1995-03-21
-
......-"{-"'.
"-""
QUEENSBURY PLA,NNING
FIRST REGULAr:::
MARCH 21,
INDEX
Site Plan No. 31-93
MODIFICATION
Subdivision No. 5-1995
FINAL STAGE
Subdivision No. 18-1994
FINAL STAGE
Resolution Acknow. Lead
Agency Status
Freshwater Wetlands
Permit 1-95
Subdivision No. 4-1995
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Site Plan No. 9-95
Site Plan No. 25-94
MODIFICATION
Subdivision No. 10-86
EXTENSION
Subdivision No. 4-83
D<TENSION
BOARD MEETING
MËËTI~G
1995
National Realty & Dev. Corp.
1.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
10.
l'1cDonald's Corp.
13.
Charles Young, eta ala
ì 15.
Charles Young, Glenna Burnham
J. Wallace T)'ust
16.
Charles You~g, Glenna Bur~ham
J. l.Ja llace Trust
35.
Gary & Valerie Randall
42.
Hudson Point.e
68.
St.onehurst
75.
Southern Exposure
MacDonald Subdivision
76.
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.
I ,
I,!
"--
.-/
"'-
-/
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 21, 1995
7:00 P.M.
MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN
JAMES OBERMAYER
ROGER RUEL
TIMOTHY BREWER
CRAIG MACEWAN
GEORGE STARK
MEMBERS ABSENT
CATHERINE LABOMBARD
PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER
PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
January 17, 1995: NONE
January 24, 1995: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES DATES 1/17/95
Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for
seconded by George Stark:
AND 1/24/95,
its adoption,
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1995 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED NATIONAL
REALTY & DEV. CORP. OWNER: WAL-MART STORES ZONE: HC-1A
LOCATION: RT. 9 MODIFICATION TO APPROVED PLANTING PLAN FOR
REPLACEMENT OF VEGETATION TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. TABLED:
FEBRUARY 21. 1995 NEW PLANS RECEIVED 3/1/95
BILL WHITE, PRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. PALING-Okay. We've had quite a bit of discussion on this. I
don't think I have any comments, initially, unless anyone on the
Board does.
MR. BREWER-I've got a couple of comments. I don't have a scale,
so I can't read this, but this line on, would be the south side,
where there's little stars on it, that is the chain link fence?
MR. WHITE-There's an existing chain link fence.
MR. BREWER-Right. Well, I was there today, and I don't know if
this is right. This line that comes out, I just walked it off
quick, and it appeared to be like about 20 feet from the chain
link fence out towards the building. Okay. Are you all with me?
I'm here, at the chain link fence, come out here. Can you tell
me what that measurement is, that's shown right now?
- 1 -
~........-
'..../
MR. WHITE-Forty feet.
MR. BREWER-It is 40?
MR. WHITE-It's 40 feet to the existing wood line. I went out,
the day after our last Planning Board meeting.
MR. BREWER-I can't believe, there's no way there's 40 feet from
that chain link fence to that.
MR. WHITE-From the property line.
MR. BREWER-From the property line.
MR. HARLICKER-From the chain link fence to where, Tim?
MR. BREWER-From the chain link fence to where the wood line is.
MR. HARLICKER-The wood line is, it looks like 28, 29 feet.
MR. BREWER-So I still think it's about 10 feet shy. I'm just
asking the Board. I think that ~e should, if that's what they're
showing, it should be 30 feet, and we should have them beef it
up. I really don't have a big, big concern about the back side,
because there are a lot of existing trees there, and I think, if
we lose some in the back to beef up this side, that it's not a
problem with me. You really can't see anything but the back of
the building, and the slope goes down to the fence. So I don't
know how you can plant. There may be grass there or whatever,
but that's my, that would be it for me. I would just ask him to,
if that shows 30 feet, make sure that it is 30 feet. I walked it
off three times today, and I came up with 20, 21 feet.
MR. PALING-And you measured from the building to the fence?
MR. BREWER-No. I measured from the chain link fence, to the edge
of the wood line.
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. BREWER-I mean, it's not a perfect straight line. It juts in
some places. It juts out some places, but I would want to make
sure that it's consistent. If they're supposed to be 30 feet or
40 feet or whatever, that it be 40 feet or 30 feet.
MR. OBERMAYER-What are you asking, Tim?
MR. BREWER-Well, you see on this side here, Jim, it shows 29, 30
feet. It's only 20 feet here. I would want to make sure that
that is 30 feet, and the trees, well, we already told him we
wanted it beefed up on the lower end, would be the, I guess you
would call it the southeast. You see where there's less trees
there than there is up on the top? I just want to put more trees
in there, that's what I want, than there is. I mean if you have
to take a few from the back and put them over them over here,
that's okay, or just add to them, I don't care.
MR. PALING-Lets get a comment on your first part of it first.
How about the measurement Tim is referring to? How much are you
saying it is?
MR. WHITE-Forty feet from the property.
MR. PALING-Okay, 40 feet from the property line. That's what it,
yes, okay, the scale does i~. Now if it's actually.
MR. OBERMAYER-The property line is the dark line right there.
MR. PALING-Yes. Right.
- 2 -
'-'
---'
',",-,-
.,./
MR. BREWER-All right. The chain link fence to here, so we're 30
feet, approximately.
MR. PALING-But the chain link fence is going to be removed.
MR. BREWER-Well, it's still part of the, whether the fence is
there or not, it doesn't make any difference. I'm just using
that as a marker.
MR. PALING-But you've got 12 or 13 feet between the fence and the
property line, is my point, and when the fence is removed, it
looks like you've got more than that footage.
MR. BREWER-Their fence is only this wide, Bob. I mean, you're
not taking any trees out to remove the fence. I'm just saying,
if this measurement, from here to here, is 30 feet, should be
wooded, we should beef up that area. That's what I'm saying.
MR. PALING-The beefing up I understand, but the distance is.
MR. BREWER-What I'm saying is, this distance from this fence to
where the wood line is is 20 feet. It's not 30 feet.
MR. PALING-Okay. It scales higher than 20 feet.
MR. BREWER-Correct. What I'm saying, the woods don't extend that
far out.
MR. PALING-Well, your concern is the amount of planting, not the
actual.
MR. BREWER-Exactly. Well, I want to make sure that the planting
is that 30 feet. Do you understand what I'm saying?
MR. PALING-Yes. Okay, but we can only hold them responsible from
the property line in.
MR. BREWER-Well, that fence is within the property line.
MR. PALING-The chain link fence is being removed.
MR. BREWER-Right, but that's still within their property line.
MR. PALING-Correct, but then from the property line to the wooden
fence, Tim, is now.
MR. BREWER-All right. Even if you take that measurement, Bob,
from here to here is not 40 feet, or it is 40 feet, but it's not
40 feet wooded. Do you understand what I'm saying?
MR. PALING-I understand what you're saying, but it will be wooded
if they, the plantings are sufficient, and it will be the right
distance.
MR. BREWER-But I'm saying they should put more in here, in this,
between these two points.
MR. PALING-Okay. I think we've beat that enough to death. All
right. You want more plantings there.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. PALING-Okay. I think we can work that out.
MR. RUEL-Just a comment. The rear of the property, seems to be
adequate as far as the number of trees, the density of
vegetation, however, there are holes in this vegetation, there
are missing trees.
MR. PALING-But that's where they've done their planting.
- 3 -
'-
''Or''
MR. RUEL-And their planting will take care of the missing trees
there, because I'm talking about existing trees now.
MR. PALING-Right. Where they're not planting is the rear of the
garages, if I'm reading it right.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. PALING-And they are filling in where there is presently gaps
in there. Correct.
MR. RUEL-Thank you.
MR. PALING-Okay.
over it and tell
last, time?
Any other questions? Okay. Do you want to go
us what you've changed since we looked at it
MR. WHITE-Okay. Along the west property line, we've moved the
fence line from the property line about five feet back off the
property line. That'll give us some room to put the plantings on
the west side of the fence, and in that five foot area there,
we're proposing to plant pine trees that match the existing
vegetation in the back there. On the south side, we've moved the
fence to a point about 40 feet off that property line, right
along the existing edge of the vegetation.
MR. PALING-How many feet did you say off the property line?
MR. WHITE-About 40 feet.
MR. PALING-Forty. Okay.
MR. WHITE-Right along the existing edge of where it's been
removed.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. WHITE-And we've proposed additional plantings just on the
other side of that fence. We've concentrated a lot of the
plantings in the southwest corner, because when we overlaid this
onto the grading plan, see, there's a lot of grading work to be
done in that area, where the path comes through, and to make that
grade work for that path, we have to do a substantial amount of
grading there. So we really concentrate a lot of plantings in
that area to try to restore that as much as possible.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. WHITE-Other than that, we
modifications to the body of the.
really, there's
been no
MR. OBERMAYER-The plantings that ~ou're doing towards the
apartments, those plantings are göing to be on the other side of
the fence.
MR. WHITE-That's correct.
MR. OBERMAYER~Okay. That's what it shows there.
MR. WHITE-On the apartment side.
MR. PALING-On the west side, yes, back here.
MR. OBERMAYER-On the other side of the fence.
MR. PALING-That's right. Yes.
MR. WHITE-The feeling was if we put them on the other side of an
eight foot high fence, they're probably not going to be as
eff ecti ve.
- 4 -
'-'
--
'-,...,
.--
MR. OBERMAYER-Right.
MR. PALING-There were two large gaps there, and those have been
filled in now.
MR. BREWER-I'm questioning the dimension between the property
line and the wood line, is that 40 feet?
MR. PALING-Memory says it is, but I.
MR. BREWER-But I was there today and measured from the fence to
where the end of the woods go, and it's 20 feet. So if you use
that as a marker, you're shy 10 feet of plantings. Not on the
map, on the physical dimension there, is not 40 feet, is what I'm
saying, of wooded area.
MR. PALING-Well it's not 40 feet of wooded area, but it is 40
feet. I believe that.
MR. BREWER-They're showing the trees on the edge
area, Bob. What I did was walk from here to here,
to the end of there, which is 30 feet, and it's
you're shy 10 feet. If you take the 20 here and
and they're showing 40 on the map.
of the wooded
from this line
20 feet. So
10 here is 30
MR. PALING-Did you agree with what Tim is saying?
MR. WHITE-We plotted it from what we measured it the day after
the Planning Board meeting, and I was told that no additional
vegetation was going to be removed from that area at that time
until the issues were resolved at this meeting here. I haven't
been to the site for a month now, and it could be that some
vegetation was removed, but I was told it would not be. They've
done the utility work in that area, so there's no reason to go in
there and remove anything. They've done all the utility work in
that area (lost word) there's a large diameter storm sewer pipe
that runs just on the south side of the existing edge of
pavement. That's been installed. So they cleared out the limit
of what they need to clear out at this point to install that
sewer.
MR. PALING-Okay.
between the two.
I didn't revisit the job site.
So I'm stuck
MR. BREWER-Okay. So if we make our resolution to pass it, if we
put in the resolution that that dimension should be 40 foot of
wooded area.
MR. PALING-Well, 40 foot of area off the asphalt, asphalt to the
property line.
MR. BREWER-No, from their property line going toward the
building, 40 feet should be wooded. Isn't that what's shown, or
am I reading it wrong?
MR. PALING-No. I don't think.
MR. BREWER-To the edge of the wooded area is 40 feet.
MR. PALING-To the edge of the wooded area, okay, asphalt, I'm
calling it. It measures that.
MR. BREWER-Correct.
MR. RUEL-Would you attest to the fact that the plan is correct,
as far as the dimensions from the property line to the?
MR. HARLICKER-I didn't walk it off.
MR. OBERMAYER-Does the applicant have any problem with just
- 5 -
--
running, you see how you ran your trees all the
Can you just add some more trees down to the end?
would probably satisfy.
w,::¡y dOIrJn here?
I mean, that
MR. RUEL-That's not what he's talking about.
MR. PALING-Yes. Well, we can specify that it be what it's called
for. In the resolution we're going to specify that it be what
the prints call for, namely the 40 feet, this dimension here, and
then you're going to have to plant that.
MR. WHITE-Sure.
MR. BREWER-That's what the plan says, so that's what I think it
should be.
MR. PALING-All right.
MR. STARK-There's a fellow here from Greenwày North.
there's no public hearing scheduled, but.
I know
MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Do we have any other questions for
the applicant?
MR. BREWER-None.
MR. PALING-Okay. There is no public hearing, but we still extend
the courtesy to anyone that wants to speak, and if there is,
before we go further, if there's anyone from the public that
wants to speak, please come up to the microphone and identify
yourself.
PAUL CAMPANO
MR. CAMPANO-This is about Wal-mart, isn't it?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. CAMPANO-My name is Paul Campano, and I live right in back
where Wal-mart's building. When they first started, they were
going good. Then all of a sudden they took about 12 to 14 feet
more trees down. They dug a big ditch and put pipes down in
t.here.
MR. PALING-You're on the west side?
MR. HARLICKER~The south side.
MR. CAMPANO-I'm where the garage is going to be.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. CAMPANO-And what are they going to do about that 12 to 14
feet they cleared out they weren't supposed to?
MR. PALING-It's all here on the print what they're going to do.
They're going to replant it, and they're going to fill in the
gaps, between the garages is where the heaviest planting will be,
and the fence is moved in on their property line and the
plantings are on the Robert Gardens side of the fence, the trees.
MR. CAMPANO-From the fence out, how far is it going to be, going
to be wooded again?
MR. PALING-Eight feet? No, five feet.
MR. WHITE-It's five feet ,to the property line, putting plantings
on the other side of the fence.
MR. CAMPANO-On the other side of the chain link fence?
- 6 -
'-'
~'
.......,/
MR. WHITE-On the west side?
MR. CAMPANO-The chain link fence that's there now, in back of me.
MR. WHITE-No, not on the west side. There's a wood fence.
MR. CAMPANO-You're talking about where Robert Gardens is.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. His is Greenway North.
MR. BREWER-He lives in Greenway North. That's the 14 feet or 12
feet I'm talking about, that's missing.
MR. OBERMAYER-I think he's up here.
MR. BREWER-No, he's not.
MR. PALING-Sir, lets go back to Day One, because I think we had
you positioned in Robert Gardens. You're not.
MR. CAMPANO-No.
MR. PALING-Okay. Well, why don't you show us on the print where
you are.
MR. CAMPANO-This is where the garage is going to be?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. CAMPANO-See, I'm over here.
MR. PALING-All right.
where the walk through
You're back near the corner, and this is
is, through the fence?
MR. CAMPANO-No, that would be down here.
MR. PALING-Well, you've got one there, too.
MR. CAMPANO-I don't know where that one came from.
there.
I'm over
MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. There will be one there, and there will
be one here, too.
MR. CAMPANO-This probably is going to come from Robert Gardens
walk over, in back of me.
MR. PALING-That's right.
MR. CAMPANO-There is one between Olson and the other fellow here,
and I'm over here, and right here is where they're supposed to
have, well, like I said, the chain link fence right here.
MR. PALING-And they weren't supposed to cut it, and they did, and
that's what we took them to task on last meeting, and that's what
this revised print corrects, is what they took down last time.
MR. CAMPANO-They took 12 to 14 feet which they weren't supposed
to.
MR. PALING-That's right.
MR. CAMPANO-And they moved the i ,- stakes this way.
MR. PALING-Well, whatever happened, they cut the trees down and
they weren't supposed to. That's right.
MR. CAMPANO-So they're going to take care of this.
When the,'
- 7 -
-'
take the chain link fence down, what are they going to put in
place so it won't bother us?
MR. PALING-A wooden fence, eight foot high, all the way across.
MR. CAMPANO-Now what about the lights? They're going to have
lights back here?
MR. PALING-I don't know.
MR. WHITE-There's wall packed lights, on the back.
MR. PALING-There is?
MR. CAMPANO-How about the reflection of the light, now? Is that
going to bother us people?
MR. WHITE-They're down cast type lights for security purposes
only.
MR. CAMPANO-And it won't reflect the back, toward our house?
MR. WHITE-They're mounted I think about 15 foot high on the
building and they're like a canister type that shoot down.
MR. CAMPANO-All right. Again, they're going to put a wooden
fence up where the chain link fence is?
MR. PALING-Well, the chain link fence, there will be no chain
link fence, but there will be a wooden fence there.
MR. CAMPANO-Where will it be located, how far from the?
MR. OBERMAYER-It will be over toward Wal-mart another 30 feet.
MR. CAMPANO-Toward Wal-mart.
MR. PALING-Well, here's the building here, and here's the fence,
right along here. Now here's the existing fence here. That
comes out. The new fence is right 'here, where these little
sqUi.:n-es are.
MR. CAMPANO-Okay.
~..¡ ill be?
Now, like, how many feet from here to here
MR. PALING-About 30.
MR. CAMPANO-About 30 feet from the chain link fence to here?
MR. PALING-From the property line to the.
MR. CAMPANO-Now where do they claim the property line?
MR. PALING-Right here.
MR. CAMPANO-That's a pole line here.
MR_ PALING-Well, this is the property line, hers.
MR. CAMPANO-All right.
property line?
How far from the pole line is their
MR. PALING-I don't know.
MR. BREWER-The pole line goes right down the center of theirs,
doesn't it?
MR. CAMPANO-They say the power company owns so many feet on each
side of that.
- 8 -
'-"
--..../
c--.
--
MR. PALING-I don't know.
MR. CAMPANO-That's why I was trying to find out where they're
going to claim their mark.
MR. BREWER-The pole line is five feet west of their property
line, is what Bill just said. So their property line's here,
five feet this way, toward your house is the pole line.
MR. CAMPANO-Right.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Then from their property line, I think this
gentleman is saying exactly what ¡ said, the 10 or 12 or 14 feet
that's missing, what ¡ was talking about, is what he's talking
about, and they've got to put that 14 feet back.
MR. CAMPANO-Put that 14 feet back. See, first they took three
feet, which was all right because they put those drainage in the
ground there. Then after that, they took 13 more feet all the
way down through. That wasn't right.
MR. PALING-Well, whatever they took out, they're going to put
back, so it'll be like this print calls for.
MR. CAMPANO-Okay then. Put everything back the way it is, and
the wooden fence, 10 feet high or 8 foot high, and the lights so
they won't shine in back of us, and the garage is going to be
there to block off the noise, the fence?
MR. PALING-The fence should help. I don't think you'll get much
noise. I doubt it.
MR. CAMPANO-I hope not.
MR. PALING-Trucks going back there or something.
MR. BREWER-No. They're going to have an automobile repair center
on that end.
MR. CAMPANO-Yes, an automobile repair there. Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else care to comment?
guess we can proceed, then.
Okay.
I
MR. WHITE-If I could, I'd like to make one correction. (lost
word) take a look at this plan. There is one pole located along
the back. I indicated it's just all (lost word) but there is one
pole in the back, it's shown on the previously approved site
plan. There is one pole in the back, near the loading dock of
the Wal-mart store, as was shown on the previously approved plan.
MR. STARK-That's halfway down, toward Ames.
MR. WHITE-Also, just for the record, Wal-mart did clear to that
10 foot line, and then subsequent clearing was done. That was
not done by Wal-mart forces. That was done by Niagara Mohawk to
clear for the power line, and for whatever reason it was not
conveyed to Niagara Mohawk that that's a sensitive area. They
went in and cleared out that additional 10 feet.
MR. RUEL-But it's still Wal-mart's responsibility.
MR. WHITE-It is, and I'm not trying to admonish them at all.
It's their responsibility. They're forces did not (lost word).
MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I'm
everybody's pointing a finger
not the offender. It was NiMo.
glad you said
at Wal-mart, and
'that, because
actually you're
- 9 -
-
MR. WHITE-Well, Wal-mart probably cleared a little more than they
should have, but what was left Niagara Mohawk took care of.
MR. PALING-Okay, but regardless, it's being resolved, and that's
what the important thing is. Okay. Lets move ahead here.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-93 NATIONAL REALTY &
DEVELOPMENT CORP., Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel:
As detailed on March drawing, titled Parcel Planting Plan, at
southwest corner, date March 3, 1995, and to maintain a 40 foot
wooded buffer area from the property line on the south side.
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
MR. RUEL-Instead of coming up with all the detailed requirements
for this modification, if we all accept the fact, everyone on the
Planning Board accepts the fact that this plan is a correct plan,
and that the applicant will meet all the requirements of the
plan, why don't we just say that they'll meet the requirements of
the plan dðted so and so.
MR. PALING-Well, I think we've got to emphasize this, though,
Roger.
MR. BREWER-I would want to emphasize it so that when they go to
give them a CO, they'll know that that's there.
MR. RUEL-All right. You can emphasize that, but I would indicate
that he will meet all the requirements, strictly meet the
requirements of the plan, in the event that we fotgot any of
these small requirements.
MR. BREWER-That's a given. They have to meet the requirements.
There's no need to say that.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. We can mention it.
MR. RUEL-The planting plan is dated March 3rd.
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. Paling
NOES: Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1995 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED NIAGARA
MOHAWK POWER CORP. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-3A, RC-3A
LOCATION: NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF CORINTH ROAD BETWEEN TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY WATER DEPT. AND THE LAKE LUZERNE TOWN LINE. PROPOSAL
IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 246.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 94.1,
104.6, 47.6 ACRES. ONE LOT IS FOR CONVEYANCE TO OPEN SPACE
INSTITUTE, ONE LOT FOR CONTINUED OPERATION, AND LAST FOR
CONVEYANCE A RESIDENTIAL LOT. TAX MAP NO. 151-1-7.1 LOT SIZE:
246.3 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
CLIFF SUMMERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. PALING-Your plans don't state it clearly, but I think you can
figure it out, but just let me clarify the table on Sheet One,
there on the right hand side, that says, Acreage Table, that the
Lot Number One is the lot to be built on, and Lot Number Two is
the land to be transferred, at a later date.
MR. SUMMERS-Correct.
MR. PALING-And Lot
Institute. Okay.
Number Three is going to the Open Space
That was all the questions 1 had on this.
- 10 -
--
,--,,'
--
""-""
Does anyone else on the Board have any comments?
MR. RUEL-We have two resolutions on this?
MR. BREWER-This is Final.
MR. RUEL-We have a file, 18-1994, and a file, no. Okay. It's 5-
1995. Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-The same thing.
MR. MACEWAN-I have a question and a comment,
question is for Staff. We discussed on this, on
Parcel One, the 94 acres, that it be subject to
prior to any development on that.
I guess. The
Lot Number One,
site plan review
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. MACEWAN-What kind of tracking system do you guys have in
effect, so that if this eventually is subdivided and sold off
eventually this parcel, how will you guys know if a developer
ever comes in or someone to build a house that that particular
parcel's red flagged to be in front of this Board?
MR. HARLICKER-That's a good question. Other than when somebody
submits a building permit for something like this, they've also
got to submit a plot plan. The other way we can do this is,
again, once we get our big computer system on line, the GIS, this
sort of information would be put into the system. So when you
pull off information on this particular parcel, if there's any
sort of conditions that go along with that property, that
information will come up when you pull up a parcel history of
this particular piece of property?
MR. MACEWAN-What if someone acts on this parcel before your
computer system's up and running?
MR. OBERMAYER-It's going to be on the final plat, isn't it?
MR. HARLICKER-The final plat, but when somebody submits a
building permit, they won't necessarily, we won't get this whole
big sheet of paper, if somebody were to submit a building permit
for that.
MR. MACEWAN-They would be more apt to get an individual surveyed
parcel.
MR. HARLICKER-You would get an individual plot plan for that
particular lot, showing that dimension.
MR. SUMMERS-If I could interject something. We have put it on
Page One, the condition of approval, on top of the (lost word).
MR. MACEWAN-That would be my next comment. It's awful small and
it's off to the side, and I think the average person, glancing
through this plan, wouldn't recognize, without thoroughly reading
the plan, that Lot One is subject to it. A suggestion I might
have is to move that notation right over onto the Lot One parcel,
right on the drawing itself, so we could have it right in the
middle of it, so that there's no possibility for someone being
misinformed that that parcel has to be subject to this Board.
MR. SUMMERS-I think that it would be appropriate to put it on
Sheet Two, so then it would show on two sheets, Sheet One and on
Sheet Two, right under the other note that's on there, that that
would be acceptable to everyone. Then, when it comes before the
Planning Staff, it would be noticeable.
