1995-03-28
--
~
OUEENSBURY PLANNING, BOAAO¡ME6TI]!NG
SECOND REGULAR MEE·TING' j!'1
MARCH 28, 1995
INDEX
subdivision No. 4-83
Extension request
Subdivision No. 11-1994
Extension request
Subdivision No. 4-1995
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 9-95
Subdivision No. 6-1995
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Site Plan No. 10-95
Site Plan No. 5-95
Discussion Item
Site Plan No. 13-90
Discussion Item
Subdivision No. 5-1992
FINAL STAGE
JI
Southern Exposure
Malcolm Batchelder
Charles Young, Glenna Burnham,
J. Wallace Trust
Gary & Valerie Randall
Maì- i.~ yn Smi th
William Bernard
'McDonald's' c6f'þ:
Dr. Robert Orban, Jr.
Great Escape
(Cont'd Pg. 61)
Sherman Pines
PHASE II AND PHASE III
r' .~
I.
\ :
, "
¡ ',I
:.':,' ,~)i
" Ij¡
;!,;,-.!
I. I, it,!
1.
5.
6.
.~ ¡, '-"'1 1 r/;
20.
1 ,
, '
24.
t.!
I, ,
{·,:it· i
27.
2"9.
¡ ).j¡:
38.
'41.
48.
, "
, "
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT Tb ßOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEÄR' ON THE FoLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
\"'j .;!
--
\
--
,~
--/'
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 28, 1995
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY
JAMES OBERMAYER
TIMOTHY BREWER
CRAIG MACEWAN
GEORGE STARK
MEMBERS ABSENT
ROGER RUEL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN
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 FOR THE DATES OF 1/17/95 AND
1/24/95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer,
Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Stark
ABSENT: Mr. Ruel
SITE PLAN NO. 12-94 EXTENSION LUCAS WILSON
MRS. LABOMBARD-The next item on the agenda is Site Plan No. 12-
94, for an extension on the Wilson project.
LUCAS WILSON
MR. WILSON-Good evening. This is really kind of simple. I have
to go to trial to work out the details on my right-of-way, and
nothing's changed on the site plan at all. I intend to go
through with exactly what's there.
MR. PALING-Would you please introduce yourself for the record?
MR. WILSON-I'm Luke Wilson. My address is 263 Big Boom Road,
Queensbury, NY 12804, and again, this is concerning the site plan
on Walker Lane. I've been denied by Judge Dier, both Valente and
myself, on any motions, what we have, who actually owns the
right-of-way or any of the information. There's too many
questions in fact. According to Mr. Dier, he wants it to go to
trial. So we are intending to do that right now. We're working
on getting a trial date. You know how lawyers are. This is
going to take time.
- 1 -
MR. PALING-How long an extension are you asking for?
MR. WILSON-Well, I really, you know, I'd really need at least a
yea r, I bel ieve. I mea n, I even have, you know, even" if I have a
problem with Judge Dier, I plan on retaining another, lawyer to go
to the Court of Appeals, if I have to, because I f i rn'1'l y bel ie've I
have the right to do that out there, and that's why I'm so strong
about going anead with this.
MR. PALING-Okay. I think your request
a problem with the time of it. Mark,
on how long an extension we can grant?
, ;'1' !i~,.: r'¡~ t, +'.. i (";1,,; ¡"~I :
is legitimate, but I have
would yoG' car~ tð com~ent
" ¡- "Ì'I3 r . :,ì ):1' ¡ I Ii!"
MR. SCHACHNER-Not off the top of my head I wouldn't, Bob. '
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-I could ~ook if you want.
MR. PALING-That's good, ye~.
,
MR. WILSON-I mean, unless there is a change in
there's something I have to come in an amenð;to
Town's specifications, what would be the big
nothing's chcinged.
your zoni ng, if
a chànge in the
deal? I mean,
MR. BREWER-We've done them in the past a year at a time, though,
Bob.
MR. PALING-A year, but no more than?
MR. BREWER":'Typically, we just do them for a year'.
MR. SCHACHNER-We're double checking here, but as far as Jim and I
know, unlike subdivisio~, there is n6 épecific pr00iaidn in the
Zoning Ordinance regarding specifictlme frames of extension, as
far as ¡ can recall, and that's Jim's opi nion also. ,We're just
double checking.
MR. PALING-Well, I think that a year is ok~y.
anyway, and if you need more than that, you migþt
bac k for it.
For me it is
have to come
MR. WILSON-That would be fine.
MR. PALING-All right. Then why don't ~e, do wé need a motion on
t.his?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Typically, it's good to go to th~ last day of
the month. That way we don't get caught with a spe¿tfic meeting
date.
MR. OBERMAYER-When is it'~et to expir~?
MR. WILSON-It expires May 3rd of this year.
MR. PALING-Okay. 1996. You said May 3rd.
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. PALING":'Go to ApYil 30th. Okay. That'é a year. ,
MR. WILSON-Yes, okay. Well, it expires May 3rd. I thought you
could extend it from that point on.' It's taken me this long,
Bob, just to get a motion. We don't even have a trial.
MR. PALING-I'm sure that'll work out. That's the lasi day of the
month, which is what was asked for. Okay.
MR. WILSON-That'll be fine.
- 2 -
---
,--,,'
--'
'-<'""
MR. BREWER-If it takes longer, it's just as simple as coming back
here and doing it again.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, you can come back here again, if you get
closer, and get another one, if you need to.
MR. PALING-Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion on that?
MOTION TO EXTEND SITE PLAN NO. 12-94 LUCAS WILSON, Introduced by
Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Obermayer:
For one year after his 1995 expiration date, to April 30, 1996,
and note that the condition that a legality of the color of title
it proven before construction before a building permit is issued,
and also to include those two items that were indicated, title
insurance and/or proof of ownership and a court order stating
proof of ownership of the right-of-way, and anything else
pursuant to the entire project.
Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1995, by the following
vote:
MR. MARTIN-I also might add, that approval was given with
conditions. You might want to note in your extension that those
conditions still apply.
MR. WILSON-You can refer back to the old resolutions. I'm not
asking for any change. I definitely don't want any new change.
MR. MARTIN-I just don't want there to be a misunderstanding, that
those conditions still apply.
MR. OBERMAYER-Just say, and the same conditions still apply.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-If you'll recall, I think one of those was the
provision of title insurance.
MR. BREWER-On the condition that the legality of the color of
title is proven before construction.
MR. WILSON-Or a court order.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. BREWER-No. It says, on the condition that a legality of the
color of title is proven before construction, before a building
permit is issued.
MR. PALING-Okay. Add that to the resolution. That'll get there.
Okay.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, and included in that motion, please note
that the condition that the legality of the color of title is
proven before construction, before a building permit is issued,
and any other.
MR. WILSON-I thought it was that, title insurance or a court
order.
MR. BREWER-No. That's the motion we approved a year ago.
MR. WILSON-Okay.
- 3 -
~,
MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me for interruptfng,'butthe rec'ords that I
was provided actually indicat~ that was the first motion. Ther;
was then a motion to amend, and that the second motion r said~ to
include those two items that Jim has kndicated, tefer~ing to Jim
Martin, title insurance and/or proof of ownership, or, it doesn't
say or, a court order stating pr09f of 6wnershlÞ. ., r
MR. PALING-Okay. Yes. That's very close, but this is what we
need, what Mark has got.
MR. WILSON-Right.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I have it h~re, too.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, it's whichever it is, which is whatever the
final motion to approve the project was, but the records that 1
was provided with indicate that it's ~hat I just read;
, "
MRS. LABOMBARD~Right. Okay. So then in the ,motion should be
'what I originally said, and also to include those two it'èms that
were indicated, title insurance and/or proo~ of oWnefshiÞ, and a
court order stating proof of ownership.
MR. BREWER-Of the right-of-way, right?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Of the right-of-way, and anything else pursuant to
the entire project.
MR. PALING-All right.
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer,
M)". Pali ng
NOES: Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mr. Ruel
,
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay" Next· on the agenda are two res'olutions, one
for Subdivision No. 4-83.
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-83 - SOUTHERN EXPOSURE' - EXTENSION REQUEST TO
MAY 31, 1995
MR. PALING-Is anyone from the applitant here? Do we need anyone
from the applicant?
MR. MARTIN-I don't believe so.
MR~,: O,SERMAYER:;What ';s the:',rea~qn tr~lia.t tlì~y 're aski;ngj~þ~ ,j~ten,sion
fóf7 Do you know?
-WI! ~'
MR. MARTIN-I think, if you'll recall, .the Hudson Point PUD was
before you last week, for a minor ¢h~n~e to the trail system on
the conservation area. It's been things like'that.The deeds
are being worked out with the Attorney's Office. They were just
finalized last night with the Town Board. So it~s been, just
getting the logistics of this all lined up, )"eally.
MR. BREWER-I think Mike O'Connor's under th~ assumption ~e did it
last week.
MR. HARLICKER-It was, but Pam double checked the
was the wrong date that Mike had requested. All
that seems pretty straight forward.
dates, and it
right. Well,
MR. MACEWAN-He wants it until the 31st, right?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. MAèE'WAN- I s that what he still wants it to?
- 4 -
'-
,---,,'
--..-'"
MR. OBERMAYER-What did we make it to?
MR. MACEWAN-Well, we did. We gave an extension to Southern
Exposure last week until 5/31/95.
MR. HARLICKER-And that's when the existing resolution expires.
So he needed it longer than that.
MR. MACEWAN-Then why is it on tonight's agenda asking it for
5/31/95?
MR. MARTIN-Pam must not have updated the agenda. That's all I
can think of. I don't know why it wasn't updated.
MR. PALING-So what date do we put on it?
MR. MACEWAN-But that's what he asked for. He asked for it until
May 31st, and the reason why he asked for it was because they
were getting ready for the closing for the property. Mr.
McDonald didn't want to sign over the deed on the property until
he had "cash in hand".
MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I said last week.
MR. BREWER-Okay. If there's a problem, can't he come back next
month?
MR. MACEWAN-Yes, we've got time.
MR. BREWER-We've got time to do it.
MR. PALING-All right. Then lets just postpone that. The
applicant's not here. So we'll just have to postpone it to next
month, and leave it up to them to ask for it.
MR. MACEWAN-Well, are you tabling it?
MR. PALING-Well, we can't table without the applicant, can we?
Then if we can table.
MR. MARTIN~I just don't think there's any need for any action, at
this point, just move on.
MR. PALING-Just don't do anything?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead, Cathy. Do the next one.
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1994 - MALCOLM BATCHELDER
TO JUNE 31, 1995
EXTENSION REQUEST
MR. PALING-Is anyone from the applicant here on thi§ one? Do we
know, what's the story on this, Jim or Scott?
MR. HARLICKER-I believe this is the one that has the wetlands on
it, that's up on the road off of Ridge Road, not Chestnut Ridge,
but just up north of Harrisena there, and it has to do with the
wetlands and the APA.
MR. PALING-Did they expect to be here tonight when they made this
request?
MR. MARTIN-I don't think so.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. PALING-When does it expire?
MR. MARTIN-I believe it expires at the end of this month.
- 5 -
'-
MR. HARLICKER-The end of this month.
MR. PALING-It's a 90 day ext'ension.
MR. MARTIN-I think they're having troÜble getting thei'r wetland
approval from the APA. It's been del~~~d.
MR. PALING-I don~t think,thers's no big deal. We can extend it.
MR. MARTIN-You can dO it less than that, more than that.
MR. PALING-Well, it orily asks for the 90 days.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. PALING-All right, if the Board's in agreement, do you have a
motion?
MR. BREWER-I'll make a motion~
MOTION TO EXTEND SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1994 MALCOLM BATCHELpER,
Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoþtion, seconded
by James Obermayer:
The extension request to June 31, 1995.
Duly
vot,e:
adopted this 28th day of March, 1995, by the following
, ,
AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MaçEwan,
Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ruel
MR. PALING-Okay. We'll move into Old Business.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1995 FINAL STAGE TYPE I CHARLES YOUNG,
GLENNA BURNHAM, J. WALLACE T~UST OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE:
WR-1A LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT., BRAYTON. LANE PROPOSAL IS TO
SUBDIVIDE A 15.47 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 3.86 AND 11.61
ACRES. APA CROSS REFERENCE: FWl-95 TAX MAP NO. ~-3~14 LOT
SIZE: 15.47 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-1995, Charles Ypung FINAL
STAGE, Meeting Date: March 28, 1995 "The applicant has reviewed
the plat and submitted the information requested as per
preliminary approval. If the Board is satisfied with the
information submitted, staff can recommend final àpproval of this
subdivision."
~1R. MARTIN-I
correspondence
It was from a
record.
think there was also an additional piece of
that came in today, from Mr. Walden, r believe.
Robert and Dayle Walden. I'll reð.d it into the
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Attention: James Martin Re: Application Of Charles
F. Young, Glenna Burnham, and the John Wallace Trust, on Brayton
Lane and Assembly Point Road in the Town of Queensbury. "Dear
Members of the Community Development Departmen~ SUB~ECT:
Amendment to my letter of Mar6h 17, 1995. ~E: Paragraph six:
- 6 -
'---
--
"My friend Fred Young, son of Charles F. Young, has cleared a
piece of 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 home.' I DO NOT oppose in any
way whatsoever, my friend's plans to build on this property which
he owns. Please approve his plans. In all other respects, my
letter as written on March 17, 1995 should remain unchanged.
Robert and Dayle Walden for Christopher Walden, Claudia Friedman,
Kevin Walden, Leigh Herrman, Mark LaPore, Greg LaPore"
MR. PALING-Okay. Scott, do you have comments on this?
MR. HARLICKER-Just go over what they submitted here. The plan
has been enlarged to 50 scale. They've got the erosion control
measures shown along the edge of the clearing line. The grading
plan has been revised to show what the grading will look like.
We'd like to see some new percolation tests done, either
certified by an engineer, or else have one of the Building
Inspectors present when they do it. They've included trench
drains around the side of the perimeter of the house to catch
runoff from the house, and Staff would like to see those trench
drains extended along the driveways to catch the runoff off the
driveways, also.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-I think we're right in the middle of a period of the
yea,- where test holes being dug for septic systems can be viewed
by the Building Department. We're right at the prime time of the
year right now, as the frost is going out of the ground.
MR. PALING-Scott, just for my clarification, the points you made
were the scale. That's been taken care of?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. PALING-What was the next point you make, because I don't have
what you have.
MR. HARLICKER-They've got, they show erosion control measures,
silt fence and hay bales, along the perimeter of the clearing
there. They've got the revised grading showing where they're
going to cut the driveway ~hroµgh, and then they've got the
trench drain shown around the house to catch, around the drip
line, to catch runoff from the house, and they should also extend
that along the edge of the driveway to catch any runoff that
would come off the driveway, also.
MR. PALING-All right.
this, I don't think?
Now,
Okay.
Bill doesn't have any comments
You're not involved in this.
on
MR. HARLICKER-They weren't sent to Rist-Frost, no.
MR. PALING-I think we better take up these points one by one.
Scale's okay. I imagine that's okay, and the erosion control,
now that looks all right to me. Does anyone on the Board have
comment on that? Now the drainage, Tim, you had some questions
on that.
MR. BREWER-Well, the drainage, I was under the assumption last
week, when they asked for three waivers, and I thought we asked
them to prepare the drainage report, the clearing plan, and the
erosion control plans, and send them to Rist-Frost. That's my
recollection.
MR. STARK-They just had to turn them in to the Planning
Department.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-I thought they were going to Rist-Frost? I don't know
- 7 -
'-
why I thought that.
MR. OBERMAYER-No. I don't remember that either.
MR. PALING-No.
MR. STARK-Just turn them in to the Planning Department by ~riday
afternoon.
MR. BREWER-By Friday at noon, and we were going to get .them
Friday.
MR. MACEWAN-No. They were supposed to go to Rist-Frost, because
that was the whole idea behind getting th~m in at ~oon.
MR. BREWER-We can look 'back at the minutes, but I thought that
was the idea, sending them, because the people w~re complaining
about the water table.
MR. PALING-I don't remember the Rist-Frost part
Everything else, I do, but not that part.
of it.
MR. BREWER-Okay. That's fine, but.
MR. PALING-Well, lets talk about what's been done.
MR. BREWER-If we've got a drainage report, would somebody explain
it to me?
MR. PALING-Okay. Well, lets c~ll the applicant.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. Martin Auffredou of the law firm of Bartlett,
Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes on behalf of Fred Young, Glenna
Burnham and Jim Wallace, as Trustee of the John Wallace Trust.
With regard to the drainage plan, what ¡ didc was, Wednesday
morning, wh~n I got back to 'my office, I called Leon with a list
of items that we needed, León Ste0es. It was my understánding
that someone from Leon's bfflce~poke to Staff, a~ to exactly
l.<Jhat they were, what YOU were looking for. 'I didn't know the
,exact details, SO I left it to Leon and his staff to talk to your
Staff to find out. What resulted ~rom that conversation is what
you see. So I think that maybe there was a misundèrstànding or a
misconception here. I would also, I don't recall th,e applicant
being required to submit this to Rist-Frost. I understood that
our stipulation was to get all this information to Scott by noon
on Friday.
MR. PALING-By noon. That's ffiZ understanding.
MR. BREWER-I remember him saying to get it by noon on Friday, but
I thought if there was going to,be a report Or something.
MR. AUFFREDOU-If (lost words) Rist-Frost, I.would have written
that down and sent it to Rist-Fro~t. My notes reflected, to
Scott by Friday.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So then you cán explain the report to me, then.
MR. PALING-How about a comment f~om Staff on the t~ference that
he's made, that Leon was going to consult with someone?
MR. HARLICKER~Yes. Jim Miller who works with Leon ,on .a lot of
things called and was looking for, what sort of things were you
looking for in the revised plan, and what I based my decision on
was, in th~ past, when you required drainage information on
single family homes, I was referring back to oUr recent site plan
for Peyton~itz. They required that trench drains be put around
the parkin~ lot, or the driveway and the house. So, that's what
I told Jim Miller to supply on the site plan.
- 8 -
-......-
--
MR. PALING-Okay, and that's what we have here, and you want that
extended a bit.
MR. BREWER-Where's that, Scott?
MR. HARLICKER-That was the one on Glen Lake, north side of Glen
Lake, that real small pie shaped lot.
MR. AUFFREDOU-He wants it extended around the driveway.
MR. PALING-Around the driveway.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Yes. The only change to this, you want to
see it extended around the driveway.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes, to catch the runoff off the driveway.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-Has there been a drainage report made?
MR. HARLICKER-Not a full drainage report, no.
MR. MACEWAN-Why?
MR. HARLICKER-Like I said, my reference point was this was the
Peyton Fitz application, and in that application, a single family
house like this, it was, the Board accepted trench drains.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but, Scott, that wasn't sitting right in the
middle of a wetland.
MR. HARLICKER-If you're requesting more .information, I based on
past practice, on what we did on the last application.
MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with the trenches around the
house if the perc tests prove that that can handle it, I don't
have a problem with that, but I just don't, if it's sitting right
between two wetlands, and all he's saying is he's going to put
trenches and no test pits, where's the water going to go? I
mean, is it going to run into the wetlands, I don't know. That's
my question.
FRED YOUNG
MR. YOUNG-The woods is filled with Honeysuckle, and there's trees
there, and there's no way that anything's going to get down
there. I mean, it's an absolute jungle.
MR. BREWER-I went there again, Wednesday.
MR. YOUNG-It's 21 feet above the water.
MR. BREWER-I believe~, but I've got to also believe what the
neighbors also say. That's my point.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Tim, the gentleman that prepared this map is here
this evening, and I think that he's certainly more equipped to
address any questions that you have about this.
JIM MILLER
MR. MILLER-Good evening. I'm Jim Miller, Landscape Architect.
Leon Steves asked me to review this and prepare this plan, and I
spoke to Scott, and Scott said typically on a residence like
this, a single family house on four acres of land, that the
increase in runoff is fairly minimal because you're dealing with
a 2,000 square foot area of room, plus a driveway. So the
increase in runoff is fairly minimal, and the drainage
calculations, it's very inaccurate that it calculates something
- 9 -
that small. So, typically, what we've done is, along the eave
lines, where the water will run off the roof, create some trench
drains that will catch that water so there will be,no erosion,
and it'll also infiltrate that water. Heavy storm~, because of
the slow þercolation rates, and you may ge~ som~ surface runoff,
but the site's fairly flat, there's a fair amount of woods.
