The URL can be used to link to this page

1994-12-15 SP '---./ --' '-' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1994 INDEX Resolution of Intent 1. Constance Langford Charles Freihofer, III Barrett Auto Sales William Threw Maureen Lynch Robert & Joan Mahar Resolution of Intent 2. Site Plan No. 32-94 3. Site plan No. 80-90 6. Modification Subdivision No. 15-1994 15. PRELIMINARY STAGE Subdivision No. 17-1994 17. PRELIMINARY STAGE Site Plan No. 41-94 Donald A. Miner 24. 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 Mn"UTES . '-, "-./ . "--'" -.......I QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK, SECRETARY CATHERINE LABOMBARD F~OBERT PALING CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL JAMES OBERMAYER PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATIO~, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE RESOLUTIONS: RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR: 1. CONSTANCE LANGFORD MR. BREWER-And what would that be about, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-They're proposing to put an addition to a house there, remodeling a house and putting an addition on it. It's up on Lake George, Assembly Point. MR. BREWER-Do we have a resolution to that effect? Does somebody want to introduce that? RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR CONSTANCE LANGFORD RESOLUTION NO.: 17 of 1994 INTRODUCED BY: Timothy Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION \ \ - 1 - I I ~ ,,,,-/ SECONDED BY: Craig MacEwan WHEREAS, Co"~tance Lan~ford has submitted an application for site plan review in connection ~ith a project known as or described as remQd~lin~ existing 3 bedroom seasonal home: replace 8' x 16' section with 12'" x 3'2' addi trOD to provide handicap accessible bedroom and bat~onmain floor. Rai~e roof to provide space for two bedrooms on second floor. Excavate for basement under addition and crawl space under existing in a C . E . A., and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the state Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involvé'agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Constance Langford for a s~te plan review; 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired; 3) a le.ad agency for purposes of the SEQRA rev iew must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE '. . j '~, . '-.; " ;'," '; , ,: : RESOLUTION OF,~N.tENT Or ,THE 'PL~.~NIN,G,~OARD ·TpBE. 'LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR: 2. CHARLES FREIHOFER, III RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF SIT~ PLAN APPLICATION FOR CHARLES FREIHOFER. III RESOLUTION NO.: 18 of 1994 INTRODUCED BY: Roger Ruel WHO MOVED IT ADOPTION - 2 - ''-"' '''--" -..-' ..........,I SECONDED BY: Robert Paling WHEREAS, Charles Freihofer. III '~as submitted an for site plan revie~ in connection wi~h a project 'described aS~9nstruction . of' ~.. screened porch/deck Ptopos~d enclosed ~torªge ~rea;, and WHEREAS, the Town df Qu'eensbury Planning Board desires to comme'hce a coordinated review prOcess as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), application known as or area over a NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Charles Freihofer. III for a site plan review; 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired; 3) a lead agency for pu~Þoseé therefore be agreed to among within 30 days; of SEQRA review must the involved agencies 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution, 'the aþplication and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 32-94 BARRETT AUTO SALES REQUEST to RESCIND A CONDITION IN THE. MOTION OF FINAL APPROVAL (NQV. .17, 1994) "THE 22 SPACES'1N r'tfi::'FRONT 'BE CHANGED TO GR:EEN:SPACE ~ . . li'~' SEE LETTER DATED 11/30/94~:¡'. ',: MR. BREWER-Okay. George, this was a conversation I had with Charlie Scudder. The motion as it reads, and I think we have a copy of it, it the 22 spaces we talked about, Tor him to park cars on, we asked him to leave it green. I guess the way the motion is read, that it would have to be green space, and he can't put the cars there. So I guess hiè i~tent was to ask us to rescind that and just let him put gravel there. He still meets the permeability and everything. - 3 - I I '--" ,--,,' '-- -' MR. RUEL-Yes. Right. The other thing is that, the last introduction of the motion indicated that he'd have to indicate the proper setbacks on the final plat, and also to change the size and location calculationi on the final plat. MR. BREWER-Yes. rescind. I would still keep that in the motion if we MR. RUEL-Because it's not written that way now. MR. BREWER-It's not? MR. RUEL-No. It doesn~t say anything about it. As a matter of fact, the way it's written it doesn't say anything about rescinding the 22 parking spaces from green space to gravel space. MR. BREWER-I don't, see if I have a copy of that, Roger. MR. RUEL-What, the resolution? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Here. It's indicated that the signature of the Zoning Administrator would be required. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, we can add those conditions in here, if we so desire. MR. RUEL-That's one condition, the Zoning Administrator. The other one would be, that these final calculations come in, and are they reflected on the plat. MR. BREWER-I don't think the final plat is sub~itted yet is it, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-I don't think so. MR. RUEL-So that can remain the way it was, though. MR. BREWER-Yes. We just have to make a note to add those conditions on to that resolution. MR. RUEL-Right. MR. STARK-Tim, excuse me. don't we? We have to rescind the motion first, MR. BREWER-We have to rescind it and then. MR. RUEL-We have to rescind the motion and start a new motion. MR. BREWER-Rescind the original one and then introduce that. MR. SCHACHNER-If you're just modifying the original one, you actually don't have to rescind the original one. MR. RUEL-You don't have to rescind the original? MR. SCHACHNER-Not if you're modifyin9 the original one. If you're doing something contrary to it. In other words, if you had previously approved and now you're denying, or something like that, that's a different story. MR. RUEL-Which means that everything remains the same except what are in the modifications? MR. SCHACHNER-That's correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. So we can just delete, "and also the 22 spaces - 4 - , ----- --../ '--" .-.J in the front be changed to green space", just delete that sentence? MR. RUEL-What, on the resolution? MR. BREWER-On the previous one. Can we just delete that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Is the previous one in my packet? MR. BREWER-Yes, attached to the letter from Charlie Scudder. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Yes. You could say that your proposed modification is to delete that portion of the previous approval that required the 22 spaces in front be changed, etc. MR. BREWER-Okay, Mi. Barrett, does that? WILLIAM BARRETT MR. BARRETT-That's fine. MR. BREWER-That's fine with you? Okay. MR. HARLICKER-I'd like to add one thing. In the letter it was indicated that they were going to put iß some additional plantings in the front. They were going to make the buffer 10 feet instead of six, and put some plantings there. You might want to add that in and elaborate as to what sort of plantings. Staff would like to see some street trees along with the low bushes that they're proposing. MR. RUEL-So you want to add the condition of landscaping and some street trees and 10 foot green area across the front? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, but be specific about what you would like. MR. RUEL-You want that as a condition to the resolution as wr i tten? MR. HARLICKER-I would think so. MR. BREWER-No, Roger. do is add what Scott sentence out of the modification. You're getting mixed up. just said to this motion, previous motion. That All we want to and delete this would be the MR. RUEL-So the modification is to delete. MR. BREWER-Delete that one sentence. MR. RUEL-The condition, the 22 spaces in the front to be changed to green space, that statement, right? MR. BREWER-Yes, delete that. MR. RUEL-That's to bè deleted, and we add the condition that there be additional landscaping. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I don't know if you've got the letter in front of you, but the last paragraph, it says that they'll increase it from six to ten feet, and adding some landscaping features such as low spreaders, and Staff would like to see, along with low spreaders, some street trees. MR. MACEWAN-Any particular kind you guys are looking for? MR. HARLICKER-They've got Maple trees around the rest of the perimeter of the property. MR. MACEWAN-Is that fine? Make them Maple trees. So we're - 5 - I i , "---' "'-"" '--" --" speç i fie.. MR. RUEL-They're nic~. MR. HARLICKER-Number? MR. RUEL-So the condition then is to increase front side permeable area from six to ten feet, landscaping features across the front, such as trees, and Maple trees. the width of the right, and adding low spreaders and MR. HARLICKER-You might want to add, at least as far as street trees go, numbers. MR. OBERMAYER-Per the Beautification Committee. just reference what they've got on there. Why don't we MR. HARLICKER-Do you want to send it back to the Beautification Committee for this then? MR. BREWER-No. MR. PALING-We can just specify a number of trees, can't we? MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Barrett, could you come up to the microphone, please, and we can decide on how many trees we want. I don't know what's appropriate. I don't even know what space we're talking about. MR. HARLICKER-What's your frontage along there? MR. BARRETT-I