MR. MACEWAN-That way, at the very least, if it ever was to be
subdivided and another surveyor made up his little particular
- 11 -
--
map, just for that one parcel, he's most likely going to take all
the information off this.
MR. BREWER-But if Parcel Number One ever came in for subdivision
again, we'd have to review it anyway.
MR. MACEWAN-I'm not talking about subdivision. I'm talking about
subdivisión. I'm talking about site plan for any kind of, it's
not necessarily open for subdivision. I mean, if someone wanted
to put a house on it or a driveway up the thing, it has to come
under this Board as a site plan review. So, if that was the case
and there's no policing or tracking mechanism intact, how are we
ever going to know and how's the builde~ ever going to know?
That's what I'm trying to get across, to make sure that it gets
flagged so that it does end up back here, and it doesn't fall
through the cracks.
MR. PALING-I think what you're doing is going to take care of
that, and then the new system eventually takes over also.
MR. MACEWAN-Is that acceptable with everybody?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That sounds fine. I can't remember, why did
we put that provision, why are we putting the PTovision on that
lot?
MR. MACEWAN-Because of the steepness of the parcel itself.
MR. OBERMAYER-The steepness of the parcel.
MR. BREWER-And septic and what not.
MR. OBERMAYER-Well, wouldn't that be handled in your normal
building permit application?
MR. BREWER-No. It wouldn't be a site plan review, no.
MR. OBERMAYER-I know not site plan
septic system, the design of the
through the building administration?
review, but wouldn't your
septic system, be handled
MR. BREWER-Yes, it would, but road construction wouldn't be,
almost has to build a road to go up there.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-So that was the concern.
MR. HARLICKER-And there are some concerns regarding erosion,
because of the steep slopes.
MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, isn't that mOTe of a property owner's
responsibility, I guess? If he's willing to do it.
MR. SUMMERS-Yes, we'll do it.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
MR. PALING-That can be part of the motion.
MR. BREWER-One pther thing of the erosion, it's right over the
top of a road. So you'll want to review it.
MR. PALING-All right. The public he~ring was February 21. So
there is no public hearing. Yes. Well, is there anyone from the
public here that wanted to comment on this? OkaY.
MOT¡ON TO APPROV~ SUBDIVISION ~Q. ~-19?5 FINA~
MOHAWK POWER CORP '.' Int'roduced by Roger Ruel ~..¡ho
adoption, seconded by James Obermayer:
STAGE NIAGARA
moved for its
- 12 -
'-'
-./
"-
-.-'
As written, with the stipulation that Lot One, the 94 acre
parcel, be subject to site plan review. That he will move the
note from the right side right to that parcel on the map, to show
it, so it's right with the parcel, the condition of approval
note, on Sheet One, and on Sheet Two it moves over in under the
other note, right onto the lot itself.
Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of
final subdivision application, file # 5-1995, to
subdivide a 246.3 acre parcel into three lots; and
Whereas, the above referenced final subdivision application
dated 2/15/95 consists of the following:
1. Sheet 1, Final plat, dated 1/23/95
2. Sheet 2, Final plat, dated 2/10/95
3. Sheet 3, Final plat, dated 1/23/95; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documentation:
1. Staff notes, dated 3/21/95; and
Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the
appropriate town departments and outside agencies
for their review and comment; and
Wher eas ,
the modifications and terms contained in
preliminary subdivision approval have
complied with.
the
been
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby
moves to approve final subdivision plat, Niagara Mohawk
Power Corp., file # 5-1995.
Let it be further resolved,
1. That prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman
of the Planning Board all appropriate fees shall be
paid and that within 60 days of the date of this
resolution the applicant shall have the signed plat
filed in the Office of the Clerk of Warren County.
2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in
this resolution.
3. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance
and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and
subdivision regulations.
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer,
Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling
NOES: ¡\lONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1994 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MCDONALD'S
CORP. OWNER: EDWIN KING ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST OF
EXISTING KING FUEL SERVICE STATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF DIX
AVENUE AND QUAKER ROAD. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.39 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.808 AND 1.581 ACRES TO CONSTRUCT A
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 2-1995 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-3.3 LOT SIZE: 3.39
ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
- 13 -
'--
ED BEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. PALING-Okay. The ZBA thing has been resolved. Okay. I
don't have any real comments on this one, and I didn't re-visit
it. Any comments from anyone on the Board?
MR. MACEWAN-I missed last meeting. Did the issue of the 16 foot
easement and the additional 16 foot setback get resolved?
MR. PALING-Yes. That is resolved, and the curb cut was resolved,
MR. RUEL-I have this letter of transmittal, dated 3/16. It
indicates that it has been revised per Rist-Frost's comments,
their letter dated 3/15.
MR. PALING-Okay. Scott, your comments?
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 18-1994, McDonald's Corp.
FINAL STAGE, Meeting Date: March 21, 1995 "There were no
outstanding issues or conditions of preliminary approval and
staff can recommend final approval of this subdivision."
MR. RUEL-There's nothing open.
MR. HARLICKER-Not as far as the subdivision goes, no. You
haven't discussed site plan.
MR. RUEL-Right. This is subdivision.
MR. PALING-This is subdivision only.
you'd like to note?
Okay.
Is there anything
MR. BEELER-We've made some changes to this plan since the last
meeting.
MR. PALING-Your name is?
MR. BEELER-Ed Beeler.
MR. PALING-All right. I guess we can move right into the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO.
MCDONAI...D'S CORP., "Introduced ·by, Roger
adoption, seconded by JamesOberm~yer:
18-1994
Rue! who
FINAL STAGE
moved for its
As writ,ten.
Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of
final subdivision application, file # 18-1994, to
subdivide a 3.39 acre parcel into two lots; and
Whereas, the above referenced final subdivision application
dated 11/29/94 consists of the following:
1. Sheet 1, Boundary survey Dix Avenue Lands of
Edwin King, revised 1/25/95; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documentation:
1. Staff notes, dated 3/21/95; and
Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the
appropriate town departments and outside agencies
for their review and comment; and
IrJhereas,
the modifications and terms contained in
preliminary subdivision approval have
the
been
- 14 -
---
,--,'
"
..-'
complied with.
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby
moves to approve final subdivision plat, McDonald's Corp.,
file # 18-1994.
Let it be further resolved,
1. That prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman
of the Planning Board all appropriate fees shall be
paid and that within 60 days of the date of this
resolution the applicant shall have the signed plat
filed in the Office of the Clerk of Warren County.
2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in
this resolution.
3. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
4. The issuance of permits is conditions on compliance and
continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and
subdivision regulations.
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan,
Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
RESOI".UTIONS:
1. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN THE REVIEW OF
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT AND SUBDIVISION FOR CHARLES YOUNG ET
AL.
MR. PALING-Okay. Now this is the resolution, Jim. Now this can
be done as w,-itten. As I understand it, you should go right to
the resolution.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS
IN CONNECTION WITH Subdivision Review and Wetlands Permit for
CHARLES YOUNG. GLENNA BURNHAM. J. WALLACE TRUST
RESOLUTION NO.; 4-1995
INTRODUCED BY: James Obermayer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel
WHEREAS, in connection with the subdivision review and
wetlands permit applications for CHARLES YOUNG.
GLENNA BURNHAM, J. WALLACE TRUST, the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution,
previously authorized the Executive Director to
notify other involved agencies of the desire of
the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SECRA
review and,
WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other
involved agencies have been notified and have
consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
being lead agent,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
- 15 -
RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby
recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of
SEQRA review, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby
determines that it has sufficient information and
determines the significance of the project in
accordance with SECRA as follows;
1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required
for the action, as the Planning Board has determined
that there will be no significant effect or that
identified environmental effects will not be
significant;
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized
to give such notifications and make such f i li ngs
as may be required under Section 617 of the
Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
regulations of the State of New Yor k.
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer,
Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. BREWER-Mark, when did we send out notice for wanting to be
lead agent for Charles Young?
MR. SCHACHNER-I haven't the faintest idea. Staff would have been
involved in that.
MR. HARLICKER-That was done last month.
MR. BREWER-It was?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-I just don't remember it. Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 1-95 CHARLES YOUNG, GLENNA BURNHAM,
J. WALLACE TRUST ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT., BRAYTON
LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A REGULATED ACTIVITY, SUBDIVISION OF
PROPERTY, WITHIN 100 FT. OF AN APA FLAGGED WETLAND. TAX MAP NO.
6-3-14 LOT SIZE: 15.47 ACRES SECTION: 94-6
MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. PALING-Jim would like to read in four letters that we have.
Okay. Go ahead.
MR. OBERMAYER-The first letter is from Jim and Linda Wimman, it's
dated March 21, 1995 "Dear Sirs: In response to your public
notice about a hearing March 21, 1995 for subdivision of Tax Map
Number G-3-14 Lot size: 15.47 acres on Brayton Lane, Assembly
Point, Lake George we have the following comments. We have our
summer home within 100 feet of the property and oppose
development of this property because it contains a pond of
significant importance for wild life. I have observed on several
occasions a great Blue Heron feeding in the pond. Subdivision of
- 16 -
'-
---
--
'...../
this property would destroy his natural habitat and as a
consequence no development of this property should be allowed.
Yours, Jim & Linda Wimman 8 South Hollow Drive Ballston Lake,
NY 12019" A second one is dated March 17, 1995, received in
Queensbury 3/20/95, from Walden West and Robert Walden, Robert &
Dayle Walden for Christopher Walden "Dear Members of the
Community Development Department: Having received notification
of a public hearing to be held March 21, 1995 to consider the
application of Charles F. Young, Glenna Burnham, and the John
Wallace Trust on Brayton Lane and Assembly Point Road in the Town
of Queensbury, for the subdivision of a parcel into two
conforming lots described as Tax Map No. 6-3-14, I am sending you
this letter to describe my thinking on this matter: Our
families' property is located east of Holly Lane on Brayton Lane,
north of the proposed subdivision. We have owned this house for
thirty years. We have serious concerns about this proposed
subdivision, and the damaging effects it might have on Lake
George. Most of the subject property acts as a drainage area for
the land bordered by Assembly Point Road and Route 9L. It is a
large property and drains a very huge amount of water, as in the
Spring runoff, and during melting snows, and heavy rains. I
should think that most of water drains into two culverts that go
under Brayton Lane, one just east of Assembly Point Road and then
flows through several lots and then into Lake George; the other
culvert is located just south of our house which drains extensive
wetlands through the culvert under Brayton Lane and then through
our property into Lake George. Both these culverts flow into
Lake George in very shallow water areas. I know that the culvert
and stream on our property carries a large amount of polluting
salts and sands into Lake George from the surrounding roads:
Assembly Point Road, Brayton Lane and Holly Lane. To subdivide
this critical area and add more pollutants, perhaps septic
systems, holding tanks, which may leak when being pumped out, is
sheer folly, and I know you are very responsible persons who
would not hurt Lake George knowingly. This is a bad idea! It
should not be approved. The corner of Brayton Lane and Assembly
Point Road is a potentially dangerous intersection. Brayton Lane
goes up a steep rise to meet at Assembly Point Road. One must be
very, very careful in either direction, on or off Assembly Point
Road or Brayton Lane before one makes a turn at this
intersection. A subdivision surely would increase the traffic at
this blind intersection, and this also must be considered. My
friend Fred Young, son of Charles F. Young, has cleared a piece
of the property in this proposed subdivision with the intent of
building a home for himself on this four acre lot which is just
south of the Lynn and Skip Gauger's home. I would not like to
oppose my friend's plans and yet I do not want to open the door
to anything which would cause unnecessary damage to our beloved
lake. In this case only, and if Fred can convince you that his
home would absolutely not pollute Lake George, then I would not
oppose this one and only home. I frankly think that Fred has a
hard sell to convince you professionals that any kind of system
would be fùll proof in this sensitive area. What really worries
me: what if Fred should sell it later on to someone who does not
care about Lake George. Can you not see, the whole thing is
dangerous and unnecessary. Unless. and only if. the owners. at
the same time as they get an approval from you. give the land.
simultaneously. as a gift to the Lake George Conservancy. I ask
you not to approve this subdivision! Robert and Dayle Walden for
Christopher Walden, Claudia Friedman, Kevin Walden, Leigh
Harriman, Mark LaPore, Gregg LaPore RRl Box 1218 Lake George,
NY 12845"
MR. PALING-Just one point of clarification, in case it isn't
caught up with by everyone, this is a subdivision, but it is only
for one home forever. So there's no multiple homes ever going to
be on it.
MR. BREWER-There could potentially be another home put on there,
though, Bob.
- 17 -
~'
MR. PALING-It would have to come back here, but right now, it's
just for one home, yes.
MR. RUEL-Is this the only map that we have of the area, or do we
have a map that shows the surrounding area?
MR. PALING-This is the only one that we have, as far as I know.
MR. OBERMAYER-You can pretty much get the feel of it when you go
out there, Rog.
MR. PALING-When you're there, yes.
MR. RUEL-To me, it's important to know what lays around this
propeì'ty.
MR. OBERMAYER-Did you go up there to look?
MR. RUEL-No.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I can explain that to you.
MR. PALING-Okay. Excuse me.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Let us finish reading the letters first.
Okay. This one is from Florence E. Connor and Minnie A. Nielsen,
dated 3/16/95, it was received, and it was written on March 14,
1995 "This letter is in reference to notice of proposed
subdivision given pursuant to Section A183-9(j) of the Code of
the Town of Queensbury of a proposed two (2) lot subdivision of
the lands of Charles F. Young, Glenna Burnham and John Wallace
Trust on Brayton Lane and Assembly Point Road in the Town of
Queensbury, known and described as Tax Map No. 6-3-14, the
applicant seeks to divide the parcel into two (2) conforming
lots. This letter comes in opposition, unless, the Town of
Queensbury makes certain that the size of the lot is made
sufficient to allow proper absorption of drainage from a septic
system to be used year round; a system that will drain into soil
on a lot that contains some very wet areas a good portion of the
year, and in fact, all seasons during a moderately wet summer.
In addition, I would like to see some control over the size of
the structures to be built to allow any building or pavement
runoff to have a sufficient area for absorption into the
surrounding soil with no chance of contamination to wet areas
near or far. It saddens me to see the area known as Assembly
Point becoming more and more developed. It would be in the
interest of the town of Queensbury to have a vision for the
future and begin to set aside some land as conservation areas in
order to maintain an atmosphere of harmony with nature instead of
creating congested pockets similar to Cleverdale. Sincerely
yours, Florence E. Connor (Minnie A. Nielsen)" The last letter
is from Joseph Sharkey, Jr. and Margaret J. Sharkey. It was
received on the 20th, March 20th, and it was written, no date.
"This letter is a reply to the "Notice of Proposed subdivision",
dated March 8, 1995. The proposed two [2J lot subdivision is on
Brayton Lane and Assembly Point Road in the Town of Queensbury.
[Tax Map No. 6-3-14J. The Property of Ellis J. and Margaret J.
Sharkey [Tax Map No. 6-1-15] is west of the above described
property, across Assembly Point Road and just south of Brayton
Lane. We are concerned about the subdivision and the harmful
effect it might have on Lake George. The property in question is
mostly a drainage area fOì' the land bordered by Assembly Point
Road and Route 9 L. This is a large land area and it drains a
very large amount of water, especially during the Spring runoff
and during heavy rains. All of that property drains into a
culvert that goes under Brayton Lane, just east of Assembly Point
Road and then flows through several lots and into Lake George in
the shallow water area abutting the Polk property. This stream
flows quite abundantly in the spring of the year and must carry a
large amount of polluting salt and sand from the three roads. To
- 18 -
'"--'
"--'"
-.....-.
..-
subdivide and add septic systems to this wet, swampy area will
certainly increase the pollution going into the Lake. The
intersection of Brayton Lane and Assembly Point Road is a
dangerous one. Brayton Lane has an abrupt rise to meet Assembly
Point Road right at the intersection and that coupled with a lot
of trees and bushes on both sides of Brayton Lane, makes it quite
a blind intersection. Additional construction of buildings near
the intersection, will exacerbate the traffic problem unless they
have an uncommon set-back from both roads. Most of the property
under consideration lies in a natural wet lands that drains into
Lake George. The dangerous traffic situation will only get
worse. Therefore, we feel that this subdivision should not be
approved. Very truly yours, E. Joseph Sharkey, Jr. Margaret J.
Shar key"
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit 1-95/Subdiv. 4-1995,
Charles Young & Others, Meeting Date: March 21, 1995 "The
applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision of a 15.57 acre
parcel. The subdivision involves a wetland, and since the
subdivision of a wetland is considered a regulated activity, it
triggers the need for a wetland permit. There is no activity
proposed within the required 75 foot setback from the wetland;
the house proposed for the 3.86 acre lot is approximately 110
feet from the wetland. The larger lot contains most of the
wetland. There is an area along Brayton Lane which appears large
enough for placement of a house without violating any setback
requirements. Recommendation: Regarding the wetland permit, the
wetland is APA jurisdictional and staff can recommend approval of
the wetland permit conditioned on the APA issuance of their
wetland permit. The subdivision is a simple two lot subdivision.
The complicating factor is the wetland. There is a large enough
building envelope on the smaller to accommodate construction of a
house; there also appears to be a large enough area on the larger
lot to site a house, even though there is none proposed. Because
of the sensitive nature of the wetlands, the applicant should
indicate how stormwater runoff will be handled." Some details or
some information regarding the septic system.
MR. HARLICKER-It just seems to me a comment here is, if you're
just going to be putting one house on this parcel, why go through
the subdivision process? Why not just put it on the 15 acre
parcel? What are your intentions of the larger lot? I think
that's the real concern of everybody.
MR. RUEL-First of all, there is a proposal for a subdivision for
two lots, which indicates to me, eventually, you will want to do
something with the lot that's not occupied.
MR. PALING-We are talking the wetland, for now.
MR. RUEL-Yes, but that's where the wetlands are, right, in that
lot?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Maybe I can save everybody a lot of time if you'd
just give me five minutes to explain what we're going to do.
MR. PALING-All right. Go ahead.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm sure there are~a lot of concerns, but I really
think we could save everybody a lot of time and a lot of
headache. The property is owned, as you know, and I want to
state for the record, it's Glenna Burnham, not Gloria Burnham.
That's a typo, okay. Our papers reflect Glenna Burnham. So,
it's not Gloria. My name is Martin Auffredou. I'm an Attorney
with the Bartlett, Pontiff law firm in Glens Falls. I'm here on
behalf of Fred Young, who's sitting on my left, Glenn Burnham,
and Jim Wallace, who's the Trustee of the John Wallace Trust.
This 15 plus/minus acre parcel is owned by Mr. Young, by Glenna
- 19 -
--.-/
Burnham and the John Wallace Trust. They are all relatively
equal owners. The property has been owned by they and their
families for a great many years, a long, long time. What we
intend to do is very simple. We are subdividing this property
into two conforming lots. Yes, there aTe wetlands. We
understand that, but what we intend to do is the smal'ler lot,
conforming lot, Mr. Young may build a house there. That property
is going to be, Glenna Burnham's interest and the Wallace Trust
interest is going to be deeded to Mr. Young and Mr. Young is
going to be the sole owner of that smaller lot. In turn, Mr.
Young is going to deed his interest in the larger lot to Glenna
and to Jim Wallace. Now, what do we intend to do with that
larger lot? There are a couple of ideas that are floating around
at this point in time. The APA has talked to us about putting
deed restrictions on the property. That's a possibility. We're
talking about that.
MR. MACEWAN-On the larger parcel?
MR. AUFFREDOU-On the larger parcel. Okay. Those deed
restrictions, however, on the APA's own admission, I'm not going
to speak for them tonight, but you can contact them yourselves.
They will allow a storage shed on that property, even with those
deed restrictions. They will allow a storage shed. They
probably will ~ot allow another single family residence on the
larger lot and, quite frankly, I don't think we could do that
without getting a variance from the setbacks, from the wetland
setbacks anyway. It would be a difficult task for us to do. The
other thing that we're talking about is deeding this property
over to the Lake George Basin Land Conservancy, not only this
larger parcel, but also the property behind it, which is owned by
the John Wallace Trust. That is a 12 acre parcel, known in OUT
circles as the back, back property. So there's a 12 acre parcel
to the south of this lot, the larger lot, that's owned by the
John Wallace Trust solely. That property, together with the 11
acre property, for a total of 23 acres, we are currently
discussing with the Nature Conservancy, the Adirondack Nature
Conservancy, and the Lake George Basin Land Conservancy,
basically, the same thing, for all practical purposes. We're
talking about deeding those parcels to them. Now it's my
understanding that the APA would even be more acceptable with
that idea of the deed restrictions, at least that's what I'm
hearing. So we're not talking about subdividing and putting in
septic systems, as was referred to in one letter. We're not
talking about putting in residences. We're talking about maybe,
some day putting in a residence. Is it a strong possibility?
Sure. Has the APA been on the property? Sure. Have we cleared
part of the property? Sure. The reason why, we needed to make
test pits. The APA wanted us to do that. What did the APA find,
and I'm not speaking for them, call them yourselves, the APA
found that a conventional system would be acceptable to them at
the location that's indicated on your map. I have a letter right
here from them which I'd be happy to make a part of the record.
That's what we're doing with the property. We're not here to put
in 20 homes. We're here to, basically, be consistent with the
intentions and the wishes of these families who have lived in
this location during the summer for many, many years. It's
really very simple what we're trying to do.
MR. RUEL-Is everything that you said documented somewhere? Of
what you intend to do?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Those are our intentions.
deeds. This is what we're going to do.
I mean, we don't have
MR. RUEL-Yes, but you mentioned several options, and I have no
way of knowing which one of these options you will, eventually,
select. I have no idea what you intend to do with the property,
even after everything that you've said.
- 20 -
'-
-../
'-..
-'
MR. AUFFREDOU-Sure you do. I told you it's one of two things.
It's either deed restrictions.
MR. RUEL-Yes. It's either this or that or the other thing.
MR. AUFFREDOU-It's eithe)- one 0)- the othe)-. I mean, right now,
we don't know if we can deed it over to the Nature Conservancy or
the Lake George Land Basin Conservancy. I don't have a definite
answer for you on that. If we don't, there will be some sort of
deed restrictions on the property. The APA will not approve this
unless we do either or.
MR. RUEL-Well, you went from one extreme to the other. You
mentioned that you could build on it.
MR. STARK-No, Rog, not on the second parcel.
MR. MACEWAN-He did. He said they could put a storage shed on it.
MR. RUEL-A storage shed.
MR. AUFFREDOU-The APA said we could.
MR. RUEL-Okay, and the other extreme would be to just deed that
property and the back, back property together?
MR. AUFFREDOU-That's right. The back, back property, I want you
to know, is not part of this application.
MR. RUEL-No, no, I know.
MR. AUFFREDOU-But, just so you know what our intentions are with
all of this property. That's what Jim Wallace and I are talking
about doing.
MR. MACEWAN-To cut to the chase, is the intent here to get rid of
the 22 plus acres and give it to some sort of conservation group,
and develop that one smaller parcel and put a residence on it?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Thank you.
MR. PALING-How about reading the APA letter out loud, reading it
into the record.
MR. AUFFREDOU-This is a letter to Mr. Young, dated March 17,
1995. It's from Suzanne B. McSherry, Adirondack Park Project
Review Specialist, "Dear Mr. Young: Thank you for meeting with
me and Brian Grisi, the Agency's Soil Scientist, on the project
site on Tuesday March 7, 1995. As a result of your kind
assistance, our site investigation was most pleasant and
productive. Please be aware that the permit application remains
incomplete until substantive responses to all items in the
February 7, 1995 (date) Additional Information Request are
received by the Agency. Specifically, items no. 1, 3 and 4 are
still required. Also, based on staff's investigation of the
soils on your proposed building lot, a shallow absorption trench
on-site sewage disposal system will be required to serve the
dwelling. As I noted in my telephone conversation with you on
Thursday March 16, the Agency may be able to waive the required
professional engineer designed plans for such a system. In order
to determine if that requirement can be waived, the following
information must be submitted: 1) results of a soils
percolation test conducted at the location of the proposed leach
field; 2) a revised site plan for the building lot which
indicates the location of the leachfield and 100%
replacement/reserve area. The leach field should be located
at/above the 340 foot elevation as shown on the survey map; 3)
include on the revised survey map a typical detail section of a
- 21 -
shallow absorption trench on-site sewage disposal system. Thank
you for your cooperation and assistance. If you have any
questions, do not hesitate to contact me at the Agency.
