Loading...
1995-04-18 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 1995 INDEX Resolution of Intent - Lead Agency John W. & Lee V. Tabner 1 . subdivision No. 6-1995 FINAL STAGE Marilyn Smith ~ ~ . Site Plan No. 38-94 Harold & Eleanore Smith 8 . Site Plan No. 11-95 Lito Abrams 1~ .¿. Site Plan No. 12-95 Anthony Malantino 16. F't 01_e Plan No. 13-95 Robert Orban, Jr. 20. site Plan No. 14-95 Pilot Knob Marina 26. Subdivision No. 5-1992 FINAL STAGE Sherman Pines, Phase II 36. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~ ........,' --- / I" ',- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN JAMES OBERMAYER GEORGE STAR~( TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LABOMBARD ROGER RUEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, BILL MACNAMARA STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES February 21, 1995: NONE February 28, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21ST AND FEBRUARY 28TH ºE-_199~, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan SEQRA RESOLUTIONS: RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF SITE PLAN NO. 20-95. JOHN W. & LEE V. TABNER RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF SITE PLAN NO. 20-95 - JOHN W. & LEE V. TABNER RESOLUTION NO.: 2 OF 1995 INTRODUCED BY: James Obermayer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: George Star k. WHEREAS, John W. & application for a site plan known as or described as an kitchen and eating area, and Lee V. Tabner have submitted an review in connection with a project addition to rear of house to extend WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), - 1 - --- -,' -- MR. PALING-Okay, but the numbers I gave you are correct by lot number? MS. FUERST-Those ones you just gave me are correct. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. That's good, as long as they are. Okay. Do we have any engineering comments on this? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. PALING-No engineering comments. MR. MACEWAN-Were they given any waivers? MR. MARTIN-Not to !:D.Z knowledge there has not. I notice, like the contours, for example, are at 10 foot intervals, or 20 foot intervals. MR. MACEWAN-How can we approve it, then? MR. BREWER-We've got to give them a waiver. MR. MARTIN-You'd have to grant them a waiver, in its current condition. I don't have any record of waivers given. MS. FUERST-When the applicant submitted for Preliminary plan, there was a couple of lists. One was, when we met with Scott, he didn't think, on this site, that two foot contour interval was recommended or needed on this site, particularly. So, at that time, when we submitted for Preliminary, we wrote in a couple of options, and one was to grant a waiver to allow us to go to the 10 foot contour interval on the plans. MR. MACEWAN-Were you under the impression that Scott was granting the waiver? MS. FUERST-No. We have two foot contour intervals. We shot field topo. It doesn't really make much difference. It's very flat. So the site here where the lot 2 is getting split off from lot 1, a very flat, graded plateau of land. It really wouldn't do you any good for two foot intervals in this particular instance. MR. BREWER-Why can't we do the same thing we did with, I don't remember the applicant's name, up in Cleverdale? Can they submit a letter requesting the five waivers that are required in the subdivision Regulations? MR. STARK-Bob, lets just grant the waiver now. MR. PALING-That's what I'm thinking of. Can we do it in the form of a motion tonight? MR. MARTIN-Yes. You can do it at any time. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets make that part of the motion, see if we can get agreement on that. I notice, on the Staff Comments, that they talk about the final plat should contain erosion control details, location of erosion control measures. Is Staff aboard on that, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-That is okay. All right. Then I don't have any other questions, unless someone else does. MR. BREWER-Just that you've got to number the waivers that are required, when you make your motion, that's all. MR. PALING-All right. The only waiver I know is the one we're - 3 - I ---./ '- ''-" ...-' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SECRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by John W. & Lee V. Tabner; 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired; 3) a lead agency for purposes of SECRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SECRA review; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: Not"'¡E ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1995 FINAL STAGE TYPE I MARILYN SMITH KARA BEAMS - POWER OF ATTORNEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LC- 10A/RR-5A PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A +/- 99.53 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 53.89 ACRES (LOT 1) AND 48.64 ACRES (LOT 2). THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF LAKE LUZERNE AND THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WITH 28.63 ACRES OF LOT 1 AND 29.4 ACRES OF LOT 2 IN QUEENSBURY. 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 Final Stage, MARILYN SMITH, Meeting Date: April 18, 1995 "After meeting with the applicant's agent it was determined that the final plat should contain the following additional information: erosion control details and location of the erosion control measures along the stream and pond. Provided this information is included on the plat, staff can recommend final approval of this plat." MR. PALING-Just to clarify on this, the acreage that we have is different from the prints, and I'm going to assume that the print is correct, with 47.71 acres on Lot 2, and 51.82 acres on Lot 1. MS. FUERST-Right. This is the Final plan which differs slightly from the Preliminary. - 2 - '''"-'' - talking about. Right? MR. BREWER-No. These requirements pertain to any subdivision, right, Jim, on Page 18315, 316? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-The same, like the clearing plan, the two foot contours, all those you have to or it's not complete. the drainage plan, grant waivers for, MR. PALING-Well, I thought, Jim, I thought, positive about erosion control details and measures. answered in the erosion control MR. BREWER-Well, I'm just saying, those were the five that we waived last month for that. MR. MARTIN-There is a difference between erosion control measures and a drainage report. A drainage report calculates, Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, cubic square footage of runoff and so on and so forth, what kind of volumes you can expect and that type of thing. Usually it's not warranted for a subdivision of this size. I can say that much. Historically, it's not been a needed thin:g. MR. PALING-Read the five again. MR. BREWER-Well, there's, I don't know necessarily the landscape, but you've got to have one for a clearing plan, grading and erosion control, drainage report. MR. PALING-Okay. cont.rol, okay. There 1S no clearing. Grading and erosion MR. BREWER-Drainage report, two foot contours. think of, unless you can think of anything checklist here that's not been done. That's all 1. can that's on the MR. PALING-Okay. There is no clearing. The grading and erosion control, I think Staff is okay on that. MR. BREWER-That's not a plan, though, is it, Jim? measur e . That's a MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-So if you just grant the waiver for the plan, then 'l'ou' r e covered. MR. MARTIN-Right. What Scott was referring to is location of hay bales and silt fences and so construction, that type of thing. indication of on, dUì"ing MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. could waiver it. All right. Well then I would think we MR. BREWER-Yes, but you just have to list them. That's all. MR. PALING-Yes. All right. I'll make a motion MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1995 FINAL STAGE MARILYN SMITH, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: That. the requirements for clearing, grading and erosion control, drainage and two foot contours, that the plans for these be waived. Otherwise, that. it be approved as is. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: - 4 - --.. -../ '-../ '--- MR. BREWER-I was going to abstain. MR. OBERMAYER-We need your vote on this one. MR. BREWER-I abstained from it last week from it, or last month. What do we do? What's the problem, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I just think there's a lack of procedure being followed by this Board, and I've voiced my opinion on it before. I think that there are regulations that are set up in subdivision provisions for everyone to follow, and I think if you start giving waivers left and right, you're side stepping the policies and procedures that this Board is supposed to follow. I can understand that we can give away some waivers. I don't have a problem with the two foot contour, but I'd like to see what, you know, a drainage report, stormwater management plan, just like you would with any other subdivision that you're doing, and I disagree with it. I disagree with the way that we're going about doing this. It's nothing against the applicants themselves. MR. PALING-Yes. I think there are degrees of it, and this job site doesn't seem to require a lot of that stuff, and if it doesn't require it, I hate to make them do it. MR. MACEWAN-Based on who's opinion? MR. PALING-Well, Staff and our own observations. MR. OBERMAYER-Did you go up there, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I've been up there. unless I've seen it. I don't vote on anything MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. PALING-Tim, it's up to you. You're going to have to either abstain or vote, because right now, it will not pass. MR. BREWER-I don't feel comfortable voting. That's the reason I abstained last month from it, only because I know the people. MR. PALING-I've voted on things with people I've known, but there's been no. MR. MACEWAN-If the applicant's willing to table, table until next week and make sure you have Roger and cathy here. MS. FUERST-I'm not really willing or wanting to table, because a lot of work has already been proceeded to get to this point. MR. MACEWAN-And I'm not willing to change ~ mind, either. I think that this Board, in recent months, has gone way in the wrong direction, and I don't think it's right. MS. FUERST-Okay. I honor your opinion, but you have to take into consideration the size of this property. You have to take into consideration. MR. MACEWAN-You won't get me to change my mind, ma'am. MS. FUERST-Right. I'm looking for, hopefully, maybe that Tim Brewer would vote on this. MR. BREWER-Sure, put me in the spot, right? MR. MACEWAN-If they table it for one week, that's that crucial to you? MS. FUERST-It's my time, which I have to bill this client, you know, ~ time. It hurts me to have to come back, because I've - 5 - , already given her my estimate. lose ffiZ. money. I would have to come back and ~1R. PALING-Okay. "'Jell, I think that part of it as it can. Tim, it's up to you. You're going whether you abstain or. has gone as far to have to say MR. BREWER-I've got to abstain. I mean, und(Hstand your si tuation, but you situation. I did last month, and I have to u nden3ta nd Oli.. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, the Board has voted it down. MR. MARTIN-You haven't finished the vote yet. You haven't voted, yes, have you, Bob? MR. PALING-My vote is yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and, Tim? MR. BREWER-I abstain. ~m. M(;RTIN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel MR. MARTIN-So it's no action. MR. PALING-So, it's no action. Now, the applicant is saying that they don't want it tabled. MR. BREWER-I mean, it's a matter of, I don't know that you're Deeded ne:«t week. I mean, if you came back from, it's my m..¡n personal opinion, from the action taken last month, I mean, it was a matter of five minutes, and they passed the Preliminary. I mean, if the applicant came, and they re-voted, I can't predict the future. MS. FUERST-You also need to keep under consideration, members of the Planning Board, that when a company comes to the Planning Department, items are addressed and asked for specifically right out of regulation booklet. I do this with every job that we do, just to verify what you think is typically needed on this. Now under the direction of what this site was considered, a simple two lot subdivision, I proceeded to carry out and do every other guideline and stipulation, to do everything that's required on this map. There's everything that could possibly ever be needed here is here. That's my only hang up, is that, you know. I'm scheduled for this evening. It's not my fault that other members are not here present, and I know you need a four vote quorum. MR. PALING-I believe we can allow this to come before us again next time, or if not, there's going to be a resolution to, there'll have to be a motion to, and voted on, to turn it down. MR. BREWER-No. You can table it. MR. PALING-Or table it, but the applicant has said they. MR. OBERMAYER-I think the best way is to wait until someone comes back, because right now we're at a gridlock here. MR. PALING-It's a shame we have to do something like that, but if it's got to be, then maybe that's the easiest way out. - 6 - '-' ---- ,,,,- "'---, MR. BREWER-Jim, how come, when an applicant comes in, and there's requirements, Scott doesn't make them do the requirements or ask for a wahler? MR. MARTIN-When questions are posed like that historically these things are given, at least any time I advise applicants, is of the Board" that, it's always said but it is always said, it's at the discretion MR. BREWER-But if the requirements are set in black and white, and our Staff tells them that it necessarily is not needed, I can agree with that, in some cases, but if they're not needed, lets ask, lets make the applicant write down that we request a waiver. MS. FUERST-I have a copy of a letter of transmittal when I submitted, which was for the March meeting, and I had a list on here of what I had asked to get waived. I asked to get waived the two foot contour interval, stating that I have shown a 20 foot contour interval on the plan" That was on my letter of transmittal when I handed in the subdivision packet" As for the clearing, grading and erosion control and the drainage report documents, inside the subdivision review booklet, some subdivisions, like a drainage report. I mean, I don't know if you people understand what a drainage report is, but it's a really detailed specified information saying, you know, once you hard surface the roof or the black top driveway, I mean, if I just want to come back next week, I will. I don't want to spend everybody else's time" MR. BREWER-I understand what I'm saying is, if really not necessary, would you please grant and it's over with. exactly what the requirements are, but we feel, or our Staff feels that they're why doesn't he have the applicant say, these waivers, and that's cut and dried MS. FUERST-The only waiver I knew I had to grant was a two foot contour interval, and I have a copy right here of when I handed in my thing asking for the waiver on two foot contours" MR" PALING-Okay. George, you had a comment? MR" STARK-Well, I was just going to after the Staff to use common sense. mean, it's kind of foolish to grant, goes up very steep. The thing would a two foo't. So he did, use his head. answer Tim. We're always In this case, Scott did" I you know, I mean, the hill be a solid mass of lines on MR. BREWER-Right" I understand that and I agree with that, George, but bottom line is, it's a requirement. It's law to have to do it, or ask for a waiver" MR" OBERMAYER-Well, as Jim says, you know, we can grant the IrJai ver nOIrJ. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-As part of the resolution, and I don't see why we can't do that" MR. BREWER-Because if we had it at Preliminary, we wouldn't be in this predicament. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't see what a drainage plan is going to tell us, Craig. You're going to put the applicant through additional har dship " MR. MACEWAN-You're not going to get me to change my mind. So just back down, please. MR. STARK-I've got to address the applicant. Agree to table - 7 - ~ until next Tuesday, and then we'll go from there, please. MS. FUERST~Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Then could we have a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1995 FINAL STAGE MARILYN SMITH, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Until next Tuesday, April 25th. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel MR. MARTIN-In the interim, it might be a good idea if the applicant did submit a letter in writing asking for the requested waivers in writing. MR. PALING-Tim, where were you reading, just to make sure we're on the same page. MR. BREWER-Page 18337 they start. Wait a minute. If you want to move on, I'll find it for you. It will take me two seconds. MR. PALING-Okay, and let me know, too, Tim. that we're all aboard on that one. Okay. move on to Site Plan No. 38-94. I want to make sure It's tabled. We'll SITE PLAN NO. 38-94 TYPE I HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: HANNEFORD RD. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT AND A 36' X 24' GARAGE. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR AV 52-1993 (ANN & ERWIN JOHNSON). CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-1993 TAX MAP NO. 19-1-57.4 LOT SIZE: 10,000 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16 ELEANORE SMITH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 38-94, Harold & Eleanore Smith, Meeting Date: April 18, 1995 "This site plan is before the Planning Board for site plan review as a condition of Area Variance approval 52-1993 which was for relief from the 150 foot lot width requirement. As indicated in the Zoning Board resolution approving the variance, the Board was concerned about the drainage, sewage disposal, water supply, stormwater management and grading. The application was sent to Rist Frost for review and comment." MR. MARTIN-And I think you have a copy of Variance as well as Rist-Frost's notes on a 12th. I'll let Bill take it from there. the Zoning Board letter dated April MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. Our comments of April 12th are essentially follow ups to comments we initially had summarized November 9th of last fall, and they essentially address the concerns that the Zoning Board of Appeals had. As of November, there were some outstanding items toward each of the Zoning Board's concerns. In April, they had resubmitted, addressed all the Zoning Board's concerns, and we simply added some suggestions, if you will, for the drywell, depending on who's going to put it in, that they're - 8 - ~ ---' / ~ proposing to put in that we feel would give it a better chance of working. Other than that, we don't have any comments. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACNAMARA-If you need the November 9th letter, if you need that for your file, we can get that to you, also. MR. PALING-Jim, I'd ask you to March 30th letter from Harold supporting an on-site wastewater the Board of Health. comment, if you would, on the Smith, regarding, incapable of disposal system, and approval by MR. MARTIN-That's accurate, as I understand the law, that when a property is physically incapable of supporting a conforming system, the procedure is to go to the Town Board of Health, which is in this case the Town Board, and seek that variance, as indicated here. MR. PALING-Now have they received that? MR. MARTIN-No, they have not, as yet. MR. PALING-All right. done? So that's something that has yet to be MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-And that's the Board of Health approval? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-That's the Town Board in this case. MR. PALING-Or the Town Board, in this case. Okay. Are there any other comments or questions? All right. MR. MACEWAN-I'm just trying to clarify with I saw the right site. This is when you turn You follow it around the bend, it's like about three or four houses down on the left? area? George and make sure onto Hanneford Road. a vacant lot that's Was I in the right MR. PALING-No. It's on the other side of the street. It's opposite the Rooney and the other properties. It's a vacant lot that kind of goes down a little, comes up a little. MRS. SMITH-It's just before you get to Rooneys, on the right side. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-What's behind the property, if yoU kept going? MRS. SMITH-I think it's just more land. MR. PALING-More land, yes. Okay. You couldn't see anything back there. Okay. MR. BREWER-They got the variance for the holding tank, right? MR. MARTIN-No. That would be during the building permit process. MR. PALING-Okay, and that doesn't have to be part of our motion, then, is that correct? MR. MARTIN-It could be. - 9 - MR. PALING-It could be, but it's okay. be sure. All right. Okay. We'll make it to MR. MARTIN-I would recommend that you do. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now, do we need a SEQRA? MR. BREWER-Yes, Type I. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Short Form? MR. MARTIN-No, Long Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 38-94, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning HAROLD & ELEANORE SMITH, 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 Type I 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 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, - 10 - '-' " '",-- oJ Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think we're at a motion point. MR. MACEWAN-Before we do that. I Just had a question for Staff. Could you clarify usage of a holding tank for me. MR. MARTIN-In what regard? MR. MACEWAN-Is it above ground, below ground? How big are they? Are they meant for year round use? MR. MARTIN-It's typically below ground, and they can be sized, the sizes can vary. They've indicated a two thousand gallon tank here, and that's usually a function of the number of bedrooms, as with a typical septic system. MR. MACEWAN-Seeing this is a one bedroom, how often would that need to be pumped? MR. MACNAMARA-The sizing is generally described in the zoning, based on an assumed or hypothetical seven day pump out rate, and I think it's two bedrooms, I think, goes to 2,000, I think three is 3,000. I could look it up for you. Someone had determined that that was an approximate seven day pump out rate, and if you want to actually do some math, you can figure out, roughly, I think it's either 85 or 100 gallons per person per day, is their general rule of thumb. MR. MACEWAN-So Just generally, based on the fact this is a one bedroom unit, that you'd be looking at every two weeks they'd be pumping this out? MR. MACNAMARA-Depending on how many people stay there, or longer, because 100 gallons is a pretty conservative figure that pretty rarely is reached, unless you really do a lot of laundry and take a lot of showers. MR. MARTIN-The other thing is, they're equipped with an alarm that'll go off before it reaches capacity, and then it'll shut down completely, the water intake into the dwelling, if it fills up completely. MR. MACNAMARA-Or I think in some cases the water outflow from the house, there'd be a valve that shuts off. It depends on how it's set up, but either way, the owner is pretty much stuck with pumping it out, at that point. MR. MACEWAN-And that will fall under the Building Department? MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's reviewed at building permit time, and that variance would have to be gotten before the permit's issued. MR. MACNAMARA-I think in this case it's a seasonal use. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments, questions by the Board? Okay. Can we have a motion? MR. MARTIN-I believe you have a prepared resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 38-94 Introduced by James Obermayer who seconded by George Stark: HAROLD & moved for ELEANORE SMITH, its adoption, As noted, and with one added addition, that the Board of Health will approve the septic system as required, prior to a - 11 - - . building permit is issued. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 38-94 to construct a residential dwelling unit and a 36' x 24' garage; and "'Jhereas, the above 10/26/94 consists 1 . 2 .. mentioned site plan application, dated with new information submitted 3/30/95 of the following: Letter from Harold Smith, dated 3/30/95 Sheet 5-1, dated 10/18/94, revised 3/14/95 Sheet S-2, dated 10/20/94, revised 3/14/95 Sheet S-3, dated 10/18/94 3. 4. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 11/29/~4, 4/18/95 2. Rist Frost comments, dated 11/9/94, 4/12/95 3. Warren County Planning comments, dated 11/9/94 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 11/29/94 concerning the abo0e 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 QueensbuTY (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 # 38-94. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plat. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. S. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan review approval process. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, 1'1r. Pal i ng NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-95 TYPE: UNLISTED LITO ABRAMS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: LOCKHART MT. ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CLASS B FARM. CLASS B FARMS ARE A PERMITTED USE WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW. APA TAX MAP NO. 23-1-29.21 - 12 - --- '---/ ../ -- LOT SIZE: 8.706 ACRES SECTION: 179-15 D, 179-63 A(2) DON ABRAMS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 11-95, LITO ABRAMS, Meeting Date: April 18, 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 proposed use and structures are compatible with the site and the surrounding properties. No lighting or signage is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular traffic access will not be a problem. The site is accessed by a single driveway. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off street parking is not an issue. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedest1·ian access is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater drainage will not be a problem. Measures should be taken to ensure that stormwater runoff does not flow off of the driveway and on to the road. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; A new septic system was recently installed. 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 is proposing plantings along the road and driveway. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access is adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. ponding and flooding do not appear to be problems. Because of the slope off the property, erosion control measures need to be in place during construction and until the site has been stabilized. RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has indicated that he plans on keeping two horses on the property. The zoning code requires two acres per horse; the property is 8.7 acres in size so there is ample room for the animals. The applicant is seeking site plan approval for the use of the property; the construction of the proposed buildings do not require site plan review. Staff can recommend approval of the property to be used as a Class B farm." MR. PALING-Okay. I don't think there are any other comments from any of the other agencies. Any comments from the Board? MR. STARK-The barn's all built already up there, isn't it? MR. PALING-It's on it's way. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. It's pretty close. MR. STARK-Jim, how come, you know, they're coming to us for an approval on this, and the building's already up. MR. MARTIN-The use is the situation. If they introduce the horses to the property without site plan approval, that's a violation. The horses are not there as yet. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. They're not subdividing. - 13 - MR. PAL I NG--No . MR. MARTIN-No. No subdivision is proposed at this time. MR. PALING-Tim, do you have anything? MR. BREWER-Just, Number Five in the Staff comments, I just want to know how they're going to contain the stormwater, if they have any idea how they're going to do that. MR. ABRAMS-I'm Don Abrams. My wife is Lito. We're at a little bit of a disadvantage. Our architect was supposed to be here and he did not make it. He has all the paperwork, but we're going to use stones. The only slope problem would be maybe around the barn area, slight slope, and we're going to use retaining stones. If you see, the building, it doesn't appear to be a major problem because there's a lot of field and sod and whatever between the building and the road, several hundred feet. I"IR. BREWER-I guess what I'm tal ki ng about is the Staff comment Number Five, and I don't know if you have a copy of it, but it says, stormwater drainage will not be a problem. Measures should be taken to ensure that stormwater runoff does not flow off the driveway onto the road. I guess Staff is worried about the water on your driveway running into the road, maybe creating a problem. I don't know that it will or it won't. MR. MARTIN-I think what we're looking for is a profile to grading of the driveway, such that the water sheets off to the side, rather than this channeled down the driveway into the road. MR. ABRAMS-Right. When the driveway was put in, that was done, it had a slight slope, to each side, and there is a (lost word) pipe at the bottom that catches that water. and then takes it down the regular township ditch. That was all done. MR. PALING-Okay. I guess, for the maximum number of different intend on putting on this piece you've got two horses. the record, I'm asking what are type animals that you would ever of property? Right now I know MR. ABRAMS-Right, two horses. They're for pleasure riding. The only time that I see another animal would be if one of our horses that we have now got disabled or too old to ride, and we would not have that horse done away with. It would stay there with us, and we might want to replace that with one that we could ride. MR. PALING-Well, that's well within the limit of four, though. MR. ABRAMS-Absolutely. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. So you wouldn't have anything above that? MR. ABRAMS-No. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. We'll open the public hearing if anyone here would like to comment on this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to do a SEQRA. Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 11-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: - 14 - -- ---- ---- -' WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before LITO ABRAMS, and the Planning Boaì"d 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 Cueensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NOt\ E ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-95 LITO ABRAMS, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by As noted. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 11-95 for construction of a Class B farm; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 3/22/95 consists of the following: 1. Map of Survey of Lands of L. Rae Gillis, dated 7/6/93, revised 11/21/94 2M Sheet 5-1, dated 8/3/94, revised 3/17/95 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 4/18/95 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/18/95 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the - 15 - 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 # 11-95. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. The applicant shall present referenced site plan to Administrator for his signature. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. The conditions shall be noted on the map. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval the the above Zoning '? ... . '? ,..) . 4. 5. 6. process. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 12-95 TYPE II ANTHONY MALANTINO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: BAY RD. TO 9L, LEFT ON 9L, FIRST DRIVEWAY PAST LIBRARY ON LAKESIDE, NO. 1170, RED CEDAR SIDING. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A SUN DECK OVER EXISTING PIER. DOCKS AND BOATHOUSES ARE A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO SITË PLAN REVIEW. APA, LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 3- 1-21 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION 179-16 ANTHONY MALANTINO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 12-95, Anthony Malantino, Meeting Date: April 18, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to cover part of his existing dock facility. The proposal is for a flat roofed open sided covering that will be utilized as a deck. Several items stand out as being in conflict with the Zoning Code. The Code states that cooking facilities are not allowed and the applicant indicates a grill cooking alcove. The length of docks is limited to 40 feet and a portion of the deck extends out further than that. It complies with the other portions of Section 179-60 of the Zoning Code which l-egulates docks and boathouses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the grilling alcove be removed from the plan, and even though the existing dock extends out more than 40 feet, new construction should not; it should comply with the 40 foot distance from the shoreline limitation. " MR. BREWER-If it's over 40 feet it's in violation? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Well, the dock is existing. - 16 - ---' ~ MR. PALING-We're talking about the new construction being limited to 40 feet because the existing dock is more than that. MR. BREWER-The existing is okay over 40 feet? MR. MARTIN-As long as it preexists. MR. PALING-It says it is in this drawing here, Tim, the one side jutting out. MR. OBERMAYER-The recommendation by staff is what again? MR. MARTIN-That the alcove be removed, the cooking grill be removed, and also that the deck itself not extend more than 40 feet. MR. PALING-Right. That's the ~ construction part of it. Okay. Lets see. We have Warren County. MR. MARTIN-They have disapproved. MR. PALING-They've disapproved this. The Warren County Planning Board does not approve of land bridges for aesthetic reasons, although the dock is oversized and there is some area already available. Now they're referring, here, to the way you get to the dock. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-The elevated part of it, and they want to see stairs versus a ramp. MR. MARTIN-They have traditionally denied the ramp from the shoreline to the deck. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. They always do that. They reject everybody's ramps. MR. MARTIN-The obvious effect of that is there is a majority plus one vote needed, or so called super majority from the Board. MR. PALING-Of this Board. MR. MARTIN-In the case of tonight, you need a unanimous vote with the attendance that we have. MR. BREWER-I have a question. Where does it say, in the Code book, that you can't cook on a deck? That's crazy. MR. PALING-No. does it? I don't think it says you can't cook on a deck, MR. BREWER-You can't have cooking facilities, is saying in Staff Notes. What is the purpose of can't cook on it? I mean, I cook on my deck. what they're a deck if you MR. SCHACHNER-It's on 18024. MR. OBERMAYER-You shouldn't have even mentioned it. MR. BREWER-Well, it's mentioned in Staff Notes. MR. MACEWAN-What's the Section, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-The Section is 179-60. It's on Page 18024. MR. MARTIN-Subsection 11. Boathouses shall be designed and constructed solely for the storage of boats and related equipment - 17 - and shall not include provisions for sleeping, cooking, or sanitary facilities. MR. PALING-Yes. So if you have a planned cooking facility, then it can't be. MR. MARTIN-I mean, obviously, if somebody rolls out a barbecue for an afternoon, but I didn't want to be so blatant as to approve a cooking alcove, in light of what that says. MR. PALING--Okay. MR. MALANTINO-My name is Mr. Malantino, and I just recently bought the property and I've rented up at the lake for a couple of years, and all of the places I've rented, the decks had a grill on it. Fine. I'll put the grill here, but I'll eliminate it. I don't want to offend anybody. MR. PALING-Okay, and do you also agree with the requirement that you don't build the elevated dock out above the long dock, that you're limited to 40 feet from the shore? MR. MALANTINO-I didn't know I had an oversized dock when I bought it, but if that's the way I should go. ~1R . PALING-Yes. whatever it is. It's oversized by about six or eight feet, MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. So at just have to cut it across this point right there. here, you know, you MR. PALING-It looks like it would be even, then, construction would be even with the other two parts. that is Okay. nelrJ MR. BREWER-Why don't we just say that it's limited to 40 feet. MR. PALING-That's fine. Okay. Those are the only two, now the third point is the ramp. Is that okay with you that you don't have a ramp, that you don't have a ramp, that you use stairs? MR. MALANTINO-I think, maybe on the drawing, there is stairs that go to it, but what happens is there's a sharp drop over, okay, and the ramp is from (lost word) or you have to go down and go up the steps, but if that's the wish of the Board, I'll get rid of the (lost ~>Jord). MR. PALING-How long would your bridge or ramp have to be, about s,i;< fe(0t? MR. MALANTINO-Yes. It just drops off where it's easier just to go to it than to go all the way down and then up these steps and down. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-I don't see a bi9 problem. MR. MACEWAN-No. I think when Warren County takes those into consideration, they're 100kin9 at some monstrosity that's 25 feet long and covers the Grand Canyon. MR. BREWER-That's just their opinion. mean that has to be our opinion. That doesn't necessarily MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. We can override them. MR. BREWER-I don't see a need for eliminatin9 the ramp. MR. PALING-Okay. I'll open this for public hearing tonight. Would anyone care to talk about this? - 18 - '---' --...../ --' PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. OBERMAYER-There's no SECRA on this one. MR. MARTIN-No. This is Type II. MR. PALING-Type II. motion. There is no SEQRA. Now, can we have a MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-95 ANTHONY MALANTINO, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Star k: With two conditions. Number One, that no cooking facilities be allowed on the deck, and Number Two, that 40 foot maximum length of dock to be held to. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 12-95 to construct a sun deck over existing pier. Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 3/27/95 consists of the following: 1. Four drawings undated. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 4/18/95 2. Warren County Planning comments dated 4/12/95 3. COpy of Lake George Park Commission Application for Permit dated 3/27/95. Whereas, a public hearing the above project; lrJas held on and 4/18/95 concerning 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 # 12-95. 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 signa'ture. 