speak on this?
MR. HART-One more thing. Zito ran a similar type operation. and it
wasn't kept very orderly, and I would just ask for a conditional
approval that it be kept in neat and orderly fashion.
MR. BREWER-I understand that.
MR. MULLER-I can give you a little bit of background on that Zito
operation. and that is that Mr. Zito went in there and purchased
Mr. Pasco's lawn products business and snowmobile business, and he
told me that he felt ill suited for that business. So. what he was
going to do was sell cars and repair cars from that location, and
if Mr. Hatin were here this evening, he would tell you that that
was in violation of the Ordinance, and I think, somewhere along the
way, the Town Municipality took action against Mr. Zito. However,
it never came to a conclusion, because Mr. Zito went out of
business. We don't intend to run that same type of business. Mr.
Zito parked cars out in the front view area. had trailers out there
and for sale signs on cars. Mr. Stimpson and Mr. Eggleston are not
selling cars from that location. That's what the Beautification
Committee asked, and we can represent to you that we're not in the
business of selling cars, and we're not featuring any wreck of the
week out there on the front lawn. or anything like that. That's an
area that's going to be landscaped, with flowers and a split rail
fence, and all of the acti vi ty, we hope. wi II be princ ipall y
indoors.
MR. BREWER-What is going to be kept in that fenced in area?
MR. MULLER-Nothing. That is that that happened to be fenc ing.
It's a question mark for us, too.
MR. BREWER-Well, I presume that he maybe, at one time, kept
snowmobiles in crates or whatever, there.
MR. MULLER-We know Mr. Pasco, did. He kept inventory.
- 22 -
'--
MR. BREWER-And you're not going to do anything with it.
MR. EGGLESTON-In fact, we may take it down.
MR. MULLER-You can't put a car out there, because it only goes to
a 36 inch doorway.
MR. HART-I have one more concern about the fumes from when they're
painting the cars. This is going to be vented into here. but isn't
there a certain system?
MR. BREWER-They have stipulated the system that they're going to
use.
MR. HART-I've got a restaurant.
building.
I don't want paint in the
MR. MULLER-Everybody will be able to smell the pizza. That system.
which now my application is back on the chair there, but you have
it, I asked Mr. Stimpson about it, and he said that. guaranteed it
works. Basically what's going out into the atmosphere is
breathable, pure air. because it's being filtered. We cannot emit
noxious fumes out into the air.
MR. BREWER-I'm somewhat familiar with those systems.
MR. LAPOINT-This is a whole package deal. It's an insert right
inside your garage that is vented out through.
MR. EGGLESTON-Well. we haven't determined that yet. It may not
meet the specifications. size wise. for a commercial insert type
thing. We have specs from the Town. and we have specs from OSHA.
approved, paint booth in the facility, where there presently is one
in the City of Glens Falls. It's been OSHA approved.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
exposure.
OSHA is principally for the workers and their
MR. EGGLESTON-Right.
MR. LAPOINT-And tends to move the air outside, where it's not near
the workers. I'm familiar with this. You're going to need a
permi t to construct and a certificate to operate from New York
State for this?
MR. MULLER-We were told by Kip Grant that we would have to satisfy
him that we were in compliance, not only with OSHA. but with the
exhaust system in the building.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Because you did specify a Stewart Warner booth.
but you're saying now that that won't be the case?
MR. EGGLESTON-As we're waiting for approval from the Town, Albany
Savings isn't going to let us go into the building and do anything
major, as far as analyzing the interior of the building or
whatever. So we're really waiting. If we can get away with it
size wise. that's what we'll do. Otherwise. we'll do a booth as
described by the Town Building Department.
MRS. TARANA-Where are your parking spaces. relative to the
building?
MR. EGGLESTON-The south side.
MRS. TARANA-They're all on the south side. all 12 of them are
there?
MR. EGGLESTON-All on the south side.
MRS. TARANA-Is there any problem with the right-of-way. with the
- 23 -
'-,
parking spaces all being there?
MR. MARTIN-That was my point in having them shown. I want to see
the parking spaces on the plat.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. That's what I was going to put in my motion. an
enlarged drawing showing the parking spaces and an easement to the
landlocked Hart property in the back.
MR. MACEWAN-Should we ask them to come back one more time. with a
drawing of the final site plan, showing what the layout is. and the
easement and the parking spaces?
MR. MULLER-I know where the easement is, and the parking spaces are
on that area. but we're not blocking access.
MR. BREWER-He's got 30 feet. If he puts 20 foot parking spaces.
and he's still got 30 feet for them to get through. So I don't
think that's going to be a problem. in my mind. I think if we give
him an approval on conditions that he has all these things done.
within a week, to our Planning Department.
MR. LAPOINT-To their satisfaction. I don't need to see it again.
MR. MULLER-Well, I think we have to satisfy Mr. and Mrs. Hart, too.
that. assure them that they do have their right of access. I think
if we can do that. and we'd like to do that, then you shouldn't
have a problem with, I don't think you should have a problem with
how we park the cars.
MR. BREWER-As long as everything will fit.
MR. EGGLESTON-If we're going to park vehicles there, for storage or
whatever, we're still. ourselves. going to have to mobile to get
through that area ourselves. So, we certainly wouldn't block the
area for the Harts.
MRS. TARANA-And you don't intend to park cars any place else on the
property, store cars?
MR. EGGLESTON-I don't believe there is any other place to store.
MR. MULLER-Yes. If you were concerned, are we going to store them
to the north, absolutely not. You can limit us. say it's
prohibited. If you're concerned that we're going to store them out
front, we're telling you that we're not. You can prohibit us from
doing that. If you want to hear that we're not going to store them
in the back. we're not going to store them in the back.
MR. MARTIN-I would prefer that to be in the motion. for enforcement
purposes.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I've got some words already. Lets just bounce
this around and see if this is acceptable to everybody. I'd say
that there would be no outside overnight storage of vehicles that
won't pass New York State inspection.
MR. MULLER-Don't do that, because I don't think any of them do.
MR. LAPOINT-That's it. we don't want wrecks.
MR. BREWER-If he gets a tow in. in the afternoon or whatever.
MR. LAPOINT-And it's a road worthy car. something parked, what my
perception is, it's just a car parked. it somehow can drive. even
if there's Bondo on it. even if it's rusty. it wouldn't make any
difference to me. What I wouldn't want to see sitting out there is
a wreck sitting out there is a wreck down on its frame. overnight.
I mean, for any extended period of time. I mean, is that what
we're worried about?
- 24 -
",,-,
MR. BREWER-No. I'm worried about having 10 or 12 cars out there
parked for a period of time, and when he gets time to fix them,
he'll fix them. and then sell them. That's what I'm worried about.
but I don't think there's any stipulation like that on any body
shop in town that we can impose on them.
MRS. PULVER-No, but he's not selling them. He's just fixing them.
He's only body repair. right?
MR. MULLER-Exactly. If you smash your car real good, real good.
and it's a real clunker, and we haul it in. It is going to be
there, but we're going to have enough sense to put it off to the
back. We're not storing it there forever. We're not storing it
there for resale.
MR. BREWER-If it's a total wreck, an adjuster's going to be there
within a week or something, or a matter of days. and they're going
to total it and it's going to be gone.
MR. EGGLESTON-And it's not advantageous for us. leaving it there.
because it's taking up our space.
MR. RUEL-Well, aren't there cases where you may have several cars
waiting for parts?
MR. EGGLESTON-Right.
MR. RUEL-And you could have a dozen cars all waiting for parts.
MR. BREWER-Not if we limit the amount of cars that they have there
they can't.
MR. EGGLESTON-Right.