Sincerely, Suzanne B. McSherry Adirondack Park Project Review
Specialist"
MR. PALING-You see no problem with meeting what's required by the
let te)"?
MR. AUFFREDOU-I've talked
letter. Fred spoke to her
respond to that question.
to her at the time she
subsequent to this, and
issued this
I'd let him
FRED YOUNG
MR. YOUNG-No. That's no problem.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. YOUNG-What she was referring to, at one point, I thought
about changing the location of the septic fields, and there was
so much Honeysuckle there that I was cutting back, and that's
why she talked about revised plan, but after searching around, I
decided that, leaving it right where it was. So there won't be
any changes.
MR. RUEL-As far as septic systems are concerned, that's subject
to engineering regulations, right?
MR. PALING-Yes, and there's a lot of other things you've got to
meet before this can actually take place, too, like things that
are in the letter.
MR. YOUNG-Yes, well, I've done the percolation tests, and I
talked to her about that today.
MR. PALING-Well, I have the same question. Was there a perc test
conducted or no?
MR. YOUNG-There was a deep soil pere test with a back hoe, but
she also wanted a percolation test, which I did today.
i'1R. PALING-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Do we have the results of that?
MR. YOUNG-It was a 10.5.
MR. BREWER-Tell me what that means in english, 10.5.
MR. YOUNG-We dig a hole about eight to ten inches in
circumference and ten inches deep, and we fill it with water, we
put a stick init that has inches, and it's the rate it takes for
the water to drain down.
MR. BREWER-All right, 10.5 was the rate then.
MR. YOUNG-It was 10.5 to go one inch, and that's
determine what the length of the septic field has to be.
a faster rate, then you need a smaller.
hOlrJ they
If it's
MR. OBERMAYER-Do you plan on bringing in fill to raise the
elevation of the area?
MR. YOUNG-No.
MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to have a foundation on the house, or
is it going to be a slab?
MR. RUEL-Aren't we still in a wetland?
- 22 -
'-'
---./
'-'
'-
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I was just curious.
MR. RUEL-Okay. Just checking.
MR. YOUNG-Actually, the elevation of this house is quite a bit
above the surrounding area.
MR. PALING-Yes, well that can be part of site plan. I think the
questions I have are appropriate at this point. On the
Environmental Assessment Form which you filled out, you didn't
answer questions 7, 8, and 9. Seven you didn't answer. Eight
you said unknown, and 10 you didn't answer. Eight you did
answer.
MR. BREWER-We have to answer Part II.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I can tell you right now what happened. What we
did was, I believe when I prepared this, I wrote it out, long
hand, and we, typically what we do is we have it typed up. It
looks like the secretary missed that. Seven, I believe, would be
no.
MR. PALING-Okay. You've got to either be sure.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Well, the way that I submitted this, and I've
talked to Staff about it. I had some unanswered questions, and
this is not the first time on this form that I've had unanswered
questions, and I would refer to your Staff as to whether I've
completed this correctly, but I would answer Seven, no. I would
answer Ten, No, and my own personal answer on Eight is, I don't
know.
MR. PALING-Well, no, that is answered. Eight is answered, but
it's Seven and Ten.
MR. OBERMAYER-You don't know what the water table is?
MR. AUFFREDOU-I didn't know at the time.
MR. OBERMAYER-Do you know now?
MR. AUFFREDOU-I don't know.
MR. HARLICKER-When they came in with the back hoe, what sort of
findings did you get with the hole that you dug?
MR. OBERMAYER-When did you hit water?
MR. YOUNG-I think it was 28 inches down was the high water mark.
MR. PALING-Twenty-eight inches is the answer to that?
MR. OBERMAYER-Below grade, you hit water, right?
you're saying?
Is that what
MR. YOUNG-I didn't hit water, no.
MR. PALING-What's the 28 inches?
MR. YOUNG-No. We didn't hit any water at all.
feet.
He went down six
MR. PALING-Okay. So I know what's going on, ask your question
again. I thought you said, where did you hit water?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes, I did, too, and I thought he said 28.
MR. YOUNG-No. We went six feet and didn't any water.
MR. HARLICKER-Six feet and didn't hit any? Okay.
- 23 -
MR. YOUNG-It's 340 feet, and the lake level is at 322. So you're
at least 18 feet above the lake level.
MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is greater than six feet.
MR. HARLICKER-Greater than six feet, yes.
MR. PALING-Item 17, it says, is the site served by existing
public utilities, and will improvements be necessary, you said
yes. What did you mean by that?
MR. AUFFREDOU-I think we just mean, as far as existing
facilities, it would need to be hooked up to electric.
MR. PALING-Okay. So you're well within the capacity, yes. Okay.
As long as you have nothing special in mind. Okay. There were
other unanswered questions, and I assume, at some point, we can
get everything answered, and I think Staff would require that, am
I right, Scott?
MR. HARLICKER-I didn't see any other unanswered ones in here.
MR. PALING-Well, under B, Item I, they just put question marks.
Well, okay, that's the structure. I don't care about that right
now. Okay. In other words, just those first two that I brought
up, or three, seven, eight, and ten. Ten is easy.
MR. MACEWAN-Going through the SEQRA, was it just a typo that it
wasn't listed to be on the agenda tonight?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It should be. It's a Type I Action.
MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. RUEL-I have another comment. Jim read several letters and it
seemed that many residents are quite concerned about the
sensitivity of the land area. However, it's zoned WR-1A,
properly, and I would suggest that these comments could be
forwarded to Jim Martin who's presently revising the
Comprehensive Land Plan, the so called Master Plan, and this is
the kind of input that he needs, from residents. They're
concerned about certain areas and the possibility that it should
be re-zoned, or certain areas should be maintained as is. We
here on the Planning Board can only, we look at something like
this that it zoned lA, and properly zoned, and the applicant is
meeting all the requirements, and your concerns, I say should go
to Jim Martin and possibly be included in the new master plan.
MR. AUFFREDOU-We don't want to
don't agree there are concerns.
be here tonight saying that
The property is wet.
we
MR. RUEL-Well, it's just that there was no response to these
letters, and I thought I should answer them.
MR. AUFFREDOU-As the Agent here, I just simply want to state that
I think what we're doing is we're almost like a Planner's dream.
We're giving property away so it won't be developed, basically,
is what we're doing. We're not creating any headaches for you.
We're not coming here saying, here's 25 acres that we just want
one lot, and we don't know what we're going to do with the other
25 acres of property. I have authority tonight, from Jim
Wallace, to say to you, this back property, the back, back
property's never going to be developed. I have authority,
tonight, to tell you that as far as the larger parcel, we're
either going to put deed restrictions there, or we're also going
to deed that to a conservancy type organization. It may be that
those deed restrictions permit us to put some type of a storage
shed on the property. Of course as the applicant's attorney, I'm
going to make sure that he is allowed to do that, if, in fact,
the agencies allow him to do that.
- 24 -
-..
-....../
--
----'
MR. RUEL-I'm sure the residents appreciate what you say, but it's
a lot stronger if it's in words, in the comprehensive land plan.
MR. YOUNG-I've spoken to Bob Walden, I think it was two days ago,
and he told me that he would go along with this plan here.
MR. RUEL-I'm not necessarily picking on this particular plan, but
I'm talking about sensitive areas, and there are many around the
lake, and residents have expressed a lot of concern about it, and
I'm just telling them that this is the way they should go.
MR. BREWER-It should also come
this application, though. It
They should be here telling us.
to us because it's relevant to
shouldn't just to go Jim Martin.
MR. RUEL-In this particular application, yes, but I mean, in
general.
MR. PALING-Okay.
hearing, Light?
I think at this point we should go to a public
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HARLICKER-This is for the wetlands permit. Correct?
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. PALING-For the wetlands permit, right. Now,
anyone from the public who wishes to comment, please
the microphone and identify yourself.
if there's
come up to
MR. RUEL-Hey, Bob, couldn't these have been combined?
t-1R. PALING-No.
MR. BREWER-No, they're two actions.
BOB LANDRY
MR. LANDRY-My name is Bob Landry. I have a summer home on Lake
George on Assembly Point Road. If you have one of the maps in
front of you, I can locate it for you. If you look where it says
Assembly Point, SE, we're located at that point there, on the
west side of the road. My property is located probably, the back
end of my property is located about 100 feet from this wetland.
I have been up there and watched this wetland for about 25 years,
and my concern is for the lake itself. We've had, much of your
deterioration in the lake in the last 20 years due to pollution,
and I do not see any way that these people could ever build out
on this property here without polluting the lake (lot) the runoff
into the wetlands, and I'll tell you why. It's a good thing
we're not a year round resident, because in the spring time, we
have a seepage pit that's right on the side of the road, which is
about, our property's about 200 feet from the lake, 208,
something like that, and in the spring time, that seepage pit is
full of water. If we lived there, as I say, year round, we could
not use the septic system for our cottage. What I'm getting at
is here, the perc test and the water table, the perc test for the
type of soil there, it does not absorb water. It's like clay.
If you want to plant something, you've got to drag in topsoil,
which I have done over the years, and as I say, the water table
is very low. In the early spring, dig a hole in our back yard.
We're much higher. This is down hill from this property that
we're talking about, to dig a hole, and if you go down two feet
or less, you've got water. So, as I say, my concern here is the
pollution of the lake, and I like to see these people build, this
is beautiful plans, I think. They're nice people, and if they
put a holding tank in, I'd have no problem because I could see
where there'd be no seepage into the wetlands. The way this is
proposed, you've got, they've got wetlands to the east of them.
- 25 -
They've got wetlands to the west of them, and as my experience of
living there in the summer time, 25 years, I don't see how this
could be built with a leach field and not pollute the wetland,
which it's been, directs right into the lake, down to a culvert,
under Brayton Lane, both at the west end of Brayton Lane and also
down here at the east, it goes down a hill, that property does,
all the way down. I don't know, but I think there's people by
the name of Walden or something, at the bottom of the hill, but
anyway, my concern is the pollution of, and I don't see how this
project could be completed without polluting this wetland or
these wetlands, without holding tanks, and I just draw upon the
25 years that I've lived there in the summer time.
MR. RUEL--Okay.
the engineers
necessary.
If what you say is correct, I feel confident that
would recommend a holding tank. If that's
MR. LANDRY-Okay. I would have no problems with the project if.
MR. RUEL-I'm sure that they'll look into it, and if that's the
case, they'll do something.
MR. LANDRY-I'd hate to see the man get in there and then have
problems. As I say, you couldn't live in Q1!L. cottage yea~- round,
with the water table what it is.
MR. BREWER-Mr. Landry, can I ask you a question?
MR. LANDRY-Sure.
MR. BREWER-I was up there Sunday, and I don't recall. On the
opposite side of Brayton Lane, are there houses there, or is that
wetlands also?
MR. LANDRY-Which side of Brayton Lane?
MR. BREWER-The opposite side.
MR. PALING-It would be the north side.
MR. LANDRY-The north side? Lets see, there's one house that I
know of.
MR. BREWER-No.
that he's going
!,Jasn't.
I mean, directly across from this proposed lot
to build on. I don't recall if there was or
MR. OBERMAYER-There's like four houses along that road.
MR. BREWER-Yes, I know, because I went down around the corner and
talked to some of the neighbors, but I don't recall, right at
that corner of Assembly Point Road and Brayton.
MR. LANDRY-There's one house I know of, Brian Muer's.
MR. BREWER-So there are houses across the street.
MR. LANDRY-He's right across the road, directly across the road.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
MR. LANDRY-Another thing that concerns me a lot, and I'm not
questioning the integrity of the Attorney here, but about 15 or
20 years ago, I wrote to Mr. Wallace concerning buying a piece of
property, a piece of that property there behind our lot, about a
half an acre. Well, the reason he said, he'd like to sell it to
me, but that property, he said, there's 18 acres. I didn't know
how many. He said, there's 18 acres back in there, and that's
all been deeded to the National Audobon Society in Washington,
D.C., he said, so it's impossible for me to sell it to you. So I
- 26 -
----
~
'--
don't know. So I just dropped it, but this is an experience ¡
had with Mr. Wallace 15 or 20 years ago. (lost word) something
now, well, we may, but we're not guaranteeing it, but the
conservatory may be deeded. So, I don't know. This is the story
that was told to me, 15, 20 years ago, by Mr. Wallace. I don't
know whether this is the same Mr. Wallace that's involved today.
I don't know the man personally. I know I was told 15, 20 years
ago that this property was deeded to the Audobon Society.
Apparently, I was mislead.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LANDRY-Thank you very much.
MR. PALING--Is there anyone else who'd like to comment? Okay.
ROSEMARY DAVIDSEN
MRS. DAVIDSEN-My name is Rosemary Davidsen, and we, too, have a
cottage at Assembly Point, about seven houses north of Bob's. My
concern here is on this diagram, wetlands flagged by the APA. Do
they know for sure that they are going to remain the way they're
flagged now, or will that be changed?
MR. HARLICKER-Will they come in a couple of years later and re-
flag it?
MRS. DAVIDSEN-Yes. Are they going to come in here and do that?
MR. HARLICKER-I don't think they do it as a common practice, no,
unless it's requested that they come back in and re-flag at a
later date.
MR. AUFFREDOU-They were flagged at our request, a number of years
ago.
MRS. DAVIDSEN-This doesn't pertain to you. I was worried about
trees. We don't want another travesty that we had with McCall's
property up there. Do you know how much trees you're going to
(lost word)? Do you have any idea?
MR. YOUNG-A minimal amount of trees.
MRS. DAVIDSEN-What's minimum?
MR. AUFFREDOU-We can respond to that when we get a chance.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MRS. DAVIDSEN-Thank you.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
TOM NESBITT
MR. NESBITT-My name is Tom Nesbitt, and my sister and I own
property adjacent to this. Our family has owned property in this
vicinity since 1937. First of all, I'd like to make the point
that the notifications that I finally received were sent to an
old address, and the Town does have my current address because I
do have title to the land and I have my tax bill sent to the
correct address. I have not seen the plan except for tonight,
but I do know the surveyor who is working on this project, and I
wanted to comment on a few things, because I think that they're
important. First of all, I think that they should, more accurate
topographic work ought to be done on the site. It was my
understanding that these contours that are shown are based upon
the shoreline maps that were done in 1955, for the Conservation
Department. So they may not reflect exactly the current
conditions. Secondly, I believe that unless things have changed
in the last ten years, the Health Department requires that
- 27 -
percolation tests be done at 36 inches. So I suggest that
percolation tests be done, not only where the principal septic
system is supposed to be placed, but also where the back up
system is. Having done some survey work recently on Assembly
Point Road, and having to dig fOT' pì-operty corners, probably 300
feet north of Brayton Lane, I know that the soil is all clay, and
property my sister has is approximately the same elevation as the
site that Fred is proposing to build on, and there's ground water
coming into the cellar year round, and it's only four feet deep
in that area. Now prior to the reconstruction of that camp,
foundation, 15 years ago, there was no ground water. The camp is
now resting entirely on ledge rock. Ledge rock (lost word) our
camp is only six feet down (lost word) the deepest. So, I would
suggest that there be some interest placed in that regard,
because certainly one of the reasons that water is staying in
this area and why it's a wetland, because there's a lot of
shallow rock. Specifically, where the wetland is to the west of
this proposed building site, I don't believe that flows into the
larger wetland that eventually crosses Brayton Lane by the Walden
property in the spring. I think if you look at the contours, you
might notice that there seems to be kind of a divide. Now, just
as a point of information, that wetland to the west of this
proposed building site has only been wet for about ten years,
because there's a culvert under Brayton Lane which has never
functioned properly, and I believe it was installed during (lost
word). So there's a problem with the drainage there, that if it
were corrected, it may not be a wetland.
MR. PALING-Where is the culvert located?
MR. NESBITT-It's located right at the bottom of the hill, right
off of Assembly Point Road. That drains the property to the
north, which used to be an apple orchard.
MR. PALING-You're saying it's on the other side of Assembly Point
Road, from this?
MR. NESBITT-No, no, right at the bottom of the hill, right off of
Bray'ton Lane.
MR. OBERMAYER-Right there, right by (lost word), right here,
there's an open culvert.
MR. PALING-Okay. Yes.
MR. NESBITT-Ten or fifteen years ago, that was not wet. The
culvert has been blocked up and it has never functioned properly.
About all I can say is if that culvert were fixed, maybe that
wouldn't be wet, but that's the Town's problem. That's not
Fred's problem, but I would strongly urge that adequate
percolation and ground water testing be done to confirm the depth
of ground water and percolation, because I do know the soil
conditions are not conducive to a rampant percolation rate, and I
also know that the property to the east of the Walden's, which is
across the road, you see there's a little rectangular indent into
this 11 acres?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. NESBITT-Well right opposite that is property that my
grandparents used to own, and when the Zoning Board of Appeals
granted a variance for the Sandsmarks to reconstruct the old
camp, they stipulated that holding tanks be placed in the ground,
and that's what was done there. It was done mostly because of
this proximity to the lake, but again, that area down there we
found a perched water table, which means that there was a layer
of dry soil and there was about a foot and a half or two feet and
then there was a layer of water, but it was saturated underneath
that upper level. So, I'm not particularly concerned that Fred
wants to subdivide and build here. I think that that's nice, but
- 28 -
'-
,"--",
I am concerned that the project be conducted properly, and by
qualified authorities. I hope that the Town Engineer will be
reviewing the design so that it meets all of the regulations.
Too often around Lake George a lot of the work that's done, not
to imply that Fred would be doing this, but too often a lot of
work gets done under the moonlight, if you will, and
unfortunately it's later on that we end up paying the price. So,
because of the sensitivity of the wetlands and because of the,
the other issue that was mentioned tonight about the intersection
itself, one of the former land owners to the west of Assembly
Point Road planted some shrubbery which blocks the view to the
north, trying to get out onto Assembly Point Road from Brayton
Lane. Because of the steepness of that grade, you would have to
creep right out into the middle of Assembly Point Road to look
for oncoming traffic. So, I don't feel that the development that
Mr. Young is proposing is going to have an impact on that any
more than the current usage of the road, but that's another issue
that I think the Town needs to address, because it's a very
dangerous one, and regardless of the speed limit signs on that
road, and the signs that the Assembly Point Association has
placed about speeding, having worked on that road last summer, it
doesn't make any difference to anybody how fast they go. Since
the County re-aligned Assembly Point Road in the fifties, that's
just an accident waiting to happen, but that has no bearing on
the hearing tonight. So, as I say, I'm just concerned that all
the review agencies take into consideration the soil conditions.
Also, in the site plan review, which I realize this hearing is
not for that, but adequate provisions ought to be made during
construction to prevent siltation erosion.
MR. PALING-Yes.
they will be. I
We'll take care of that as a separate issue, and
can assure you.
MR. BREWER-There won't be a site plan review, though.
MR. PALING-For subdivision, but if there's a building to go on
it, it would be a site plan.
MR. HARLICKER-No, there wouldn't.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not residential.
MR. RUEL-Just subdivision.
MR. NESBITT-Well, I would request that some stipulation be made
to protect any silting into the wetland from the construction, of
construction debris, the oil that usually drips off construction
equipment. I think that if the silt fences or hay bale dikes
were replaced that that would certainly alleviate any impact on
the wetland.
MR. RUEL-Just a SEQRA review on this?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. RUEL-That covers those points that the gentleman mentioned.
MR. PALING-Well, SEQRA would be part of the subdivision, then.
MR. RUEL-Yes. Well, this is all wetlands, but the public
hearing, apparently, is on both, tonight.
MR. BREWER-They're two separate actions.
MR. PALING-I think it would apply to that, yes, because, but they
are two separate actions.
MR. RUEL-Yes, but the public hearing is open for both.
- 29 -
'-
'-
MR. PALING--Yes.
MR. NESBITT-Well, in that case, as long as I can say something
about that, then I think that that's something that should be
specifically required, as an adequate protection.
MR. PALING-Okay, but there's two public hearings. So, it'll be
tonight, but we're trying to keep them separate. They're going
to be one after the other, and we will try to do it. Okay.
Thank you. Are there any other comments from the public on this?
Rosemary, did you have a letter that you wanted to read into the
record? I didn't want to shut you off on that, but that wasn't
the right time back then.
MRS. DAVIDSEN-This is from Lydia and George Ernst. They're our
neighbors to the north half of the lake, and they're in Sarasota,
Florida. The Ides of March 1995 she writes. "Dear Jim: What is
the consensus of the owners of property in our area? I respect
your Judgment in this manner so please add my name to the list -
as you would vote. Sincerely, Lydia Ernst"
MR. PALING-Okay. Any
wetlands part of this?
more comments from the public
Any more from the Board?
on
the
MR. BREWER-I think, before we take any action on this, we should
get a confirmation on the perc test, as to what the soils really
are up there. They did the perc test today. That's!:!1.Z opinion.
MR. PALING-Yes. They're going to have to pass all of those.
Anything we do would be contingent upon successful.
MR. RUEL-Yes. Right.
MR. BREWER-We know what they are before we do the wetlands
permit?
MR. RUEL-No. We don't normally tell them ahead of time. We wait
until they make the tests, and we get the results.
MR. AUFFREDOU-We'd be happy to supply them to you.
MR. BREWER-I don't know. Somebody said something about three
feet, and you did it at, what?
MR. YOUNG-They dug down over six feet with a back hoe.
MR. AUFFREDOU-They meaning the APA.
MR. BREWER-The APA did? Then that's fine.
MR. YOUNG-The APA was on site. They dug two separate holes on
the site, and they went down over six feet and dug the hole, and
there was a soil scientist there, and he looked at all the
different soils and analyzed it, and there was no water.
MR. BREWER-That's fine with me.
MR. YOUNG-This land is about 10 feet higher than the land of his
sister's house, 18 feet higher than the land of his grandmother's
house. His grandmother's house was built on a swamp down there.
MF~. BREIrJER-O kay .
MR. PALING-All right. Mr. Nesbitt, did you want to comment?
MR. NESBITT-For percolation tests, it has to be three feet deep.
MR. YOUNG-That's not what ¡ was told.
MR. PALING-We don't dispute that tonight, but it would have to
- 30 -
--
-..-'
'-,
---
get by APA and the Staff's requirement on
what they are, but Staff and APA would know
and any approvals or what not that comes
contingent. We hear you, but we don't see
that. I don't know
what has to be done,
out of here would be
them.
MR. BREWER-Those are not a requirement of subdivision, are they,
0)- are they?
MR. OBERMAYER-No, they're not.
MR. PALING-Wetlands?
MR. OBERMAYER-I don't think so.
MR. BREWER-They're not a requirement of subdivision, perc tests,
are they?
MR. HARLICKER-They're relative to a
have adequate perc, you couldn't
and that has some bearing as to
property 0)- not.
subdivision. If they don't
put a septic system in there,
the buildability of a piece of
MR. BREWER-Does it have to be done for our application?
MR. HARLICKER-Normally on a two lot subdivision like this we
don't require it.
MR. MACEWAN-It doesn't have to be, but it could certainly be
requested by our Board. If it helps us come to a better
understanding and decision to this, it's certainly within our
power to ask of it.
MR. AUFFREDOU-How about if we just ask that the APA supply your
staff with their results?
MR. PALING-And this would include perc test?
MR. AUFFREDOU-My understanding was.
MR. YOUNG-Both perc and percolation tests.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. AUFFREDOU-And again, I read the APA's letter. I know it
doesn't indicate specifically what the results were, but I think
we can sort of infer that they're saying it's okay by reason of
the fact that they're saying.
MR. BREWER-Can we get that in writing?
MR. AUFFREDOU-I can give you a copy of this letter.
the results.
l-Je ' II get
MR. PALING-It seems that they are saying that, and the results
would confirm it, and that could be part of the record.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I have no problem with that.
MR. PALING-Good. Okay.
MR. RUEL-If the tests are part of the APA permit, that's fine,
because you have to get APA permit approval.
MR. AUFFREDOU-This is a minor project under the APA.
MR. PALING-All right. Then for the purposes of wetland, we
should do a SEQRA, I assume.
MR. MACEWAN-I have a couple of questions for the Staff. For the
purposes of this permit application, it's a two step process
- 31 -
where they get our support or denial of this, then they also have
to add the APA's support to get a permit?
MR. HARLICKER-Regarding the wetlands permit?