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 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: - 19 - '--- MR. OBERMAYER-When you say no roll a Weber out onto his deck? cooking, does that Is that what we're mean he can't saying? MR. PALING-I think he can't build any cooking facilities. MR. MARTIN-We did not want to see a fixed. AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 13-95 TYPE: UNLISTED ROBERT ORBAN, JR. OWNER: ROBERT LEFEBVRE ZONE: SFR-10 LOCATION: 93 DIXON ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO USE EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR A DENTAL OFFICE AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF VARIANCE APPROVAL. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 4/10/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/12/95 CROSS REFERENCE: AV 9-1995 TAX MAP NO. 101-1-14, 15 LOT SIZE: LOT 14, 20,550 SF LOT 15, 11,250 SF. SECTION: 179-20, 179-89 ROBERT ORBAN, JR., PRESENT; JIM MILLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 13-95, Robert Orban, Jr., Meeting Date: April 18, 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 offers the following comments: 1. The project received a Use Variance in March. It was determined at that time the uses allowed on this site would not have a significant adverse impact on the neighborhood. The property, even though it is zoned residential, is commercial in character. 2. A six foot high fence will be provided to screen the rear of the building and the refuse area from adjacent property. 3. Asphalt on adjacent property will be removed and the area reseeded. 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 exterior of the building will be improved on. No expansion is proposed for the structure. No new lighting is proposed; applicant will utilize existing lights on building. Signage will be subject to a separate permit. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular traffic access will be improved over what currently exists. Two access points will be created. There will be an entrance only from Dixon Road and entrance and exit from Dixon Court. The access on Dixon Road will be angled so that utilizing it as an exit will be difficult. The access on Dixon Court will be 30 feet wide and the access on Dixon Road will be about 20 feet wide at it's narrowest point. 3. Location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off street parking is sufficient. The applicant is proposing 19 parking spaces including 1 handicapped space. If more spaces are needed there is room on the property for future expansion of the parking area. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; There is to be no changes in existing drainage facilities. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The property is serviced by municipal water and on-site septic system. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or - 20 - '- ~ -..../ 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 is proposing extensive perimeter landscaping. Existing asphalt will be removed along Dixon Road and Dixon Court and be replaced with a landscaped area. A mixture of ground cover, low shrubs and street trees will be provided. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access should be adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. There does not appear to be any areas that are susceptible to ponding, flooding, or erosion. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that a dumpster enclosure be provided and that this site plan be appr oved . " MR. MARTIN-The other item I had, this was an insight of mine, I discussed with Bob on the phone today. I noticed the curbing around the plantings in the front is to be wood in nature, wood timbers to the inside of the property. I would propose, at a minimum, that wood timber go around the entire perimeter of the planted area in the front. The other suggestion I might have, if we're to further limit the exit of vehicles from the Dixon Road access point, you might want to consider narrowing that even further. Twenty foot is really the minimum requirement for a two lane entrance, and if that is truly to be entrance only, it could be reduced further. MR. PALING-Okay. So you want that from 30 down to 20. MR. MARTIN-n..¡enty, it's Just a suggestion. Maybe, I don't want to make it too narrow for emergency vehicles or something, but I think it could be reduced even further, and that would also contribute to more green space across the front. MR. MACEWAN-How much less are you looking for? MR. PALING-Yes. You've got to give us a number. MR. MARTIN-I would say five to eight feet, you know, fifteen to twelve foot entrance. MR. PALING-All right. Lets say 15 feet. MR. MARTIN-Yes. If the intention is to truly discourage exit from the property from that point, that would contribute to that. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-What's your reasoning behind wanting the landscaped timbers around the entire perimeter of the planting area? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think he may have a problem with snow plows going by, or runoff from the planted area, the timbers would act as a block or a small retainage wall for the soil running off. MR. PALING-It would keep it contained. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Well, I think that's a good suggestion. This has been approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals with very specific types of businesses being mentioned as allowed on the premises, and it has also been approved by the Beautification Committee, but I would read into the minutes a couple of comments by them. I won't read the whole thing. "Low planting to permit clear view with visitors. I think we talked about that last time. A fence to follow lot line between house and building, on lands of Tim Chase. Rear of building is green area where leach fields are located and to remain as is". It says no dumpster to be located - 21 - on side. MR. BREWER-That's where it's shown on the plan, though. MR. PALING-They would like it moved, I believe, to the rear. We can talk about that in a minute. Okay. That's the end of the comments by the Beautification Committee, and I don't have any other letters or comments. Okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and Warren County had no County impact. MR. PALING-Okay. point? Any questions by anybody on the Board at this MR. MACEWAN-The comment you just made about the containers being moved to the rear? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-They are in the rear now, aren't they? main entrance going to be toward the west? Isn't your DR. ORBAN-My name is Robert Orban. There is no provision for refuse containment right now. I believe there's a dilapidated old wood frame that was a wooden enclosure, but if I could just point out, I will not have a dumpster at all. MR. PALING-Okay. That takes care of that. DR. ORBAN-And it's probably outdoor trash or whatever. I and a lot of utility storage. the day. unlikely that there will be any have a lot of space inside there, Anything put out will be out for MR. PALING-Like a home does. DR. ORBAN-Exactly. MR. MACEWAN-I think the reason for all the questions is they're shown here on the plat on the back side of the building. DR. ORBAN-That's what I said, that's what exists there now on the east side. There is an old frame, kind of dilapidated, frame couple of corner posts there where I believe we were thinking that there used to be a refuse container there for the prior business that used to be there. I am not going to have a dumpster, and like I said, it will be essentially, express it that way for residential pick up. MR. MACEWAN-But your main entrance into the place, into the business, where the people will be going through, is on the west side of the building facing Dixon Court, right? DR. ORBAN-The main entrance door? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. DR. ORBAN-Is, no, along the Dixon Road side, toward the west side of the building. MR. PALING-But the entrance is only on the Dixon Court side. DR. ORBAN-To the driveway? MR. BREWER-To the building. MR. PALING-No, the entrance to the driveway, right. MR. MACEWAN-No. I'm talking about, how do the people get into the building? - 22 - "---' ',,---, -- MR. MILLER-The main entrance to Dr. Orban's office will be located right on the front facing Dixon Road. There would be an exit where it says, new door. That's just a patient exit door only, and then there's another door in the back here where there's some paving shown, and that's to access the rear space, which is the lease space that will be leased by Dr. Orban. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. PALING-Yes, I was referring to curb cuts, which you're going to have on Dixon Court, which is an entrance and an exit. MR. MILLER-Yes, but since Dixon Court is dead ended, there would be very few people entering in here. So primarily the flow will be from Dixon Road through the parking lot, and that will be an exit where they'll come back up in this intersection where there's a stop sign at the intersection entering Dixon Road. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. PALING-Yes. So we've got the two items so far, the curbing around the planter and the 15 foot, okay. If there are no other comments, I'll open the public hearing on this. Is there anyone here that would like to talk about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. Do we have any questions? MR. MARTIN-I just had one last comment, as Staff. we're asking things of people, and I really want to to the applicant. I think he's done a lot to make this site, and I think it will be an improvement there, certainly, now, and I think that should just t.he record. Often times, give credit the best of over lrJhat' s be noted for MR. it. Okay. PALING-I think the neighbors welcome it. The Board welcomes Everybody that drives by and knows about it welcomes it. We do not need a SEQRA. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, we do. MR. MARTIN-Short Form. DR. ORBAN-Could I just make one more comment, one of the things that was read? I plan no lighting in the way of, for any signs, special signs, things like that. What I might do, in (lost word) as a residence, I may have some corner spot.s up, in the winter, where I may be there a little after dark, or with a motion detection system, as far as an alarm system, but that might be all that would be in addition to any lighting that's existing underneath the sophet of the mansard. There'll be no commercial lighti ng signs. MR. PALING-You're not going to put anything up on a pole. That's all low level. Okay. We've got to do the SECRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the ROBERT ORBAN, JR., and Planning Boa ,. d an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed - 23 - -- project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Cuality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: j""jOr...¡E :). 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 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. We need a motion. MR. MACEWAN-Did we ever get approval, applicant agree to the Staff's input of around the entire planted area? or whatever, did the the landscaped timbers MR. PALING-Well, that will be part of the motion. MR. MACEWAN-I just want to make sure he wants to go along with it. DR. ORBAN-Yes, I will go along with that. MR. PALING-There's two conditions. One access be limited to 15 feet, and that a of landscaped timber be put around the Those were the only two. is that the Dixon Road full curbing, whatever, planter in the front. MR. MACEWAN-What about the ZBA's and the Beautification Committee's, that should be tied in with ours. MR. PALING-Well, we read the Beautification Committee, and Warren County Planning approved it. They don't have any input, as listed here. All right, and the only objection that the Beautification Committee had is eliminated because there is no dumpster. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. PALING-Do you want me to re-read that? - 24 - '~ '---,' - "--" MR. MACEWAN-No. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-And also referring approval should be tied in with in the past with everybody altogether, that's all, Bob. to the ZBA's approval, too. Our both those approvals, as was done else. It's just tying them MR. PALING-All right. If we're going to tie it in, we've got to make sure it's word for word that we're saying, low plantings to permit clear view with visitors. We brought that up before, and I think you agreed to that, so when you turn the corner, you can see. That's been agreed to. So I don't think we need to make that part of the motion. Fence to follow lot line between house and buildings on the lands of Tim Chase. Is that okay? DR. ORBAN-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Rear of building is green area where leachfields are located and will remain as is. DR. ORBAN-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. No dumpster. We forget about, there is no dumpster. All right. Then we can say that we do comply with the Beautification Committee's desires, recommendation, and we can also say that the businesses listed on the ZBA. MR. MACEWAN-All you have to do resolution number. That's all you is tie it have to do. in to the ZBA's MR. PALING-All right. Do I hear a motion? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-95 Introduced by James Obermayer who moved seconded by George Stark: ROBERT ORBAN. JR., for its adoption, As noted and as approved by the ZBA, dated March 22, 1995, Variance file # 9-1995, and the comments made by the Beautification Committee, and the landscaped timbers around the entire perimeter of the planting area, and that the Dixon Road access be limited to 15 feet. Whe'r eas , the Town Planning application file for a dental offices. Board is in receipt of site plan # 13-95 to use existing structure office and other professional Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 2/22/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet SP-1, dated 3/7/95, revised 3/28/95 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1 . Staff notes, dated 4/18/95 Warren County Planning comments dated Beautification Committee comments 4/10/95 4/12/95 dated ;: .. 3. Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/18/95 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 - 25 - -....--' '. '-'" the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and t.Jhe'reas, 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 # 13-,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 signatcftre. 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 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling r\IOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 14-95 TYPE: UNLISTED PILOT KNOB MARINA MICHAEL SMITH OWNER: JOHN J. SYMANSKY ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF RT. 149/BAY RD. PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE FROM ANTIQUE SALES TO BOAT SALES AND BOAT STORAGE ACCESSORY SALES. COMMERCIAL BOAT SALES AND STORAGE IS A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 28-1-32.34 LOT SIZE: 2.13 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 D MICHAEL SMITH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 14-95, PILOT KNOB MARINA/MICHAEL SMITH, Meeting Date: April 18, 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 it complies with the above sections. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: i. The location, arrangement, size and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The proposed use will utilize the existing structure, lighting and signs. The applicant has indicated that there will be no changes to the site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The site is accessed by a driveway on Route 149 and via a connecting driveway to the adjacent commercial lot. Access appears to be adequate. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The applicant is proposing 18 parking spaces. Parking should be adequate. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; pedestrian access is adequate. - 26 - ',-, , ----/ '-' ~ 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The existing stormwater drainage methods will be utilized. It appears that runoff is directed to the undeveloped rear of the property. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; There is an existing on-site septic system and the well is located on the adjacent lot. 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 the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; No new landscaping is proposed. It is not clear if any existing vegetation will be removed. It appeared on a site visit that some will have to be removed to accommodate the proposed boat storage. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access does not appear to be a problem. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, ~Yoadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The area adjacent to the boat storage area was wet and there is an existing stream flowing through the property near the edge of the gravel area. The existing soil in the storage area appeared to be a sandy loam that would be muddy when wet. This may necessitate bringing in fill or gravel. The septic system was raised indicating high ground water or extremely porous soils. RECOMMENDATION: A close look should be taken at how the boat storage will impact the nearby stream and wetlands, especially if any vegetation is removed or fill brought in. Storage of boats should be kept at a distance of at least 75 feet from the stream. The visual impact of the use should also be reviewed. The existing rural commercial character of the intersection will be altered with this new use. Some landscaping would reduce the impact. " MR. MARTIN-Warren County approved, with the condition that there are no boats located in the front of the building. MR. PALING-Okay, and we do not have any Beautification Committee comments on this, that I see. Okay, and this is no engineering. Okay. Any comments by the Board at this point? MR. SMITH-My name's Michael Smith, and I run Pilot Knob Marina. I'm the Vice President. We have no, as he indicated, we have no intentions of putting any boats in front of the building. You see those lines are drawn on the side of the building there. We only want to put boats beside the building, and the boats displayed in the back of the building, there's nothing beyond what is already opened up, as far as open area. We do need some storage. We only want to sell boats and sell accessories out of, we have no desire to storage boats, and we won't even have any boats there in the winter time at all. We're up on Route 9 now and we have boats there for about five months a year. Pretty much it's a calling card to the Marina, where the boats are, we would be on either side of the building, or if the boats are around the back of the building, there would be a salesman there, accessories sold there, but as far as storing boats or tents around boats or shrink wrap on boats, we don't want to do that. We also talked to neighbors, and the first thing he told them was, we do not desire to have anything blocking the site. I think Mr. Stranahan's here, and Dave from the Harbor store was here earlier. We don't desire to have anything in the front of this building that would infringe on anybody's visibility, as far as Stranahan's property or the realtor next door. MR. PALING-Okay. So essentially the front of the building would stay, the land would stay the same. MR. SMITH-Yes. - 27 - ,..