Loading...
1994-11-29 ~ "--' ~ -./ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 1994 INDEX Subdivision 1\10. 16-1994 Columbia Queensbury Group 1. FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 14-1994 Craig Seeley, Charles Seeley, 27. PRELIMINARY STAGE Glenn Batease Site Plan 1\10. 34-94 John Creede 34. For Lawrence & Lois Stone Site Plan No. 35-94 John Creede 37. For Allen E. Howland Site Plan No. 38-94 Harold A. & Eleanore Smith 41. Site Plan No. 39-94 Ma ,- k Darius 41. 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. '---'- '-'" ---1 ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK, SECRETARY CATHERINE LABOMBARD ROBERT PALING ROGER RUEL JAMES OBERMAYER CRAIG MACEWAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, BILL MACNAMARA (LOST PART OF MEETING DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH TAPE) PAUL DUSEK, TOWN ATTORNEY MR. DUSEK-Then if they have proposed internal roads, then I think the Board has to take a look at the internal roads proposed to see whether or not they work, in terms of access. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying, though, is what's the difference if it goes across the ravine on the bottom or he goes across it on the top? I still base my opinion on this 183-1B, the same thing. MR. DUSEK-The question L have is whether, in fact, he's going across the ravine. I don't know. MR. BREWER-Sure he is. It goes all the way across the end of their property, Paul. MR. RUEL-What is the width and the depth of the ravine at that point, at the top, compared with what it was at the bottom? MR. BREWER-It's much shallower, I'm sure, and much narrower. MR. OBERMAYER-Down at this end it was 50 feet, the contour. MR. RUEL-And the second question, how do you propose to get across that ravine? JOE NICOLA MR. NICOLA-I'll answer the first one, and I'm going to take it from the top of slope to top of slope. This is, the scale say one to one hundred. So this is, like, three hundred and, three hundred feet set, okay, and this up here is fifty feet. MR. BREWER-Even with the 100 foot setback that we put on the building for the site plan for the last building, there was a 100 foot setback from the ravine. So, with that in mind, I mean, all those things in mind, you still have to disturb it, and we had a no disturb area in the ravine. It doesn't make any difference to me. I think it's the same tune only going a different way. .. MR. RUEL-The buildable area of that lot, the proposed lot, would be considerably reduced with the 100 foot setback from the r a vine. - 1 - I I '--" '--- --./ ..-" MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. NICOLA-It's 75 feet. MR. BREWER-No. into the. It was 100 feet up there and 75 where it comes MR. NICOLA-It would be reduced, but there's still a building area in there, and, you know, we have a developable lot there. MR. RUEL-How do you propose to get across that ravine? what? With MR. NICOLA-There's two ways, or three ways. MR. BREWER-With the site plan for the Native we asked them not to disturb it, and that's in the motion. MR. STARK-That ravine, you can't touch the ravine. MR. BREWER-That's right. So how are they going to get across it, George? MR. NICOLA-Again, Tim, we haven't disturbed anything yet. MR. BREWER-No. I agree with you, you haven't, but in the future, what I'm saying to you, Joe, is if we give you the subdivision, how are you going to get across it without disturbing it? If you can tell me how you're going to do that, I'll listen. MR. NICOLA-Well, there's two things. in New York State that's become a called, mitigation. One is that there's a thing very popular term. It's MR. BREWER-So what was the purpose of putting that in the motion? MR. NICOLA-All I'm saying, Tim, is that here you have something that's eight feet deep and it's fifty feet wide. I know that eight foot ditches in the Town of Queensbury have surely been filled in, and I'm not proposing that that's the only way that we do this, but there is a suggestion. The other suggestion, as Leon points out, I mean, here's the parcels. I mean, you could have access from over in here. You could have access through here. What if he bought this and expanded coming (lost word). MR. BREWER-Exactly, but it's not proposed at this point. When we're subdividing, that's what I'm saying. MR. NICOLA-What I mean is, you're losing your chance, and although the financing, and I agree with Paul, is not relevant, it is from the point of view, if you deny this, you're right. It is not relevant, and for fifteen years it's not relevant, because that lender is not going to give us the release to do this. If he's not going to give us a release now, what makes you think he's going to give us a release next year or two years from now? MR. MACEWAN-Why is that our responsibility, though? understand that. I don't MR. NICOLA-It's not your responsibility. MR. MACEWAN-But you certainly are putting a lot of burden on this Board to press us to approve this thing when, you keep citing that one factor. MR. NICOLA-But, Craig, if you don't, and you've just, for fifteen years, with your vote, taken the opinion that there's no other solution, that there's no other acceptable method that, if I said I could fill it in. - 2 - "--' ,---",' -./ \....- MR. BREWER-No, I think that's not what he's saying. MR. NICOLA-(lost word) you could put in a small bridge. MR. MACEWAN-That's not what I said. MR. DUSEK-Tim, I think the issue that everybody has to focus on, and, Joe, I think that the Board is right, in terms of th§ir focus. They're looking at access, and as I indicated to you on the phone today, you've got to prove access. That's the issue here. Joe, it cannot be possible access. It can't be something in the future. It has to be, how are you going to access it now, and is that acceptable to the Board. MR. NICOLA-I'm going to access it right here. MR. STARK-He said he would make it a stipulation of the approval not to access it from the bottom. Did you hear him say that? MR. BREWER-I heard him from the bottom, George, but last meeting, he said he was going to come up the side and go across where the ravine was not so wide. MR. NICOLA-Right here. MR. BREWER-No. Last meeting you said you were going to come in the bottom, go up and across where the ravine was not so wide and so deep, and I said, and three other members said that was not acceptable because you were going to disturb the ravine. MR. NICOLA-I agree with you. It's not acceptable. It's not acceptable to me, because, you know, the other side I have to look at this, Tim, is from a financial standpoint, and this is untenable. MR. BREWER-Joe, finances I don't want to hear about. I think the discussion is over. I'm going to ask Paul if he would draft a motion based on 183-1. I'll offer it, if it's denied, then we'll go on. MR. RUEL-This is considered a change over the last plan, correct? MR. BREWER-It certainly is. MR. RUEL-Now, were the residents notified, the property owners? MR. MACEWAN-I think it constitutes a significant change in the plan, where the residents should be notified. MR. BREWER-Wait just a minute. I don't think they have, Roger, no. MR. RUEL-They were not notified? MR. MARTIN-Well, what I would suggest is, first of all I think you have to decide, as a Board, if you want to conceptually proceed along that line, with a northern crossing. If you don't, then lets not waste everybody's time and effort. If you do, then I would like to suggest that we send this off for an engineering review, because I'd also like to see an overlay of this proposal against the location of the lupine and all that, and, you know, we're going to have to make sure that no greater than a slope of one on three is presented, as we fill in that ravine, for the road crossing. How far is that going to extend to the south, if we have to create that 25 percent slope, you know, how is that going to have to be engineered to prevent potentially heavy truck traffic to cross over a filled area. There's a lot of concerns there that I would think have to be explored, but I don't want the applicant to incur that cost, and the cost of our review, if it's conceptually dead right out of the blocks here, so to speak. - 3 - I I '---' , ----./ -- MR. BREWER-I would still like to offer the motion, if Paul would be willing to, or can I just offer the motion to deny based on Article I in the General Provisions 183-1 Letter B? MR. DUSEK-Well, I think, Tim, before you get into the motion situation, I think that the issue that the Boards really should address first is whether or not you have a new plan before you over the last meeting, because what L saw from your last meeting was not what I'm saying now. All right. So I think you need to, first of all, determine whether or not you have a new application. If you have a new application, well, first of all, I think that's one issue. I think, then, the other issue is, the applicant has to determine whether he wants to pursue the old application. If he wants to pursue the old application, and the Board says, fine, we'll ignore this new one, then you can, I think, you should entertain a motion along the nature of what you're suggesting. However, if the applicant says, I don't want to pursue the old application. I want to pursue a new application, and the Board feels it's a new application, then, I think the next step would be, as Jim mentioned, do you want to consider this conceptually. If you do, and you think it's worthy of consideration and you're willing to look at it with an open mind, then you'd want them to go off and do the studies and provide you with information on this new plan. Do you see the logic of where I'm trying to take you? MR. BREWER-Yes, I understand that. MR. MACEWAN-Would you beginning and notify the application, the number? have to start it back from the very neighbors and everything else as a new MR. DUSEK-Well, sure. MR. MARTIN-I think there's a couple of things here. Procedurally, first of all, you've got an application out there right now that's had no action. If that 45 days elapses, it's automatically approved. MR. BREWER-That's my opinion. motion to deny that. That's why I want to make the MR. MARTIN-So you've got to bring that old application to some conclusion, whether they withdraw it or you deny it, or whatever, but the neJ.AJ application, it would be ~ advise. MR. BREWER-Should be treated as a new application. MR. MACEWAN-But there is no new application, yet. ever applied for. Nothing was MR. MARTIN-Well, let me finish. I think if he wants to apply for that, or suggest that scenario, then it should be applied for. A new public hearing should be held, because that access point is closer to the residents to the north. MR. MACEWAN-Absolutely. MR. NICOLA-And I honestly don't, and, I mean, I'll talk around, we're talking semantics, but I mean, the fact of the matter is, the property line has a change. New application. old application. I mean, I wasn't here, and maybe that was a mistake, and I apologize for that, and we're not intending to go down here, or here, or here, or here, or here. The only spot that we will enter this property from the property that we currently own is right there, and whether it's done with a bridge, whether it's done by filling it in. MR. BREWER-Then it's not a new application, then, is what he's - 4 - '"-,, ,-' .J '~' saying. How do we feel? Is it a new application? MR. STARK-Tim, let me say hurry to get all, to make You haven't even polled the that? something, okay. You're such in a this motion, the resolution to deny. Board whether we should go ahead with MR. BREWER-Why, did I last time, George? What I'm saying to you is, at the last meeting, they walked out of here. The motion to approve was denied. I asked for a motion to deny. MR. STARK-No. We made a motion to approve. MR. BREWER-Right, and it was voted down. So I asked for a motion from counsel to deny, and that was the purpose of this meeting, not to look at another plan tonight. MR. NICOLA-I don't think you're looking at another plan. MR. BREWER-Wait just a minute. This discussion is between the Board, please. So that's what I've done. That's all I'm doing. Based on the old plan. If everybody thinks this is a new plan, I'll still deny the old plan, and he can reapply and submit this plan and it's a whole new plan. MR. STARK-What Mr. Dusek just said, though, was why should he incur all this expense and everything if, conceptually, you're against the new plan without even seeing it? MR. BREWER-I'm against the old plan, George. MRS. LABOMBARD-Tim did not say that, George. MR. BREWER-I'm against the old plan, and that's the plan we're looking at right now. MR. STARK-Tim, excuse me. Did you ever approve of a plan crossing that ravine, no matter what idea he comes up with? MR. BREWER-Yes, I could. If it's a new application and it goes to engineering, and he shows us that it can work. I'm not saying that I would automatically do that. I'd have to look at, let the engineers look at it. MR. MACEWAN-In your mind, George, to take a highlighter and highlight on that map, is that sufficient to you that it can wor k? MR. STARK-Well, I know an eight foot ditch can be filled in, no problem. MR. MACEWAN-Is that what you would want when this Board, the site plan of Native Textiles, took an extreme measure. We had an oþportunity to protect that ravine. We did it. MR. STARK-You could get it at site plan. You could have approval at site plan. You don't need it now. MR. BREWER-You're missing the point, George. You're creating a situation that we tried to avoid at site plan with Native T~xtiles, by preserving the ravine with a 100 foot setback, r~ght, and you voted for it, to preserve the ravine 100 foot. So now if they come in there, and they go across that ravine, tell m~ how is that preserving it? Tell me how it's preserving it? MR. STARK-Well, personally, I would vote against anything crossing the ravine. They'd have to buy land up above and come in, but that you can get to at site plan. I don't need it now. MR. BREWER-No. You're at subdivisio~, George. Paul said they - 5 - I I ~ ,-../ "--- '-<' had to provide and show us showing us. They're drawing doesn't show me how it works. how the access works. They're a line on a piece of paper. not That MR. STARK-There's a lot of things that we approve that all the I's and the T's and everything, you know. MR. BREWER-This isn't I's and T's. it to engineering. staff says they should send MR. PALING-Tim, I don't think that we've required other subdivisions to make that definite a plan or drawings to say that this is specifically how we're going to cross the ravine. As a matter of fact, last time, there was a drawing submitted outlining the buildable part of this lot, and one of the alternatives that we talked about was either going straight across the ravine, as is shown up there, or filling it, or coming in after buying property. MR. BREWER-I'm not denying that there is buildable land on that pa'"cel. What I'm saying is. MR. PALING-I don't look at this as a new plan, and I the Board has totally talked this thing out yet. I we're ready to make a proposal. I think we've all our say on this, before we put it to a vote. don't think don't think got to give MR. BREWER-That~s what I asked for. I asked George if he thought it was a new plan. If he doesn't think it's a new plan. Fine. I'll ask everybody. MR. STARK-No, no. Tim, I said, why don't you poll the Board instead of trying to ram this thing through. MR. BREWER-I'm not trying to ram it through, George. The motion was made last meeting. It was voted down. I'm offering a motion the opposite of that. If you think this is a new plan. MR. STARK-You're trying to put off discussion by saying, lets go ahead and have Paul lead us through the denial, motion to deny. MR. BREWER-Right. I didn't deny you from making a motion to approve it last time. MR. STARK-No. MR. BREWER-So why are you trying to deny me that right? MR. STARK-It was all talked out. You didn't poll everybody right I'''¡ere, right now. MR. OBERMAYER-I think it should definitely be raised to the neighbors. I think the neighbors deserve an opportunity to look. MR. MACEWAN-The applicant is saying this isn't a new plan. The applicant is saying that this is the plan he wants to go with. MR. BREWER-You're not listening. the same plan as we had last time? Is this a new plan, or is it That's what the question is. MR. STARK-I would say it's probably the same. MR. BREWER-Okay. Jim? MR. OBERMAYER-I would say probably the same, but I think I might feel better if the neighbors had a chance to look at it. MR. BREWER-That's the point you're missing. The neighbors had a chance to look at it, and if it's the same plan, the motion to approve was voted down, so I'm offering a motion to deny it. - 6 - ''"--'" '--' ,--,' "\--' That's the point I'm trying to get to you. MR. PALING-If there's any question the neighbors have not had a chance to review the plan completely, then I think we should honor that and give them an opportunity to do it. MR. BREWER-I don't deny them the opportunity to submit a new plan and give that opportunity to the neighbors. That's what I'm saying. MR. RUEL-I think the old plan should be voted down. The new plan is a new application. MR. MACEWAN-There is no new plan. The applicant says that that is not a new plan. That's the old plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Why can't you call it an alteration on the old plan? You can't do that? MR. PALING-Well, you're not glvlng the neighbors a chance to cömment on it. That's the part I would stumble on. MR. BREWER-It's the same plan, though, Bob. saying. That's what we're MR. MACEWAN-It hasn't changed. MR. PALING-All right. I don't have any trouble with the plan, as compared to what we said last time. I know how I feel and I know how I'd like to vote on this, and I think that we should approve it, is what I'm saying, because I think we have approved others like this and not gotten into, there's a very strict adherence to a rather general guidance, out of the subdivision. MRS. LABOMBARD-Bob, I don't think you're right about that. I don't think we have approved any plans that are similar to this. MR. PALING-We've approved flag shaped lots and we've had no specific plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-But not with the environmental sensitivity that this one had, and all the restrictions and stipulations that we put on that initial approval. MR. MARTIN-I would say, if we had a residential subdivision before us that showed a road going through, like a marshy area or something like that, we'd want to see some detail as to how that's going to be accomplished. MR. BREWER-Right, and we have not seen any detail at all. MR. MARTIN-That's a unique situation there, trying to cross an area that's, how many feet wide, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-About 14 feet deep. MR. MARTIN-About 14 feet deep, and about 50 feet wide. Like I said, if that's going to be an industrial lot there, and Lot Two, with potentially heavy truck traffic going over that area, how's that going to be accomplished? MRS. LABOMBARD-I have no problem. If you show me a viable, ingrained plan that can access that property. MR. NICOLA-Can I make a suggestion? Can we table this, and let me come back with a plan to show you how to access it? MR. MACEWAN-It would have to be a new plan. MR. BREWER-It would be a new application. That's what we're - 7 - I I ',--, '----' '---./ .....