MR. MULLER-We don't foresee that as being a problem, a dozen cars
all waiting for parts.
MR. LAPOINT-If we were to limit you to 12 cars, no matter what the
condition. I'm trying to find a consensus.
MR. MULLER-Why don't you just limit us to 12 cars and the
designated parking spaces, because quite frankly, you will know
what's in the building. You won't see it, not that I'm suggesting
that we're now hiding another 20 in there. What's going in there
is not obtrusive, and that's, I think, what we're concerned about
here.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. MULLER-Each product comes out, and everybody's going to like
it.
MR. RUEL-I'm just curious, what was in that building before?
MR. MULLER-Before it's present vacancy?
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. MULLER-There was the sale of skidos, lawnmowers, a little bit
of motorcycles. lawn and garden tractors.
MR. MACEWAN-Most recently somebody's had an office products. office
equipment.
MR. MULLER-You're right.
MR. MARTIN-That's right.
snowmobile sales.
They had a fire there that did in the
MR. BREWER-Okay.
- 25 -
'-
--.-'"
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RUEL-Tim, does this listing, A through AA, does this become
part of the application or not?
MR. BREWER-That is the application.
MR. RUEL-That is. it is part of it? Okay. There's no indication
on this document that it is.
MR. MULLER-I had it as part of the application.
ãXârK£ggKb~~~~~~ those questions. like I did.
I would also make
I had to go through
MR. BREWER-Yes. I would like to say that L should be changed,
because we're going to ask you to mark the parking spaces. Is that
agreeable?
MR. MULLER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Wait a minute, maybe that would be M, that I would ask
you to change. Just take out the word "not".
MRS. TARANA-What about the driveways. the ingress and egress. north
and south.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We'll put that in there. too.
MR. RUEL-I've got one more question.
the end of the building, and you
separate structure, right?
You show the paint booth on
also indicated that it's a
MR. MULLER-Inside, yes.
MR. RUEL-Inside, and now you have a garage door that opens to that
area? Are there two garage doors? Is there another one inside?
MR. EGGLESTON-That's a self contained unit. If we were going to do
it that way. as opposed to their specifications, there would be a
door inside, too.
MR. RUEL-Yes. You should two doors. right. so that when you open
the garage door, you're not exposing the paints and the odors. etc.
to the outdoors. Right. So you have an inside door. Okay. Thank
you.
MRS. TARANA-I have a question. You've got no commercial sales or
retail sales are anticipated. Well, that leaves the door open for
retail sales. You may not anticipate it now, but you could in the
future.
MR. MULLER-I guess that was a lawyer's word, then. I thought I was
being straightforward. So take out the word "anticipate".
MRS. TARANA-Well. you said you didn't plan on it, and when I read
"anticipated". I think of that as, right now you're not planning
that. but you may in the future.
MR. MULLER-Okay. Assuming that's how you understood it. it's my
understanding, not that I wish to represent it like that, but if
that's the case. we would still have to come back here if we wanted
to sell cars in a Highway Commercial Zone.
MR. LAPOINT-Is that true?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-So they would have to corne back for that anyway.
MR. MARTIN-That's an additional use of the site.
- 26 -
--
"-/
MR. LAPOINT-There's a built in safety net there.
MRS. TARANA-Okay.
MR. MULLER-We don't intend to do it.
word "anticipate".
I'm sorry.
I withdraw the
MR. LAPOINT-SEQRA?
MR. BREWER-Yes. We've got to do a Short Form.
MR. HARLICKER-Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
ªESOLUTION NO. 11-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
WHEREAS, there
application for:
for operation of
Bay Road,
is presently before the Planning Board an
RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON. Proposal is
Auto Collision Repair shop. on the east side of
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas
of environmental concern and having considered the criteria
for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York . this Board finds that
the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint
Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe
MR. BREWER-Okay, Ed.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-93 RICHARD EGGLESTON THOMAS
STIMPSON. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Carol Pulver:
- 27 -
--..
~
For the operation of an auto collision repair shop on the east side
of Bay Road, with the following conditions: One. that the
applicant provide an enlarged drawing showing the size and location
of the 12 parking spaces. the size and location of the easement to
the landlocked Hart property, to the satisfaction of the Planning
Staff that the Hart's access will not be infringed upon by this
site plan. and direct the Town Planning Staff to send the applicant
back to site plan review if the applicant cannot meet those
requirements, and that parking and storage of the cars be limited
to the 12 designated marked painted on the pavement parking spots.
and that the applicant approximately mark the south entrance as the
entraQce and the north part. of the curve as the exit to Bay Road
creat1ng a one way tratf1c flow around the curve. tn~t tn:ê
applicant include the recommendations by the Beautification
Committee as part of this final approval.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Tarana.
Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe
MR. MACEWAN-What's the deal with Leemilt's?
MR. BREWER-They're off.
MR. MARTIN-They got tabled by the Zoning Board. We have a couple
of issues for the Board. The first thing, I think the Friebergers
are here. Is that correct? Judy is here. As you recall, the
Board asked that the Staff write a letter to the Raynors asking
that they come to either the last meeting or tonight's meeting. I
got a call from Mrs. Raynor today, saying that they've had a death
in the family, and they could not make the meeting tonight, but
that they will be here April 20th. and I also suggest if Mrs.
Freiberger could be here then, that now that's a firm date that
they will be here to talk to the Board about that subdivision and
the conveyance of that land.
MR. BREWER-What date is that. Jim?
MR. MARTIN-April 20th. It would be our first Planning Board
meeting, and it will be on the agenda, as a regular item, for your
discussion. I will also try and get Paul Dusek here, too. because
I think it's going to require his input. as well. and I apologize,
if you've come out here tonight.
DAN GEALT
MR. GEALT-Is it possible to ask a question?
MR. MARTIN-Sure.
MR. GEALT-What is the situation with regard to. if they Raynors
have an opportunity and attempt to sell one of the lots in this
subdivision, between now and April 20th? Do they have. at this
point. the right to sell that lot in that subdivision? Does the
Town have the ability to issue a permit for constructing a building
on that?
MR. MARTIN-The technical issue with the plat is it was filed is
that it says that 10 foot parcel is to be conveyed to Judy
Freiberger. Right now. they're not in compliance with that plat.
and if it comes to us, the Board can have that plat stricken from
the County record. and therefore its not a legal subdivision
anymore. That's the enforcement mechanism they have. They cannot
sell that to another individual. other than Mrs. Freiberger,
without coming to this Board for approval.
- 28 -
---
-
MR. GEALT- I mean any lot.
approved subdivision?
If they sell another lot in that
MR. MARTIN-That's why I'd like to have Paul Dusek here, the Town
Attorney. I don't know what the legal ramifications would be in
that regard, then. if they sell a lot. and then the subdivision is
subsequently then stricken from the record. I don't know what
would happen, in that case. but, has she made any attempt to call
you?
JUDY FREIBERGER
MRS. FREIBERGER-No.
MR. MARTIN-She told me today she's left three messages on your
answering machine. Okay.
MR. GEALT-You can listen to the tape if you'd like. There's been
no attempts to do that. There's also been no response to our
letter from our attorney.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, that's what's forced this matter with the
Board. The Board asked them to come back here this month. We got
the call today. We have every belief that they will be here the
20th. I f not, the Board can then begin to take action. like I
said, to have the plat stricken. It's their decision.
MR. GEALT-Would it be advisable for us to explain to the Board what
the situation is. if they're not aware of it at this point?
MR. MARTIN-Sure.
MR. LAPOINT-I was here at the time. and I helped craft this motion,
and I really regret that it worked out to be this way, because I
think we did everything possible to make sure it wouldn't happen
like this. I think that takes a certain amount of good intent on
behalf of the applicant.