We've met all the setbacks to the edges of th~ wetlands. So
there really would be minimal impact on drainage, and I think
Scott's recommendation,. the only area we had shown on the
driveway was some sheet flow off ,of the driveway, which is only
12 foot wide, and I think Scott's recommendation to extend the
gravel shoulder, especially on the downhill side of that
dr iveway, to catch that runoff would ced:.ai nly hèlp.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-Have you submitted the data to APA, regarding the
percolation tests?
MR. YOUNG-That's all been taken care of, yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
MR. PALING-The APA wrote a letter, saying that was.
MR. BREWER-It says it must be submitted, right? Doesn't it say
that the perc tests results nave got to be submitted to the APA?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, that's what it says. Yes.
MR. BREWER-And tney have been submitted since last Monday?
MR. AUFFREDOU-That's my understanding. I~ that the letter that I
read into the record last week?
MR. OBERMAYER-March 17th?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes.
MR. BREWER-So, let me ask Jim again, th~n, if he has to redo
these perc tests with the verification, does he have to resubmit
them to the APA?
MR. MARTIN-Well, there's a difference between a perc test and a
test pit. The test pit would concern the septic system and its
ability to adequately leach the effluent. Percolation tests
would relate to the ability of the ground to absorb water, and I
think in terms of the drainage from the~ and th~ roof runoff and
driveway runoff.
MR. BREWER-So the pe~colation tests don't have to be witnessed?
MR. MARTIN-It's the test pit with a septic system that has to be
wi t, nessed .
MR. BREWER-But what I'm talking about, the percolation tests
performed by Crandall Excavation.
MR. MARTIN-I think the APA's confused their terms there.
Usually, it's a test pit concerning the location of the proposed
leach field. We require that that be dug, left op~n for a 24
hour period, and it's checked at various intervals to see just in
fact, how far the water table does rise in the pit.
MR. PALING-Now you're saying this has been done?
MR. MARTIN-I don't believe that it has been, and it would be a
requirement, even if the building permit Were issued on something
like this. It would be a requirement.
- 10 -
'--
---
'-
~
MR. MACEWAN-Are you saying that this letter from the APA, they've
misspoken here?
MR. MARTIN-Usually it refers to
percolation test, because they're
the leachfield.
a test pit rather
calling for it in the
than a
area of
MR. BREWER-The leachfield. It makes sense.
MR. OBERMAYER-Before a building permit would be issued, though,
they would have to conduct this test pit.
MR. MARTIN-Right. That's standard practice.
MR. MACEWAN-I still guess I don't understand how we got away from
a request for a drainage report, and ended up with a drainage
plan.
MR. OBERMAYER-Because of the size of the house. It's a single
family home.
MR. MARTIN-I think it's the Board's discretion. If the Board
feels uncomfortable with the level of information supplied, then
it's certainly within your discretion to ask for more.
MR. MACEWAN-I'd feel more comfortable knowing a little bit more
about this, and I'd like the Town Engineer to look into it. I'd
like him to either verify the information, or ask for more.
MR. PALING-Well, I think they make a good point, that the size of
the house, relative to the size of the total lot is pretty small,
and I wonder how much we are required to have them go beyond,
lets say, a normal application.
MR. MACEWAN-This is a normal application.
MR. PALING-Okay. I take it you want more information?
MR. MACEWAN-Yes.
MR. PALING-George, how about yourself?
MR. MACEWAN-And it should be clear that we're not asking them to
go beyond anything. I mean, this is their normal realm. We're
not asking them to go above and beyond the call of duty, here.
It's part of subdivision.
MR. PALING-Okay. George.
MR. STARK-I'm comfortable with the application as it stands.
Also, this house probably has better absorption and less runoff
than all the other houses up there, you know. They weren't
required to put in all these, you know, for sheet flow into
gravel pits and drainage pits around the house and everything.
I'm sure that the application's fine.
MR. PALING-Jim?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I don't have any problem with the application
as it is, with the drainage plan as shown.
MR. PALING-Cathy?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I concur with George, at this point.
MR. PALING-Okay. Tim?
MR. 8REWER-I don't know. I kind of thought I wanted the drainage
report, but from what's been said, this is a relatively small
house, but I think I'd want to wait, before I make a decision, as
- 11 -
to what we're going to hear from anybody that liv~s up there.
MR. PALING-Okay.
see on this one.
All right.
Okay.
That's fair enough.
Okay.
Let me
MR. BREWER-The clearing plan's fine.
MR. PALING-Yes. The scale's fine. I think, at this point, we
can, there isn't an actual public hearing, but we will allow
anyone from the public who wants to speak about this to come
forward. Is there anyone here that would like to talk?
TOM NESBITT
MR. NESBITT-I'm Tom Nesbitt, and I own söme property near this
subdivision, ~nd just, again, for the record, I want to make it
clear that I'm not opposed to the project, but I am concerned,
and I think that the neighbors who spoke last week are concerned,
because of developments that have taken place in that vicinity in
the last ,seven or eight years. The builders have don~ some thing
that they have done without approval; and there'has been no
follow up from the Town. Now it wasn't necessarily or
specifically the Planning Board that granted these approvals. but
the fact remains that there were things that were dorie that were
not legal, and so I'm just concerned that all the T's are crossed
and the I's are dotted, and it's always been ~ understanding
that there is definitely two different types of testing done for
septic systems, groundwater or soil testing and t~e ,percolation
testing, and both of them have to be done and the septic system
itself has to be designed by a licensed engineer or a licensed
surveyor with an N exemption, and I just want to make sure that
all that is done, and it's something that's required of anybody
who's going to build. So to set the record straight, the
percolatiQn test is a test that's done to determine the flow of
the water out of the ground, and soil testing or the pit test is
done to determine the soil type and the ground water or ledge
level, and the State Health Department has specifications on the
manner iniwhich a percolation test is supposed to be þerformed.
MR. PALING-And in regard to, getting at your comments in two
parts, the first part, in regard to 'the follöw up. I think
there's going to be a lot better follow up now that .there will
be, I still believe, a new employee aboard, in Ji~ Martin's
Staff, and th~t's his duty, tò follow up on the things that we
agree to, which was kind of tough before, because of lack of
manpower. So I think that is going to be quite gQod in the
future. Now I think we have also answered the latter part of
his, from what comments over here, unless you would disagree with
that.
MR. NESBITT-Well, from what I learned
process of the septic system design
requirements of getting a building permit.
today, this particular
is all part of the
MR. PALING-Building permit, yes.
MR. NESBITT-I also
enlargement of the
YoungJ' and is not
sea The location
relating to those
Leon Steves, but
location.
understand that the information that's on this
map, is information that was provided by Mr.
nècessarily reflecting a ~urvey location, per
of the percolation'~est and the information
percolation tests was provided by Mr. Young to
it is not necessarily reflecting a specific
MR. PALING-On this print.
MR. NESBITT-In other words, it's a gen~ral location.
MR. PALING-Well, need it be further than that right now?
- 12 -
'--'
--../
',,--
-../
MR. NESBITT-No.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. NESBITT-It doesn't, but it's just a concern, is this going to
be designed properly in the right place.
MR. YOUNG-Are you Galling me a liar?
MR. NESBITT-No, I'm not.
MR. STARK-Mr. Nesbitt, you know, his system has to be approved by
New York State and by the Building Department, before he gets a
building permit. Last week, we even had an applicant come up,
Mr. Landry, who says his system runs right on the ground every
spring. The neighbors aren't concerned about his system running
right out on the ground? To me, I'd be more worried about his
system.
MR. NESBITT-I don't think we even knew about it until last week.
Well, I think he was making a point of, example of the condition
of the soil in the area.
MR. STARK-And he said he was higher than this applicant, and he's
not. His ground is lower than this applicant's.
MR. NESBITT-I realize that.
MR. BREWER-I just want to make one point to the Board, that just
because he shows a house on this plot, we're doing a subdivision.
We're not doing a site plan review. He can go up there and build
a 9,000 square foot house, if he wants to. We don't have
anything to say about it. So, just because he's showing it, it's
not part of a site plan, Bob. We're doing a subdivision tonight.
He's just showing you a typical house. I mean, that doesn't
necessarily mean that that's what that's going to be.
MR. PALING-Well, are you saying you want to get him to specify
the house tonight?
MR. BREWER-No, no. I'm just making that point, that's all.
MR. MARTIN-But we do have to demonstrate, at this time, that
there's, you know, suitable soils for development and so on, that
will accommodate development.
MR. OBERMAYER-Right.
MR. BREWER-Exactly.
MR. PALING-But that can be part of the motion, you're saying?
MR. MARTIN-Well,
subdivision.
that's
a fundamental
consideration
of
MR. YOUNG-Just as a point of information, the Waldens who live
across the road, and slightly to the east, their entire back yard
is their septic system, because of the condition of the soil and
the size of their yard, and that was the most recent conventional
system that's been installed in the area. People who've
purchased property from my family ended up having to put in a
holding tank because of the proximity to the lake.
MR. OBERMAYER-That's what the septic system design might call
for, is holding tanks.
MR. YOUNG-No. It's a shallow trench system is what I understand
to be the thing, according to the APA (lost word).
MR. NESBITT-That basically covers what I was concerned about, but
- 13 -
I wanted the Board to know that most of the concerns that the
neighbors have expressed, and myself included, was the way that
some of the wor: k has been goi ng on up a,'ound there ove,' the last
seven or eight years, is basically been without any policing at
all. )
MR. PALING-Okay.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I can appreciate that.
MR. NESBITT-Whether
the Town Board's
responsibility, it
(lost words).
it's the Planning'Board's responsibility or
responsibility or th~ Zoning Department's
all comes back to being the Town as being
MR. PALING-We can promise you better follow up. I think that we
can promise to you.
MR. NESBITT-Thank you.
MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. Anyone else from the public who
would like to,talk? Okay. Then the public comments, we'll close
them off. Okay. The SEQRA's dorie.
MR. YOUNG-I wanted to ,clarify, perc tests were done at the
leachfield site.
MR. AUFFREDOU-That's the leachfield site where the APA, in its
letter, indicated they would lik~ the leachfield to be, and
that's where the perc'tests were done.' Now we really don't have
any objection Or opposition to there being, again, the presence
of a Building Inspector. Mr. Martin's indicated that this is an
ideal time of year to do that. We'll ceriainly,do that. That
seems fair to me, fair to us. It's an envirohmentally critical
area. So we would cert~inly comply with that. We would also
agree to modify the plans, pursuant to Scott;s suggestion of
drainage aro~nd the driveway.
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. AUFFREDOU-What we tried to do, just $0 you know, as far as
Mr. Brewer's concerns, and that's a legitimate concern. , I mean,
we come here tonight and say, this is, we just draw some lines on
the map and when we come back, we build a 9,000 square foot home.
That's certainly true, but I think, Mr. Young's here tonight to
suggest to all of you is that what we tried, to do is we've tried
to be as realistic as we can with what the size of that house is
going to be. I don't think he's going to come in and build a
monster house on that site. I don't think the site calls for
that. However, it is very possible to build something close to
what's called for here on the map, but as far as a large,
gigantic structure going on that structure, on that lot, that's
not what Mr. Young intends. I don>t think that Glenna Burnham
and Jim Wallace, the 'other applicants and owners of this
property, would appreciate that either, if Mr. Young built a big
house on that lot. I just wanted to clarify.
,
MR. YOUNG-I'd like to say that, some of the people say that
they've been up in the area for 20 or 30 yeárs and they've
watched things change. Well, my family's been there for 70
years, and my mother used to come up, there were cows there, and
she opened the gate so the cows don't get out, and the property
adjacent to my family is all ~oods, and I see all these other
people complain about the possibility of one house in 21 acres,
when they have houses jamming every square inch of their
property, and, I mean, they have guest house across the road
where the alleged swamp is, if you go further up Assembly Point
Road, and I just think it's a bit unreasonable, some of their
complaints. I understand their worry, because of huge houses
that have been built, but I have no intention, I don't even know
- 14 -
'-
--./
'-
--r'
whether I'm going to build a house. All I wanted to do was get
this property divided, because I own just a part of it and my
cousins wanted to sell theirs. All I really plan, at this point,
is to have a garden, and the possibility of a house there, but it
won't be any bigger than what's planned. It would probably be a
Cape. So it would be a small house, not a huge looking house.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. HARLICKER-Has there been any progress, as far as what you're
going to be doing with the rest of the property at all?
MR. BREWER-Do you own that with your cousins?
MR. YOUNG-Yes.
MR. BREWER-He just said they were going to sell it.
MR. AUFFREDOU-What we're doing is, they own it. Fred is a 25
percent owner of the entire parcel, not only the small parcel,
but the entire parcel to be subdivided. Glenna Burnham owns 25
percent and John Wallace Trust owns 50 percent. Glenna and John
Wallace Trust are conveying their interest in the smaller lot to
Fred. Fred is conveying his entire interest in the larger lot to
Glenna and to Jim. Now Glenna and Jim Wallace, as I mentioned to
you last week, were going to do one of two things. We are either
going to put deed restrictions on the remaining portion of that
parcel, of the larger lot, or we are going to deed that property,
donate that property to the Lake George Basin Land Conservancy.
We're currently negotiating with them right now. They are
meeting tomorrow night to try to make a final determination as to
whether they're going to be accepting this land from us. I also
wanted to point out that not only does the 11 acres going to
them, hopefully, but also the 12 acres directly behind this
parcel is going to them as well. If it's not the Lake George
Basin Land Conservancy, it may be the Audobon Society. It could
be the Nature Conservancy. We've been in touch with all of them.
However, the preference is the Lake George Basin Land
Conservancy. That was the organization that John Wallace, when
he was alive, dealt with, and it's certainly consistent with his
plans to turn that property over to them.
MR. MARTIN-What is the Lake George Basin Land Conservancy?
MR. AUFFREDOU-They are a branch of the Nature Conservancy, the
Adirondack Nature Conservancy, although I think they are a
separate (lost word).
MR. PALING-All right. Jim, would you tell me, again, or use the
verbage you did, in regard to putting a little limitation on this
for future construction? You related it to soil.
MR. MARTIN-I think, you know, given the pe1"colation rate shown,
types of soils that are there, proximity to the wetland, depth to
the water table, there's a certain limitation on development
suitability, here.
MR. PALING-Okay, and would that be exercised in a building
permit, or should we exercise it in our motion?
MR. MARTIN-I think you've got to exercise it in your motion, to
the extent that you've limited clearing here. That'll be part of
the approved plan. Clearing should not go beyond that point.
MR. MACEWAN-Beyond what point?
MR. MARTIN-Beyond the limits of clearing shown here.
MR. PALING-Shown on the print?
- 15 -
---
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. MACEWAN-Is that enough for you to go by, just what you've
drawn on there, or do you need to have actual dimensions or
setbacks? I know that we've looked at other subdivisions and
where limits of clearing have been labeled right to, you know,
measurements.
MR. PALING-I asked Leon about that, and he
accurate. The wiggle line, lets call it, is
would go by that, in so far as clearing.
MR. MARTIN-You kn6w I've as~ed, in the past, I'd prefer as much
clarity and detail to the resolutions as possible, because it
makes my job, or the enforcement officer's job that much easier
when we go out to look at these things and it also makes a clear
understanding in the mind of the applicant exactly what you're
talking about.
said that
accurate,
this is
and they
MR. MACEWAN-Has Mr. MacNamara had an opportunity to review this
project?
MR. MARTIN-To my knowledge, no. Again, if it's the Board's
de~ire to send it over there for review, we can do that.
MR. PALING-I think we can define it well enough if we even scale
it off, or, Jim, if we went by the wiggly line there, as it is
drawn, is that good enough to set the limits of clearing?
MR. MARTIN-I mean, you could scale it, Jim. It's one. inch equals
fifty feet.
MR. BREWER-It's not a straight line, though, either.
MR. PALING-Well, it's a straight line on the bottom, it would be.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, stipulate to add those in, if you'd
like.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. If we could have the dimensions added to it.
MR. PALING-Add the dimensions of that in, and be approved by the
Planning Staff.
MR. MARTIN-Bob, that's something for you to look for, when you
come in to sign the plat as Chairman, we'll check for it as
Staff, but those are the types of things that we look for before
si9.n off.
MR. PALING-All right.
on the Board?
Is there any ,other' comments from anybody
MR. BREWER~Ye.s. Just a question. Why would they put the septic
at the highest point on the land? It's at 342 and it drops down
to 322 on the right side of it, and 338 on the left side. I just
was curious.
MR. MILLER-It's a requirement, the APA.
MR. BREWER-A mound system?
MR. MILLER-It's a modified mound system. The APA requires that
it has to be located above elevation 340, and the system that's
shown in the reserve field, there's a double field there you'll
see, those were sized by Leon Steves, in accordance to the perc
test in a four bedroom house.
MR. MARTIN-So, we're not going to have a situation, Jim, here
- 16 -
'",-,
---./
~
--
where we're asking water to drain uphill, are we?
MR. MILLER-We're already at the top of the hill.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but what elevation's the house at?
MR. OBERMAYER-The same elevation, it looks like.
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. MILLER-The finished floor of the house will probably be about
343. We've shown the outside perimeter grade on the house to be
above 342. So the grade around the perimeter of the house is
pretty much the same as the grade at the top of the mound. So
we'll have a couple of feet of pitch. We could raise the grade
around, we didn't establish the finished floor, as much as we
were concerned of setting the grades around the field according
to the APA.
MR. BREWER-Maybe you should set the grade on the.
MR. MILLER-We could set that.
MR. MARTIN-I'd like that shown, so there's not a question at
building permit time.
MR. PALING-All right. What is it you want shown?
MR. MARTIN-I want the finished grade of the house to be shown.
MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments?
MR. MACEWAN-I think that this should be forwarded on to Rist-
Frost for their review.
MR. STARK-I'm satisfied.
MR. OBERMAYER-I'm satisfied, because it's a subdivision.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm fine.
MR. BREWER-I don't know, there just seems to be a lot of things
left out that we should have. I'm not necessarily convinced that
it has to go to Rist-Frost, but a list of how many things that
have to be done.
MR. PALING-All right.
discuss it, and I'll
about, and we can add
go along.
Why don't I make a motion, and then we can
try to list everything that we've talked
them in, or subtract, as we see fit, as I
,-,-.
MR. MARTIN-Well, you have a motion drafted for you, and there's
always a section within that that you have a condition.
MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I also might suggest that just for purposes of
clarification of our record, I think the applicant's counsel has,
on a number of times, both last week and this week, referred to
possible options on the balance of the property, as either
donated to any of a series of nature conservancy type
organizations, or subject to deed restrictions, and just for
purposes of clarification of the record, there are deed
restrictions and there are deed restrictions. I think it would
be helpful to have the applicant's counsel just characterize the
deed restriction's option.
MR. PALING-Are you saying "deeder"?
MR. SCHACHNER-Deed restrictions.
MR. PALING-Deed restrictions, right.
- 17 -
----
MR. BREWER-But we don't know what the deed restrictions are. Is
that what you're saying?
MR. SCHACHNER-All I'm saying is, I think it would be helpful. I
mean, I don't think anybody is intending anything devious by
this. I think the applicant's counsel has merely used the phrase
"deed restrictions" in a manner that he and I probably understand
better than most, just by virtue of our professional training,
and I'm just suggesting that for the record, it might be helpful
to have him clarify the general substance or nature of the deed
restrictions we're referring to.
MR. PALING-Okay. and to specify it.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not so much specifically. I mean, I don't think we
need to tie the applicant to the very specific language. I
think, all I'm suggesting is you could have a deed restriction,
no signs greater than two million square feet. That's not the
type'of d~ed restriction that the applicant's counsel is talking
about here. I'm confident, but I just think that our records
should be clarified with some characterization of what type of
deed restriction he is talking about.
MR. PALING-Okay. I think I've got it.
resolution. Okay.
Okay.
Here's the
MOT¡ON TO APÞROV~ SU~DIVIS!ON NO. 4-1995 FINAL STAGE CHARLES
YOUNG. GLENNA aVRNHAM. J. WALLACE TRUST, Introduced by Robert
Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
The subdivision resolution be approved as written, with the
follo~ing modifications: That there be a,perc test witnessed
by the building inspector on site. The perc test must be
approved by the building inspector. Number Two, that the
drainage as shown on the print dated 3/24/95 will be, extended
completely around the driveway, to cover the whole driveway.