really don't know. I think it's 100 and some odd feet. MR. BREWER-Ten's too many. You've got 120 feet, just roughly. MR. PALING-How about five, twenty-five feet a piece, make it five. MR. RUEL-Five? Five Maple trees. MR. BREWER-Is that too many? number five in there, right? Five. Okay. So you've got the MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's it, right? MOTION TO MODIFY SITE PLAN NO. 32~94 Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for Paling: BARRETT AUTO SALES, its adoption Roþert i~ Delete on the previous motion "and also the 22 spaces in the front to be changed to green space", and the condition that they'll increase the width of the front side permeable area from six to ten feet, and adding some landscaping features across the front, such as low spreaders, and some street trees, five Maple trees. Duly adopted this i5th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 80-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW OWNER: ROSEMARY THREW ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY RD., OFF CORINTH RD. MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN - CHANGES - 6 - ',,---, '-.../ '",---, .J INCLUDE BUILDING LOCATION, A CIRCULATION AREA REDUCTION, BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 12/12/94 3.11 ACRES SECTION 179-26 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT FIRE LANE ADDITION, PARKING AND AND LANDSCAPING REVISION. TAX MAP NO. 137-2-7.3 LOT SIZE: STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 80-90 MODIFICATION, William Threw, Meeting Date: December 15, 1994 liThe applicant has submitted a revised as built site plan for your approval. The approved plan had 30 parking spaces and 2 handicapped spaces. This met the required number of spaces, one space per 1,000 square feet plus Oné for each company vehicle. The revised plan shows only four spaces which does not meet the code requirements. The grading in the area of the proposed parking is sloped in such a wày that parking in that location would be on a difficult slope. The other modifications, revised building location, landscaping and the fire lane should not cause any problems. II MR. RUEL-I have a question for Scott. You're talking about four spaces in lieu of what? MR. HARLICKER-Well, the previous plan had 30. The revised plan has 4. MR. RUEL-You go from 32 to 4? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay, and we do have someone here for the applicant. MR. MILLER-My name is Jim Miller. I'm a landscape ~rchitect representing William and Rosemary Threw. This plan Wé show here is the original site plan by the 25,000 square foot warehouse building. This is on Big Bay Road, and the building adjacent, this is Bill Threw's construction office and storage. The original proposal for this warehouse was to lease to multiple tenants. The original proposal showed three loading docks and parking and roadway around, so there'd be various entrances into the building. What has happened, a couple of changes is, one, the building location was changed during construction, and it was shifted to the north to create more space near his loading dock. There's about 44 feet here, which is, meets the setback. The building is now leased to a single tenaDt, and the tenant is using the building primarily for storage. Originally, the idea was that to be employees there and multiple tenants. At this point, it's leaséd to ENCORE Pape+ Compariy, who only vses it for warehousing materials and it ha~ not full time employees in the building, and they're requirement, as part of the lease, was to have a single loading dock area off the front, and on~ access, except for emergency accesses. The original plan showed a walkway and some parking along there, and what the client is proposing is to provide the parking and the handicapped access a~ong the front, and the remainder of this area to serve as circulation and turning for the tractor trailers. The fire lane that was added, I believe was added at the request of the Building Inspector around the building, which was just a gravel parking area. The other modifications that are planned, the landscaping on the original plan showed some scattered shrubs around the site. Through discussions with Jim Martin, he wanted to see some additional planting, screening the site. The lighter cÞlors, the trees represent the existing along the property line, primarily white pine, fairly dense here. There's some dense mature white pines on the southern portion of the site, and there's ß. group of white pi nes at the entry. This area, well, in front .óf the building, there"s graded, and there's some smaller m~ples in th~r.. they're proposing, rather than haves~rubbery i~ the back of the site, and around the back of the building, as - 7 - I i ~ ~ '-r --' originally proposed, to concentrate some spring planting in here, proposed 18 pine trees across the front, a couple of maple trees along the front parking area that break up the elevation in front of the building, and then some groups of white pines toward the back of the circulation area, to try to separate the site and screen from some of the storage area in the back portion of the property. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. RUEL-Yes, Staff. Is the owner permitted to make these changes as he goes along? MR. HARLICKER-Well, that's why they're back before you now. MR. MACEWAN-How did the footprint of the building get changed during construction without modification or approval from the Planning Board? MR. HARLICKER-I can't answer that. representative can. Maybe the applicant's MR. RUEL-No. I want to know, from the Planning BQard standpoint, was the Planning Board or any other agency informed or notified of the changes as they occurred? MR. HARLICKER-Not to my knowledge. MR. RUEL-Okay. So he just went ahead and made and now he presents it before us. Is that it? these parking spaces? all the changes And what about MR. HARLICKER-The Zoning Code requires, for freight terminals or utility use, which is the I've found this compares to, is one space square feet of gross leasable floor area, 24,750. So they'd need at least 25 parking Zoning Code. wholesale storage closest thing that for every thousand and this is, what, spaces to meet the MR. RUEL-So how can we live with four? MR. HARLICKER-I don't believe you probably could, unless he goes for a variance. MR. BREWER-We can't, really, if it's not within the requirement. You'd have to get a variance. MR. RUEL-This is already done, right? The building is there? The parking spaces are there? MR. BREWER-Yes, but he could still make parking spaces. MR. RUEL-Yes, of course, but I'm just wondering, how does this happen? That it comes before the Planning Board and here you have a plan and you get approval on it and then you go ahead and build it and then you change it considerably. MR. BREWER-It happens by lack of enforcement, is how it happens. MR. RUEL-Doesn't the Building Inspector follow the site plan? MR. BREWER-Evidentally, not. MR. HARLICKER-An alternative to going for the variance would be like we did with Dave Kenny's project. You just have the applicant show that they have the space available on site to put the parking if needed. MR. RUEL-You wouldn't have to get that from the ZBA? - 8 - '--" ~ '--" .J MR. HARLICKER-No. That's something that. MfL BREWER-We can do that. We did that with Red Lobster also. MR. RUEL-We grant a waiver, is that it? MR. HARLICKER-You don't grant a waiver. to indicate on the plot plan that they do the needed parking. They don't have to They just have to show that they can put that it's needed. The applicant just has have space to provide actually construct it. it in if it turns out MR. RUEL-Is that true in all cases? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-I mean, we've been insisting on having X number of parking spots. M~. BREWER-Well, he has to show us that he can provide it, like Scott said, as is it needed. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MILLER-Mr. Chairman, one other question we had, and there was really nothing in the parking requirement that specifically deals with warehouse. The parking requirement that Scott's referring to is for a freight terminal, and this isn't a freight terminal, ahd they have no employees, and so, I wasn't involved in the original site plan, but I'm not sure that the freight terminal parking requirement applies to this warehouse. MR. RUEL-That's a good point. MR. MACEWAN-What's the other descriptions that he listed under that one Section, freight terminal and what else? MR. HARLICKER-Boat sales, storage freight terminal or utility use. MR. MACEWAN-Storage "," freight terminal? MR. HARLICKER-Both, yes. MR. MACEWAN-So it falls under "Storage". MR. HARLICKER-Well, no, it's wholesale, storage freight terminal. MR. STARK-You really don't need the parking there for the thing, (lost word) least of it. MR. RUEL-Perhaps we should modify this, so that would warehouses wþuld have a different ratio, as far as parking spaces. MR. MACEWAN-What Section are you under, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-For Parking, it's 179-66, is the requirements, and oh Page 18040, Number Six, is where the Planning Board has the aµthority to. MR. PALING-It doesn't seem that it's that much of a problem if he s!howed, if he demonstrated that the space is avai'lable. He dpesn't have to do anything with it. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That's exactly what that provision says, that you have the ability, not to waive the requirement that there be that amount of land, just that, as Scott or somebody e!lse said ear lier, they don't actually have to be constructed, marked, striped, etc., as long as the sufficient land exists. - 9 - I i ~ ~ MR. PALING-There's plenty of land there to do it if you wanted to, even inside the road. MR. RUEL-So if the use of that facility changed, then you could add the parking space? MR. PALING-Sure. MR. MILLER-Yes. They could go back to the original proposal which continued the road around to the rear, and add the parking spaces in the back, but since there was no entrance or loading dock or any need for it, he's looking to not have to do it. MR. RUEL-If the use changed, would they have to come back for approval? MR. HARLICKER-Not so much, the use that would go in there would have to have the required parking. If they came in for a building permit, one of the things we would check is is there sufficient parking to meet the parking requirements for whatever use is there. MR. RUEL-They would need a building permit to change the use? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Generally, when they do something like that, there's some sort of interior alteration involved. MR. RUEL-But you could change the use without making any modifications internally. MR. HARLICKER-I'm not sure if you can or not. MR. OBERMAYER-Rog, they have the space. They can provide the space if needed. MR. RUEL-All right. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? MR. STARK-Two things. They want building in lieu of a fire hydrant. that or anything? to put the road around the Does Kip Grant have to okay MR. HARLICKER-It was my understanding that it was done at their request. MR. BREWER-It was done at Kip's request? MR. HARLICKER-Kip's and Dave's request, wasn't it? MR. MILLER-That was my understanding. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-Okay, and the second thing is when we were out there Saturday, does he plan on cleaning up the site? Mr. Miller, in all candor, it's the messiest place I've ever seen. MR. MILLER-Well, Mr. Threw's an excavation contractor and demolition contractor, and the back portion of his site is where he stores material. MR. STARK-That's not material. I mean, you've got old tractors and trucks and stuff that's never going to run again, and tires. There's 2,000 tires back there. MR. MILLER-Well, I can't say if he plans to clean it up or not. If you wanted to add something in the approval. MR. STARK-It's the worst mess in Queensbury. Plain and simple. - 10 - '-" '---'" "--" -..../ M~. BREWER-Agreed. M~. STARK-That's all I have to say. MR. PALING-It looks like he's operating a dump. M~. STARK-You've been back there. MR. MACEWAN-There's certainly stuff left on that site that's not "there for storage". I MR. BREWER-There's stuff there Fred Sandford wouldn't want. MR. OBERMAYER-We've run into that before. We can't control that, though. M~· . BREWER-Well, I think if we put some kind t at he has to clean up this are.a, I think we t at. Don't we, Mark? Reasonably. of a stipulation have a right to do MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You have to sort of tie it in with the criteria for approval. I guess we'd have to look to those. What L was looking for first was another way that some places, some tþwns handle this sort of this is, if there i.§. so much material there that it falls into the definition of a dump, you can have, sbrt of as an aside, the Town could take a zoning enforcement attion agai nst that. MR.' PALING-I think that's a better route to follow than us trying tb put it in here. MR. RUEL-There's a condition in the Beautification application. There's a condition that the Committee has expressed implied aþreement with the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants and give proper maintenance to all plantings. MR. PALING-That's not what we're talking about here. i MR· BREWER-That doesn't really pertain to what we saw out there. ! M~. SCHACHNER-All right. In your site plan review criteria, you d have specific language that says that the established, in O~der to approve, this is reqUirements. for approval of site plan, the establishment of the proposed use would not create public h zards or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or g neral welfare of persons residing or working in the n~ighborhood or to the general welfare of the town. Now, I hbven't been to the site, obviously, and it's your call not mine, bµt if you feel that what's out at the site is so bad that you say without some condition to clean it up, you would not be able tb find that the p,-oposed use would not create such public h~zards, then you could probably work a condition to that effect. i I M~. BREWER-Well, ~ only thought would be, the,-e's no gates or a~ything. Anybody can go in there, and I'm not trying to make a~ybody have a hard time, but I think it should be at least c~eaned up to the back of where the gravel road is. I don't tlhink that's unreasonable to ask, so that it's not detrimental to ainybody . i Mr. STARK-Tires? Mf· BREWER-Well, they're way in the back, and, I mean, that's sþmething we can ask enforcement to go out and take a look at, ll~ke Bob said. Rather than try to work that into here, I think that we should ask the Zoning Administrator to go out and enforce hlis powers, and not have ~ do it. Let him do his job. MÞ. PALING-Yes. Could we make a motion with a note that we're - 11 - ~ going to advise the Zoning Administrator to investigate this site for violations within our observation, but beyond our control? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. OBERMAYER-Can we have the applicant notify the zoning administrator? MR. BREWER-No. I think it would be more appropriate if ~ did. MR. SCHACHNER-I agree. I totally agree. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. How long is the lease that you have with the, I'm just curious as to whether the use might change in the next two years. MR. MILLER-No. I think it was a. MR. BREWER-A long term lease. All right. What is a reasonable date for the plantings and what not to be done and the clean up? MR. MILLER-Well, the plantings and probably be the spring time now. they're actually using it now, and gravel down, but they haven't put They have to do the landscaping and things, at this point, would I mean, what they've got, they've rough graded it, ,and the top course of rubble in. the lawns in the spring time. MR. BREWER-So the end of May would be reasonable? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. The only two things that L would like to see is the planting requirement be done by May 31st, and the area to be cleaned up at least back to the back edge of the road, and I can't tell you how far it is. MR. MILLER-Tim, (lost word) happens, soil and things actually starts here back of the building. So right now that configuration. there's some stock piles of and then it comes around the it sort of is in, you know, MR. BREWER-I'd like to see that removed, if we could. Well, not necessarily, the dirt I don't think hurts anything, but I mean the bricks and all. kinds of debris taken out of there. How far back do we want to go, fellas? Do we want to go back to this point here where the 450 mark is? MR. MACEWAN-For me, I'd want the whole property. MR. RUEL-I'd say the whole property. MR. PALING-Yes. I was going to say the whole property, but could we leave it to the Zoning Administrator have the entire thing, because it's back a lot further than we're indicating here. MR. BREWER-I agree with you, Bob, but I think that's two different issues. I think if we put in our motion that we demand him to clean that up by May 31st when he has his plantings in, back to this point, and then in a separate issue, as Jim to go out there and enforce. MR. PALING-And still look at the whole thing. MR. BREWER-And look at the whole site. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. RUEL-Why can't that be done right now? - 12 - "--' '~ , "---' J Mt. MACEWAN-Why are you segmenting it, this one parcel? M~. RUEL-Why not finish it right now? M~. BREWER-Because we're looking at this building right. now, and II don't think, like Mark said that we should have the Zoning A~ministrator go beyond what we're doing and let him do his job. F~ne, if you want to say the whole site, but what's he, what are YPU telling him he has to do with it, Craig? Mk. MACEWAN-I'd want it cleaned up. If it's all right for him to h~ve all that stuff there, there's nothing you, I, or the Zoning A~ministrator's going to do to change it. If it's within the Cpde that he can do that over there, how are you going to get him tp clean it up? MR. OBERMAYER-There's other people around him that have a crap p~le, too. Mr. BREWER-What I'm saying is a reasonable thing for him. I M~. MACEWAN-What are you trying to do, like a 100 foot buffer around the building or something? MR. BREWER-No. I'm saying that we're concerned about this I building right now as a site plan. We're also concerned about t~· e rest of the site, but if that is zoned where he can store the m terials or whatever beyond, or anywhere on this site, then we h ve no control over, after we give him an approval, to say that ybu have clean up around the building. I MR. RUEL-Are we talking about rubbish or storing? MR. PALING-We are talking about what you'll find in a dump. MR. OBERMAYER-Construction debris. MF' I Mr· MR. PALING-More than that, the construction equipment debris. MILLER-A lot is scrap metal. STARK-It will never be used again, Rog, this stuff. , , , MþS. LABOMBARD-What about those tires? MR. STARK-Tires. You can't tell me it's legal to dump tires. MFa BREWER-Not dumping them, but I don't think it's illegal to hive tires on your property, is it? I MR. PALING-Well, if this land is authorized, if he's using the lbnd as a dump, and somebody decides' it's that, and it's not aGthorized as a dump, then I think he's in violation of something a~d he can be required to clean it up. I M STARK-I'd like to get a ruling. In ~ estimation, it's a d mp. Get a ruling from Mark or Jim and put it off 'til next w ek a . BREWER-Okay. We want Jim to go out there and look at it. MACEWAN-That would be a good idea, because you know what L think what L would like to do is if it's possible for Mr. Miller i~ to go back to the owner and ask him what he's willing to do to cllean up the place. I M~. BREWER-Actually, Tuesday is our meeting. Is that reasonable? Okay. You'll discuss it with him, and just let him know that the d te for the plantings that we'd suggest would be May 31st. - 13 - ~' -- ------' MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. BREWER-And we all know that there's plenty of room for parking if the use ever changes. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You might want to indicate on the plot plan where you might, where that parking would go. revised MR. BREWER-Okay. There i$ nQ public hearing, but if anybody here f~om the public who would like comment you're welc.óròe to. there is on this, CLYDE MOORE MR. MOORE-i just had a comment. My name is Clyde Moore. I live away from this area, but just in general, ßS yoU were speaking of this condition, you say that a lot of material there is like tires and so forth, and there's nothing around the area that barriers other people from bringing things in. Since there's no people that are manning that site, and it's just a warehouse storage, isn't it feasible that some of the material that's getting in there is others? MR. BREWER-I don't think so, no. MR. STARK-No. There's no garbage. MR. BREWER-Not garbage. MR. MOORE-I mean, tires. MR. BREWER~No. These are tires that have been there, I mean, they were covered with snow. They're not fresh or anything. Big tires. They're not car tires. MR. MOORE-Yes. I heard a number like 200 or something, at one point. What I'm saying is that seemed to be an awful big number of tires for one tenant. MR. BREWER-Well, I think I think it's from maybe equipment, and through the that pile. That's all. dumping them there. the man, no, it's not from the his equipment. He has a years probably he's just put I don't think anybody else tenant. lot of them in has been MR. MOORE-Well, the concern was it might have been being used by other people at some other hours. MR. BREWER-Yes. It's possible. MR. MOORE-And that other people around that area seeing that that area is used (lost word). It breeds another dump. MR. RUEL-That'sa good point, and they're going to check it out. MR. BREWER-Okay. So we want to table this and we want to ask Jim to go out there and inspect it and come back with a report on it. MR. OBERMAYER-Give us his opinion. MR. BREWER-We need a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 80-90 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Until our meeting of 12/20/94. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: - 14 - '-' "--" '-"" ""-"" A ES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, M . Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer N NONE 15-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED OWNER: MAUREEN LYNCH ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 57 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO FORMALLY SUBDIVIDE PREVIOUSLY SUBDIVIDED BY DEED BUT DID NOT GO THROUGH RMAL PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. THE PROPERTY IS 12.73 ACRES AND IS BE SUBDIVIDED INTO 2 LOTS OF 8.35 ACRES AND 4.35 ACRES. PLICANT IS DEEDED OWNER OF THE 8.35 ACRE LOT., CROSS REFERENCE: A 85-1994 TAX MAP NO. 55-1-7.1, 7.2 LOT SIZE: 12.73 ACRES S CTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS i M~I. 8REWER-Okay. This item did not receive their variance. I w s asked to open the public hearing and table it. There was s me problem with notification to one person on the previous v riance. So shé had to re-advertise. So, with that being said, I'll open the public hearing for the Lynch application. Is there a~YbOdY here that would like to speak? PpBLIC HEARING OPENED i ~~. BREWER-I'll leave the public hearing open, and we'll table 1 . M . STARK-Table it to when? MR· BREWER-Scott, do you have an idea when? I think they're, i~'s going to be next month, I'm afraid, or if we have a special m~eting. So we don't have to give a date, really. . HARLICKER-It's my understanding that the Zoning Board asked em to go back and talk to the person who owns the front piece property and try to work out some sort of agreement to buy the quired 40 feet of frontage. I don't think they put a time ame on it. Mf· BREWER-Well, they're meeting is not until the 28th, correct? i Mr· HARLICKER-No. They have one the 21st. if it's on the 21st, we, potentially, yes, I think 21st. We, potentially, could have a Christmas Eve you want to. Okay. So we just need a motion to table time as we can schedule a meeting for the Lynchs. I ask a question before you make the motion? The qµestion is, Staff and the Attorney, looking over this paper wþrk, I find that this applicant is looking for five waivers, and II'm wondering, are we submitting the right type of application, that a person who wants to build a single family home has to go through this whole exercise? It seems like an awful lot of p perwork, and it results in the request of five waivers? Is there some other way around that? M . HARLICKER-I guess the other way to do that would be to revise the Subdivision Reg's so you have a minor and majo,- subdivision. M . RUEL-Yes. Why there's entirely a plications. don't we seriousl~ think about thèt, because too much paper work on some of these small . HARLICKER-Yes. If the applicant had gone through the process rrectly, he could have gone through this, we have a two lot s bdivision process, which is done kind of administratively. They would have been able to do that, but because of the way - 15 - ',--. '-" -,.#' things fell out, they can't go through that process. MR. RUEL-I think classification for applicants through an time when actually it for a lot of waivers. you should seriously items like this. awful lot of work, isn't necessary and Okay. Thank you. consider a separate You're putting the here and expense and results in the request MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have a mQtion to table? MR. PALING-All right. ,.I'll move that the s0bdivi~ion appl{¿ation 15.-1994 be tabled indefinitely, 'until the applicant re-applies? /{ MR. BREWER-I would say until they obtain their variance .and another meeting is re-scheduled for them. Because I think we probably will have a special meeting for them. MR. PALING-'Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm just a little concerned, because this is a subdivision application, and subdivisions, you'll recall, can obtain approval by default, if too many days pass. So rather than having it tabled for an indefinite period of time, I guess I'm more inclined to suggest, if I'm understanding this correctly, don't they still seek a variance from the Zoning Board that they haven't obtained yet? So, instead, why don't we have a resolution that states that the application will not be considered complete and, therefore, the review clock won't start until they obtain that variance. MR. BREWER-What about the advertising? that's why we're opening the public hearing, re-advertise. I guess, basically, so w~ don't have to MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's true. MR. MACEWAN-Lets put a 30 day clock on it and leave it at that. MR. SCHACHNER-The other thing is, the time clocks kick in until after the public hearing's closed. So to that extent, you're pretty well covered. don't really as long as, MR. 08ERMAYER-So we can just table it then. Until January? MR. MACEWAN-No, indefinitely, because we left the hearing open. We didn't close it. MR. PALING-Yes. Should it include the fact that it's incomplete, still? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I'd be inclined to mention that in the motion, just to make it clear that you're not considering it complete until you have the variance, but to avoid the need for re-advertising, if I'm understanding that concern correctly, you can open your public hearing and just make it clear that it's remaining open. MR. PALING-Yes. Is it open? MR. BREWER-It's open. MR. PALING-The public hearing is ope n . All right. MOTION THAT PRELIMINARY STAGË SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1994 MAUREEN LYNCH IS DEEMED TO BE INCOMPLETE AND CANNOT BE ACTED UPON AND SHOULD BE TABLED AND PUT OFF INDEFINITELY. UNTIL A VARIANCE IS OBTAINED FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. OR UNTIL THE 40 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD IS OBTAINED, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: - 16 - ',--", 0....../ '--" -...I D ly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the foll6wing v te: A ES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, M-. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer N ES: NONE 17-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MAHAR OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LC-l0A BOTH SIDES OF FULLER RD. JUST SOUTHERLY OF TERSECTION WITH CLENDON BROOK ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A .11 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 10+ ACRES AND 24+ ACRES. APA X MAP NO. 123-1-19 LOT SIZE: +/- 34 ACRES SECTION: BDIVISION REGS RION ROLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT INPUT Staff, Subdivision No. 17-1994 Preliminary Stage, & Joan Mahar, Meeting Date: December 15, 1994 liThe plicant is proposing to subdivide a 34.16 acre parcel into 2 ts of 10.01 acres and 24.15 acres. The property is bisected by endon Brook Road. The applicant appeared before the Zoning ard in August seeking a variance for lot size to allow a 7 1/2 re parcel in a 10 acre zone. The 7 acre lot would have sulted from subdividing the lot along Clendon Brook Road, which rms a natural dividing line. The Zoning Board of Appeals dicated that they would not approve the variance and requested at a narrow strip along the north property line of the larger ,-cel be i'\lcluded wi th the smaller lot on the other side of the ad so that no variance would be required. The resulting c nfiguration, as shown on the plat, complies with the 10 acre minimum lot size but includes the detached 2.5 acre strip on the o her side of the road. The applicant and the Town are working o t the details of abandoning of the section of Fuller Road that r ns through their property. The remaining acreage will contain the residence of the Mahar's and the 10 acre lot is to be sold. The buildable area of the 10 acre parcel is located on the p operty east of Clendon Brook Road; the narrow 2.5 acre part is unbuildable because of the slope. Accessibility is not a p oblem; the Mahar's lot is accessed from Clendon Brook Road and the lot to be sold can be accessed from Fuller Road and Clendon B 00 k Road. II BREWER-But if they're going to abandon the road? HARLICKER-Well, it'll dead end on their property. sentially, it'll come to a cul-de-sac at their property line. . RUEL-Fuller Road? HARLICKER-Yes. M. BREWER-Okay. Do we have someone here for the applicant? Okay. Any questions or comments? just have one question, and that's, I don't know to Mark or Scott or who. Is abandoning Fuller Road b the Town of Queensbury a routine thing that just is done and there's going to be no future complication? 0,· is this something that could drag pn forever without ever þ,iQS completely done? If we approve this tonight, what's thé status of that part of F ller Road, and wh~n ·wiXl. it terminate being Town property, and that kind of thi~g? ' M . SCHACHNER-I haven't the faintest ideawheye thê process is at, but the generic answer to yoUr question, Bob, is that, yes, m nicipalities do abandon portions of roads from time to time, - 17 - -----,' because if they're no longer needed or used, it's nice for the municipality not to have the responsibility of maintaining them. It's not a tremendously complicated process, it doesn't have to be a tremendously time consuming process. Where it is in this particular case, I haven't the foggiest idea. MR. PALING-Okay, but it seems pretty straightforward, and they're aboard already, and discussing this with them, it sounds like. It sounds all right. MR. STARK-Maybe to clear up Craig's confusion and my own, Mr. Mahar, could you show us, on the map, what part of Fuller Road's going to be abandoned? Because I really, I don't know. MRS. ROLAND-I'm Marion Roland. acre lot. We live in Corinth. We're proposing to buy the 10 We're proposing to buy this here. MR. STARK-Okay. Mahar's live here. MRS. ROLAND-Right. This section here, West Mt. Road runs along here. Fuller Road comes up and intersects here. He's proposing to abandon this whole section, where it intersects with Clendon Brook Road. Okay. We'll give them a turn around right here. The Town will come up, be able to turn their plows around and come back out and still access down to West Mt. Road. This would become the main road going up into the Town of Lake Luzerne. MR. BREWER-So where would your driveway be to your house? MRS. ROLAND-Right down here. They'd come in and plow and actually turn around on this. We'd deed back to them this small corner here. So they would come and actually plow right to our lot, and our driveway we're intending to build in this area here. MR. PALING-And you're driveway would access Fuller Road? MRS. ROLAND-Right. MR. STARK-The part that's not abandoned? MRS. ROLAND-Right. MR. PALING-Right. BOB MAHAR MR. MAHAR-This part they're going to shut off runs side by side way off up in here through the City, and there's a brook on one side, and there's a steep bank on the other. This is all real steep ground in here. MR. BREWER-I guess my question would be, I understand exactly what you're doing and why you're doing it, but why wouldn't you, this land past Fuller Road is really undevelopable. We were on Clendon Brook Road, and we looked down, you ,-eally couldn't build a house, and if you're going to build down here, why wouldn't you, for the sake of a subdivision, or for the future development, draw some kind of a line'here, and I understand his driveway's here, but give him an easement to get into his driveway, because this pretty much blocks all the access to this back piece of property, if you ever wanted to subdivide that. MR. MAHAR-The City owns all of that up in that, watershed. MR. BREWER-This isn't your land? MR. MAHAR-That's our land there. Yes. MR. BREWER-That's your land. - 18 - '---' "---'" ',--, --/ S. ROLAND-Right to the north of that is all City watershed operty. · BREWER-Yes, but isn't there. LABOMBARD-Right here, Parcel 14 is City of Glens Falls, is. BREWER-Yes, but Cath, this is all his. Suppose he ever nted to, in the future, come up and, possibly, I'm not saying 's going to or not going to, build a road and develop this back acres. I mean, because that's landlo¿king this whole parcel. ROLAND-I think it would be quite difficult and expensive if eyever wanted to do any more subdividing. I'm not sure how up the mountain. It's pretty steep. BREWER-We drove up to the point of Tuthill. Now does this operty front Tuthill? You're past your property line? S. ROLAND-Yes, quite a ways away. · BREWER-Okay. RUEL-This is 10 acre zoning right? PALING-Yes. MACEWAN-I guess that was a concern of the Board, is why were creating a lot like that, a flag shaped lot like that? Why just kind of make it more rectangular, if it was possible? S. ROLAND-At the recommendation of the variance board, just to mply with the 10 acre. I mean, I see what you're saying, but get into the easements and right-of-ways and all that, you ow, they originally wanted it to be a simple deal, and the only w y to keep it a simple deal was to do exactly what they said, r n a strip 50 feet wide, or however wide you needed it to go up tìe side of the lot. BREWER-I'd like to make a suggestion to the ZBA, that the n xt time they have a case like this, they should have a workshop w'th us and discuss it, so that the expense of the applicant d esn't come to this. The ZBA told them to go to somewhere and h,ve a map drawn up and just add here so that they could have a 1 acre lot. S. ROLAND-And I totally agree with you, and had it been r solved three months ago, yes, but the recommendation, this is what they recommended us to go ahead and do. · BREWER-I just feel uncomfortable creating these kind of lots cause, down the road, it creates problems if there ever is. MR. MAHAR-How can you do it any differently? MR. BREWER-Simple. You could draw a line right across here. MR. MAHAR-Have you seen that property at all up there? R. BREWER-Yes, we went up there. riveway. We went up to where your MACEWAN-We drove right in front of your property. MAHAR-You went right up through the Clendon Brook Road? MACEWAN-Yes, we turned around in your driveway. BREWER-Yes. First we went up Fuller Road and then we went up - 19 - '----' -' '~ Clendon Brook Road, all the way past to where the signs were and everything. So we know exactly where it is. What I'm saying to you is, this land, potentially, could have been developed. If YOU come back across here and made this a square lot, okay, just supposing, then you could have divided this here and yoU could have made three lots out of that. I'm not saying you're ever going to. There's a lot of things that come to us that aren't practical. MR. MACEWAN-That's right, because there was something in the variance regarding the Adirondack Park Agency, that if they subdivided it even more than that, they'd have to get approval by them. So that's probably another reason why they went this way. MR. RUEL-This is a two lot subdivision, this way, and if it's three, somebody else gets in on it? MR. MACEWAN-The APA. MR. BREWER-But now this becomes two lots and you've got a 30 acre parcel here, or 25, then they can make a two lot subdivision again. That's what I'm saying. I don't have anything against what they're doing. MR. MACEWAN-No. I agree with you. I just think it's. MR. MAHAR-Where do you get the idea that you can just subdivide this? I mean, how are you going to roads into it? MR. BREWER-They same way you got your driveway in. MR. MAHAR-Yes, and look how it goes on there. It goes to 800 feet. MR. BREWER-I understand what you're saying, Sir. MR. MACEWAN-It just seems like we're creating, we're worsening his situation for him. That's the way we're looking at it from a planning standpoint. MR. BREWER-It's nothing to do with him, the way he wants to get, to build a building lot or anything. He's just creating a si t,u.ation. MR. MACEWAN-It's just it's been kind of an unwritten rule of the Planning Board that we don't create flag shaped lots. MR. RUEL-But we don't have a contoured map here either. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MAHAR-Yes, but the other people had all that, the Zoning Board. They knew really what the story was. They were the ones, they had some kind of idea like what you've got. Is that all you're going to do is just take a chunk off just above the road. MR. RUEL-There must have been a reason for the ZBA to want this thing divided down the center of the road. MR. PALING-To avoid problems, get them an approval. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. PALING-That's all, and it does that. MR. BREWER-I mean, technically, this meets the requirements, but as a practical point, if you just drew a straight line across there, then that's the way it shoµld have been done. See, that's the problem I have with the ZBA making recommendations to applicants and they don't tell us, because they have no idea what - 20 - \----- "--" '~ -..