MR. GEALT-My name is Dan Gealt. I'm here speaking on behalf of
Judy Freiberger. one of the land owners adjacent to Subdivision 15
of 1991, Clearview Estates by Ronald and Mary Susan Raynor. The
Planning Board, according to the minutes, required the applicant to
convey two 10 foot strips of land to adjacent property owners, one
of them being Mrs. Freiberger. to prevent the creation of
substandard or nonconforming lots. The applicants filed maps at
Warren County indicating that the conveyance was to take place. and
the minutes indicate that they agreed to convey those 10 foot
strips of land. The Planning Board granted its approval one year
ago tomorrow, and as of this moment, at least one of those parcels
has not been conveyed as per the applicant's agreement.
MR. MARTIN-The other one has not either.
MR. GEALT-I'm not familiar with that one. specifically, but thank
you. Okay. Judith Freiberger and various representatives of
Judith Freiberger, have communicated with the Town on a number of
occasions to determine the status of this conveyance. and at this
point. we have seen a proposed deed. The proposed deed indicates
that the Raynors would like to convey one of those strips of land
with a restriction saying that Freiberger cannot have access to the
adjacent Town road through that. That is. to my way of thinking,
as the former Superintendent of Highways in the Town of Queensbury.
I've never seen anybody say that. here's a piece of property that
I don't control. and you may not enter on to it. okay. So. in any
case, there are some legal issues there. Also. I understand that
Raynors have considered the idea of selling the access right over
the 10 foot strip to Freiberger, which would actually amount to the
Town permitting them to create a nonstandard lot and then sell it
to somebody. Anyhow. Mrs. Freiberger's attorney has communicated
with the Town over a month ago, and no reply has been received yet.
- 29 -
-'
The subdivider has not yet complied with the requirements that the
Planning Board set forth for the approval of the subdivision, and
I guess that's where we stand today. is that we'd like to know what
the Town intends to do to insure the compliance, or what steps we
need to take to insure the compliance.
MRS. PULVER-All right. Dan, I remember this very well, and I want
to tell you that. as a Planning Board member, I was against this 10
foot bit, because in my opinion, we were taking the property away
from the Raynors and giving it to somebody else. which I did not
think this Board had the right to do. I still don't think the
Board has the right to do, but I want to see if I have what you're
saying right. The Freibergers are complaining, because they
haven't gotten their free 10 foot strip of property?
MR. GEALT-No. Actually Freiberger made no attempt whatsoever to
object to Raynors subdivision. because there was no reason to
prevent them from having that subdivision. The Planning Board and
the Town. in it's various Departments. said create of a 10 foot by
400 and something foot strip of land is a nonconforming,
substandard lot, and therefore it's not acceptable. Freiberger in
no way asked for that piece of property.
MRS. PULVER-No. he didn't.
MR. GEALT-And there was one attempt, some years previously, to
purchase it. but that fell through immediately. and so there was no
objection raised to it. There was no attendance at any of the
public hearings. no requests of any type from Freiberger regarding
this subdivision. The Planning Board said, we can't allow you to
create a substandard lot. Therefore. unless the Town has some use
for those two 10 foot strips of land. we will require you to deed
them to the adjacent property owners.
MR. BREWER-I don't think that we said that they had to deed them.
I think that they said that they had to come to some agreement.
because I remember this, too.
MR. GEALT-They had to be conveyed.
MR. MARTIN-They have to be conveyed.
MR. BREWER-We said that they had to be conveyed?
MR. MARTIN-That's what it reads in the final plat.
MR. GEALT-Yes. and the problem with that is that conveying is it
not a problem. Whether they convey it or they don't convey it
doesn't make a lot of difference to Freiberger. The point is that
if they convey it and restrict the access. then basically what
they're saying is that, yes, you take this 10 foot strip of land.
you pay the additional taxes on it. You now have what appears to
be a corner property to the Assessor's. Now you do all of that so
that we can sell our lots in our subdivision, and so the 10 foot
strip that would be deeded over to the adjacent property owners is
basically so that they can have a conforming subdivision, and there
was no request by Freiberger. or as far as I know, on the part of
the other adjacent land owner, for that 10 foot strip of land for
any reason whatsoever.
MRS. PULVER-That 10 foot already existed.
MR. GEALT-The 10 foot strip was there. yes.
MRS. PULVER-Yes. The Planning Board. this is where, Planning Board
members are not planners and should not get involved in the legal
aspects, because this is what happens. but the Raynors wanted to
keep the 10 foot strip. as I recall, because if they ever wanted
access to, or if they wanted to put a road in or access. they had
to way to do it. with this 10 foot strip. Isn't that correct?
- 30 -
'"",-",.
MR. GEALT-No.
MR. LAPOINT-That's the other 10 foot, in the back.
MRS. PULVER-Right. the other 10 feet. the back.
MR. GEALT-Yes, that's correct.
MRS. PULVER-So that's how we got into the 10 foot strips.
MR. GEALT-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-I remember very distinctly, because I was on the Board
at the time. Mr. Raynor sat right here and said. he said, the
reason why we created the 10 foot strips was because we sunk all
this money into this road. and none of our neighboring property
owners was willing to help us pay for it, so I made these 10 foot
strips as leverage over these people to make them pay me some day,
and that, to me, is not good.
MRS. PULVER-Well, if those 10 foot strips already existed as a
separate deed, before it came to the Planning Board, my opinion
was, it was already an existing a lot or whatever, but you couldn't
build on it because it didn't meet any kind of a zoning
requirement.
MR. GEALT-It wasn't an existing lot. What it was was a portion of
an existing property. It was not a 10 foot by 400 foot lot.
MRS. PULVER-I know what it was, but it already existed before it
got here.
MR. GEALT-Sure.
MRS. PULVER-So, if there wasn't a problem to it, he can't build on
it because there is no way that it conforms to the Ordinance. but
the Board made him give it up.
MR. GEALT-Right.
MRS. PULVER-Now. as far as the Freibergers. I can understand their
situation. I also can understand the Raynors. I don't understand.
though. what you want us to do. Do you want us to go out and force
them to give it to the Freibergers free and let them do whatever
they want with it?
MR. GEALT-Well, it's either that, or you're going to have to bring
the subdivision back and re-hear it, because you. as a Planning
Board. said here is what we will require of the subdivider, and the
subdivider has not complied with that, despite the year gone by
since the approval, and their assurances that it was going to be
done. and therefore. in the event that you don't think it was the
right thing, and they haven't yet done it, there is no subdivision,
because the reason you can't keep the 10 foot by 440 lot is because
the Town can't allow a subdivider to create a situation where a lot
is created that does not meet the requirements of that particular
zone.
MRS. PULVER-It already was there, though.
MR. GEALT-No. It was not. It was a portion of a larger lot.
MRS. PULVER-But it was already established.
MR. GEALT-The 10 foot strip was there. but not as a deeded piece of
property. It was there as a portion of a lot that did conform to
the SR-1A zoning.
MRS. PULVER-Well. as I remember it. there was a separate
description for that on the deed.
- 31 -
"----
MR. MARTIN-But it was a part of a larger lot.
MR. GEALT-It was a portion of a lot that did conform to the zoning,
and the reason that the Town can't accept that as a lot in a
subdivision is because then it no longer would conform, and that
was the problem. That's why something has to be done with those
two strips.
MR. MARTIN-Remember the first attempt was made to deed it to the
Town. and Paul Naylor said he didn't want it because he didn't want
to be responsible for the maintenance on it?
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-So that was not an option anymore, because this was the
only thing that was left.
MRS. PULVER-I remember it. I still don't know why you're here. I
see it as an enforcement problem.