-" MR. PALING-The parking spaces only. MR. SMITH-Totally clear. We just envision, you know, a couple of boats on one side of the building, a couple of boats on the other, and some around the back, and he also didn't, Jim was concerned about some wetlands, and some of the back part of this property is a little wet. We don't really desire to go back in there anyway. I don't really, we only want to use the open area that's there now. I would say that the most boats we'd ever have that at anyone time would be 18 boats and probably a couple, three on one side and a couple, three on the other, and allowing to have access because of fire code and so forth, to get around. MR. PALING-Now wetlands, Jim, you want to comment on that? MR. MARTIN-It's noted in the Staff Notes that they appear to be along, it does get wet toward the rear edge of the property, and Scott's citing a 75 foot separation distance should be maintained. They appear to be, if held exactly to this plan, well away from that distance. They're, in some cases, in excess of 200 feet. MR. SMITH-Is that back in here? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SMITH-Yes. We don't even want to do anything back in there. We'd just be in here. MR. MARTIN-I would recommend that the Board consider a limitation as to the boat storage area, and what's been done in the past with this type of a thing is a limitation on the number of boats stored at anyone time. MR. PALING-Or could we just say a distance from the wetlands? MR. STARK-From the end of the end of the gravel, that's all. You're not going to go beyond the gravel, are you? MR. SMITH-I think the word should be displayed not stored. We don't want to store anything. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. The end of the gravel, is that existing line right now, or is that, are you going to add that? MR. SMITH-That's where they had cleared. Actually, they cleared more:. MR. OBERMAYER-Because when I went up there, it seemed like that it was very wet, eve:n just behind the: building. It seemed like this, is this existing, the edge of the gravel? Is this where you plan on filling? Are you going to fill in there? MR. SMITH-This area in here has been opened up. It does get wet ce:rtain times of the ye:ar. Wetlands, to me:, are swamp and cattails and this type of thing. As far as where we're going to set the boats, they would be set in there. I wouldn't call it wetlands. I don't know that they're legal. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to bring fill in? MR. SMITH-The only thing we would like to do is just put maybe an inch of gravel over that area, because it had to be cleared, not )"aise it up. MR. PALING-And then limit the boat storage to being on the gravel? MR. SMITH-Yes. See where it says proposed boat display area. It would just be in that are:a there. - 28 - ----- ,,--,,,,, ./ "'"', MR. PALING-Yes. We'll limit it to gravel as shown on the print, then I don't think we'd have any problem. Would we? MR. SMITH-No. We don't have any, that would be fine with us. You have to understand. When we were over on Route 9, and the most cars we ever had there at one point in time was, like, two or three cars. This is not a thing where you get, you know, 18 people parking waiting in line to buy boats. It just doesn't work that way. It's a very low (lost word) thing. MR. PALING-And then the number of boats, if you maximum that could. limit, if we did put said, 18, three and a number on the t.lwee, is your MR. SMITH-Eighteen, I wouldn't have any problem wit.h that. MR. PALING-Eighteen max. MR. SMITH-If that's all right with you, that would not be a problem. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll do it both ways, both the gravel line and the number of boats. MR. MARTIN-An additional comment Scott's, is that we should make point into t.he parking lot, and intersection as possible. L would have, in addition to an effort to define the access pull that as far away from the MR. SMITH-Well, I think the access is pretty obvious, isn't it? It's right, I mean, it.'s all the way down here. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but it's fairly wide. MR. SMITH-Well, we could narrow that up, if you'd like. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm saying. I see an access here in excess of 40 feet wide. I underst.and that you're going to have a need for some t.railers to get in there, potentially. That should be considered, but I t.hink it should be defined, t.o the extent possible, and pulled from that intersection as far as possible. MR. SMITH-Would you like it narrowed to 20 feet? don't? I mea n, I MR. MARTIN-No. You have to accommodate some turning radiuses for trailered boats and so on, but I t.hink that's a little wide. That should be defined. MR. PALING-We're going to put a number on it, though, to give the, can we say a maximum number? MR. MARTIN-Bill, do you have a number for turning radius of a trailered boat? MR. MACNAMARA-Not off the top of my head, but I could look at the print. MR. PALING-Okay. While question. You have a building. )lou're looking at tank out that, the1·e, I have a behind the propane MR. SMITH-They do. That's lrJhat the>' heat the thing lrJith in the wint.e,- . MR. PALING-Okay, now, I've got t.o get Jim on this. Jim, there's a propane tank out. there. What. about. t.he setbacks from it? MR. MARTIN-If it.'s above ground? - 29 - ~' MR. PAL ING-'(es . MR. MARTIN-That would be subject to the setbacks. accessory structure. That's an MR. PALING-Okay. Now that's not, I wish it were shown on the print. MR. SMITH-Well, we could have. I didn't know to do that. MR. PALING-I'd like to have that included, and then they've got to, and I think it'll, it's going to affect the parking, isn't it? MR. SMITH-Where is it? I don't even remember. MR. PALING-Well, if you were facing your building, it's angled to the right, to the right rear. MR. SMITH-We can move that if you want. MR. PALING-Fine. MR. SMITH-Would you like, if you'd like it in another area. MR. PALING-Well, yes. Wherever you move it, it's got to be within the limits of where propane tanks can be put, and I don't know those off hand, but right now it seems to be in the midst of where the parking and the running of boats back and forth is going to be. MR. SMITH-I thought it was behind the building. MR. PALING-It is, behind and to the right, depending upon the way you look at it. MR. SMITH-Well, why don't you tell us where to put, we'll put it there. I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. MR. OBERMAYER-Where do you want it, Bob? MR. PALING-Well, I want it. MR. SMITH-I could set it right over that septic system, if you want. Then it would be away from everything. MR. PALING-Out of the traffic area at least, out of the traffic and parking area. MR. SMITH-Well, you guys tell me where you want it, and I'll put it. t.here. MR. PALING-Do we have the setbacks for that handy, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Because we can Just make it part of the motion. MR. OBERMAYER-Also, handicapped parking. on having that? Where are you planning MR. SMITH-It's marked off there. It's on there. Number Six, I believe. You're supposed t.o have one spots, aren't you? It's marked off there. I know t.he zoning the ot.her day. It's that spot for 10 I looked at MR. OBERMAYER-I see you have a ramp, but I wasn't sure where you're parking. MR. SMITH-There's a ramp. - 30 - --- ---'" ---' '~ MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-The setbacks would be as follows: 50 feet, side yards are equal to 50 with a t.he rear is 25. front yard would be 20 foot minimum, and MR. SMITH-Are you talking about the propane tank? MR. MARTIN-Yes. The sum of the side yards is equal to 50 with a 20 foot minimum. MR. PALING-The side is, the sum 1" <"'? .:,) . MR. MARTIN-Fifty. So it could be thirty and twenty, twenty-five and twenty'-fi\,je. MR. PALING-With a minimum of 20? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-And 40 m1nlmum on the sides, with a minimum of, I mean, 40, with a minimum of 25. MR. MARTIN-Fifty total on the sides with a twenty foot minimum, and twenty-five foot in the rear. MR. PALING-Okay. No, I don't think it's in there, but we can, you can get a copy from the Planning Office. We'll also read it into the motion. MR. SMITH-I don't, correct me if think his problem is, moving that's it? I'm wrong, Jim, but I don't pretty simple anyway, isn't 1'1R. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SMITH-If you don't like where it is. MR. PALING-I would think it would be easier for you to move it, t.o meet the setbacks and get it out of the way, and I think in the motion we can fix it so you can just get it approved by Staff. MR. SMITH-I would think the thing, to put it the septic system, right where it is right boats on that, put it on the back side of wouldn't bother anybody. on the back side of now, (lost word) put there, and then it MR. PALING-It should be fine. MR. MARTIN-Is there any hazardous materials stored on the site, in terms of gas or oils or anything like that? MR. SMITH·'"L.ike as in l.>Jhat \:':!.§. goin9 to do? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SMITH-No. We don't have any desire, one of the questions the County had, we don't want to do service work up there. We don't want to store boats up there. All we want to do is a sales office with some boats to be seen. MR. MARTIN-You don't run the boats with the motors or anything in any way on the site? MR. Sl'-lI TH··No . MR. PALING-No testing. MR. SMITH-No, and if you want to put it in writing that we will - 31 - not put any boats in front of those two lines, that my brother drew in there, that's not a problem either. I mean, I'd be happy to do that. I don't have any desire, and the neighbors don't want, the first thing I did when I went up there is talked to the neighbors about what they wanted and what they didn't want, and I said to David, because David's over here, Stranahan, I said, you know, obviously, you wouldn't want any boats in front of, you know, looking at Mr. Barber and you. We don't have any desire to do that. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. So far I've got five items that would be exception, that talking about there would be no boat display/storage in front, that the parking and automobile or truck area be limited to the gravel line as shown on your print. That there will never be any more than 18 boats on the property. That the access be narrowed down. have we got a footage on that? MR. MARTIN-Bill recommended a minimum of 24 feet. You wouldn't want to go any smaller than that, because you might have trouble with the trailered boats entering the site. MR. PALING-All right. Have you got a max on it, too? MR. MACNAMARA-I haven't even seen the hesitant to suggest a regulatory type of haven't even seen it. layout. I'm a little number for the guy. I MR. PALING-All right. Then we're going to define the access will be limited, and final approval you can work out with Staff. MR. SMITH-How do you want that done? Do you want that done with, like, cement? MR. PALING-Any curbing that's acceptable, be it cement or asphalt. You'd prefer cement, I think, wouldn't you? MR. SMITH-Yes. That's no problem. MR. MARTIN-Yes, concrete. MR. MACNAMARA-All I mentioned to Jim, when it comes to limiting the size of that frontage, is that if they have large boats coming in and out, that's kind of a dangerous road to get stuck on a curb with. MR. PALING-Yes. All right, and then we talked about moving the propane tank. So those are the five things I have that would be part of the motion. Any comments? MR. SMITH-Can I ask one question? Move the propane tank. is it all right if we just say, we're going to move the propane tank to the back? MR. PALING-To rear, and it will meet the setback requirements. Yes, we can do it that way. I don't see any problem. MR. OBERMAYER-You'll have it fenced in anyway. right? probably fence in the septic tank. You'll MR. PALING-It's not fenced in now. propane? Is a fence required on a MR. OBERMAYER-I think it depends on the size, the size of the tank. MR. PALING-I don't see many fences. I don't think so. MR. SMITH-One other thing to ask you. We may, we'd like to eventually buy this building. If we do, we may eliminate heating that thing altogether. It's probably irrelevant now, because the - 32 - '-- ----' - '-- tank is still there. but we're really six months a year, and winterizing probably not relevant because you've where you wanted it anyway. only planning on running it it for the winter. That's got to get the tank back to MR. PALING-Yes. The wouldn't be anything guess the next thing, public hearing is open tank, right. Whether you heat it or not we'd concern ourselves with. All right. I then, is a public hearing on this. The for anyone that wishes to comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETEF~ LEIrJI ~~ MR. LEWIN-My name is Peter Lewin. okay, and I also have a business in what my understanding of what Mike to be a retail establishment only. I'm a resident of Cleverdale, the Town of Cueensbury. From has just said, this is going Is that correct? MR. PAL.H,jG·-That would be !:!J.:i. understa,ndi ng, yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. LEWIN-Then I'd like to ask the Board to be very specific when they grant this, okay, so we don't have a repeat of the Mooring Post situation that we're involved in up there right now. If there's going to be no storage, why did we put it in the rules that there's no storage? Quick launch. I presume there's going to be no quick launch. MR. SMITH-It's a long way to the lake, Peter. MR. LEWIN-It doesn't make any difference. We've got problems on the lake right now, and we're very concerned about what's happening on the lake. As we all know, we've got major problems. Could we make this a condition? MR. PALING-Okay. You're talking about, so far, storage and quick 1.au. nch . MR. LEWIN-Right. No storage. That's what was just No quick launch. Number of boats. Definitely, we the number of boats on that lot. said here. should have MR. PALING-That'll be part of it. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to ask, I'm a little green at this. What is a quick launch? MR. LEWIN-Quick launch? Okay, where boats run back and forth from a storage facility, back and forth to the lake. All right. and they would come in and ou.t, maybe on a daily basis, maybe on two or three days. MR. MARTIN-It's defined in the Code, Craig. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I've just never heard the term before. MR. LEWIN-Well, that's the major problem with the Mooring Post right now. which is in the newspapers, but we'd like that to be a part of it, if we could, that way, everybody has an understanding, before we get into any problems later on. MR. PALING-Okay. anyone e.l~3e? All right. We will, thank you. Is there DAVE STRANAHAN MR. STRANAHAN-Hi. next door where I'm Dave Stranahan. Mike's going to be I own the business right IDcating, and I have - 33 - ---- absolutely no problem with him coming in there. I'm looking forward to having him as a neighbor, and I would highly recommend that you approve the site plan. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. JOAN WILLIAMS MRS. WILLIAMS-I'm Joan Williams, and we own the hardware store right across where Mike is proposing to put it in, and I see no problem with him coming in that area. It is a commercial area, and what he's proposing to do I see no problem with. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? the public hearing. If not, we'll close PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now, did you want to comment on the comments that have been made so far? MR. SMITH-The only thing I want to say to Mr. Lewin is I have no desire to do any kind of quick launch up there. That's a long way to go anyway, but beside that, I do not also desire to store any boats up there, or have even have any kind of tents over boats or, this should be boat sales, accessories, and nothing else. MR. PALING-All right. motion that there be no made part of it? Would you mind storage or no if it was part of the quick launch capability, MR. SMITH-No, sir, no problem at all. MR. PALING-Okay. I'm up to seven. All right. Any questions on this? Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-We've got to do a SEQRA on this? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning Board PILOT KNOB MARINA MICHAEL SMITH, and 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. - 34 - '-- --./ '--- --./ 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 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: "lONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. make it, I guess, I think we're ready for a motion, then. because I've got most of the notes here. I ' 11 MOTION TO APPROVE Introduced by Robert by James Obermayer: SITE PLAN NO. 14-95 PILOT KNOB Paling who moved for its adoption, MARINA, seconded With the following conditions: Number One, that there be no boat displays on the front part of the property. Number Two, that traffic access and boat display be limited to the gravel line as shown on Pilot Knob Marina print dated 3/27/95. That a limit of 18 boats maximum be permitted on the property at anyone time. That the access be narrowed to a minimum of 24 feet and maximum to be determined later and approved by Staff. The intent is to narrow this as much as practical. That the propane tank in either its present or a different location in the future comply with setbacks, the new location and setbacks to be approved by staff. That there be no boat storage done at this location, and that there be no quick launch capability at this location. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file I 14-95 to change from antique sales to boat and boat storage accessory sales. Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 3/28/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet A-l, dated 3/27/95 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 4/18/95 2. Warren County Planning comments dated 4/12/95 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/18/95 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: - 35 - ~ 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan # 14-95. 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 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer A{ ~/~ SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SHERMAN PINES, PHASE II 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. JACK HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. Now, in this situation tonight, I think we all realize that we're heavily reliant on Staff and Engineering comments, as to the problems pointed out before and the solutions proposed, and if they are okay, we'll rely more than usual on. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We have a recent letter from Rist-Frost, dated April 13th, I'll defer to Bill on, for his comments. MR. MACNAMARA-Basically what it is is it's meeting minutes that myself and the applicant's engineer, Jack Huntington, had, regarding our previous comments, and essentially what they are is there are a number of items that are outstanding, based on what's in the Town's Code for final approval of the subdivision. These are the items that we believe are outstanding, that ought to be added to the plan, certainly before you sign, and we discussed at the meeting that he was going to wait to add these items or supply the miscellaneous information until after this meeting, in case there were other issues that arose, that required him to change drawings, so he wouldn't have to do it twice. MR. PALING-All right, and then who would do the reviewing after, if we discuss it tonight and they put the prints in final form, if I understand you right, and then it's got to come in to be signed, but somebody's got to look it over. MR. MARTIN-What I want to make sure of, as Staff, in this case, is that we have an adequate grading plan for finished elevations of the house, as it relates to the street, and the septic system, and that we have thoroughly considered drainage for both in the subdivision and any impact to surrounding sites. MR. MACNAMARA-I think that, in a nutshell, is what we asked for at the last meeting, and that is what Jack put together and brought to our office, and that's why I summarized all these notes, is because here are the notes that we believe are outstanding. We talked about them, and they agreed that they're going to add them to the plans or submit whatever information we talked about. MR. PALING-Should we go over these, the notes in your letter, - 36 - ---- --- .