-I going to think. · PALING-Would you like to leave this the way it is or re-draw and re-submit it? S. ROLAND-I think, at this point, because we've gone and got a riance for it and we've wasted three months of our time, we uld have been up there doing a lot of work between now and en, but at the request of the variance board, you know, we've s ttled on this. Both parties agree that this is. · PALING-So you'd rather do it the way it is. th some of the comments, but you'd just as soon y it's d,-awn tonight? You might agree stick with the S. ROLAND-I mean, I agree, and I think you really ought to do mething between your two Boards. Your variance board is lling us to do one thing, and we go out, a few months later. told them, and I have the minutes here if you'd like to look them, we told them it was a ridiculous request. It would have en cut and dried had they gone along with the variance, real s mple subdivision, but they didn't want to go along with it. So went through the time and the trouble to have this drawn up, d it meets all your requirements. STARK-Tim, granted, it's treme, but the likelihood per part is really remote. ybody doing it. a flag shaped lot, and it's in the of anybody ever building on that I mean, you could, but I don't see · BREWER-Yes, I agree, George. There's an exception to every le, but I think what we have to do is we have to sit down with e ZBA, and you know, the sketch plan I don't think is such a al bad idea. If it takes five minutes for somebody to come in re and say, hey, look, here's what we want to do, on a piece of per, we should say, well, you know, maybe you could do it this y, and this could have saved a lot of problem, and I think that ould be done in the future with two lot subdivisions, whatever i is. It takes ten minutes to come in and do it. I think it's a, now these people have gone and wasted a lot of money on this, a d they could have done it three months ago and could have g tten it done with, and spent half the money. So I sympathize w'th what you're saying, but I don't think it's a good idea for the ZBA to make recommendations to the applicant. · HARLICKER-Staff agrees wholeheartedly. BREWER-I think they should be aware of that. open a public hearing. Is there anybody here comment on this? Okay. We have that would wish OPENED COMMENT BLIC HEARING CLOSED M. BREWER-We have to do a SEQRA. So lets do that. It's an Unlisted Action, and I'm going to request a workshop, if everybody would agree with me, on just this case. MR. PALING-Yes. STARK-In January, no problem. BREWER-All right. We'll talk about that afterwards. OF NO S IS MADE NO. 17-1994, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for - 21 - -- '--., --' its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the ROBERT & JOAN MAHAR, and Planning Board 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 RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. Before we go on any further, before the motion is made, it says in your letter that you'll have a determination at the Planning Board meeting. Do we have that determination? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We've got a letter from APA. MR. BREWER-And that's a positive determination? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Whoever makes the motion, we have to include the waivers, if we want to grant them. Do we have to waive for a contour map also? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-And where is that on here, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Those numbers correspond to sections on the application, Preliminary application. MR. BREWER-Okay. If somebody wants to introduce that as written, with these waivers attached to that motion, we can move on. - 22 - v ....- '-" '-/ M . HARLICKER-You had mentioned that you're going to be deeding p rt of your property to the Town for the turnarounds. Are you 9 ing to have those on the final plat? M . HARLICKER-Okay. (lost word) more M S. ROLAND-Right now, they're put on hold. i portant matters to take care of. S. ROLAND-So it won't be on the final, but I intend to have a, en we get that settled, have a new survey drawn up showing the andoned road and the turn around, and supply that. HARLICKER-So then what you'd have to do, then, is come back a modification to this. . BREWER-But that doesn't prevent you from building your house anything. That's no big deal. S. ROLAND-Right. We'll still gét subdivision approval? BREWER-Yes. M . HARLICKER-You get the subdivision approval, and then when the r ad abandonment and everything is taken care of, you'll come b ck with a modification to the approved plan that you get w enever final, yes, next week. STAG Introduced by Roger Craig MacEwan: 17-1994 for its . BREWER-Does somebody want to introduce that? written, with the condition that request for letter dated November 23, 1994. waivers in the Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt preliminary subdivision application, file #- 1994, to subdivide a 34.11 acre parcel into lots of 24.1 acres and 10.01 acres; and of 17- two Wher eas , the above application following: referenced preliminary subdivision dated 11/19/94 consists of the 1. Sheet 1 Survey of Lands of Robert & Joan Mahar, revised 11/21/94; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 12/15/94 2. Jurisdictional letter from the APA, dated 7/7/94 3. Letter requesting waivers, dated 11/23/94 4. Short EAF, dated 11/19/94; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 12/15/94 concerning the above subdivision; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment; and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision following modifications is and subject to terms prior the to - 23 - '--' submission of the plat in final form: Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows: The Town, Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve preliminary subdivision for Robert & Joan Mahar, file' #- 17- 1994. Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. Now is this on next week for final? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-So Tuesday night we can go through and give you final approval. MRS. ROLAND-Okay. When the road's abandoned, we go through another hearing here? MR. HARLICKER-You'd come back here with a modification to the plan as approved, if it's approved next week. MR. BREWER-Very simple procedure. advertising and all that again. It's not like all the SITE PLAN NO. 41-94 TYPE: UNLISTED DONALD A. MINER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 121 LOWER DIX AVENUE PROPOSAL IS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO UTILIZE HIS GARAGE FOR AUTO REPAIR. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 12/12/94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 111-5-5 LOT SIZE: 16,000 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-24 DONALD MINER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 41-94, Donald A. Miner, Meeting Date: December 15, 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A, Section 179- 38B, Section 179-38C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and found that it is in compliance with the above sections. 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 proposed use would not be incompatible with the neighborhood. The area is a mixed use area with a wide variety of small scale commercial uses and residential uses. The automobile repair business is not to be the principal use of the site. No new lighting or signage is p,-oposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular traffic access is adequate. A turn around area is provided so that cars do not have to back out onto Dix Avenue. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off street parking will be adequate. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater drainage will not be changed. The proposed use will utilize existing structures and paved area. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; - 24 - '\-....-' "'--' ---./ '-'" W ter supply a~d sewage will not be impacted by this project. 7. T e adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other s itable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a v sual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining 1 nds, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and m intenance including replacement of dead plants; Comments of t,e Beautification Committee should be incorporated into the p an. A hedge between the driveway and the property line would p·ovide screening and enhance the residential look of the p operty. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency z nes and the provision of fire hydrants; A hazardous material s eet should be supplied to the Fire Marshal. 