MR. GEALT-It's an enforcement problem.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
citizens board.
So that's not our problem.
We're only a
MR. MARTIN-No. The enforcement of it is that the Planning Board
has the authority to strike the plat from the record.
MR. GEALT-You are the only enforcement that there is. You are the
only enforcement for whether or not your restrictions and
regulations have been complied with. and whether the subdivider has
carried out, just as you did with.
MRS. PULVER-But he doesn't have any time limit.
MR. LAPOINT-It's clear to me the applicant continues to create the
circumstance. that he wanted to subdivide something, and we gave
him that subdivision so he could sell off some lots and make some
money, and we had, again, my intent was, okay, you did something
five years ago with 10 foot lots that wouldn't be allowed now, and
you did it for some wrong reasons. Lets fix it as part of this
subdivision, and I think that was the intent. and now he's coming
back and he's saying that, it's still my intent to get money out of
these people for those 10 foot lots. which was not our intent when
we approved the.
MRS. PULVER-No. I see it as where he is going to give it to the
Freibergers, which was the intent of the Board. okay, to make it
right, but he doesn't want the Freibergers to now use it for
anything other than just recreational. or for their own personal
use.
MR. LAPOINT-He doesn't want a curb cut going out to that road on
there.
MRS. PULVER-Right. In other words, he doesn't want them to, I
don't know how big the Freibergers parcel. maybe that's big enough
to subdivide, who knows, having this 10 foot.
MR. GEALT-It's 2.38 acres.
MRS. PULVER-Okay.
foot strip.
See it's big enough to subdivide with this 10
MR. GEALT-I'm sure that's what Mr. Raynor is concerned about.
MRS. PULVER-So. what do you want to do now? You make the man give
up his land.
MR. GEALT-However, Mr. Raynor knew that ahead of time. and Mr.
- 32 -
'-
Raynor agreed to the conditions set by the Planning Board.
MRS. PULVER-Well, he agreed to convey it.
MR. GEALT-He agreed to convey it.
MRS. PULVER-Right. I don't remember us saying that he couldn't put
any stipulations on it.
MR. MACEWAN-Is this gentleman not meeting the conditions set by the
Planning Board at that time?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Right now the plat is not in compliance.
MR. MACEWAN-Not in compliance with the conditions set forth by the
Planning Board?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. MACEWAN-So he's in violation, right?
MR. LAPOINT-The short answer is yes. and the other short answer is
he snookered us.
MRS. PULVER-Well, we did not say that he could not put any
conditions on that property when he made it.
MR. LAPOINT-No. I remember this motion. It's probably about three
paragraphs long. and we tried to cover every, and I agree with you.
In our initial premise. we put too many conditions on things. and
it creates this problem right here. that if we didn't have the
Board as it was set up then. with multi-conditional multi-approval
type guys. this problem wouldn't have happened. but we did. We
went down that road. We tried to do the best thing for everybody
involved. and we got snookered by the applicant.
MR. MARTIN-Well, what I think is the best thing ,to have happen is
if we can get both parties here. and have the Board here. and Paul
Dusek. and discuss this and hash this out.
MR. LAPOINT-Agreed, because I'm ready to tell the guy, that wasn't
my intent. I thought we were going to resolve this problem, give
you more land to develop. and you would resolve a past problem.
That was my intent when I voted yes. I think I made the motion.
MR. MARTIN-That was my intent. in my mind.
MR. LAPOINT-That was my intent, and we had a huge debate over that,
and to have somebody come in and twist it. I mean, again, I like
the idea of erasing the whole damn thing. make him start allover
again.
MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute. Lets ask him to corne, if that's what
the Board wants. but I also think I might want to ask Paul Dusek
what his legal opinion would be, since the Planning Board did not
say that he could not put any stipulations on this 10 foot strip.
when he conveyed it. Do we have a leg to stand on, as far as
making him.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but it's like any law, Carol. is that our intent?
MR. GEALT-The conveyance hasn't even taken place.
MRS. PULVER-Well, we want to talk about the Ethics Law, and the
purpose of intent. you know.
MR. BREWER-I understand that, but our intent was to do something
different than he's doing.
- 33 -
-
-
MRS. PULVER-Get a good lawyer. They'll fight our intent.
MR. BREWER-Well, let them.
MR. GEALT-The conveyance hasn't taken place, at this point.
MR. LAPOINT-Has he developed any of those other lots?
MR. GEALT-As far as I know, none have been sold, and there are no
building permits issued at the moment.
MR. LAPOINT-Good. then lets drag him back, because now we have some
leverage.
MR. BREWER-Can't we pull that motion and make a new motion?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but I want to hear him out first.
MR. MARTIN-You can strike the. you can, by motion, my understanding
from Paul is you can. by motion, strike the plat from the record.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So if it comes down to that. we can do that.
MR. LAPOINT-Right. Lets hear his side of the story. We've heard
the other side.
MRS. TARANA-Can we put a hold on this whole subdivision, before he
goes out and sells property.
MR. BREWER-Well, you can't stop him from selling it. I don't think.
MRS. PULVER-Well. if the subdivision's no good.
MR. GEALT-He can't sell the subdivided lots.
MR. BREWER-That means that we have to pull the plat tonight.
MR. LAPOINT-No. Here's the deal. Staff calls him tomorrow, and
you let him know what our thinking is. and we want to hear his side
of the story. because there are some up here who would be inclined
to pull that subdivision approval. based on one side of the story.
MRS. PULVER-I mean. we have three members who haven't even heard
it. who haven't even heard the story.
MR. MACEWAN-I've heard the story.
MR. GEALT-We were here expecting to air both sides tonight.
MR. LAPOINT-Right. So if you call him and see if you can get him
in at the end of the next meeting, or whenever, and we can hear
both sides of this story, then we can make a judgement. but if he
doesn't want to cooperate and come in. what I've heard. and what my
intent was from back then, is enough for me to make a motion to
pull that plat. So, maybe that'll be incentive enough for him to
get in here within the next month.
MR. BREWER-Fine.
MR. MARTIN-All right.
who called me today.
I can contact Mrs. Raynor.
I'll tell her.
She's the one
MR. LAPOINT-And if she wants to send a letter to us explaining
what's going on. fine, write it down. It's easier for us to study
and look at, but right now we're hearing awful things. Let her
know that.
MR. GEALT-We'd be happy to put our concerns in writing for you.
MR. LAPOINT-Please do.
- 34 -
'-
MR. MARTIN-I would recommend that, for the Board's consideration.
prior to the next meeting.
MR. BREWER-And then we could have them. prior.
MR. MACEWAN-What's our schedule for next month?
MR. MARTIN-It's really not been determined yet.
until after the applications come in on the 31st.
We don't know
MR. LAPOINT-This is our chance to do some planning.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
there's anything.
So we'll hear from them next month, and if
MR. MARTIN-That's what she indicated to me today. and I will call
her back and explain the mood of the Board on this. I'll do my
best.
MRS. TARANA-Jim. can we be sure to get the past minutes from this?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I just told Scott to. they'll be in your packets.
with your applications.
MR. GEALT-There were a number of issues. and Mr. LaPoint has said.
basically, everything that he said in all of those minutes again
tonight. So, there's a man who, at least. remembers what was going
on at that time. for sure. Anyhow, thank you for your time. and
we'll be back April 20th. and you'll hear from us in writing before
that.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. PULVER-Dan, one question.
representing the Freibergers?
Why are you hear?
Are you
MR. GEALT-I'm speaking on behalf of Judith Freiberger. My name is
Dan Geal t, 25 Havi land Road, representing Judith Freibe rger, 25
Haviland Road.