-" '-- then? MR. MACNAMARA-I'll be glad to go over these very briefly. They won't take a long time, but it'll at least flesh them out so that you can all not have to read it yourself, if you will, and to answer your previous question, it shouldn't take us any time, assuming he does what we had talked about, and if not, by all means, call me, (lost word) I changed my mind. We can do it another way, but if it goes the way we had talked about it, it's not going to be a time consuming deal to look at the drawings, so you won't have to, if that's what you're looking for, to make sure it was done. We have no problem with that. MR. PALING-No. All I'm looking for is to see that we cover all basis. and that we know what we're approving. MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. I'll be glad to go through these. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACNAMARA-The first note indicates that there's three phases that appear throughout this project, and they ought to be noted on the drawing, so that, in the future, people know what phase they're in. The next note goes to setbacks, of which, quite honestly, I couldn't find what the setbacks were ever agreed on, because of clustering or rezoning or some type of action that it was not cleared for setbacks, and there was, initially, some different setbacks shown on different drawings, and what Jack agreed is he'd dig through some files and find out why they're proposing the setbacks that they're showing. I don't know if you had any luck with that or not. Jim, maybe, can help. MR. BREWER-Can I interrupt? Well, it was rezoned, and when we rezoned it, or when the Town Board rezoned it, don't the setbacks that apply to that zone that it was rezoned to? 1'1R. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-So, then you should know what the setbacks are. MR. MACNAMARA-Well that's really why I brought they're showing SR-20 zoning. The setbacks, aren't reflecting SR-20 zoning. it up, because unless I'm wrong, MR. BREWER-What are the setbacks reflecting? MR. HUNTINGTON-My name is Jack Huntington. I'm with Morse Engineering. I believe that we can meet the setbacks for SR-20 zoninG. I don't think that's a problem. L~hen we, it's Ol:i.. understanding, I did not att.end all of the PlanninG Boa'rd meetinGs at t.hat. t.ime. It's my understandinG that. because this is clustered, you were allowed to meet the zoning for SR-15. The lot.s are 10,000 square feet minimum. It was my understanding, through Wilson Mathias, that we were allowed to meet the zoning set.back requirement.s for SR-15. MR. BRE1,.JER--I don't remember that, and I was here for every bit of this, and you were, too, weren't you, Jim? I honestly don't beliel,./e t.hi':lt.. MR. PALING-And you're saying that it's SR-20? MR. BREWER-Well, if I remember lenGt.hy discussions about t.his, and we. MR. MARTIN-The thing that's affected That's the only difference is t.hat Everything else is exactly the same. is the rear yard setback. it. goes from 10 t.o 20 feet. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, and we have no problem with that. - 37 - ....... MR. PALING-Then lets leave it at SR-20. MR. BREWER-The lot size width in SR-20 is 100, that's a problem, but. width is different, too, and in SR-15 it's 75. Jim. The lot I don't think I'-m. and MARTIN-The clustering will give you relief from the lot width, but it will not from the setback. size I'-1R. BREIrJER-O ka>' . MR. PALING-All right. We agree, then, that you'll comply with SR-20. MR. HUNTINGTON-No problem. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. The last note was that, and again, a lot of these are boiler plate notes that someone expressed. Whether or not they directly apply or not, they're part of the approval process, so we bring them up. The next note said zoning for the project needs to be shown somewhere on the plans. Quite honestly, the site plans couldn't find where it was actually stated what zone it was in. It's a boilerplate item. The next one is the same thing. A note's going to show that they're going to put pins at the property corners so people know where their borders are. That's right out of the subdivision. If you don't agree with any of these, please speak uP. The next one goes to the more important issues that Jim was talking about, which was the grading issues. They submitted a very thorough grading plan. They're to be commended, because it was a lot of work, I mean, in !!l.l::.. opinion. There was certainly a lot of thought to be put into it, a lot of different grading issues, whether it was a septic system cover on the back side, the road on the front, the slope of the property from the up grade of the foundation, a lot of things. Any way, there were a couple of lots where he was either going to add some grade lines or correct some conflicts that were sho~..¡n . MR. PALING-Any problem with that? MR. HUNTINGTON-I have no problems with any of these. MR. PALING-All right. We'll still look at them, though. MR. MACNAMARA-The next note goes to drainage, again, what Jim talked about, and that was, as much as everyone is absolutely certain that there's plenty of rQom between seasonal high ground water and the utilities are going to be put in, it still hasn't been shown to us that, in fact, is the case, as far as seasonal high ground water, one of the reports that was in our file indicated information was submitted to the DEC that confirmed where seasonal high ground water was, and all we're trying to do is get somebody to put it in writing to us that says, you know, someone who's qualified to make the judgement has done it, and they're very confident that it's where it is, and I'm just waiting to see what you were going to submit. MR. PALING-But we want that documented. MR. MACNAMARA-Correct. MR. P¡6¡LING·,·'(os. MR. MACNAMARA-And right now the only thing we have for ground wator numbers, and granted, the site is high, and there's a hell of a gradient to the nearest receiving water body, which I think is the Clendon Brook, if you looked at an overhead map, but still, there's been other instances where people were really - 38 - "-' --- .-" '-- (lost word) ground water, and I want to make sure that somebody comes forward and really (lost word). MR. MARTIN-I want to be absolutely certain on this one. We're in a good time of the year right now. If it requires taking a back hoe out there and digging a couple of new test pits. MR. MACNAMARA-But see not reflect seasonal 'lean; passed. the thing of it is, ground water today may high ground water 20 years from now or 20 MR. MARTIN-Yes, but the modeling will. MR. MACNí~I"IAF~AmAgn?ed, but apparent,l)/, what I'm saying 1S, it's been indicated, the data is out there. It's either been read already or it can be read easily, and that's what we're looking for, somebody to step forward and say, hey, this is where the data's coming from. It was a test pit dug here. It was X feet deep. Here's the seasonal high ground water because of, bink, and state why you're saying where it is, is it modeling? Is it a color change? Do you have wells somewhere around? Does somebody have a well anywhere around there that was documented? MR. HUNTINGTON-We have a well right on the edge of the site. MR. MACNAMARA-Things of that nature is what we're looking for. MR. HUNTINGTON-Static water level at 60 feet. There's about three to four hundred feet of sand there before you get to ledge. The geographic conditions indicate that the maximum high water in that area would be 20 to 25 feet at any time. MR. MARTIN-At any time? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, 20 to saying what, 20 years from abou,t it, because I'm not predict what's going to be 25 feet below existing grade. now, you and I aren't going going to be here, okay, and there 20 years from now. I'm not to ¡.Jorn·1 I can't MR. MACNAMARA-No, we're not asking you to, but what you just said there, it's appropriate for you to submit that. We agreed on that a week ago and, in fact, you indicate. MR. HUNTINGTON-That's what it says right here. MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. MR. PALING-That also says, that says dry basements. MR. HUNTINGTON-The basements will be dry today, but 20 years from now, I can't predict what's going to happen. MR. PALING-Well, but we're going by today. MR. MACNAMARA-We'll get to that in a minute, if you want to, because that's actually on here. I don't mean to interrupt you, but lets go with the notes or we'll miss some of them. Another issue that was the bigger of the ones that are listed was, there's a sag curve, there's a sag in the road, a low point. and whenever there's a low point in a road, in a housing development, my thoughts turn to, what happens if, for some reason, strange events happen and the culverts plug, the drywells plug, the storm sewer plugs, whatever, is there a way for the water to get out without impacting people's property, is really what I'm getting at, and we discussed that quite a bit, and this goes, also, with the discus:2-3ion about the ground ¡.Jater being, whether it was 20 or 60 feet down, but essentially what they did with the grades is they showed that, over and above what they've designed for, for 50 year storms, I believe, were the calculations in the files, for drywells, if, in fact, they were to, crazy conditions exist. - 39 - "v -- For instance, if it's frozen ground conditions, real heavy drops, and it really rains hard in March, for instance, and the dry wells flood and there's a low point in the road, they've got it graded such that there's an adequate area they've shown out behind a number of the houses. It's lower, significantly lower than finished floors, and yes, Jim, finished floor's is noted on the grading plan, that it's not going to be getting into people's houses and reach people's driveways and get into effecting people's. MR. PALING-But it would flow between two houses? MR. MACNAMARA-A small area between two lots, and then it would open up into the open space out behind a larger square footage, if you will, of, basically, I'm not sure what you're referring to that as open space or public space, common area. MR. MARTIN-And there's adequate size out there to accept? MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. If you look on the next drawing, you'll see that the, it spreads out over quite a bit of square foot, and t.r'lat's where. MR. MARTIN-What station you're saying, 20 and 22 are we at, on Peachtree? Bill, on Peachtree Lane, MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Right in here on this curve? MR. MACNAMARA-Look for 20, and look for 21 is the middle of the road. You'd probably want to go to the grading plan, Jim. I think the grading plan shows grades (lost word) pretty clearly_ MR. BREWER-How low is this? MR. HUNTINGTON-Four thirty-four. That's 434. MR. PALING-There's 434 right there. MR. BREWER-Then it goes up. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. It goes up any where you go here. MR. PALING-What are you guys doing now over there? MR. MARTIN-We're looking at the finished floor elevations, as it relates to that low point. MR. PALING-Okay. ele\u3tion, now? Are you talking about the cellar floor MR. MACNAMARA-Indirectly, finished floor we're talking about. We're not to the cellars yet. MR. PALING-Well, bring us on board, because we're discussing that area. MR. MARTIN-He's got Plan G-2 dated April 5th, Grading and Drainage Plan, G-2, dated April 5th. Okay. We've got a low point. See where it.'s noted on the edge of the road there? What I'm concerned about is, I'm looking at the grades, there, that exist for the road, at that low point, and I want to see the area, it's going to this low point, identified in a 434 elevation, in the common area, okay, and I Just want to confirm that that water is going to be allowed to go that way, and that's where it will, in fact, settle, and if it does, there's enough capacity there, you know, if there's any amount of water that 90es there. - 40 - '--' --./' ""'" '--' MR. BREWER-Is that area big enough, is what your question is? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-You're talking about if the land is frozen and that kind of thing again. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-Has it got the capacity to take it. MR. BREWER-If it's 434 here, and 434 out back here, how's it going to be pushed? MR. MACNAMARA-To answer Tim's question, how's it going to be pushed, you will, you'll have a water level in the street. See, the whole issue is being asked, what happens if the street drainage system isn't adequately function for a given storm event. You're going to flood. You're going to flood the street. So then we ask, where is it going to go after you flood the street? Show us it's not going to impact somebody's house, essentially, and so what it is, 1S you'd have a water level in the street that would take you up above the road swale, the paved swale, and then it would, basically, flow between, and I'm not sure what the lot numbers are here. I wrote in 67 and 68. I could have written them wrong. It would flow between those two lots out behind the common area. MR. BREWER-Right. I understand what you're saying, but if this is 434 and this is 434, how is it going to move? MR. MACNAMARA-You're going to get an elevation of water built up in the street. You're going to be greater than 434. You may be 435. You may be 436, you know, if Noah's Ark rolls around. MR. BREWER-All right. I see what you're saying. MR. MACNAMARA-The street's going to be flooded, between those two yards is going to be flooded, and it's going to be going out back, but the point l.Je wanted to see l:;:;, shm.J us it's not going to be going in somebody's driveway, somebody's window cut out in the basement, and the way that they did that was by grading, by finished floor elevations, by road swale elevations, and by the elevations in the back of the common area. MR. PALING-Those aren't too obvious. MR. BREWER-No, they're not. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Back in the common area, it doesn't appear that there is a lot of space for the water to drain to, though. I mean, the elevation does start to climb up again. You don't really have any retention area. MR. MACNAMARA-All these things tie together. This is goes to the seasonal high ground water, and in fact, if plugged up in the street, well, then, the whole shooting can't be plugged up. Then you're going to have to rely on natural infiltration, if you will. l-<J!'''lere it you' r e matcr'l som{,:,' MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. MARTIN-What are the date of these test pits? MR. OBERMAYER-I think your letter states that they're '92, the letter that you wrote to Jim. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I'm kind of at a loss as to where the concern is here. I mean, if they're showing everything and giving you all the information that you're looking for, and what's expected - 41 - --....-/ ---- -' of, what more can you get? MR. MARTIN-My concern, quite frankly, is I've done the back stroke in Queensbury Forest Phase III last summer. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but was that the developer's fault, in all fa i r ne~~s? MR. MARTIN-No comment. I just don't want to do it again. MR. HUNTINGTON-I don't want to do it again, either, but I understand what you're saying, but if you wait for somebody to sit here and guarantee you that nothing will ever happen, your building in Queensbury will be done. I mean, I understand what you're :3aying. MR. MACNAMARA-Nobody's looking for that. Do you understand what we're looking for, to address the seasonal high ground water issue? I think you said you had a Geologist there that was either, already had done it, or could do it in a matter of mi nu,tes . MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I would like some comfort as to the accuracy of those test pits, and I would not be opposed to a couple of more being dug. I mean, we can reconvene again next week, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable with new test pits and a new look at this. MR. PALING-Well, lets do it, because I think we're all feeling uncomfortable in this situation because of what others have done, and I would agree with you. I'd like to see it done again. MR. BREWER-Can you accomplish that in a week? MR. HUNTINGTON-Probably. MR. MACEWAN-Jim, do you have an idea where you want new test pits done? MR. MARTIN-Well, I defer to the engineers as to the appropriate locations for those, but I'd just like fresh information. MR. MACNAMARA-You'd want to go to the lowest point where your utilities are going to be relying on infiltration. So you'd want to go to the low point of where your roadway low points are going to be, and you'd want to go to your low point of where your typical (lost word). MR. MARTIN-We're in a good time of the year right now. We're in typical spring of the year. We've had a very mild runoff. MR. HUNTINGTON-Who do you want to look at it, your engineer? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd feel good to have Bill right there. MR. MACNAMARA-The way that it's set up, we'll review applicant does the tests, and makes a report out, there's concern like this, I believe there's a listing that are qualified to read seasonal high ground water. it. The and \;~hen of peoph:.ò MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd like a qualified. MR. MACNAMARA-I think that's the way that it ought to be handled, and they should submit that, as is typical with any other engineering aspect of a subdivision, and then we'll review that to see if, in fact, they use some defensible practices for determining ground water. MR. BREWER-Can we accomplish that in a week's time, so that we - 42 - Cd n mo\,/e 0 n"? MR. HUNTINGTON-My question is if we do this, nothing more than we found before, do we have okay, and lfJe to come back?' find MR. BREt..JEF<"\(es. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. You need final approval. This isn't going to bf:: approve.:;! tonight., fì·om lo.Jhat ;r'm heaì" i ng. MR. MARTIN-That's up to the Board, if they want to give a conditional approval of that nature. MR. STARK-Well, you're assuming that, you didn't ask anyone else on the Board whether they were unhappy with this or not. MR. PALING-Go ahead, speak. MR. STARK-I'm not unhappy with what I see here, contrary to what the Staff says. Bill's not unhappy with what, you know, is here. They're indicating the ground water is 20 feet below. The static order of the well 1S 60 feet. There's no problem, according to Jack and according to Bill. MR. MACNAMARA-Well, George, I want to preface that. That's based on the applicant's supplying additional information that backs up their claims of where the ground water is. MR. HUNTINGTON-And we can do that. MR. MACNAMARA-And they've indicated they have it, and it's just a matter of them literally sending it in. Okay. Once that happens, then I can say, yes, I don't have any problems. MR. MARTIN-I would strongly recommend that, construction equipment is out there. It's not imposition to simply, if this is as sandy and as as they say, you can dig a test pit in literally }'()U knc·w, t.he that much of an fa\/orable a soil minutes. MR. PALING-It. doesn't seem to me that we're going to put any real big burden on anyone, if we do delay this for a week and ask for what Jim is asking for. I'd rat.her be on t.he careful side, than anywhere else, when it comes to something like this. MR. MACEWAN-I don't. know. I haven't made a dec1s10n yet. ~1R. PALH,!G·"Jim, hOlfJ do/au feel? MR. OBERMAYER-I kind of do agree with Jim Martin know, it wouldn't take that long really to dig a know, just to give us that addit.ional information, to hear what the applicant has to say, also. though, agree with the engineering, you know, they can engineering data, also. in that, )/ou test. p 1 t., )/ou but I'd like becau:si!::' I do ~supply the TI ¡V\OTI..jY ¡~LDEI",! MR. ALDEN-My name is Timothy Alden. I'm the attorney for Forestwood Homes who is the developer of the subdivision. I guess we don't have a problem with the test pit. The last time we were here, I thought. we were supposed to be on for a special meeting and it ended up taking an entire month to get back to t.he Board here. We have cont.ractual obligations out.standing on the subdivision. I just would like to know exactly what it is we're supposed to do, and if these test pit.s show what it. is that Mr. Martin wants, we're not going to come back here in a week and have a whole new set. of issues. i"1P. P¡<:\L.I~'~G·"Y(":=:. hE\\/e a ~3!:)ec:i,:31 I don't mi:?