Number Three, that the clearing for any future building be
limited to approximately what's shown on the PTint, and that the
size of the clea,-ing and dimensions be specified by the applicant
to the Zoning Administrator by changing the print. That a plan
for finished grading be submitted fór approval to the Zoning
Administrator, and that the options on the use of the undeveloped
portion of the original subdivision be cla,-ified by the applicant
in regard to who they're being donated to and any deed
restrictions that may apply.
Whereas, the Town Planning Department 'is in receipt of
final subdivision application, file I 4-1995, to
subdivide a 15.47 acre parcel into two lots; and
Whereas, the above referenced final subdivision final
subdivision application dated 2/13/95 consists of
the following:
1. Sheet 1. Map of a Survey made for Norlander,
Wallace and Young, revised 11/18/92
2. Sheet SP 1, Young residence, dated 3/23/95
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documentation:
1. Staff notes, dated 3/28/95
2. Letter from the Adirondack Park Agency
regarding a site visit, dated 3/17/95; and
Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the
app,-opriate town departments and outside agencies
for their review and comment; and
Whereas,
the modifications and
preliminary subdivision
terms contained in
approval have
the
been
- 18 -
--
~',
~
--
complied with.
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby
move to approve final subdivision plat, Charles Young, file
# 4-1995.
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 )-esolution.
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 28th day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
MR. BREWER-What happens if it turns out to be that the soils?
,MR. MARTIN-If there's a problem, then there's a series of
options, I believe, available to him, via a mound system or
something of that nature, that would be reviewed by the Building
Department Staff, and if it got into a situation of a, say the
worst case scenario, where absolutely nothing would work, you'd
have to go to a holding tank. That's a matter before the Board
of Health, which is the Town Board.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-Are you under some critical time table to get
approval?
MR. AUFFREDOU-No. I made that clear last week.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling
NOES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mr. Ruel
MR. BREWER-The reason I voted, I'll tell you why I voted no, is I
think we're approving a final subdivision with stuff that we
should have done in preliminary. That's ~ comment.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I know we have, basically, six months on this
subdivision, on the final. As I indicated, there's some
negotiations going on right now. So I'd like to know how much
time I could have to submit my summary of the options for the
remalnlng portion of the property? It's going to be either or.
I just don't want to submit something and then have one of those
other' agencies come forward with another option and tie my
client's hands.
MR. MACEWAN-With this approval, it would have to be submitted
when the plat gets signed.
MR. BREWER-All those things have to be done first, right?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, prior to signing.
MR. AUFFREDOU-How much time do I have?
MR. MARTIN-One hundred and eighty days.
- 19 -
-"
/-,,'
MR. AUFFREDOU-Before this is filed?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Conditional approval is 180 days.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 9-95 TYPE: UNLISTED
OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: CR-15
(TABLED)
GARY & VALERIE RANDALL
LOCATION: MAIN STREET
GARY RANDALL, PRESENT
MRS. LABOMBARD-The public hearing last week was tabled.
MR. PALING-The whole effort was tabled. We'll allow public
comment if necessary, but it was tabled so that another look
could be taken at the layout of the access and parking ,~nd so on.
MRS. LABOMBARD~Okay.
MR. PALING-Okay. Scott, do you want to talk to us about this?
MR. HARLICKER-The Board requested, last week, that he come in
showing the, we talked about a bunch of options. One of the
options was shutting off the existing driveway, or getting a
variance for the existing driveway, and then showing a separate
combined access point for the parking area on the east side of
the house. The applicant has submitted a revised plan showing
that access point, or combined access point on the east side of
the parking lot. I think that consideration should be given to
comi ng up wi th maybe a combi ned' par.ki ng area fo," the two
businesses that are side¡by side. I think that would be the
ideal situation. '
MR. BREWER-In other words, have his parking down in the front?
MR. HARLICKER-Well, right now, the parking for the Sattery is
really insufficient. You almost have to back out onto Main
Street, which is really an unsafe situation. If you combine the
two parking areas, there'll be room to turn around within the
parking lot and then just pull directly out onto Main Street.
MR. BREWER-Where's the Battery Shop'~'parking lot, though, down
here?
MR. PALING-No. One parking lot leads to the other.
MR. HARLICKER-There's about a three foot strip, two and a half
foot strip of grass in between them.
MR. PALING-I had occasion to be in the Battery Shop, and I came
east on Main Street, and my first pass, I couldn't get in. There
were five vehicles there, including a truck. So I went down the
street, turned around and came back, and the truck had gone, and
I could drive in, and I was the fifth vehicle in that lot, and
it's tough. I could back around and, get out, but most had to
back out onto Main Street to get out of the Battery Shop, and
that's kind of a bad condition.
MR. MARTIN-It's illegal, as a technical matter.
MR. PALING-Did you have any further conversation with the
gentleman that owns the Battery Shop?
MR. OBERMAYER-What was the outcome of the first conversation?
- 20 -
-~~
'~
"'--'
-..../
-,
---/
MR. RANDALL-First let me say, I'm Gary Randall, representing
myself and my wife, Valerie Randall. I spoke to him two days
ago. Things went well. Pretty much what was said was to get a
price on it both ways, a price on my design parking and a price
on how much more it would be to do (lost word) distance between
my property line and the end of his parking, which is probably
somewhere between three and five feet. The impression I got is
that he felt it would be to his benefit to have the parking lots
connected.
MR. MARTIN-It
access, which
to the public
properties.
certainly would be from the standpoint of public
is our primary role in this, as to how it connects
highway, to have one access point serving both
MR. PALING-Yes, that would be, one access point that would serve
both, and hopefully the cars would park, drive directly into each
building and then have plenty of room behind to back out and then
drive out. I wish I had that privilege when I went to get the
battery charged, when I went there, but I didn't.
MR. RANDALL-The revised plan shows for my parking area, it shows,
like, 12 foot entrance and a 12 foot exit, which is more than
adequate. It doesn't exceed the limits. I did get a permit for
that lot for the driveway entrance. My main concern is my own
personal parking lot, but I am more than willing to work with my
neighbor to enhance his parking. It was my idea. I would be
glad to see this connected and have the cars be able to park in
the other direction, and if a car was facing my property and on
his property, I would have no problem whatsoever for them to even
have to bother to turn around on his property to drive through my
entrance/exit.
MR. PALING-It would be far better for both businesses to do it
that way. There's a common, and in doing it that way, I think
Scott explained, you'd sort of be borrowing 10 feet from each
other, to give you that 20 foot lane to back into and drive
directly out, rather than be forced to back out there onto Main
Street. Okay. What other comments do we have on the Board?
MR. MACEWAN-I guess a couple of questions I have. Do you have
some sort of binding agreement with your neighbor about shared
dr i ves?
MR. RANDALL-I don't really want it for deed rights, or whatever
you're referring to. Should there ever be a problem, should
there be a change of ownership, and they need the buildings, it
would just be a hassle.
MR. OBERMAYER-Actually, it's going to benefit the neighbor more
than it's going to benefit you.
MR. RANDALL-I would definitely say that. Having this, my revised
map, as is, is more than adequate for myself, and if he's willing
to have the remaining section (lost words).
MR. PALING-Well, what you're asking us to do is to approve this
plan, as it is, and then you would maybe some day work with your
neighbor on a common drive.
MR. RANDALL-I'm more than willing to. I'm going to get the
prices. Like I said, he didn't give me a definite yes. The
feelings I've got would be that that's what he would like to do.
MR. PALING-It's not uncommon for us to go for common shared
driveways. We just did it with McDonald's, this type of thing,
and it's not uncommon at all, when we try to ~·educe the curb cuts
and accesses to a minimum, especially along a street like this,
and I guess what I'm pointing toward is I'd like to see you agree
with your neighbor and have that on that basis, to go ahead with
- 21 -
"'-
it, but I'll see how the rest of the Board feels on that.
MR. BREWER-I think it's a great idea if he does it, but I don't
know how legally we can make him do it, can we, Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. You can't force it, and by the same token,
although it sounds fine, I think, to everybody, unless it is
formally accomplished by way of some sort of deed or formal
agreement, you also can't rely on it, and I think the applicant's
being candid in saying you can't rely on it, because he doesn't
want you to rely on it. .
MR. RANDALL-I'm here to take care of myself, and I'm more than
willing to help my neighbor out.
MR. PALING-Well, can we approve
violating anythi.q~? OkaY,~
this
as
it is,
here, without
, '
MR. RANDALL-The only problem 1 ran into was having ~~o,driveways
on one lot.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
existing driveway.
He indicated he's willing to give up the
MR. RANDALL-No, no. I'd have two separate lots.
MR. BREWER-Two separate lots.
MR. MARTIN-I see. Okay.
MR. RANDALL-I have a driveway entrance for the 25 foot lot.
MR. BREWER-How are you going to differentiate that, though?
MR. RANDALL-Do I need to differentiate it? I have the tax map
that shows.
MR. BREWER-No. I don't have a problem with thät. I mean, how
are you going to stop your customers from using that driveway? I
mean, you really can't.
MR. RANDALL-I don't see how anybody would want to drive in there.
The entrance is over on the other side. Everything is oriented
to show the appearance of the entrance on that side.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So then what's the need for it?
MR. RANDALL-For private, our private parking, private entrance,
access to the existing ~arage.
MR. PALING-It's a very
welcome you to occupy it,
there YOU're, obviously,
that'd be a problem.
narrow driveway. It doesn't really
I don't think. Because if you park in
bloc ki ng the gar age,' I don't thi nk
MR. MACEWAN-The area down there, it's strictly zoned as
Commercial Residential, but does that mean you can only have a
certain, for this particular usage down there, future for small
professional type offices, nothing that would have a high volume?
MR. MARTIN-Right. The uses are clearly restricted in that zone.
MR. MACEWAN-I guess my concern is, if he ever decided, down the
road, to sell this parcel, what kind of problems would we be
creating having more traffic rolling into there, with a high
usage office of some kind?
MR. MARTIN-You have office building, social club or fraternal
organization, hospital, nursing home. health related facility,
day care center, restaurant, banking facility, gas station.
- 22 -
'-'
~,~
-r"
MR. MACEWAN-So it's wide open, then.
MR. RANDALL-It's to ~ understanding you have to show adequate
parking per square footage of the building. So anybody that
wanted to show, I had to show per 150 feet. Anybody that did a
business, I believe (lost word) per 100 feet or whatnot.
MR. MACEWAN-Does Staff feel comfortable with the two 12 foot
entrance/exit?
MR. MARTIN-The mlnlmum is 20 feet. So we're in excess of that,
actually, 20 feet's a little tight anyhow.
MR. PALING-Okay. Do I hear a motion?
MR. BREWER-We've got to do a Short Form SEQRA, first.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 9-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
WHEREAS, there
application for:
is presently before the Planning
GARY & VALERIE RANDALL, and
Board
an
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas
of environmental concern and having considered the criteria
for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that
the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer,
Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ruel
MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me, Bob. My notes
public hearing was not closed last month.
should close it now, before your motion.
say that the Randall
If that's true, you
- 23 -
MR. PALING-Yes. I think we talked about that before.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. We did.
MR. PALING-Let me ask if there is anyone else fTom the public
that would like to speak about this matt~r?" No?' The public
hearing is, therefore, closed. ~,
, Î!
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-95 GARY & VA~ERIE RANDALL,
Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Craig MacEwan:
Duly adopted this '28th' day of March~ 1995, by the following vote:
-, '. '. _ 1" ~ ,; ("', t
AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ma6Ë~an, Mr. Stark;'
Mr. Paling ,
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard
ABSENT: Mr. Ruel
MR. RANDALL-Thank you.
MR. PALING-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
MARILYN SMITH KARA BEAMS - POWER OF ATTORNEY OWNER: MARILYN
SMITH ZONE: LC-l0A/RR-5A LOCATION: WESTERLY OF TUTHILL ROAD
PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A +/- 99.53 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF
53.89 ACRES (LOT 1) AND 45.64 ACRES (LOT 2). THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF LAKE LUZERNE AND THE TOWN OF OUEENSBURY
WITH 28.63 ACRES OF LOT 1 AND 29.4 ACRES OF LOT 2 IN OUEENSBURY.
APA TAX MAP NO. 123-1-40.1 LOT SIZE: +/- 99.53 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MELANIE FUERST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-1995, Marilyn Smith Kara
Beames/Power of Attorney, Meeting Date: March 28~ 1995 "This is
a simple two lot subdivision. The topography is steep with
relatively level building area near the road. Lot one has an
existing house with a septic system and a well; lot two has an
existing barn. The property is split zoned with the steep rear
portion of the property zone LC-l0A and the front buildable area
zoned RR-5A. Both 16ts will be serviced by site septics and
wells."
MR. HARLICKER-It's a fairly straightforward two lot subdivision.
MR.
with
the
No.
PALING-Yes. I don't have any comments on this one. I agree
Scott. It's pretty straightforward. Does anyone else on
Board have any comments, before we talk to the applicant?
Okay. Are you representing the applicant?
MS. FUERST-I represent the applicant.
Northeast Land Survey.
Melanie Fuerst from
MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I don't have any questions.
MR. OBERMAYER-Neither do I. Itls a nice piece of property.
MR. PALING-I think it's very straightforward, and I don't think
- 24 -
'-'
--'
'-'
'./
we have any questions. All right, then.
have we got now? The public hearing.
hearing for anyone that would like
application.
I guess we better, what
We'll open the public
to talk about this
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. PALING~Okay. Then we're going to have to do a SEQRA, and
this is the Long Form SECRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 6-1995, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved
for its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
WHEREAS, the)"e
application for:
is presently before
MARILYN SMITH, and
the
Planning
Board
an
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
,NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the $tate Environmental Quality Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas
of environmental concern and having considered the criteria
for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that
the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer
MR. PALING-Okay. We need a motion.
MR. HARLICKER-There's a prepared resolution, also, for this
project.
- 25 -
MR. MACEWAN-On this subdivision, the clearing limits
denoted with dimensions, so that we know where they're
be.
should be
going to
MR. STARK-It's all cleared off down at the bottom anyway.
MR. MACEWAN-There's wooded up higher, according to the map.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but that's just a fraction of the amount of
land.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. There's a ton of property there.
MR. PALING-I don't think we need it in this case, do we?
MR. OBERMAYER-No. I don't think so.
MR. PALING-We'll see what others say, Craig, but I don't think we
need it.
, .,! ", f' il,;.
MR. MACEWAN-Okén;., ':! ;~~'m just brlnQ,ing it ,up fOTi sug~~~tiori'1'
MRS, FUERs,s":$fn¿e I 've'i çkHI~~i"thi~i ,ma~:~,;thi~ mappi n~, f<;)1- t.his
showing where the cleariDg went towÂrd, it was under progress of
being logged, but now it~s complet~ly ~raded off and'flat. I
don't know if anybody's had a chance to drive by, but it's
completely all graded.
MR. MACEWAN-That's why I'm abstaining.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, we were there.
MR. PALING-Yes. I was there.
resolution on this one.
Okay. All right, and we have a
MOTION TO APPROYE SUBDIVISION ~9. 6-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE
MARILYN SMITH, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its
adoption, seconded by George Stark:
As noted.
Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of
preliminary subdivision application, file # 6-
1995, to subdivide a 99.53 acre parcel into two
lots; the parcel is split between the Town of
Luzerne and the Town of Queensbury with 28.63
acres of Lot 1 and 29.4 acres of Lot 2 in
Queensbury; and
t.Jhereas,
the above
application
following:
referenced preliminary subdivision
dated 2/17/95 consists of the
1. Sheet 1, 2 lot subdivision of lands of
Marilyn Smith, dated 2/17/95; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documentation:
1. Staff notes, dated 3/28/95
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/28/95 concerning
the above subdivision; and
Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the
appropriate town departments and outside agencies
for their review and comment; and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered; and
- 26 -
~
~
,.,/
Whereas,
the proposed subdivision is subject
following modifications and terms
submission of the plat in final form;
to
prior
the
to
Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows:
The Town Planning Board, after considering the
above, hereby move to approve preliminary
subdivision MARILYN SMITH, file # 6-1995.
Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer
SITE PLAN NO. 10-95 TYPE II WILLIAM BERNARD OWNER:
ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: NORTH CORNER OF KNOX &
PT. ROADS PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A SUN DECK/ROOF
EXISTING DOCK. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 3/8/95 LGPC
NO. 7-1-16.6 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16D
SAME AS
ASSEMBLY
OVER AN
TAX MAP
WILLIAM BERNARD, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-95, William Bernard, Meeting
Date: March 28, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to construct a
roof/sundeck over an existing dock. The deck will be
approximately 18 feet wide and 34 feet long; the top of the
railing will be approximately 12 feet above the water level. The
roof complies with the crit~ria found in Section 179-60 of the
Zoning codè relating to cov~~ed docks."
MR. HARLICKER-Warren County approved with the condition that the
steps to the sundeck are from the dock and not from the land, and
there's also a prepared resolution for this project.
MR. PALING-Right.
question I have on
on the deck, will
surface?
Okay. I don't have many comments. The only
this was that the railing that will be built
that be open? It won't be a closed solid
MR. BERNARD-No.
MR. PALING-It'll be open.
questions on this?
Okay.
Does anyone else have any
MR. STARK-Did you plan on building the steps from the dock rather
than the land?
MR. BERNARD-Bill Bernard, Assembly Point. I hadn't planned
either way, but if I had put them on there, they had called me,
and they asked me where my steps were going to come from, and I
said from the land, because it's the shortest route up, and I
didn't know it, but they don't approve them going from the land.
I happened to get there before they closed the meeting, and
before they disapproved it, so I said I'd put them from the dock.
MR. PALING-Okay. It's not a problem. We can make that part of
the motion.
MR. BERNARD-Yes. I don't have a problem.
MR. PALING-Okay, and that's satisfactory?
- 27 -
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments?
MR. OBERMAYER-No. I mean, your neighbor has the exact, he has a
roof over his already.
MR. BERNARD-Right.
MR. PALING-Several.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, right along there.
MR. PALING-The whole neighborhood has got, there's a bunch of
them there. That shouldn't be a problem.
MR. OBERMAYER-What's the overall height going to be on it?
MR. PALING-Twelve feet.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Here it is. Right here.
MR. PALING-Okay. We have a public hearing on this. Is there
anyone here from the public that would like to talk about this
subject?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HARLICKER-We did get a phone call from a John Quinlan. He
owns a dock to the south. His cómment was that it's too
congested and this roof will block his views of the lake. We
have a letter from Joseph and Janice Tornabene, "In reference to
the application of William Bernard of Knox and Assembly Point
Roads for construction of a sun deck/roof over his existing dock.
As bordering neighbors we are fully in favor of the project as
Mr. Bernard respects his neighbors and the best interest of the
lake. Respectfully, Joseph & Janice Tornabene"
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. PALING-There seems to be lots of docks in that area. I don't
think we could turn it down on the basis of it. It fits the
neighborhood.. Okay. Now, do we need a SEQRA on this?
,"j i
MR.. HARLICKè:R.-It's cODsidlqred a Type IX ·.Aç;tion. So SEQRA is not
a requ,ir ement.,
, MR. PALING-Okay,.; Then we
resolution on this one.
, Ii.! ,Jt'
can entertsln .amotion.
We have
a
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN
Introduced by James Obermayer
seconded by George Stark:
NO.
who
~O-95
moved
WILLIAM
for its
BERNARD,
adoption,
11,,1
As noted.
Whereas, the Town Plannlng Department is in receipt of site
plan subdivision file' 10-95 to construct a deck
over an existing dock; and
Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated
2/22/95 consists of the following:
1. Sheet 1, site ~lan, ~ridat~d
2. Sheet 2, elevations, undated; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documentation:
1. Staff notes, dated 3/28/95
- 28 -
...........
,----"
'-
..-
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/28/95 concerning
the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the
proposal complies with the site plan review
standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of
the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the
environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of
the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning).
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered; and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering
the above, hereby move to approve site plan ~
10-95.
2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized
to sign the above referenced plan.
3. The applicant shall present the above
referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set
forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on
compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval
process.
Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mr. Ruel
SITE PLAN NO. 5-95 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 CONSTRUCT A MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT AND
RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 2-1995 SUB. 18-
1994 BEAUTIFICATION: 3/6/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/8/95 TAX
MAP NO. 110-1-3.3 LOT SIZE: 1.833 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 D
ED BEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-95, McDonald's Corp., Meeting
Date: March 28, 1995 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the
project for compliance with Section 179-38A, Section 179-38B,
Section 179-38C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section
179-39 and found that the project complies 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 placement of the building in
the center of the lot will allow for future expansion of Dix
Avenue without significant impact on the site. Lighting includes
six pole mounted lights on the site and one adjacent to the
access drive. Wall mounted accent lamps will be located on the
sides of the building. Signage includes directional signs and a
freestanding road sign which are subject to a separate permit.
- 29 -
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and
circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement
surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The main access to the
site will be from Dix Avenue. The_access will service both the
McDonald's site and the adjacent par~el to the east. This access
will have to be designed to allow for left turns on to the
adjacent parcel. A secondary access will be through the adjacent
King Fuel parcel to the west. The secondary access will be 24
feet wide allowing for twelve foot lanes. Cir6Glation through
the site is one way in a counter clockwise direction. There
appears to be stacking room for about six cars in the drive
through lane before any parking spaces are blocked. 3. The
location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street
parking and loading; The applicant is proposing 48 parking
spaces, including 2 handicapped spaces. Most of the parking
spaces, 38 of them, are located around the perimeter of the paved
area. The remaining 10 spaces, including the 2 handicapped, are
located along the west side of ihe building. This arrangement
works well with the proposed traffic flow and minimizes the
number of customers that will have to cross in front of the drive
through window to access the building. 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.
There will be three entrances to the building for 6ustomers, two
on the west side and one on the east side. The entrance near the
front on the west side will be handicapped accessible and
adjacent to the handicapped parking spaces. 5. The adequacy of
stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater drairiage is being
reviewed by Rist-Frost. 6. The adequacy of water supply and
sewage disposal facilities; The site is serviced by municipal
water and the on site septic system is being reviewed by Rist-
Frost. 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 has amended the landscaping plan to incorporate the
recommendations of the Beautification Committee. Since this is a
very prominent intersection and viewed as an entrance into
Queensbury, street trees along road frontages would be an asset.
The back of the dumpster is lacking any screenIng. 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. ponding, flooding and erosion do not appear to
be problems. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the
access from Dix Avenue be designed to allow for a left turn lane
into the adjacent parcel to the west, street trees be planted
along the frontage of Dix Avenue, Highland Avenue and Quaker
Road, and screening should be provided to the rear of the
dumpster."
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-The only additional comment, in terms of the tree
planting, it should be done in such a manner as to not interfere
with any utility poles in that area or overhead utility lines.
MR. PALING-Okay. If there are no questions for Scott, we'll ask
Bill. I think you have comments on this?
BILL MACNAMARA, RIST-FROST
MR. MACNAMARA-The only remaining comments are dated March 21st,
and they're in addition to comments that were dated on February
22nd and also the 15th of March. All the previous comments have
been addressed and worked out between the applicant's engineering
group and ourselves. The only additional engineering related
- 30 -
"--'
'-
--
comment that is not shown on a site plan has to do with elevation
of the invert of the actual discharge point, which is an overflow
point only. Our last comment 'letter is dated March 21st.
They're in addition to comments that were made February 23rd and
March 15th. Previous comments have all been worked out between
the applicant and ourselves. The only outstanding engineering
comment that has essentially been agreed upon, it just hasn't
shown up on a site plan yet, has to do with the actual overflow
of the stormwater system elevation point to the County's right-
of-way, sewer, ditch, on Quaker Road. Essentially we had asked
that the outlet be raised to a point that it was high enough to
maintain, essentially, all of the stormwater on the McDonald's
property before any overflow would occur, and they have agreed,
and it simply hasn't been shown yet, and it's not a major issue
except changing a drawing. Other than that, Scott indicated, we
had reviewed the septic system. We had only reviewed it in a
general fashion, since both the DOH and DEC are issuing permits.
We understand those permits have been issued. Regarding the curb
cut issue, we understand that the County is reviewing and has
already approved the curb cut access arrangement as well as the
regrading shown on Quaker Road. Those are our comments.
MR. PALING-Okay. Yes, I think I agree with all of that.
MR. OBERMAYER-Bill,
flow into this 18
retention pond?
regarding the stormwater, that's going to
inch CMP which goes over to the K-Mart
MR. MACNAMARA-In a worst case situation, yes, but the way they've
got it designed and the way that, that's why we're concerned
about that elevation out of that exiting drywell, is that it
should all stay on their property, and infiltrate, or remain in
the pipes until, I believe it's a 50 year storm calculates out to
be necessary to reach that overflow point, before it gets to that
18 inch culvert, and before it gets to that culvert, they've
changed from their initial design to include perforated pipe from
their exiting drywell to that dit~h.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. They're going to put a drywell at the exit
right down here. Is that what you're saying?
MR. MACNAMARA-It's actually, it's
a catch basin, and that has been
the property, at the K-Mart side
drywell, and I've got details on
included them at the Town's.
the last, it used to be called
changed also, at the corner of
and the river side. That's a
that also, and I think I have
MR. OBERMAYER-I was just curious why you didn't put drywells
throughout the parking lot, you know, instead of running with the
catch basins.
MR~ BEELER-My name is Ed Beeler, and I'm a Project Manager with
McDonald's. Basically, our Design Engineer, who's Northeast Land
Surveyors and Land Development felt that the perforated pipe
provided a better option, here. It kept the water up above the
seasonal highwater table, much better than it could with
d,"ywells.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
MR. MACNAMARA-The first submittal, we had asked ourselves the
same question. They had then come back and put a large drywell
at the exit, and added perforated pipe at the discharge, and
actually showed to us in a little clearer fashion that the
perforated pipe on their property was going to properly handle
it. So, otherwise, we would have asked that also.
MR. MACEWAN-Do you have a copy of the Staff Notes, Mr. Beeler?
Did you receive a copy, because I'm just curious, would you
address items five, six, and seven, and respond to them for us?
- 31 -
Actually, two of them have been taken care of. I'm curious about
when you went to the Beautification Committee, they recommended
additional plantings.
MR. BEELER-They did ask for some bushes along the front row of
parking there, which we did add.
MR. MACEWAN-And Staff is also asking for some plantings along, as
they put it, the side of the road.
MR. PALING-Yes. Staff's are in addition to the Beautification
Committee. Right.
MR. MACEWAN-What was Staff looking for, specifically?
MR. MARTIN-I think the basic comment was; and Scott can chime in
here, too, was, you know, this is the first development we have
beyond the King Fuel site, obviously; on this overall block, and
I think we have an opportunity, here, to begin a theme, so to
speak, of plantings along the roadways, there, and then,
obviously, with the following site plan, that would occur further
to the east here on the vacant property, we would pick up on that
theme with that property. We have a chance, now, to begin
plantings along the street here.
MR. HARLICKER-And there's also a vacant 14 or 15 acre parcel
across the street from this, where it will carryon the same sort
of thi ng .
MR. MARTIN-So over time you develop a tree, lined street there, so
to speak, in that section of Dix Avenue.
MR. MACEWAN-How much are you looking for, and what are you
looki ng fo)".
MR. MARTIN-I would think something on an agreed upon interval of
plantings, you know, maples or something of that hature, I'd say
every 20 or 30 feet or something like that.
MR. BREWER-How much room do we have from the, he's got to be able
to get them back far enough so that the salts from the road don't
kill t.hem off.
MR. MARTIN-Right, and I don't know where the power lines are
exact.ly. I didn't review the.
MR. HARLICKER-The property li~e is set back, originally, quite a
~.Jays from the.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. So that should be adequate, then, for utility
purposes.
MR. MACEWAN-Would that be acceptable to you, Mr. Bee¡er, maple
trees at 30 foot intervals?
MR. BREWER-Thirty foot's quite a ways.
MR. BEELER-I don't have a problem
word) freestanding sign that's out
our property line, so the maple
problem, but 10 years down the road,
our sign (lost word), flowering crab
with planting trees. (lost.
there, set back 15 feet from
trees today would not be a
they will grow up and block
apples.
MR. MARTIN-That's fine.
Whatever's agreed upon.
I just cited that as an example.
MR. MACEWAN-How was it left with the Beautification Committee?
MR. BEELER-The Beautification Committee, basically, they were
just looking for three or four groups of bushes where the front
- 32 -
--
'--'" '
'-"'
-/
parking stalls are, basically, just trying to hide some of the
cars that were parking along there. They weren't asking for
trees. They were just asking for bushes, which are now shown,
the landscaping plan, to screen some of the cars.
MR. MACEWAN-And for also screening the dumpster out back.
MR. BEELER-We show some pine trees on both sides of there. We
could move those around, add a couple there to screen the back of
it.
MR. MACEWAN-Is that acceptable to Staff?
MR. PALING-Yes. I think to Staff you'll need to submit a new
plan, so they'll.
MR. MARTIN-Well, we should agree upon it tonight.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We need to quantify the numbers here.
MR. MARTIN-This just should be a matter of us approving what's
agreed upon tonight.
MR. PALING-Then lets stick with the dumpster, then. What do we
~.Ja nt to as k?
MR. BREWER-Isn't a dumpster, typically put in a stockade fence
type, corral type thing?
MR. MARTIN-Is there going to be a stockade enclosure around the
dumpster, or is it going to be?
MR. BEELER-Well, it's a masonry structure, six feet tall.
MR. BREWER-With a gate on the?
MR. BEELER-With a gate on the front. So the dumpsters itself are
screened within the structure.
MR. OBERMAYER-When you say masonry, are they going to be block
walls?
MR. BEELER-Yes. It will be a (lost word) face block.
MR. PALING-Okay, then that'll be the face, here.
MR. MACEWAN-Why do you need plantings around that?
MR. MARTIN-We thought it was a stand alone dumpster.
MR. PALING-Okay. Then the seven pine trees I think will be
adequate for that.
MR. MARTIN-I think they're adequate.
MR. PALING-Yes. So we can forget the dumpster, but now we talked
about the frontage on Dix Avenue.
MR. BREWER-You really think after maple trees get to
they're going to deter people from going to McDonald's?
think that's a problem.
be big
I don't
MR. BEELER-Well, we are an impulse business, and if the sign is
hidden.
MR. BREWER-Boy, if they can't see the building and miss the sign,
then I think you've got a problem.
MR. MARTIN-There's no impulse in my five year old son. He knows
exactly what a Happy Meal is and a play ground.
- 33 -
MR. PALING-But couldn't we give the applicant an option to do
something else, if they feel strongly about that kind of a tree?
MR. BREWER-Yes, but then are we going to have the next site plan
come in and put crab apple trees? Is that? I mean, we've got to
be consistent.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's what I'm saying.
MR. MACEWAN-I'm inclined to agree with Tim. I don't think that
maple trees would deter from the Golden Arches.
MR. BREWER-If they're 30 foot apart, granted if they grow to be
30 or 40 feet tall, I don't think it's going to block any view
from McDonald's, that sign. I think the building itself is going
to be big as life, and people are going to know it's there, and
driving by, they're going to see the building before they're
going to see the sign. Maybe I'm wrong.
MR. OBERMAYER-Has the Beautification Committee said, given their
okay?
MR. MARTIN-This is the Planning Staff's comments. It's clearly
recognized as a Planning Staff comment, in addition and above and
beyond the Beautification Committee.
MR. MACEWAN-I think Staff has a good idea, for trying to
establish a nice, scenic entrance to that end of Town.
MR. HARLICKER-I mean, this area here almost serves as ,an entrance
point to Queensbury, right in here, and 1 think it's important
that it start to get dressed up.
MR. PALING-All right. We're down to one point regarding, do we
want, are we going to say maple trees?
MR. MACEWAN-How many trees are we looking at for that parcel?
MR. MARTIN-Depending on the interval you plant them at.
MR. MACEWAN-If we went with 30 foot.
MR. OBERMAYER-They're going to grow.
MR. MARTIN-One to twenty scale on the landscaping plan. I think
that would yield, at 30 foot intervals, you're looking at,
potentially, eight trees across the Dix Avenue side, eight trees
along the Quaker Road side, and probably six along the Highland
Avenue side.
MR. PALING-That's 22 trees.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Yes, he's correct.
side.
Three along the Dix Avenue
MR. MACEWAN-Three on Dix?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. PALING-You said eight Dix.
MR. MARTIN-No. We're saying three along Dix Avenue.
MR. BREWER-That's pretty sparse, isn't it, one on each end and
one in the center, is that what you're saying?
MR. PALING-Well, he scaled it off, though.
MR. HARLICKER-We're talking probably one, do you see where the
clumps of bushes are.
- 34 -
"'--'
--/
-..../
MR. MARTIN-See, Tim, the parking spaces there along the front?
They're each 10 feet wide. So that's a good gauge. So if you go
one, two, three, well, maybe four.
MR. BREWER-Four in the front?
MR. PALING-Now you're talking Dix Avenue.
MR. BREWER-Four on Dix Avenue.
MR. PALING-All right. How about Quaker Road?
Can Quaker Road take eight?
You said eight.
MR. MARTIN-Five, Bob, along Quaker Road.
MR. PALING-Five sounds more like it, yes.
on Haviland, four?
How much do you want
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Four will do it, on Haviland.
MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Then there's only one question. I
don't think we actually, is that the end of planting and trees?
MR. OBERMAYER-I'm more than satisfied.
MR. STARK-Mr. Beeler, the trees that you plant have to be taken
into account, with the future expansion of Dix Avenue.
MR. PALING-I get your point.
MR. STARK-We're going to expand the road, you plant the trees and
they expand the road and the trees are down.
MR. PALING-That's right.
MR. BREWER-That's why I asked if he's got room enough between the
curb, and the building's set back. Remember we had them move it
back an extra 16 feet?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. BREWER-So he's got plenty of room.
MR. MARTIN-You can get them 30,40 feet off the road, still.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. BREWER-So if he puts 13.
MR. PALING-That's 13 trees total.
MR. BREWER-And what caliper?
MR. PALING-What are we going with, three inch?
MR. BREWER-Say an aVe1" age of three inch.
MR. PALING-Yes.
saying.
I think three inch is about what we've been
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. Can we move away from plantings and trees and
things.
MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, before you move on, the applicant has
consented to that planting plan, I take it?
MR. BEELER-Yes.
- 35 -
MR. PALING-And it'll be part of the m6tion. Yes. Okay. Now,
the left turn lane into the adjacent parcel, has this been
clarified, as per Staff comments?
MR. BEELER-It's going to be kind of difficult to design a left
hand turn lane for a development that we don't know what's going
to happen, where they're going to put their building, where it's
going to be laid out, how they're going to leave room for access.
MR. PALING-Okay. Scott, I'll refer to you to comment on that.
MR. HARLICKER-I was trying to come up with.
MR. BREWER-The site plan that's going to come in on the next
piece of property's going to have to design it when they come in,
right?
MR. MARTIN-That's the access point.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-So, lets not, I don't think it's a problem right now.
MR. PALING-You can't do anything with it now, then.
MR. BREWER-Like
building's going
for it.
he said, we don't
to be or anything.
have any idea where the
As long as room is provided
MR. HARLICKER-So when they come in, they'll just have to redesign
the whole thing to accommodate it.
MR. PALING-When they come in. So lets take that out, okay. All
right. Now, what other comments do we have here? What do we
need next on this?
MR. BREWER-Just a motion.
MR. PALING-We need a motion. All right. The ,SEQRA's done. All
right. I'll make a motion.
MR. HARLICKER-There's a prepared resolution for this, also.
MR. PALING-The public hearing has been held. If there's anyone
here from the public that wishes to comment, we'll hear you, but
the public hearing itself has actually been closed.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not on site plan. The public hearing on site plan
has not been held, and is listed for tonight. You're thinking of
subdivision. So you should open the public hearing for site plan
for tonight.
MR. PALING-Okay. I stand corrected, but that's the way it reads.
Okay. The public hearing on this subject is open, for anyone
that cares to comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MARTIN-And the SEQRA was done during subdivision.
MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. I will make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-95
Introduced by Robert Paling who' moved for its
by George Stark:
MCDONALD'S CORP.,
adoption, seconded
- 36 -
'--
--
----
--
Owner: Ed King, with the following conditions: That the
plantings be in accordance with the request of the Beautification
Committee. In addition, that maple trees, three inches in
diameter minimum, be planted as follows: Four on the Highland
Avenue side, five on Quaker Road, and four on Dix Avenue. When
this planting is done, consideration should be given to the
expansion, future expansion, of Dix Avenue, that is to keep the
trees as far back from the road as possible, as noted in the
resolution.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan
modification file # 5-95 to construct a McDonald's
restaurant and related site improvements; and
Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated
12/27/94 consists of the following:
1. Sheet C-1A, site plan, revised 2/24/95
2. Sheet C-2, site utilities plan, revised
3/16/95
3. Sheet C-3, site grading plan, revised 3/16/95
4 . Landscaping plan, revised 3/8/95
5. Boundary an topographic survey, revised
2/22/95
6. Boundary and survey, revised 2/21/95
7 . Sheet Ai, floor plan, revised 8/1/94
8. Sheet A3, elevations, revised 8/1/94
9. Sheet A4, elevations, revised 8/1/94; and
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following
documentation:
1. Staff note, dated 3/28/95
2. Engineering comments, dated 2/21/95, 3/15/95
and 3/21/95
3. Stormwater management report, dated 11/94
4. Letter from the GFTC, dated 2/7/95; and
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/28/95 concerning
the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the
proposal complies with the site plan review
standards and requirements found in Section 179-38
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning);
and
IrJhereas,
the Planning Board has considered
environmental factors found in Section 179-39
the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning).
the
of
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered; and
Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows:
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering
the above, hereby move to approve site plan #
5-95.
2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized
to sign the above referenced plan.,
3. The applicant shall present the above
referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set
forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditions on
compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval
- 37 -
process.
Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark,
Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ruel
MRS. LABOMBARD-The next item is, we're going to go out of order,
momentarily, here. It's a discussion item. It has to do with
Dr. Robert Orban, Jr.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
Dr. Robert Orban. Jr. - Preliminary discussion regarding a
variance application before the Zoning Board of Appeals on March
22nd (approved) that has been referred to the Planning Board for
site plan review.
MR. PALING-Do you have any comments from Staff on this?
MR. MARTIN-Nothing formal. We'll have them next month when it's
in for formal review.
MR. HARLICKER-Looking at it, it's quite an improvement over
what's there.
MR. PALING-I agree. I pass that at least twice a day. I agree.
MR. MARTIN-This was quite
Zoning Board of Appeals.
site plan review.
a lengthy discussion each time at the
One of the conditions placed on it was
MR. PALING-Yes, and one of the conditions, also, in there, was
that specific businesses are, it is limited to specific types of
businesses, and will you tell us, when you come back, what
business will be there. It's either one or two businesses, I
understand.
DR. ORBAN-My name is Robert Orban, and I hope to be the
prospective buyer of this property, but I am not the current
owner. I'm under realty contract for the property. Let me make
sure I understand your question, because we did define a list
with the Zoning Board, and it's 30 or 30 some long, as to what
types of businesses can be allowed in there. They also defined
that no more than two principal businesses occupy the building at
anyone time.
MR. PALING-Principal, define that for me.
DR. ORBAN-That was their word. That should appear in the zoning
variance.
MR. PALING-Right, and that's what I was referring to, and when
you come back for a site plan, that you'll select from this list
of businesses as to what, you'll specify which business?
DR. ORBAN-Well, two thirds of the building, the bigger part of
the building, will be my office.
MR. PALING-Your own office. Okay.
DR. ORBAN-There'll be 1250 feet in the rear of the building that
will be, I can give you the list.
MR. PALING-No.
- 38 -
---
---
--../
DR. ORBAN-It will be one, hopefully, we'd rent it to one of
those.
MR. PALING-The same category as the ZBA specified.
DR. ORBAN-Yes. Do you want any other additional information?
MR. PALING-No, not at this time.
MR. BREWER-What zone is this?
MR. MARTIN-It was, I think, Suburban Residential, or Urban
Residential.
MR. BREWER-Does that require a buffer zone between the property
line and where the house is? Do you know if it does, Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-It's not, are you talking about the buffer when
there's a commercial zone adjacent to a residential zone?
MR. BREWER-So that doesn't apply here?
MR. SCHACHNER-Not if it's not a zoning dist1-ict.