MRS. PULVER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. The other issue that came in just, about 3: 30
this afternoon, as a matter of fact. the time of the fax is 4:03,
relates to the NCR, Queensbury Housing Development, the Senior
Citizen Housing project out on the end of Farr Lane. Their time
frame here is quickly running out, with their funding. It's the
31st of this month. and we have another request before the Board.
very similar to the Inspiration Park Performance Bond for the
construction of the road, which would allow construction of the
road simultaneously with the construction of the building. Do you
recall that?
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-This is the same exact type situation. It's an approach
to building of a road through a Performance Bond that allows the
construction of the road simultaneously with the construction of
the building. whereas normally the Town requires a road be
installed, approved, dedicated, and conveyed to the Town, prior to
any construction occurring.
MRS. PULVER-They couldn't get any CO's, remember, until everything
was done. and it would be the same with this.
MR. MARTIN-Right. and this is the same type of thing requires a
resolution from the Board tonight, and it's really a resolution
which reflects the enumerated items, here, within the letter of
March 23rd, from Wendy Fechter.
- 35 -
'-
-'
MRS. PULVER-I have one question. Who is the bonding company? I
thought the Town Board had to approve the bonding company?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's correct.
MRS. PULVER-And have they approved the bonding company?
MR. MARTIN-No. they have not done that. That would be contingent
upon the ir approval of the bonding company. It would also be
contingent upon Paul Naylor's acceptance of the amount, which quite
frankly is under question. It may be considerably more than this.
They're estima~ing p contrac~ual. pr~ceâ Qf S53~388. lae's not sure
about that. H1S gOlng rate ln hlS mln lS $10~ per lnear toot ot
road, and as I recall. the road is some.
MRS. PULVER-Forty feet, isn't it?
MR. MARTIN-No. I think it's considerably longer than that.
MR. BREWER-Can I say something that bothers me about this thing?
These people call us, or fax us, and want us to do stuff like this
right away.
MR. MARTIN-I know. We're up against the same thing with the
building permit. The building permit has to be approved by the
31st. also.
MR. BREWER-No. I'm not talking about that, but a local company
comes in and donates the money to help this project go through. and
then they give the contract to somebody in Rochester.
MR. MARTIN-No. no. This is for the road on Buck Bryan's property,
from Buck Bryan's property inward.
MR. BREWER-It's not the extension?
MR. MARTIN-No. This is not the extension. This is just the road
within Buck Bryan's property.
MR. BREWER-So Buck Bryan's asking for this, or who's asking for
this?
MRS. PULVER-National
organization that is
Grant.
Church Residence. It's the
the. they were the applicant
non-profit
for the HUD
MR. MARTIN-See, there's two sections of road that are involved.
There's the road going from the existing public right-of-way on
Farr Lane to the edge of Buck Bryan's property. That's on State
owned land. That was the portion of the road that was funded
through the donation from Finch Pruyn, I think approximately
$13.000, and then the other section is from Buck Bryan's property
line into the development actually servicing the building, and
that's this section. That's what this deal's with.
MR. BREWER-So, nobody has even looked at this but us? Paul Naylor
hasn't?
MR. MARTIN-Paul Naylor looked at today. He just saw it at 3:30
this afternoon. also. and your approval would have to be, he is not
very hopeful that this is going to be enough money to cover the
cost of the road, should it have to be turned over to the Town to
complete. That's what the bond does. So your resolution would
have to be contingent upon his figure. and they've agreed to that.
They have a contractual price of $53,388, but they will write a
Performance Bond to whatever Mr. Naylor indicates is necessary.
MR. RUEL-Aren't we doing this backward?
MR. BREWER-We kind of are.
- 36 -
--
MR. RUEL-Shouldn't we have the approvals first?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. The ideal thing would be to have Mr. Naylor's
blessing, and the Town Board accepting of the bonding company. but
time frames being what they are.
MR. BREWER-What happens if they don't approve the bonding?
MRS. PULVER-Well, this is all going to be contingent upon them
accepting the bonding company. and Paul Naylor accepting the
amount, and if they don't, then it just all goes away.
MR. RUEL-So we're giving approval on a condition that this and that
and the other thing get done.
MR. MARTIN-And it normally, we would have Mr. Naylor's approval.
Well, normally we don't even do this. The road is built prior to
construction even starting, but this is one of these cases where
they're asking for an accelerated construction schedule.
MRS. TARANA-I am totally against this. Totally against it. The
other thing I don't like about this, this whole project. sitting at
Town Board meetings, I've heard it over and over. You've got to
decide this tonight because they've got this deadline. You've got
to decide this tonight because they've got this deadline. and the
Town Board's gone right along with it.
MR. MARTIN-I can't imagine that this couldn't have been dealt with
back in January.
MRS. TARANA-Absolutely.
MR. BREWER-When is their timetable, when they have this done?
MR. MARTIN-March 31st.
MR. RUEL-Eight days.
MRS. PULVER-I just know, from my own experience, working with the
State and Federal government on trying to get grant money. this is
exactly what happens is that it sits around on someone's desk until
the last hour. and then all of a sudden they say. my God, well.
this should have gone out. These people need this approval, and
then it's thrown on to whoever is trying to get the approval. They
come in, tail between their legs. begging in front of some Board,
trying to get the approval. They get beat up by the Board. they
get hit, they get knocked down. Sometimes they get it. Sometimes
they don't, and usually it's not their fault, and I'm going to say,
with this, I know exactly how it's happened, and it's unfortunate.
MR. BREWER-Yes. but every step of the way. Carol?
MRS. PULVER-Just about, believe me, just about. Inspiration Park
took over two years.
MR. RUEL-It sounds like government.
MRS. PULVER-That's what it is, government involved. but if you,
again, if you make the approval contingent upon the other things
that. it either it will or it won't make it.
MR. MARTIN-I remember we had a special Planning Board meeting the
week of Christmas. between Christmas and New Years, because they
needed something by December 31st, the end of the year.
MRS. PULVER-Right, to close out that year.
MR. RUEL-Are we supposed to give approval on a completion date,
also?
- 37 -
,--"
MR. MARTIN-Yes. They're accepting of November 1st as a completion
date. The thought there being that the blacktop plants close
sometime mid October to late October, so the road has to be in by
then, so we don't carryover through the winter with a half
finished road.
MR. BREWER-How does everybody feel?
MR. RUEL-I feel sorry for them.
MRS. PULVER-I don't have a problem with it, because if the Town
q.çcepts the bopding qompdany.... basically what the bonding does is s9V
It tl1ese peop e cton t 0 tne roacts Dy -November 1st. the money S
guaranteed. it's in the bank. Paul Naylor can get the money out
and go finish the road.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. The main thing is the amount, that you have to
have sufficient funds available.
MR. MACEWAN-But that would be.
MR. RUEL-That's contingent on.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. that's upon his discretion.
MR. RUEL-That's contingent upon Naylor. though.
MRS. PULVER-That's what I mean, but Paul will decide, probably in
the next day or two. how much money he wants.
MR. MACEWAN-They've agreed to it. They've put a price in here of
$53,000 and change. but said if the Highway Department deems that
it needs more money to complete the road, they're agreeing upon,
whatever the dollar figure the Highway Department comes up with,
they're agreeing to it.
MR. MARTIN-If the Board moves on this tonight, I'm going to meet
with Paul Naylor tomorrow morning and find out what his amount will
be that he will require as part of the bond, or for the bonding
amount. if you move on it tonight.
MR. RUEL-Lets do it.