-I saying. MR. MACEWAN-You're not gaining anything by it. '-EON STEVES MR. STEVES-Why would it have to bea new application if we're showing you how we're going to access? MR. MACEWAN-Because you've got to give the neighbors an opportunity to have a public hearing for their input into it. MR. STEVES-CLost word) public hearing, give us the opportunity to discuss the easement across the property to access it. We attempted to do so, told you that we were following the Code requirements of the 50 feet on the Town road. 1'1R. MACEWAN-But no one, last week, was aware of that option. MR. STEVES-Yes, we we,-e. MR" MACEWAN-No, we weren't. That wasn't discussed, was it? MR. BREWER-That was never told us. MR. DUSEK-What I just want to mention is, just caution the Board not to get tied up into semantics. If, in fact, the applicant wants to come back with another plan, I think there's two ways to accomplish it, both of which would legally work. One would be to, with the applicant's agreement that the 45 days wouldn't, obviously, expire and result in an automatic approval, that he could come back with a new plan. The Board, in turn, could re- advertise for the next hearing, and you could do a public hearing on the next plan, still within the context of this same proceeding, or you could, if you want to go through the mechanics, deny the application, and then start allover fresh. Either way gets you to the same result, except that probably in the first instance I gave, where he simply comes back and it's tabled, I suppose that saves some paperwo,-k, and it's p,-obably saved some cost. MR. MACEWAN-As far as the re-advertising aspect, you're just talking a legal notice in the paper, or would each individual neighboY be notified? MR. DUSEK-Well, the same type of notice you always give for your subdivisions, but I think if the goal is to get another plan in front of you and get it further studied and further evaluated, I think you can do it either way. I don't think you have to get tied up on, how are we going to do that part of it? And I guess that's the real question for the Board, and the applicant, do you want to do that. Do you want to go with a new plan. MR. BREWER-That's fine, and we'll send it to engineering. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's fine. That makes sense to me. MR. NICOLA-I'd have no issue with that. The thing that I would like to know is, we have the cart way before the horse, because until I know what's here, to be fair, I don't know what's going to do this. I'm trying to protect both my interest, QEDC's interest and the Town's interest, because all three of us would like to see a future development here. MR. MACEWAN-Wait a minute. You keep coming back to that one point, Joe, and that's not the consideration of this Board. MR. NICOLA-I just want to finish. Without knowing that, who is going to go there, what the timing is, all of those things, I mean, I can engineer how to cross this. I mean, this is, I don't - 8 - '--'" '--'" J ''"'---' want to say, this is no great engineering feat. I always say this here, but it's not. I mean, much bigger bridges and things have been done. They put a chunnel between England and France. I mean, we can get over this. MR. BREWER-There's no doubt that you can get over it. MR. NICOLA-From an engineering point of view. Now we get into the environment. Is there, you know, if we fill this in, okay, that's the cheapest, safest, from a maintenance standpoint, when I say safest, I'm not talking about the environment, now, and I think Jim Martin points out a good point, that we should plot the r~of line on here, and the more sensitive areas which are down in h¢re, up in here and down in here. MR. BREWER-No, on the contrary, they're up toward the top of your map. MR. NICOLA-I have no issue doing that, but there are all kinds of ways. I mean, DEC and the Army Corp of Engineers, for instance, l.t you fill in wetlands as long as you do remediation some place else. It's a very common practice done all the time. This is 50 by 50. You're talking about 2500 square feet, which is a twentieth of an acre, or an eighteenth of an acre, a number like that. I mean, that's the easiest way, and to say, to, you know, with that I commit that, if there's an environmental fund at the time we do that, to the Town of Queensbury, that wø commit so many dollars, that's the best way fo,- me to do that. We can come up with all kinds of gyrations in between that of putting up bridges. We can do that, but it doesn't make sense. I mean, I'd rather give some money to do something that's positive as opposed tþ putting it into different engineering. MR. BREWER-Can we do that, Paul? MR. DUSEK-What's that? MR. BREWER-Have them give us money to do something somewhere else? MR. DUSEK-Well, I think we can look at all those options, but I think, Joe, I think the answer still has to be resolved, and that's the access issue, and I think the comments that Jim's brought up, and I get the feeling from the Board. MR. NICOLA-I agree with Jim's comments, but we can solve the engineering issues. MR. DUSEK-Right, but you have to demonstrate that, I think, still. MR. NICOLA-Okay, and I can solve the engineering issues, and I don't have any problem doing that. My issue becomes is once I solve that, does the target become, well, if we cross the ravine, that's not what we want, because if that's the final solution, I don't want to go through the process. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's what I'm saying. I want to make sure that we get all the rules of the game out here now. MR. BREWER-If that's going to be your access, show us how you're gþing to get power there, how you're going to get water there. MR. NICOLA-I can do all those things, Tim. MR. BREWER-Okay. Show us. MR. NICOLA-But when I come back here, does the Board have an open ~ind to look at it and say, okay, there you are. If you showed Us, from an engineering standpoint, we had our independent - 9 - I I '---" ~ '--' engineer review and make sure you can get trucks across it, you can get water there, you can get power there, yoU can get gas there, that vehicle access works, yes, you did fill in a portion of the ravine. We don't want you to fill in a portion of the ravine, no matter what you do. Thank yoU very much. You're denied. I just want to save myself the trouble from that, and that's all I'm sitting here saying. MRS. LABOMBARD-You certainly have a right to make that request. MR. MARTIN-But the thing I would caution against, though, Joe, is I think it's unfair to ask a guarantee, so to speak, like, you provide all that, we'll give you an approval. I mean, if the engineering, for whatever reason, should fail, or an impact to the lupine is so great that it can't be mitigßted or something like that, then, the right is still reserved for a denial. MR. NICOLA-No, but, Jim, I guess what I'm asking for is that, if there's predisposition. MR. BREWER-How can there be predisposition, Joe, if you haven't shown us what you're going to give us? I mean, I think that's an unfair statement. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have to clear the air about one thing, and maybe it isn't relevant to this exact topic that we're on right now, but this is where I feel I'm not being leveled with. Now I don't know how much the Post Star prints what's true or what isn't true, but I had a real hard time reading the paper the next day and having Dean Beckos, the President of the QEDC quoted as saying that he has no idea what Columbia Development officials are talking about, and after you hear, I guess I'd be at a loss to describe what they're driving at, Dean says. We hold a fifteen year mortgage with them that holds interest only for fifteen years and then the balance is paid. Okay. If money isn't relevant, and the whole monetary thing has nothing to do with us, fine, but then why are you saying one thing and they're saying something else? And that's why I'm beginning to wonder what in the world's going on and I'm also thinking about, you would not believe what the community is saying about the fact that those trees were clear cut. I have been getting is, they were going to clear cut those trees from Day One, and what's $8,000 to a great big development company, and I'm thinking, is this the way big business operates? I'm just a teacher, and I'm beginning to get a little bit worried, and I'm done. MR. NICOLA-Okay, but I don't mean to interrupt you, and it's possible that Dean is not aware of what his attorney was doing on his behalf. Paul and I had this conversation today. Bob Morris, I,>Jho is QEDC' s At tor ney, is doi ng his best job to protect QEDC, and maybe Paul can explain this a little bit better than I can, but what's ending up happening is this, that if we have one mortgage, Native Textile's building goes on this, and QEDC gets a second mortgage for $150,000 here, and a cross collateralized first mortgage for $150,000 here. MR. BREWER-So what happens if you build on that piece of property? MR. NICOLA-I have to pay QEDC all of their money. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NICOLA-Okay. If I can never build on that property. QEDC does not get their money for fifteen years, guaranteed. MR. BREWER-But that's an arrangement they made. nothing to do with us. So that has MR. NICOLA-I'm answering a question. Bob Morris, who is QEDC's - 10 - "---' '--' --../' '~~ A~torney, came and he said, we want it subdivided. We want a first position on the other piece, and feel free to call him. I m~an, really, because that's, from a legal standpoint, Paul, WGuld you say that's a good move for QEDC? MR. DUSEK-Well, let me say two things, first of all, Joe. You and I did have a conversation today, and I just want to make sure the record's clear that I don't know what QEDC's position or Bob Morris' position is with regard to whether they want or don't want this, all right. That's so we don't have any other misquotes going on around here. We did have a discussion, you aDd I. M~. NICOLA-From a legal to have a first position (¡ost word). standpoint, would it be better here, and a second here, than for QEDC a second MR. DUSEK-Certainly, as a matter of a legal position, f~nancially, but here again, I think that, as Tim has mentioned, and I've mentioned to you, you've got to stay away from that, in terms of the approach here. I think what you're looking at is, can you have access to this parcel. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. NICOLA-And I don't have a problem with that, and asking for the Board to keep an open mind, and if I go the engineering that I can show you how to engineer mþan, it's really. I'm just through this. I MR. BREWER-Anything can be engineered. MR. NICOLA-Well, then we agree with that. I agree with you that we can engineer something that's suitable to you, and if you wanted to approve it conditional. MR. BREWER-No, no conditions. Come back with a plan that shows u~ that it works. MR. NICOLA-Just let me finish. Conditioned upon, that the e~gineering would be done satisfactory to the Board, I would be mbre than happy to do that. I understand you're not willing to db that, and that's fine with me, then I'll come back, but I dbn't want to spend $5,000 to find out that you're going to say no anyway. MR. BREWER-There's no guarantee that we're going to say yes, and there's no guarantee that we're going to say no. We'll look at i~ with an open mind, like we do with every application. MR. NICOLA-I heard you make some statements, though, bGffers and 100 feet. What would you do if I filled it? wþuld your comments be? about What , , MR. BREWER-I honestly don't know until I see it. MR. MACEWAN-We'll address those at the time of your application. M!R. BREWER-I would suggest that, if you §..re going to fill it, if t!hat's the means you're going to do, then you would send a repo,-t to Nature Conservancy. They drew up a plan to protect that area. Uet them give us comment and see what thê..Z. have. When all the cbmments come back, give me time to read them, and then I can give you an answer to that. I can't give you an answer until I s!ee what's. MIR. PALING-Tim, I'd like to say one thing, though. If we were to glO the route of hav i ng them engi neer and come back wi th a ~ractical access across the ravine, and this were to go forward, 8hat would be fine. Maybe it's the only route, but bear in mind, - 11 - I I ~' --,' that they could submit any access they want, probably the one they think the Board would be most comfortable with, but when they come back for site plan review, they could propose a different one, any of, lets say, four alternatives, and they wouldn't be stuck with the first one, or they wouldn't be bound by the first one, I should say. MR. BREWER-Agreed. MR. PALING-So I'm not comfortable just telling them to go back and re-engineer for the sake of re-engineering, because that's what you're doing. MR. BREWER-No. I'm asking them to show us that it works, Bob. MR. PALING-Yes, you are. When you tell them, no, I think you said, and I think I heard Cathy say, too. If they came up with a practical way to get across that ravine, which you agreed with, then you could see going ahead with the site plan/subdivision, but what I'm saying is, okay, if that's the case, and we agree there's about four alternatives, then why force them to put one before the Board, which we vote on and say yes, then they come back, at the time they want a site plan for the new lot, and they have a different one. MR. BREWER-What makes you believe that they can, Bob? me that you can. Prove to MR. PALING-Okay. If we're going to go that route, we have to go that route, but I don't think it's a real practical way to do it. MR. BREWER-There's nothing that says that they can do that with the environmental concerns. If Nature Conservancy comes back and says, hey fellas, there's no way to preserve this, then they can't do it. So that's the opportunity I'm asking for. MR. PALING-If that's the only route, then I'm in favor of it, but I still think it's wasted. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Wait a minute, Bob. That's the only route, looking at the confines of those boundaries, but there is an option that maybe future lands could be purchased where you could go up and around. MR. PALING-Right. I agree with you, Cathy, and what I'm saying is that that's one of the things, after they submit something we like, they could still come back with that, and that would render that, all that engineering wasted. MR. BREWER-But there's nothing wrong with that, Bob. If they show us that it works, and it can work, and we approve it, and they come back with something better, why wouldn't we approve something better? MR. PALING-Well, it just shows that it would probably be a waste of thei," money. MR. BREWER-But they haven't showed us that it will work, and that's the point. MR. NICOLA-But, Tim, by your own admission, I can make anything wo,·k, from an enginee,-ing standpoint. MR. BREWER-Maybe. I think we're going nowhere fast. We're just spinning our wheels. MR. NICOLA-I agree. We'll leave it as it is. we'll be back. I don't know if MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, what would you say that we do about the - 12 - .