MR. MACEWAN-Yes.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Normally what the Board has done in the past
is conditioned the Town wetlands permit on, in the Town, all
wetlands are either jurisdictional or to the APA, DEC, or the
Army Corp of Engineers, and generally what the Board has done is
just conditioned the Town wetland permit on the applicant getting
his necessary criteria from the APA. Do we normally come first
in the process or second in the process?
MR. HARLICKER-Usually first.
MR. MACEWAN-Usually first. All right. My next question, then,
is this in a Critical Environmental Area up there?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes, it is.
MR. MACEWAN-It wasn't listed on our agenda, and now what kind of
a twist does that add to it?
MR. SCHACHNER-I'll field that one. It doesn't really add much of
a twist, so long as you've had what's called coordinated review
under SEQRA, which you appear to have had, because you have a
resolution acknowledging lead agency status. The only other
significance of being in a Critical Environmental Area is that
the application must be accompanied by a Long Form Environmental
Assessment Form, not a Short Form, which also appears to have
been accomplished. So, I would say it doesn't add any twist.
MR. MACEWAN-Well, it seems like a lot of our decisions are
hinging on what the APA says, and what their requirements are.
MR. SCHACHNER-Take that with a grain of salt, in that the permits
are not, it's not one permit that both we and the APA have input
into. I mean, they're two permits, but as Scott and others have
correctly indicated, in terms of past practice, this Board has
typically reviewed the Freshwater Wetlands permit first, and if
there is APA Jurisdiction, often if not always, conditioned it
upon receiving appropriate approval from the APA as well. I have
to say, from my own professional experience with the APA, I think
the applicant's offer to make this data a part of the record is
helpful, and if you want to accept that offer, that's fine, but
the fact that we have a letter in writing that the applicant has
read and indicated that they can make part of our record, from
the APA, from the Project Review Officer, indicating that a
specific type of system will be allowed on this property clearly
indicates, in!!lY.. mind, from !!lY.. experience with the APA, that
sufficient testing has been done to allow that type of system.
The APA, the gentleman that accompanied this site examination, is
a Soil Scientist named Brian Grisi, who ¡ know, and if the APA
has written the letter that Mr. Auffredou says they have, and,
obviously, he's waving it in front of us, then that means that
they have done sufficient testing to be comfortable with that
type of system being on the property.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I guess I would ask that that letter be
entered into the record for us.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think it's already been read, and I think
it should become part of our records, no question about it.
MR. RUEL-That letter is the APA approval, isn't it?
MR. SCHACHNER-No, it is not.
MR. BREWER-No, it's not the approval.
- 32 -
'--'
--../
-
-../
MR. SCHACHNER-And it's important you understand that, and what ¡
understand the applicant to be saying is that this is subject to
APA jurisdiction, that they're in the process, that they have
this letter along the way, that they don't yet have their APA
permits. Is that a fair summary?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Sure.
MR. RUEL-What do you call this letter?
MR. AUFFREDOU-I call this letter an incomplete application
letter. That they're asking for more information, but I must
tell you, in my conversations with Suzanne McSherry, at the APA,
and again, you and your Staff can confirm this. This is the only
time that I've had an application to the APA where they're
absolutely delighted with what we're doing. They have found
absolutely no problem with what is proposed. Now I've
represented a number of applicants with the APA, and I've never
had that response before from the APA. This has been a very,
very pleasant APA experience for me. They've done a good job,
and I feel we've done a good job. The fact of the matter is, I'm
more than hinting here tonight, the reason why they like it is
because of what we propose to do with the rest of the property.
MR. RUEL-All right. This is an aside. Mark, we on the Planning
Board have the option to reject an application, even though APA
has granted all the approvals. Correct?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You're not bound by the approvals of other
agencies. That's correct.
MR. RUEL-But we cannot grant approval unless we have APA
app,-ova l?
MR. SCHACHNER-No, that's not correct.
autonomous and independent.
Your jurisdiction is
MR. OBERMAYER-Right.
MR. RUEL-Without APA?
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Then why do we go to APA?
MR. SCHACHNER-You don't go to the APA. The applicants go to APA
because under New York State law, they're subject to the
Adirondack Park Agency Act, and under local law, they're subject
to the Town of Queensbury's Freshwater Wetlands law. So they're
subject, as is often the case in applications, especially
anywhere near this area, they're subject to the jurisdiction of
several different bodies. Those jurisdictions are separate and
independent.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MR. PALING-Okay. Now I think the SEQRA is next.
MR. SCHACHNER-When you go through that, I just want to make sure
we're clear on one thing that might have been a misconception.
We're reviewing separate actions, from the standpoint of our
local laws, meaning a Freshwater Wetlands permit application and
a Preliminary subdivision application, but your SEQRA review
should be on both, on the whole project.
MR. PALING-Good. I'm glad you said that. So the SEQRA we do now
can apply to both.
- 33 -
-..-;"
MR. SCHACHNER-Not only can, but must. From the standpoint of
SECRA review, it's one SECRA action, even though your comments
earlier are correct, that we're taking this in two separate
actions.
i"1R. PALING-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 4-1995, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved
for its adoptioR, seconded by Craig MacEwan:
WHEREAS, there is
application for:
TRUST, and
presently before the
CHARLES YOUNG, GLENNA
Planning Board an
BURNHAM, J. WALLACE
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
The APA
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Type I in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Cueensbury.
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 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
MR. PALING-Jim, let me take you back a minute to the first one we
did, "Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the
project site?" That's a no you had, right?
MR. STARK-That is a no.
MR. RUEL-Do we have äny yeses anywhere?
,
MR. PALING-No. I think we changed them and we considered that
this was, this is not a site plan.
MR. BREWER-You still have to consider the house being built
because that's what he's telling us he's doing.
MR. RUEL-Yes. We have to consider it.
MR. MACEWAN-I think it's important because the house is not going
to come back for site plan, even though this is only a
subdivision. We know that the intent down the road is to put a
- 34 -
'--
'--'
'-
--..,.;'
residence on this parcel.
MR. RUEL--t,.Je have to look at this as though it is site plan.
MR. BREWER-It's a small to moderate impact, but you still have to
consider it.
MR. OBERMAYER-It can be mitigated, though.
MR. PALING-Than that ought to be yes, with a small amount, it can
be mitigated.
MR. RUEL-How can it be mitigated?
MR. OBERMAYER-Plant trees around it
MR. BREWER-It's a small to moderate impact on that piece of
property.
MR. PALING-The impact is so small, it isn't worth chasing after.
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. PALING-Okay.
this.
Then I guess we can have a motion, now, on
MR. RUEL-This subdivision's preliminary, right?
MR. PALING-This is for the Freshwater Wetlands only.
MR. RUEL-The next thing we do is preliminary.
MR. PALING-That will be next.
MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-95 CHARLES
YOUNG. GLENNA BURNHAM. J. WALLACE TRUST, Introduced by James
Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan:
Location: Assembly Point, Brayton Lane. Applicant proposes a
regulated activity, subdivision of property, within 100 ft.
of an APA flagged wetland.
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan,
Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I CHARLES YOUNG,
GLENNA BURNHAM, J. WALLACE TRUST ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION:
ASSEMBLY PT., BRAYTON LANE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 15.47 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 3.86 ACRES AND 11.61 ACRES. CROSS
REFERENCE: FWl-95 APA TAX MAP NO. 6-3-14 LOT SIZE: 15.47
ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. PALING-Okay. Now, and this requires a separate public
hearing. Scott, do you have other comments?
MR. HARLICKER-No, no additional comments.
- 35 -
MR. PALING-Your comments have already been made for both.
MR. MACEWAN-I have a comment, please. Martin wrote a letter
asking for, requesting a waiver for seven items from the
subdivision. I would suggest to the Board that we stick with the
clearing plan, grading, erosion control and drainage report all
be part of the subdivision, considering its proximity to the
wetland and the intent of the property, that we not allow the
waiver on those. He's asking for a waiver to sketch plan, which
is okay, waiver to layout's okay, waiver to construction, okay,
waiver to landscaping. I'm suggesting that we make him go
through, for the clearing plan, the grading and erosion control
and the drainage report.
MR. BREWER-I would agree.
MR. PALING-Yes. I don't have any problem with that.
MR. STARK-Bob, just make sure they're ready for final, have those
three things for final.
MR. BREWER-Shouldn't we review them, George?
MR. MACEWAN-No, I mean, Tim, if he
it'll be in our packet, that we
something's wrong and it needs to be
comes back for final, he can always
rectify whatever needs to be done.
has them for
can review
addressed
be tabled
us for final,
them, and if
at the time he
and have them
MR. RUEL-Well, he asked for these waivers, and they were granted,
right?
MR. OBERMAYER-No, they weren't.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I want to just make a clarification. I asked for
the waivers because it was my understanding, after speaking with
Staff, it's a standard practice to do so for a two lot
subdivision.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. RUEL-That's true.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I can understand your concerns. What I would
suggest that we do, Tim, if it's okay with you, I don't know if
the area marked proposed clearing, as it sits right now, would
satisfy the review, Craig, of what's going to be cleared. That's
what we plan to do, or thereabouts. As far as the other things
go, I can stipulate tonight, I think that we could get Leon
involved within the next couple of days and get something up here
by week's end. So hopefully it would be in your packet for next
week. The only thing I would ask is that whatever resolutions we
reach tonight doesn't hold up final review for next week, and
I'll do my part to get you that information.
MR. MACEWAN-Is he looking to break ground within the next two
weeks or three weeks or even a month?
MR. AUFFREDOU-No.
MR. MACEWAN-Then what's the hurry?
MR. AUFFREDOU-What the hurry is, is quite honestly, is that APA
will not take final action on this until they hear from all of
you, and I have no public hearing with APA. I have no
opportunity to go up there and meet with them and say, please
issue us a permit. My experience with APA, even if it is a
simple project, is that it may take a heck of a long time to get
a permit from them. So that's why I'm trying to, I'm not trying
to push this through. What I'm saying is, we can come up with
- 36 -
'--'
~~
~
-./
these things. I think we can come up with these things. If we
can't, I'll just call Scott and say, Scott, I need an
adjournment. If we can, I'd like to be given that opportunity to
do so, and keep the final on for next Tuesday night.
MR. PALING-Well, the only caution I would exercise, though, is
that we can't guarantee passage next week, tonight. I think what
you're proposal is okay, I think you can clear us on the grading,
erosion and drainage report, but I guess the question might be
the clearing plan.
MR. AUFFREDOU-The clearing plan, I don't know how much more exact
I can be, unless there's some written specification, Scott, that
you're looking for. I don't know how much clearer I can be than
what's already marked. Leon put a little squiggly line there. I
was indicating to this lady to my left here, Mrs. Davidsen,
that's what we propose to clear, the little squiggly line, and
you'll see Leon has written in, proposed, here.
MR. PALING-Could you settle for no more than what is shown on the
pr i nt?
MR. MACEWAN-In the past, you know, clearing plans have been a lot
more definitive than that.
MR. BREWER-That's why ¡ say, if we get them and review them and
do this next week. I mean, there's neighbors that are concerned.
r think it's only fair to them that they get a chance to look at
l>Jhat he's doing.
MR. MACEWAN-I agree with you. I don't think there's any rush to
build a house on this. I'd like to see us go through the motions
and do everything the right way.
MR. STARK-I think we ought to vote on the Preliminary tonight for
that, and if we get the plans in time for next week, fine. If we
can't review them, put it off until the first meeting of the
follol>Ji ng month.
MR. PALING-I think that would be satisfactory to everyone.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I can't argue with you on that. That's fine.
MR. STARK-I can't see Leon doing this in two days.
MR. BREWER-You can't see Leon doing it in two days, but you
expect our Staff and us to review it in one day, George?
MR. STARK-No. r said I can't see Leon doing it in two days to
get it u.p to ur', looking at it and everything.
.:J ,
MR. BREWER-So then we won't have it next week, then?
MR. STARK-No, we wouldn't have it and we'd have to pu.t it off
until next month.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I'd just like to be given the opportunity to try.
That's all. That's all I'm asking.
MR. PALING-I don't see anything wrong with that.
MR. OBERMAYER-No, either do I.
MR. AUFFREDOU-If we can't do it. I'll give Scott a call and I'll
ask Scott to relay a message to you, Mr. Chairman, that we're
asking for adjournment.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-You will have these other items that we talked
- 37 -
_/
about, though, on your list. We're not waiving anything.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I just want to make sure, Craig, I have exactly
those ones you were talking about. It's the grading and erosion
control, clearing, and what was the third one?
MR. MACEWAN-Drainage.
MR. OBERMAYER-Drainage.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-Thank you.
MR. AUFFREDOU-We'll certainly try.
MR. PALING-All right. Now the public hearing is either open or
still open, however you want to look at it. So if there's anyone
from the public, please come forward.
MR. BREWER-Did you ever close the last public hearing?
MR. PALING-No, I did not close it. I think, whether I did or I
didn't, I'll close the public hearing on the wetlands portion.
Okay. Now I'll open the public hearing on the subdivision
preliminary stage, and invite anyone who wishes to speak to come
forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BOB LANDRY
MR. LANDRY-When would the Town Engineer review these?
MR. PALING-As soon as the information is in their hands, but we
don't know when that would be, but we will let the public speak
at whatever meeting it's at, either next week or whichever one.
MR. MACEWAN-Just leave the public hearing open on this one.
MR. PALING-All right. Leave the public hearing open. Okay. The
public hearing on the subdivision will remain open. Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-For the next meeting.
MR. PALING-Until the next meeting, correct, and then we'll decide
from there what it will be.
MR. LANDRY-So is that it for tonight?
MR. PALING-Well, there's going to be, there'll be a motion now.
MR. MACEWAN-I mean, does anybody want to speak regarding the
subdivision?
TO¡VI NESBITT
MR. NESBITT-I'm Tom Nesbitt. I wanted to know, is a topographic
survey required for the subdivision?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. NESBITT-An actual topographic survey?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. NESBITT-This is my understanding that this is based upon the
Lake George shoreline maps which were prepared from aerial
photography in 1954.
- 38 -
-..../
"'-
--..,./
MR. STARK-It says, revised August 19, 1993.
MR. HARLICKER-That's where the map was made.
MR. NESBITT-Is that topographic work, or is that the wetlands
location?
MR. HARLICKER-The traffic information is from May 1958.
MR. OBERMAYER-Right, May 6, 1958.
MR. NESBITT-Which is, what, 37 years later.
MR. BREWER-Is a topo map required, a two foot contour or
something?
MR. HARLICKER-Two foot contours, but it doesn't say.
MR. SCHACHNER-All it says is
existing grade contours at two
States Geological Survey data.
Town's subdivision regulations.
topographic features, including
foot contour intervals, United
I'm reading verbatim from the
MR. MACEWAN-And he has the two foot contours on here.
MR. NESBITT-The other thing is that the scale on this map. It's
a little difficult to determine the dimensions that they're
planning to develop. I'd just caution you, I guess, that you
might want to take into consideration that this is small scale
map, and maybe important to have some dimensions added to this,
in terms of the limits of clearing and the setback from the house
and the septic system and so forth and so on.
MR. OBERMAYER-That's for final.
MR. NESBITT-That's for final?
MR. OBERMAYER-Right.
MR. STARK-We can request that for final, can't we?
MR. PALING-Yes.
yes, for final.
We can request a larger map at a smaller scale,
MR. NESBITT-My concern
misinterpret some details
this scale.
is it's easy to misunderstand,
that may not be able to be drawn at
MR. PALING-Okay. What are our requirements for scale?
MR. HARLICKER-I was just going to say. You might have them
request a waiver. It's supposed to be one inch equals fifty
feet, and the map they proposed it one to one hundred. So they
should also request a waiver for that. Maybe they could do it
verbally tonight.
MR. BREWER-That should be part of the application regardless,
1" ight, 01" no?
MR. HARLICKER-They can request a waiver to that, just like they
can the rest of these requirements.
MR. BREWER-There's no waiver requested.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay.
MR. BREWER-This map is not the correct map for the application.
Is that what you're saying?
MR. HARLICKER-Subdivision Reg's require fifty foot contours, or
- 39 -
-'
">i"
fifty foot scale.
They've got 100.
MR. BREWER-This map is not right for the application, then.
MR. PALING-For the scale.
MR. HARLICKER-Right. Yes.
MR. NESBITT-It's also labeled the final plat, which implies to me
that somebody already made a determination about this.
MR. BREWER-They just prepare them for that.
MR.
few
but
met
PALING-Well, there is quite
people, and you don't like
I think, in this case, we
as we call for, but I don't
a bit of sensitivity from quite a
to get too strict with everybody,
should request that the scale be
want to go beyond it, either.
MR. NESBITT-Well, I'm not asking the Board to be strict. I'm
just concerned that nothing be overlooked, because we've had some
bad experiences in the neighborhood because of some people not
being, some projects were not followed up on by the Town, and so
certain conditions that were placed on the project by the Town
¡"Jer e never met.
MR. PALING-We will ask them to do that, then, and go by the
requirements of the contours as well as the scale.
MR. OBERMAYER-What would be nice, also, is
dimension from the proposed clearing to the
to show what that space is, also.
to see, like, the
wetlands, you know,
MR. NESBITT-Pre~umably,that would be on the drainage plan.
MR. OBERMAYER-Presumably, right, to show that distance, right.
MR. RUEL-Well, the clearing will be expanded if they change the
scale.
MR. NESBITT-Most of the clearing that's going to be done is
basically scrub brush. It's only been there for maybe 25 years.
It's poplar. It's honeysuckle and crab. So, I mean, it's not
really going to, cutting down is not going to have a great impact
on the environment. In fact, it used to be a garden.
MR. PALING-All right, then are you satisfied, then, with what
we're going to do?
MR. NESBITT-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there any more public comment on
this? Okay. The public hearing remains open until next meeting,
and we'll determine, then, what'll happen with the public hearing
after that.
MR. OBERMAYER-Wouldn't we have another public hearing anyway, on
the final stage?
MR. STARK-No, not for final.
MR. PALING-No. We'll keep this one open. Okay. All right.
MR. HARLICKER-Could
motion here? So,
grading and erosion
drainage plan.
I get something clear before you get into a
for final subdivision, you're requiring a
control plan, a clearing plan, like I said, a
MR. RUEL-All the things that are normally required.
MR. HARLICKER-Right, and you want the final plat that fifty
- 40 -
-'
....'-,....'
"-'
scale, as opposed to one hundred scale, correct?
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-Did you have the drainage report?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes, grading and erosion control,
drainage and the scale to fifty.
clearing,
MR. NESBITT-I'd like to
going to be developed be
sense in doing a 50 scale
that that would be a waste
suggest that maybe only the area that's
done at 50 scale, because there's no
map of the entire 16 acres. I think
of time and money.
MR. PALING-All right. Fine.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, the only thing I wanted to point out
is the name of this map, Norlander, that is Glenna's, my
understanding is that's Glenna's maiden name. The final plat
will reflect Young, Wallace, and Burnham. Okay. Norlander is an
old name that's just been on the deeds for a long time.
MR. PALING-That's not a problem with anything, is it?
Fine. Anything else?
Okay.
MR. NES8ITT-I have nothing further.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. RUEL-I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1995
CHARLES YOUNG. GLENNA BURNHAM. J. WALLACE TRUST, Introduced by
Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption
As written, with the condition that the map be scaled one inch to
50 feet, and that a clearing plan, grading and erosion control
and drainage report be included.
MR. HARLICKER-Mark just made a good point here. If you're going
to be voting on the project tonight, for approval or denial, it
doesn't really make much sense to have the public hearing open.
You can have a public hearing at final. There's nothing that
says you can't have it.
MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't make sense. If what we're talking about
is the preliminary subdivision application, I think that's what
we're talking about, and you're proposing to vote on that, then
you shouldn't vote on that until the public hearing is closed.
So, if your concern is to, again, address some of these issues at
the final stage, if you intend to vote on the preliminary
tonight, then the way to accomplish that is by having a public
hearing at the final stage, which you're totally allowed to do,
but, what I'm saying is, legally, I'm not comfortable with voting
on the preliminary when the public hearing has not been closed.
MR. PALING-All right, but it will all be accomplished by having
another public hearing. The public is always welcome to speak
anyway, as has been the practice in the past. We'll close it,
though.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but if you want to have a public hearing at
final, you can certainly do that.
MR. PALING-All right.
MR. RUEL-Don't you have
MR. BREWER-No.
to renotify, though, if you open again?
- 41 -
-
"':','/
MR. PALING-All right. The public hearing is closed.
PUBLÌC HEARING CLOSED
MP. PALING-Okay.
MP. AUFFREDOU-I just want some clarification on the motion. I'm
not sure it was mentioned that the scale will be adjusted simply
for the area to be developed.
MR. PALING-It wasn't, but should be.
1'1P. RUEL -No, the whole map.
MR. PAl_lNG-No, just the area to be developed.
MR. OBERMAYER-Just the area to be developed, the smaller lot.
MR. RUEL-I'm going to st'art allover again.
MOTION TO APPROVESU~DIVISION NO. 4-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE
CHARLES YOUNG. GLENNA BURNHAM. J. WALLACE TRUST, Introduced by
Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
As written in the resolution, with the condition that the map
be scaled, one inch to 50 feet, in the area of proposed
development, and that the clearing plan, grading and erosion
control and drainage reports be included, and at this time, we
will grant these waivers, sketch plan review, layout plan,
construction details and landscape plan.
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
MR. BREWER-Is there going to be a time for these people to submit
this stuff, so our engineer can review it?
MR. PALING-The only time, if they can make next meeting, they'll
make it, but if not, it'll be the following month, as I
understand it.
MR. AUFFREDOU-My proposal was, we will do our best to get you the
information. If we determine that we can't, I'll call Scott. If
we can, and you determine that you don't have the time, you call
me and you say, Martin, it's on for the next month. I have to
accept that.
MR. MACEI-JAN-Simpl y, it 1.>JOuld have to be this Friday by, noon.
MR. AUFFREDOU-That's fine.
MR. MACEWAN-That's in time to get the packets out and delivered.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm willing to stipulate to that.
MR. PALING-Yes. That's part of Staff requirements, yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-I don't see a problem with it.
MR. PALING-All right. That's it, then.
MR. RUEL-That's it. Waivers were granted, four of them.
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. Paling
NOES: Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
SITE PLAN NO. 9-95
TYPE:
UNLISTED
GARY & VALERIE RANDALL
- 42 -
'---'
-.../
'-'"
OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: MAIN STREET
PROPOSAL IS TO RENOVATE A PORTION OF HOME TO ACCOMMODATE OFFICE
WITH SAMPLE DISPLAY AREA. SECTION 179-24 REQUIRES SITE PLAN
REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 131-5-26, 27
LOT SIZE: .26 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 D
GARY & VALERIE RANDALL, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 9-95, Gary & Valerie Randall,
Meeting Date: March 21, 1995 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has
reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38A, Section
179-38A, Section 179-388, Section 179-38C and to the relevant
factors outlined in Section 179-39 and it was found to be 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 use of
this property as an office and display center is compatible with
the area and the purpose of the CR-15 zoning district. The house
will retain its residential look and no new signage or lighting
is proposed. Any signage will be subject to a separate permit.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and
circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement
surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Access to the site will
be via an existing driveway which will access the garage. A new
access is proposed for the parking area on the east side of the
house. The access should be a clearly defined entrance. The
applicant has stated that he may extend his parking area to the
neighboring parking area, this would give customers of the
battery shop room to turn around so that they would not have to
back out on to Main Street. 3. The location, arrangement,
appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading;
The applicant is proposing six parking spaces. Three will be in
the east parking area for customers and three by the garage for
employees. The parking should be sufficient. 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 will sheet flow to the back of the lot. 6. The
adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The
existing on site septic system will be utilized and the property
is serviced by municipal water. 7. The adequacy, type and
arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings,
landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise
buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the
maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance
including replacement of dead plants; The applicant indicates
that shrubs will be planted along the front of the building; he
should also include some street trees along Main Street. The
applicant indicated that the existing hedge will be removed and
replaced with an evergreen hedge. The hedge should be high
enough to screen the parking area from the road. 8. The
adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the
provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access appears to be
adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways
and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding
and/or erosion. There does not appear to be problems relating to
ponding, flooding or erosion."
MR. HARLICKER-Warren County, Site
modify, it was approved, and there's
consideration.