MR. BREWER-It's a variance, so it doesn't apply.
MR. MARTIN-And it's also an existing building.
MR. PALING-I have one other comment. It looks like you have a
very nice planting job coming along, and I think we're all happy
about that, especially when we drive by it all the time. See the
building deteriorating and the lot not being improved. This
should correct that. The people coming out of Dixon Court could
have a problem if the bushes or whatever grow too high, in seeing
around the corner. So I hope you'll take that into consideration
when that's being designed and keep the plantings low, for now in
the future, so when they come to turn left out of there, that
they can still have a good look down Dixon Road.
MR. HARLICKER-How are you going to control the access there out
on Dixon Road? You've got it indicated as just one way in.
What's going to prevent people from backing out and then trying
to make right turns across traffic there onto Dixon?
JIM MILLER
MR. MILLER-At that
only, sign, and I
other thing we've
when they come in
out and continue
di 1-ect ion.
entry here, we're going to put a low, enter
guess, you know, people try to get out. The
done is we've angled the parking there. So
and park, it's going to be much easier to back
on and out, rather than to back the other
MR. MACEWAN-Along that side of Dixon Road, as Bob was mentioning,
you have the two pear trees that you plan on planting there. How
tall do they grow, normally?
MR. MILLER-They're a medium sized tree. They'll get to be 25 to
30 feet high, but they'll branch high enough that there won't be
a problem.
MR. MACEWAN-They won't obstruct a view down Dixon Road, to see
oncoming traffic?
MR. MILLER-No. They'll be able to see below it from eye level in
a car.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Fine.
MR. MARTIN-Are there any power lines overhead in that area?
- 39 -
MR. MILLER-Not along the road. There's just an easement across
here, and we sort of straddle that.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. STARK-Have you talk to any neighbors, like Mickey behind you,
or Timmy Chase, at all?
DR. ORBAN-Have I spoken with them? Mickey Choppa was at the
public hearing for the Zoning Board, and was all in support of
this idea. He just wanted to make sure that there were no
commercial enterprises in there, retail businesses.
MR. PALING-Yes. You don't intend any
the building? It's going to be what it
changes to the profile of
is?
DR. ORBAN-Correct. There may be some very minor adjustments, if
we are going to need to add in a door or two, and then (lost
word) outside the mansard, we might put a little overhead
protector, or something like that. There will be no more
physical structure added to the building to increase the interior
square feet.
MR. HARLICKER-Are you going to be doing any sort of exterior
renovations to the facade or anything like that?
DR. ORBAN-Yes. What we have planned is to renovate the surface
of the mansard with a metal, what would look like almost like a
Spanish tile, metal, as opposed to having it look like a store
front, like Seven Eleven or something like that, and I plan to
run the, continue what's there on the batten board, in the front,
and a thi rd of the way down the side of the bui ldi ng, just e:<tend
the batten board down (lost words).
MR. PALING-When are you going to start?
DR. ORBAN-Well, hopefully settlement at the end of April, and
then start very shortly after that. I'd like to be in there the
f i )"st of August.
MR. OBERMAYER-Is the parking lot going to be all the precast
concrete pavers?
DR. ORBAN-Probably not, at this point. I would prefer,
initially, for matters of cost, to do that either with,
essentially, Grade One Railroad Tie or perhaps some six by six
landscaping timbers first. They cost about, the cost of the
concrete pavers is about $4500 for that length, and initially
coming in, not aware 01 the expens~ of this type of landscaping,
and so I plan to do that, at least provisionally, some type of
timber, with the idea that, maybe a number of years down the
line, we c00ld change that over.
MR. MARTIN-Just so you're aware, we try and stress this with
applicants, that landscaping is part of your CO. So CO won't be
issued until the landscaping plan is installed as approved.
MR. OBERMAYER-So if you're not going to use pavers, you ought to
change it.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm just saying, take that into consideration,
which is design your plan, whatever you can afford, you can
afford, and that's what should be part of the plan. Sometimes we
get applicants that come in showing the Board what they think
they want to see, and then they go away and they run into
budgetary problems or something.
DR. ORBAN-The border along the parking lot, where we're talking
about here, in concrete pavers versus a wooden structure, would
be the only thing that I think would be in variance with the
- 40 -
--
--
-/
existing (lost word).
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
MR. PALING-Any other comments?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm just glad to see that building's going to be
used for something nice like this.
MR. PALING-Okay. What do we do now? Nothing.
MR. SCHACHNER-Nothing.
MR. STARK-See you next month.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Next on the discussion items is Site Plan No. 13-
90 The Great Escape.
SITE PLAN NO. 13-90 GREAT ESCAPE Five year condition regarding
sand and gravel extraction to expire.
JOHN LEMERY & TOM WAGES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. PALING-Okay. Staff, Scott?
MR. MARTIN-Well, the reason why this is here. This is, the
Planning Board, in 1990, approved a site plan for a gravel
extraction operation in the area behind the Trading Post, and
that expired yesterday, and that's why this was attempted to be
on your agenda last week. I think, as it stands right now, the
permit is, technically, expired, and I think, based on what, I've
reviewed the old plans, things there that are present today seem
to be substantially different than they were on that plan. What
I would suggest, that this come for a full site plan review, as
called for in the Land Conservation zone, and hopefully we can
get that submitted as soon as possible and get it under review.
MR. PALING-Okay. Then you're saying to let the expiration be, to
not allow a short term extension, just go right for the full site
plan review?
MR. MARTIN-Right. That would be my recommendation, with the
Board's discretion, but that would be my recommendation. There
has been things I noted out there. Last fall, they did appear to
seed the one slope there, in the area in front of it, they have a
berm along the top edge of the upper tier, but I think we need to
get information on it. What's the existing topography? What is
the proposed topography? What's the extent of the extraction
proposed? What's the remediation plan when it's completed?
What's proposed for temporary erosion control? All those types
of things, because this is obviously very close to the wetland.
It actually adjoins it.
MR. BREWER-I would just make a comment, if it expired yesterday,
legally, do we have a choice, rather than just go right to a site
pIa. n?
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, that was ffiZ question, too.
MR. LEMERY-If I could speak to it, please. My name is John
Lemery, counsel for the Great Escape. I asked for a week's
extension. I was out of town last week, and I asked Jim if I
could have a week's extension and put it on the agenda tonight,
and he said yes. So I assumed that by getting a week's
extension, we had a week's extension, and that we could come up
here and discuss the issue with you tonight.
- 41 -
MR. PALING-Well, I may be at fault there. I'm not sure. What
happened last week was that I picked up a verbal comment that
said you weren't coming tonight, and I just announced, and there
were people from the public here, that this was off the agenda,
you wouldn't be here tonight, and that's where the matte,' ~..¡as
dropped, and I did not, at that time" didn't read the letter,
evidently, that you sent in, and I don't know where that leaves
us right now. Mark, you're going to have to tell us, I guess.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I guess I don't see the complexity of the
issue. I know none of the facts about the application, but the
only letter that's been furnished to me, at least, is a letter
dated February 27th from the applicant~s counsel, simply asking
that this matter be placed on the March agenda. It's on the
March agenda. I guess something's being reviewed. I'm not sure
what, but I think that the answer to Tim's question is, no. We
don't have any choice.
MR. PALING-But to call for a complete, call for a site plan
review.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think I agree with Jim's analysis, and I
don't really understand that there's any issue about it.
MR. OBERMAYER-Because the date has expired on the original
permit.
MR. PALING-It expired yesterday.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, for two reasons, actually. That's the
obvious, easy one. That's simple. That's a no brainer, to me.
It's expired. It's expired, but the other reason, I guess, if
I'm understanding Jim correctly, and again, I don't know any of
the facts, but if I'm understanding his analysis correctly, I
think he's indicating to the Board that th~ facts and
circumstances involving the application are substantially
different now, not necessarily, he hasn't said better or worse,
just substantially different than they were five years ago, and
that, in and of itself, would give the Board the discretion to
require a new application, rather than merely extending something
that was currently in effect.
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-So I guess for both reasons it seems like a pretty
easy call, to me.
MR. PALING-Right.
MR. LEMERY-I guess I would object. We called jim Martin last
week. I was called out of town to my daughter's, and we asked
for a week's extension, and we were told we could have a week's
extension. So, had I known, on the last week, that it was going
to be not, we weren't going to be given a week's extension, I
would have had another lawyer come up here and view it. So, I'm
nonplussed about that. I don't think that's the way I understood
the issue, and I'm not sure that's fair. Secondly, the DEC
extended a permit here last spring. This sand and gravel
extraction has been permitted by the DEC through 1998. Tom Wages
wasn't there in 1990. We don't see any big issue here, in terms
of extending this to through the time that the DEC has extended
the permit. The DEC is up there all the time. There's no
involvement anywhere near the wetland. The 100 foot buffer has
been protected. There's screening up there. DEC has been there
all the time, on the periodic inspection. Crown vetch was put in
last year. It's starting to grow now. The Great Escape needs to
have access to the sand that they're taking out of there to
complete the attractions that they're working on. So if there's
some sort of site plan review that you're going to require here,
if that's the determination, we can get at that, but I think
- 42 -
'--
--
...,../
there ought to be some sort of extension, preliminary extension,
or a period of time during which we have an opportunity to submit
a site plan, if that's where this is going, not terminate the
Great Escape's ability to use its land under what I thought was
an extension until, there was going to be a discussion. We were
told, come up here and we'll discuss what the issues that we need
to address are. I thought one of the principal issues was going
to be parking, and I wanted to assure the Planning Board that
they're not using that area for parking, and if they decided to
use it for parking, we fully understand it requires a variance.
So that's not an issue.
MR. WAGES-I must say, I simply am, I didn't find out about this
until the today, frankly, but I'm quite concerned that all of a
sudden this Board is coming to us and saying, you can't take sand
from an area that we've been taking sand from for years and
years. We have a permit. It's posted, by the Department of
Environmental Conservation, who oversee these kinds of things.
The permit that we received in 1990, from both this Board and the
DEC, has been followed, and we are following those permits. Now,
if there's some specific problems that I'm unaware of, we'll
certainly deal with that, but we have not exceeded the amount of
reclamation that was cited in those permits. In fact, we're
probably only a third of the way into what was approved in 1990
and was the Board has approved here in 1990. I think, it seems
to me that the procedure here should really just be to allow us
to continue to go along with the permit that was provided to us
and has been watched over by the DEC.
MR. PALING-Well, okay.
MR. MACEWAN-I have a question for our attorney. Is the Zoning
Administrator empowered to grant extensions?
MR. SCHACHNER-Not of site plan approvals, no he's not.
MR. STARK-Well, seeing as the fault was the Town of Queensbury's,
because Jim wasn't here last week to tell us that the applicant
asked for a week's extension, and so on.
MR. MARTIN-I've got to say in fairness, I informed the
applicant's counsel of this coming up this spring, last fall.
MR. STARK-Well, we had no idea, last week, that Mr. Lemery had
requested a week's, we just thought no applicant was here. Scott
dicln't know.
MR. PALING-If we had known the expiration date was when it was,
then I think we would have gone ahead and, well, no. We didn't
know until after the announcement to the public was made, and
then there wasn't anything we could do about it, and I think if
we had, my own feeling is that we'd have gone for a very short
extension, allowing time for their new site plan, and then get
into the details of it, I think is what we would have done.
MR. STARK-Can we still do that, Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand everything everyone's saying about the
equities of it, and I don't have any position about that. That's
not my job. My job is to protect, mainly to guide this Board in
complying with legal procedures and to protect you from any
litigation claims and things like that. I don't understand how
there's really a legal issue here, to be honest. I'm very
simplistic. It seems to me that an approval was issued by the
Town of Queensbury on a certain date. That approval was issued
for a certain amount of time. That amount of time has now
expired. Therefore, my legal opinion, and this is not because I
want this to be the case by any stretch of the imagination. I
don't know anything about the details of the misunderstanding, if
there ~ a misunderstanding. None of this, obviously, invol\t'ed
- 43 -
me, but as we sit here today, it's my legal opinion that there is
no current valid Town of Queensbury permit in effect. With all
due deference to the applicant's statements, none of which I have
any reason to disagree with, you need to have a state permit to
do this operation, as I understand it, and it sounds like the
applicant is in good shape, State wise. You also need a Town
approval to do this type of operation, and it sounds like, for
whatever reason, there isn't one in effect now.
MR. LEMERY-We didn't assume that we had to go file a new site
plan, with respect to this permit. The applicant's position was
to extend the existing permit. The applicant was under the
impression that it was in compliance with what this Board
permitt¿d in 1990. So far as 1 know, there hasn't been one trip
up to the Great Escape by anybody from ,the Building Department
telling anybody that they weren't complyin~ with the 1990 Town
permit. Now that's Number One. Number Two, the matter was put
on for a week ago tonight. So if it was going to be the Board's
position to file a new site plan application, that doesn't seem,
to me, to be very reasonable, in terms of, okay, you'll have five
days to get it in here, because your permit is going to expire.
This is when Staff put this on. So we notified Jim Martin's
office last Monday that I couldn't get back in time, and we asked
for a one week extension. Had I known.
MR. MACEWAN-Who did you ask?
MR. LEMERY-Jim Martin.
MR. MARTIN-And I said, I talked to Jon Lapper. He said that John
Lemery was not going to be available, and I said, okay, a week
will go by, but I'll tell you. lam not going to have things
twisted around here to make it look like ¡ was unreasonable in
this. I purposely called this applicant in the fall to avoid
this very spot that we're in.
MR. LEMERY-I'm not going to get into this. This is not
adversarial. I don't understand the issue here. This is not a
big deal. This is a request for an extension of an existing
permit. The Great Escape is in the middl¿ of getting ready for
the season. Nobody's confirming, here, that all of a sudden the
Great Escape has to go through a whole new site plan application.
I haven't heard, I thought the purpose of tonight's meeting, as
it was explained to me, I tried to reach Jim Martin three times
today on the phone, and I was unsuccessful, to find out what it
is that we were supposed to be doing up here tonight. We had
requested an extension of an existing permit. The DEC permit is
in place. So, no one had told this applicant, so far as ¡ know,
the entire the five years that it was not in conformity with what
this Board had approved back in 1990.
MR. BREWER-I don't think anybody insinuated that, John. Nobody
ever insinuated that.
MR. LEMERY-No, but that's what Jim is saying, that
on doesn't conform. So, therefore, it requires
application.
what has gone
a new site plan
MR. MACEWAN-It requires it because it's elapsed.
It's expired.
MR. PALING-All right. Let me interject, if I can. First of all.
MR. LEMERY-I think common sense and reason ought to take some
part here, gentlemen.
MR. PALING-Excuse me, please. Mark, I'm not sure you had
finished with your remarks. Had you finished?
MR. SCHACHNER-No.
- 44 -
"-
--./
./
MR. PALING-Okay. Would you please continue.
MR. SCHACHNER-I
do recall being
aga,i n, I agree
don't perceive
any conditions
mean, I don't remember where I was at, although I
interrupted and not being able to finish, but
with what I think Tim just said. I haven't, I
anybody suggesting that the applicant has violated
or is not in compliance.
MR. MARTIN-I just said it was different.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and that's what I'm clarifying. Nobody is
insinuating anything, to use the applicant's counsel's phrase,
about the applicant's compliance or noncompliance with anything
that was previously in effect, but from mz opinion, which is not
influenced very much by common sense and rationality and the
things that the applicant's counsel talks about, my opinion is
influenced by legal principals, and it seems to me this is a no
brainer, legally. The key tense, I'm using the tense of Town
pe~'mi t that was in effect. I'm us i ng the past tense on purpose.
For whatever reason, it's not in effect anymore. Therefore, I
don't have the authority to issue an extension. Jim Martin
doesn't have the authority to issue an extension, and I don't see
how you all have the authority to issue an extension. It's
simple.
MR. PALING-Okay. Jim, had you finished your comments?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. I think that the problem
obvious, and we want to be cooperative with
What's the easiest way out of this thing? Could
special meeting for a site plan review, or how do
it? How do we fix it?
we see here is
any applicant.
we have a quick
we take care of
MR. STARK-Bob, let me just say something. Mark, now according to
Jim, the site plan review ran out 3/27/95. I thought they run
out the end of the month?
MR. MARTIN-Well, in this particular case, it's five years from
the date of the approval.
MR. BREWER-That's what we're trying to do, George, is run them
through the end of the month.
MR. MARTIN-So we avoid these types of situations.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. They don't automatically run out the end of
the month. What Staff has told you all, and what I have agreed
with, is that to avoid the, specifically to avoid these types of
situations, because you don't know when a meeting's going to be
scheduled next year, the year after, the year after. Staff's
recommendation to you all, which I've concurred in is, that you
should issue approvals with expiration dates which are the last
day of whatever month you're picking, but that doesn't appear,
and obviously I wasn't involved or present in 1990, but that does
not appear to have happened in 1990, nor was it the Planning
Board's practice in 1990, I can tell you that, nor is it any
rule, there's no rule, law or regulation that says approvals run
out the end of the month. It's whenever the Planning Board says
they do.
MR. PALING-Okay. Now, how can we fix the thing? What's the easy
way out? Can we call a special meeting?
MR. MARTIN-I don't know if I like
word "accommodating". If you want
as you can, the Board, in the past,
and that type of thing, and I'm
getting this back before the Board,
the word "easy". I think the
to try to be as accommodating
has set special meeting dates
as interested as anybody in
as quickly as possible, given
- 45 -
we put a date on an expiration of a site plan or a plat, that
we've been doing them and putting them on the last day of the
month. We've only started that practice not more than a year and
a half, possibly as long as two years ago. It's only been since
I've been on the Board, and I've been on the Board about three
and a half years now.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. So then it's March 27th.
MR. MACEWAN-Now keep in mind. This was done in 1990, long before
we started that practice.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. So you can't extend anything that doesn't
exist. I understand where you're coming from.
MR. MACEWAN-Correct, and this is one of those approvals that
if it could happen, fell before that period of time when we
starting to let approvals go to the end of the month, and
so, it would have been tied into a date. It would have
Mar ch 31st.
even
were
even
been
MRS. LABOMBARD-So then, legally, there's only one course of
action, you're saying.
MR. MACEWAN-Site plan review.
MR. BREWER-A new site plan.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Then re-apply from Square One.
MR. PALING-And that's going to have to be advertised, and there's
going to have to be a public hearing held. We won't have a
public hearing tonight, but when the site plan review comes,
there will be a public hearing.
MR. MARTIN-How quickly can the applicant prepare an application,
and get it to us?
MR. LEMERY-Well, I'm very disturbed here, Jim. We called you
last week and asked you for an extension. Is that not the case?
MR. BREWER-John, he can't grant extensions. This Board has to do
it.
MR. LEMERY-Well, he should have told us that and we would have
been up here last Monday night.
MR. OBERMAYER-We had no idea.
MR. LEMERY-Well, I'm sure YOU didn't, but we called and asked
for.
MR. MACEWAN-With all due respect, Mr. Lemery, you've been around
long enough. I would thi nk that you'd know that only this Boa)"d
can grant extensions, not someone in the office.
MR. LEMERY-Apparently,
extensions, because if
grant an extension.
you're telling me you can't
you could grant an extension, you
grant
could
MR. BREWER-It's expired, John.
MR. MACEWAN-If you were here last week, we could have. We would
have entertained the idea.
MR. PALING-I'd also caution the applicant, that regardless of
anything, that's a pretty narrow number of days you left yourself
in this application.
MR. LEMERY-Because we didn't believe that it would be this
- 47 -
'-'
--
/'
'''-.,..
all the reviews we have to go through.