~., .-....../ -..J "---' 4 days, Paul? M'. NICOLA-IrJe'll waive it, because I think it's a moot point, b cause by the time this is all done, the mortgage will be p aced, and it's allover. M . DUSEK-Joe, for the record, though, you're, then, requesting al opportunity to submit another plan, and you are waiving any a tomatic approvals that may occasion by the 45 days? M NICOLA-Yes. . DUSEK-And at this point you're also requesting a tabling, en, basically? NICOLA-Correct. (Lost word) QEDC take back their land. BREWER-And if you do come back. NICOLA-Would you subdivide it if I gave it back to QEDC? BREWER-No. NICOLA-I'll just give the land back to them. I'll give it ck to the Town. I'll donate it to the Town. You subdivide it I'll donate it to the Town tonight. M<. BREWER-Then where does the QEDC get their money, Joe? I MF' NICOLA-Don't worry about it. SlhOUld I? M~. BREWER-Right. I don't care about the financing. QEDC made their bed. They'll lie in it. You don't care about it. IrJhy M'. NICOLA-Well, why don't you give it back to the Town? They're environmentally concerned about the land, Tim. Let me give it b~ck to the Town. I don't want to pay taxes on it because you w n't let us use it. M. MACEWAN-Because it's not the Planning Board's position to accept land on behalf of the Town. . NICOLA-So should I go to the Town and tell them to, imminent main, or just don't pay taxes on it? MACEWAN-Do what you want to do. M DUSEK-I would recommend that the Board consider a motion to table, in view of the applicant's consent. MR. BREWER-Okay. M TION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1994 COLUMBIA QUEENSBURY GROUP, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: With two conditions: 1. This tabling is made on the basis of the fact that the applicant has waived the 45 day automatic approval provisions of the ordinances and laws. 2. With the understanding that the applicant plans to submit another plan to address access issues. Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1994, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Now, do we have to have some kind of a deadline for re-advertisement, I think, Jim? ~R. MARTIN-It has to be 10 days prior to the meeting. - 13 - '--' '--" '-.....-- ~"--'" MR. BREWER-Okay. So we should put a date in there that, if they are coming back, it will be re-advertised and renotified, the ne ighbo,-s . MR. NICOLA-Yes. We will do that. MR. BREWER-Well, we just want to put that in the motion, if we can. MR. OBERMAYER-Let me just understand something, before you go walking out the door. You're walking out because we've given you, we've basically created hardship for you? MR. NICOLA-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. NICOLA-The 23rd I have a permanent loan that goes land. As soon as that happens, there's no opportunity get the property subdivided. on the to e\ier MR. OBERMAYER-I guess I don't know why we're not leaving an open mind and allowing the neighbors to come back in, and table it, to show the neighbors conceptually, before they go and re-engineer it, okay, give people a little bit of time to think about it, before we make the final decision. MR. BREWER-Jim, the same exact plan we had, we told them we wanted them to come in and show us that it works. MR. OBERMAYER-I know, but we're going to make the applicant go through all this extra engineering, okay, if he wants to come back in here. MR. BREWER-The motion's been made. I need a second. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Br ewer NOES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer MR. STARK-Tim, why don't you tell Joe that we could give him a Special Meeting before the 23rd? We didn't bend over backwards for that like we do for everybody else? Could we give them a Special Meeting? MR. BREWER-The meeting will be before the 23rd, George. MR. STARK-But the deadline for filing, we'd have to give him a waiver on that. MR. BREWER-No. We waived that right. We told him to submit a new plan. It's in the motion that he can submit a new plan. So there's no question that the meeting will be before the 23rd, no question in my mind. There's no problem with that time line. Next item, please. PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-Tim, could I just make one comment before I go home? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. TUCKER-The lines he drew on that map was drawn on there the last meeting we had. MR. BREWER-He drew it tonight. MR. TUCKER-The last meeting, the people on Merritt Road because that road was going to be running right down next to their - 14 - ',--, '-./ -../ '-----' í4sidential area. M~. BREWER-No it wasn't, Pliney. The road that he, the line that h$ drew was on the side of Carey Road, and go out the back, the t¢p side of the building, if you will, the north side of the blJ.¡ilding. MR. TUCKER-It was the same place this guy's doing it, across the í av i ne . MR. BREWER-No. It was the opposite side, Pliney. If you take t~e property like this, and put the subdivision line right there, 0tay, what they had shown before was a road going like this, o ay, from the bottom. What they're showing tonight was a line c ming up heíe and going across. MR. TUCKER-What I'm theíe, the people ahything theíe. saying is, from their it's wheíe road, there it crosses the top was no buffer or MRS. LABOMBARD-But there is a buffeí at the end of Merritt Road. There's, I mean, we had to walk across it. M~. BREWER-Yes. Next order, George. , I SOCTE PLAN NO. 40-94 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID J. KENNY OWNERS: KENNY/BROCK ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF RT. 9 SOUTH OF RbuTE 149 AND NORTH OF DAYS INN. PROPOSAL IS TO DEMOLISH EkISTING SHOPPING MALL AND CONSTRUCT A NEW MALL OF 52,458 SQ. FT. W~RREN CO. PLANNING: 11/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 37-1-33.1, 33.2 LOT S~ZE: 12.24 ACRES SECTION 179-23 TpM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVE KENNY, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. We went through this with Staff and the aþplicant last meeting. MÞ. MARTIN-You opened the public hearing, didn't you, on that? MR. BREWER-Yes, we opened it and closed it. ! I M~. MACEWAN-Did we close it? Mr. BREWER-We closed it. MR· MACEWAN-That's right. There was nobody here. I remember. Mp. BREWER-It was the through all the Staff I M~. HARLICKER-Yes. Board and these two people. Okay. We went Notes, and they have been addressed, Scott? I guess the main concern seemed to be access. M~. BREWER-Right, and you did go to a meeting, Jim, maybe you can b~ief everybody about the meeting? ! MR. MARTIN-Yes. We had a meeting last Wednesday in the Region oIne office of DOT, their Planning Division. I was there. Dave Kbnny and Tom Nace were there, and Don Robertson, from DOT's pllanning Division, the Env.b-onmental Analyst, Joanna Brunso, and Mlark Kennedy fíom Traffic and Safety. The plan was discussed. The design and concept were found to be acceptable, and I think tlhat's indicated in Joanna's letter. It might be worthwhile reading into the record. I can do that. This is addressed to Tim Brewer, dated November 28th "Dear Mr. Brewer: On Wednesday, November 23, 1994, I met with Dave Kenny, Tom Nace of Haanen Engineering, Jim Martin of the Town of Queensbury, Mark Kennedy, the NYSDOT Region 1 Peími t Engi neeí, and Don Robe'"tson, the NIYSDOT Region 1 SEQR Coordinator. We reviewed the KennY/Brock Site Plan, as shown on the site plan dated 11/10/94, and except for minor geometric adjustments suggested by Mark Kennedy, we - 15 - .---- ~ found that this site plan to be acceptable. Additionally, I would like to commend Mr. Kenny for his attention to reduction of highway access driveways, internal circulation on the site and to adjacent parcels, and provision of adequate public transit access. If this type of attention had been paid to other sites on the Million Dollar Half-Mile, congestion on this segment of Route 9 would be somewhat reduced. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this site plan. If you need additional information please call me. Sincerely, Joanna M. Brunso Staff Director" MR. MARTIN-Obviously, the meeting went very well. The geometry referred to is, I think Tom has made the changes, or he agreed to at the meeting anyhow. Maybe you want to point those out for the Board's ,-eview. MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace from Haanen Engineering. Mark Kennedy wants his normal entrance radiuses on these entrances. We had just left the existing curb cuts, if you know that, (lost word) paver and the sidewalk in there, all the way up and down the strip, and the existing curb cuts are very tight radius. Mark wants to sort of change those into their normal curb cuts, which are a little more acceptable for truck access into the sites. So, in essence, was round these off a little bit, on all these accesses, plus it'll narrow the access roads to 36 feet. I think this one up here is only 60 feet now. MR. OBERMAYER-Are those handicapped ramps, you know, when you go up and down the sidewalk there? MR. NACE-Here? Yes. There will be, any place we've got a curb, we will have, like here, this will be (lost word). MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other comments or questions? MR. MACEWAN-The only question I had, I need my memory refreshed, here. Where we left off with this before was that this plan had not gone to the Queensbury Beautification or it had, or what? How was that left? I thought there was some discussion? MR. HARLICKER-It hadn't gone to the Beautification Committee, and we"ve got comments from the Fire Marshal with this project also that we didn't have at the last meeting. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Does it need to go to Beautification? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Prior to, can we make that as part of our motion, that whatever they stipulate? MR. MARTIN-Yes. You can condition it that way if you'd like, because it is accessible from a highway. They usually like to look at those commercial projects that are. MR. NACE-Just as a matter of course, doesn't that go to them automatically, from the Planning Department? MR. MARTIN-As far as L know it was referred over. MR. HARLICKER-Pam said it wasn't. So I'm just going by what she said. MR. NACE-Is that normally up to the applicant to? MR. MARTIN-No. We automatically refer it over, and we usually notify you of the meeting night. I don't know what happened in this particular case, but it usually happens as a matter of course. You're correct. It does happen from our office. MR. HARLICKER-They usually get a copy of the agenda and they look - 16 - '---'" ~ -../ '--' a it and they say, we'd like to see X, Y, and Z. M MARTIN-We write letters to every applicant, outlining the m etings that your particular application has to attend. S metimes it's County Planning. Sometimes Beautification, and ftr whatever reason, it didn't happen this time. i M~. MACEWAN-If we stipulate in our motion that whatever they deem t~at you have to do for planning, is that agreeable with you? i M~. MARTIN-We can get you on their December meeting. KENNY-I have no problem with that. Mf· M~ . i , i MACEIrJAN-Okay. MA. RUEL-I have a question for Jim Martin. Can you bring me up tb date on what plans and/or projects are contemplated for that p~Tticular area, as far as traffic control? Mþ. MARTIN-Well, I think, if you read the attachments to my memo that I sent you, Joanna provided me, when I was there, two pieces o~ correspondence, the second of which deals with an internal office memo, so to speak, between the Staff at DOT, and they are o~tlining or describing there, essentially, a resurfacing project fbr the segment of Route 9 from Sweet Road to 149, and in that p~oject they are proposing to include the funds necessary to p~rchase and install the right hand turn lanes at the 149 ihtersection, which is essentially in front of Dunhams Footwear, ahd also at each interchange with Exit 20. MR. RUEL-What's the schedule on that? MR. MARTIN-I believe they're projecting n~xt two to three years. They're saying o~ the 17th of April, 1997. ¡ MR. RUEL-In the meantime, we that area, correct? that to happen over the a proposed letting date do have quite a traffic problem in MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. RUEL-And in the last couple of years I've heard a lot of cþmplaints about it, and there's been a lot of write ups. i MR. MARTIN-Right. ! MR. RUEL-We are proposing to add a considerable number of retail s~oPs here, aren't we? MR. MARTIN-Right. M~. RUEL-And increase the traffic, the parking area from about 60 t 280, or something like that. So we are definitely increasing the possibility of additional traffic flow. Right? Without any c~rrections by anyone until a couple of years from now. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that we're, this applicant is providing aill, I think, known forms of mitigation, in te,-ms of traffic, m~aning the interconnection, the service lane out front, the slidewalk, pedest,-ian accessways, and so on, and beyond that, with t hiS particular site, everybody l-<Jho's looked at it at DOT and in our office, and the traffic corridor studies have been done and Slo on, you know, and in this particular case, there's no other known things that can be done. In terms of the trip generation, O r traffic, I don't know, and I'm speaking for myself, individually, now, I don't know that this shopping center should b''''' looked u.pon as an individual traffic generator. I think that the entire stretch of that road is a destination point, and I think that the presence of this shopping center, whether it's - 17 - '--' -----' .........~ -' there or not, is not going to drastically affect the amount of traffic generated in that area. People go there because it's a factory outlet center, the area itself, and I don't know that the presence of this shopping center is really going to change that materially one way or the other. MR. RUEL-Well, we don't know that, do we, one way or the other. It could increase it. MR. NACE-It will increase it. There's no question, okay. The amount by which it increases it is very problematic to try to put a number on it, okay. It is a fact that that whole area has already reached a mass of stores that's large enough to attract the traffic, okay. What this additional block of stores will do will, One, keep the people in that area longer, okay. Instead of spending an hour shopping, they'll say, okay, we want to go see these other sto,-es, too. We'll spend bJO hours shoppi ng. MR. RUEL-Then why are you adding 220 parking spaces? MR. BREWER-The square footage of the building has to meet the parking requirements. MR. RUEL-Yes. parking space. So you're adding retail space. You're a.dding 1'-1R. NACE--Right. MR. RUEL-And then you're telling me it's not going to increase the t,-affic. MR. NACE-I told you it would increase traffic. It'll increase the traffic, but I said the amount by which it will is very problematic to determine accurately, okay. We think, from the best information we can find, it'll increase it somewhere around 100 cars an hour, which is significantly less than the capacity limits on the roadways, which were shown by the recent study for that corridor, okay. That corridor study put in a fairly hefty growth rate, five percent per year, which is extremely, that's, DOT's internal growth rate is somewhere around one percent per year. They plug in five percent per year, I think it was for ten years on this stretch of highway, and said that even after that, the highway will still have not reached its (lost word) capacity. That's based on DOT's criteria. We all know that, yes, there are periods when you go through there the traffic is backed up. What we're doing, yes, we have to provide the parking spaces because people do come to the stores. We're trying to provide pedestrian access. So once they're there, they can go from our center to the adjacent Log Jam Center, but put, they can take their cars and go the back way through the Adirondack Outlet Center. We're trying to increase circulation where they don't have to go back on the road, okay. So we think we have mitigated. There will be some increased traffic. I'm not arguing that. MR. RUEL-How far does that back road go? MR. MARTIN-Technically, it goes all the way from 149 down to the Adirondack Outlet Mall, I believe. MR. NACE--Yes. I don't know. You can go back through the back of the Log Jam. Can you go into Dunhams? MR. MARTIN-See, I was going to suggest, as another minor condition, that the applicant install signage at all the adjacent, where it accesses adjacent properties, tha.t you indicate, Dunhams this way, or 149, you know, you can access 149 out this way, and go to Adirondack Factory Outlet by going the other way. Just as encouragement for people to travel those routes, rather than get out into Route 9. - 18 - ,----,. '--" --.../ '--' MW.. MACEWAN-The applicant seems to be reluctant to want to do t~at . MJ. KENNY-To tell you the truth on that, I think as far as (lost w~rd) Log Jam, hopefully, there will be major signage out there, b~t as far as going out to 149, we're talking about going on ptivate driveways. I M$. BREWER-Maybe just to the plazas, then, would be. , , , M~. STARK-To the Factory of America, and to the Adirondack °rtlet. MI. RUEL-Jim, is there still a lot of buildable land in that a'ea? M~. MARTIN-Not that fronts on Route 9, necessarily, but there's a~ways the opportunity. We're seeing a lot of it, lately, is the s~~cond generation people are, like in the case of this property. They're tearing down an old center, and putting up a new one of a l~rger size, and there is property to the rear of this that does hbve some development potential, and should McCormack, who has p~operty to the south of this, I believe, decide to pursue a cþmmercial zoning designation, that would increase commercial dþvelopment there, but that's a hard thing to pin down. Those a~e the two ways it could happen, though, second generation dþvelopment or something to the rear of this site. MR. RUEL-Whatever happened to the idea of a secondary bypass type rþad, parallel to 9? M~. MARTIN-That was talked about, briefly, at our meeting on Wþdnesday with DOT. I still think there's some merit to that. Ttlere are some things to look into in detail, in terms of the CAts and fills that would be necessary to carry the road from the irterchange with Exit 20, across the back, onto 149. The other thing that was pointed out by Mark Kennedy is that what you might aþcomplish with that is a shift in the commercial development, ypu know, another frontage, another road frontage is developed, a~d now people may want to develop along that road frontage. I M~. RUEL-Bring it closer to the Northway. M~. MARTIN-Right, but obviously, you know, hopefully, we've 1 arned our lesson. If that were to occur, it would be through a structured access point and all that. Mk. RUEL-Planned. ¡ MR. MARTIN-Yes. RUEL-Yes. Thank you. M,. BREWER-We've had a public hearing on this. questions? Any other M'. MARTIN-Tim, I think it would be worthwhile for Scott to read iln Kip's letter, and we also did get a letter from Lee '(or k to ~he Board. I think it's only fair that that should be read in. MII~. BREWER-Right. You' ,-e right. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. This is from Kip Grant, Fire Marshal, "Having reviewed the submitted site proposals for the above project, Kenny/Brock, I'd offer the following: 1. Be sure the curve in the roadway at the northeast corner of the building has at least a 45 degree turning radius to accommodate Queensbury Central's tower ladder. 2. I'd require protection of the ydrants in the grassy area to guard against damage from vehicles (including snow plows). Perhaps you could also note the location - 19 - .~, '---"" --. -----' of the nearest street hydrant. If one happens to be located near the northern most entrance (leading to the access road between the Factory Stores of America building and the proposed Kenny/Brock structure), the fire department would have a reasonably straight run down the roadway. Please note, hydrants as proposed are adequate. However showing the closest street hydrant will be of help to the fire department when it reviews the proposal. Thanks for the opportunity to scan the proposal. C.A. Grant Fire Marshal" MR. NACE-Could we get a copy of that? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to read the other letter in? MR. MARTIN-Yes. "Dear Planning Board Member: I wish to respectfully raise some concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Kenny-Brock Property on Route 9. In 1990 there was an expansion proposed at the Dexter Outlet. There was a decision at that time to look at the 'Million Dollar Half Mile' strip as one site plan. A plan was designed and a 'Task Force' created in order to deal with the issues germane to that area. The Planning Board eventually approved the development, only because the applicant's access was directly at the light and specific improvements were agreed upon, and because they were assured by the property owners along the road and Mr. Brandt, the then Supervisor, that a consolidated approach would be taken to deal with the traffic issues. It was also the consensus of opinion that the strip was built out and that the traffic stream would not be added to by further development. I urge the Board to review the minutes of the Dexter project because it is pertinent to the Kenny-Brock application before you. The major issue on this road is traffic. The normal summer traffic flow at the intersection of Rt. 149 and Rt. 9 is frequently at gridlock. The fire and safety issue along the roadway when it is at gridlock and traffic is backed up onto the Northway has also been a matter of concern. I am unable to understand why a traffic impact study has not been done for this development so that the applicant can provide mitigation measures.' I respectfully suggest that this be required before any decision is made on this application. I would further suggest that the project and the traffic study be forwarded for comment to NYDOT which is an involved party under SEQRA, and Fred Austin, Warren County DPW. The Board may also wish to receive input from the Traffic Safety Committee at Warren County and the Fire Chief. A second concern is the drainage. The development is within the Glen Lake Watershed. The project, according to the description, is greater than 5 acres. Therefore, before construction may begin, the applicant must obtain coverage under the general SPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with a Construction Activity. The proposed stormwater drainage plan is not in compliance with permit requirements. I have taken the liberty to enclose some information on the requirements. Glen Lake and its environs are a designated Critical Environmental Area. The Town Board has supported development of a management plan for the Glen Lake Watershed. The goal is to provide protection to the Lake and its environs. Stormwater management is of major importance. The control of erosion during and after construction is critical to the health of Glen Lake. I would request that the Board specifically state that the applicant must comply with Section 179-65. Soil erosion standards of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code, in the resolution, should the application be approved. The application states that 263 parking spaces are required for the development. It appears that the overflow parking may be counted twice. Once as green space/permeable area and once as parking. The zoning code states 'Permeable- Ground surface through which water can percolate in a natural manner. Said ground surface should be undisturbed natural terrain or a landscaped area with generally unpaved surfaces. Foliage increases the permeability - 20 - '-' ~ '...-I '---' oi the ground surface.' In the past Rist-Frost Engineers have m intained that surfaces that were driven on or parked on were i permeable since the soil compacted with the weight. This being tile case the Boa,-d may wish to eliminate the 'o'v'erflow pa,-king' W lich does not appear as an alternative, or allowable use, in the Q eensbury Zoning Code and does not conform to the codes d Ifinition of parking, per se. It would be beneficial, given the s a of blacktop visible from Route 9, if there was some visible d dicated green space on the site. The proposed shared service r ad is an excellent idea. It indicates that future development intended on the remaining portion of the lot. Since it a pears that the two lots have been joined by deed for d,velopment purposes, the Board may wish to request a sketch plan s10wing a potential development of the entire site as allowable b' present zoning standards. Site Plan Review is intended to 1 )ok at development as it relates to an entire site, as well as, t,e surrounding area. The plans as presented only show half of t~e site. The Board may inadvertently create a future hardship f)r the applicant if the entire site is not reviewed for maximum i pact. Further, under SEQRA a comprehensive review is required 81d segmentation of the physical setting or the overall project is illegal. I appreciate the opportunity to comment and your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Lee A. York" A copy t1 Planning Department and Committee. M,. BREWER-Thank you. Any other questions or comments? We'll do tìe SEQRA. M~. MACEWAN-Are we doing the Full? BREWER-Yes. RUEL-Where is the one on traffic? MACEWAN-Traffic system, isn't that what it was? RUEL-Is there something on traffic? BREWER-Yes. RUEL-Which one is that? Do you want to repeat that. MACEWAN-"Will it affect the existing transportation system? II RUEL-Yes. I say, yes. M' MACEWAN-Small to moderate, potentially large, can it be mitigated? M~. RUEL-It apparently can't be mitigated. MR. BREWER-I don't know how it's affected it. I mean, he's made mitigation for everything that he's going to cause. So I don't know how it's going to affect it. Everything that he can do. MR. RUEL-Yes, but he hasn't corrected it. MR. BREWER-Sure he has, just by, he's eliminated curb cuts. He's internalized. MR. RUEL-He's done everything possible to eliminate problems, but he hasn't eliminated the fact that it will traffic in the area. traffic increase I R. MACEWAN-Yes, but that's not what it's asking. going to have an impact on one of these items, what prove here is that you can mitigate that problem, and they're doing. If you're you have to that's what MR. RUEL-No, they're not. - 21 - "---, ~ "'-' ~ MR. MACEWAN-Yes they are. I mean, to the satisfaction of the State and the Planning Department, they've mitigated the problem. MR. RUEL-You have? How can you add more traffic and say you've mitigated the problem? MR. MACEWAN-By circulation. doing the turning radius, the internal MR. RUEL-What's the turning radius have to do with the number of cars? MR. MACEWAN-It makes traffic flow on that road better. them more opportunity to get off the road and into the lot, a better opportunity. It gives parking MR. MACEWAN-The State's satisfied with it. The Planning Staff's satisfied with it. MR. RUEL-Well, I think they're wrong. MR. BREWER-Lets move. I think the answer's no. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 40-94 , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before DAVID J. KENNY, and the Planning BO¿Hd an 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 RESOL \lED: 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 29th day of November, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, - 22 - I I '--' I '-' i I I M' . Paling, M,-. Brewe,- '--../ ~ ~~ ES: l"1r. Ruel M '. BREWER-Okay. We have a motion. M~. HARLICKER-We have a prepared resolution with this also. I M~1. BREWER-Okay. M~I . MACEWAN-There was four conditions to this approval that we c me up with during this. Right? Goes to Beautification, State E gineering comments, Fire Marshal's comments, and the signage to a!iJacent properties, only as far as denoting the two immediate aljacent properties. M~. NACE-The Log Jam Outlet and the Adirondack Center. M¡~. BREWER-And you will be taking the steps for, Guidelines for E"osion control in the bacK. MÞ. NACE-We already have. The drawings are there already. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to offer that, Craig? M TION TO APPROVE SIT bl Craig MacEwan who S _ar k: PLAN NO. 40-94 DAVID J. KENNY, Introduced moved for its adoption, seconded by George written and amended to show the 4 conditions of: 1. Queensbury Beautification have the opportunity to input on t1is project. 2. state the engineering comments be adhered to. 3. State the Fire Marshal comments to be adhered to. 4. And a'cess signage to the adjacent property of the Log Jam Outlet and t,e Adirondack Outlet malls be so noted. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 40-94 to construct a 52,458 square foot shopping mall; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application dated consists of the following: 1. Sheet C1, layout plan, dated 10/26/94; and 2. Sheet C2, utility plan, dated 10/26/94 3. Sheet C3, grading and drainage, dated 10/26/94 4. Sheet C4, landscaping plan, dated 10/26/94 5. Sheet D1, details, dated 10/26/94 6. Sheet D2, details, dated 10/26/94; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Engineering comments, dated 11/7/94 and 11/11/94 2. Staff notes, dated 11/15/94 3. Warren County Planning Board comments, dated 11/9/94 4. Stormwater management report, undated 5. Memo from Fire Marshal regarding emergency access and fire hydrants, dated 11/21/94 6. Letter from Joanna Brunso, GFTC, regarding traffic access, dated 11/28/94; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 11/15/94 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the project complies with the site plan review standards and - 23 - '......... '---' "'--' ..........-' requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan # 40--94. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plat. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Z.A. for his signature. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: l'1r. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 25-94 HUDSON POINTE, INC. PHASE I MR. MACEWAN-Do you want to fill the Board in on what you want us to do, or we want to accept this statement, correct? MR. MARTIN-First of all, we've got to rescind the motion of approval on the site plan. MR. PALING-Could I ask a question? We're doing Hudson Pointe tonight, without notice? MR. MACEWAN-No, no. statement, the EIS. It's just the acceptance of the findings MR. MARTIN-I wrote you a memo earlier in the month. First you have to rescind the motion approving the site plan, so we can consider the Statement of Findings. MR. MACEWAN-Does someone want to make that motion? We need to make a motion to rescind our approval of the site plan, in order to back track, here, and put this in its proper place. MR. MARTIN-Right, in order to consider the statement of findings. MR. PALING-And then we'll consider that at a later date. MR. MACEWAN-No. We're going to do that tonight as well. MR. MARTIN-That was provided to you. MR. MACEWAN-There's no reason why we can't do it tonight. MR. PALING-Okay. I read it and all that, but I wish I had known it was on the agenda for tonight. - 24 - ,-,,' ''-../ ../ "'--' M:. MARTIN-Well, I wrote you a memo saying that it would be. M~. PALING-I missed it. I read it, but I didn't know it was on. o (ay. M~. MACEWAN-Does somebody want to offer that motion? M TION TO RESCIND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN NO. 25-94 H DSON POINTE, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its aloption, seconded by James Obermayer: B~cause the findings statement wasn't accepted. D ly adopted this 29th day of November, 1994, by the following v)te: A'ES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling, M·. MacEwan N )ES : ¡\IONE A~STAINED: Mr. Ruel A3SENT: Mr. Brewer M~. MACEWAN-Would you read that letter into the minutes? M~. MARTIN-Yes. This was hand delivered to our office today, and t) Paul Dusek, I believe, as well. "Dear Planning Board Members: It is our understanding that the Planning Board will consider a Findings Statement pursuant to the New York State Environmental QJality Review Act ("SEQRA") and then re-review the site plan aJplication at tonight's meeting. Although we have not yet seen the proposed Findings Statement, it is our understanding that it i3 virtually identical to the one previously adopted by the Town BJard. Assuming that to be the case, we have no further comments on the Findings Statement not already made to the Town Board. w~ do have two other concerns we previously expressed to the Planning Board that we feel are important and bear repeating. First, we again request that the Planning Board consider limiting hurs of construction for the project. Construction should be limited to reasonable hours on weekdays and prohibited on Sundays and holidays. Operation of heavy equipment should be prohibited on Saturdays. These are reasonable conditions designed to protect the current residents in the area. Although the applicant has noted that the Town Board did not impose such conditions, the Planning Board has the authority to grant site plan approval and you may impose such reasonable conditions as you feel are appropriate. Second, it is unclear to us whether the Town Board has approved the deed for the conservation area to a third party, as required by the PUD approval documents. The Town Board's Resolution approving Hudson pointe, the Town Board's Resolution approving the Hudson Pointe Development Agreement and the Development Agreement itself all expressly provide that the deed is subject to Town Board approval. The SEQRA Findings Statement adopted by the Town Board also provides that the applicant must offer the deed prior to final site plan approval by the Planning Board. Therefore, prior to final Planning Board approval of the site plan application, the Town Board must approve the deed. As indicated above, it is not clear to us whether this has occurred yet. By a copy of this letter to Town Attorney Paul Dusek we are altering him to our concern in this matter. Perhaps he can let the Planning Board know if this requirement has been met. Finally, on behalf of the Akins and Brewers, we would like to thank the Planning Board again for its careful review of this project. Very truly yours, MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, P.C. Jeffrey J. Friedland" MR. MACEWAN-Would you like to comment on that? - 25 - .