øt.i ng . blam,':} :/(1) t,Je ;,:;tood for that. We were ready to ready the whole month. but we - 43 - -- - v..¡eren't. ach/ised. MR. HUNTINGTON-We t.old we couldn't. meeti ng . submitted everything by have it because t.hey the 5th, and we were had t.o advert.ise t.he MR. PALING-Well, it may have been too late for advertising. MR. HUNTINGTON-Well, we should have known t.hat at. t.he last meeti ng . MR. ALDEN-We submi t. ted everytr'iÎ ng accordi ng to your time I imi ts. We submit.t.ed everyt.hing on t.ime for the special meeting. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. me('3t. i ng, too. I thought we were going to have a special MR. PALING-We all left here with the impression we were going to have a special meeting. We were ready to do it. Now I'm not su'(e. MR. MARTIN-It must have been the advertising. I wasn't there when that was brought up, but if t.he advertising couldn't. have been met, that would have been the reason. MR. BREWER-I t.hink I know what. t.he scenario is. If t.hey got. it. in the fifth, we need 10 days to advertise, which brings it to t.he 15th, and t.hen wit.h t.he 15t.h we said, well, t.he 15th, t.hree days, what difference does three days make? Why go through the expense t.o have it.? That.'s just. my guess what. happened. MR. PALING-I can't answer t.he quest.ion. I'm going t.o find out., but I thi n k suff i ci ent, to say at least to agr ee on one poi nt, that. we've got t.o give you a clear definit.ion of what's required tonight. MR. MARTIN-I agree with that. I don't mean to have the appearance of changing t.he rules in the middle of the game here. MR. BREWER-And we did that last month, didn't we? informat.ion asked of them last. month? I,.Jas this MR. MI<;RTIN--Yes. ¡VIR. Pf~LING'-Yes. MR. MARTIN-The test pit testing is new, and I admit that, but I'd rather take the blame for that., and causing a week's delay, than go through what I did last summer. MR. ALDEN-Could we at. least., we have contracts to build the road. The last time we were in, you allowed us to grub the road out. We are in danger of losing our cont.ractor, at t.his point in time, unless construction can be commenced with regard to the road. Can we at least. get the (lost word) approval for? MR. PALING-All right. Could we put that off until the end? Lets cover everything t.hat he's got. to come back, and then we'll come back and discuss that question. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. Not.e Number Eight. is a belts and suspenders note, but we agreed he'd throw it on the drawing. It said that even though t.he grading plans don't show that they're going to be altogether likely, that if in fact there ends up being a lot graded such that t.here's a driveway pitching away from t.he street, in other words, street drainage could enter somebody's property from t.heir driveway. just put a note on t.here that shows there's going to be a high point at the right-of-way. It's a belt.s and suspenders not.e. The last one goes to what you were asking about a couple of times earlier, which has to do with the - 44 - '"'-' ~ -.. -- cellars. Again, the Board needs to understand that this is not a typical subdivision where, at least we've been involved in, where we've gotten into proposed cellar elevations, whether there's even going to be a cellar or not. So that this is not usual. I'm not saying it's not appropriate. All I'm saying is that, typically, help me if I'm wrong here, but a lot of subdivisions it really isn't even part of the review whether or not there's going to be cellars, and it's in the subdivision Reg's and standards that, if there is, there needs to be appropriate drainage, but I don't believe, at least. since I've been revie~Üng them, that it's really, on every subdivision isn't brought up, but that being said, there is a note in the subdivision standards that indicates that buildings with cellar floors lower than street profile, in other words, st.reet elevation, cellar floor, pretty common. Cellar floor 1S lower, they're required to provide a means for drainage, and they get into t.hat for, eit.her gravity drain to have a day light open pipe, or sump pumps, and I left it. up to the applicant as to how t.o address that. MR. HUNTINGTON-We will show a sump pump on the drawing, show a typical detail for a sump pump, and a not.e that. says that. all cellars will be provided with means to a pump. MR. PALING-So you'll show t.he digging for the gravel and t.he perforated pipe? MR. HUNTINGTON-No. MR. MARTIN-No. That's the alternative. MR. HUNTINGTON-We're going to show a detail for a sump pump installation itself, okay. MR. PALING-No drainage? MR. HUNTINGTON-Pump it outside the house. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. What will you have, french drain perimeter of the cellar? Is that how you're going drain it into the sump, then? around t.he to do that, MR. HUNTINGTON-I don't feel that.'s necessary with the percolation rate that we have there. MR. PALING-If there were drainage, basement floor. draining into a sump, the water would be is that the idea? on the MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, and there'd be provisions to put a pump below the floor level to pump out of the house, in each house. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, lets about that. Bill, is that the see what everyone else has to say encl of 'f.'our comments. then? MR. MACNAMARA-Yes, and I'll just read you what we agreed on. It said he'd wait until aft.er this Planning Board meeting t.o change the drawings in case other items arose that needed to be added before, if and when before anyone ever signed it., which of course, is going to happen when everyone is comfortable with all the items. MR. MARTIN-The only thing I would propose that we have record plans submitted at the completion of Phase II, record plans that show as built grades, and the purpose for that is that t.hat way we have, then, a snap shot. at that point in time. of the finished grades of that subdivision, and we know what they were, so that if at some point in the future a homeowner decides to fill his side yard or do something that blocks drainage, then we have a reference point to say, well. something must have changed from here to there. This is not somet.hing that the developer did or the Town allowed this to happen at some point since then. - 45 - -- That gives us an indication that the subdivision was, in fact, built as designed. i'-1R . MACElrJ~iN-w I s ì-equi ring of all this a practice developers? that you're going to start MR. MARTIN-It is required, but I'm going to start suggesting that it be put into the resolutions. RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-Excuse me. For every project we're going to do that, from now on, in the Town of Queensbury, every house, every office building? MR. MARTIN-Every subdivision. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think it's an important issue, if it's going to start here, that we continue it with everybody. MR. MARTIN-That's right. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACNAMARA-And that goes to the same issue that I tried to touch on earlier, and that is, looking at everybody's cellar elevations. Looking at everybody's finished floor elevations. I mean, certainly some projects, you know, callout, beg for it to be looked at. Others don't, but not, because they don't beg it to be looked at doesn't mean they shouldn't be looked at. I guess it's a matter of the consistency issue. MR. MARTIN-And the reason why, we now have the means to do this. We have a full time Code Compliance Officer who's going to be going out in the subdivisions and, as best he can do, given the limitations of one person, looking at the finished grades of the lots, to make sure they're in compliance, because, essentially, we should have a one and a half percent grade from the building wall to the edge of the street. MR. OBERMAYER-You mean our Zoning person's going to be out here shooting elevations? MR. MARTIN-You've got it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-See, now we're getting into an issue. This is supposed to be affordable housing. Rich Schermerhorn, for the record. This is supposed to be affordable housing, but now we're getting to the point where costs of building these homes are going to go higher and higher and higher in the Town of Queensbury. I don't think that the grading has been the real issue in Queensbury. It's an unfortunate thing that we had with this Queensbury Forest, but that, I guess, was ground water. It had nothing to do with grading. MR. MARTIN-There's been no conclusions drawn. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay, no conclusions, but the grading's never really been an issue. Most builders, developers, we all set them 18 inches to 24 inches above the wing curve. We properly grade. Common sense tells you to grade away. MR. MARTIN-Why then, Rich, do I have people losing their mufflers coming out of their driveway in some instances? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I have no complaints with any of the homes I've built from any of the driveways. MR. MARTIN-I didn't say you. I'm Just saying, that's what I'm beginning to see. - 46 - --- --" '--... MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, we get driveway permits. The driveway permits all pass. I get the Certificate of Occupancies on the homes. That's, I mean, it's just somewhere you've got to draw the line. MR. BREWER-If you're saying what you're doing right now, Rich, is working, then keep doing it and you won't have a problem. MR. MARTIN-You shouldn't have a problem. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just feel like we're kind of being singled out. I mean, this :LS the best land, in my opinion, out of building 110 homes in Queensbury, in eight years. That subdivision, for soil conditions, you couldn't ask for a better place to build a house in anything. You could put the whole sewer system of Queensbury in that subdivision, and I bet you. MR. MACNAMARA-And you know what, nobody's arguing with you and saying that that's not the caS<3. (ill ~.Je're af:3king is that. somebody come up, step up to the plate, and put it in writing. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay I'll do it tomorrow. That has been done, though. back in 1991. MR. MACNAMARA-But we haven't got it, and, unfortunately, we're the reviewing group to look at it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, according to this offering plan, this is all on file. We'll get it, but. I'm just saying, you know, you're talking about now having someone go out and do elevations and everything else. I mean, we're just get.ting into a lot of expense. MR. PALING-No, no. We're not talking elevations MR. OBERMAYER-That's what Jim was saying, that the zoning guy's going to be doing that. MR. MARTIN-We're checking it, and if you're saying you're always doing it, t.hen it.'s not. an addeel e::<pense fo)" ';lOU. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's not an additional applicant's expense. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, but. who's going t.o be paying for t.hese, who's going to pay for you guys to go out and do these elevation shots? MR. SCHACHNER-That person is now an employee of the Town of Queensbury. MR. MARTIN-It's part of our Departmental budget. employee. He's an MR. SCHERMERHORN-Which the tax payers in the Town of Queensbury is going to be paying for all of t.his. MR. BREWER-We all pay for it. MR. PJ;LING--Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But that's my point. We're trying to make this affordable housing. I mean, it's getting out of control. I know because I deal with these people every day. They're having a hard time. This subdivision has worked because it's affordable. The homes are averaging around $100,000, and if we keep adding more and more and more and more, I can't just see it., people aren't going to be able to afford houses. MR. it.'s MARTIN-Rich, it.'s not. t.he not the Town that's the Town that.'s asking for t.his, and reason behind this needing to be - 47 - -- done. I'm not building UH':3 houses that aren't in compliance. MR. PALING-Okay. Gentlemen, I think we're getting a little bit off the beaten path. Lets go back to Bill's report, and agree what we're requiring of the applicant, so that they know clearly, when they leave here tonight, what's being asked of them, and then we'll get Board comments as we go along, or at the end, to make sure we're in agreement, and we'll take it from there, okay. MR. MACNAMARA-Jack and I had already agreed on these items here. So if you somehow work this, in fact, the minutes of the meeting, if you want to call it that. MR. PALING-All right, add the provision for mi nu'tes the soil of the meeting, testin9. that we' \/e got to MR. MACNAMARA-Yes, and I know there were other things that Jim may have brought up. I wasn't writin9 all this stuff down. MR. MARTIN-New test pit information. MR. BREWER-New test pit info. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. BREWER-Can all this be accomplished, and the new test pit info be in here so that Staff can look at it and Bill can look at it and we can approve this thing next week? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I can do the test pit tomorrow, but who would you like present? Obviously, Jack Huntington did the first one. 1:3 he apPì" oved? MR. BREWER-I don't know. MR. MACNAMARA-Well, there's a list of approved people that can read seasonal high ground water. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Do you know one off hand? MR. MARTIN-No, I don't. MR. MACNAMARA-Jack, haven't you indicated you guys have a geolo9ist on Staff? MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. Jeff Martin's on our staff. He can do it. MR. MACNAMARA-He's a Geologist. MR. HUNTINGTON-Or Charlie Maine. One or the other. MR. BREWER-That's fine with me. MR. MARTIN-Charlie Maine, I know, is one of them. I know he 1S one of them. MR. BREWER-That's next week, I don't like to ask Jim. for the affordable t.hat for us? fine with me. If we have that information for have any problems, but one other thin9 I would The statistics that we asked for last month, part of the housing, you were 90in9 to get MR. MARTIN-Yes. I have that, and it's, I've got it in detail. MR. BREWER-Could you just get it for us, though, so we can have itm~xt_ week? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I have already assembled it and a letter was written to, Carol Pulver was inquiring about it. - 48 - ~ ---- "-", ,,-' MR. HUNTINGTON-I want to clarify one thing, Jim. at the end of this, there'll be record drawings your staff going to provide those record drawings? You said that. provided. Is MR. MARTIN--Yes. MR. HUNTINGTON-That's part of the additional cost that Rich was speaking of. MR. MARTIN-That is an additional cost. I acknowledge that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But it starts with me. MR. BREWER-It has to start with someone. MR. MARTIN-No. It was provided for Queensbury Forest. MR. OBERMAYER-So we're going to require all applicants to do as bu i 1 b:3. Jim? MR. MARTIN-What do I have to check against, Jim? We're asking for constructed grades, here. How do I know that the grades were actually constructed? MR. MACE1,.JAI\I-+~ow do you knoltJ IrJi th ani subdi \I ision? MR. MARTIN-Without record plans, I don't. go through elaborate measures, and very prepare all this stuff, and have all these if we don't follow through and check on it? All I'm saying is, we costly measures to plans done, for what, MR. MACEWAN-We did a subdivision earlier tonight that was approved, Final subdivision. How come it wasn't mentioned then? MR. MARTIN-There was no roads proposed or any drainage system on that. That's a two lot subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-So that's the difference? If it's more than two lots, you're going to start asking for it? MR. MARTIN-No. I'm saying when there's roads and drainage systems called for, for a Town to accept a municipally owned drainage system, I want to make sure that the road grades and all that are built to design. MR. PALING-All right. Jim, we have submitted to us, which we sign, meeting that can tell us what we that's not good enough for your guy the final prints that they've and we have minutes of the want changed from them, and to go out and check? MR. MARTIN-He can check against it, but what I'm saying is, then what happens if, down the road, five years from now, one of these homeowners fills in his side yard and blocks the drainage in some way that affects another neighbor, and now they're going to come and cite liability to the Town, for something that we had nothing t.o do with. MR. PALING-But don't we still have the proof or the evidence, in that case, with the prints plus the modifications that were noted i n t~he mi nutes? I'm. MARTII'+-You only have a design print. t"IR. BREl.JER-\¡. e don't have det"""ils for eVeì" I' hou~3e . MR. I'1ARTII+-1,. e don't have an as bed 1 t . MR. MACEWAN-Can you, before next Tuesdal"s meeting, put together like a little memo for our packet, aiming for what you're expecting us to ask, for anI' fut.ure subdivisions of this - 49 - -- particular thing you're looking for? MR. MACNAMARA-This opens up a much bigger issue, and that is, in my own review of subdivisions over the past year, I can almost find four or five different grading standards for subdivisions that don't agree with each other. MR. MACEWAN-How come this has never been brought to our attention before? I've been on this Board going almost four years now, and I've never seen it. MR. MACNAMARA-Actually, I'm trying to think back, but I think I've heard a couple of occasions here and there about certain Subdivision Reg's not quite being adequate, appropriate, realistic, and at that point, ~30mebody talked about (lost ~.Jord). MR. MARTIN-Well, if there's thing that the Town can clean up at Q.b!1:.. end. if there's conflicts within the Subdivision Regulations, we'll address those. I'm not saying we don't have any responsibility here either. If there's things in there that need to be changed, we'll address those. MR. MACNAMARA-You mentioned earlier about, what was this different from the earlier subdivision that was brought up. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, and he said it was just a two lot subdivision ¡,.JÍ th no roads. MR. MACNAMARA-Well, right, and when you read through a storm drainage plan requirement for subdivisions, it doesn't have an exact definition on what do you need to be approved, what don't you need to be approved. MR. MACEWAN-That's right. There was one earlier tonight that it didn't get, that it wasn't required. MR. MACNAMARA-Pretty much as good drainage practices, as the Town can accept and as can be reviewed by the Town Engineer, I think the wording is. Obviously, some different subdivisions, different situations will require some different steps to be t.aken. MR. PALING-I wish this hadn't come up tonight this way, because it makes it look like, you know, we're after one guy, which we're really not, and I wonder if we couldn't postpone this and have a separate discussion, or something on it, so we're a little more prE)pared to. MR. BREWER-But eventually it has to start somewhere, Bob. MR. PALING-Well, yes, but I hate to start it, stamp it in front of an applicant and say, this is it. I haven't even thought about it before tonight. MR. BREWER-Well, if that's something Jim's going to do in his Department, with the as built, eventually, we're going to start ¡,.Jith ê.QfD..ê.. applicant. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It almost sounds like you're going to start requiring, when we hand in to get our Certificate of Occupancy, we hand in the survey, stamped by the certified land surveyor, it almost seems like maybe now we should start putting topos on those maps, so that you have those on file. A survey's roughly $400, $350 per house. If we have to start requiring to put topos on, there's another $100 added to the cost. MR. MACNAMARA-And I probably ought to read this before I say anything, but I'll be honest with you. I think that the subdivision standards say that existing and proposed contours are required to be shown on site plans, extending 100 feet off site. - 50 - --../ -../ ~ I'm pretty sure I've looked at that so many times now, that, quite honestly, I don't think it's unrealistic to ask somebody to show grade lines on lots, particularly in the case where you've got a sag in the back yard where, in all honest, it could be a pond. I hate to say it, but that's what the grading shows, which is why we're waiting to see some real comfortable levels with the ground water. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It's not unreasonable what you're asking. I'm just saying that, I want to do it the right way. I want it done the right way, but it's just, if you start now. MR. BREWER-So why not start next month, right? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, just, that's where maybe the building inspector, I've had building inspectors say, you know, something a little different with the driveway, they speak out if they think the grading's going to come. Common sense, you could almost, by eye, look and tell if things are pitching away. I mean, obviously, if the house is two foot below the wing curve, I mean, you know there's going to be a problem. I mean, common sen~3e .. MR. PALING-Jim, I think I agree with what you're asking for. I just don't like to do it the way we're doing it. MR. MARTIN-I'd much rather put up with this, Bob, have to put up with when the phone rings, like summer. than "'Jhat I it die! la~;~t MR. HUNTINGTON-I don't think there's anything to put up with, okay. We don't mind doing the test PitS. MR. PALING-Okay. No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the as built, the drawings. MR. STARK-Well, that's not now. MR. BREWER-That's not our decision, though. That's his. I mean, if he's going to do that, he's going to do that. We don't have any approval or denial process to it, do we? I mean, it really doesn't have anything to do with us. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm surprised that you never did require that, actually, the as builts, you know. MR. BREWER-I think it should be done, especially on commercial. MR. MARTIN-We're accepting that's our responsibility. that right-of-way. a road here, and a drainage system We're going to own that property and MR. ALDEN-We don't have a problem with doing anything that the Board wants, and what Jim wants. The problem is, we don't want to be singled out, because of what happened in Queensbury Forest, and treated differently than anybody else, and sometimes, unfortunately, we get the impression that that's the case. MR. PALING-Yes. I don't think you're going to be singled out, as you'll see from our action in the future, that everyone will be required to go as built. MR. ALDEN-If everybody else is doing that, we don't have a problem with it. The problem that we have is that, three weeks ago, we came here expecting to address certain things. Jim Martin has raised something entirely new tonight, that we thought we were going to get approval. We have made contractual agreements, in the mean time, that are having problems now meeting those contractual arrangements, and we're looking at another week, at best. I just would like to pin down what it is - 51 - -- we're supposed to do. MR. PALING-Yes. I think, at this point, we ought to get the consensus of the Board. MR. MARTIN-Well, do that should be dug? fo'( Phase I I . we have an agreed upon number of test pits I would defer to the engineers on that one, MR. MACNAMARA-I would say, to make it worth their while going out there, and to get the data that you're asking for, two utilities is what we're worried about, septic systems and storm drainage, pick the low points of the storm drainage system and the low point, generally, for a septic system, and if, I haven't looked close enough tonight, but if they are within 50 feet of each other, then I'd pick another low point for one of the two. MR. MARTIN-Here it is. A183-15, Letter F, Subsection 1, "Within 30 days after completion of construction set forth in the plans and specifications of the plat, the professionals designing the same shall furnish to the Planning Board a certification to the Town of Queensbury that the construction, installation, and/or work was performed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Planning Board". MR. PALING-Okay. That's not being questioned, and I think it's going to start here tonight, but I want to get the Board's consensus, approval, that we're not singling these people out, and what we start tonight we're going to continue to do. t-1R. MARTIN-And then further on down, '(ecord dral,-Jings. "Prior to the release of any funds in escrow or monies or commitments held by the Town to the subdivider, approved record drawings conforming to construction records shall be submitted to the Town Planning Office. Such drawings shall be reviewed and approved and signed off by the Highway Department, Water Department, and Zoning Administrator. MR. MACEWAN-So if this has been a requirement for some time, it's been on the books, how come we haven't been doing it? MR. MARTIN-I came into an accepted practice. and I've gone through thiS. I see the holes, fill them in. I'm trying, nOIrJ, and I'm trying to MR. SCHERMERHORN-So are you asking for topos? MR. MARTIN-I'm trying to bring things into compliance. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That's leave top soil on it. that's going to change once I le:a\le. all I need to know, because some we don't If there's not, then people bring it in, all your topos. I don't have control, MR. MACNAMARA-See, that's where, I think, some of the connections go away, is if you don't leave top soil, you don't leave whatever you just talked about, but you said you would on your drawing, the new owner comes in, he can't build, like you said, and then he gets water because it's not flowing anywhere. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Sherman Pines gets top soil, okay, but I go all over Queensbury, and there's a lot of sites where there's not top soil for one reason or another, but, you know, the topos change, some times drastically, when the people or the landscapers come in, or, if you bring in 10 truck loads of top soil, the elevation's going to change 6 inches. I just don't know where we start or when you want. MR. BREWER-I guess what Jim's saying, when you bring in a design for a house, and you show him a picture of what it's going to be - 52 - "--" -----' "---' --.-I when it's done, that's your responsibility, to show him that it's going to be like this when I'm done, and when you leave, that's IrJhat it'll be. MR. ~CHERMERHORN-But now we've got to require the surveyors to really do topos per residential building lot, and that's another expense. MR. MACEWAN-But I mean, Reg's that that should be it's a done. requirement of the Subdivision MR. SCHERMERHORN-No problem, but, unfortunately, it's going to start now. MR. MACEWAN-It's been something that's been slipping through the cracks for some time. Now Staff is trying to bring it under control, so we'll do it. JOSEPH AMMIRATTI MR. AMMIRATTI-You go in there with a bulldozer and change all, after you leave, I see bulldozers in there and they change all your grades, and then the Building Department comes and says, you haven't got the right grades on this thing, and I've got pictures. MR. MACEWAN....Then that's what helps you out, 1'1r. Ammiratti, because now you have submitted a drawing at the end of your construction showing what you've done according to the contours that you submitted on the maps, and if someone changes them after you've left the site, no one's going to come back pointing fingeì"s to)"ou that 'lOU did it. MR. STARK-Well, we could have a special meeting. If he's got Jeff Martin on the staff that can read the pit, the water, we could have a special meeting yet this week, because he can, when the pit's being dug, he can look at it and make his evaluation, get it to Bill, and we can have a special meeting any time you want. MR. HUNTINGTON-My question, then, is, do you want these addressed for that special meeting? MR. PALING-If we could wind address everything, I'd like m<:3etl ng . it up in to wind the a week, and you could whole thing up at one MR. HUNTINGTON-The problem is, what I've finish up. It doesn't take long to do the can get somebody lined up to do them. I problem, but that's fine. got here is a day to test pits, providing I don't think that's a MR. PI~LH~G--Okay. MR. HUNTINGTON-I'm not sure that by Friday you're going to have all your comments answered. MR. BREWER-Why wouldn't we? MR. MACNAMARA-What comments answered? are you thinking IrJOuldn't be MR. HUNTINGTON-All of these. I'm not sure. MR. PALING-I thought you were in agreement? MR. MACNAMARA-We already went over these, Jack, everyone of these. MR. HUNTINGTON-I know that, to change the drawings. You want the - 53 - - - drawings changed to reflect these before that meeting? MR. MACNAMARA-Most of these are notations, most of these are notes. MR. STARK-Just before you file the final plat, Bob signs it. I don't think it's necessary before we have our meeting. MR. BREWER-Why isn't it, George? dr a\.¡i n9 . Shouldn't we look at a final MR. STARK-Well, because, Tim, a lot of times, as long as it's indicated that changes are made on our final plat before you used to sign them, we went ahead and gave the approval. We've done that numerous times. MR. OBERMAYER-We've done that numerous times. I don't see any pì"oblem vÚth it. MR. PALING-If this is agreed to, and you and Bill are in agreement. MR. HUNTINGTON-I don't think there's a problem doing this. MR. PALING-Okay. It's the time. MR. HUNTINGTON-It's just that, I know there's no problem doing it. It's just to get it to you and get it distributed. MR. MACNAMARA-I was just going to say, there's probably more time involved in him running copies, literally photocopying or xeroxing or whatever kind of machine you have, getting all the packages together, than there is 90in9 to be adding the notes on, because most of these are notation changes, a couple of grading contours, and there's some data. MR. MARTIN-I agree. My main concern is the test pit data. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I hope we can agree that we don't have to have final prints, which we. MR. BREWER-But these will all be done on final, when you sign, when they're done. MR. PALING-It'll be finalized before we sign it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The Staff will check these to make sure they're on here before we submit that to you for signing. MR. PALING-Okay, but the test pits we hold separately. MR. MARTIN-That's the real analytical part here that has to be, I think the Board should participate in. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I can give you these test pits, I have a rubber tire back hoe, but it'll only dig, the dig depth is 14 feet. If we want to get down 20 feet, we'll probably have to get an excavator. I mean, how deep should we set a? I can only go 14 feet with a back hoe. Otherwise we've got to get a special piece of equipment to do that. MR. MARTIN-Bill, what would be an acceptable depth for a test pit? MR. MACNAMARA-I'm trying to think, 14 foot, and the bottom of the drywell, the bottom of the road drywell is, eight foot deep, so then you've got a six foot, so if you would have somebody reading a 14 foot deep, or more, whatever your excavator can get. That coupled with this outstanding information that I've already asked for should be enough to give a comfort level on where the ground - 54 - '-" ----- ',-- ---./ water is out there. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MACEWAN-So for you, just to clarify, 14 feet's deep enough, th(;>n? ~1R. MACNAM(.)R¡:'i"·F or the D..ê.!cl. test pits? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. MACNAMARA-Six foot below the lowest drywell? I would feel comfortable with it, particular since, I was looking for the data they had supposedly previously installed, where they've already done this. MR. MACEWAN-Make a decision. The back hoe only goes 14 feet. MR. BREWER-He said yes. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And how many pits are we talking about? MR. MACNAMARA-At least two. I mean, make it worth our while and !-d,s IrJI'Ü le. MR. HUNTINGTON-Who, from here, wants to see those test pits? MR. MARTIN-If Charlie Maine or a geologist looks at them, I'm comfortable, I'd feel comfortable if Bill could go over and jump down in the hole and look at it. MR. MACNAMARA-Physically see it, or review the results? MR. MARTIN-That's up to the Board. MR. MACNAMARA-I'll be glad to do it, but I want to make sure. MR. MACEWAN-Physically see it. MR. MACNAMARA-But there's also going to be, I'm not going to stand in the hole and go, okay. There's going to be, you guys submit it, as is normal protocol, where you have your Geologist. There's actually practices that go reading high ground water. It's not looking for mud, quite honestly. That's why Geologists. MR. PALING-Well, we have a Geologist up there? t-1R. MARTIN-Yes. Charlie 1"1.3ine, I knolrJ he's certified. MR. PALING-I'd be satisfied with the Geologist. MR. MACNAMARA-Yes, and the Geologist, I think, is Jeffrey Martin. Charlie, you may kill me. I don't know if he's a Geologist or not, but I know that Jeff Martin is, and he works for the applicant. MR. HUNTINGTON-He's a Soil Scientist. MR. MACNAMARA-He's a Soil Scientist qualified to read all these things, modeling. MR. BREWER-Okay. Fourteen feet, we have Jeff Martin, is that his name? MR. HUNTINGTON-I'm not sure who I can get. whoever is qualified to do it. I'm going to get MR. BREWER-Okay. That's fine. - 55 - - MR. HUNTINGTON-I mean, Jeff Martin may be in Buffalo tomorrow. MR. PALING-Yes. I mean, if there's any doubt that the guy is or isn't qualified, get a hold of Jim and something different can be done. MR. HUNTINGTON-Jim, if he's on your list, he's qualified? ¡VIR. t/IART H"'¡'-Yes . MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay. next woek.? Again, lrJe will be on the Planning Board i'1R. P(.iLING--Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-You'll be first. MR. PALING-Yes, that's what I was going to say. Jim, why don't we rearrango it and put them on first. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's fine. I don't mean to be a bad guy here, but I'm tolling you, I'd rathor do this. MR. MACEWAN-The results are going to be given to Staff by Friday? MR. HUNTINGTON-Tho results of the tost pits will be out tomorrow afternoon. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-There was another woman that was here. Would it be possibly aftor Mrs. Smith, remembor the first lady that went out of here quite upset? MR. BREWER-We didn't say anything about her being first, though. MR. PALING-Now, we have another question to answer. and that is. they want to get the grubbing. MR. ALDEN-The grubbing construction of the road. month when we were here. ~..¡as done. You allolrJed U~" ;:;, We want to commence to do the grubbing last MR. PALING-Okay. Now. what is it you want to do now? MR. ALDEN-We want to commence moving in material to construct. MR. MARTIN-Have Superintendent for )/ou got that, actual permission from const.ruction? the Hi ghr..-J3Y MR. ALDEN-Well. you have t.o approve it. MR. MARTIN-That's one thing, but. Paul Naylor likes t.o be advised of these things when they begin. MR. SCHACHNER-This is also something 1 feel compelled t.o t.hrow in t.wo cent.s on. If t.he applicant.'s request, as 1 underst.and it, is to obtain some sort of Planning Board endorsement of commencing road construction, from the legal standpoint, I'm not comfortable wit.h t.hat. unless we have an expressed, you know, writ.ten waiver or acknowledgement from the applicant that t.he Town is totally held harmless, because, obviously, we can't. predict. the fut.ure any better than the engineers can predict the future, and there's not., as we sit. here now, while t.his request. is being made, and it's not an unreasonable request, but as the request is being made and as we sit. here now. wo do not. have a final approval for this subdivision. So, my only request and I imagine the applicant's counsel would underst.and t.he reasonableness of t.he request, and my request would be, or my advice to the Board would be t.hat. we not endorse that. or allow t.hat t.o occur, unless the - 56 - "'-- ----- '- --.. applicant provides us with a written waiver of any liability, and I don't just mean liability in the sense of an accident happening. I mean, pi:Ht of ffi.L.. je,b is to avoid the ~situation where, for some God forsaken reason, this subdivision is not approved, and this construction has begun, and the applicant makes some claim to having v~hat ~.¡e call vested Ll:;¡hts, because this was allowed to go forward. MR. PALING-I can't disagree with that. MR. ALDEN-Are you indicating that we have the right to go ahead and do the road, regardless? MR. SCHACHNER-No, not at all. MR. ALDEN-You're saying that they don't have the right to endorse it, or shouldn't endorse it, at this point. MR. SCHACHNER-If I'm understanding the facts correctly, and if I'm not, Tim, tell me, because I don't have the back ground on this particular project, but if I'm understanding the facts correctly, you're seeking the Board's, in essence, special permission to jump the gun, and I don't mean that in a pejorative way, to start something prior to having your final subdivision approval, which you're not allowed to othe~wise start, under the Town's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. I understand, the reason I characterize the request as not unreasonable is because I have, obviously, witnessed what you've been through in the last couple of months, and nobody is intentionally holding anybody up here, but my point is, as a legal matter, if the request is to get the Board's approval or enckn-sement of this jumpi ng the gun, part of ffi.L.. )'esponsibi 1 i ty is to advi~:;e the Board t.hat they should not go:mt t.hat reque~3t unless it's stipulat.ed that we have a writ.ten waiver from t.he applicant to indicate that the Town bears no responsibility or liability of any kind whatsoever for this activity that's pre- final approval, including there's no gaining of vested rights, in case, for some terrible reason, the subdivision's not ultimat.ely approved. MR. ALDEN-I don't have a problem with that. We'll know tomorrow what the t.est pit. shows, If it. does, in fact., show what we t.hink it shows, I believe there's agreement between Jack and Bill anyway, with regard to what needs to be added, From everything I've heard, t.hat satL'sfies ev,,?)"yboc!y here, t.hat e\lerythinq is going to go ahead. I can provide that waiver as early as t.omon' ()W . MR. PALING-Okay. Well, if disclàimer, maybe that present, then I think I road, but it's got to be what you're sayinq. You that happens, and there is a over simplifies it, but if am comfortable with proceeding there, and that would be Step first. want to see t.he test pit. ~.,¡ritten that i~) with the TlrJo, from n:?su 1 ts . MR. ALDEN-I would assume that if the test pit shows something wronq (lost word) problems. MR, PALING-And then you would issue the written disclaimer, and then we'd be okay. MR. ALDEt"i'··Yes. t1R. Pt'lL It'-lG'" .,( e~s . MR. ALDEN-And we should submit that waiver? MR. PALING-To Jim, I would assume. MR. BREWER-No, to our attorney. - 57 - - MR. P¡.