P la n Re'y" iew to
a resolution also
renovate,
for your
MR. PALING-Okay. I visited the site today, and I had, I guess,
two questions. One was access. The right hand side where the
garage is seems to be quite limited, and you said you're going to
park three vehicles there?
- 43 -
,~'
~-
MR. RANDALL-Access trJe ~..¡ould like to have on the left hand side.
I'm Gary Randall, my wife, Valerie Randall.
MR. PALING-On the right hand side where
rear, that you wouldn't intend as any
access?
the garage is, to the
kind of access, public
MR. RANDALL-We'd
thought possibly
or less private,
would be safe for
like to (lost word), if possible.
for UPS delivery. I would say it
because it is such a narrow, I
public access.
Originally, w
would be more
don't think it
MR. MACEWAN-Is there going to be access on both sides of the
house, is that what you're saying?
MR. RANDALL-There's an existing driveway.
MR. MACEWAN-Right, the dr i \/eway with the garage in the back.
MR. RANDALL --Right.
MR. MACEWAN-And you're also asking for another access that would
be to the east side of it?
MR. RANDALL-We'd making a parking area on the east side.
MR. MACEWAN-Would you be able to get to and from the street from
that side? Is that what you're suggesting?
MR. RANDALL-Yes. Adjacent to the Battery, I haven't talked to
them, this is pending final approval of this. I haven't spoken
to them, but I was going to suggest to them if they would like to
join, it appears they (lost word) another three or four feet to
our property line, see if they would be interested in.
MR. MACEWAN-Making a common drive, a common access?
MR. RANDALL-Right.
around in. They have
that road (lost word).
There's is quite narrow and hard
a lot of their customers backing
to turn
out. 0 nto
MR. PALING-Yes. When I drove in there today, I nearly had to
back onto the road again to get out of there, and how much of
your land is going to be available for access when you finish,
because there wasn't much available today. How many feet from
the side of your building to your property line?
MR. RANDALL-On the east side?
MR. PALING--Yes.
MR. RANDALL-I have 37 feet from the building to my property line.
MR. PALING-Thirty-seven feet.
That's tight.
There would be no buffer there.
MR. BREWER-So what, essentially, you're asking for is another
curb cut?
MR. RANDALL-There is no curb there.
MR. MACEWAN-Well, a curb cut just means another ingress/egress
access.
MR. RANDALL-Yes. A main entrance here with an in and an out,
side by side, in and out.
MR. MACEWAN-I don't think that's allowable, is it? We don't have
enough footage.
- 44 -
---
'\...,/
-'
MR. BREWER-Facing the building, you want to bring your cars in on
the left?
MR. RANDALL-On the left, yes, customers, yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, and then on the right, the paved driveway,
that's just?
MR. RANDALL-It's existing.
(lost word).
We'd probably use it for our own
MR. BREWER-So really, then, he's asking for another curb cut.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Staff would like to see you get a combined,
if you get together with that Battery Shop and have one parking
area for the two businesses there, have a shared parking area
with one access to that parking area. I think that would be the
best. That way the Battery people have room to turn around and
you've got one curb cut and
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. There's really no curbs there at all.
MR. HARLICKER-There's no curb, an access point.
MR. BREWER-I was under the assumption that the paved driveway
would be the access to the building. Maybe that's the way I read
the plan.
MR. RANDALL-No. The paved driveway is probably maybe eight foot
wide, and I don't really think that it would be advisable for the
public to be using it, to make that turn around the building.
MR. BREWER-I think what may happen is if we get customers, or
whatever, maybe not, they may try to use that.
MR. MACEWAN-What is the business going to be used for?
MR. PALING-It's very foreboding looking.
entice anybody to use it, I think.
It's too narrow to
MR. MACEWAN-What's your business going to be used for?
MR. RANDALL-Promotional and specialty advertising.
MR. MACEWAN-Do you expect you'll have a high traffic flow?
MR. RANDALL-No. I would say maybe two cars at a time. There may
be a time where it will be sitting there for four hours without a
car in it, and at one time you might have six.
MR. PALING-Would you have any trouble with a conditional
approval, the condition being that you would work out a deal with
your next door neighbor to make this a common drive with common
access to both businesses?
MR. RANDALL-How are you suggesting I do that?
MR. PALING-To go over and talk to him.
MR. RANDALL-I understand that.
common?
In what manner, making it a
MR. BREWER-So you both use the same driveway.
MR. OBERMAYER-So you have one driveway, one access point.
not all open. So you kind of limit where your.
It's
MR. MACEWAN-I think the better idea is for him to talk to that
neighbor first and find out what's going to happen, if he's even
willing to do it, before we give any kind of approval.
- 45 -
MR. PALING-Well, that's what I'm saying. I think the best way
would be if it was a common drive, allowing easier turn around
for both the Battery guy'S customers and yours, too, but if yoU
can't work that out, where you share it, then I don't know, we've
got a different kind of a problem, but it would be best if you
could.
MR. RANDALL-Okay. The only input I've got from my neighbor is,
the first time he said he didn't want any of our construction
trucks driving over on his property because the salesmen came in
and cut across the lawn onto their parking spot, and he asked us
not, to.
MR. PALING-Well, this would have nothing to do with construction
trucks.
MR. RANDALL-Well, he didn't want any vehicles driving onto his
property. So we got a bad feeling the first time, but then last
week, the younger, I believe it's the owner's son, came over,
with the letter from the Town of Queensbury saying that he had
called up here and gave his approval, because he felt somebody
would complain, and he wanted us to know that it wasn't him.
MR. BREWER-I guess what we're saying is, can yoU
kind of a, rather than just showing us this
arrows, showing us some kind of a drawing effect.
work out some
here, with the
MR. RANDALL-The arrows were to show the grade of the.
MR. OBERMAYER-Of the pitch of the pavement back to the.
MR. BREWER-That's
foot driveway, or
maybe next week
driveway, and the
from Main Street?
why I assumed you were going to use this eight
whatever it is. Could you show us on a plan,
if you come back, that distinguishes your
circulation as to where they're going to go
MR. RANDALL-Originally what I wanted to do was, where
arrows are, where it says 38 Main, there, I wanted that to
in and out portion, and that all be paved area, cars come
park the other way, but I was informed that.
those
be the
in and
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, perpendicular to the building. Right?
MR. RANDALL-Right, because I feel, okay, that's originally what I
wanted to do, and that's how I showed it, and then I was informed
that I need 40 feet in order to do that, and I only have 37. So
if tr'le par king was diagr ammedthis IrJay.
MR. MACEWAN-What is the requirement for parking spaces for this,
three?
MR. HARLICKER-Six.
MR. MACEWAN-He needs six. He doesn't show six, though.
MR. BREWER-Yes, he does.
MR. OBERMAYER-One, two, three, four, five, six.
MR. HARLICKER-Well, he's got the three on the side, the garage,
one behind the garage, and then another one behind the house.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-I don't mean to keep changing on you, but is, you show
one, two, three, is that where it drops off in the back?
MR. RANDALL-Beyond the house.
- 46 -
'-
''"--''
-....../
MR. BREWER-So you have enough room, if the car were to go beyond
that line, he wouldn't just go off the edge, right?
MR. RANDALL--I will need, it slopes down, and there's like a small
(lost word) wall there, and it slopes down there. I would
probably need, I'm going to need fill anyway to level that, and
I'll probably fill out further and landscape it that way. It
wouldn't just be a cliff.
MR. BREWER-Right. Well, I saw the retaining wall.
asked that.
That's why I
MR. RANDALL-Right.
MR. BREWER-I think for me, if he could show us a driveway that
works, why does he have to have a two lane? There's plenty of
businesses around here that have one lane in and out.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Why does it have to be a 20 foot access lane?
MR. HARLICKER-The zoning code requires it, a 20 foot access aisle
fOì- paì-king.
MR. MACEWAN-Isn't there something in the Ordinance, too, about
distance between driveways? There's a requirement for that I'm
pretty sure.
MR. HARLICKER-That's why I was looking for the shared access,
because you ran into the problem, the same thing with McDonald's,
150 feet.
MR. OBERMAYER-These lots aren't even that wide.
MR. BREWER--It would be !!!Z guess if you close that eight
driveway off, and just moved your entrance and exit onto
side, and made it, can we waive the 40 foot thing, Mark?
foot
this
MR. SCHACHNER-Not if it's part of the zoning law, no.
MR. HARLICKER-Zoning code. No.
MR. SCHACHNER-That's an access thing, but the separation on
driveways, if I'm understanding the situation, we have existing
lots with existing driveways such as they are. I mean, they're
not that clearly defined, if I'm understanding it. So I'm not
troubled by that, but the 40 foot access aisle requirement,
that's part of the zoning law. So we don't have the ability to
waive that.
MR. BREWER-You mean if he was to put a business in there right
now, he has to have 40 foot wide to?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, what's the situation?
MR. HARLICKER-Twenty feet for parking and then a twenty foot
access way.
MR. OBERMAYER-Unless he gets a variance.
MR. BREWER-He's not going to park there, though, in the driveway,
so to speak. He's going to drive back to a lot and have six
spaces, and allow for turnaround room in the back, and let the
customers come out the same way they came in, as though it was an
existing driveway.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay, but what happens when, you need to have room
for two cars to pass. I don't think it's safe to have one car
waiting there to pullout and another car waiting in the street,
waiting for this guy to pullout before he can pull in.
- 47 -
~
MR. BREWER-All right. Then take this scenario. Suppose he
didn't offer us this here. he had that existing, eight foot wide.
Could we stop him?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. The existing stuff, he's okay.
MR. BREWER-So what's the difference, if he just moves it over to
the other side and makes it 12 foot or 15 foot wide?
MR. HARLICKER-Well, if you're going to make him move it over, you
might as well make it safe.
i"1R. SCHACHNER-Well, not onl y that, but once it's a new access, as
opposed to the existing access, it is supposed to comply with
Code, or get a variance, as somebody said.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I said, why can't you get a, if he needs to,
then he can get a variance.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but if he got, I'm just trying to think of an
easy way for him to do it.
MR. RANDALL-I think the problem is going to be, people park
wherever they want anyway, just like they do at Cool Beans.
Nobody parks in those little spots. Everybody parks the other
~"'ay .
MR. BREWER-If he was to gain 20 foot of his property, and the
other property, would that be allowed? If he was to give us 20
feet of his property, or whatever the number might be, and he got
common access from the next door neighbor, does it still have to
be 40 feet? We can't require the neighbor to give us 20 feet.
Can we?
MR. MACEWAN-No. He needs to go back and see his neighbor and see
if he can't work out some sort of accommodation with him. That's
the first thing.
MR. HARLICKER-I mean, I think it would be to your neighbor's
benefit.
MR. MACEWAN-I mean, the second thing, if it can't be worked out,
then he would probably have to approach the ZSA about getting a
variance so that he can make a llitl::!. driveway, because the old
one's not going to work.
MR. HARLICKER-Well, the alternative, like Tim said, is to move
that eight foot driveway, close that one down, have your entrance
on the east side of the house.
MR. MACEWAN-But even then he doesn't have enough room to do it,
if he doesn't get the neighbor's approval to join forces. He
doesn't have the setback requirement, right?
MR. RANDALL-I understand I only need the 40 foot if I were to
park the other way.
MR. MACEWAN-No, because if you abandon your existing driveway,
the new driveway that you'd build on the other side of the house
has to be the Code. The Code would not allow you to have enough
parking spaces, with the area that you have now, without a
variance. Is that right?
MR. RANDALL-Why do I need to abandon the existing driveway? Why
can't I use that for private?
MR. MACEWAN-Because another Code says you can't have any
driveways within 140 feet of each other.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but that's crazy, though, when you have a 75
- 48 -
--
-..../
-
-......./
foot lot.
MR. MACEWAN-But one driveway's existing.
be.
One driveway wouldn't
MR. OBERMAYER-That means every other house can have a driveway.
MR. MACEWAN-Well, that's the problem that you have when you have
an area that was residential 50 years ago, that's gone
commeì"cial.
MR. OBERMAYER-You're absolutely right.
MR. RANDALL-The east side is a separate lot. Does that come into
effect?
MR. PALING-The east side is a separate lot?
MR. RANDALL-It's a 25 by 150 lot.
MR. PALING-It is?
MR. OBERMAYER-This is a 25 foot lot right here?
MR. RANDALL-Yes, it is.
MR. HARLICKER-So what you've got is two lots.
MR. MACEWAN-Let me ask this question. Do you own the parcel?
MR. RANDALL-I own both as one.
MR. MACEWAN-Now it's one parcel then?
MR. RANDALL-They were sold together and I bought them together.
MR. MACEWAN-And are they deeded, still, as two separate parcels,
or are they now currently deeded and filed as one parcel?
MR. 08ERMAYER-You have two lots? You have two tax rolls?
MR. RANDALL-Yes, I have.
MR. OBERMAYER-You get two tax bills for it?
MR. RANDALL-It's one bill, but it's stated separately. It says
the assessed value of the empty lot and the assessed value of the
property. It's listed here. It says tax map no. 26 and 27.
MR. PALING-We've got two lots here.
MR. OBERMAYER-Well, then he has every right to access the second
lot.
MR. STARK-If you have a lot that's 25 foot wide, how can you have
a 40 foot?
MR. MACEWAN-You still can't,
setback requirements on it,
scenar io.
because you still have to have
which probably even worsens the
MR. RANDALL-The other half of that lot, the Battery Shack owns
it, and that's their part.
MR. MACEWAN-The other half of it?
MR. RANDALL-Apparently, we have 50 that we're on. The Battery
Shack has 50 their on. There was 50 in between, and that was
divided, and the Battery Shack, their 25 is the parking lot.
- 49 -
',-,
,--'"
MR. PALING-Are you telling me that the 25 foot lot is the one
that's next to the Battery guy?
MR. BREWER-Fifty foot.
MR. RANDALL-There's a 50 foot lot between us that was divided.
MR. PALING-Yes, and you got 25 and they got 25.
MR. RANDALL-Yes.
MR. PALING-So you're telling me the 25 foot lot
50 foot lot is on the right, where the house.
the 50 foot lot.
is here, and the
The house is on
MR. RANDALL-The house is on the 50 foot lot.
MR. PALING-So this is a 25 foot lot here. This is 25, and this
is 50.
MR. RANDALL-From the handicapped ramp, I believe, from the side
of the house is probably 37 feet to the property line.
MR. PALING-Across the other lot.
MR. BREWER-Why don't we recommend that he go back and talk to his
neighbors and see if we can get an easy solution out of this?
MR. MACEWAN-I think that's the wisest thing to do, first. That's
the easy way out. If your neighbor's willing to agree with you
to have a common shared driveway for your parking area, that
solves all your problems.
MR. RANDALL-Where would that common entrance be?
MR. MACEWAN-Probably right on the property line would be the most
common occurrence where people put them.
~1R . RANDALL --He already has his. His is paved across.
MR. BREWER-To your property line?
MR. RANDALL-Probably within three or four feet.
MR. BREWER-So then you just add on to his entrance, is all you
do.
~1R. PALING-You pave up, match, and butt up agai nst his pavement.
MR. BREWER-Match up against his pavement, and then that creates a
common driveway, and then he's safe, correct?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-You have 10 foot on each side.
have 10.
He has 10.
You
MR. MACEWAN-What about setback requirements?
requirements don't apply for driveways?
Setback
MR. BREWER-That's preexisting.
MR. MACEWAN-No. No, that's not preexisting.
MR. BREWER-This driveway over here is, Craig.
MR. MACEWAN-Not for his parking that he's putting in for his
customers over there at the Battery Shack. That wasn't
preexisting. That's what he's referring to, where he said that
he paved up to within three feet of the property line. That's
- 50 -
~'
----.
---
---./
where the Battery Shack paved a parking area for their customers.
Right?
MR. PALING--Yes.
MR. RANDALL-Correct.
MR. MACEWAN-That is not a preexisting. He's within three feet of
the property line. My question is, how did he get away with it
wi thout .
MR. HARLICKER-We don't have a setback requirement for parking on
that small a lot. On lots of 150 cars or more, there's a five
foot buffer zone on the parking area. For lots smaller than
that.
MR. MACEWAN-So are we in agreement that the best solution that he
should do is talk to his neighbor, see about having a common
drive serve the two parcels and him pave up, butt up to that
other parking lot?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, 10 foot each side.
MR. RANDALL-Our concern is on having, they already have a fairly
wide entrance, and I saw somebody turn around there today. Our
concerns on that would be people using that as a turn around
area, .
MR. PALING-They would.
MR. RANDALL-That's why we'd like to leave their small entrance
portion alone and put our own there.
MR. MACEWAN-You can't. Currently, you can't.
enough area to work with to do that.
You don't have
MR. RANDALL-How much area do I need there?
MR. MACEWAN-More than you've got.
MR. BREWER-If you could come up, on this line here. If you were
to pave right here, on your lot, butt up against his, then you
create his parking area, to get into yours. You'd leave that
alone as it is. Okay. Then you come in here and you create your
parking and place you want. You can do it like that if you want
to. Then your customers, well, I don't know how you can, maybe
you can design it and have them park this way. I don't care.
Whatever way you feel comfortable. Have them park here.
MR. RANDALL-Well that's, originally, what I wanted. I understood
that I needed 40 feet.
MR. BREWER-You don't have 40 feet. How can they make you have 40
feet if you don't have it?
MR. RANDALL-Right. That's why they had me park this way. That's
how I'd like to park, or perhaps diagonally.
MR. PALING--Well, diagonally would mean that they'd back out, then
have to come around.
MR. BREWER-Do it this way. Can we do this, Mark? If he had a
common driveway, could he come in this way, right here, with the
common driveway, and park up against the building?
MR. OBERMAYER-That's the only way it makes sense.
shows it right now doesn't make any sense.
The way he
MR. RUEL-You need 40 feet. You only have 37.
- 51 -
MR. HARLICKER-You need a 20 foot access aisle to access parking
spaces.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So if he
neighbor, and has a common
There's his 20 feet.
borrowed 10, so to speak, from
driveway and comes out 10 feet
his
here.
MR. RANDALL-Scott, didn't I only need the 40 feet if I were to
park this way?
MR. HARLICKER-In order to get to the parking spaces, you need to
have a 20 foot wide drive lane.
MR. RANDALL-Okay. I have that the way it is set up now.
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. PALING-But how deep is the parking space, then?
to add the two.
You've got
MR. HARLICKER-Nine by twenty is a parking space.
MR. PALING-Twenty and twenty are forty.
MR. OBERMAYER-It's two issues that you're dealing with. One is
access off of the road, that you don't have that. We don't want
to give you another access. We'd rather have a shared access and
the other one is the 20 foot road, really, internally, so that
you have, can park. Is that true?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-So two cars can pass each other.
MR. OBERMAYER-So
that's not going
three cars. It's
both sides. So
practically.
two cars can pass, even though, realistically,
to happen. I mean, really, he's talking about
not like you're going to have moving traffic on
maybe we ought to think this a little more
MR. HARLICKER-Unless he gets a variance, he needs to have the 20
foot aisle to service these parking spaces.
MR. MACEWAN-That's why we have a book.
MR. BREWER-There's a way out of it. How wide is it from here to
your property line, from your building to your property line?
MR. RANDALL-On the right hand side? Maybe 10 feet.
MR. PALING-Well, lets see. That's the building. It's a little
over that, probably about 11 feet, is what it scales to, anyway.
MR. BREWER-The easiest way out of it is use that for your
entrance and let them come back here, park and turn around. Then
there's nothing anybody can make you do but use that.
MR. PALING-You mean use it as a one way, make this a one way
street?
MR. BREWER-No. That's preexisting. There's nothing we can do
about it. That's all he's got. If he uses that for his entrance
to his business, let him come back here, park and come back out
the same way they came in, I mean, then it's done.
MR. PALING-Okay, but cars will then.
MR. BREWER-How long is the driveway? The driveway's not, what?
MR. MACEWAN-The driveway's quite long.
- 52 -
--
'--" --"
MR. PALING-It's long. It's 60 feet anyway.
MR. HARLICKER-To the back of the house, it's 70 feet, 70 plus
feet.
MR. OBERMAYER-Why couldn't he have one way, come in one side and
go out the other one, share the other driveway?
MR. BREWER-Because then you're making him a 175, 200 foot
driveway.
MR. HARLICKER-It's 14 feet from the house to the property line.
MR. MACEWAN-I think, in all rationale, I drive that road every
day. It's difficult enough with cars coming in and out of
driveways, all up and down that stretch of the road. I think it
would be well advised that we make a plan that's going to work
and it's going to be beneficial and it's going to be safe.
MR. BREWER-Well, he's telling us we can't do it with the 20 foot
because he only has 37 feet between lines.
MR. OBERMAYER-Unless he gets a variance.
MR. SCHACHNER-A pretty good case for a variance.
MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, if you get a variance, then you can have
it.
MR. PALING-If you brought one way traffic in from the street, in
your driveway to the garage, and went around behind your building
and parked diagonally to the building, heading out to the street
again, it would seem to be the easiest access, if you could get a
three foot variance then, I think you could do it.
MR. RANDALL-I feel that existing driveway's too narrow. I could
see a traffic problem.
MR. PALING-Well then I think you better go talk to your neighbor.
MR. RANDALL-I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate
what you're saying. I don't like the idea.
MR. BREWER-Well, then you're going to have to talk to your
neighbor and see if yOU can work out a common driveway situation.
MR. RANDALL-Okay. Explain to me what I'm missing for having an
ent,ranee.
MR. HARLICKER-Right in here?
MR. RANDALL-"(es.
MR. HARLICKER-New entrances have to be, I'll show
it says it, right here. It says, access points
feet from the, separation distance, when you
driveway. You can't do that on here. There's
meet that.
you right where
have to be 150
put in a new
no way you can
MR. RANDALL-Okay.
MR. HARLICKER-One way that we're thinking to get around that
would be to relocate, have the existing paved driveway,
essentially close that down, move that over to this parking area,
and then have a.
MR. RANDALL-With the entrance being on the east side, I
feel that anybody would look at that existing driveway
entrance.
don't
as an
- 53 -
'-
MR. MACEWAN-I think another thing to consider here, down the
pike, not too distance future, I believe, in 1996, that entire
road, from the Northway all the way down to the City line, is
going to be revamped and it's becoming a three lane road, which
is further going to cut into the amount of property you have off
~1ain Street.
MR. RANDALL-I have looked into that. The engineering's supposed
to start in '96. It's proposed for '99, if they've still got
money left to do it. It's to my understanding they're going to
take the opposite side of the street, the sidewalk side. Our
side doesn't have a sidewalk. The other side (lost word).
MR. MACEWAN-The information that we had received was they were
swi ng to take equal portions on both sides.
MR. BREWER-Who knows, in 1999?
MR. MACEWAN-But, you know, that's something that's on the books
that we have to consider, too, the probability that that would
probably happen.
MR. PALING-I don't think we're moving any further
does get an agreement with his neighbor, then he's
up against the neighbors driveway, pave up against
going to have any reason to turn him down, or is he
able to go ahead with it?
ahead. If he
going to butt
it. Ar e IrJE"
going to be
MR. OBERMAYER-Is he going to still need a variance?
MR. HARLICKER-For what?
MR. OBERMAYER-For the 20 foot strip?
MR. BREWER-No. He can do
He's just got to get in
area.
the 20 foot strip. He's got 37 feet.
there with his neighbor on his parking
MR. PALING-Now that's okay if he does it, and comes back to us,
then he's okay, right?
MR. HARLICKER-Having the parking like it is and just coming in
fr"om?
MR. PALING-Yes, coming in on
building, and we would assume
against his neighbor's paving.
his, the left hand side
he would pave, or somehow
of his
butt up
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. PALING-And they would both use the lot to entrance and exit,
and park up against their respective buildings, and he can get an
approval, because every other way we've tried just isn't working.
MR. PALING-So I don't think we really need carry
that what we're saying is you've got to go work
with your neighbor, or you may be stuck.
it any further,
something out
MR. RANDALL-Okay. How far from my east property line back can 1
pave from the road? You're saying you could come in on one
person's property and exit on the other person's property.
MR. PALING-Well, you'll both be e:dting on the, you'll both be
using the other person's property, at least to turn around.
MR. RANDALL-Okay.
MR. PALING-And you would want the paving to butt, so there would
be no spacing between.