~ -...¿ MR. DUSEK-Sure. A couple of things. First of all, just so the Board is clear on this point, the legislation, first of all, the agreement is silent. There's three documents. There's an agreement with a developer on this Planned Unit Development. There is legislation, and then there are SEQRA findings. The agreement is silent as to exactly when site plan and dedication of the property will be accomplished. So that doesn't help much in terms of addressing the issue. The legislation provides that the dedication, the actual dedication of the property, will occur before building permits are issued, and therefore site plan approval, of course, is permissible in view of that. The SECRA that they're referring to indicates that a deed should be offered, or shall be offered. In point of fact, the developer has deposited a deed in my escrow, signed by representatives of the developer for this parcel, with the grantee left out pending, you know, resolution of that. So in ITJ..2:.. opinion, I believe that the conditions that are set forth and the various documents are satisfied as far as the deed part of it are concerned. Just so the Board knows, however, the grantee of this property has not yet been resolved. There's ongoing discussions with the Open Space Institute, but the vehicle by which the Town will have to ensure that this gets wrapped up is the fact that the legislation provides that no building permits can be issued. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. The only other comments that were in that letter, I think, was maybe limiting the developers to construction times and so on and so forth. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MACEWAN-We've never done that with a developer before. Have we? 1'1R. 1'1ARTIH-Ho, not to ~ knoJ,..Jledge. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think we should start now. opinion. That's m)/ MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. I'm glad you addressed that. I feel the same way. MR. MACEWAN-Does someone want to offer a motion, or have any questions or anything? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think you have to Statement, then, we're trying to find the passed, approving the site plan previously, the conditions are, once again, in place. accept the Findings resolution that you so we make sure that MR. MACEWAN-Does somebody want to make a motion to accept the Findings? MOTION TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS STATEMENT FOR THE HUDSON POINTE PROJECT, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan ~,jOES: I\JONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. HARLICKER-Okay. I've got condition was that, before it the Rist-Frost letters dated satisfied, with Staff Notes, a copy of the old resolution. One is approved, that all comments from during the month of August 1994 be and that a final approval from the - 26 - ~I~-- '~ ~ -i '- H,alth Department, when it can be obtained in a form that's a:ceptable to the Town Board and the Town Attorney, and that 10 c mplete sets of the plans be given by the 11th of October. M~. MACEWAN-Since the last time tl0se conditions been met anyway? r!call, there were just some loose F"ost, and there was a. we talked about it, have all I mean, it seems like, as I ends to be tied up with Rist- M\. HARLICKER-Yes. F'ost, stating that a dressed, and they tie comments. We've got a letter in here that's from Rist- all previous engineering comments have been did submit revised plans of the, addressing M. MACEWAN-So the only outstanding, really the outstanding glitch in the program was with the Health Department, which there w~s a technical aspect that you couldn't do one without doing s)mething else first. M'. HARLICKER-Yes. M,. MACEWAN-So can't we just approve the site plan as it stands n>w? I mean, there's no outstanding conditions that weren't met w:th that original approval, were there? M~. HARLICKER-No. M . MACEWAN-Does somebody want to offer a motion? M<. HARLICKER-Are you still going to maintain the condition about H?alth Department? M~. MACEWAN-Yes. oJtstanding. That goes without saying. That was the only M~. HARLICKER-All right. M TION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-94 HUDSON POINTE, Introduced b George Stark, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James O>ermayer: With a condition that the project get Dept. of Health approval. D ly adopted this 29th day of November, 1994, by the following v >t.e : BDIVISION NO. 14-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED AIG SEELEY, CHARLES SEELEY, GLENN BATEASE OWNERS: SAME AS OVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM & TWIN CHANNELS ROAD P OPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 14 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR (4) LOTS OF 7.157 AC., 4.257 AC., 1.84 AC., AND 1.06 A. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 3 -94 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2 LOT SIZE: +/- 14 ACRES SECTION: S BDIV. REGULATIONS NONE A'ES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. P ling, Mr. MacEwan Mr. Brewer MACEWAN-Lets call the next item. BUSINESS: CiARLES, CRAIG AND BARBARA SEELEY, PRESENT M.. STARK-Okay. The next item, Craig, Mr. and Mrs. Seeley are h?re. They're project is not on the agenda for tonight. Do you w~nt to dispose of that, or what do you want to do with that? - 27 - .~ --' ~ -- Befo,-e we go on. MR. PALING-It is on the agenda, but it was canceled. MR. STARK-It was withdrawn, and I don't know, rather than have Mr. and Mrs. Seeley sit here all night for nothing. Do you want to ask them why they're here? MR. BREWER-I'd like to discuss that right now, if we could, with our attorney and Mr. Martin. Jim, do you have a copy of your letters you wrote to the Seeleys? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Mark wants to see that if he can. MR. MARTIN-On the road frontage, the memo? MR. BREWER-Yes, you sent to Craig. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I sent a copy of that to Craig Seeley, my memo of November 14th. MR. BREWER-Do you want to read it? MR. MARTIN-Okay. This is dated November 14th, from myself to the Planning Board. It's a memo. "I am in receipt of advice from Planning Board counsel regarding the Seeley subdivision application and the issue of road frontage for Lots Number Three and Number Four. It is the opinion of counsel that these lots do not have road frontage on East Branch Road. Therefore, an Area Variance from the ZBA will be required in order for the consideration of the subdivision application to proceed. II MR. BREWER-Mark, what's your advice on that? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it wouldn't be, I don't have the map in front of me, but from my recollection, it wouldn't be One and Two, as they're proposed on the current application. It would be one of them, and then a larger parcel, which would comprise a lot diffeì"ent than ~.Jhat's configu,-ed, and now I do ha\/e the map in front of me. So, basically, right. It would be a different application. They could apply, presumably, for a two lot subdivision in which Lot One would remain the same as proposed, and Lot Two, new Lot Two, would be depicted as Lots Two, Three, and Fou,". MR. BREWER-Okay. So that, therefore, would be a new application, and resubmission would be required for that? MR. MARTIN-I think they have the discretion, really, to go either way. If you want to re-advertise it, you can, if you deem that to be a significant change to warrant re-advertising. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You could probably look at that, as Jim says, if you look at that as a material modification, than it really should be considered a different application, re-advertise, etc. If you look at that as a minor modification, and the applicants are saying that they want to, basically, merge proposed Three and Four into proposed Two, and call the whole thing Lot Two, if you consider that a minor modification, you could probably proceed. MR. BREWER-All right. I didn't bring any paperwork, because I presumed it wasn't even going to be on the agenda tonight, was my understanding. How does the Board feel about that? MR. MARTIN-I didn't know that they were willing to combine Lot Two, Three and Four into one lot, and look at it that way. MR. BREWER-But then you'd have to understand, in the future, if - 28 - tr ~ ,---,,' ,........,/ ~ y u did want Lot Two, Three and Four, you'd have to come in for s bdivision again. M . MARTIN-Well I think, and we don't like getting into these p10perty ownership issues, but I think you need to resolve that r ad frontage issue once and for all on East Branch Road. M STARK-Are you polling the Board? BREWER--Yes. STARK-I have no objection to. MARTIN-Yes, but I want to make sure we get all the issues. I m an, what we're talking about, here, is potentially, even in a o e, Two lot subdivision, you know, Number One and Two, we're siying, then, Lot Two, the southernmost lot, I think what we're gling to discuss, naturally, is limited access off of Twin C1annels Road only. B ,~RBARA SEELEY M S. SEELEY-That was already discussed, our site plan for our b ildings. M~. MARTIN-Okay. I just, I want to get that aired now. M~. BREWER-No. Access limited to Big Boom Road. M~S. SEELEY-Right. M~. BREWER-Big Boom, Jim. You've got it backwards. M~. MARTIN-For Lot Two. I see. Okay. I see what you're saying. M~. BREWER-Because the building is up far enough where the access i~ on Big Boom Road. M . MARTIN-Right. Okay. You're right. M'\. PALING-Well, are you saying access will be Bi9 Boom and T\..¡in Channel, or just Bi9 Boom? M ,. BREWER-No. M,. MARTIN-Just Big Boom. Tim's correct. MR. PALING-Now let me understand what Mrs. Seeley said. Did you say that we're going to make one lot out of Two, Three and Four? MRS. SEELEY-Right. MR. PALING-And then it's just Lot One and Two we're talking about now? RS. SEELEY-Right, and address that other at a later date. Mf\. PALING-Okay. ~R. BREWER-All right. Craig, how do you feel? Do you think it's a substantial change? ~R. MACEWAN-I do, because I see two major concerns that L have ith it. We're going from a four lot subdivision down to a two lot, and there's many lot lines that are going to be changing, and the site plan that's shown on this map is not accu,-ate as to here it is now. It's moved farther up the road, correct? RS. SEELEY-No, this is accurate. - 29 - ~ '-....-/ '--- ~ i"1R. BREWER-No. here? Remember we had them move the access up past MR. MACEWAN-I thought this whole thing moved up, even what's shown here? Where's the building for Batease? on here either. more than That's not MRS. SEELEY-That's a proposed building. MR. MACEWAN-See, this is an old map. accurate. The map I've got is not MRS. SEELEY-You should have a new one. MR. MACEWAN-I don't have that map. larger scaled map than I've got. You've actually even got a MRS. SEELEY-They were submitted. MR. BREWER-Is this the map everybody else has? MR. RIJEL-No. MR. PALING-It's different. though. I think it says the same thing, MR. RUEL-No, but this is moved. MR. PALING-This is different, yes. That's moved. MR. MACEWAN-This whole thing's moved up. MR. RUEL-What's the date on this? MR. BREWER-August 25. We've got June 29. MR. MACEWAN-I would prefer to see new maps submitted. MR. MARTIN-Those were the ones revised October 18, 1994, down have. Is that what you have? that were sent out to the Board, by the legend. That's ~>Jhat v~e MR. MACEWAN-That's what we have, too, but it's not the same map they ha\/8. MRS. SEELEY-I probably got the one that went to the, that had this on it. MR. MARTIN-These are the ones we sent out to the Board, right? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Did you submit a different map along with your petition for rezoning? CHARLES SEELEY MR. SEELEY-Nothing's moved as far as that dividing line. MR. MACEWAN-The maps that we have in front of us, you want to go from a four lot subdivision to a two lot subdivision. MRS. SEELEY-Right. MR. MACEWAN-The map that we are looking at shows four lots, which would have major lot line reconfiguration to accommodate a two lot subdivision. More importantly, your site plan that's shown on this map that's in front of me, is not accurate as to what you haVE) now. MR. SEELEY-Lot Two, Three and Four is one parcel right now. It had to go to get rezoned through Warren County and all that. All - 30 - ~'. ~ ",-",' --/ .......... w' want to do is subdivide Lot One and Two. We've got the wrong rnp . Mh. MARTIN~Oka>'. M<. OBERMAYER-Which map are we looking at, the one with the four l( ts, '" ight,?, M¡. BREWER-Right. We have the proper maps. It's a different s:ale. That's why it looks different as to that map, Craig. W at the question is, Jim, they want to consolidate Lots Two, Tree and Four and make that one lot, subdivide Lot One, and make L ts Two, Three and Four one lot. 50 he'd be a two lot s!bdivision now, rather than a foul lot subdivision, because the r ad access. I guess the question is, do we consider that a rn jor change or do we consider it a minor change, and lets move 01 with the process? M~. STARK-I don't feel that it's a l)t subdivision, to make them come n,xt month and all this stuff and s10uld have to do that, and I'm in a] a two lot subdivision. major change. It's just a two back and re-advertise again everything, I don't think we favor of going ahead with it M<'. BREWER-Okay. Jim? M~. OBERMAYER-Yes. I just have one fJture, then, of Lots Three and Four? t ",em'?' question. What about the Do you plan on subdividing M~. BREWER-If they want to do that, they'll have to come back and r)-subdivide Lot Two. M~. OBERMAYER-Are you trying to have that alea rezoned, though? M<'S. SEELEY~Basically, it was done as a courtesy to the n~ighbors. Otherwise, we wouldn't have bothered with it, but we W3re just trying to make it a little bit better for the neighbors that were complaining. M~. OBERMAYER-Right. n)t? So are you pursuing down that avenue 01 SEELEY M,. CRAIG SEELEY-That's still in the process. We're waiting on W3n-en County. M,. OBERMAYER-Okay. So then once they approve the rezoning, then you'll come back. Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Two lots sound fine to me. MR. RUEL-This change in zoning goes to ZBA? MR. BREWER-The change in zoning goes to the Town Board also. MR. MARTIN-You'll be hearing it here. MR. HARLICKER-Next month. R. PALING-But you've got, when you bring it to one lot, you've got at least two different zones within the one lot. MR. MARTIN-Lot Two would be a split zone parcel. MR. RUEL-Yes. Right. MR. MARTIN-You see the boundary, Bob, between Lot Two and Three? MR. PALING-If that's allowable, that's fine with me. - 31 - '--..--' -' '-- -/ MR. MARTIN-See that boundary between Lot Two and Three? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That, essentially, would be the zoning boundary change. MR. RUEL-You have LIon the left and SR on the right. MR. PALING-And it's okay to do that? MR. MARTIN-Yes, you can split zone a parcel. It's not but in this particular case, as they're saying neighbors, it might be a good idea. preferred with the MR. PALING-Okay'. I'1R. RUEL-·Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess I've got to go with the majority. I don't see a real major problem, but I would like, for final, I would like proper maps, to show the site plan, which you already have your machine shop on here, but I'd like to see the other site plan on here, the other site plan that we went through, part of it, not the othe,- site plan, the other part of the site plan, on the, because you're going to have to have new maps made anyway. So why not have them right. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I might suggest, while we're talking about things to show on the new map, it might be a good idea to indicate that filled area that you have, where that 25 percent slope is being created. I think that's a worthwhile thing to sho\.J . MR. BREWER-How is that area? Have you looked at that, Jim? MR. MARTIN-The last time L was there to look at for review of the conditions being met for the site plan approval, the berm has been established, and the silt fence is up, per the conditions, and now they're in the process of filling, which is going to be, as we all acknowledge, quite some time in doing that, but the temporary measures are in place. MR. BREWER-Okay. All right. MR. RUEL-After the change in zoning, is the buffer zone still the same? MR. BREWER-The buffer zone will change with the zoning, right? MR. MARTIN-The buffer zones occur between industrial zones and residential uses. So there would be provision of a buffer along that zoning district boundary. MR. RUEL-In the center of this division between lots? MR. MARTIN-Right, and it might be a good idea to just note that on the plan. MR. RUEL-What about the buffer zone around the perimeter of Three and Four, adjacent to the properties next door? Is that maintained? It wouldn't be 75, would it? MR. MARTIN-Well, the thing to bear in mind is right now we have light industrial zoning over this whole site, you know, the rezoning has not been approved. So we have to show what exists toda,y . MR. RUEL-Right. - 32 - '-......