9. The adequacy d impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with sceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Ponding, ooding and erosion do not appear to be a problem at this site. COM ND ION: Staff can recommend approval of this a plication." BREWER-It didn't go to Warren County? HARLICKER-It went to Warren County last night. We haven't tten the results back yet. I believe it was approved. BREWER-Okay. All right. Does anybody have any questions? RUEL-Yes. Shouldn't this be a ZBA type thing? BREWER-Why? It's an allowed use. M . RUEL-Okay. lighting. Staff mentioned no new lighting. The plan shows HARLICKER-I beliève that's existing on the garage, isn't it? MINER-The lighting is existing on the garage. It's also on house on the driveway. RUEL-The lighting's already there? MINER-The lighting's already there. RUEL-And the section you're adding? MINER-A 10 foot addition off the west side of the garage. RUEL-Ten by thirty? . MINER-Ten by thirty. RUEL-Right next to the existing garage? MINER-Right attached. RUEL-What about the roof line? out that? What are you going to do MINER-The roof li~e? RUEL-Yes. BREWER-It's a shed type roof, isn't it? . MINER-The pipe will be coming off the ed~e of the building, the side of the building. It's a shed type roof. RUEL-The building will be high enough? STARK-It's not going to connect with the existing roof. re's the wall and here's the shed. - 25 - ,-" '--/ ',--" MR. RUEL-Probably under the existing roof? MR. MINER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-It's like a carport, right? going to be like? Is that what it's MR. MINER-Yes. It's actually just for tool storage. MR. OBERMAYER-So it will be enclosed on the sides then? MR. MINER-Yes. MR. RUEL-You show parking area there. You also show a septic tank. You're not going to park over that are you? MR. MINER-No. That's a ways away. MR. RUEL-And you show, is that going to be lawn or gravel area, tha.t pa,- ki ng? MR. MINER-That parking is lawn right now. They're going to be parking right here. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Is it going to be strictly automobile repair? MR. MINER-Strictly automotive repair, yes. MR. BREWER-Okay, and there's going to be a reasonable amount of cars there at one time? MR. MINER-There's going to be no more than four cars being worked on at one time in the driveway. MR. BREWER-But that doesn't mean that there won't be 10 or 12 cars in the parking lot, right? 1'1R. MINER-I won't allow any more than eight cars in the driveway. MR. BREWER-So you wouldn't mind if we stipulated that? MR. MINER-Stipulate it right in there. MR. HARLItKER-Istheie going to be enough room for eight cars plus whatever vehicles you have? Eight cars total? Okay. And they're going to be just on the existing blacktop area, correct? MR. MINER-That's correct. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. RUEL-The Beautification Committee just made some comments. You will adhere to these comments? MR. MINER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Just one more question. You show the driveway coming in here. We turned around here when we were out there. Is that going to come right back out onto Dix Avenue? MR. MINER-Yes. MR. BREWER-So that's creating another curb cut onto Dix Avenue. MR. HARLICKER-No. I believe it's existing. MR. MINER-It's existing. - 26 - "--" '---./ \...--- -..-/ M BREWER-No. I know the driveway is, and this turnaround area i , but you show it coming right back out. Is that? · MINER-No. That's a sidewalk. On the , left side where it ys, (lost word) is that what you're looking at? · BREWER-No. I'm talking about this horseshoe type. oks like the driveway is like a horseshoe. See, it M . MINER-Yes. h re. That's a sidewalk. This is just a turnaround BREWER-Right. We turned around. Yes, which makes it a lot tter than backing out onto Dix Avenue. STARK-Yes. BREWER-Okay, and you will fill out the Hazardous Materials eet and give it to the Fire Marshal? M. MINER-Yes, aìtif,-eeze and o t of Albany, R cycle it. I will. My hazardous materials, such as the waste oil will be taken away by Orange Handling the Nissan Dealer. They take it free of charge. STARK-Good. That's fine with me. BREWER-We've got to open a public hearing. Is there anybody re to comment? OPENED YDE MOORE · MOORE-I'd like to recognize that Mr. Miner did go around and lk to the neighbors, in proposing what he was proposing, and oviding us with adequate information, so that we had all our estions and concerns answered, and I just wanted that to be cognized. I'm Clyde Moore. BREWER-We've got to go through the SEQRA. UTION WHEN D T ATION OF SOLUTION NO. 41-9 , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for s adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: EREAS, the,-e plication for: is presently before DONALD A. MINER, and the Planning Board an this Planning Board has determined that the proposed oject and Planning Board action is subject to review under the ate Environmental Quality Review Act, W, THEREFORE, BE IT 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 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. - 27 - .,,--, --...,./ ~,/ --../' 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 15th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr_ Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. We need a motion. With one condition, that there not be more than eight cars. I mean, that's the number he gave us. So if you feel you want ten, say ten. MR. MINER-Make it ten, but there won't be any more than eight. Make it ten to be on the safe side. MR. BREWER-Is there really room for ten there, reasonably? MR. MINER-Yes. I'm not going to have it that, but make it ten, just to be on the safe side. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-94 DONALD A. MINER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: As written, with the condition that there be a maximum of 10 cars parked in the area. Whereas, the Town planning Department is in plan application file # 41-94 existing residential garage as facility; and receipt of site to utilize an an auto repair Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 11/25/94 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, site plan, dated 11/25/94; and whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 12/15/94; and 2. Short EAF, dated 12/1194; and whereas, a public hearing was held on 12/15/94 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 Oueensbury (Zoning); and - 28 - '''"----' "-"" "---" '---' 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 # 41-94. 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. S. 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 pr ocess . D ly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following v te: A ES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, M-. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer ES: NONE M . MINER-Okay, and I have to go back to the Beautification board also. So they'll notify me when I have to do this? . MINER-One thing. Am I going to be notified by mail that this be, I can do this, so I can send it to New York State? HARLICKER-Yes. You'll be receiving a copy of the resolution om tonight's meeting and a little cover letter. HARLICKER-Yes. R. BREWER-But as of right now, he's approved. with what he wants to do, right? He can go ahead R. HARLICKER-Yes. What the letter will say is that you'll have to submit back to us two copies of the site plan for Jim to ,tamp, and that's the extent of it. MINER-Excellent. Thank you very much. BREWER-Okay. ORRECTION OF MINUTES NONE APPR V Stark MI UTES OF 10/ 7/94 AS WITTEN, Introduced moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following YES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, r. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NONE R. BREWER-Okay. We have a draft resolution regarding retaining ark Schachner as Planning Board Attorney, to be forwarded to the own Board. I would like to ask your permission to sign this and - 29 - , -..../ .....- "- MR. BREWER-Next item. MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION UNTIL MARCH 31. 1995 FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 4-83 SOUTHERN EXPOSURE ROBERT MACDONALD, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George S ta r k : Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer MR. RUEL-What about this one for Seeley? MR. BREWER-Yes. "Please be advised that we are requesting that our petition for rezoning of our property on Big Boom Road & East Branch Road be postponed until further notice. There are a number of issues which need to be addressed prior to the rezoning. We will advise when we are ready to go ahead with the zoning issue. Sincerely, Craig Seeley for Craig Seeley, Charles Seeley & Glenn Batease" So this is a withdrawal? MR. STARK-He's just putting on hold. MR. MACEWAN-No. He's withdrawing the application. asking us to table it. He's not MR. STARK-I prophesize that he's doing it because he doesn't want us saying anything, that he can't dump concrete and remove the logs. MR. MACEWAN-You mean because of our unscheduled visit? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. BREWER-Well, the dumping of the logs. MR. OBERMAYER-Is that what he's doing down below now? MR. BREWER-Yes. Well, the dumping of the logs, George, is not anything to do with us. That's in the Subdivision Regulations, and if the Board doesn't enforce, or the Zoning Administrator doesn't enforce that, that's not to do with us. MR. STARK-He doesn't want us there until that building's up and running, and then he'll start with all his. MR. RUEL-Gentlemen, I would ignore this completely, it's not even addressed to us. MR. BREWER-It's a typo. It's supposed to be to us, Roger. MR. STARK-But that's what L think. MR. BREWER-Well, it's whatever. with it. He's just telling us. Jim to go out to Threw's, as enforce that place out there. I We don't have to do anything All right. I would like to ask the Zoning Administrator, and think it's a terrible shame. MR. BREWER-Scott, are you allowed to just have a dump any time you want? MR. HARLICKER-No, I don't believe so. MR. BREWER-I don't think so. - 31 - "---" '---" ,,-. --./ sEnd it to the Town Board. Why don't we make a unanimous motion, irtroduce it, by the whole Board, Maria. MCTION REGARDING MARK SCHACHNER. TOWN ATTORNEY, Introduced by T mothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Lé Bombard: Wtereas, the Planning Board has determined that their needs will bE better met with legal counsel that is solely focused on Panning Board matters; and wtereas, Mark Schachner, has been retained as counsel to the P,anning Board since March 1994; and W ereas, the Planning Board is satisfied with the representation M Schachner has provided and wishes to extend the retention of M . Schachner to provide legal advice through December 31, 1995. N( w, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Planning Board hereby rEquests that the Town Board appropriate funds for this extended p riod. DJly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following v te: A ES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, M . Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer N ES: NONE M. BREWER-Okay. Next item is six month extension request, C,arles Scudder, for Daniel Barber. M S. LABOMBARD-Fine. M~. MACEWAN-I don't see any problem with that. M S. LABOMBARD-Why does he want the request again? M~. MACEWAN-They're waiting for New York State Department of H alth approval. Actually, both these subdivisions are looking f)r New York state Department of Health approval. M . RUEL-When do these normally expire? M~. MACEWAN-Forty-five days? M . BREWER-No. M>. HARLICKER-I want to say, I think it's 45 days. M~. MACEWAN-Sixty days. That's what it is. M~. HARLICKER-Sixty days to file it. M ~. BREWER-You're right. M)TION TO GRANT A SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO SUBDIVISION D~NIEL BARBER TO JUNE 30. 1995, Introduced by C,-aig m)ved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: NO. 7-1994 MacEwan who D 11 y adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the followi ng v)te: A ES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, M . Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer N )ES: ¡\lONE - 30 - ~ ---' ~ ~ MR. OBERMAYER-We've got to do something. If we allow this kind of stuff to happen, there's got to be something written into the Town Law. MR. STARK-That's the worst place in Queensbury. MR. BREWER-It is written into the Ordinance, but Jim is spread so thin that he can't do everything, and I know that he's put some money in his budget for another enforcement officer for next year, but that doesn't stop what's happening now. So I think we've got to get on him about it. MR. RUEL-How many enforcement people do we have? MR. STARK-One. Him. MR. HARLICKER-Jim. MR. PALING-Could we appeal this one, though, on the basis of it's such an extreme that we think it should take priority over some other item? MR. BREWER-Sure. Yes, and I think we should make a motion to Mr. Martin to say that. MR. PALING-To look at this one, yes. MR. BREWER-I think that's the proper way to go through it. MR. STARK-This Mr. Miller up here, he knows what we're talking about. I mean, how can he defend him? He can't defend that. MR. BREWER-All right. Does somebody want to introduce some kind of a motion to that effect? MOTION TO ASK THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PAY A VISIT TO THE BILL THREW CONSTRUCTION STORAGE SITE TO CHECK ON WHETHER HE IS IN ANY VIOLATION OF TOWN CODES FOR STORAGE OR DUMP ACTIVITY AND REPORT BACK TO US BY TUESDAY WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES BACK FOR HIS SITE PLAN APPLICATION, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay, Bob, when we were out to Seeley's place, Saturday, and we talked about whether it was in the motion about the stumps and stuff. I did a little research. It's not in the motion, but our conversation in the minutes reflect that it was a concern, and it is in the Subdivision Regulations. Therefore, I would ask that we do the same thing with that property and ask Jim to go out there and check on that. MR. OBERMAYER-Didn't he go out there at one time? MR. STARK-Yes. motion. They chased him off the property. Make the MOTION TO ASK THE ZONING AD~INISTRATOR OR COD~ ENFORCEMENT TO GO OUT TO THE SEELEY PROPERTY. INVESTIGATE THE STUMP DUMPING AND THE CONCRETE DUMPING BECAUSE THE REFLECTION OF OUR MINUTES SHOWED IT WAS A CONCERN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 1994, by the following - 32 - '"---,, "'-,../ "---" ,,,../ · BREWER-And I think the stump dumping is in, he told was not going to do that. He was going to pull them ere and fill it. he that out of PALING-Was that in the minutes? Did he say that? BREWER-Yes. · PALING-Okay. RUEL-Why do we need motions to have a person do his job? BREWER-So that it takes prio,-ity and it's on the record, and make sure that it gets done. If it doesn't get done, we can y, it's not our fault. It's on the record. We asked to have done. Why wasn't it done? M,. RUEL-Yes, but I don't think it's right to have motions to pose additional requirements. · MACEWAN-Especially with this Bill Threw thing, because we're ing to be entertaining it again next Tuesday. We want to be s re that he's going to have an opportunity to get out there and ok at it. · BREWER-The whole gist of it is, I think this Board is very nest with applicants, and we don't ask too many unreasonable ings to be done, and when an applicant tells us he will do in ~ opinion, they shouldn't get their co until they what they say they're going to do. That's. ~ opinion. M . RUEL-Yes, but there's been so many violations in the past couple of years. We have imposed certain condition, and there seems to be no way to enforce. ' MR. BREWER-There l§. a way t.o enforce it is, i fWè make a motion, nd there's conditions in that motion, we simply have to say, no CO will be issued until all conditions are mcit, arid if they don't eet the conditions, they don't get the co. MR. HARLICKER-In practice, we started that this year kind of with the Planning Staff. If it's Planning, L go out or Jim goes out, and if it's zoning, it's. Sue that goes out, and we go out befo,-e hey're issued a co. We go out with a copy of the stamped plan nd the resolution to make sure that everything that was entioned in the resolution was in place. would whole You don't So what the go so far as not even a temporayy CO, thing of it. You say you won't give give them a CO, but you give them a hell's the sense of even saying it? R. RUEL-I'll buy the co bit. However, there are many violations hat have nothing to do with co. All right. Cool Beans is a ood example, and there are others, wheré he probably met all the ,equirements, from the co standpoint, but then after that he iolated, okay. $0 it's not just co. BREWER-No. Well, a lot of it is. A lot of new construction. lafjdscaping, for .instance. That's not necessarily R. BREWER-Sure it is. on't get the co. If you don't do the landscaping, you R. RUEL-It depends on the time of the year. - 33 - '-.,.... ---.../ -~: MR. BREWER-They make provisions for that. You give us the money. You get an estimate from a contractor. We did it with the Plaza. MR. HARLICKER-Queensbury Plaza. MR. BREWER-But it works, Roger. MR. OBERMAYER-Part of the problem is when we delay it. say you have six months to put the landscaping in. gets filed away, and nothing's ever. Like lets Everything MR. BREWER-No. They do. They compare the plat, or the plan with the building, and they check. MR. RUEL-I don't understand what's going on in this Town, because I see so many violations. I see building violations. Don't we have building inspectors? MR. BREWER-Yes, we do. MR. RUEL-I see building violations. I see zoning violations. MRS. LABOMBARD-What do you mean, building violations? MR. RUEL-Not putting a building up right. They're not even meeting minimum code, and there are plenty of them. MR. BREWER-Roger, and I'm sure Jim paper. Tell him to introduce that what you should do is, if you see a violation, wants to know, write them down on a piece of to go look at them. All right. Well, I wanted anyway. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. STARK-We asked Craig to look in his minutes about Nicola's 1-avine. MR. MACEWAN-I definitely will pull it out and bring it. MR. STARK-No hurry. MR. MACEWAN-I've got a question for Staff. We went up to look at Ray Kraft's job up to Glen Lake, the enclosed staircase. Why are we not looking at the entire project? Why were asked to go up there just to look at a staircase? MR. HARLICKER-Because that's what triggered the site plan review. They could have gone in there and remodeled that whole thing, done everything they're doing there, and never even done it, but because they're expanding that building and it's in a CEA, it requires site plan review. MR. MACEWAN-All right. He's only on the agenda next week to come in here for just that staircase, but he's putting an addition on the back side of that, which would be the driveway side of that thing. It looks like a 10 by 20 slab poured right there right now. He's put a whole new cellar underneath that thing. MR. HARLICKER-He's not extending out past the original. MR. MACEWAN-He is expanding beyond the original footprint. MR. PALING-Yes, he is. MR. MACEWAN-He's got a 10 by 20 addition, at least, that's being built on the road side of that house. That slab. - 34 - ',----, '--,,' ,,,..; ;¡.,.... RUEL-Why does a staircase have to come before us? · MACEWAN-Because he got caught. That's why. at happened. Simpl y, tha't' s · HARLICKER-If you recall, last winter it was, there was a guy on Lake George, right by Lockhart Mountain Road there, who was p tting a little eight by twelve foot addition to his kitchen. Tie same reason. It's an expansion of a nonconforming structure i a CEA. · MACEWAN-But I guess the question I'm asking is why wasn't he front of us before all this construction took place? HARLICKER-I can't answer that. I don't know why me in, and it was, I think that's where it got caught. for a building permit. not. He He came STARK-If the neighbor didn't say anything, who's going to ow? BRElrJER--Exactl y . MACEWAN-That's what I'm trying to get to. What's going on Obviously, he's been working on this thing for some time. BREWER-Is there anything else anybody wants to talk about? make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, imothy Brewer, Chairman ~,'.'.~"~ '''';... - 35 -