MR. PALING-I think that we have to go by the legal opinion of our
counsel. I don't think we have a choice, that it's expired. Now
what I'm trying to do is to find the most accommodating way, I
like that, to get this problem solved, and if it's a case of a
special meeting, then lets have a special meeting. How long will
it, now this is a site plan review we're calling for.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. LEMERY--I'd ask you to extend the existing permit, until such
time as we could get the site plan review before you, because we
specifically came here and asked your representative for an
extension. Now, I don't care what he calls it, this is not
adversarial, and it seems to me that you have within your own
power, the power to extend this until we can get it up here. I'm
not convinced that it needs to be anything more than filing the
DEC permit with you, and it seems to me that everything that was
done with DEC ought to be sufficient, so the site plan review may
be easily accomplished here. Jim Martin seems to think it
requires a whole new site plan and all the rest of it to go
through this. We have to sort that out and determine whether
that is, in fact, the case. In the mean time, I don't think it's
fair to take this applicant and say, well, too bad, it expired
two days ago. You missed the deadline. When, in fact, two
things, we, A, asked for an extension for one week, and, B,
thought that this was a discussion. We were coming up here in an
informal basis to discuss with you what kind of issues you have
regarding, and that comes from Jim Martin. So I have no reason
to tell you anything but what the facts are, and those are the
facts. So, while I understand Mr. Schachner's position here, as
far as I'm concerned, there's an equity here that ought to be
recognized. If we hadn't made a phone call and all of a sudden
we came up here, I'd understand, but there's an equity h~re that
I don't think's getting recognized.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. BREWER-John, I understand that, and I sympathize with what
you're saying. Our counsel has told us there is no permit. We
can't extend something that does not exist. Bob's
recommendation, and I concur, and I'm sure the Board does, we'll
have a special meeting, but lets find out what we want so we can
have the special meeting, and get on with it, rather than sit
here and argue the thing over and over and over. There's people
here that I'm sure are going to be at the public hearing we have.
If we don't have anything to extend, we can't do it, John.
That's-'!!.:;L opinion.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I was under the impression that, although it
expired the 27th, there was maybe a grace period or something in
there. If that's the case, and there's been a little lack of
communication here, I don't know why we couldn't find some kind
of a loophole or some kind of a grace period to give YOU a week
or whatever you need.
MR. MACEWAN-It's not there, Cathy. It's that simple.
MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, but what ¡ heard you say was that it
expired, you know, like you said, isn't it supposed to expire at
the end of the month, well, it was five years from the date of
issuance, but yet you give a few days so you have a little leeway
in here? I mean, that's the way I inferred some of this, from
Staff in general. I'm not saying that's what Jim said or anybody
said, but that's what ¡ heard.
MR. MACEWAN-Maybe if it helps clarify it, those extensions, when
- 46 -
-~""
complicated. We assumed there was nothing here that would cause
this Board not to simply grant the extension to this applicant to
continue doing what he's been doing, since DEC has extended the
permit, and that this is not a big deal.
MR. PALING-There's, evidently, quite a bit of concern on some of
the people in the public, because they were here, quite a few of
them were here last time, and that caused us, I think, to
reconsider this. I don't think any of us want to go against the
advice of counsel, and we apologize for having had this happen,
and we'll do everything we can to get it repaired as quickly as
possible, and I think what we're saying is, site plan review, how
quick can you get the information in, and we'll have a special
meeting as quickly as we can.
MR. LEMERY-Well, maybe we ought to find out what the concern is
on the part of the Glen Lake Association, here.
MR. PALING-All right, then if that, well, now I've got another
problem. I asked the gentlemen that were on the program before
you, to step aside, which they agreed to, only if this was going
to be a sho~-t time. I will be glad to do that, but I'd like to
get Sherman Pines on, just move this aside, let Sherm~n Pines do
what they came for, and then we'll do what you're asking. Is
that acceptable to everybody?
MR. BREWER-If we had a site plan review in front of us, the
people that had a concern could see the site plan and bring their
concerns up.
MR. PALING-Yes, which we don't have.
MR. BREWER-Right. So how do we know what the concerns are until
we have a site plan review?
MEMBER OF PUBLIC-How do we know what's going on if, I mean, we
came here for discussion, not for adversary.
MR. PALING-Okay. Excuse me. We're going to stop this meeting
and we're going to go to Sherman Pines. Then we're going to pick
it up where we left off. Am I legal to do that?
MR. SCHACHNER-You can do that, if you'd like.
MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Does the Board concur with that?
MR. OBERMAYER-It sounds good to me, Bob.
MR. PALING-All right. Lets do it. I apologize, gentlemen. I
had no idea this would.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SHERMAN
PINES PHASE II AND PHASE III OWNER: JOSEPH AMMIRATTI ZONE:
SR-20 LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE PROPOSAL FOR FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR PHASE II OF A THREE PHASED SUBDIVISION. PHASE II
CONSISTS OF 28 LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 6-1990 REZONING
RES. 530 OF 1991 SUB. 16-1991
JACK HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1992, Sherman Pines, Phase
II, Meeting Date: March 28, 1995 "The applicant is seeking
final approval for Phase II of their three phased subdivision.
Staff's main concern is the septic design. The current design is
for the majority of the lots to be on shared Systems with three
houses on each system. With phase I, there are problems with the
- 48 -
"--'
......-'"
'~,
./
-'"
lines being too close to the surface. The long lines also
increases the chances that the lines could freeze, and it will be
difficult to determine responsibility for system failure with
three houses on each system. Staff recommends that the Board
consider revising the plan to allow for individual systems for
each home."
MR. MARTIN-The other thing that should be noted, here, is that is
asking for approval of Phase II and III tonight, at this
juncture, and it would be Staff's recommendation to only consider
Phase II for Final at this time, and keep in compliance with the
subdivision regulations. You have the right to waive that,
obviously, but our recommendation, nonetheless, would be to only
consider Phase II at this time.
MR. PALING-Phase II, yes.
MR. BREWER-I would agree to that.
MR. HARLICKER-There's also Rist-Frost comments regarding this
application.
MR. PALING-Yes. Right. Could we have those.
MR. MACNAMARA-The first half dozen comments are essentially
boilerplate in nature, regarding standards for final approval.
They are listed singly on our letter of March 14th, but I'm not
going to read each and everyone, because they're essentially
boilerplate drawing note language, unless you'd care for me to go
over each and everyone. The larger items, essentially, I'll
start at the note number one at the bottom of the first page, and
I'll read the opening paragraph. "Town Planning Staff requested
that we review, again, the septic design and grading plan for the
Phase II development," And I'm going to add, here, as per
discussions with Jim Martin. We limited our discussion to Phase
II lots only, "and inquire about agency approvals if the Planning
Board were to require changes to the septic design." I also want
to add that I had discussions with the applicant's engineer
today, and we have gone over all of these. We haven't gotten
anything in writing, but we've gone over all these today on the
telephone. The first note, essentially, indicates some
additional clean outs, and they didn't have any issue with that.
The second note addresses what Scott had asked us to look at, and
that's burial depths of house sewers and combine effluent sewers
to the leachfields, and we did, in fact, find a number of
locations where, according to the grades that are shown, there
would be a mounding that's required for proper cover of the
lines. Jack agreed with that, and has indicated that there is
going to be some significant grading taking place on a number of
lots and possibly common areas. The third note essentially
indicates garbage disposals and larger septic tanks. He's
indicated no disposals are planned. The fourth note goes to road
grades and lot grading. We did find, in at least a couple of
instances that we had picked out, that the top of the wing swale,
which is the top of the paved elevation, and if you go a little
furthèr, the actual graded slope, according to the Town standard,
needs to be a positive S)rade, is actuaily higher than a number of
the existing lot grades shown, which essentially goes to grading
of lots and drainage. He acknowledge that, yes, that, in fact,
is the case, and to get proper drainage, they're going to add
significant grading, again, and he had indicated five or six
feet, in some places. Last note has to do with septic and
stormwater system discharges, and it's to ground. They had
indicated in their groundwater, in their soil test pit log,
sorry, that groundwater was, I forget the exact number, 10, 11,
12 feet down or more, and that was during the time of their
testing. What we're looking for is for them to go a step further
and indicate if, in fact, they saw any indication of seasonal
high groundwater, and to simply indicate the method that they're
determining that, and that goes to the issue of looking for
- 49 -
,
"y"'-
-.-'
straight groundwater levels, as far as free water surface, at a
time when it might not represent seasonal high groundwater.
MR. MARTIN-I have one question for you. Do you think there's any
need to update test pit data?
MR. MACNAMARA-At this point, I would wait until they respond to
that. They may have additional data, Jim, that they didn't
simply choose to show on their test pits, and I think we ought to
Just let them indicate it, from fact they had other indications.
MR. MARTIN-I'm just trying to avoid another Queensbury Forest
Phase I I1.
MR. MACNAMARA-Which is really what a lot of these comments are
gei,ned toward.
MR. PALING-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. MACNAMARA-Anyway, to finish off, that nòte number five, they
have a drainage system typical of many, where there are sags in
the roadway, where there's actually low points created, where
there'll be lots that are situated at or near the low points of a
roadway, and what I'd ask them to do is to indicate if, in fact,
the drainage system were to not function properly, where would
the street drainage go with those low lots? In other words, I'm
asking if they've got some kind of an outlet to allow drainage to
go out without impacting people's lots or houses, and Jack had
indicated he was going to take a look at that. Last note
indicates that if, in fact, someone had suggested, requested,
whichever, that singular septic systems be used, the question
was, what other agency approvals are going to be required. I
contacted the DEC, and they indicated they wouldn't have anything
to do with it, because they don't get into single lots, and I
contacted the DOH.
MR. BREWER-Who gets involved if there's over 40 lots?
there SPDES permits?
Isn't
MR. MACNAMARA-Hold on. The DEC doesn't get involved in
individual subsurface discharges, unless the discharge is greater
than 1,000 gallons, which none of these would be, unless you're
planning on a pretty substantial size house. So, if it goes to
singular houses, it reverts back to the DOH, and that's where it
goes to, I think it's greater than 49 lots is their rule for a
variance, and what Brian had indicated, Jack, I think you had
some discussions with him also, was that, if, in fact, it went
back to singular systems, yes, the DOH would have to review it
again, and it was likely that it would require that greater than
49 lot variance, regarding on site disposal, and he really just
said it's not a sure thing either way, whether they get their
variance or not, is really what he was saying. He said they're
harder to come by now days. They're still giving them, but,
anyway, yes, the DOH would have to review it, and the final point
I want to add is there's at least two, if not three of the items
we talked about indicated there's going to be some significant
filling going on in the lots and possibly common areas. That
indicates, and they're bordered by, I think at least on three
sides the other developments are homeowners, we're suggesting
that they submit a grading plan, proposed grading, so that we
know what their thoughts are and how it may impact adjoining
properties, and he had agreed and thought that was actually a
pretty good idea.
MR. MARTIN-I also understand that this subdivision is in a state
of flux, in terms of ownership. I believe Mr. Schermerhorn is
going to be taking over Phase II and III, in total, and he is
interested in pursuing, he indicated to me on the phone today
anyhow, he's interested in pursuing the individual septic design.
- 50 -
'''...."..
'--'
---'
.-/
....."'¥"'
MR. PALING-Good.
MR. BREWER-Okay. May I add one more point, Jim, and you and I
had discussed this, about, I don't know if everybody's familiar
with the previous motions that pertain to this subdivision? We
worked on this long and hard, and I just want to make sure that
these motions are included with the approval of this portion of
the subdivision, because I think they were intended for the whole
subdivision.
MR. PALING-How did you treat the septics in those?
cover that.
You didn't
MR. BREWER-In the motions?
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. BREWER-I think we just, were you on the Board then, Jim?
MR. MARTIN-I thought we required a, and I think it's even built
into the homeowners association document here, that there's a
maintenance program required, as part of the homeowners
association fee, that I think it was every three years, or
something like that, every two years the tanks are pumped, and
that was thought to extend the life of the leach beds. Because
that's where the system begins to fail or will likely fail, is in
the leach bed.
MR. PALING-I don't know that much about septic systems. The two
things that bother me about this is, one, they've got up to 200
feet of pipe, on a continuous run from a house to the field, and
is that going to be buried right and not freeze, and also is the
multiple housing on, more than one house on a septic system is,
by itself, I have a struggle with.
MR. MARTIN-Well, we struggled with it at the time we first
considered this.
MR. BREWER-Believe me, for many, many months and many meetings we
all struggled with it.
MR. PALING-Did you approve it?
MR. MARTIN-Well, we approved it with this maintenance program, a
compromise, so to speak.
MR. PALING-And how old are these homes that are doing?
MR. BREWER-Since '92 it was approved.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. We've just crossed the threshold of 60%
buildings being completed that allows you to go into the next
Phase. I think they probably almost have sold out the entire
first Phase by now.
MR. PALING-But what happens if you have three families with four
kids each, and you clog it up, and who's to blame?
MR. MARTIN-That was the, you repeated the same question we asked
in' 92 .
MRS. LABOMBARD-Who oversees the maintenance?
MR. BREWER-The homeowners.
MR. MARTIN-The Homeowners Association.
MR. OBERMAYER-I see some of the homes, like on Lots 50, 51 and 52
require pump stations.
- 51 -
RICH SCHER~ERHORN
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and that data was incorrect, as well,
because, so far, Rich Schermerhorn. I've developed First Phase.
I only have four lots left right now, and three of those are
sold. So I'm down to one lot. I've developed on 52, 53, and 54,
which I believe may have required pump$, okay. Fifty-two is the
only one that has a pump. It wasn't constructed by me. It was
built by the original developer that owned the First Phase.
Fifty-three and fifty-four, which I contacted the Town of
Queensbury, the elevations permitted that a pump was not
required. Obviously, it's in the best interest of me and the
Homeowners Association and the person that owns that house not to
have a pump. I didn't set this subdivision up as far as the
septic system, okay. I don't agree with it, but, I think we're
going to have a problem if, I don't mind doing individual
systems, but I'm sold out. I've got one lot left. I need these
lots. Just last week, for example, alone, I sold five. If
everybody's paying dues in there at an equal rate right now, $26
a month. If I proposed individual systems fo~ Phase II and III,
I think that I'm into a problem with Phase I, the people with
shared systems. Are people going to start asking, well, why
should we be replacing their shared systems. Our individual
systems are working fine. We're properly maintained. I think
we're going to get into a problem if we start changing things. I
mean, I'd love to do individuals, but I don't think there's an
easy answer to change these around, at this point.
MR. BREWER-As far as the homeowners, you mean?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, as far as the homeowners.
II and III, there's some more individual systems.
these individuals, but I believe it's the Health
would have the problem with it, because they're
approved it the way it is.
I mean, Phase
I ca n ma ke all
Department that
the ones that
MR. PALING-You don't have enough land to do it?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. As a matter of fact, there's plenty of land
to do it. That's been my argument all along.
MR. PALING-What would their problem be?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Why would the Health Department?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, that's
probably explain it.
where Jack Huntington
could
MR. HUNTINGTON-My name is Jack Huntington with Morris
Engineering. This was approved by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation.' A SPDES permit was issued,
because there's more than a 1,000 gallons per lot, per septic
system. The Department of Health, if they review this, is going
to review it as an 83 lot subdivisIon. Therefore, we must go for
a variance, over the, more than 49 lots, and the problem they're
going to have is the speed of the soils, the speed with which the
soils perc. It's 15 to 20 second percolation rate, in many
areas. That requires an amended system, whic~ means you dig the
soil out under the system and replace it with something that
pe1"CS at a slower rate. That's Q..!l.ê.. of the problems. The second
problem is that the Department of Health does not want to put in
leach beds. Leach beds are the type of system that is easily
amended. They are amended. They're smaller than the normal
systems. That's what these are, is leach beds. DEC will approve
leach beds. Although the leach beds are in the Department of
Health's book, they hesitate to approve them. That means if
we're going to do leach lines roughly four times the size of
leach beds, that that area will have to be amended, that foyer,
that becomes a problem. I mean, you're excavating an area that's
enormous. Third problem is that we're looking at a minimum of
- 52 -
~
...-'
.....-
--
two months, as much as six months, to get a variance from the
State of New York, for that, and you're taking a shot. I mean,
you're just shooting in the dark. You don't know whether you're
going to get a variance or not, and after that is approved, this
goes to the Attorney General's Office for revisions to the plat,
for the homeowners association, before Rich can sell a lot.
MR. STARK-On Phase I, have you had any complaints with the shared
systems at all or anything?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, absolutely not, and the thing is I addressed
the people, everybody has their own septic tank, but they have
shared leachfields, okay. I've had no problems with it. I've
maybe had one person out of the 15 I've sold up there already
that said keep, can I get a leach bed by itself, and I said,
sure, no problem, but I do point it out to people they have
shared leachfield systems. The people haven't had a problem with
it. Like I said, I'm selling them. This was set up for
affordable housing. That's another reason it's selling, these
houses are selling for under $100,000, some a little bit ove)-. I
mean, I'd love to, as a matter of fact, as the developer, it's
going to cost me more each house to do individual systems, and I
did say, in the beginning when I spoke to Jim Martin before I
purchased the subdivision, that I would do individuals if I
could. It's so simple. I see the land right there. I can make
these things work, but I can't afford to shut down for six months
and take a shot, and besides that, I'm committed to buy this, and
I have people that are ready to purchase lots, and it's a big if.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So, Rich, does Phase II have separate septic tanks
and shared leachfields, too?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I'm looking at Phase II right now, and it
looks like, out of, it looks like there's eight lots that are
individuals, and there looks like there's twenty individuals, and
I'm counting maybe eight shared ones.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Are you
leachfields?
talking
shared
ta,nks or
shared
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, just shared leachfields.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay.
MR. PALING-Yes. They all have the individual tanks.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Now, and I didn't agree with this stipulation,
but every lot that I go on, every single one, I have to pay to
have a perc test done, because if the perc rate is less than a
minute, we have to amend the soils. We've got to bring a woody
soil to slow the perc down, which, I mean, here I've got
Tyneswood next to me. I've got Clendon Ridge right behind me,
and none of those are being amended. I mean, we've got probably
the best soils you could possibly have in all of Queensbury, and
it's almost like a powdered sand.
MR. PALING-What are the adjacent subdivisions doing, are these
multiple tie ins, too?
MR. OBERMAYER-No.
MR. PALING-Those are all singles.
MR. MARTIN-They were under the 49 lot provision.
MR. PALING-Okay. Just let me throw out an idea. Supposing we
said, in so far as the septic systems, on Phase II, okay. Go
ahead, because of various problems, but after this, no more, in
other words, Phase III would have to go to singles? And we would
apply this, also, to anyone else that came in, obviously.
- 53 -
MR. SCHERMERHORN-But who's expense is this going to be at? Right
now, this is affordable housing, and I've made a purchase and
agreed on a purchase price and committed to this.
MR. BREWER-But, Rich, originally, this was all known, when we
approved this f¿r affordable housing.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. This is all approved, though, right here
by Tim Brewer, 9/22/92.
MR. BREWER-Not just by me, though.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay, but I did a lot of, I looked all this over
before I purchased it, and I just assumed that everything was
approved. I did test holes up there, up to about 14 feet, and
there's no signs of groundwater.
MR. BREWER-No, but I guess what I'm saying is, all the
information and all the engineering was done for this whole
subdivision when Charlie Diehl brought it in here, knowing well,
in fact, exactly what he had designed, and the expenses and said
that he could do the affordable housing. We changed the roads.
The driveways were going to be paved, and then he wanted to put
them to stone, and we said, okay, you can do that, to cut down
the expenses. So everything was known, when we approved this
subdivision originally.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, what's the point?
MR. BREWER-You're saying you want to change things.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, no. I'm saying I want to do this, but I
don't see how we can do it easily. I'd love to put individual
systems in, but if it means taking a chance, waiting six months,
and then putting a stipulation, making Phase III, that I've got
to go for individuals on Phase III, well who's going to pay for
that?
MR. MACEWAN-What he's saying, Tim, even if the Board said, go
ahead, change it for Phase III, he doesn't want to take that
gamble, because there's no guarantee that the State or the
Attorney General's going to allow him to amend the plats for the
Homeowner's Association.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-If you told me I could proceed with Phase II and
Phase III, well, Phase III will finish out Phase II, or whatever,
with individual systems, if you vote on it and tell me, yes. I'd
go ahead and sign off, as long as it doesn't stop my
construction, but the problem that i~ arising is we can't do that
because the Health Department's not going to permit it. So I
don't even think, if you said it's okay and I said it's okay.
MR. MACNAMARA~In all fairness, you guys need to know that the
Health Department has not said they aren't going to permit single
systems. I hate to disagree with you guys. As a matter of fact,
Brian Fear, today, at about, I'm not sure, some time in the
afternoon, basically said, Bill, it's not unlikely the variance
will be granted. It's just a matter of time, because the
condition on denying the variance basically says they've got to
put a community system in, and he says, Bill, there's a lot of
areas in Queensbury that need community septic far more than that
part of Town, but as far as whether or not the variance is going
to be granted or not, you know, I can't speak for the DOH, but
it's not a sure thing that it won't be issued.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and I'm sure maybe it could be issued,
but my point is, you know, I've got Hudson Points coming in with
100 lot. I'm selling out fast and I'm moving fast, because
there's going to be other competition. I mean, you know, I don't
want to claim a hardship, but, you know, I can't wait around
- 54 -
'---
-'
----
another year. You know what I'm saying? We've got the property
behind Queensbury School that's in for re-zoning, I guess, that's
going to be coming up for residential.