-' '--'" '-- ~ MI:. BREWER-So at that time, we can worry about that. M~. OBERMAYER-Yes. At that time, when they go to residential, t '¡en. M.. RUEL-So you'll have to modify this map accordingly. Me. BREWER-When they come back, they'll have to have a new map f)r us. M ,. RUEL --Yes. M~. OBERMAYER-So how did that pan out? How many people think t,at we can vote on the way it is right now? M,. BREWER-We're going to move on with it, but we have to, when y)U come back for final, you're going to have to show the filled a-ea. You're going to have to show. M~. MARTIN-It shouldn't be too much of a job to actually show y)ur site plan right on there. You have it to scale from S:udder. It should be a pretty easy job for McCormack to impose t,at right on this subdivision plan. We ought to be seeing I cation of the septic system, Tim, and all that, stormwater r3tention areas, all that should be shown, that are coming with tle site plan, water lines, location of water lines, all that. M~. BREWER-Okay. PJblic hearing. Is this project? Any other questions? Okay. there anyone here who wishes I'll open the to speak about BLIC HEARING OPENED COMMENT M,. HARLICKER-I've got two letters. One from Glens Falls Ready Mix, addressed to Mr. Seeley, "Dear Mr Seeley: Please be advised Glens Falls Ready Mix is in favor of the new of the proposed machine shop. Not only will this b siness be a welcome addition to our neighborhood, it will create jobs in our area as well. II And there was a note here from a phone conversation between Maria and Miss Gale Reynolds of Twin Channels Road, and the note says that she has no problem with what the Seeleys are doing. That was dated 11/17. The Glens Falls Ready Mix Company is dated November 28th. . BREWER-Okay. Anybody else? BLIC HEARING CLOSED We've got to do a SEQRA. WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-1994, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, t he~' e application for: and is presently before the Planning Board an CRAIG SEELEY, CHARLES SEELEY, GLENN BATEASE, 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 RESOL.VED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. - 33 - ,-----,' '--', -./ 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 29th day of November, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer r,WES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. We need a motion, with conditions. MR. STARK-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE CRAIG SEELEY. CHARLES SEELEY. GLENN BATEASE, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: With the following conditions: 1. That the new map be submitted showing lots 2, 3, & 4 combined into 1 lot, renumbering it to lot 2. 2. Filled area be shown on the map. 3. The other building on lot 1 be shown. 4. All elements of the recently approved site plan be shown on the lot, (stormwater system, septic system, water connections, parking, berm, etc.). 5. Access to lot 2 be maintained from Big Boom Road only. Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1994, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Okay, and we'll waive the submission date until Friday at 4 o'clock, 12/2 at four o'clock. MR. STARK-Fine. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan SITE PLAN NO. 34-94 TYPE II JOHN CREE DE OWNER: LAWRENCE & LOIS STONE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: BEAN RD., KATTSKILL BAY PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 8' X 40' CRIB DOCK. APA, LGPC - 34 - '---./ .---./ ~ ~ W RREN CO. PLANNING: N A SECTION 179-60 11/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 152-1-1 LOT SIZE: Jr HN CREEDE, PRESENT S AFF INPUT N tes from Staff, Site Plan No. 34-94, John Creede (for Lawrence & Lo i s S to ne ) , Meet i ng Date: November 29 , 1994 "PROJECT D SCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct an 8 foot b' 40 foot crib dock. The lot has 368 feet of lake frontage with a1 existing U-shaped dock. The new dock will be placed 1 inch f"om an existing dock, thereby having the effect of enlarging the elisting dock without actually attaching to it. The new dock w'll have a side yard setback of approximately 170 feet to the n)rth and the existing dock is 190 feet from the south property lOne. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The project was compared to Section 179-60 (b) Docks and Moorings and was found to be in compliance." M~. HARLICKER-We have Warren County, No County Impact. M~. BREWER-Okay. Any comments or questions from anybody on the B a ,- d? M~. MACEWAN-What kind of material do you plan on using for the n3W dock? M. CREEDE-Native pine, pressure treated. John Creede. M~. MACEWAN-I guess there's some questions, too, BIard, when we went up there on site visits, was cJrious as to the reason to want to dismantle the it seemed to have been recently rehabilitated to an we had that we old one, extent? as a were v~hen M . CREEDE-I don't understand the question. M~. MACEWAN-Wasn't the dock that we walked out on up there, maybe W3 were in the wrong dock. M~. BREWER-Was that the one with the, what did you call that, B)b, the roof on it? M'~. PALING--No. p':n-t. That's the second. part of the motion, not this M~S. LABOMBARD-That's the boathouse. M,. PALING-Yes. The boathouse is the part with the roof. MR. MACEWAN-Disregard that question. BREWER-That's two different actions. Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-I have a question. You show an existing dock here. Is that connected to the end, here? Is that extended out? I missed the site visit. MR. CREEDE-That's the next item. MRS. LABOMBARD-The boathouse for Howland. This is for Stone. MR. MACEWAN-The crib dock you're putting up for Stone, you're replacing an existing boathouse there, correct? R. CREEDE-No. The boathouse and original dock stays. We are placing a new crib dock spaced one inch directly north, the north space of the existing crib dock. MR. MACEWAN-All right. I'm with you now. I've got it. - 35 - ~ ~ MR. BREWER-Okay. There's no SEQRA on this. MR. HARLICKER-Not with docks. MR. BREWER-Okay. We can make a motion, then. I'm sorry. I've got to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Now we can do a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-94 & Lois Stone), Introduced by Roger adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: As written with the condition that leaching type lumber. JOHN CREE DE (for Lawrence Ruel who moved for its the lumber used be non- Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 34-94 to construct a 8' x 40' crib dock; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application dated 10/14/94 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, site plan, undated 2. Sheet 2, dock details, undated; and Whereas, the above filed is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 11/29/94 2. Warren County Planning Board comments, dated 11/9/94 3. Letter from the Lake George Park Commission, dated 10/17/94; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 11/29/94 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan # 34-94. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Z.A. for his signature. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the - 36 - ~' "-'" '-....-- '-../' Zoning Ordinance and site process. plan approval DJly adopted this 29th day of November, 1994, by the following \l )te : M~. CREEDE-As far as I know, there is no such thing as leaching, e(cept maybe creosote. M~. BREWER-Pressure treated, right, but that's what we want to g ~t away' f'"om. M,. CREEDE-Anything you see in a lumber yard is, is green, is non l~aching. When you buy pressure treated, like with Moore's and Clrtis, with the green (lost word), timbers, that's all non l~aching. M,. RUEL-Some of it is grey in color, isn't it? M~. CREEDE-Only if they have stained wood. w:ll, eventually, (lost word) to the weather. Pressure treated AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mo. Paling, Mr. Brewer t\ JES : t\ ONE A STAINED: Mr. Obermayer M~. BREWER-Next item. TE PLAN NO. 35-94 WLAND ZONE: WR-1A, TO CONSTRUCT A 16' RREN CO. PLANNING: A SECTION: 179-60 TYPE II JOHN CREE DE OWNER: C.E.A. LOCATION: KATTSKILL BAY X 26' "OPEN SIDED" BOATHOUSE. 11/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 153-1-7 ALLEN E. PROPOSAL APA, LGPC LOT SIZE: J)HN CREEDE, PRESENT S AFF INPUT NJtes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-94, John Creede (for Allen H)wland), Meeting Date: November 29, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 16 foot by 36 foot open sided boathouse. The boathouse will cover a 12 foot wide slip of an existing U-shaped dock. The boathouse will have a peaked roof with a height of about 11 feet above the dock. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The project was compared to Section 179-60 (b) Docks and Moorings and was found to be in compliance." BREWER-Okay. We have Warren County, No County Impact. HARLICKER-Yes. No County Impact. BREWER-Any questions from anybody on the Board? RUEL-Yes. The dimensions. The height of the structure above normal water line is, what? M'. CREEDE--Well, from the normal or the mean highwater? MR. RUEL-Mean highwater. M~. CREEDE-Mean highwater is, give or take, 11 feet above the m~an high~.Jater. RUEL-Is that the peak of the structure? CREEDE-Yes. - 37 - ---- --.-/' "--'"' ...- MR. PALING-The peak of the roof? MR. CREEDE-The peak of the roof, yes. I understand it's 14 feet, that's the restriction. 1'1R. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-I noticed, in a site survey, I noticed that most of the ones in the area seem to have flat roofs. MR. CREEDE-Yes. That's for a sun deck. This side (lost word) just to cover the boat. MR. RUEL-But don't you feel that the peaked roof may be some sort of an obstruction from the view? MR. CREEDE-5ee we're not building it as high as some of those flat roofs that you see. MR. RUEL-The property next door, the house is much lower. That wouldn't obstruct their view of the lake? MR. CREEDE-Well, yes. I agree. That would obstruct the view. MR. RUEL-Yes, and if it was a flat roof, it wouldn't obstruct it as much. Right? MR. CREEDE-To some degree. It all depends on your perspective, of where you are on the property. on the neighbors. MR. RUEL-Because the roof is about 40 inches, right, to the peak. 50 if that was reduced down to a flat roof, it would be a lot less than 40 inches. It might be just 10 inches. MR. CREEDE-Yes, but then, you know, a flat roof also has a railing around it. MR. RUEL-Yes, but a railing, you can see through it MR. CREEDE-Well, yes, but you're still talking about some obstructed view. MR. RUEL-Yes, but a lot less than the solid structure. MR. PALING-You'd be the only peaked roof in the neighborhood, if I recall correctly. Everyone else has the flat roof with the spoked. MR. CREEDE-Well, there's a boathouse, both sided boathouse, right around the corner. MR. PALING-Okay. Within sight, I didn't see one. MR. CREEDE-There's a big, white (lost word) sided right around the corner from this same general area. seen by all the neighbors that are there. boathouse, It can be MR. PALING-Yes. I couldn't deny that, but from where we stood, there was no other peaked roof. They were all flat with the spoked roofs, and we just thought this was a little bit out of sync with the rest of the neighborhood and maybe obstruct somebody's vi e¡"'J . MR. CREEDE-Well, I don't know what to say. I live right there, okay. I'm familiar with every dock and boathouse. I built just about every dock and boathouse there. Okay. There are a number of, just around the corner, closed sided, fully closed sided, boathouses. To the south, past the (lost word) docks, are a number of boathouses just like what I'm proposing. This is, roughly, what it's going to look like. - 38 - '-.,... -----,' ,....,/ ',---, M~. RUEL-Well, the reason I think that we brought it up is that, i 1 the past, we've had objections, people objected to the fact t1at the roof line cut the view of the lake or the mountains, and w.'re trying to keep that to a minimum. M~S. LABOM8ARD-I brought it to their attention, and, well, I t,ink a couple of us thought about it, but we walked over to the sluth part on the properties, directly to the south, and, you kl0W, I felt that there could be a little bit of an impact of the v:ew of the lake. M~. STARK-Cathy, the guy's allowed to put up 14 feet, flat. Here h!'s putting up a peaked at 11. I think it's better. M\S. LABOMBARD-That's one thing at the time, I wasn't really t ned in to. 50 the fact that it's not going to be as high, I tlink your giving a little bit is compensating for it. 50 it p'obably, in the long run, would be fine. M~. MACEWAN-If we decided, you know, that was the way to go, w)uld it be a problem to put a flat roof on it? M\. CREEDE-Well, it would be more expensive. This guy just wants a basic, simple (lost word) to protect his boat from the weather, t. '1e elements. M~. STARK-I have a letter from the public. So maybe this will a1swer some of your questions, not the public, but a guy that l'ves there. I was going to read it. in at the public hearing. M~. BREWER-All right. r'ght. I'll open the r3ad the letter in? Any other questions? Comments? All public hearing. George, do you want to P BLIC HEARING OPENED STARK-This is from a Mr. Scoville, that lives in Kattskill 83Y in the summer, the gentleman that just was up here, c'ncerning this Site Plan No. 35-94. He has no objection. That's just what he wrote, no objection. M~S. LABOMBARD-And where does he live? M . STARK-Where does Scoville live, exactly? M~. CREEDE-That one boathouse that I was talking to you about, right around north. He's got another closed sided boathouse right next to the same closed sided boathouse, to the north. So h~'s in the general vicinity, but he actually cannot be seen from this particular property. M . STARK-No. He doesn't have an objection. M~. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to comment? M~. RUEL-There are no objections from the neighbors. PJBLIC HEARING CLOSED M'. RUEL-'Peaked roof looks pretty good. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I mean from Staff's point of view, I wish mJre of the boathouses came in looking like this. They're less visually obtrusive than an enclosed, flat topped boathouse with a b nch of lawn furniture on top of it. MR. BREWER-Exactly. M,. OBERMAYER-Yes, objections. and if the neighbors don't have any - 39 - ~' '-' '-- MR. PALING-The neighbors don't care, we don't care. MR. BREWER-Okay. A motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. Howland), Introduced by Roger seconded by Robert Paling: 35-94 JOHN CREEDE (for Allen E. Ruel who moved for its adoption, f~S written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 35-94 to construct a 16' x 36' open sided boathouse; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application dated 10/20/94 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, site plan, dated 9/27/93 2. Sheet 2, dock details, dated 10/94; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 11/29/94 2. Warren County Planning Board comments, dated 11/9/94 3. Lake George Park Commission letter and permit, dated 11/15/94; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 11/29/94 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan # 35-94. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Z.A. for his signature. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE - 40 - "----' '~' ~, ~ S.TE PLAN NO. 38-94 TYPE I HAROLD A. & ELEANORE SMITH OWNERS: S ME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: VACANT PARCEL D.RECTLY ACROSS FROM 11TH HOUSE (GREEN) ON HANNEFORD RD. P~OPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT AND A 36' X 2~' GARAGE. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS RECUIRED AS CONDITION OF A>PROVAL FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1993 (ANN & ERWIN JOHNSON). A A CROSS REFERENCE: AV # 52-1993 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/9/94 TAX MAP NO. 19-1-57.4 LOT SIZE: 10,000 SQ. FT. S::CTION 179-16 srAFF INPUT N tes from Staff, Site Plan No. 38-94, Harold A. & Eleanore S ith, Meeting Date: November 29, 1994 "This site plan is b3fore the Planning Board for site plan review as a condition of a ea variance approval 52-1993 which was for relief from the 150 f)ot lot width requirement. As indicated in the Zoning Board r3s01ution approving the variance, the Board was concerned about tle drainage, sewage disposal, water supply, stormwater m~nagement and grading. The application was sent to Rist-Frost fJr review and comment; a letter dated 11/9/94 outlined their c mments." !'n. BREWER-I got a letter from Harold I~. Smith. "Dear Mr. M3rtin: In light of the Rist-Frost engineering comments on the a)ove project, I am requesting it be tabled until the first m3eting in December (12-20) to give me time to address the issues nJted. Thank you for your time and assistance. Respectfully YJU)"S, Harold A. Smith" M~. BREWER-So we can open the public hearing, leave it open, and then we'll make a motion to table. M~. RUEL-You want to table it now? M~. BREWER-Yes. cJrnrnents? Well, I'll open the public hearing. Any P BLIC HEARING OPENED M~. BREWER-We'll leave it open. Now we need a motion to table. M TION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 38-94 HAROLD A. & ELEANORE SMITH, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by G::.orge Stark: Until the first meeting a)plicant per their letter in December request. IrJith the consent of the Dlly adopted this 29th day of November, 1994, by the following v)te: A'ES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, M-. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NONE SITE PLAN NO. 39-94 TYPE: UNLISTED MARK DARIUS OWNER: SAME A ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 156 RIVER STREET PROPOSAL IS T ADD NEW CUSTOMER WAITING ROOM, OFFICES AND A PART'S ROOM. C OSS REFERENCE: AV 62-1994 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/9/94 TAX M P NO. 112-1-35 LOT SIZE: 20,832 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-26 S AFF INPUT NJtes from Staff, Site Plan No. 39-94, Mark Darius, Meeting Date: November 29, 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A, Section 179-39B, S3ction 179-38C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and find that it is in compliance with the above sections. - 41 - --- ~ 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 site compatibility could be improved by cleaning up the engine blocks and auto parts laying behind the building. An enclosed area should be constructed so that the parts can be stored out of sight. An enclosed dumpster should also be placed on the site. During a visit to the site loose trash bags were seen behind the building. No new lighting or signage is proposed as part of this project. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The site currently has two points of access which are separated by a divider with flower planters at each end. The site could be adequately serviced by one curb cut. Eliminating one of the curb cuts would also allow space for additional landscaping along the front property line. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; There is enough area on the property to provide for sufficient off street parking. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; This is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The applicant should show how the additional runoff generated by the new construction will be handled. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The site is serviced by municipal water. The site plan shows a new septic system was installed in front of the proposed addition. Parking and driving on top of the system should be avoided. 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; Additional landscaping could be provided in the front yard and the stockade fence along the east property line should be extended to the rear. An evergreen or fence should also be placed along the rear property line. In order to discourage people from parking over the septic system, a lawn could be established in the area above the system. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; This is not an issue. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. This does not appear to be an issue. After two days of rain, the property appeared to be well drained except for puddles in the gravel parking area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that special attention be given to access, landscaping and general site cleanup. II MR. MACEWAN-Does Staff have any preference as to which curb cuts they'd like to see closed off? MR. HARLICKER-It would make kind of more sense to close up the one to the east, which is closest to the area of the septic system. MR. DARIUS-Mark Darius. MR. MACEWAN-Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. STARK-Craig, some of the Staff's comments or concerns could be addressed by Mr. Darius. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. Would you like to address those? Some of their concerns were the used parts stored out back, and a way of possibly cleaning up that area to not only enclose them with some dumpsters, but have them. MR. DARIUS-That area is being cleaned up right now. The engine - 42 - ',,\ ~ "-,,,' "-.~' bocks are being moved to a new facility. That i tention. That's why they were out there, but plated and moved. Actually, if you went down y u would see they're just about gone. is my business they are being there tomon-ow, M PALING-Are they being enclosed or just being moved to a d~fferent location? M\. DARIUS-They're being moved to a new facility that I have a out 20 miles from here. MACEWAN-Is this a normal situation where you stock pile them f r a while then move them on out, or is it like indefinite s orage there? DARIUS-I'm not going to be storing them there anymore. MACEWAN-Not even for a short period of time? ~1'. DAF<IUS"'Maybe out front there might be a couple. Li ke t,at's what I do is engines. They'll install a couple, tlem, and put them back out front and take them over m nufacturing facility and turn them into new ones again! I said, palate to our RUEL-You rebuild engines then? DARIUS-Remanufacture and install. RUEL-So you just use the blocks, then? DARIUS-We take old junky blocks and make them all brand new RUEL-Yes. They didn't look new to me. DARIUS-No. Those are the old ones, the befores. M MACEWAN-That was the before. All right. Why don't we just g? right down the table. We'll start with George. M~. STARK-Okay. They also had a concern about a dumpster being enclosed. What are you doing about that. M~. DARIUS-There's no dumpster on the property. RUEL-It's suggested that there be a dumpste,". STARK-Okay. RUEL-Not that it be enclosed. There isn't any. M~S. LABOMBARD-Right. M~. RUEL-And there were trash bags allover the place. We would s ggest that you install one. M\. DARIUS-I'd like to know where there's trash bags allover my prope,-ty. M~. HARLICKER-I didn't say several of them out back, it where the engine blocks were. they were allover. There looked like, to the west of "'Jere the, MR. DARIUS-Tires. The back western corner has tires. MR. MACEWAN-I guess maybe where the position of the Board and Staff is coming from is maybe clean up the site a little bit, to put it very bluntly. That's what we'd like to see is maybe beautify it a little bit to some extent. What can you do to help us achieve that goal? - 43 - '-' '-' - MR. DARIUS-I could do, within reason, whatever you request. MR. MACEWAN-Are you willing to put up, like, a fenced area, so that any blocks that you have stored for any short period of time can be done in kind of an enclosed little gate area, or acquire yourself a dumpster so that, in the future, maybe garbage bags or tire storage is in enclosed in something that can't be visible from the ,-oad? MR. DARIUS-Yes. MR. RUEL-And the curb Could you limit it to cut, vJe had one? suggested that there be one. MR. DARIUS-I work on a lot of big trucks, and when the State actually put that road in there, they had that curb cut run 15 feet through, and when you try to pull in with a big truck, we had to run over, you would have to actually run over the plans the State had, run over their curb. They moved the curb back for me about 15 feet. The State moved it for me. MR. RUEL-Is there one wider than the other? MR. DARIUS-The,-e's a short one on the west side. There's a, I think, 18 foot one in the very center of the property, and there's another one that starts at my property line and goes into Zack's parking lot. ~1R. RUEL-·Could )/ou close that one? MR. MACEWAN-Which one of the ones are the trucks using now to get in there? MR. DARIUS-Actually both. Now we have tow trucks that park back In. It would be very inconvenient to pull in this one side, and you block yourself in. MR. RUEL-You can turn around? MR. DARIUS-It would be, basically, you're pulling the tow truck on one side (lost word) and then you can go out the other side. MR. RUEL-Can you go in one, turn around, and come out the other, now? MR. STARK-That was my question to you. I mean, that would create, you know, if you pulled in with a big truck, dropped something off, you'd be going around in a circle. MR. MACEWAN-I guess maybe (lost word) possibly maybe get the westerly farthest one closed off? MR. RUEL--No. He just mentioned the difficulty in turning around. MR. MACEWAN-Didn't you say that you were using the access that you share with Zack's drive-in? MR. DARIUS-No. I don't share access with Zack's. accesses, an east and a west. The most westerly property line, and Ceiba Geigy Corporation. I have okay. The next one down starts at my property line on Zack's. I have tvJO one is on my a cente,- one, and continues MR. MACEWAN-Okay. All right. MR. PALING-So you have two. MR. DARIUS-I have two curb cuts. MR. OBERMAYER-But that's pretty common for service stations. - 44 - \/ \, '",--, "-..../ -........I PALING-Yes, for the trucks to go in and out, I think so, yes. MACEWAN-Is his explanation reasonable for you? HARLICKER-I think so. RUEL-Yes. I think you should leave it that way. HARLICKER-But I think you've got to be concerned about, you show that septic system over on that side, and it should really avoided, any sort of traffic over that septic system. DARIUS-My new septic system is a commercial duty septic s'stem. My two dry wells are commercial duty for that purpose. HARLICKER--Okay. M\. OBERMAYER-I have a question, as far as oil. Where do you s_ore your transmission oil and motor oil that you? have a 275 gallon tank that's pumped out once a M'. OBERMAYER-Okay. like that? Does that have a berm around it or anything M~. DARIUS-That's not required by Federal New York State law. Anything over 1100 gallons is required to have a permits and have b~rms around it. OBERMfYlER-O kay' . RUEL-Will the old septic tank still be used? DARIUS-No. It's going to be removed. RUEL-Be removed, just the new one, up front? M~. DARIUS-I put it up front because I knew I was going to put a s'ptic system (lost word). M~. RUEl-The parking area doesn't go over it, does it? M,. DARIUS-Over the septic system? Basically, that area's going t turn into is the area where customers will pull in and park their car and come in and, say their car's broken, and the center s~ction is going to be where we put cars temporarily for the next f~w months. They're going to go in the center section, and then W9 use the most easterly side for cars that are done. M~. OBERMAYER-Do you plan on paving the parking lot, or just s'one? M,. DARIUS-Well, it's sort of, somebody tried to y~ars ago. Eventually, if business is good, it e1entually, down the road. pave it many wi 11 be paved, M,. HARlICKER-Are you going to be upgrading the building at all, p inting it or any of that stuff? M,. DARIUS-The building is going That's part of the parts room and l>Jhole nel>J look. to get stuff. a complete facelift. That's going to get a M\. PALING-I'd like to continue with you on Item Seven and 1 ndscaping, in the front yard, stockade fence, evergreen fence and so on. Have you got this, or read this? Okay. Additional londscaping could be provided in the front yard, and the stockade fance along the east property line should be extended to the r~ar. An evergreen or fence should also be placed along the rear - 45 - '-' -../ '-' ~ property line. In order to discourage people from parking over the septic system, a lawn could be established in the area above the system. We want to encourage this kind of thing, to make the properties look as good as they can, and what's your comment on tha..t. one? MR. DARIUS-You're saying extend the stockade fence that's on the east. side? MR. PALING-The stockade fence along the east property line should be extended to the rear. MR. DARIUS-I'd actually like to knock that fence down. He just put that up a couple of months ago. It's cheap. It makes the neighborhood look cheap. If you really get out and look at the fence, it's held together with staples. I mean, you could throw a stone at it and knock the half of the concrete things off it. It's held up wi th pieces of pavement that he ,- ipped up f,-om his parking lot. MR. PALING-Yes. That's not good. MR. DARIUS-Hedgerow has there during the summer side is lilac bushes and th'(ough there. been thought about, and if you're down time and spring time, the whole easterly tulips and whatever else that comes up MR. PALING-Okay. That's what we'd like to encourage. Could we get you to commit to some kind of specifics on the borders? MR. MACEWAN-Maybe the recommendation to do is that part of our condition of approval for this thing is to whatever the Beautification Committee deems that he should. MR. HARLICKER-The Beautification Committee didn't want to see it. MR. MACEWAN-They didn't want to see it? for not wanting to see it? What was their reason MR. MACEWAN-Because they considered it a minor addition to the building. You could request that. MR. MACEWAN-I would want to refer it. That's ~ opinion, because he's admitted it. He wants to try to clean up the entire site, and that's what we're looking for. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. DARIUS-There's already flowered things out front, whatever you want to call them, down in front. MR. RUEL-Plantings. MR. STARK-If the Beautification Committee had any additional, would you be willing to go with those? MR. DARIUS-They pay for it? MR. STARK-No, they don't pay for it. t'-1o. I MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, look right across the street, where the Department of Public Works right there that just built a butler building, and there's no beautification there at all, and they have a huge pile of sand and salt. MR. MACEWAN-But that wasn't in front of our Board. MR. OBERMAYER-How come it didn't go in front of our Board? MR. MACEWAN-Probably because it property. That would probably was a County building be a safe assumption. on County I guess - 46 - 'v ,----,. ~ ....J Wìere we're at right here is that, the Board wants to see some SJrt of fencing put up to accommodate any engine block, tire, g,rbage storage. M,. DARIUS-I think fencing would take away from the property. I r-ally think it would make it look worse. I would much rather s e, maybe, some evergreen type shrubs down through there, rather t1an, fencing really takes. HARLICKER-That would be great. I'd prefer that, too. MACEWAN-All right. Then how about we do this. If everybody i~ in agreement to this, as part of our stipulation, we send them Beautification Committee, so that you can let them k¡ow that's what we want to have done, some sort of screening to p otect that. HARLICKER-Well, couldn't he? STARK-He could agree to it right now. M~. OBERMAYER-Yes. Why couldn't he just agree to plant some e ergreens along there in the spring? STARK-And hide the blocks. MACEWAN-Okay. What kind of evergreens? M,. HARLICKER-That's exactly, we've got to quantify these bushes h3re. M~. MACEWAN-You've got to nail it down. r-commending that it goes to Beautification. That's why I'm RUEL-You have to know what type, how far apart. mean, that's their thing. It makes sends to send but I just hate to put an additional hardship S. LABOMBARD-I do, too. STARK-He's not going to plant it until the spring anyway. MACEWAN-That's right. What hardship is it, Jim? S. LABOMBARD-That's true. M~. MACEWAN-And it's standard procedure that we've done this with m3ny applicants. We've sent them to the Beautification Committee for their recommendation. I mean, they're not asking you to invest $100,000 in plantings. RUEL-Do we ever make a recommendation or approve an a plication subject to Beautification Committee? MACEWAN-All the time. OBERMAYER-They've already said that they don't want to see MACEWAN-Because they didn't understand the scope of it. LABOMBARD-See, my opinion that Mr. Darius is being very p"operty and so forth, and I a~tractive as much as he can. this, I don't think it's is, the location of it, I think agreeable as to cleaning up the think that he wants to make it I don't think it's, how can I say imperative that the surrounding - 47 - "--' '-..-/' - ./ "'- buildings and the fact that it is an industrial area down there. I mean, the cement factory's right across the way, and so forth, that it is that imperative that he put an investment into plantings, as long as he keeps it clean. MR. PALING-Lets ask Mr. Darius what he intends to do, then. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. There's a good suggestion. MR. PALING-Would you just summarize the things, are you going to tear down a fence? MR. DARIUS-I can't, it's not mine. MR. PALING-No. I wouldn't tear it down if it's not yours, but you mentioned certain things you were going to do. Could you tell us what those are, and maybe this is where we have a meeting of tJ-¡e mi nds MR. DARIUS-Tell you what I'm going to do with what, that side of the building? MR. PALING-No. For instance, we talked about concealing any engine blocks that you've got there, some way of hiding them. MR. RUEL-He already indicated that. MR. DARIUS-The engine blocks out back, they're going. MR. PALING-They're going, but you also indicated that you have two to four, from time to time, and I thought you said you could put them behind, like, shrubs or something like that? MR. DARIUS-No. Basically what we do is between the two big doors, now we stick them out front. They're on palates. We stick them out front, and then when one of my trucks comes over from our other place, we load it on the truck and take it back and it goes on into whatever area it goes into. MRS. LABOMBARD-They kind of just stay out front until they're taken away, picked up. MR. DARIUS-It doesn't look like a junkyard. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. front, if they're said. I mean, going to I have no problem with a few out be, that's your business, like in ,>'ou MR. RUEL-I would strongly suggest that we make a condition that you give special attention to landscaping and general site clean up, period. MR. PALING-That doesn't mean anything. MR. OBERMAYER-No way, Rog. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't think the location warrants a special attention to landscaping. I mean, the guy could end up putting two, three thousand dollars worth of trees in. MR. MACEWAN-No. It's the consensus of the Board they don't want to go that route. MRS. LABOMBARD-I just think he should, like you said, Craig, keep the property picked up. Keep it cleaned, and the garbage out of sight, and paint the buildings. That's it. You want to do that anyhow, because that just makes it look better. MR. MACEWAN-If no one has anymore comments or questions, does somebody want to offer a motion? - 48 - '"---,, ~. '-. . ....- ~ STARK-What about the public hearing? MACEWAN-We've got to do the public hearing and SEQRA. I'll o en the public hearing. Does anybody want to speak to this a ;oplication? BLIC HEARING OPENED COMMENT BLIC HEARING OPENED M ,. STARK-·SEQF~A. SOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE SOLUTION NO. 39-94, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its seconded by George Stark: W -IEREAS, there aJplication for: is presently before MARK DARIUS, and the Planning Board an W-IEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed p-oject and Planning Board action is subject to review under the S~ate Environmental Quality Review Act, N)W, THEREFORE, BE IT R SOLVED: 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. D ly adopted this 29th day of November, 1994, by the following \/ t,e: A ES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, M-. Paling, Mr. MacEwan ES : I"~ONE SENT: Mr. Brewer . MACEWAN-Does somebody want to offer a motion? TION TO APPROVE S TE PLAN NO. 39-94 MARK DARIUS, Introduced by ger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: - 49 - ~ --..../ '-' --" As w,- i tten. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application I 39-94 to construct an addition to be used as a customer waiting area, office and parts room; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application dated 9/18/94 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, site plan, undated, and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following docu.mentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 11/29/94 2. Warren County Planning Boatd comments, dated 11/9/94 3. Zoning Board of Appeals resolution 62-1994 approving an area variance for side yard setbacks; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 11/29/94 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve site plan :It 39-94. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Z.A. for his signature. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits shall be conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 29th day of November, 1994, by the following Vot6: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ru.el, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MAUF~EEN LYNCH MRS. LYNCH-My name is Maureen Lynch. MR. STARK-Why ar6 you here? - 50 - "---" ' "--'" "---" ~ M S. LYNCH-I gather the Board is probably familiar with this m;tter, or they wouldn't ask. Normally, we would just wait to 1 t the application for subdivision go through the normal channels. The problem is that we face time constraints because o the weather. We have our variance application, and our S bdivision has to have a variance, because if it were approved, tle back parcel doesn't have road frontage. We have the deeded right-of-way to go back there. So what we're requesting is that they recognize that as our road frontage, to allow us to get b ilding permit to put a house up on the back lot. The only q andary that we are in is the variance hearing is scheduled for t morrow night, but under the normal schedule of the Planning ard, by the time we could get approval for a subdivision, and b' the time we got a building permit, the ground is going to be f"ozen, and we won't be able to build. M,. MARTIN-The other quirk to this process is that we have to h·ve a signed application. Now, we have a situation here, I d1n't know if the Board will recall, where the Bank went off, or s mebody did, and ~.,¡ent off and c)-eated these two deeds, creati ng tJO properties for their purposes on this lot. As I explained to tle Lynchs that the Town does not recognize this as a subdivision il that it never went through a subdivision process, obviously. Now, they're attempting to clear this matter up and go through slbdivision. She's getting the variance that she referred to, b t right now we have a situation where Dr. Gardner owns the o'her portion of this lot and they own one portion. Now the r~quirements for a signed application are in a form that's a proved by the Town Attorney. Paul's given a blessing to the v riance application with only their signature on it, you know, nIt needing Dr. Gardner's, but now the question is, do we need D". Gardner's signature for the subdivision application, and I'm waiting to hear from Paul on that. STARK-Where's Dr. Gardner? MARTIN-He's the other owner of this property. STARK-And where is he? M,S. MARTIN-He lives there. He lives on the property. M,. BREWER-Why can't we get his signature? M S. LABOMBARD-Does he want to sign? M '. MARTIN-They've tried. M,S. LYNCH-We've requested Dr. Gardner to sign the subdivision a plication with us, when it became clear that we could not get a b ilding permit without a subdivision. Before the house had been sId, we were given assurances on all sites that there wouldn't b~ any impediment to getting a building permit. There had been ilterest, on the part of Dr. Gardner, on purchasing the back lot. Ater it became clear we needed the signature in order to go for s bdivision application, the willingness to sign it was not f rthcoming. After we had made clear our intentions. M.S. LABOMBARD-What were his reasons, Maureen? M,S. LYNCH-Because he wanted to purchase the back lot. M.". BREWER"'Well, who owns the back lot? M S. LYNCH-We do. M,. BREWER-Well, if he wants to purchase it, and you don't want t. sell it, \.,¡hat good does it do to want it? M,. STARK-He won't sign it. Let me ask Jim a question. Jim, - 51 - "'--'" "'--'" ',/~ ---..." what is required of the Board, here? Just a walver from Mr. Gardner's signature and a special meeting? MR. MARTIN-No, no. that we have to get accept as a formal. I just point that out as one hurdle, over, or Paul has to decide as to what yet, he's MR. STARK-Do we have a special meeting to facilitate? MR. MARTIN-I think what they're, essentially, asking fOT is a special meeting to expedite this as quickly as possible. MR. STARK-When do you want this meeting? MRS. LABOMBARD-In other words, it has to be immediately, as soon afteT tomorrow as possible. MR. MARTIN-Well, we need 10 days notice, and all that. MRS. LYNCH-As far as I can tell, there would be nothing that would impede using the right-of-way as a driveway. MR. MARTIN-They have a deeded right-of-way. That is a deeded right-of-way to the back. MR. BREWER-Is there a big problem with that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Setting a special meeting, or using that for access? MR. BREWER-Using that for access, as consideration for the road f"ontage? MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know. MR. HARLICKER-They're seeking a variance from the road frontage. MR. BREWER-So if they get the variance relieving them of that, then we don't have to worry about it. MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly. Frontage has always been defined as ownership. They have a deeded right-of-way over Mr. Gardner's pToperty, but it's Mr. Gardner's property, but they have rights to access over that. MR. STARK-We could set a date for a special meeting, and if they don't get their variance, the question is moot, but if they do get their variance, then we can set a meeting whenever, the earliest convenience. MR. PALING-And at the time of that meeting, we'll have normal prints and stuff we can look at, because I'm starting to look fOT a drawing of some kind, and I don't. MR. STARK-No, there's no drawing. MRS. LYNCH-I think we have those on record already_ MR. PALING-Okay. We don't have them though. MR. MARTIN-We haven't distributed them to the Board yet because we still have to get by the application of signature process, and also if they do have a special meeting, then we'll submit it out to the Board. Otherwise, it would go out with their normal packets, for their normal meeting nights. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you think Paul's though, the applicant's signature, going to be or? able to resoh/e, MR. MARTIN-Well, he's got to at some point, in order for the - 52 - '-----' "--" -....,/ "-- application to be considered. M S. LYNCH-I'm not a lawyer, but for what it's worth, if under the Town's criteria, there's no subdivision, then the previous OJner would have been Christopher Lynch, in which case, would he the only person needed? M,. MARTIN-That's a good point to raise with Paul. You might w nt to point that out to him. That might be something he would as he makes his determination. Okay. That's good, M,. BREWER-The earliest we could do a meeting, Jim, is the 10th, which is a Saturday, I mean, counting the days. So it would be 12th, actually. STARK-That's a Monday, right? BRElrJER-Right. MARTIN-We could do it cards. You're aware downstairs. They have to do their of that, right? You have to send off M,. BREWER-Wait a minute, 10 days, could we legally have a m_eting the 9th? M . MARTIN-Well, we have to do our notice to the paper. It takes a certain amount of time to do that, and we're not going to know i- we're able to do that until the Zoning Board meeting tomorrow n"ght. So I think there's a certain amount of lead time. 1'1,. HARLICKER-So you're talking, if 'lou get the notice to the p per on Thursday. MARTIN-It won't publish maybe until Sunday or Monday. M . HARLICKER-So ten days. M,. OBERMAYER-From Monday? M ,. MARrU\!-Ye23. M . BREWER-Ten da'ls from the day it's in the paper? M.. MARTIN-Yes. The notice in the paper has to be, it has to aJpear ten days prior to the meeting date. M BREWER-So if it's in the paper the 4th, we can't have a meting until the 14th? SCHACHNER-That's what 10 days notice is all about. M HARLICKER-Yes. M'S. LABOMBARD-Well, why does it take so long to go in the paper, i you call up and ask? M . MARTIN-I'm not sure. I know there's some lead time there. Tlere's a lapse between when you actually. M BREWER-Let me ask you this. a ve,-tise? How much does it cost to M . MARTIN-For an ad like this, I think it's, like, $30 on the a' 'er age. M . BREWER-So wh'l don't we take a chance and send the ad, you c n't really do that, can you? - 53 - '--" -- -- ' ---..' MRS. LYNCH-I'll be happy to pay the cost. MR. MARTIN-No. Your application fee is for that purpose. MR. BREWER-If we took a chance and sent the advertisement in for a sooner date, and everything fails, then what have we lost, the $30? MR. MARTIN-Well, if it's paid for out of their fee, we haven't lost anything. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. MARTIN-Well, you can just simply cancel the meeting. MR. BREWER-What I'm saying is if you send it in tomorrow, can we do that? MR. MARTIN-We could on an assumption that the variance is approved. MR. BREWER-If they get their can we do that, Mark? Can advertising in tomorrow, on these things, or not? variance, they get their signature, we take a chance and just send the the presumption that they will get MR. SCHACHNER-Then figuring, if they don't get the variance, you don't do it, obviously. MR. BREWER-Then nothing gained, nothing lost. MRS. LABOMBARD-Go for it. MR. SCHACHNER-All you're doing is noticing a meeting, and it may turn out that it doesn't happen. MR. BREWER-That would just buy us a couple of days. That's all. MR. STARK-Yes, but I mean, when would the meeting be? MR. BREWER-Well, if we sent it in tomorrow, which would be the 29th, we've got a chance of getting it in the paper by Saturday, which is the 3rd. We've gained a day. MR. MACEWAN-You're looking at the 14th, at earliest, possibly, more likely, the 15th or 16th. MR. MARTIN-Well, you know, the Board's also got to consider your December meeting schedule anyhow, because even the first meeting, the first regular meeting falls the 20th. I don't know if you want to keep that, being Christmas week, or not. December's always a tough month. MR. STARK-How many meetings are there? MR. MARTIN-Probably two. MR. STARK-I'd like it earlier than the 20th, if possible. MRS. LABOMBARD-Are things slowing down a little bit? MR. MARTIN-We don't know. So we'll know better. The submission deadline's tomorrow. MR. BREWER-We won't know until tomorrow. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. STARK-Well, I'll take this up later. I mean, we don't have to discuss it now. - 54 - "'-' ,,J ~ ,.,,/ M\. BREWER-Well, I guess the soonest we can do it W~ don't have a problem with that, would be the e¡erybody do it the 14th, Wednesday? we'll do it. 14th. Can LABOMBARD-Maureen, were you aware that there was that 10 LYNCH-I knew there was 10 days. LABOMBARD-Then it's not coming as a surprise or shock. M~. STARK-I understand your concern, you want to get in before tle frost, which is a big deal. M,. BREWER-Why don't we do this. Jim. Can I set the meeting, can I get your approval to set the meeting day after we know if they g~t their variance or not? STARK-You set the meeting date and notify the Board. BREWER-Okay. Is that acceptable to you. So you let me know ursday morning, and I'll set the date right then. So Thursday Tning we'll let you know, Chris, and we'll do it as fast as we c n. Okay. Then that's all we need, I guess. We'll know Tlursday morning. We'll let you know when the date will be. I'll set the meeting then. Okay. One thing L had to ask Mark w s, a while ago I asked you about legislation for an applicant t get their variance before site plan. LABOMBARD-All right. b'en the 20th and the 27th 13th and the 20th? SCHACHI\IER--Right. BREWER-status? Anything, or no? SCHACHNER-A draft has been written and you'll get it shortly. . BREWER-Okay. Great. Has anybody got anything else? STARK-There's two things. I would like, I'm leaving the 27th December. I would like the two meetings, if there are two etings. earlier the better in December. Is there any objection t that? I don't particularly want between Christmas and New '{ ,aì-S, okay. Well then it would of December. So now have originally you want to go OBERMAYER-Yes, but I think it has a lot to do with, Jim, ough, doesn't it? STARK-Well, if we only have a few applications. M MARTIN-We may have applications only for one meeting. I drn't know at this point. BREWER-We'll know, again, Thursday morning. STARK-Okay, but what I'm saying is, 13th and 20th, and we go site visits the 10th. The 10th for site visits. BREWER-The 10th at 10 o'clock. M.- STARK-Oka/. Officers of the it in December, That's all. The second thing is concerning the election of Board. I don't want it in January, can we have or if not December; can we have it in Februar/? MR. BREWER-We do it the first meeting in January. - 55 - ~ '-- -.../ " ' '.../ MR. MARTIN-You have to do it in January. Elections? Yes. MR. STARK-I'm just saying, I won't be here in January. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're going the whole month? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. BREWER-If nominate you for something, George, are you willing to do it, I guess is the question? MR. STARK-Yes, anything but Chairman. The meetings are the 13th and the 20th, if necessary? MR. MACEWAN-If necessary. MR. SCHACHNER-I can't be at the 13th. MR. MARTIN-I think if we had our druthers, if we can get by with one meeting, we'll do it on the 20th. MR. STARK-That's fine. MR. MARTIN-That's for the special one for her. MR. STARK-Right, and Tim is setting that. MR. MARTIN-Just to let you know, I'm going to be calling a meeting of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Advisory Committee, probably in early December. I'll copy you guys on the notices. I hope you all would attend at least a few of those. MR. PALING-What is it? MR. MARTIN-The Comprehensive Land Use Advisory Committee. This is the Committee formed to oversee the development of the Plan. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 56 -