MRS. PULVER-Yes. I don't really see a problem.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
~OTIO~ TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FROM NATIONAL CHURCH RESIDENCES,
Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Roger Ruel:
Number One, authorizing the bonding of Farr Lane construction
project on the Bryan property, and to approve the bonding and
amount to be determined to be satisfactory by Paul Naylor, and
contingent upon the Town Board accepting the bonding company that
will be recommended by NCR Corporation. and also the road to be
completed by November 1st, 1993.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote:
MR. MACEWAN-If you look under Miscellaneous Provisions, Number
Three, it says the contract is contingent upon final sale of the
land. Would someone like to elaborate on that to me?
MRS. PULVER-Well, usually the actual land does not change hands
until all approvals have been met.
MR. MACEWAN-But this contract can also be voided if the sale
doesn't take place.
- 38 -
'--
MR. BREWER-Well. they're not going to build a building on a piece
of property, and not pay for it, I wouldn't think.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, that's all that means.
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer
NOES: Mrs. Tarana
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe
MR. MARTIN-Tim. in regard to that list you came in with yesterday,
of variance items. I'll have a response for you in April, to all of
those things, or at the next meeting.
MRS. PULVER-I have one question, too. Every time there was a
change in the agenda, I got a new agenda. So even when the
Planning Board adds something to next month's agenda. we need a new
agenda reflecting that.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. We'll do our best to keep them up to date.
MR. BREWER-One other thing, I got a letter from Bob Eddy, and I'll
just pass it around and let everybody read it, so they know.
MR. MACEWAN-What's a Bob Eddy?
MR. BREWER-You'll understand when you read the letter.
MRS. PULVER-Our historian.
MRS. TARANA-"Tim, I sent this out 3/8/93, and finally got it back
this morning. To be sure of name and address. I called the Town
Office and thought to be doubly sure of zip, I called the Post
Office to see if you were 12805 or 12804. This is being sent you
so you may find out what happened. Bob" "Ted. regarding Wal-
Mart". this is 3/3/93. "It appears that the Zoning Board rolled
over and played dead and effectively nullified 25 years of my hard
work to establish setbacks permeability and control asphalt jungle
effect in Queensbury. In my opinion, a minimum 50 foot buffer zone
should be required, especially toward residential use. The 30
percent minimum permeability should be required. The Town of
Colony requires 35 percent. You may recall I fought for planted
dividers for a car park for each 100 cars. A waiver of distance
between buildings is their problem. An exposure charge is made for
building and contents insurance which would cost each party a lot
of money over the years. Probably Ames is already paying that.
Not only the granting of these variances should not have been made,
but worse. the Zoning Board of Appeals will be bombarded with other
requests from other applicants. Sincerely"
MR. RUEL-I still don't know who he is.
MRS. TARANA-Bob Eddy.
MR. MARTIN-He was a previous Town Historian.
MR. BREWER-Wasn't he on the Beautification Committee?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. He was a former Chairman of the Beauti fication
Commi ttee. He was a founder of the Queensbury Beauti fication
Committee.
MR. LAPOINT-I actually agree. As much as I vote for development,
to me. our hands are tied when the variances are given. To me.
that's where the real power is. If they didn't give variances,
then we would have different site plans in front of us, but I think
there's a philosophy. Once the variance is granted, we're stuck
with those conditions for approval. So that's what dictates. We
have all these nice meetings, and we chit chatted a whole hell of
- 39 -
-.-/
a lot about the setbacks. but it wasn't in our power.
MRS. PULVER-I believe it's a fallacy that the Planning Board has
all this power. The Zoning Board has the power.
MR. MARTIN-Look at Quaker Plaza. Quake Plaza, as much as people
are upset about that, the overriding factor.
MRS. PULVER-Was all the variances.
had all the variances, and once it
allowed.
It wouldn't be there. but it
comes to us. everything was
MR. LAPOINT-Right. His main point is more people coming in. So I
think. again. his letter was directed to them. which is
appropriate, but I mean that's where the ire of the community, will
be directed.
MR. MACEWAN-I've got one thing I need to bring up. A couple of
meetings ago we had in front of us the Southern Exposure
Development, remember that?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-And they wanted us to give a grant of approval and
condition of their Sketch Plan so they could go on to the Town
Board, and if you'll remember in the conversation, there was some
conversation brought up in regards to what the variance really was
giving to this lot size, whether they were 20,000 or 12.000. The
applicant stated to us at that time that it was 12,000.
MR. LAPOINT-De facto by that's the thing they filed.
MR. MACEWAN-That's what he said, and that's what he filed, and he,
and I'll be blunt, pressured us to make a decision that night. I
didn't feel comfortable with what he had to say, and I researched
it, and a variance was, in fact, given for 20,000 square foot lots.
MR. MARTIN-That's not what my research found.
MR. MACEWAN-Well. I disagree with you. Jim. and I pulled out all
the paper work. and his application. Mr. McDonald's application to
the ZBA was for 20,000 square foot lots.
MR. MARTIN-And Mr. Turner is on the record saying that they did not
approve the application, they approved the plat.
MRS. PULVER-Yes. Right. That was the meeting we were at, the very
first meeting we were at.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes, and I disagree with that.
MRS. TARANA-They also wrote that they approved the variance and
used the variance number. The variance said, 20.000 square feet.
MR. MARTIN-The motion of approval makes no reference to any lot
size, it just says we approve variance no. such and such. and Ted
is on the record as saying they approved the plat, and not the
number.
MRS. TARANA-But the variance said, 20.000 square feet.
MR. MARTIN-No, it did not.
reference to a lot size.
The resolution of approval makes no
MRS. TARANA-I'm not talking about the resolution, Jim. I'm talking
about their motion said that they approved variance no. whatever.
no square footage, nothing.
MR. MARTIN-Which contained the plat.
- 40 -
~
--
MR. MACEWAN-In who's determination, yours?
mention of anything regarding a plat.
They never made any
MR. MARTIN-Ted Turner is the only information we have, and the best
information we have, linking us to a decision made in 1983.
MRS. TARANA-But I think the problem is, Jim, that you can look at
it that way. He can look at it one way. You can look at ita
number of ways.
MR. MARTIN-We have an eye witness. We have a member of the Board.
MRS. TARANA-But. I don't care what he said that night. I heard him
say that.
MR. MARTIN-But he's a member of the Board. How can you?
MRS. TARANA-But you have to read what the minutes said.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I read the minutes of the Zoning Board, and
they're very sketchy. They're summary minutes. They just say, the
Board heard such and such application. There's no reference in
there either. of the lot size.
MRS. TARANA-But they make a motion to pass the variance.
MR. MARTIN-Right, because everything is given a file number.
MRS. TARANA-Right. and they passed that variance. So you have to.
MR. MARTIN-That file number could have made reference to the plat.
MRS. TARANA-Well, I think, it could have, but it's never mentioned,
the plat is never mentioned.
MR. MARTIN-The only thing we have, the best information we have, is
an eye witness account of a member of the Board at that time.
MR. MACEWAN-I think the best thing for us to do, and this is my
suggestion. is that we call the applicant back in, and we ask Ted
Turner to be here, and we try to clear this up, because quite
frankl y, I'm not comfortable with it. I think we got snookered.
and I'll be very blunt with you.
MR. MARTIN-We did that exact same thing, before Hudson Point was
even a gleam in anybody's eye.
MR. LAPOINT-Exactly.
alone.
We did it specifically for the subdivision
MR. MARTIN-It was brought in just for the McDonald Subdivision, for
that very reason, for that very point, 20,000 square feet, and if
you read the minutes of that meeting, that was the point of the
whole discussion.
MR. LAPOINT-Right.
MRS. TARANA-I think the problem is, we didn't have those old
minutes. I mean, I didn't have any of that stuff.
MR. MARTIN-I think old minutes are useless. They tell you nothing.