MR. STARK-What's the problem?
Nobody's got complaints with the
happy.
It was approved back
shared systems. The
then.
DOH is
MR. MARTIN-I'll tell you what some of the problems have been in
Phase I is due to the grading and things that was shown, we had
some septic laterals literally laying on top of the ground, that
had to be covered with three feet of dirt in order to make it
comply with freezing concerns, and it looks like a huge snake of
dirt going through the woods. I mean, so I just want to make
sure, this time, that the grading is correct, and re-visit the
septic issue so we can avoid that type of thing the second phase.
MR. HUNTINGTON-We have agreed that we will provide a grading plan
to accommodate the septics and the lots.
MR. MARTIN-We actually had some of those,
that were approved in this first phase,
elevation lower than the elevation of
LeFebvre can show them to you.
if you read the grade,
some show the house
the leach bed. Vic
MR. MACNAMARA-I think it's in everybody's best interest, the Town
as well as the applicant, for them to sit down and do a grading
plan, quite honestly, and look to see just how many lots are
going to require just how much fill, because you talk about
expense, I'm not sure if you know how much fill you're talking
about, if you're going to use these plans as shown, and not have
this mounding here. Number One, and Number Two, there is the
storm drainage issue, as far as, if those sag lots were to go
bad, you need to show somewhere the water's going to go, that's
not going to impact the lots, and you said you would take a look
at t,hat.
MR. HUNTINGTON-We'll take a look at it.
MR. MACNAMARA-Lastly, if he shows five or six feet of fill in the
back yard of some of these houses, which is what you had
indicated, it may have been a rough guess, today, in all
fairness, lets say it's three feet, but then he gets to the
point, I'm not sure how that grading is going to affect the
adjoining properties on the back sides of these lots over here.
I mean, if you're bringing up a lot.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-There's common area behind all the houses.
MR. MACNAMARA-I guess what I'm saying is, if there's any wells
back here, and you have septic systems that are higher than their
~¡,Jells, then the 200 foot separation rule kicks in and that needs
to be shown. (lost word) for that end. I think a grading plan
is pretty important to redirect some of the issues that could
show up down the road.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-Do you want this for the remainder of Phase II, or
just for Phase III?
MR. BREWER-Phase II.
MR. PALING-This is Phase II only.
MR. MARTIN-Phase II is, I think all you're required to consider
now, unless you want to waive it and consider both Phases now.
MR. MACEWAN-No. It's not that we wanted to consider it tonight,
but I thought we were also talking about Phase III down the road,
- 55 -
that you were asking about some information for that in the
discussions.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Rich, you said that you would love to put in
single septic systems, but then you don't want to. Do you want
to or don't you want to, for Phase III?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. I said, in the very beginning, I'd love to
do individual systems. I think it's better for the homeowner. I
think it's better for everybody in general, but the point is,
I've committed to a subdivision. I've made a large, large
purchase, okay, and to sit and wait six, eight months, maybe
it'll be approved, maybe it won't, but to sit around and wait,
what if it doesn't get approved? Then I'm back to Square One,
and then what do we do, re-design the whole subdivision? I mean,
there's a lot of ifs.
MR. STARK-Mr. Schermerhorn, the only
concerned about is the grading plan.
We'll have a special meeting to look
happy, and that should take care of you
it will take to take a grading plan.
thing that Staff is
Submit a grading plan.
at it, whenever they're
in, I don't know how long
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Now, when you say, grading plan, first of all,
the first phase, okay, I did probably three quarters of the
houses in the first phase, and some of the topos, okay, I think
differ from what was existing there. I don't know for what
reason, but if you drive through there, I corrected the one line
that was exposed, okay. I filled that in. It wasn't a home that
I had built, okay, but I corrected that and it's leveled off and,
aesthetically, it looks nice. All of the other ones I put in
there were individuals. I had Dave Hatin up there. Some of them
that showed the elevation going up, we were able to shave them
down a little bit, so that we could eliminate pumps. If any
grading would need to be done, maybe Phase II we can drop the
road level a little bit, would make some of the lower lots, make
the houses a little higher, but Phase I there's been no problems
with elevations whatsoever. I've met all the requirements for
the grade in the driveways, everything. I mean, I'd love to meet
everybody out there. It's really come together good, and that's
why it's selling, because everybody likes the concept of it.
There's been no complaints from the residents, homeowners,
anybody over there.
MR.
One
too.
PALING-We seem to have three items, if I read this right.
is a grading plan, and I also read into the drainage plan,
MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. Well, first of all, lets, by
grading, are you referring to roads or?
MR. MACNAMARA-I'm referring to the lot grades and relationship to
the road grades, so they will the same.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. Have you been to Phase I to see the lot
grades that we've done?
MR. MACNAMARA-I didn't go out to look at grading. In fact, I
went there a year ago when I was looking to buy a house.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, how is the discussion of the grading of
Phase I coming up? How did it come up? There's been no problems
with grading in Phase I.
MR. MACNAMARA-I'm not sure who's aiming grading questions at
Phase I. I'm aiming grading questions right at Phase II.
i"1R. PALING-Yes.
Phase II, and
drainage plan,
When I'm talking from here, I'm only addressing
I think we need a grading plan, as well as a
and I think we have still the question of the
- 56 -
"--'
---./
:7--
~'
septic systems before us.
MR. MARTIN--I'm less concerned, from!!!.Z standpoint, about the
septic systems. I just wanted the Board to be aware, because we
have considerable new memberships since this was last approved,
and if there was any way possible, apparently, if there's not,
then fine, but I just wanted it, you know, I wanted you to
realize what, in fact, you were approving here. This is rather
unique.
MR. PALING-Yes. I think I agree with what you're saying, Jim,
and I think in my own, personal opinion, we're probably going to
have to go along with the septic systems as designed, but we're
going to have to hold your feet to the fire for grading and
drainage, but I'm also going to say that I'm still uncomfortable
with the septic systems, and when we have the opportunity to
start from zero, I'm going to argue for, at least for a while,
for individual systems, rather than multiple hook ups.
MR. OBERMAYER-On Phase III.
MR. PALING-No. I think you can do it on Sherman Pines. I'm
talking about when we come in and start from zero.
MRS. LABOMBARD-A new project.
MR. PALING-Yes, a new project.
MR. MARTIN-My additional comment on the grading and drainage, I
think Bill's comment is well taken, about adjoining properties in
adjoining subdivisions, how any sort of potential drainage or
runoff is going to affect neighboring properties.
MR. PALING-Everything that
taken into consideration, in
you for approval.
Bill said, I think, has got to be
the plan that will be submitted to
MR. MARTIN-And I'll pass it through to Bill.
MR. PALING-Pass it to Bill, right.
MR. BREWER-Well, Jim, when we meet again, can you have the, I
know you showed me in the office the statistics that show the 50%
of the houses, sale price approved for families 100% of median?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I can give you the statistics on how the
affordable housing end of it is coming in.
MR. BREWER-Do you have records of that?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, I have records of that, and recently, what
happened just last night with the Town Board, documentation was
submitted from the Warren County Planning Office on the updated
income limits for household income, and we're going to be going
with the new rates. They have increased since 1990.
MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other comments?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I just know that Rich would probably stake his
reputation, and, you know, he could give us his word and say,
well, I'm going to continue doing a good job like I did on Phase
I with the grading and everything else, but I think that we who
personally know you know you're going to do that, but it really
has to be, we have to see a plan, I think.
MR. PALING-You mean drainage and?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, we really, you know, we do.
MR. PALING-·O kay .
We do not have a public hearing scheduled on
- 57 -
this. This is Final.
MR. BREWER-Are we going to table this until we get that
information?
MR. PALING-Okay. We've got to get that, yes.
information. I'm calling it a grading plan and
both, and it should. We need a motion for this.
We need t.hat
a drainage plan
MR. HUNTINGTON-Could I ask you just one thing? In the essence of
time, to get something done, I don't believe, and Bill can
correct me if I'm wrong, that the plan is going to change. The
elevations may change, but the plan itself won't change.
MR. MACNAMARA-No. What I would envision, Jack, and help me out
here if you envision something else, is I envision your site
utilities plans, S-l through whatever, with existing grades,
which I think for the most part are on here, and it sounds like
you may want to go out and check them. F¥om what Richard says,
they may not be wholly accurate.
MR. HUNTINGTON-We didn't do those, but that's okay.
MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. Understood. Existing grades, proposed
grades, proposed grades, in the back of your mind knowing where
all of your pipes are, so that it doesn't get into that mounding
effect.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Right.
MR. MACNAMARA-As well as the proposed grading to account for the
drainage comments, regarding paved swales and positive lot
grading. Basically, if you take Queensbury standards, you know,
lot grading standards, and apply them to here, that's what the
lot grading plan ought to represent.
MR. HUNTINGTON-In the essence of time, to get permission, I don't
think the road alignment's going to change.
MR. MACNAMARA-I wouldn't expect it.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Can we some clearing and grubbing, in the mean
time?
MR. MARTIN-I think what they're asking is, can they grub the road
. ?
In.
MR. PALING-I don't have a problem with that. Does anybody have a
problem with that?
MR. STARK-Not at all.
MR. OBERMAYER-I don't have a problem with it.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Get some rough grading done so they can get in
there and work. That's all, clearing and grubbing.
MR. BREWER-Clearing and grubbing the road.
MR. HUNTINGTON-If it has to be changed at a later date, the
alignment won't change.
MR. BREWER-That's all you're going to do though, right?
MR. HUNTINGTON-Probably put something in there so they can access
to it, a rough road.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, that's fine.
MR. PALING-Okay.
- 58 -
~
----/
......../
MR. HUNTINGTON-Stockpile some materials, maybe, things of that
nature.
MR. MARTIN-As long as it's not buried on site.
JOSEPH AMMIRATI
MR. AMMIRATI-No, no, no, with pipes.
MR. BREWER-Pipes for water lines.
MR. PALING-Yes, that's fine.
MR. MARTIN-No stumps buried on site, then.
MR. BREWER-That's your job, not ours.
MR. MARTIN-I'm just putting it on the record.
MR. PALING-All right, then if the discussion is done, we can.
MR. STARK-In the essence of assisting the applicant, because time
seems to be of the essence to them, how soon can he have the
plans done, we can have a special meeting, and because nothing
has to be advertised, we could have a meeting and (lost word)
approval, but how soon can yoU get the plans?
MR. BREWER-Can I make another suggestion, George? Why
find out from the next applicant when they can do it,
all in one, rather than have two special meetings.
don't we
and do it
MR. OBERMAYER-I think that's a good idea.
MR. HUNTINGTON-I think a week to ten days we can have something
ready for you.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
MR. PALING-A week to ten days.
MR. BREWER-And then Bill needs time to look
talking two weeks, that's about the time
visits.
at it.
we'd have
So you're
our site
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. STARK-That's about right.
MR. PALING-Two weeks is the 11th of April,
Site visits are the following day. We
Wednesday.
which is a Tuesday.
could do it that
MRS. LABOMBARD-I can't do it Wednesday.
MR. PALING-Okay. Jim, now how does this tie in with it going
through your group and through Bill?
MR. MARTIN-Well, the pr imary ì"eview person, from this
standpoint's going to be Bill. So whatever time he needs to look
this over and prepare a letter for you or notes.
MR. MACNAMARA-I'll look at the stuff as soon as you guys get it.
MR. PALING-Then how about we shoot for Tuesday, April 11th?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-That'd be great.
MR. MACEWAN-Why don't we just wait and see what happens with the
- 59 -
submission of the information.
longer than they need.
They make take a little bit
MR. BREWER-Why don't we wait until we see when we get it,
tentatively for the Tuesday or whatever.
MR. PALING-We may have to commit to another date. So lets say,
tentatively, Tuesday the 11th, and then if we have to switch it.
MR. BREWER-Why don't we do this, Bob. Why don't
get the information from both of them, then set a
get the information. We could do it by phone.
we wait until
date ~.Jhen we
MR. PALING-All right.
MR. BREWER-Rather than make them think it's going to happen the
11th. It may be sooner, it may be later.
MR. MARTIN-Could I at least have a submission deadline for the,
what's the date?
MR. OBERMAYER-When can you guys get the drawings by?
MR. HUNTINGTON-By mid week next week, Wednesday or Thursday.
MR. PALING-Okay. That's the fourth or the fifth.
MR. MARTIN-Say the fifth, then, by four o'clock.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. 08ERMAYER-And then maybe we can get together on Tuesday, that
Tuesday, the following Tuesday.
MRS. LABOMBARD-April 11th.
MR. PALING-Then we have your permission to table this?
MR. AMMIRATI-Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. Then we'll need a motion to table.
MR. HUNTINGTON-One question. I'm going to address all these
issues on that drawing? Okay.
MR. PALING-Okay. I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 SHERMAN PINES, Introduced
by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Obermayer:
The following conditions apply: That this application now is
limited to Phase II only, that there be a grading plan and
drainage plan submitted to the Planning Staff by April 5, 1995.
The applicant is allowed to do grubbing for the purpose of road
access to the subdivision.
Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 1995, by the following vote:
MR. PALING-And I won't say anything about the meeting date.
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ruel
MR. PALING-Okay. You'll be in touch with them and we'll be in
touch with you regarding a date for this.
- 60 -
'--'
~
--./
MR. OBERMAYER-8ut tentatively the 11th.
MR. PALING-Tentatively, it's April 11th.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Thank you very much.
MR. PALING-Thank you.
GREAT ESCAPE CONT'D
MR. PALING-Okay. Now I think, if I understand what we wanted to
do, we can resume with the Great Escape/Story town story, and the
applicant has requested, in discussion form, that he hear
comments from the public, so that they can understand what, if
any, the objections may be. So would you like to talk? Please
come up to the microphone and identify yourself.
VIRGINIA ETU
MS. ETU-My name is Virginia Etu, and I don't know what we would
object to. When we came last week, to hear discussion on a
proposed permit, and there was no discussion and we left and we
came tonight to hear discussion and there's no permit. So I
think to ask us for any discussion is moot.
MR. PALING-Okay. Well, then what you might want to do is come to
the site plan review, which will be advertised, and there will be
a public hearing.
MS. ETU-Exactly.
MR. PALING-Okay, but I think what they're asking is, what
objections might you have? I think they're trying to anticipate
and perhaps correct them before it occurs.
MR. OBERMAYER-They're doing the work right now.
MR. HARLICKER-Maybe concerns is a better term than objections.
MS. ETU-Concerns, possibly location of the access road, what
possible changes they may have for the next upcoming five years,
what type of erosion controls are going to be put in over the
next five years, basically drainage, things that would be shown
on a site plan review, to give us an indication of what the next
five years for that buffer to the wetland is going to look like
in five years, but we've got a blank. I think a site plan review
is something that would give us something to all look at, not
only us as residents of the lake, but as you as a Planning Board,
to get an idea, and not, five years from now, drive by, as we've
done over the past five, and say, wow, look at the change that we
didn't anticipate in 1990, but we have nothing to discuss, and we
would like to see something that might open the discussion and if
there are no concerns on our part after looking at a site plan
)-eview, then we're in favor. I'm in favor. E:<cuse me.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you.
DAVID KENNY
MR. KENNY-I'm David Kenny, Town of Queensbury.
current site plan on file?
Is there a
MR. PALING-Yes, a five year old one, I believe. Yes.
MR. KENNY-What I'm guessing is, if they would have been here last
week, and asked for an extension, they could have gotten one,
because their approval was still in existence. What would (lost
word) to look at it. That's my question. I know I've looked at
that project, site plan, when it's approved, and I go down to the
Town, look at the old site plan and see if I had any objection to
- 61 -
it, and (lost word) come in here, the next week or two weeks,
with the one that's on file, is there any objection to that?
MR. MACEWAN-I don't think there's any objections or I don't think
there's an issue, even what a neighbor would have to look at or
what their concerns would be. The issue is it's expired. It's
.that simple.
MR. KENNY-Okay, but my question is, has anybody objected to the
existing site plan that is in existence? There is no, I mean, if
they had come in here last week, you couldn't have given them an
extension and satisfied the neighbor's concerns, because you
wouldn't have had (lost word) then either.
MR. PALING-Well, I think if I read Jim Martin right, he will.
MR. KENNY-(Lost word) have something new now, whoever's fault, no
fault's being passed, because it expired, but (lost word) been
here last week, my point being, that there is a current site plan
on file. All those things are down in the Town records
somewhere. Maybe they should be here tonight so the neighbors
cou ld ~3ee them.
MR. PALING-But did you hear Jim Martin's comments in this regard?
Did you hear Jim Martin's comments earlier?
MR. MARTIN-It's right here, if anybody wants to look at it. The
site plan's right here. I can get it out for you.
MR. BREWER-r~o.
MR. PALING-But he's also suggesting, if I read you right, that
you do have question before a new site plan is approved, that you
do have comments regarding what's changed, what's new, if I read
you right.
MR. MARTIN-Well, there's things that are asked, as a matter of
course, in a review of something like this, you know, what are
the existing grades, what's the proposed grade going to be at the
finish, how much material's going to be removed, how's that going
to be accomplished, what is the remediation plan, what is the
temporary e,·osion cont'"ol that'll be used dur ing the excavation
period~ I think they're asking, probably, for three years, to
mirror the DEC permit. Those are the typical things that would
go along with this.
MR. ~ŒNNY-I guess my question is, they don't have site plan?
MR. MARTIN-They are, but this site plan, and again, I'm not
commenting on it being, you know, it's just different. It
doesn't look anything like what was planned.
MR. BREWER-Maybe we could ask for a copy of the old plan, David,
and a copy of what is going to happen, that was!:!lL. intention,
last week, as to, let us see what you've done, and then let us
see what you're going to do. We had no plan in front of us last
week. We had a letter from Mr. Lemery and we had a motion to
approve it. That's all we had. We don't even know what it looks
like. Maybe we wouldn't have given him an extension, maybe to
get that information.
MR. KENNY-The only point being, I don't know who's onus it is on,
(lost word), when somebody's before the Board, anybody in the
future comes before the Board and asks for an extension, they
(lost word) is it up to them to bring all the plans of what
they're asking for, or is it up to the, you know, the plans are
all on file, of what's asking to be ex~ended. This is a
different case because it expired, that's the only difference,
though. If last week they would have come here, Mr. Lemery
couldn't make it, but if they would have been here, apparently,
- 62 -
'"---'
'-.../
'--
'...../.
answer the neighbor's complaints and answer your questions and
answer Jim's questions, you couldn't have extended it anyway
because you didn't have the information in front of you.
MR. PALING-But the deed has been done. We've apologized for ~Jhat
we did wrong.
MR. KENNY-So are we saying, in the future, if an applicant comes
in here for an extension, he has to bring, like, I know if I come
before the Planning Board for a new, I've got to bring X amount
of stuff. What does an applicant have to do to ask for an
extension, is my question.
MR. PALING-All right. Let me answer the question this way. The
first thing that they would do is to not come in with such a
narrow gap between expiTation date and the date they're at the
meeting, come in in plenty of time to allow discussion and a
possible resubmittal.
MR. KENNY-Well, I think, at some point in time, that their has to
be, in the new master plan, if you want an extension, there
should be some definition of what I have to bring with me to have
an extension given to me.
MR. BREWER-It depends on the extension, too, David. If it's
something that was approved last year, this was five years ago it
~Jas appr oved .
MR. KENNY-Yes, but one of the things I'm hearing, friends and
neighbors, and I realize they have no problem, but they have
nothing to look at. Yes, they do have something to look at.
They have all the files that are down at the Town. I mean, then
they could come in and say what they have problems with. If
they're happy with what he has filed, and the Town is happy with
what he has filed, and you're happy with what he has filed.
MR. BREWER-We don't know if we're happy with it.
MR. KENNY-Well, have you looked at it?
MR. BREWER-No, I haven't, because it was never given to us.