- 54 -
'--'
~
',,--
-..-"
MR. RANDALL-Okay. What I'm asking is.
MR. MACEWAN-He's paved within three feet of his property line.
You need to pave up to your property line and ask him if it's
okay if you pave his three feet for him.
MR. RANDALL-Okay. That would be right here. So I'd just pave to
here. Okay. Now he has, this is like his empty lot, that's all
paved, and then it's paved in front of his building. So he has a
lot of pavement. The whole front portion of his property is
paved. What I'm asking, okay, I want to pave over, this is paved
to here.
MR. PALING-You want to pave over to there.
MR. RANDALL-Okay. How far this way?
MR. PALING-How close to the street, are you asking?
MR. BREWER-It doesn't necessarily have to be paved. It could be
stone. Can't it?
MR. PALING-Yes. It doesn't have to be paved.
MR. RANDALL-Can I do this is, I guess, what I'm asking?
MR. BREWER-Twenty feet.
MR. RANDALL-From my property line, I can go twenty feet, and then
come in, and then pave over to the building and leave all this
screened?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I think that's good.
MR. PALING-But you've got to get your neighbor to agree to it,
because we don't require you to pave.
MR. RANDALL-This is something I want to do.
MR. PALING-Fine.
MR. RANDALL-Okay.
okay, I pave this
t.his way.
So he says, it's not a big deal if he says
three feet for him, and then I go twenty feet
MR. BREWER-Well, lets make sure we tell him what he's got to do
before he comes back and makes all these plans.
MR. RANDALL-I don't want to rely solely on his property for in
and out of mine.
MR. OBERMAYER-See, he's not using his neighbor's property at all
right now.
MR. BREWER-What he wants to do is come over here 20 feet, go up,
and park in here.
MR. PALING-Well, he wants to pave from where the neighbor left
off here, which is three feet to his property line, then go
another 20 feet.
MR. BREWER-Seventeen feet, or whatever, twenty feet.
MR. PALING-And then back.
MR. OBERMAYER-But then they're not sharing any of the access.
MR. RANDALL-Well, if I had a car coming in.
MR. PALING-Why don't you pave the whole thing?
- 55 -
""'---
MR. RANDALL-That's what I want to do.
MR. PALING-Well, go ahead.
like you to do, is from.
That's what we're telling you we'd
MR. BREWER-You've got to know if he can, though, Bob. Can he do
that section, Scott? Can he do that ten foot section, or twenty
foot section, so he can get into his business?
MR. HARLICKER-You're saying have the driveway to here, this heì"e
will be green, that'll be green, that'll be green. You'll have
your shrubs going across the front there. You'll have access
goi ng, inhere.
MR. RANDALL-I had twenty feet of my own, but if there were a car
coming in or out here, he'd be able to get by here.
MR. BREWER-Pass each other.
MR. HARLICKER-Why not just, if you're going over to his property
line, why not just do ten feet, and then you'd have ten feet over
there. Why do you need to have, you know, you've got twenty.
MR. RANDALL-I asked how much I could have, and somebody mentioned
twenty, and I'd like to get all I can.
MR. HARLICKER-Twenty feet total.
MR. RANDALL-Because I don't want to rely, when it comes to snow
removal, or what not, I don't want to rely on my neighbors
property, or if he sold his and somebody else came along, or if
anything, I don't want to have to rely too much on my neighbor.
I'm more than happy to pave up to his lot, versus leaving a strip
of green looking sidewalk down the middle, ,and I'd be glad to do
it for him, but I just don't want to have to rely.
MR. OBERMAYER-What you're asking for is another access point,
really, that's the bottom line.
MR. BREWER-But he's tying it in to his neighbor's.
MR. OBERMAYER-But he's blending into his neighbor's.
MR. RANDALL-I don't have enough of my own, so it would be butting
against his. So if there were a car in and out at the same time,
the lots would be connected.
MR. MACEWAN-By only using 10 feet of your property.
MR. BREWER-No. He's going to use more than 10 feet.
MR. OBERMAYER-He's going to use 20.
MR. MACEWAN-As an access off the main highway?
MR. BREWER-Via his neighbor's driveway.
MR. STARK-Ten of his and ten of the neighbor's.
MR. BREWER-Right. Lets try that, see if the 10 and 10 agree. If
you can get an agreement with him that 10, that you're allowed to
use for your customers, if you're allowed to use 10 foot of his
driveway, or whatever, and you add 10 to it, that gives you the
20. See if you can get an agreement with him like that.
MR. RANDALL-I guess my question is, what if he says?
MR. BREWER-If he says no, then probably the best route for you to
go is get a variance.
- 56 -
'--
--
"
--
~-
MR. OBERMAYER-Right, to get a variance.
MR. PALING-From the Zoning Board.
MR. RANDALL-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's the best way to go anyway, really,
to minimize your headaches down the road.
MR. PALING-Thirty-seven, you're asking for three feet.
MR. RANDALL-Okay. I have 37 feet from here. What I wanted to do
is have a 20 foot entrance, come in like this, and then pave to
the building, then like this. It could just be 20 foot over to
here, as somebody mentioned, and leave this all green.
MR. BREWER-No. We'd prefer it to come only over here 10, and 10
of his.
MR. RANDALL-Okay.
MR. BREWER-That's the best scenario.
MR. RANDALL-That's my Number One priority.
MR. MACEWAN-If he should say no, then your next recourse is to go
to the ZBA and ask for that variance, and we would be more than
happy to send copies of tonight's minutes to the ZBA, to bolster
your case.
MR. RANDALL-Okay.
MR. BREWER-All right. One other concern that I had, Scott, is
the parking space number four over the top of the septic?
MR. HARLICKER-Well, the septic is out back.
MR. BREWER-The pipe goes underneath the parking lot, though,
right?
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. BREWER-It's not a good idea.
MR. RANDALL-The existing septic comes out.
MR. BREWER-Out of the back of the house, and you're parking over
the top of it.
MR. RANDALL-It comes out the side. It already goes under the
driveway. The line comes out of the house right here.
MR. BREWER-How come it's shown here?
MR. RANDALL-No. All that showed was the distance from the house.
MR. BREWER-All right. Okay. So where does the line go?
MR. RANDALL-Apparently, it comes out like this. It was in, when
we purchased the property, that was one of the requirements, was
for them to show us the location of the septic tank.
MR. BREWER-Can I ask a request, please? When you
could you give us another map showing your driveway
us where the line is for the septic?
come back,
and showing
MR. RANDALL-I don't know where the line is for the septic.
MR. BREWER-Or move this parking space away from the line, if it,
in fact, might be there.
- 57 -
MR. RANDALL-The line, it's existing.
it's moved.
It goes out here, okay,
MR. BREWER-All right. Just erase the line.
MR. PALING-All right, then, I think with the applicant's
permission we'll table this, I guess would be the right thing to
do, until March 28th.
MR. SCHACHNER-Do we have the applicant's consent on that?
MR. PALING-That's what I'm asking for.
consent, we'll table it to March 28th.
With the applicant's
MR. OBERMAYER-Which is next Tuesday.
MR. PALING-Which is a week from tonight.
MR. RANDALL-And until then, I would be going to my neighbor for
his consent, and I will know next week.
MR. PALING-And then you know if that doesn't work, let us know.
MR. OBERMAYER-If that doesn't work, you need to pursue and get a
variance.
MR. RANDALL-What I want to know is can I have my building permit
for that?
MR. OBERMAYER-No.
MR. BREWER-We don't issue building permits.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, we don't issue building permits.
MR. MACEWAN-Well, that's a question I've got.
brought it up.
I'm glad )/ou
MR. RANDALL-I've been waiting two months.
verbal okays to do structural and framing.
They've given me
MR. MACEWAN-Who's "they"?
MR. RANDALL-Building Inspectors, Building and Codes.
MR. MACEWAN-Well, when I went and I have a notice of all the
construction going on, and I saw that it was on our agenda this
month under site plan review. I asked how could all this
construction be going on without site plan approval, and I was
told by the Building and Codes Department that it didn't need to
be done because it was a pending site plan approval. A building
permit didn't have to be issued, and I didn't understand that at
all.
MR. HARLICKER-I'm not going to wade into that one.
MR. SCHACHNER-Me, neither.
MR. MACEWAN-I didn't understand that at all.
MR. RANDALL-They told me I could do structural and framing, and I
called up to see if I could do the roof, which was okay. Like I
say, it was just unfortunate timing. I came up here January 23rd
to plot planning. That was the day I found out about all my
requirements, because I was very mislead by the realtors on what
you can do with what you buy. I thought, you buy it. You own
it. You can do what you want with it, and that's far from the
truth. I came up on January 23rd, and on that day I learned that
I had to be in by January the 24th, which was the next day, to
make the February meeting, and that was absolutely impossible to
- 58 -
',,--
'-
....,.
---
have a site plan, plot plan by then. Thus, I had to have it in
February 21st to make this meeting. So I'd owned the place for
over two months without having a building permit.
MR. MACEWAN-Who told you, from Building and Codes, that it was
okay to do the interior modifications and framing?
MR. RANDALL-They told me I could do structural.
MR. MACEWAN-Who's "they"?
MR. RANDALL-I spoke to, the first person I spoke to, I spoke to
all of, Jim Martin said, it's your house, you can do what you
want. You can't open for business until you're approved. When I
went up to clarify on it, I spoke to Dave, and I spoke to him
again today. I've probably been there at least six or seven
times, spoke to Scott two or three times. I've owned it for two
months. I need to do something. I can't afford to just sit on
it, and apparently Dave had spoken to Jim again to clarify what I
can and can't do, and they said that I can do the framing.
MR. PALING-We'll do everything that we can to accelerate it, but
we've got to, there's certain things we have to abide by, too.
MR. RANDALL-Okay. So it's to my understanding what ~ need to do
is contact my neighbor, and if that, and what I'm looking for, is
to do, from my boundary to his parking lot, and then from my
boundary 10 feet into my lot, back to, say, the corner of the
house, and then pave over to the house, and leave that front area
all green, which I will provide the diagram for that.
MR. MACEWAN-Should you be in agreement with your neighbor for
this common drive idea, bring it in writing, please, his approval
or his consent in writing.
MR. BREWER-And get rid of that line on the back of the house.
MR. RANDALL-That septic line?
MR. PALING-The septic line, if it doesn't exist.
MR. RANDALL-That line that we scribbled over it, all that was was
showing the dimension of, the location, not (lost word).
MR. BREWER-Understood.
MR. PALING-Okay. We have a comment from the public.
MIKE O'CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-Just in case I get behind this application next
month, or next meeting, is t.hat all you're going to require?
You're sending him out, t.elling him to get something signed by
his neighbor like it's a simple thing. Is that all you're going
to require to incorporate that neighbor's land into this site
plan review? I think you're bet.t.er off approving it. on the basis
that he get a variance, tell him to get a variance, approve it.
tonight subject to the condition of the variance being granted,
get it over wit.h. That might be the fastest way he does it.. He
certainly has other options.
MR. OBERMAYER-I agree. I mean, down t.he road, then you
have, you know, you're not int.o any obligations wit.h
neighbor or anything like that.
don't
your
MR. RANDALL-I don't. like being dependent or reliant upon somebody
else.
MR. OBERMAYER-Get a variance.
- 59 -
./
MR. PALING-Then you realize the process you've got to go through,
now, to get a variance?
MR. RANDALL-No, I don't.
MR. BREWER-You've got to apply next Wednesday to be on for April,
the end of April.
MR. HARLICKER-It would tack on an extra month.
MR. RANDALL-Could I be approved contingent to this?
MR. BREWER-But then you still don't have an approval, because you
have to get a variance. By the way, that was an attorney
speaking behind you. I'd get the agreement.
MR. PALING-Take your choice. Which do
want to go for the variance route, or
,¡'our neighbor?
you want to do? 00 you
do you want to go talk to
MR. MACEWAN-Because even if you got some sort of approval from
your neighbor, I'm sure you'd have to have some sort of deed
language that says you guys have common access.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, which really complicates it.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don't understand why he has to pick now. I mean,
it's an either or for the applicant. I don't understand why, I
mean, it's up to you all, but I don't understand why you might be
trying to force the applicant to pick one avenue or the other.
MR. PALING-So we're trying to accelerate the process, is the only
reason I know. I'll back off that, but what are you suggesting?
MR. SCHACHNER-Either way, as somebody just said, there's not
going to be anything you can approve tonight, it doesn't sound
like, either way.
MR. PALING-No. We can't approve anything tonight.
MR. BREWER-We can approve it contingent on.
MR. PALING-On the variance.
MR. HARLICKER-No.
MR.OBERMAYER-No. I don't think IrJe can do that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's certainly not this Board's practice.
MR. OBERMAYER-No.
variance.
We can't approve it contingent on the
MR. BREWER-The easiest way to do it is, whether you like it or
you don't, you have a driveway, use it, and then if you can work
the problem out with the driveway in the future, come back and do
that. I mean, you said to us you're going to have one car, two
cars, maybe three cars. If you want to get on with it, use the
driveway you've got, and then you can putz around with the
variance on the other side. Then you're in business. You can go
tomorrow and do what you've got to do.
MR. MACEWAN-That's complicating the whole thing. I mean, if
you're suggesting that to him, I"m telling you right now, I won't
vote for it, because I don't think his current driveway's safe.
MR. BREWER-If he says to us right now, there's my house. I've
got an access point, it's preexisting, can I open my business, I
mean, it's not the best thing in the world, but it's existing.
He can utilize it. He's going to be a month or whatever building
the building. He can fool around with the variance and get on
- 60 -
"--'
-
',,-
'-
-'
his way.
MR. MACEWAN-I wouldn't lend ~vote of approval to it, because I
don't think the driveway is a safe manner.
MR. STARK-He's not going to be open for a month anyway, though.
It allows him to go on right now, because nobody's going to be
there for a month, so he has time.
MR. BREWER-But he hasn't got a building permit to do anything.
MR. RANDALL-Right, that's my main concern.
MR. STARK-I'm all for that, Tim, okay. He's not going to open
for a month, anyway. He'll have time to get a variance, then, to
go the other way. Nobody's going to be ever using that driveway
anyway, but he'll have his building permit and everything.
MR. BREWER-Exactly.
MR. OBERMAYER-I like that idea, Tim.
MR. STARK-That's a good idea, Tim.
MR. BREWER-I mean, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
MR. OBERMAYER-What we'll do it probably limit your access to just
that driveway until you get a variance, though, just to be on the
safe side.
MR. RANDALL-Yes, well, everybody's been driving allover the
front of that, as is. I think I would like to do what Tim said,
and then in the mean time, that way I could get my building
permit tomorrow, in the mean time, apply for the variance.
MR. BREWER-Then you have your other options.
MR. OBERMAYER-Good idea, and then go the variance route, well,
it's up to you.
MR. RANDALL-And I would also want to contact my neighbor and pave
that three feet.
MR. PALING-I don't think I really understand what you're doing.
You're going to let him access through his existing driveway.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but what I'm saying to you, to speed the process
up for the guy, let him use this access he's got existing right
now. It's not going to be open for a month or two. Then he can
get his building permit. He can do the renovations that he has
to do and still go through with the process of a variance, come
back, will eliminate that, and then he has his 40 feet or 30 feet
or whatever he needs.
MR. OBERMAYER-That's to help out a small businessman.
MR. STARK-Tim, I don't think he'd have to come back.
MR. PALING-That's what I'm afraid of.
MR. STARK-With the Zoning, the ZBA would give him a variance, and
then he'd just have the entrance over there. That's all.
MR. BREWER-And he can abandon it himself.
MR. O'CONNOR-He'd have to come back to modify your site plan
approval.
MR. BREWER-Yes. He'd have to modify, I mean, but that's a real
easy process.
- 61 -
MR. RANDALL-That's fine with me. Obviously, I don't think that
would be.
MR. PALING-All right. Poll the Board. Roger, what do you want
to do? What is your opinion? How do you feel?
MR. RANDALL-I just want to reiterate, I am the owner, and I do
want to do what's best for the place. I want to make it look its
best. I'm not just buying it to rent it, (lost word) to get in
there and get somebody in there to make money as quick as I can.
I own the place, and I want to do what's best for it, and I want
it to look it's best.
MR. PALING-Okay. Roger?
MR. RUEL-On a scale of one to ten, I give it a seven.
MR. PALING-Do you intend to go along with this idea or no?
MR. RUEL-I don't like it, but I'm going to go along with it.
MR. PALING-Tim, I think we know what you've said. Craig?
MR. MACEWAN-No. I won't go along with that one.
MR. STARK-It's fine to help him out.
MR. OBERMAYER-I like the idea, to help him out.
MR. PALING-I don't like it. I think we're kidding ourselves, but
a vote will determine it.
MR. MACEWAN-I think we're pushing too quick here.
trying too fast for a decision.
I think we're
MR. OBERMAYER-Why are we going too fast? I mean, we're helping
the guy out. Why can't we, as Board members, help a guy out?
MR. MACEWAN-I think you're making the situation worse.
MR. STARK-You're not going to be open for business for another
month are you?
MR. RANDALL-At least.
MR. STARK-You possibly could have a variance by then.
MR. MACEWAN-We
he opens up for
back here?
approve this thing, he finishes his renovations,
business. On what pretense does he have to come
MR. BREWER-He doesn't, Craig, but I think his intentions.
MR. MACEWAN-So then does he have enough parking spaces now, and
does he have a safe ingress and egress to accommodate that
business with the driveway that you guys are going to approve
t.onight?
MR. BREWER-For one or two cars, I think so.
MR. MACEWAN-But he's talking, he could have upwanis of six cars
there. He already said that tonight. He could have as few as
none. He could have as many as six. Now what do you do?
MR. PALING-He'll start, immediately, to use the east side of his
building to park on, no matter what we do tonight.
MR. MACEWAN-So it's out of your hands? I think it's a bad idea.
MR. BREWER-So tonight if we tell him no, tomorrow morning, you
- 62 -
'-'
......
-
._-~
think it's going to stop him from?
MR. MACEWAN-No one's telling him no. We were within a heartbeat
of tabling this thing. He was willing to go talk to his neighbor
to see what kind of a deal he could strike up. If not, his other
option is the right option, is to go to the ZBA and get a
variance. We have rules here and we have regulations, and an
Ordinance for a reason, not to circumvent.
MR. BREWER-Craig, the way I look at the plan, when I looked at
it, when I first got it, I thought that's what he was going to
do, honestly, was use that driveway, and I thought that it was
existing. What are you going to do? You can't make him expand
it because that's all he's got.
MR. OBERMAYER-We have the man's honor that he's going to go
throughout, talk to his neighbor and obtain, either talk to his
neighbor or obtain a variance. Have you agreed to that?
MR. RANDALL-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So we need to have a little trust in the
common individual that comes in front of us.
MR. PALING-If he goes to the ZBA and doesn't get an approval.
MR. BREWER-Then he's stuck with what he has, Bob.
driveway that's preexisting, and he has to use it.
He has a
MR. OBERMAYER-That's right.
MR. RANDALL-I would think that showing them what I have and that
I don't have, I've shown them what I want, they would see that it
will be better to do.
MR. OBERMAYER-It's tough for us to say that.
MR. MACEWAN-Trust isn't the issue here, Jim.
MR. RANDALL-What I'm looking for is I've been sitting on this
place for two months. I'm looking for my building permit. I
would love to get the variance or I'd love to work with my
neighbor, but I don't want to wait another week.
MR. MACEWAN-Unfortunately, we're being asked to put a quick fix
on something that a realtor told him was easy doing for him, and
that's not fair to this Board. It's not fair to the Town either.
MR. HARLICKER-You're talking about utilizing a driveway that was
designed for a one car garage, and now you're going to be
utilizing that for a commercial business.
MR. MACEWAN-If I'm not mistaken, isn't there a hedgerow between
your driveway and the people to the west of you as well?
MR. RANDALL-A hedgerow? No.
MR. MACEWAN-Bushes or something like that, that I recall?
MR. RANDALL-No. The back portion, approximately around the back
of !IJ.Y. house, there's a fence from that back.
MR. MACEWAN-My position is, approving this thing tonight with
just that one driveway, you know, for access in there, I don't
think, is wise.
MR. PALING-Well, we've polled the Board.
the Board feels.
I think we know what
MR. BREWER-Well, I don't know that you do now. I don't know what
- 63 -
-
to do.
MR. RANDALL-I'm saying that that would not be permanent, but if
it shows that it would be adequate temporarily, just so I can get
my building permit tomorrow, I definitely want to do it the other
way. I want to get the variance, and if that doesn't work, I'll
work with my neighbor.
MR. MACEWAN-But unfortunately the controlling factor of this
Board is if we give you approval tonight to utilize that
residential portion of the driveway, we have no recourse to bring
you back in here to either set straight the other side, modify
whatsoever. You've been given an approval. You can walk away
and never come back, and that's not right either.
MR. PALING-I know you don't like it, and I don't blame you, but
two months is not a long time in this end of the world. It takes
a lot longer than that to get most of these approvals through.
MR. BREWER-All right. I'll agree with you.
do in a week. I guess I'm out numbered.
wants to get the common driveway, I guess
what you're saying.
Lets see what we can
I don't know. If he
I have to agree with
MR. RANDALL-I wanted to go for the variance.
MR. MACEWAN-Then you need to make an application to the ZBA and
if that's the case, when you come in to file for your
application, ask that the Staff forward a copy of these minutes
to the ZBA, and they'll know what to do.
MR. BREWER-So we're going to table it.
MR. MACEWAN-Right, indefinitely, I would assume, until he gets
his variance.
MR. PALING-Or we can put a date on it.
MR. MACEWAN-No, we can't. We'll just table it until you get your
variance from the ZBA.
MR. PALING-Now, we have to have your concurrence if it's going to
be tabled. We have to have the concurrence of the applicant to
table it.
MR. OBERMAYER-You know what this means, don't you?
MR. RANDALL-No.
MR. OBERMAYER-It means
whatever process you go
for another month or two.
that if you're going to go through
through, you could delay your building
MR. RANDALL-So if I came in in the first place and just said that
I wanted to use this for access to a parking lot on this side, it
would be denied?
MR. BREWER-Can't say that.
really.
We don't know. It wasn't discussed,
MR. HARLICKER-Well, you're discussing it now.
MR. BREWER-Well, I don't know how you can deny it. If that's all
he's got, that's all he's got. For a business for three or four
cars in a day, I don't feel comfortable with it.
MR. STARK-He's going to get on the Zoning for next
mostly likely, you know, for safety factors and
they're going to approve the thing for a lousy three
I can't see them turning it down for three feet.
month, and
everything,
feet, okay.
- 64 -
'-'
--
MR. MACEWAN-No.
hardship.
I think he's got a real good case for a
MR. STARK-So then, you know, he's not going to be open for
business for a couple of months.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but there's no guarantee, George.
MR. MACEWAN-There's no guarantees to anything, Tim.
MR. STARK-He just said he's not going to be open. He could have
come in and said he had 40 feet over there and nobody would have
known the difference.
MR. BREWER-Sure we would have.
MR. STARK-You measured it?
MR. BREWER-It says so right on the map. Somebody would have seen
it, I would hope.
MR. STARK-And that way there it allows him to get a building
permit and get on with his business. This way here, he's going
to be on the Zoning next month. He's going to be sitting there
on the building for a month.
MR. PALING-All right. What do you suggest, that we allow him to
use his existing driveway on the right hand side of the building
as a commercial exit/entrance?
MR. STARK-Why not? That's all he's got.
MR. RANDALL-Just show that it's adequate for now. I don't intend
to use it that way. I wouldn't want to open a business that way,
but I'd just like to show that it's adequate so that I could be
approved to get my building permit.
MR. MACEWAN-But from the standpoint of a site plan, I'll say it
again. It's not adequate. It doesn't meet the safety
requirements that I think we go for, as a Board, for safe ingress
and egress out of that, for more than one or two cars. It's not
set up, it's not designed to be for commercial or business use.
More importantly, if we approve this thing tonight, under those
pretenses, we'll never see you again. Because if we approve a
site plan, we have no recourse to call him back in here to modify
it. We can't do that. We can't go after him and say.
MR. SCHACHNER-That's not exactly true, in that, if the
development occurs that's not within accordance with an approve
site plan, then there's a legitimate enforcement issue, and Jim
Martin can serve summons.
MR. MACEWAN-The point
ahead and do that side
just leave it as it is.
do that other side?