MRS. TARANA-They tell you that they passed a variance. and if you
look at the application, and if you look at the application, that
application is the variance.
MR. MARTIN-Mr. McDonald is also on record as saying, he never even
saw the application until 1989.
MR. MACEWAN-I have one comment to that.
Ignorance is no excuse.
- 41 -
"-
----'
Jim. He signed an application. If he signed a blank application
for a Zoning Board variance, that's his stupidity.
MR. MARTIN-Well. I'm just saying that the best evidence that there
is, is that Ted Turner says they approved the plat.
MRS. TARANA-Ted Turner doesn't know which map he even looked at.
MR. MARTIN-Yes he does.
MR. MACEWAN-No. he doesn't.
MRS. TARANA-He didn't.
MR. MARTIN-He told me he did. I was researching all this for Mr.
Brewer a few weeks ago.
MRS. PULVER-Okay.
Board?
Lets get it settled.
What do we want to do,
MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to call him back in, along with Ted Turner.
MRS. TARANA-I feel like. my feeling is that we didn't look into
this more deeply because we were assured by the Town Attorney this
was over and done with. I asked somebody in the State who told me
that you cannot approve a plat. It doesn't matter what the plat's
got on it. It could have cartoons on it.
MR. MARTIN-Well, what are you going to do. force him to go back to
the ZBA, and he gets approval for the lots he has?
MRS. TARANA-But what I'm saying is, if you approved a variance, and
instead of approving the written application. you approved a map,
or a plat, or whatever you want to call it, it makes the
application null and void.
MR. MARTIN-Okay, then what's to say the Zoning Board didn't grant
a certain amount of relief for that?
MRS. TARANA-They didn't say that. Nowhere do they ever talk about
12,Ø00 or 15,000 feet. no place. If they were going to give
relief, they would have to mention, at least, 12,000 or 15.000 or
something. They never mention it, and another thing about Mr.
McDonald, he said somewhere in here, I've read this a million
times. He says he never knew that the application was for 20,000
square feet. He signed it. It was in the newspaper. He was at
the meetings. and all they discussed was 20.000 square feet.
MR. MARTIN-How do you know that?
MRS. TARANA-Because I read everything.
MR. MARTIN-It's not in the minutes of that meeting of '83 as to
what's they discussed.
MR. MACEWAN-It's on the application.
MRS. TARANA-It mentions 20.00Ø square feet. If the application
says 20,000 square feet, why do you assume they're talking about
12? It says 20.000 square feet.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. but there's nothing in the minutes that says they
talked about 20, 00Ø square feet. It's not in the minutes. It's
not in the minutes of the Zoning Board.
MRS. TARANA-Jim. wait a minute. Hold it. Listen. I give you an
application, okay. I ask for relief of 10 feet, okay, we come, we
discuss it. The Board makes a motion. We grant her approval.
MR. MARTIN-Have you ever been to the Zoning Board meetings?
- 42 -
MRS. TARANA-AlI the time I go.
MRS. PULVER-That's all they ever say though.
MR. MARTIN-All the time.
MRS. PULVER-Right. They may just talk about relief and never use
a number.
MR. MARTIN-Then the relief may change in the context of the
discussion.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MRS. TARANA-Fine. Lets take it back to the plat. If you approve
an application based on the plat, that application becomes null and
void, and you're telling me they based it on the plat.
MR. MARTIN-The approval still stands. though.
MRS. TARANA-The whole thing is null and void.
MR. MARTIN-I disagree.
MR. MACEWAN-That's what a Top Dog in the State says. We asked that
question of him when we went to the TeleConference.
MRS. TARANA-Well, I got that from the State Attorney.
MR. MARTIN-I disagree. I think this is a witch hunt. and I think
it's.
MRS. TARANA-A witch hunt?
MR. MACEWAN-Based on what?
MR. MARTIN-What's the point of digging up
old. that you have. eye witness, a member
this was the intent of the approval.
approving.
something that's 10 years
of the Board, saying that
This is what we were
MR. MACEWAN-I take exception to you saying this is a witch hunt.
Jim.
MR. MARTIN-Well, what's the point?
MR. MACEWAN-The point is that it's wrong. The wrong variance was
given.
MR. MARTIN-That's your, you have no basis for that. You have a
member of the Board who said this is the variance we granted. Why
are you not believing that?
MR. MACEWAN-Because I'm looking at the documentation.
MR. MARTIN-He was on the Board.
approval.
He was part of the motion of
MR. MACEWAN-I'm looking at the documentation that says otherwise.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but that's not strong enough to override. Again,
they pin something up on this board that shows 12,000 square foot
lots. They rollout a piece of paper that says 12,000 square foot
on every lot.
MR. MARTIN-I mean, I'm all in favor, right or wrong, but I just
don't see anything wrong.
MR. LAPOINT-I mean. they have that thing in front of them, and
that's what's signed in the end. is the thing that says 12,000
- 43 -
,~ -....
'-
square foot. I mean, this is why you try to reduce things to
engineering concerns, because it's. without a doubt, there, that
this discussion and all this is very vague and the application is
one thing, but when you have a hard piece of evidence in your hand
signed. that everybody looked at, that says 12,000 square feet.
that was put on every lot, what the square footage was, and if
that's approved. that's approved.
MRS. TARANA-No. That map's not approved. It's the variance that's
approved. That's what they said. quite clearly.
MR. h ,MARTIN-The variance says, the resolution of approval says
not :Lng.
MRS. TARANA-I wish I could find it, because all it says is that it
approves the variance.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So what's the point. that we should null and
void that subdivision?
MR. MACEWAN-No. That's not what I'm saying.
MR. LAPOINT-Well. then what are we going to do with it? What are
we going to do with it?
MR. MACEWAN-That's why I brought it up for discussion.
MR. LAPOINT-To me, they carne back with something that was a vast
improvement over what existed.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. See that to me, to me, the point was, the other
night was, a modification to a subdivision, not a reopening of the
validity of the McDonald subdivision. That's two different things,
in my mind. You had a modification before you.
MR. LAPOINT-Now I made a real strong argument. and not too many
people chimed in. to make bigger lots out of it.
MRS. TARANA-I heard you say that, 20,000.
MR. LAPOINT-The applicant refused, several times. on several
occasions, and I'm right on this, I do this for a living. These
are computer generated type things, and all they've got to do is
adjust one or two lot lines, eliminate one or two lots, and you get
it. Now what you've got to do is jump in with me and support those
type of things, and we can move that applicant in that direction.
O'Connor sat there. and he wasn't going to move on that, but that's
because I had no support.
MRS. TARANA-No. I did agree with you, Ed.
when you said that.
I did agree with you
MR. LAPOINT-Well, we've got to jump in and say that's what we want
to do.
MRS. TARANA-In fact, when the motion was made, I think it wasn't
put in there. and I said something about compliance.
MR. LAPOINT-Right. Well, see, and my opinion is it doesn't matter
the size lots to me. The overriding thing is this improvement.
MR. RUEL-Didn't he say, though, it had been previously approved?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Well. they weren't going to knuckle in. They
weren't going to move them, but I think if we had stayed together
as a Board, that might have happened. Maybe.
MRS. TARANA-But the reason we didn't, my feeling is. the reason I
didn't stick with it. which was my first inclination, was because
I was assured by the Town Attorney that that was a done deal. It
- 44 -
-,
was over. It was done. They were 12.000 square feet. In fact,
you said the same thing. Then it wasn't until I got the stuff to
look at myself, which I think is probably the biggest issue here.
that we shouldn't have even addressed it.
MR. LAPOINT-Right. We were looking at it for the first time that
night.
MRS. TARANA-Absolutely, and it was pushed through.