MR. KENNY-What I'm saying is, then all he'd have to do is ask for
an extension. He doesn't have to go out and spend $10,000 to
have a new site plan done, if everybody's happy with what he has
filed.
MR. BREWER-All he has to do is copy that, Dave.
MR. HARLICKER-What is on file does not reflect what the site
currently looks like. They don't jibe. What he has on file does
not reflect the current conditions of that site.
MR. KENNY-There's no CO issued here. When I'm under
construction, while I'm under construction, my site does not look
like what my final plan should look like. I realize that, but at
the end, when he's done, if he asks for 1,000 or a million yards
excavation, at the end, it should look like what he said it was
going to look like when he got finished. That's his job to do
that. Sure, now it doesn't look like what's on file because it's
in the middle of being excavated.
MR. MARTIN-But certainly one part of it has the appearance that
it's reached some finality. I mean, I see planting being done.
Berming was done, and, okay, maybe it's not. Maybe he's going to
go back into that bank and start taking material out again, but
it appears that what has been done was like I said, representing
some finality, and it's nothing as to what was shown here as
being the final grade, and my interest in undertaking such early
intervention, as I attempted to do last fall, was to avoid this
- 63 -
very situation that we're at.
MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, wouldn't that be the final plan,
if they had a five year permit? I guess what I'm saying is, they
got a five year permit, and I don't even know what they
submitted. I'm not knocking them or agreeing with them or
anything. I'm just saying, if they got a five year permit, at
the end of the five years, wouldn't you think it should be close
to being done, if that's what they predicted the time frame to
be?
MR. KENNY-I mean, I have a permit to put a building up. I don't
get finished in two years, I have to come in and ask for an
extension, and as long as I'm building, apparently the permit
lasts forever, there's not an expiration. With gravel,
apparently, there's an expiration. My only thing is, there is
something on file, I wish, tonight, (lost word) for myself, I
would have looked at it then.
MR. BREWER-Agreed.
MR. KENNY-And it's there, no one knows what's on file, there's
nothing there. The applicant should have brought what's existing
on file with them, and present it to the Board tonight, maybe the
Town has it on file, something that was approved. No one in the
audience knows what was approved. Now, if I was really involved
with it, I would have taken the time and gone to the Town and
seen what was approved in the past, so I would come here and have
something, I have nothing to talk about because I don't know what
it is. I would have known, and it is on file. That's my only
comment.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. George, I think you had a comment.
MR. STARK-Well, there's two points. It was good enough for the
DECto approve, you know, the extension until 1998, sometime in
'98, I think. It's just unfortunate circumstances that made this
happen. The thing is now, how to expediate it as fast as
possible. Maybe Mr. Lemery has some ideas.
MR. PALING-Lets ask, first, if there's anymore
Okay. There will be a public hearing. Yes.
what you're saying, what's the easiest, no,
accommodating way to get this done quick?
public comment?
Now lets get to
what's the most
MR. BREWER-They'd have to submit an application, advertise it,
and have a meeting.
MR. PALING-I think it would be to go through the site plan review
process, getting the material to Jim Martin's group as soon as
possible.
MR. OBERMAYER-Why can't he use the one that's on file?
MR. STARK-Use the one that's on file, it's already filed. Just
update it, change the date on it. Has there been any complaints
on what they've done so far? It looks pretty good to me up
there, doesn't it to yo~, Tim?
MR. BREWER-That's what they've got to do, George. It's a
new application. So they have to submit an application to
~.~hole
us.
MR. LEMERY-Mr. Wood will not be inclined, I'll just tell
he's not going to be inclined to spend $25,000 hiring
Group and a bunch of other people to come in here and do
site plan.
you,
the LA
a new
MR. BREWER-Well, why does he have to, John? If he's got a plan
that's on file, why can't you.
- 64 -
',-
~'
MR. LEMERY-He'll take the plan that's on file and resubmit the
plan that's on file, and make a determination that it has not
been completed, and at the end of a period of time, when the
Great Escape no longer requests a permit to extract sand and
gravel, it will conform to the original proposed plan.
MR. BREWER-Fine.
MR. OBERMAYER-That's very reasonable.
MR. LEMERY-I think we've been blindsided by your Staff, and I
think that this is for purposes of discussion.
MR. STARK-Mr. Chairman, as far as I'm concerned.
MR. BREWER-No, it was for purposes of extending your permit, is
what it was for, not discussion.
MR. STARK-Mr. Lemery, what's the matter with taking the existing
application that's on file, changing the dates, which the DEC is
happy with that. I don't see where you have to spend $25,000.
You won't need an EIS or anything else, as fa1" as I'm concerned,
but that's just me. It's not the rest of the Board, submit it,
we'll have a special meeting, possibly with Sherman Pines, and at
the most, it could hold Mr. Wages up maybe a couple of weeks.
MR. MACEWAN-Would you expect that of anybody else, to come in and
give you a site plan that's five years old, tell them to change
the date and we'll approve it?
MR. STARK-The DEC approved it.
MR. OBERMAYER-The plan has not changed, has it?
plan.
It's the same
MR. PALING-The long range plan has not changed.
MR. OBERMAYER-It hasn't changed. You just haven't excavated the
amount of material that you're planning to excavate over that
five year period.
MR. BREWER-You have no questions, if you look at that plan,
you're not going to have any questions?
MR. PALING-That's what I was going to say
on a site visit, which we'll do, are
problems or discrepancies with what we see
saying, lets say what you're going to
excavating, and what we find, are we
differences?
next. Now when we go
we going to find any
versus what you were
do in the way of
going to find any
MR. WAGES-Ladies and Gentlemen, last week I read a book, and it
was called, "The Death of Common Sense". I think I have now
entered that era in this room. Four years ago, five years ago,
the Great Escape put in an application for a permit to excavate
sand from a location. We have followed that. It's been
inspected. We haven't had anyone from this Town, anyone from the
State, tell us that we are doing anything wrong. We haven't even
had anyone specifically come to us from our neighbors and
complain about a problem. We've continued to go along. I feel
badly that we missed this legal deadline. I feel badly about
that, and we're going to do what we can to make sure that you
have the information so that you can do your jobs, but please, I
ask you all, lets keep our common sense about us, about this. We
will give you some papers. We'll try to get them to you next
week, so that you have something to review, so that you can do
your due diligence, but please lets keep it reasonable, and I
don't think we need to say anything else more tonight.
MR. STARK-Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Board if they
- 65 -
-.
have any problem with, like Tim, or anybody on the Board, if he
submits the existing plan, with the dates being changed. What do
you think, Tim, could possibly, this is like a discussion item
now.
MR. BREWER-I have no idea, George. I'm just saying, if
site plan, I don't want to have them think that they're
come in here and just walk in here and get an approval.
say that's going to happen. I'm not saying it's not
happen.
we get a
going to
I can't
going to
MR. STARK-How come you didn't say that to Mr. Schermerhorn? You
don't say that to anybody else. It seems like the Great Escape
is great whipping boy.
MR. BREWER-No, bull shit, George.
MR. MACEWAN-That's way out of line, George.
MR. PALING-Hold it.
MR. BREWER-I've never voted no on anything that the Great Escape
has done, George, so don't even insinuate that. If somebody
brings a site plan in, it should be properly reviewed.
MR. PALING-Okay, Tim.
going to do an imProper
It ~ be properly revievJed.
review.
We're not
MR. BREWER-I'm not saying it won't. George is saying change the
dates and we'll approve it, and that's wrong to say that.
MR. PALING-We're going to have a site plan review.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Listen, Mr. Lemery is a
don't you let him handle it, and we'll see
competent lawyer.
him again.
Why
MR. LEMERY-We'll take the plan that's on file and conform the
plan to what's existing, and that should do it. So that the plan
conforms for the next period of time that the Great Escape is
asking for the right to extract sand and gravel, the plan, to the
extent that Jim has determined that it doesn't conform to what's
been going on. We'll get a surveyor out there and basically
conform the plan to what's going on, and that should do it. If
there are any issues with the existing plan, other than, it
doesn't look like what was proposed back in 1990, it would be
helpful to us if the Staff could review it and let us know. It
would have been helpful to us if the Staff had reviewed it and
let us know before, earlier.
MR. PALING-All
Jim and Scott
with.
right. I will volunteer to go in and work with
on the existing plan, to see what we can come up
MR. BREWER-I don't even know what the site plan is, Bob.
MR. PALING-Okay. Do you agree also that, tentatively, Tuesday
the 11th for a site plan review?
MR. LEMERY-Well, we'll do our best.
accommodate us and we wànt to have
chance to review it.
We know you're trying to
it complete so you have a
MR. MARTIN-Now we do have a public hearing with this, but it's
not like Sherman Pines, where you have, you know, you just have
final stage and no public hearing. You have a public hearing and
notification to get out.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So can we put that in the paper?
MR. PALING-Yes.
We would have to do that, and can we do that
- 66 -
"--'
--/
.,....../
before we get their information, or do we have to wait until
that's in?
MR. MARTIN--No.
application.
I have to have it.
I have to have the
MR. PALING-That's got to be in. Okay. We'll move as quickly as
we can, as soon as you get your information.
MR. LEMERY-We appreciate it.
MR. MARTIN-I mean, the 18th, that's a regular meeting. I mean,
is that killing you?
MR. LEMERY-I don't know.
Wages. Thanks.
I'd have to go back and talk to Mr.
MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. I have a couple of other
items. I want to read into the record a letter from Jim Martin
regarding, this is a letter from Jim Martin to the Town Planning
Board regarding removal of obstructions from the area surrounding
the Warren County Airport, dated March 8th. "I have supplied a
copy of the final environmental assessment report for off site
obstruction removal around the Warren County Airport to the
Supervisor's Office. You may want to consider reviewing this
document as it involves removal of vegetation in the
significantly large area around the Warren County Airport.
Should you have further questions, please feel free to call."
I'm going to get the document Jim's referring to. I tried to get
it today, but Betty Monahan's got it. I will get the document,
and I'll bring it to a meeting, I guess, so you know about it.
I'll bring the document to the meeting and I'll pass it around.
It it's just a few pages, I'll get copies to everybody. Okay.
Now, there's three dates I wanted to repeat. April 3rd there's a
public hearing on the Weeks Road extension. That's at seven
o'clock at the Activities Center. This is a new one, on April
3rd, seven p.m. at the Activities Center, is the public hearing
on the Weeks Road extension. I can't be to this one, but I went
to the first one.
MR. STARK-Weeks Road extension?
MR. PALING-Yes, the match up.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Over by Gambles.
MR. STARK-Okay. Right. Yes.
MR. PALING-Okay, and there was, and I assume there will be again,
a lot of public comment on that. April 5th, the South Glens
Falls Planning Board has a speaker, Mr. Kuntzler, who's the
author of "Geography of Nowhere", and he's going to be their
speaker talking about subjects.
MR. MARTIN-This gentleman is excellent. He's a leading edge, so
to speak, land use author, and he has some good insights into the
problems of conventional zoning and how it contributes to sprawl
and that type of thing.
MR. MACEWAN-Wasn't he at one of the teleconferences, about a year
and a half ago?
MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought so, too, when we first came, yes.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. At least he was referenced, anyhow, and if you
get a chance to get over there for that, I'm going to try and get
more information on it, but it would be interesting to hear.
MR. PALING-All right. May 2nd, this is a repeat, those of you
who are interested, we'll go down to Colonie and attend their
- 67 -
"--'
-'
Planning Board meeting. That's May 2nd. I must have your
commitment by April 25th, as to whether you will or you won't go.
May 2nd is a Tuesday.
MR. OBERMAYER-That's good.
MR. MARTIN-We're going to take the Town van.
permission to use that.
We'll get
MR. BREWER-Site visits for next month.
MR. PALING-The dates for next month, which is April, site visits
should be April 12th, and meeting dates should be 18th and 25th.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I won't be here the 18th.
Beach.
I'll be in Myrtle
MR. PALING-Okay. Mark, we have a question for you.
MR. STARK-I have a question for Mark. Mark, because, if they
resubmit, whenever they submit, for a new site plan review.
MR. SCHACHNER-The Great Escape people you're talking about?
MR. STARK-The Great Escape, does that have to go in front of
Warren County again?
MR. SCHACHNER-Sure, if it's Warren County Planning Board.
Sure.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I have to tell you, I'm a little disturbed at
the notion that this Board might be too accommodating, because,
as an attorney, I'm worried about your legal exposure, when any
Board members say things like, just change the date and we'll
approve it, and I'm not criticizing.
MR. STARK-I didn't say that we'll approve it.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. The inference seemed to Ql§. to be, just the
change the date and we'll at least consider approving it, ,and my
concern is that one of the mandates under law is that you take a
hard look at each application and review it very seriously, and I
think this Board does a superb job of that, in general, and
again, I'm mindful of the fact that we've been sued once, and
most recently when did something for the Great Escape, where we
did something that was extremely, in my opinion, and I think
Staff's opinion, accommodating, by which I mean reviewing an
application that was not, that did not have every T crossed and
eve,'y I dotted, and agai n, part of m.z::. job is to avoid you guys
getting involved in litigation and making sure that if you do get
involved with litigation that we're putting our best foot
for IrJa rd.
MR. STARK-Is your advice waiting until the 18th, then, the
regular meeting date?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. I don't have any problem at all with special
meetings. My only concern is that we do things by the number.
MRS. LABOMBARD-A lawyer of Mr.
that comment as very derogatory
even insinuate that he was going
the files and change the date on
Lemery's caliber certainly took
towards him, the fact that, to
to take the site plan that is in
it.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don't agree with you, Cathy. I think he said, to
be honest, I think he said, that's what I'm going to do.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Maybe I'm naive.
- 68 -
"--"
~
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that was ~ impression was he said that's
basically what we'll do.
MR. MACEWAN-Maybe to go along with that, and the thought that ¡
have about the whole scenario was a lawyer of his caliber knows
that Jim is not in a position to grant an extension.
MR. SCHACHNER-Or should know.
MRS. LABOMBARD-He knew that.
MR. MACEWAN-Sure he did.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And we made it clear that the law was the law.
MR. SCHACHNER-But lets not bend over too far, because somebody is
trying to bully the Board around, when the bottom line is that
several of you all asked this very question. I don't want to say
what kind of caliber lawyers people are. I think that's
irrelevant. I think it's even irrelevant whether they're
attorneys, but the facts are the facts, and the facts are that
the Zoning Administrator took it upon himself, of his own
volition, to go above and beyond his duty, many months ago, to
inform this applicant, hey, you're going to have something that
runs out. You may not be aware of this, you've got an approval
that's going to expire six or seven or eight months from now.
Now that's the kind of lead time that the Zoning Administrator
voluntarily affirmatively put forth. What did the applicant do
in response? The applicant effectively sat around and did
nothing, at least as far as this approval, and then on the eve of
expiration submitted a letter, and the letter says on it, please
put us on your March agenda. The letter doesn't say on it, gee
Planning Board, we should have gotten to you sooner. Please make
sure and put us on your agenda in March before the 27th, because
it's critical we have something approved. All it says is, put us
on your March agenda. They happened to have been put on the
March 21st agenda. They happened to get adjourned to the March
28th agenda, as I understand it, because they themselves
requested to be adjourned to the March 28th agenda. There may
have been some misunderstanding about that or there may not have,
but as one of you members said, the applicant, you're charged
with knowing the speed limit, and you can't say to the police
officer or the court, yes, I was going eighty, but, gee, I didn't
know you can't go eighty. Well, you know what, people are
supposed to know what's in this book, and whether you're an
attorney or not, you're bound by the law of the Town, and the law
of the Town said, in this case, you have an expiration date on
March 27th, and if you wait until March to get on the agenda, and
you then call the Zoning office and say, can you table me for a
week, please, you're ,"unning a heck of a ,-isk, in ~ opinion.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, and I don't think you should imply or
chastise any of us, because as soon as I knew that he missed the
deadline and it was clear cut and dried, I went, just like that,
that was the issue. The issue was dead.
MR.
do n ' t
giving
comments
conte~<t .
SCHACHNER-My only concern is that our comments on the record
make, can't give any judge the impression that we're not
this a hard look. That's my only concern. There's
that are very innocently made, that can be taken out of
MR. STARK-Jim, when did he get his approval for DEC? When did he
go in for that?
MR. MARTIN-That's the first I've heard of it tonight, and that's
another thing that is disturbing to me, is DEC is thought of as
being enough of an important agency that we go and make sure that
that doesn't expi re and we get ou,- necessary e~<tension on that,
and the Town.
- 69 -
-'
MR. SCHACHNER-Wait until the last minute.
MR. BREWER-That's my point, George.
MR. MARTIN-And the only reason he's here is because I called Jon
Lapper three times. I said, make sure you call, or talk to who
you have to talk to and tell them~ do not take this lightly. I
called him three times in March. You can ask him, and for him to
sit here and say, blindsided, makes my blood boil. Like he said,
I didn't have to call him last November and point out to him that
this was coming around in March. Let it expire, and when I see a
payloader down there, in March, I'll tell you you're in violation
and you've got to shut it down.
MR. SCHACHNER-Just let me be clear on this. I'm not chastising
anybody, least of all George. You all can't appreciate, as I
can, that comments that you make in innocence, on the record, in
a specific context, are typed up in our transcript, because
Maria's supposed to type them up, and when I'm in court, and
someone from the Glen Lake Association says, and then one member
said, just submit something with a new date, and that)ll probably
be fine, in the context that you say it, the comment is fine, but
when I'm in court, you see how it can be twisted around.
MR. STARK-Yes. Jim, what are they doing down there now that
makes it so imperative that they have to do this within the next
two weeks or three weeks? Are they hauling sand?
MR. HARLICKER-Well, they're going to start construction for
their, what they got approval last fall, the two new rides.
MR. STARK-Yes, I know, but I don't see them hauling sand out of
there.
MR. HARLICKER-They're going to need material from this pit for
construction.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you're right, George.
MR. STARK-I mean, if they need sand, you know, for two weeks you
buy the sand some place, then.
MR. PALING-I've been there twice. I haven't seen any activity.
MR. STARK-I haven't seen any construction down there at all, not
the rides, the excavation.
MR. BREWER-George, my point was, when those people sat here last
week and they came back this week, we can't say to them that it's
going to be approved, or we potentially will approve it. We
don't know what those people are going to say. They didn't say
anything tonight because they haven't got a plan, any more than
we do.
MR. STARK-Well, what would they have said, lets assume last week,
I mean, we didn't even have a public hearing last week. Bob
would have said, does anybody have any comments.
MR. BREWER-Yes, lets see a plan. How would we have ever approved
anything without knowing what it was?
MR. SCHACHNER-For what it's worth, they evidently did have, as I
understand it, they did have comments last week. I haven't the
faintest idea what they were, but as I understand it, they were
prepared, last week, to make a bunch of comments about the
previous site plan activities that have gone on since. I have no
idea what the comments were, but my understanding is they were
prepared to make comments.
MR. STARK-The Great Escape had no complaints from these people
- 70 -
~
~'
/
,,,,,"
-...
o\/er the years.
MR. SCHACHNER-I haven't the faintest idea. I'm just telling you
that I was told they were prepared to make comments.
MR. STARK-It seems like all these people do
the Great Escape wants to do, they'v~ got
about it. Nothing makes these people happy.
the people around Glen Lake themselves.
is pick on whatever
a negative comment
They ought to check
MR. BREWER-That doesn't mean you should ignore them and just say,
okay, go ahead, Great Escape.
MR. STARK-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-I have no idea if what you say is true, but the
bottom line is, we can't, we meaning you, you all really can't
let that kind of opinion influence how you treat particular
applicants. Even if every single thing you say is true, you have
to put that opinion out of your mind, and review the application
by the numbers.
MR. BREWER-That's it.
MR. PALING-All right. Now let me just make one comment. Okay.
If anybody on this Board is interrupting an applicant, or
interrupting another member of the Board, I'm going to cut them
off and let the person who has the floor speak. We have enough
trouble controlling the applicants interrupting us. How about us
being controlled, and when we've got something to say, fine, say
it, but don't jump in, when an applicant or somebody from here is
talking. Well, I'm not going to say anything about who, but it
was obvious there was some interruptions tonight that were out of
line.
MR. BREWER-If I've got something to say, I'm not going to stop
from saying it.
MR. PALING-Well, you're going to let them have the floor or you
won't say it.
MR. BREWER-You can't stop me, Bob.
MR. PALING-Yes, I can.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Paling, Chairman
- 71 -