I'm trying to make is now he says, why go
of it and save myself a ton of money and
They approved it. Why should I need to
MR. RANDALL-That's not adequate for my business.
what I do.
That's not
MR. BREWER-So if it's not adequate for your business, then we
shouldn't approve it because it's not adequate? Bottom line. I
mean, I sympathize with what you're saying, but the more you
think about it.
MR. PALING-If we allow something like that, what about safety
regulations, and what about insurance, and that sort of thing?
How are we setting ourselves up if there is an accident or a
fire, or some such, and this is what we approved, an eight foot
driveway, or whatever it is?
- 65 -
',...-'
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, those are the reasons that the site plan
criteria exist. I mean, not that the Town or the Board has any
exposure in terms of actual liability, but those are the reasons
that these criteria exist.
MR. MACEWAN-Have we ever allowed any other business in a site
plan review process an eight foot driveway that can stack up
three cars in it, for a commercial use?
MR. BREWER-You've made your point. Lets not keep beating it.
MR. SCHACHNER-It is an awfully good case for a variance. I have
to say.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, it is.
MR. BREWER-Why don't we give the applicant a tabling. Give him
time to decide what he wants to do. Worst case scenario, he
wants to come back here with a shared driveway next week, then we
can do it.
MR. PALING-He's got that alternative or go for the variance.
MR. BREWER-Go for the variance.
MR. OBERMAYER-Or you could come in, take your chances with the
eight foot driveway.
MR. PALING-Well, I don't think that would fly.
MR. OBERMAYER-What do you mean? You polled the Board earlier.
MR. PALING-Well, okay, maybe.
MR. RANDALL-The ruling on the 150 feet, that's on one lot?
MR. HARLICKER-That's between adjacent, either way.
MR. RANDALL-That's not neighbor's.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. So if you wanted to put, in the past.
MR. RANDALL-I can't say, I have a driveway on one lot, and I want
another driveway on an empty lot?
MR. BREWER-That's the other answer.
Give him a driveway.
He's got a 25 foot lot.
MR. RANDALL-I have a 25 foot lot, and I want a driveway on it.
MR. BREWER-Apply for the driveway permit.
MR. OBERMAYER-So, are you letting us, if we table it, do you, are
you allowing us to table it?
MR. BREWER-Lets table it, explore your alternatives.
MR. OBERMAYER-Options, and then you can make, it gives you a week
to think about your options.
MR. BREWER-Maybe you can get a curb cut for your other parcel.
MR. OBERMAYER-And maybe, in the mean time, you could talk to the
Staff about what procedures you'd have to take to go the variance
route, if that's.
MR. RANDALL-Somebody mentioned to me I'd have to go to the County
to get the driveway permit.
MR. BREWER-That's a County road.
- 66 -
',--,
--'
'--
--./
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, you would need the permit from Warren County.
MR. BREWER-The best suggestion that I could offer you right now
is, do you have an attorney?
MR. RANDALL-No.
MR. BREWER-Then maybe you should talk to one. I'm not kidding, I
mean, that knows about this, and he can direct you some way.
MR. OBERMAYER-As a suggestion, I think you ought to come in and
talk to the Staff, okay, and they can probably tell you what
you're going to have to do, in order to have a new access on the
left hand side, okay. I think that's the smartest way to do it,
for your own interest. So that you come in here and you know
what steps, what logical steps to take, in which direction, and
that's it.
MR. RANDALL-Staff designed this parking.
differently.
I had it designed
MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know what to tell you on that.
MR. PALING-Well, it's just come before us tonight, and, I'm
sorry, but you can't expect us to just react, bang.
MR. RANDALL-I understand.
MR. PALING-I think we better table it for a week, and then if
we've got to do something different in a week, we'll do it, but
the week'll give you a chance to think and talk to Staff, and
then if you want to come back next week, or take some other
appropriate action, we can change it from there, but we do need
your concurrence, if that's what, if you agree to that, we need
your concurrence that you'll allow the tabling, but I think we've
explored it from all areas, and we're really now grinding it into
the ground.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I think one thing that we might want to do,
too, is get an interpretation from Jim. I think the fact that
this is, like he said, it's a separate lot. Does this 150 foot
separation distance apply to this situation.
MR. PALING-Yes. Well that's what he can use the coming week for,
is to do that.
MR. HARLICKER-That's a Zoning Administrator call.
MR. PALING-And I'll get involved with you, too, if you need me,
if I can help at all.
MR. RANDALL-Okay. If I agree, I don't understand what it means,
because I've never done this before. If I agree to table it,
what am I agreeing to?
MR. BREWER-No action.
MR. MACEWAN-Tabling it.
MR. PALING-You're agreeing to no
subject will be brought up again.
brought up again next week.
action for tonight, but the
It's our intent that it be
MR. MACEWAN-You'll be back on the agenda allover again.
MR. PALING-See, otherwise we have to vote aye and nay, and I
don't think you want us to take that route.
MR. RANDALL-Okay. I understand.
- 67 -
MR. PALING-No. It's being postponed for one week.
MR. SCHACHNER-Now speaking of postponing, you have a public
hearing on this scheduled for tonight. So to avoid problems of
renotification or anything like that, do you want to open your
public hearing tonight?
MR. PALING-All right. Then I'll open the public hearing now for
anyone that would like to comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. PALING-Then we'll leave the public hearing open.
We have the applicant's concurrence that we'll table
plan no. 9-95 until March 28th?
All right.
this site
MR. RANDALL-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-I'd like a footnote to this whole nightmare. I'd
like someone from Staff here next week at our meeting, preferably
Mr. Hatin, to explain to us how all this construction could have
taken place without a site plan approval, or a building permit.
Have you been by there? There's a lot more than just a new roof
or a window here and there.
MR. PALING-You've got to have building permits for that.
MR. MACEWAN-We're talking extensive construction going on over
there. No fault of the applicant. I want to make that clear.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 9-95 GARY & VALERIE RANDALL,
Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded
by George Stark:
Until next week.
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. PALING-All right. I may see you during the week, and we'll
see you next week anyway.
MR. RANDALL-Thank you.
MR. PALING-Are we at Hudson Pointe, now? Hudson pointe.
HUDSON POINT PHASING PLAN MODIFICATION
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I'm
Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. With me
is Alan Oppenheim. We represent the developer. This Board has
given final approval to Phase I of Hudson Point. In the
approval that this Board has given, Phase I road system ended
right here and did not include this turn around on a portion of
Sherman Island Road. In discussing with the Town Board the
process for abandonment and their desire to keep open the balance
of Sherman Island Road until the other phases of the development,
it was agreed that we would bring a Phase I road over to connect
onto what will then be the remainder of Sherman Island Road. We
will abandon this portion here, which will dead end Sherman
- 68 -
~
--,'
""--
-....../
Island Road with this turnaround, so that there will be no impact
on the existing neighborhood by Phase I.
MR. MACEWAN-What is the logic with their concern of wanting to
leave that portion of Sherman Island Road open?
MR. O'CONNOR-Because they are, in the very beginning, taking
title to the pointe, the conservation area, and there would be no
access out to it. Also, there is a concern about keeping this
open on a temporary basis for other access. That's, basically,
all we're asking for by formal resolution. We'd like you to
amend Phase I to include the area as shown in the orange outline
on this map. We have finally obtained Health Department
approvals and everything else. Everything is sitting downstairs,
I think, waiting for signatures. When you approve this change,
we will substitute this as Phase I, and hopefully we can get it
signed and it will be ready to go.
MR. MACEWAN-Will Niagara Mohawk trucks still utilize that road,
or are they still the intent of the original approval to use the
Coffer Dam Road?
MR. O'CONNOR-They will use this road until we get into other
Phases.
MR. MACEWAN-And when you say abandonment of that, what are we
looking at, maybe a couple of hundred foot section of road,
roughly? What does the term "abandonment" mean?
MR. O'CONNOR-The scale is one inch equals fifty. Abandonment
means that this, right now, is a public highway. The Town will
give that up and we will put a berm in at the end of this.
MR. MACEWAN-Up there where the turnaround is?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Will anything be
the road? Is that covered
like that, or just left?
done to that road, that portion of
over or bulldozed over or anything
MR, O'CONNOR-I think the intention is to leave it. We've had
that discussion a number of times, what will happen to Sherman
Island Road.
MR. MACEWAN-And I think it was made as part of the approval, it
was the Board's feeling that we were going to.
ALAN OPPENHEIM
MR. OPPENHEIM-I would add that, over time, actually the intent,
as sections of the road are abandoned, is to put some topsoil on
ita nd seed it.
MR. MACEWAN-Can we do this with this small section of it right
away? Is there any reason why we can't?
MR. PALING-I thought there was a different agreement about that,
and you are probably much more up to date than I am, I thought it
was going to be abandoned and left, but you say no?
MR. OBERMAYER-I thought it was, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-We've argued that we want to leave it open, and
leave it to the homeowner's association to determine how.
MR. MACEWAN-That was discussed, but that's not what the final
app,'oval was.
MR. OPPENHEIM-Actually what happened is we discussed with the
- 69 -
Michaels Group, and we actually (lost word).
MR. O'CONNOR-That's not in the final approval, Craig. The final
approval does not say that anything will be done to that.
MR. MACEWAN-But it was in discussions up to that final approval.
I mean, if we've got to put it in the approval and re-word it, I
mean, it was left to no one's imagination that that Sherman
Island Road was going to be topsoiled over and seeded.
MR. O'CONNOR-It was not in the approval, and I'm objecting to the
constant twisting. All we have done is come in here, at the
request of the Town Board, to modify the outline of Phase I, to
build another 300 feet of road, with no return to us, to
accommodate their access to the open space.
MR. MACEWAN-I think that you should get something real clear here
real fast that I'm not trying to twist anything around. All I'm
trying to do is elaborate on what was discussed at that time,
Mike. Period.
MR. O'CONNOR-I will stand on this.
we will honor. My recollection of
different than your recollection.
Whatever was approved before,
what was approved before lS
MR. MACEWAN-He's sitting right there saying that they're willing
to do it.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm talking about the formal approval.
MR. OPPENHEIM-Craig, I think what I'm saying is, this was an item
that we did discuss. Clearly, we discussed it at length, and I
think at that point in time, I'm trying to remember. I don't
think it's in the formal approval.
MR. MACEWAN-No. I agree with you. It wasn't put in there.
MR. PALING-I suggest that we leave it alone, that we don't say to
cover, just leave it alone and act on what is submitted. That
will be taken up later on, by us or whoever, and it'll either be
covered or left alone, whatever, but that's no reason we can't go
ahead with what we've got.
MR. OBERMAYER-Well, whatever was in the approval is what.
MR. O'CONNOR-Whatever's in the approval we're willing to abide
by. There may even be an improvement, based upon what the actual
developer wants to do, but I don't want to stand here and act as
though I'm stipulating to something that is not in the prior
approval.
MR. PALING-If we don't do anything about that, it's going to be
what the final approval says anyway, and that's why I'd like to
just take it off and discuss only what's being asked.
MR. O'CONNOR-All you're changing is the configuration of what is
Phase I.
MR. PALING-Will this effect any other traffic, construction
traffic, or will there be any change in that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Not that I'm aware of.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. RUEL-All the modifications are strictly in Phase I.
MR. O'CONNOR-At this point, yes. That's the only approval you've
given us.
- 70 -
'-'
-.-'"
-----
--"
MR. RUEL-Right. I mean, nothing extends into any other phases?
MR. O'CONNOR-Not by that change.
MR. PALING-What is the identifying number of this, Scott? We're
going to have to identify it.
MR. OBERMAYER-The site plan number.
MR. HARLICKER-Site Plan No. 25-94.
MR. MACEWAN-Mike, who's Property Advisors?
agency?
Are they the new
MR. OPPENHEIM-I
Oppenheim, for
involved in the
Pointe.
am, no. The background
the record, and that's my
project and representing and
there is, I'm Alan
Company, and I am
working for Hudson
MR. MACEWAN-So the Michaels Group is not involved anymore?
MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes. The Michaels Group is involved.
going to be the builder.
They a1" e
MR. MACEWAN-The only reason why I'm bringing this up, there's
nothing on file that says that you're an agent acting on their
behalf. You might want to get that signed and put in the file.
MR. OPPENHEIM-Let me do that with Scott.
MR. PALING-All right.
Board?
Are there any other questions by the
MR. RUEL-These changes, then, you will modify the existing plan
to reflect these changes?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-The existing plan has not been signed by Mr. Martin.
We're holding that up. So it won't be really a modification, as
it's signed. It'll be signed in this form.
MR. RUEL-Right. He'd be signing a final one which includes that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-94 HUDSON
PHASING PLAN MODIFICATION, Introduced by James
moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel:
POINTE . INC.
Obermayer who
As submitted on a letter from Mr. Oppenheim, dated March 16,
1995.
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
Can I just update you on two other changes
- 71 -
'-
that have come up? I apologize if I reacted too sharply. We
went through two hours of discussion last night on, I think,
where to put some commas, and I don't think we added anything to
the same project. If you look at the initial overall plan, out
in the Phase V, Lot 90 showed a pedestrian entrance way into what
is going to be the conservation and archeological area. The Town
has worked out an agreement with the Open Space Institute to
manage that. As part of working out that agreement, they have
recommended to not have this second entrance way out to the road
system of the subdivision. They think, potentially, they may
have some parking problems, and whatnot out here, and they're
better off if they have just the one entrance, which will be over
here, and the people will go out, come back to here to a dead end
loop, if you will, and then come back on the same trail system.
So we have incorporated that into this overall map, at this
point. When we bring in the other phases, we will incorporate
that into that. The other issue that we have is that the
operating division of the Niagara Mohawk has decided, like the
neighbors, that they maybe should have had better concern about a
potential secondary access to their facility, as opposed to just
a single access, and we talked to the Town about this. The Town
is happy and welcome to, because they also are talking about a
potential secondary access, and we're talking about an emergency
type access that would be a locked access, but usable for
secondary purposes, in the back of the water plant.
MR. MACEWAN-That's down near where the Coffer Dam Road is, down n
t.hat vicinity.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. When we get all done, and I guess even when
we get into, it probably might even be Phase II. There will be
an easement that will be retained, some place in the area of the
old Sherman Island bed, which will be used for a locked access to
the operating facilities of Niagara Mohawk that are down below.
It'll be, the intention is a secondary access, emergency use
only, and we are probably going to work out some type of shared
agreement with the Town so that they have secondary access to t.he
back end of their new water plant facilities.
MR. MACEWAN-That would end up giving them three accesses, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. I think t.hey only have one to that area right
now.
MR. MACEWAN-You're talking about after everything's all through?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. So that Sherman Island Road won't be used at
all, then, at that point. So that's one access that would be
eliminated, because right now they can use the Coffer Dam Road.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Eventually, Sherman Island Road will be
eliminated for access to the operating facilities of Niagara
Mohawk. There will be a locked easement access for a secondary
access.
MR. MACEWAN-Whatever became of the idea, at one point was talking
about using that road there where the apartment houses are on,
it's a little dead end road.
MR. OPPENHEIM-That, actually, when this
there was only one proposed access shown.
Toad, we (lost word).
project was started,
Instead of using that
MR. MACEWAN-Is there any future idea of possibly going in through
then,:;?
MR. O'CONNOR-If you look, Phase I has got lots that back right up
to that property.
- 72 -
--
~
-
-"
MR. MACEWAN-It's been a while since I looked at the map.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's when they went to the boulevard as opposed to
the single access.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-So those are just two things that we'd just bring to
your attention. Those are (lost word) only. Secondly, Scott, do
we have something on the agenda, or is it on next week's agenda,
to extend the MacDonald's modification?
MR. HARLICKER-There's nothing on for tonight.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We need to extend the MacDonald subdivision
application, perhaps, 30 days.
MR. MACEWAN-Didn't we just do that not too long ago for, like, 60
days?
MR. O'CONNOR-You did, to the end of March, last time, I think.
MR. MACEWAN-Something to do with filing or something.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Health Department's signature.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. That's what it was. You need another 30 days?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. PALING-Well, you'll write us a letter to that effect, and
then we can act on it, I assume.
MR. O'CONNOR-I've asked Jim Martin twice. I would like to have
yOU act on it. I'll write you a letter right now, if you want.
I'd like to see if we could do it, and then not have to come
back.
MR. PALING-I don't have any problem with that.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-What's the reason you need another 30 days?
MR. O'CONNOR-In order to get this incorporated into the package
so it can be signed.
MR. MACEWAN-Do you have a subdivision number for it?
MR. OPPENHEIM-For Southern Exposure.
MR. O'CONNOR-You also were supposed to have on your agenda and I
didn't see on the agenda the Barber subdivision. That has not
been signed yet, has it, Scott, the subdivision up here on the
corner of Tee Hill and Bay Road?
MR. HARLICKER-I don't think it has been.
MR. PALING-It's not on next week, either.
MR. OBERMAYER-No, it's not. I didn't see it on there.
MR. O'CONNOR-We've asked him, I was here last Thursday, and I was
here again, I think, on Monday.
MR. MACEWAN-If you're asking our Chairman, I'm sure he'll see to
it that they're both put on for Tuesday night.
- 73 -
.....-
--,-
MR. PALING-That's the Barber subdivision?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-And Southern Exposure.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Barber subdivision needs to be extended because,
as I understand it, they're still finalizing the road drainage,
modifying what you approved as road drainage, eliminating some of
the catch basins.
MR. PALING-Okay, but tonight you'll just give us one little note.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'll give you a note on both.
MR. PALING-Okay. You want to take a little break and write them,
and we can do some other stuff here. Okay. All right. We can
be carrying on with some other business, here.
MR. HARLICKER-You've got a couple of extensions that you should
act on.
MR. PALING-Okay. Lucas Wilson is the next one I have. Okay.
This is Site Plan No. 12-94, requesting an extension. It was
originally approved on May 3, 1994, and they want to extend it to
when?
MR. OBERMAYER-This was Lucas Wilson, right?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. HARLICKER-That's the one that's going through the court
system right now.
MR. OBERMAYER-That's what I thought. I didn't think we approved
that.
MR. BREWER-Yes, with conditions we did.
MR. STARK-I have a question for Mark. Mark, what does this mean,
this little addendum we got there from Judge Dier?
MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't really mean anything, and the reason is
because both parties made what's called motions for summary
judgement. What that means in plain english is that both parties
said to the court, to Judge Dier, look, the facts are so clearly,
and the law is so clearly in our favor, that you should rule in
our favor without having a trial. Both parties said that. Both
Valente Builders said, hey, this is a slam dunk for us. No need
to have a trial. Rule in our favor. Lucas Wilson's counsel
said, wrong. This is a slam dunk for us. No factual disputes.
No need to have a trial. Rule in Q.!.dL favor. Judge Dier's ruling
is denied both parties motions. He said, it's not so crystal
clear. It's not so black white. There are factual issues that
require a trial. So all he's done is said, I won't decide this
case yet until we have a trial. So, currently that is no effect.
Now, my factual question is, as I recall, your approval said
something like, no building permit issued until some proof of
ownership is submitted, or the court resolves it. So I'm
assuming that the building permit's not been issued.
MR. BREWER-Exactly.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. If that's the case, then Judge Dier's
decision has no impact on your approval. Once he decides it
after a trial, it certainly may, but it doesn't yet.
MR. PALING-Okay. Scott, how long is the extension for, that they
want? I don't find it anywhere here.
- 74 -
"~
--...;
'....-
~./
MR. BREWER-It just says they want an extension.
MR. PALING-Yes, but it doesn't say for how long.
MR. HARLICKER-It doesn't say for how long.
MR. BREWER-According to this resolution that I introduced, with
the help of Mr. O'Connor with the legality of color of title, I
don't know, I mean, he has no idea how long he wants to extend
it.
MR. STARK-How can we approve it, then?
MR. BREWER-I would say I wouldn't want to extend it.
MR. PALING-Could we, like, table that and get a clarification of
the length of time, and then just act on it next week?
MR. SCHACHNER-For what it's worth, Jim forwarded the decision to
me ~",ith, actually, the letter itself. The lette1" I'm looking at
from Lucas Wilson requests that this be on your agenda for next
week, March 28th, not tonight.
MR. OBERMAYER-Right. That's what I say, too.
MR. SCHACHNER-So I don't even know how it got on tonight's
agenda.
MR. PALING-Then I'll scratch it.
it's my mistake.
I have it written in as, maybe
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I'm looking at a March 20th letter. If you
all have a different one, tell me. I'm looking at a March 20th
letter that is very short, has two sentences, and the second
sentence is, please place this matter on your Planning Board
agenda for the March 28th Planning Board meeting, and to tell you
the truth, I wasn't going to read the stuff Jim sent until later,
or next week's meeting, but I happened to have some time, so I
read it.
MR. PALING-Then I think we should
happened. Lets go on to the next
Jim, do you want to read that?
just forget it. Nothing
item, which is Stonehurst.
MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. To the Town of Queensbury, from Van Dusen
and Steves, Leon Steves, Regarding Stonehurst Phase II
modification, Final Stage "Dear Chairman and Board members: On
October 27, 1994, the Board granted final approval of this
subdivision as well as a motion to extend subdivision approval
for signing until March 31, 1995. That date is rapidly
approaching and we are seeking a 90 day extension. If you have
any questions concerning the above, please do not hesitate to
call. Sincerely, Van Dusen & Steves, Leon M. Steves, LLS"
MR. MACEWAN-What's the subdivision number?
MR. OBERMAYER-Subdivision No. 10-86.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-They're looking for 90 days from the end of what?
MR. BREWER-March.
MR. RUEL-March 31st.
MR. MACEWAN-June 30.
MR. OBERMAYER-March 31st to June 30th, right.
- 75 -
'-
MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 10-86 STONEHURST
PHASE II, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by George Stark:
Until 6/30/95.
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel,
Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. PALING-Okay. Now, can we act on their notes?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. One is for, please grant an extension to
5/31/95 for Barber subdivision approval, Loxley Subdivision.
MR. PALING-Okay. Can we make a motion, as read, okay.
MR. MACEWAN-Until when?
MR. HARLICKER-May 31st.
MR. MACEWAN-What's the subdivision number?
MR. HARLICKER-I don't have it at this time.
MR. MACEWAN-It's not important. I just keep it in my notes.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION AS READ, Introduced by James
Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
Until May 31, 1995.
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark,
Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer
MR. HARLICKER-And the other one is, please grant an extension to
4/30/95 for Southern Exposure subdivision modification approval.
MR. OBERMAYER-I'll make a motion to extend, as read, to 4/30,
Southern Exposure.
MR. HARLICKER-Southern Exposure subdivision
approval. It's the McDonald subdivision.
modification
MR. MACEWAN-I was just asking, I couldn't remember why he needed
the subdivision extension for Southern Exposure.
MR. O'CONNOR-Craig just asked me the right question, and I wasn't
focusing on. We're going to file this map, which is going to be
Hudson pointe, and we're ready to file that this week, when we
get the signature. I may not be ready to file that map until
probably the first week of May. We have tentatively set a
closing with MacDonalds for 4/30. MacDonalds will not allow us
file the modified map in the County Clerk's Office until he has
his money in hand.
MR. OBERMAYER-So you want another month?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Could you make it 5/31?
- 76 -
'~
-../
--
'---'
MR. OBERMAYER-Sure.
MR. O'CONNOR-I apologize. You asked the right question, and I
appreciate it. We'd be running hard on the 31st, particularly if
the closing doesn't take place.
MR. MACEWAN-So what's the date you're looking for?
MR. O'CONNOR-S/31, on both.
MR. OBERMAYER-What is the name of that?
MR. O'CONNOR-MacDonald's Southern Exposure subdivision, which as
I call the MacDonald subdivision. I would appreciate 5/31 on
that as well.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
MOTION TO EXTEND MACDONALD. SOUTHERN EXPOSURE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-
83, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved fo)- its adoption,
seconded by Roger Ruel:
To 5/31/95.
Duly adopted this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
Pal i ng
Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mrs. LaBombard
MR. O'CONNOR-I appreciate, very much, your patience with me.