MR. LAPOINT-Right, but again, it was just a recommendation that
night. to go, there was nothing officially done here, other than a
recommendation, correct?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. RUEL-It was a modification.
MR. MARTIN-Right. No, you didn't approve the modification. They
still have to come back in for the modification.
MR. LAPOINT-No. We said that with respect to the overall concept,
it's a better concept than what the McDonald subdivision was.
especially in light of what would be going in behind it.
MRS. PULVER-All right. So if it comes up again, it's corning up
again, for the modification itself.
MR. LAPOINT-Right.
MRS. PULVER-Maybe we ought to have the Town Attorney here that
night. or talk to the Town Attorney in advance of them coming. as
to what your feelings are, exactly, how you feel, now. for
instance.
MRS. TARANA-I talked to him.
MR. MARTIN-I even tried to get the tapes of that meeting, because
they still recorded them, and the tapes have been destroyed.
MRS. TARANA-I talked to Paul. after this meeting, and he told me it
could be taken both ways. It's a gray area. You can read it
either way. That's what he told me.
MR. MARTIN-But in my mind. when I've got a person who was sitting
on the Board at the time of approval, telling me what he approved.
MR. BREWER-Do you really trust everybody's memory for 10 or 11
years, Jim? I told you before that I accept your decision, and I
had nothing to do with this.
MR. LAPOINT-From here on in, we stick together, and when they come
back. we say. we want to see you shift, eliminate some lot lines.
go from 22 to 18 lots, whatever it takes to get the 20,000 square
feet. If that's our concern. and a reasonable expectation. for
them to get this massive development in there, they'll do it.
MR. RUEL-Didn't he say that if we insisted on not accepting the
modification or changing it, that he would simply revert back to
the original? He could go back to the original.
MR. MACEWAN-Let me offer this suggestion. Seeing there's some real
difference of opinions here, Jim, do this for me, for next month's
packet, give everybody on the Planning Board who doesn't have a
copy of all this material on this. everyone review it at the
beginning of the month, the first meeting of the month that we have
scheduled, we'll sit down. we'll discuss this, very first thing.
and everybody draw their own conclusion. We're together as a
Board. I'm putting it on the table, because I think it's wrong.
That's my opinion.
- 45 -
MRS. TARANA-I'll tell you what's wrong. What bothers me, if this
goes through, and don't take this personally, but here's the thing,
forget Southern Exposure. Here's what I'm worried about. If you
go on the premise that what we approve is met, my concern is, so
many of these maps come in here wrong, and then somebody can go
back and say, well that's what you approved, because that's the map
that was in front of you. I don't want that to happen.
MR. MARTIN-What I think
the manner in which the
Boar conducts business,
above what existed in
comparable.
this is reflection of, in all honesty, is
Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning
in this day and age, is so many levels
this Town 10 years ago, it's not even
MRS. TARANA-I agree.
MR. MARTIN-And I think what you're seeing an example of is that
night. you know, somebody said, well, we have an application in
front of us here for 20.000 square feet. Well that's not right.
We want this. We mean this plat here. This is what we're asking
you for. It is? Well. that doesn't look too bad. What's
everybody's vote? Do you approve the plat? Yes. Approved. Done.
Next issue. Nobody's here to tell them it's wrong. No Attorney
General here or anything. They just do it. You're talking about
10 years ago, and it's reflected in the quality of their
resolutions. Now our resolutions are very, very distinct. They
cite specific amounts of relief, right down to a 10th of a linear
foot. Back then it was, yes. the variance is approved, next item.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but Jim. and I'm just going to interrupt for one
second, but the thing that triggered me with it is, he came in. two
years previous, with a map of 32 lots. Two years later he says,
shit, I didn't file, whatever. He comes back with a map that says
36. He flashes it in front of them and says, fellas, look, I
didn't file this, this is my map. and it's completely bogus. I
don't care about back in those days, it's wrong.
MR. MARTIN-What I'm saying is. if you're going to take that
approval to task because of what's been done by the members, I'm
saying that was the regular order of business back in those days.
and maybe a lot of subdivisions and variance approvals can be taken
to task. because they thought they were doing right, and they were
doing the best they could.
MR. BREWER-But what the stick about it is. is that is being
included in a PUD with 200 and 13 or 17 acres, and they're making
a part of it, and they're using every bit of that PUD pressure to
let this fella do whatever he wants. Jim. You know. I sat in your
office and we talked about that road going straight out to Corinth
Road, and he's doing every damn thing he can to prevent that,
because he is stubborn and he isn't going to do it. Well, I think
that that's wrong. If it's going to benefit, fine, lets make him
do it, and I'm not saying that I'm even going to have any
conversation about this, but that's just my feeling. You agreed
with me, that is the best thing to do, but this guy won't do it, so
let him do any damn thing he wants.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I continue to agree to, and when it comes to
the point of site plan review, or the modification of that
subdivision. and you want Staff Notes. if Scott's in concurrence.
MR. BREWER-But then it's going to be too late.
MR. MARTIN-No, it's not too late.
MR. LAPOINT-It's not too late. It always rests with us. The thing
is, we've got to be together on it.
MR. MARTIN-The site plan review of that PUD can be changed.
- 46 -
......,
MR. BREWER-Yes. but that's not part of the PUD.
trying to tell you.
That's what I'm
MR. MARTIN-No. You can cut that road through there, if you want,
at site plan, with this Board.
MR. BREWER-That subdivision. legally, is not part of that PUD.
MRS. TARANA-Right.
MR. BREWER-So. when you're reviewing the site plan for the PUD, how
can you bring that back in?
MR. MARTIN-And also it's part of the modification of that
subdivision.
MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute. The modification, though, of that
subdivision.
MR. BREWER-Has nothing to do with that PUD.
O'Connor stated.
That's what Mike
MRS. PULVER-Well, wait a
original approval by the
modifications that were
subdivision.
minute.
Planning
going to
I feel that that PUD, the
Board, was because of the
be made to the McDonald
MR. BREWER-Look at every application, Carol, and you talk to Mike
O'Connor, and he'll tell you that subdivision is not part of the
PUD.
MRS. PULVER-Lets go back to the intent of the Board. The intent of
the Board was to approve those curb cuts and change everything
around, that modification, which was going to benefit the PUD, and
it kind of made everybody happy, okay. So I say that that
subdivision, those modifications to that subdivision.
MR. BREWER-It's not part of the application. I'm sorry. I agree
with you. but it's not part of the application.
MRS. PULVER-Well, you know what, it's not part of the application
because we don't have an application yet.
MRS. TARANA-I guess my bottom line question is, if you accept this
whole thing, can't somebody come back, if we make a mistake on a
map, and say. this is what you approved? We've had maps where the
places are backwards. We've had terrible maps. So no matter what
we say in the variance. somebody can say. but it's the map that
you're approving. I think it's got to be real clear what you're
approving, and according to the State.
MR. MARTIN-I'm just saying, as a matter of business back then.
MRS. TARANA-I know. I realize that. but I'm just thinking that now
we realize they've made a mistake, and maybe we should pull it back
and listen to it again. That's my own feeling.
MR. MACEWAN-Is everybody in agreement, that we get the packet put
together, all the information pertaining to that particular piece,
and review it, the first meeting of next month, discuss it, and
take action on it.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but by action, I need to know what your
definition, what are we going to do?
MR. MACEWAN-I want it as a listed discussion
I think there's some things wrong with it.
some things wrong with it. We want to get
whether there is. indeed, something wrong
on our agenda, because
Corinne thinks there's
the whole Board's input
with it.
- 47 -
'-
~
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Timothy Brewer. Chairman
- 48 -