\L ING-~1ar k? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Jim and I are just conferring. This is a n3theì', at least in ffiL e::<per ience. a rat.her unusual request, and the question that Jim and I are just batting about now is whether this Board is the right ent.ity to that has the authority to allow that construction to take place, before the final subdivision approval. As we sit here now, I'm just not certain if that's the case.. MR. MARTIN-That's why we have the as a signature on the final plat, construction conference that alerts going to be work going on here, concerns he has, or things that are Highway Superintendent, also, and we usually have a pre- him to the fact that there's and he'll raise any special unique to this. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I have to say, just reflecting on his unusual request, I mean, I gave my legal opinion, and I'll stand by it, but we have an issue here as to whether this Board is the correct entity with that authority, and then the other thing, I guess I'm going to throw in my practical sense of this, and that is t t we're sitting here on a Tuesday night talking about a test pit being done tomorrow and convening only a week from tonight. I'm not crazy about this practice at all. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know if we've ever done this in the past, I can't remember. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not a~'Jare of the Board havi ng done this. MR. MARTIN-The only thing I can remember is on the Clendon Ridge one you did allow them to grub it in like you did this one, and that's the only one. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but grubbing it in is a lot different. MR. MARTIN-You're talking about actual drainage, that's subject to inspection. construction now, MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That's why I didn't express this concern last month when the request was made. I could have expressed it and I thought about expressing the same concern, but it seems to me that grubbing it in is a lot different. MR. BREWER-Grubbing it is just. cutting the we're going to do test pits tomorrow and lets do it right the whole process, and once, and not a week from tonight. trees, but I think, if get the information, approve everything at MR. OBERMAYER-I agree with that. MR. MARTIN-We can schedule our pre-construction conference this week, with the Highway Superintendent. We've got, certainly, enough information here to go through that. We can get that done and out of the way. MR. OBERMAYER-Because you're going to have to do that anyway. MR. PALING-And then can you give them a go ahead to work on the road? MR. MARTIN-No. I would feel more comfortable with this being done after the approval. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. It's only a week away, Bob. MR. ALDEN-Assuming, then, that we wait the week, everything turns out well, we will get approval to commence, you'll give us final approval of the subdivision next week? - 58 - '-' --- '--' --." MR. BREWER-Nothing's guaranteed. MR. PALING-We won't guarantee you an approval, but we'll guarantee you that we will look at it and work until we have to to get it, if at all possible. MR. SCHACHNER-In fairness, he said "assuming". I think it's not an unreasonable question, prefaced the way counsel has, saying, if everything pans out. MR. ALDEN-What I want to do is tell our contractors that, assuming that things go the way that we expect them to go within the next week, there will be approval next Tuesday, and we can start on Wednesday. I'm. PALU'1G-Okay. sa y i n:;i? Does anyone take issue with that, what he's MR. BREWER-Well, I don't see anything wrong with the approval part, I'm not saying yes, but if Paul Naylor's got a problem with the road, we can't speak for him. MR. PALING-Okay. That's different. MR. MARTIN-I can run those drawings by him. We can have our pre- construction conference. If there's an issue, Jack can take it up with Paul. That can also be handled in the next week. MR. PALING-And that'll be known before we meet next week? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. ALDEN-Jim, is that something you do with Paul? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We coordinate, I'll have John Goralski there. He's the Code Compliance Officer. Dave Hatin will be there. Tom Flaherty. There's water lines here, is there not? Tom Flaherty will be there, and that's usually the cast of characters for a pre-construction conference. MR. SCHERMERHORN-If there's a problem, would you let me know? MR. MAFHIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, then I think with your permission, then, going to table this, I believe, is what we should do, and need a motion then, unless there's any further discussion, entertain a motion to table until a week from tonight. given your consent to table it, correct? we ' '( ~3 \..Je'll I'll 'Y c,u ' \/<'3 MR. ALDENW"Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. So all we need now is a motion to table until a week from tonight, the 25th. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 FINAL STAGE SHERMAN PINES, PHASE II, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until next Tuesday, first on the agenda. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel - 59 - -- MR. PALING-I think wa've got a couple of housekeeping items to go over. Now the first thing I would like to bring up is the date for site visits. Okay. It's been noted, for a couple of cases anyway, that Wednesday night is a bad night, and it was requested we move it back to Tuesday. Does anyone have problems with it if ~..¡e? MR. BREWER-Why not Thursday? I would rather do it Thursday. MR. OBERMAYER-Thursday's okay with me. MR. OBERMAYER-Just Wednesday night. night. I can't do it Wednesday MR. PALING-Okay. Craig, what's your input here? We're finding that Wednesday is a tough night for some for site visits. MR. MACEWAN-Whatever the consensus lS. It doesn't matter to me. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, that's my feeling, too. Okay. requested Tuesday. That's all I know, and we've got careful, because this is advertised. Cathì" to bc' MR. STARK-Well, we can wait until next week. MR. PALING-Is Tuesday or Thursday okay with you? MR. BREWER-I'd prefer Thursday, but. MR. 08ERMAYER-Either Tuesday or Thursday is fine with me. MR. PALING-All right. So if Thursday. We'll bring it up t.o . Cathy agrees we're going to go to again. Okay. George. you wanted MR. STARK-Mark, I have two questions. First one, is there any information yet from Dier on the ruling of Charlie Wood's? MR. SCHACHNER-I'll just say, no, none whatsoever. MR. STARK-Okay. The second one is, I need a ruling as to when to abstain and when not to abstain, and what's proper. Tim abstained tonight, I guess, from the first one because he knew thE: people. MR. BREWER-I've been personal friends with them for 30 years. I mean, I just. MR. STARK-So, I mean, I knew personal friend, but I've done Do I abstain when he comes up )"ule on that? Mr. Smith here tonight, not as a business with him and everything. for a vote, or what? How do you MR. BREWER-Use your gut. MR. STARK-I mean, if this guy was you friend for see no problem with the project. why didn't you instead of making them come back next week? 30 years, you \/ote for it, MR. BREWER-Because I don't want the appearance of a conflict, George, and there was plenty of people here to vote. MR. STARK-No, there wasn't plenty of people here to vote. MR. BREWER-Well, last month I abstained from it, George, and I like to be consistent. I think I should abstain from it this month, and I don't see anything wrong with being consistent. I find that good as a practice. MR. PALING-I think you've got to be consistent. What are the - 60 - '- ~ ',--, ---/ basic reasons, I think, is that George is asking. MR. BREWER-Well, I don't want to give anybody the impression or appearance of any conflict, and if there's even that little bit of a thought that there could be, I don't want to give that appearance. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe another way to look at this, don't put a burden on a member and try to pressure them to vote when you don't have a full Board here representing people. If you've got members who can't be here on a regular basis, or for whatever reason, then maybe we should be looking around and asking the Town Board to appoint some new members. I think it's unfair if someone believes that they feel uncomfortable voting on a project, because they feel it may be a potential for a conflict, or anybody else who feels that the project, for whatever reason, isn't up to snuff, I don't think it's fair to pressure those people into putting a vote just for the sake of passing something. MR. STARK-Mark, so what's the ruling? somebody, you don't vote? Should we, if you know MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I'm going to give you what I'm quite confident is the correct answer, but you're not going to like it, because it's a very wimpy answer. There's not a set, I'm being honest, there's not a set of black/white rules. There are some things that are clearly black/white, okay. If you have a financial interest in it, obviously, black/white issue. You must abstain, clear potential for conflict of interest, but the situation that we're talking about, if I understand the facts correctly, is not governed by any black/white rule. There's no rule that says If you know somebody you have to abstain. Obviously, if that were the rule, towns like our town would be hampered because we all know everybody in some fashion, or at least we know a lot of people. By the same token, it's well documented that if a Board member, and this is true of any type of Board, not just a Planning Board, but if a Board member is reviewing, or if a Board is reviewing an application that's either made by or opposed by a close friend, a family member, somebody that a particular Board member feels has crossed that line from just an acquaintance into somebody that they have some sort of relationship with of a personal nature, then it's well documented that that Board member can abstain if they wish to, and really the bottom line is, I hate to say it, it is something of a gut reaction. It is something of a gut thing. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I think it's up to the individual, really. MR. SCHACHNER-Except in situations, as I said, where you have, you know, blood relatives or monetary interest and all that, in ",¡hich case it's really not up to the individu,al. There you're absolutely supposed to abstain, but other than that, unfortunately it's really sort of, it is a somewhat personal, somewhat gut type thing. If yoU feel that you might not be able to be objective, or that you might compromised because you know somebody sufficiently well, you know, my daughter babysits for her, and, therefore, I wonder if I could be totally objective. It's appropriate to abstain if you feel that that's the best way to go. MR. PALING-I don't think, also, as sort of happened a little bit tonight, that if you state you're going to abstain, abstain. Nevermind what anybody says. Don't let pressure, if you say I'm going to abstain, and then turn around and say, I've changed my mind, I'm going to vote, somebody might object to that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, but I mean, again, to be honest, Bob, I mean, I just explained that it's something of a gut feeling, and I don't think this is what happened here tonight, nor has this - 61 - '-"- -,< happened at any other Board meeting that I've been present, but I could envision a scenario where somebody'd have to really carefully think about it. because they're kind of right on the line, and they might say, gee, I think I should abstain, no, I guess I don't have to, or vice versa. The problem is it's not governed by black/white rules. So that's why I'm giving a wimpy response. Something else, too, though, Craig, when, if you're going to miss a Board meeting, it would be helpful if whoever was going to miss would call in and let us know. MR. MACEWAN-Have you heard from them? MR. PALING-Yes, Cathy called me and Roger called me, yes. MR. MARTIN-That's been a long standing problem. I remember when 1 was Chairman, I had it, two nights in a row, I had to delay a meeting a half hour, pull somebody out of a shower, and get them here, and we were 45 minutes late getting started. MR. PALING-If we know ahead of time who is and is not going to be here, we can avoid those kind of problems. MR. MACEWAN-How do you avoid them? MR. PALING-By you people calling me if you're not going to be here .. MR. MARTIN-Or at least call the Planning Office. MR. PALING-Or call the Planning Office, whatever you want to do. MR. BREWER-Heaven forbid if four people ever called. there's just nothing you can do. I mean, MR. PALING-Well, I think there is. You might say to one or two of them, look, we've got a problem, and try to talk them into it. MR. BREWER-I can remember one night Peter Cartier had to take his son to college, and we knew he wasn't going to be here. MR. MARTIN-He was the one who said he wasn't going to be there, and he was in the shower, about ready to relax for the night. MR. BREWER-And we had to call him. MR. MARTIN-He came to a meeting. MR. PALING-Okay. Does anyone have anything else? MR. MARTIN-Don't you have your Planning Board meeting in Colonie you want to go to in early May? MR. PALING-Yes. What we said was that we would accept the, whoever wants to go let us know at the next meeting, and it is May 5th at 7 o'clock in Colonie, and it has to be advertised, because of the number that are going. MR. BREWER-I'm not going to go to Colonie. I may go to Clifton Park, but not Colonie. MR. OBERMAYER-what day is it? MR. PALING-Tuesday May 2nd, the meeting starts at 7 o'clock, and we'll have to leave here at? MR. MARTIN-Probably six or five forty-five. MR. PALING-Does anyone know now if they can or cannot go? MR. BREWER-I'm not going to go to Colonie. - 62 - '-" ~ .......... -.....". MR. 5TARK-I can go, Bob. MR. MACEWAN-No, I won't go. MR. PALING-Craig and Tim are no. You're yes. I'm yes. Jim is a maybe, and we'll find out from Cathy and Roger. I know Jim is going. So we'll see from there, and then, and you've got to tell us finally at next meeting, if you're going to go. MR. BREWER-Let me know ahead of time on the Clifton Park, because that's not too far away. I may go to that. I just don't want to go down to Colonie until 11 o'clock and then have to drive back here until midnight. MR. PALING-Okay. I've just got to ask for a little bit of cooperation, and bear in mind Roberts Rules of Order, if you please, that what isn't covered in the specific Town instruction is covered by them, and last meeting, it got a little out of control. I should have controlled it more, is the interruptions that we got from the applicants, even not at the table. What I'm asking you to do is not to interrupt any of us, not interrupt an applicant, and we're going to do the same with the applicants, too. When somebody's got the floor, let them finish. If you've got something to say. say it, but the interruptions. especially from applicants, has got to stop, but it's from some up here, too, and I ask you to consider the side conversations. When you're trying to run a meeting, and there's a side conversation going on and on and on, it gets very distracting, and plus the fact there's people here trying to speak that you're not listening to. 50 I ask your cooperation in that regard. That's all I've got to saYM MR. MARTIN-The other thing is, we're going to work out a format for regular reports from the Code Compliance Officer. He's going to work that into his procedure and system, and so you'll have regular updates as to the status of approved projects. MR. BREWER-That's one thing that I wanted to ask about was, next week we've got Bill Threw's application coming in. MR. MARTIN-As a discussion. MR. BREWER-Right. Did we, I'm pretty sure we did set a time limit for him to clean up that place. MR. MARTIN-May 31st. MR. BREWER-Is it May 31st? 1'1R. MI0¡RTH~-·Yes, discussion ne)<t and that's certainly within the realm of that week, because it's a site plan approved project. MR. BREWER-It certainly is. MR. MACEWAN-What's going on with the Great Escape site plan? MR. MARTIN-They submitted information to me, something to the effect that there's limited involvement or jurisdiction of local governments in review of mine land permits. I passed that to Paul Dusek. He's going to give me a written opinion as to the relevance of that. I expect that it's not going to be, Mark's given me some remarks to the effect that it's not, as soon as I get that written opinion, I'm going to pass that along to them, and we'll halt operations there until they come in with a site plan. MR. BREWER-They're up there working now. I saw a loader up there toda/. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I know, they've been in there, and I'm waiting - 63 - ',-" ""'- for the opinion from Paul before I act. MR. PALING-Paul originally said he'd have it out, like, within a couple of days, the following Tuesday. Why is it not? MR. MARTIN-He's just very busy. MR. BREWER-Well, why don't we, if he's that busy, why don't we give it to Mark and at least get it done. MR. MARTIN-It's up to the Board. MR. PALING-I wondered why it went to Paul in the first place. MR. MARTIN-Why did it? It's part of the general Town Code. That's why I did it that way. MR. SCHACHNER-And it's also a Town enforcement matter, mean, it could be a Town enforcement matter, which Planning Board issue, and not my issue. I mean, it's guys, but I think, if he's already got it. He's doing IrJhich, I is not E.\ up to you it. MR. BREWER-Yes, but I can just imagine that, two weeks from now, being six weeks away, and John Lemery gets a letter saying that he'd have to come in for a site plan, he's going to hit the roof and say, why the hell didn't you tell me six weeks ago. MR. SCHACHNER-But in fairness, really, he was clearly told at the last Planning Board meeting that he needed to submit an application. That couldn't have been more clear. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess what I'm saying, as a response to his correspondence he sent to us. MR. OBERMAYER-He could have been going through those steps anyway, regardless of the outcome of the letter. MR. MARTIN-Yes. He has indicated to me, unofficially, I saw him in passing, that he's been given authorization to submit a site plan application and retain an engineer. So, I hope that's coming. I'm going to place a call to him, and Tom Wages, this time, I learned my lesson, and confirm that. MR. PALING-Okay. I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 64 -