MR. PALING-I have three more items, and first I'd like to read a
letter from Mrs. Phyllis Marvin, addressed to me at the Planning
Board. "I cannot begin to express my distress and frustration in
learning that the Queensbury Planning Board had approved the
Blockbuster renovations for Glen Street. After the uproar over
the monstrosity on Quaker Road a couple of years ago, I think
it's outrageous to have another one hoisted on us. How could you
allow such a plan to be approved? Since we do not have an
architectural review board, the Planning Board is our only
protection. Please refer to Section 179-38, the requirements for
approval. You do have the authority. Now all you need is some
back bone. Please reconsider your approval and try to rescind
it. Someone in this Town has to take a stand for the good of the
Town. You are the only one that can do it. Sincerely, Mrs.
Phyllis Marvin"
MR. RUEL-Can I comment on that letter?
MR. PALING-Yes, you may.
MR. RUEL-All right. Since I've been on this Board, I've spoken
to Jim Martin and other people about the need for either an
architectural review board or a design review board, whatever you
call it. However, when residents object to certain, what they
call "monstrosi ties II or color combi nations, etc., they should
understand that the Planning Board has no power, actually, to
tell them that they can't use a certain color or a certain
architectural motif or whatever, and what people should
understand is that even if you have an architectural design
review board, they usually are only a board to make
recommendations to the Planning Board. They don't have the
power, they're not empowered to actually tell the applicant that
he cannot use certain materials or certain colors. All this
design review board can do is very tactfully speak to the
applicant and explain to them that your neighbors won't like
- 77 -
--'
"-"
certain things, etc., and try to make them understand that if
they're a business, it would help them, rather than hinder, and
that's the only thing a design review board can do, in most
communities. I don't know of any design review board that has
the power to actually tell people how to build a house or what it
should be.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, and what color they have to paint it.
MR. PALING-Some do have such architectural review boards with
quite a bit of power, not around here, but some do have that.
Are there any other comments on this, because I have comments,
but I'd like to be the last. Any other comments?
MR. RUEL-I have a question. What's the status of this Parillo?
Did I miss out on that?
MR. PALING-Lets stick to the subject. What I have is I would
like your approval to send this letter to Blockbuster, okay. The
reason I'm doing it is that I think that this letter expresses
the feelings of a lot of people in this community about the
appearance of Blockbuster, the color tones and combinations.
MR. STARK-It's not Blockbuster, it's the whole Plaza.
MR. PALING-No, Blockbuster paint job, that's theirs.
MR. RUEL-The blue, they're talking about the blue.
MR. PALING-The blue and the white and the yellow, and that's
theirs. Now what I would, and I won't send it unless I have your
approval, but here's what I'd like, we've had comments right here
in this room about that paint job.
MR. RUEL-Yes, and about Grossman's and others.
MR. PALING-Yes, and I would address it to Blockbuster Video, Care
of steve Powers of J.J. Nigro in Albany, NY. Approval of the
Site Plan for the new Blockbuster site on Glen Street was
obtained on, and I'll put in whatever the right numbers and
identification are for that, but the body of the letter is this.
"The color scheme at the present Blockbuster building on Quaker
Road has been the subject of quite a bit of negative community
sentiment. It is felt that the colors and their combination are
too loud and garish, and not in keeping with long standing and
more conservative color schemes used in the Adirondack area. The
fear, now, is that the same color scheme will be chosen for the
new Glen Street location. It is requested that Blockbuster
review any plans for decorating the outside of the new location.
It is hoped that some changes in tone and contrast will be made,
resulting in a more conservative appearance, closer to that of
existing buildings in this area.
MR. RUEL-Okay. Can I comment on that?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. RUEL-We had people here from Blockbuster, and we did comment
about the gar ish, bluish colo)", and they said that this is the
color they use nationwide, and in the South it's very acceptable,
you know, to have the bright awnings, and they said that they
considered this part of their logo, and when that business says
that this is their logo, I don't see how you can change it.
MR. PALING-Easy, you can change it. Now let me comment on that.
Go to Hilton Head, South Carolina and find me one building that's
not painted earth tones.
MR. RUEL-Yes. I know places like that.
- 78 -
'---'
--.--"
'-'/
"'--'
MR. PALING-All right, and there are other communities like this,
too.
MR. RUEL-Yes, but you're not going to do this in Queensbury.
MR. PALING-Why not? Why can't we request them to consider it?
MR. MACEWAN-Before you get up on your soap box, I think the
difference is, between communities like Hilton Head, South
Carolina, and over in portions of Vermont, they have just that,
an Architectural Review Board, which handles that sort of thing.
We don't have that here in the Town of Queensbury, and quite
honestly, I think you'd be laughed right out of town if you sent
a letter like that to a Company that size, when you're trying to
dictate to them what a small handful of people in this community
view as something that's obtrusive to them. The next thing you
know, you're going to say, well, gee, I don't like the colors
that Shop N' Save uses. I think the Golden Arches McDonald's
have are terrible. I mean, how dare that the Aviation Mall uses
a J.C. Penney sign like that. You just can't do that. We don't
have any recourse or precedent to write such a letter.
MR. RUEL-Right. About the only thing you can do is have a board
and have these people come before the Board and talk to them
about it.
MR. MACEWAN-It's been brought up before. We brought up the idea
of an Architectural Review Board, and it's not gone over. No one
wants it, and I think it's kind of like the old adage that the
people were using, i.e. the Town Board at the time, were using
the adage it was kind of like closing the barn door after the
horse is gone.
MR. RUEL-Do you think most of the community doesn't want that
kind of a review board?
MR. MACEWAN-I think a vast majority of it doesn't want it.
Right.
MR. STARK-It adds another layer of approvals, Roger, and people
don't want that.
MR. RUEL-Maybe it doesn't belong here.
MR. MACEWAN-And I think the problem that
compounds it here in this community, is one
it's something that's offensive, is not
person's.
you have, too, that
person's taste, that
necessarily another
MR. BREWER-Suppose they take the blue off it and paint it pink?
Then what do you do, you tell them you don't want the pink?
MR. RUEL-That's bad.
MR. OBERMAYER-It's a matter of opinion. Architecture is a matter
of opinion.
MR. RUEL-Some people like that.
MR. BREWER-Architectural review is if you want to maintain
something like a historic building, something like that.
MR. MACEWAN-I think it should
that there was no one here at
guy was Joe Nigro, and he was
Plaza. No representative was
be noted, just for the record,
that meeting from Blockbuster.
from Nigro Associates, who owns
here representing Blockbuster.
too,
The
the
MR. OBERMAYER-What L think would be a way to do it would be to
write this, the woman back and say that we really don't have that
type of control built into our, and she should forward any
- 79 -
complaints to, and give her the address, and thank you for.
MR. PALING-I have not heard one person comment in favor of the
color scheme at Blockbuster, but I have heard a ton of people
comment negative for it, and I see nothing wrong with pointing
out to Blockbuster that we think they've gone too far. They
don't have to do anything at all.
MR. MACEWAN-I think it's wrong, and I don't think that that's a
position that you, as a Chairman, or this Board, should take to
send a letter like that.
MR. OBERMAYER-The color doesn't bother me that much.
drive by there and it doesn't bother me.
I could
MR. PALING-Okay. I, personally, don't like it, and everyone
I've heard, I've never heard anyone praise it.
MR. RUEL-I don't see anything wrong with sending a letter. I
don't think it'll have much of an effect, believe me.
MR. MACEWAN-I think it's wrong. I think it sends the wrong
message from this Board. This Board represents this community,
not a handful. It represents the community as a whole.
MR. RUEL-I don't think anybody likes that color.
MR. PALING-I think it does represent the community, Craig, very
definitely.
MR. MACEWAN-No, it doesn't. I think more of your personal
feelings are coming into this than anything else. If that woman
was that opposed to that whole plan of that Plaza, then why
wasn't she here that night to voice her opinion on it?
MR. PALING-I can't answer the
She's been in to see Jim Martin.
and I don't know whatever else.
question, but she has written.
She's written to the Chronicle,
MR. MACEWAN-Then why take a stand? Let her voice her opinion.
It's not something that should come from this Board.
MR. PALING-Craig, I'm guilty of agreeing with her, yes, but I'll
say for the third time, or I'll challenge you, has anybody here
ever ¡-",eard it p'íaised, it's a good looking paint job?
I"IR. RUEL -No.
MR. SCHACHNER-This is none of my business, and I don't have any
legal opinion about this, but I can tell you I have heard dozens
of people, in a totally different form, in a totally different
context, I have seen Blockbuster present dozens of people that
said they loved the color. I'm only saying that because you
asked.
MR. PALING-Has anyone else ever heard it praised?
MR. SCHACHNER-I also know people, personally, who think that, as
commercial uses go, that it looks a whole lot nicer than
Grossman's. That it looks a whole lot nicer than Staples. That
looks a whole lot nicer than Rex Supply, and a whole lot nicer
than Long John Silvers, and nicer than McDonald's, and nicer than
another building on Quaker that's a similar color blue. I can't
remember which building it is. I think it's Glens Falls Electric
Supply, has blue and some other color, sort of vertical striping.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. It has a canopy on ,it or something.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, I'm just telling you as a lay person. This
is, obviously, not as your attorney, and my input should not
- 80 -
'-'
~
"-"
'--'
count one whit in what you all decide to do.
MR. PALING-I'm not going to send a letter as Chairman of the
Planning Board unless the Planning Board concurs.
MR. MACEWAN-I don't think it's a position, Bob, the Planning
Board has ever taken in it's history in writing letters like
that, and I don't think we should start the precedent now.
MR. SCHACHNER-Could I add one comment, as your Attorney? My
comment I will add, as your Attorney, as distinguished from the
last comment I made, which is totally irrelevant as your
Attorney, is I'm a little concerned at where you might think
about drawing the line in terms of, you're a Planning Board.
Under State law, you have certain obligations to review, State
and Local law, both, you have certain obligations to review
certain types of applications in certain ways in accordance with
New York State law and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance
and the Town of Queensbury subdivision Regulations. What you're
talking about doing, and this has nothing to do with what I care,
or what I feel or don't feel or others feel or don't feel about
this color or anything else, is really acting like a policy
making body, in sending this kind of letter, in general, and I'm
concerned, legally, not that any, not that there's any exposure.
I mean, nobody's going to sue you for sending this kind of
letter, but I am a little bit concerned about you overstepping
your legal authority or your legal role. Now if you decide to
become, you know, get involved in these policy things, these
subjective opinion related things, then I guess what I would
suggest that you be sure and couch these letters in those terms.
In other words, indicate in the letters, we do not have legal
authority to require you to do things. We're merely suggesting,
as a Board, that you do such and such, and such and such. I,
personally, don't think it's a good idea, only because it's not
part of your statutorily or local law authority to do things like
this, but if you're going to do it, my legal advice is to make
sure and qualify these things, so that it's clear that you're not
trying to exercise legal authority, because you don't have the
legal jurisdiction to make applicant's, you know, paint things,
and I know you recognize that.
MR. PALING-I'd have no objection for a disclaimer.
MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I'm saying.
MR. PALING-That's fine, put it in there, and just add another
paragraph to it. I do think, though, that we're about the only
Board the people can look to for this kind of thing.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, again, I have to, with all due respect,
totall y disagree wi th that. The body, i n ~ opi nion, and I
represent, I think you know, a number of municipalities, but the
policy making body of a town is the Town Board, and the Town
Board is a g)"OUP t.hat £.illl st.ick it.'s neck out, figu)-ative.ly
speaking, and say, our constituents have spoken to us, and asked
us to contact you in this respect. I should also tell you that
it's my opinion, it's my recollection that the Town Board has
already done this with the very Company you're talking about,
because, and I'll say on the record that., another large grain of
salt you should take my comments with is, when Quaker Plaza was
approved, I represented the applicants, not. Blockbuster. I have
nothing to do with Blockbuster. I've never represented
Blockbuster, but. I, at that. time, represented the owners of
Quaker Plaza, and it was known that Blockbuster was a proposed
tenant., and it's my recollect.ion that a previous Town Board, Town
Board, in fact, has very significant dialogue with, I don't know
who because I wasn't involved, but I was lead to believe was
Blockbuster itself. It's t.he question about the coloration of
scheme. I have no first hand knowledge about that. I don't. have
a strong feeling about. this. If you do something like t.his, I
- 81 -
-,
will advise, as your Attorney, to have a very expressed
disclaimer, and I don't just mean in a (lost word). I mean, any
time you, if you're going to start becoming a policy body, and
expressing your subjective opinions, then as your counsel, I'm
going to suggest that you include an appropriately worded legal
disclaimer, so that nobody can misconstrue this as you
overstepping your legal authority.
MR. PALING-I have no objection to that whatsoever.
MR. RUEL-What about writing a letter to the Town Board?
MR. PALING-Well, if we don't take the route I'm suggesting, and I
think I will send it to the Town Board, and I'll tell them that
it was suggested a disclaimer should be put in, which I agree
with, but that the Board voted no, in so far as sending it.
MR. MACEWAN-I think, even if you go that route, too, it should be
a Board decision.
MR. PALING-I'm not sending a letter outside of the Town
government, unless I've got the Board's concurrence.
MR. MACEWAN-If you're going to send something to the Town Board.
¡VIR. BREWER-But
representing us,
if you're sending it to the
I think it should be our opinion.
Town
Board
MR. PALING-No. I'm representing you. If I send it to the Town
Board, I will be representing myself only.
MR. SCHACHNER-As an individual.
MR. OBERMAYER-As an individual.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You can certainly do that. Anybody can do
that, and in that context, I have no concern whatsoever.
MR. PALING-Why would you object to me sending it to the Board in
the name of the Board and saying that you didn't feel we should
do something like that? What's wrong with that? That's what you
said.
MR. MACEWAN-Because I think it's a Board decision, not your
decision.
MR. PALING-You've made the decision that we shouldn't do it, lets
say.
MR. MACEWAN-Right.
MR. PALING-So why shouldn't I say that to the Board?
MR. MACEWAN-Maybe
not going to be
Planning Boa,-d to
Town Board.
I misunderstood you. You said, well, if I'm
able to send this letter on behalf of the
Blockbuster, then I'll send this letter to the
MR. PALING-I will not send this letter out of
unless the Board concurs. So, therefore, I
Blockbuster.
this jurisdiction
don't send it to
MR. MACEWAN-Right.
MR. PALING-What I would be doing is passing along to the Town
Board requesting that they answer it, and I'm going to enclose a
let. ter, !:!!y letter, suggesti ng that this be the IrJordi ng.
MR. MACEWAN-You, Bob Paling, private citizen, or you, Bob Paling,
Planning Board Chairman?
- 82 -
",---,
'---"
'--
"""'/
MR. PALING-That I presented this to the Planning Board, and they
didn't want to do it, and so I'm suggesting that the Town Board.
MR. MACEWAN-As Planning Board Chairman, or as Bob Paling,
resident?
MR. PALING-Probably as Planning Board Chairman.
MR. MACEWAN-No. That's an action that should be decided by the
Board as a whole.
MR. STARK-Bob, why don't you submit it to the Town Board, as a
private citizen, say this letter was sent in. I presented it to
the Board. They didn't want to do anything with it. So I'm
carrying it on my own.
MR. RUEL-It's not that we didn't want to do anything with it. We
couldn't.
MR. PALING-Now, do I have a unanimous no on this thing?
agrees \.Ji t.h me?
No one
MR. STARK-I don't think you ought to do it as the Chairman.
MR. OBERMAYER-I t.hink we're stepping out. of bounds, if we start
to tell people what color they have to have their buildings.
MR. MACEWAN-That's right.
MR. HARLICKER-No to send it out to the public, but what about to
the Town Board?
MR. BREWER-No to send it to the Town Board.
MR. MACEWAN-My position is no to sending it to Blockbuster, and
no to sending it to the Town Board. He can, but not as the
Planning Board, no, that's what I'm saying.
MR. RUEL-You want to hear about letters to the Town Board? I
wrote a letter to the Town Board. The subject had to do with
satellite antennas, and then later I heard from the Town Board,
in a letter telling me that because I stuck my nose into it, that.
when it comes up on the agenda, when this item comes up on the
agenda, that I should abstain from voting.
MR. MACEWAN-It should be noted that you were told by the Town
Board, via the Town Attorney, right?
MR. RUEL-Yes. How do you like that?
MR. SCHACHNER-That's an interesting point. I mean, I hadn't
thought about that, but to the extent, Bob, that you want to do
this as an individual, and I have no trouble wit.h that
whatsoever, it's actually true that if Blockbuster then made an
application to the Board, you would likely have to abstain from
that.
MR. PALING-But that's
Sometimes I have to
That's no problem.
okay.
abstain
I don't think that's a problem.
for various legitimate reasons.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, sure. I would never have thought of that if
Roger hadn't brought that up.
MR. PALING-All right. These are the letters I want to write.
MR. OBERMAYER-So, basically, the Test of the Board agrees that
it's a dead issue, Bob.
MR. BREWER-It's a dead issue.
- 83 -
---
--
MR. PALING-All right. The suggestion has been made, which I
totally endorse, that we attend some other Planning Board
meetings in the area. The first opportunity will be the Colonie
Planning Board on May 2nd, and we're going to go ahead, and this
will have to be advertised as a meeting so we can travel as a
group.
MR. MACEWAN-What's the object
Planning Board meetings?
of attending another Town's
MR. PALING-To learn.
MR. MACEWAN-Learn about what?
MR. PALING-Learn new methods, procedures, how to be gentlemen.
MR. MACEWAN-It comes with experience.
MR. PALING-Okay. The attendance, obviously, is optional, and I
will be asking you later on. May 2nd is the date, and it's going
to be in Colonie, and we'll go down as a group. We º-ª.D.. go as a
group. We don't have to, but we can go as a group because it
will be advertised as a meeting. We're probably going to go to
Clifton Park second.
MR. I~ACEWAN-It would have been a nice idea, one of the most
educational and most useful tools that are available to us as a
Planning Board is to attend some of these Planning Federation
Teleconferences, but, unfortunately, George severed that.
MR. PALING-What do you mean? Who severed what?
MR. HARLICKER-Our buddy Pataki.
MR. MACEWAN-The entire Office of Rural Affairs, effective January
15th, ceases to exist.
MR. OBERMAYER-You could probably get the tapes sent to you
anyway.
MR. MACEWAN-There are some tapes that are available.
MR. PALING-They had a series of Teleconferences here, seven or
eight months ago.
MR. MACEWAN-That's right, but George Pataki's budget cuts, the
Off ice of Ru,' a 1 .
MR. PALING-You didn't attend one of them.
MR. MACEWAN-I've been to everyone of them.
MR. PALING-I was there. I didn't see you.
MR. MACEWAN-Do you want to see the certificates? Are you
questioning me. They're repeated. Everyone who attends them
gets a certificate for attending them.
MR. PALING-All right. The next letter is from Lake George Park
Commission, and they're going to hold a one day spring training
session, covering subjects such as SEQRA update, environmental
assessment, geographical information systems, site plan review,
GIS for Lake George Park, Zoning and variances, scenic vistas and
roadways, regional comprehensive planning, all other planning
subjects. This is on, tentatively scheduled May 5th. It's a
Friday.
MR. BREWER-I can't go the 5th.
MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know if I can go, either.
- 84 -
-
"'-'
---../
'"'-
MR. PALING-All right, that is, if anybody wants to think about
attending that, let me know. The other one is May 2nd. What
I'll do is ask you next meeting who wants to go to which.
MR. BREWER-Why don't we discuss them in April?
MR. PALING-We can do it then, too. Maybe there's going to be so
many we have to get in line and we don't get in. May 2nd is a
Tuesday. These guys meet every week.
MR. BREWER-Can I ask a question now?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Mark, this thing with, I sent you a little note, for
Stoì"ytown.
MR. SCHACHNER-It looks like it'll miss by a day, right?
MR. BREWER-It's done, right?
27th it's technically done.
I mean, if we do it the 28th, the
MR. HARLICKER-You could grant them an extension tonight.
MR. BREWER-That's what my question was.
MR. SCHACHNER-The other thing is, it depends on how
your five years, and there are different ways.
talking about one day to the next.
you measure
When 'lou're
MR. BREWER-I've seen it, though, where one day, and it's.
MR. SCHACHNER-I have, too, but I've also seen it where, as long
as it was the same month, it was considered.
MR. BREWER-I don't care either way, and I would ask if we were
going to do this.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, I take it that the applicant asked to be
put off until next week?
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-So if the applicant asked to be put off until next
week, my feeling is it's their concern, not our concern.
MR. BREWER-I would also ask, if we're going to do this next week,
do we have a map of this thing, to show what they've done and
what they're going to do?
MR. HARLICKER-I think what they were looking for is to get on
more as a discussion item.
MR. SCHACHNER-So they're not even looking for a resolution.
MR. HARLICKER-And then come back in, in April, for a formal.
MR. SCHACHNER-One of the things I would suggest on this is, maybe
just in an effort to avoid more litigation, since we know that
the last thing that they did was litigated. I don't know that
this will be or won't be, but it would be nice to have a map, as
Tim's saying. It would be nice to have an environmental
assessment form that talks about, I mean, even though this is
just a, it's called an extension, but this is not just extending
something a few months. This was an approval issued, as 1
understand it, this was an approval issued back in March of '90
for, basically, a sand and gravel extraction activity to go on
for five years, and I don't know, are they talking about
extending it for a month or five more years? It would be nice to
have some information.
- 85 -
MR. PAL'" 's--~ l, it's my understandi ng¡at they I-<J,'"nt a 30 day
extensiol'- ....0 f3repare fOì-, an explanation-Tor the 1ger requo~~~t
for an exCension, but this one is limited to 30 day'ลก.....:
MR. 5CHACHNER-A short term extension to allow them to
don't think we need more information, if you want to
torm extension. I don't care about that, but I think
to do the long term, the real thing, the long term
that, I think we need a lot more information.
wOY' k . So I
do a short
if you want
thing, for
MR. PALING-Well, they'll be in, will they, Scott? You can pass
that along to them?
MR. BREWER-I still would like to see a map, if I could.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Just to see where the outlines, where they're going to
cut. I mean, who knows, they may come in and ask for the fivo
years.
MR. PALING-They've got to do some pretty extensive map, I think,
to make it right.
MR. MACEWAN-If they come in here next Tuesday, they're already a
day over the clock. They're going to discuss this about their
plans and wanting a 30 day extension to put together a plan for
that, right? So they're going to come back in 30 days. That
extension's already going to be up. We won't be able to make a
decision. We're going to have to give them another short term
extension.
MR. OBERMAYER-Well, that's up to the applicant.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I agree with Jim.
MR. PALING-They were supposed to be here tonight.
help that.
So, we can't
MR. HARLICKER-So you're not going to give them the extension
tonight? You're going to wait until next week?
MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Next week.
MR. HARLICKER-As Mark was saying, technically, their five years
ends the 27th.
MR. SCHACHNER-What 1 said was it depends how yoU measure five
years, but I agree with what I think Bob just said, which is they
were taken off the agenda tonight, and in fact, there were people
heY'e for that item that were told, this won't be acted on
tonight. So I don't think you should act on it tonight.
MR. BREWER-And I'm thinking, if they have an attorney,
see the 27th, man, I can tell you that they're going
lets extend it to next Tuesday. Can we do that?
a nd the}'
to say, so
MR. SCHACHNER-No. I'm not comfortable with
specifically said, early on in the meeting,
agenda.
that, because you
this was off the
MR. MACEWAN-Right, and that's not fair to the public.
MR. SCHACHNER-Just like Jim said, it's the applicant's nickel.
That's right.
MR. PALING-Okay. I don't know what the source was of the
original call, because my information's at least second hand, but
the Staff told me it's off the agenda, and, therefore, we took it
off.
- 86 -
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. -~ey sent us a letter.
"--' '---'"'
MR. PALI!\t'..........They sent you a letteì", okay, and cance:~ it. aka,y.
MR. OBERMAYER-How are we
Story town?
doing on the lawsuit, regarding
MR. SCHACHNER-No word. I mean, last time I think I reported to
you that all the papers have been submitted, and they have been,
and that the ball is now in Judge Dier's lap to make a decision,
and it is, and it still is, and he hasn't made any decision.
MR. RUEl-Mr. Chairman, what is the status of Frank J. Parillo
application? Did I miss that, or is that coming up?
MR. PALING-No. It is still to come, but it's not within this
meeting or the next.
MR. RUEl-Okay. Now, the next meetings in April are, what, the
18th and the 25th?
MR. PALING-Yes. I assume that it'll be, yes, the 18th and the
25th, and the site plan review will be on the 12th.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Paling, Chairman
- 87 -