Loading...
1995-06-20 OUEENSBURY¡ "I¡:>I,..~N,~ I N~, ,BOARD FIRST REGULAR MËE'TI~G JUNE 20, 1995 INDEX Site Plan No. 30-94 Garden Time 1- Site Plan No. 24-95 William Threw 15. Site Plan No. 29-95 Darwin & Cynthia DeLappa 26. Site Plan No. 30-95 John Brock 29. Site Plan No. 31-95 John Brock 37. Freshwater Wetlands Marvin & Janet Hautala 29. Permit No. 3-95 , ) 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 STAT~ SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. , ,,'; ',: ¡ :~ ; , '! ¡i '- -.-r' '-, ---' QUEENSBURY PLANNÜ~d aO~'r~b: f.1:E,~ili~ß,~i!,! FIRST REGULAR MEETING' " " ',;,:, JUNE 20, 1995 " 7:00 P.M. <I 'r¡" . )1 MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN , CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SE'CRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN JAMES OBERMAYER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARL~ÇKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNÈY-MARK SCHACHNER II ,I STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORR~CTION OF MINUTE$ April 18, 1995: NONE Apr i 1 25, 1995: NONE May 11, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 18TH. APRIL 25TH AND MAY 11, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer OLD BUSINES$: SITE PLAN NO. 30-94 GARDEN TIME OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 191 OUAKER ROAD MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN NO. 30-94 TO ALLOW FOR GENERAL STORAGE AND DISPLAY OF SHEDS, GAZEBOS, ETC. AND THE ELIMINATION OF THE PARKING AND LOADING AREA, DRIVEWAY, LANDSCAPING, OFFICE/STORE AND PAVER WALKWAY. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.62 FRED TROELSTRA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Garden Time, Site Plan No. 30-94, Meeting Date: June 20, 1995 "The applicant has site plan approval to expand a storage, display and sale area for storage sheds, gazebos, etc. The applicant would like to eliminate all proposed improvements to the site and be allowed to store sheds over the entire site. The revised plan gives no indication as to how the lot will be developed. The only indication is a general note stating the lot will be used as a staging area for sheds, gazebos, etc. There is no mention regarding what the applicant means by 'staging area'. The applicant has to provide more information so that there is a - 1 - ...-- clear understanding of what activities are included in the term 'staging area'. The applicant provides no information regarding the site or development of the site; dimensions, set backs, access, parking, loading are not shown. If this revised plan was presented as an original application it would not be accepted; it would be deemed incomplete and not placed on the agenda. Staff feels that more information should be provided regarding this modification." MR. TROELSTRA-Fred Troelstra. Questions? MR. BREWER-What are we looking at? MR. PALING-There's not much to look at on the print, hardly anything. MR. BREWER-Exactly, that's my question. MR. TROELSTRA-That's the intent. MR. BREWER-We've just got a blank map with nothing on it. MR. TROELSTRA-There's a comment to the right. There's a note. MR. BREWER-"Lot to be listed as staging area for sheds, garden, gazebos, etc." MR. TROELSTRA-That is correct. MR. BREWER-No circulation. MR. TROELSTRA-No. MR. BREWER-You're just going to put a bunch of gazebos and sheds in there? Mr. TROELSTRA-You travel the Quaker Road, that's what you see right now. MR. BREWER-What is meant by, I guess Staff them, I'll give you a minute to read them if I just was, staging area, it's a Staff questioned by it. I don't know what it is. MR. RUEL-Well, this is a modification. Do we have a copy of the original? Notes, if you read you'd like to, Fred. comment, and I was MR. BREWER-I don't have one. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I can put one up on the board. MR. PALING-We don't know what it is that they want eliminated from the previous approval. MR. MARTIN-You could hand it to the Board. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-That's this corner here, right? MR. BREWER-Right, and heré there's circulation, there's parking, and now there's nothing. MR. RUEL-Yes. Well what's this cross hatch mean? MR. BREWER-That's the area, I presume that's where they're going to put the sheds. MR. RUEL-The cross hatch, is that the existing area? There's no change in that area? There's no change in this area, okay. - 2 - '-' ---,' -- --. MR~ TROELSTRA-That's Lot One, by the way. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The cross hatches just indicate that the lot, these cross hatches' correspond to· this entire property right here. .i'; ,.Ii MR,,. RUEL-Okay. What's their modi f icat-io·n'? MR. HARLICKER-They're goi ng from this to this, f'"om this to nothing. MR. BREWER-With no circulation, no par ki ng, no nothi ng,? . MR. TROELSTRA-That's correct. MR. BREWER-Why wouldn't you want to have parking, if you're going to have a display there? Why wouldn't you want to provide parking for potential customers? MR. TROELSTRA-I guess, Tim, I have to, again, define what's questioned here in ' the Staff 'Notes, it isa staging area. What we do is we drop, when they, when I receive sheds and gazebos, I am staging them there before they are sold to the public. MR. HARLICKER~So it·s storage. MR. TROELSTRA-Storage of storage sheds. In other words, it's a play on words, so I'm stagi ng of storage sheds.; MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess I'm kind. of confused a' little bit. Presumably, that's a display area. MR. TROELSTRA-It is not a display area. MR. RUEL-It's a storage area. MR. TROELSTRA-It's a storage area. MR. PALING-You'll have no retail customers over there at all? MR. TROELSTRA-No. MR. BREWER-How do they look at them, 'the~? MR. RUEL-Well, you have these on your property? MR. TROELSTRA-I also have them on my property. documentation to sell them by. I also have MR. RUEL-Yes. He has the same ones on his property. MR. HARLICKER-So you have two of everything? MR. RUEL-Yes, and this is only for storage. MR. TROELSTRA-Well, I, no, because there's multiple colors, multiple sizes. MR. BREWER-I guess that's what my, not really a problem, I guess, but I guess, if me were going to buy a shed, and I saw them all ,over there, I certàinly would go there and look at 'them;', I wouldn't go to the Garden Center, because they're ,möredistinct there. MR. TROELSTRA-I can't prevent you from doing that. " MR. BREWER-No. I understand that. that you would want to accommodate some parking area. So, therefore, I,would think any potential customers with - 3 - MR. TROELSTRA-Tim, there is hardly anyone who stops there. There's more people walking their dogs in that stretch than there are people looking at my sheds and gazebos. MR. BREWER-! just have a hard time believing that. wrong. Maybe I'm MR. TROELSTRA-No. It is the case. If you sat that and observed it, as I do. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-I have a question. Why did you decide to go this way, since originally? MR. TROELSTRA-Let me clarify, yes. Keeping in mind, we are under contract with Earltown to purchase that particular property. We've been under contract since June of '94. We are actively pursuing this, as I've documented and sent to Jim's office, our efforts to close on this particular property. However, it's tied up with the fact that Earltown didn't properly. contact DEC, and it's been supposedly deemed wetland, that entire Earltown project. However, I am told that Lots One and Two are going to be exempt from that ruling. We're awaiting DEC to contact C.T. Male, and in turn, to contact Earltown, and in turn to allow us to purchase that parcel. Keeping in mind, when I applied for this site plan as you've seen, the old site plan, I'll call it, back in September, that was required by the Planning Board because it was a change of use. However, I came up with something more grandiose than what I was able to accomplish, but quite simply, I'm not going to put one dollar of improvement in that property until I close, and at the current time, I'm capable to be able to drive around with my forklift on that flat parcel of dry land. MR. RUEL-So, eventually, if you're able to this, you may revert back to the original application? accomplish all of plan and make an MR. TROELSTRA-Exactly. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. TROELSTRA-So then I'll reapply. Go back to this, or derivative of this at least, and hopefully, and, yes, there will be parking. There will be someone there to man it, and such, but currently it's just an area that we put our buildings in. MR. STARK-I have a question for Jim. Why does he have to be here tonight for a modification. He's already using it, and once he closes on it, then he would go with the original site plan. MR. MARTIN-Because he's not installing what was approved. He has a year to do so, and if it's not installed as approved, then it's in violation of the site plan. MR. STARK-Yes, but it won't be a year until September. MR. MARTIN-Well, we saw no, as a matter of fact, he, had them stored out in the street at some points this year. MR. STARK-I'm just asking, Jim. I mean, property now, why even bother to come in? closing on the property, when, roughly? if he's using the You're going to be MR. TROELSTRA-I can't say, George. Earltown is telling me, soon. I can only tell you what MR. BREWER-I've got a question for Mark. plan with nothing on it? I mean, there's Can we approve a site got to be some kind of - 4 - "--' --- '---", --.." requirements. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I'm not sure if it's a question for me or not, but, frankly, I share Staff's, I share the view that seems to me to be expressed in the staff commeMts,which is that the site plan, obviously, I had not seen it before Jim showed it to me. It doesn't look like much of a site plan to me. All this information is not on it. I think that, sInce the Staff comment, that if this were an initial application it would not be deemed complete and would not be put on an agenda, seems a reasonable comment, to me. ',¡ " MR~ RUEL-It wouldn't be a~ app1ication. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it would be part presumably, includes the site plan. of an application, MR. RUEL-He's not doing, anything with it. applied for anything. He wouldn't have MR. BREWER-I guess what ~ question was, Mark, is we've got to hàve some kind of minimum requirements for a site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Wet l, there I think the issue, is whether it's a modification, you know, that it's a modification. I mean, I don't think that anything in ,th~ Zoning ,Ordinance, and I don't think it's Staff's position that in order to apply för a modification you need to supply the full range of information that's necessary for ian i ni tial appl ication. MR. MARTIN-Remember, it's a modification. If you deny ~the 'modification, he's bound to the original approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. STARK-Jim, suppose he just asked for an,extension,~you know, which is no problem. MR. MARTIN-Because he's undertaking the use that was approved but he's not undertaking it in the manner that it was aþprd~ed. It was approved to occur in a certain manner, and it's not. The storage of sheds is ongoing, but not in the manner approvedt and that's why it's here. It was to occur under a certain plan and according to a certain manner with parking and a display area, a customer sales· booth and all that, and,it's notthere~ Now if you want to strictly allow the storage of sheds. MR. STARK-I have a question for the applicant. Do you plan on doing the improveme:nts, 'once you have clear, title to it? MR. TROELSTRA-Absolutely. As Roger asked, I want to resort back to this, George. MR. STARK-Would he have to come in, then, for a modification back to the original? MR. PALING-Sure~ yes. MR. MARTIN-I mean, if he wants to deviate from the original approval, then, yes, it requires, I mean; we can make some, we approve some minor things in the field, as changes, but something of a magnitude, you know, this great a magnitude is something ¡ don't feel comfortable with, allowing as, like, a field change. There's no parking. There's nothing. MR. BREWËR-I have a hard time with that. MR. PALING-Well, lets say we were to approve this tonight, that doesn't extend the approval of the original application. - 5 - MR. MARTIN-It changes it. MR. PALING-It changes it. Then he would have to come back in for a site plan approval of the revised, if he takes ownership of the land, he's got to come back in. MR. BREWER-And he mayor may not. I mean, he's not bound to. MR. MARTIN-Could they approve this modification for a limited amount of time? MR. SCHACHNER-If the applicant hasn't requested it for a certain amount of time, then that's not part of their authority, really. MR. BREWER-I feel that this application came in on a certain date, and the use is being undertaken, and there's no provisions. I mean, at least put some parking out there, something. MR. TROELSTRA-Parking for what, Tim? MR. BREWER-No matter what you tell me, I just have a hard time believing that a display like that doesn't attract people. I just, maybe L:m nuts, but I just have a hard time comprehending that. MR. STARK-I've never seen any cars parked up there, going up and down the road. MR. TROELSTRA-No. information, Tim. They'll park in ~ lot and come in for the MR. BREWER-But then they're walking across the want to go look at them, and I think,that's across Quaker Road. street if they unsafe, wal ki ng MR. TROELSTRA-There's people walking Quaker Road every day. MR. BREWER-I know. I understand that. MR. RUEL-He has samples on his own property. MR. HARLICKER-Lets say somebody wants to buy, you've got a ship out there, wooden pirate ship out there for kids to in. Somebody comes into your store and says, I'd like that. What's the procedure for them to purchase that? pirate climb to buy MR. TROELSTRA-I'd get out a pU1"chase and sale agreement and we do the transaction in my office. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Does he drive his vehicle over there to pick it up or do you forklift it across Quaker Road to your site? MR. TROELSTRA-I put it up, load it on a specially equipped trailer right there on the east service road, on that property, off the street. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. $0 you're providing your loading facilities off the street~ MR. TROELSTRA-It's not like I'm holding traffic up on the east service road. MR. HARLICKER-Other businesses in Town have to provide loading facilities on site. MR. TROELSTRA-I understand that, but if you put a traffic count on there, if you get more than 20 cars, I'd be surprised, in a day. MR. HARLICKER-That's irrelevant. - 6 - -- --- "-- -.../ MR. PALING-You're parking, loading. print in any way. asking for Now there's dimensions, setback, access, nothing like that shown on the MR. TROELSTRA-It's dimensionally,to scale. The develop~ent of the site, what we're requesting is a staging a,-ea. Setbacks, you don't want me to put the buildings, I guess, beyond a certain line, if you wish, I could move them up 10 feet off the road, as requested. I'm having a hard time trying to nail down what the Planning Board wants out of this. Keeping in mind that it is, I abided by their change of use. That was the hangup, June of last year, that it went from vacant to being used. ,I have an 8greementwith Earlto~n. We have a lease on that particular property, and I was able to provide that change of use, came in last September with'this site plan, with the undèrstanding I was going to close'on that particular parcel, much before this time. Obviously, in September of last year it, got caught up' in litigation, and here I am today, and I'm looking for, to continue what we've already established for a year. I would like to know if the Town is having any difficulty with what I've performed across the street. Have I tied up traffic? Have I cr~ated an unsafe condition? Have I got a runoff þroblem? What have I done. MR. BREWER-You haven't met the site plan that you've created. That's what you have~'t done. MR. PALING-But he's in for a change to it. MR. BREWER-Yes, but he's in fo,- a blank check. MR. PALING-Well, lets see. Scott, based on what You've heard 'tonight, would yóu change your comments in any way, that yoU made in your notes? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. PALING-You'd still like to? MR. HARLICKER-The information. I'm plan that was on area and loading probably should. business that came comment that, I'm not saying he saying that information is no the original plan. Should he area' designated on the site? It would be a requirement in. should put that longer on the have a parking I think you for any other MR. PALING-Those sheds ' have to be delivered and then picked up and taken somewhere else. So I can understand Scott's request for parking and access. MR. TROELSTRA-It's it lies, with this the trailer. So loadi ng area.' pretty easy. I pickup the shed right where trailer. I plop it right where it lies, with I'm designating then the entire area as a MR. PALING-Well, I think what Scott is saying, that under normal application, which this would be anyway, that we requirefthat access be identified, that parking space be identified, but it isn't identified in this situation. MR. TROELSTRA-There's no parking required. MR. RUEL-He's talking about access, or loading, each individual shed. He would have that throughout the whole property. MR. TROELSTRA-Right. MR. RUEL-There shed and then that's missing is no one particular place where he would bring a load it on to something. The only thing I think out of this is perhaps 'a setback and perhaps a - 7 - -.../ - statement to the effect, what that new triangle will contain. To me, that's the only thing that's missing. MR. MARTIN-Are you going to do any of your landscaping, Fred? MR. TROELSTRA-No. No improvements until I close, Jim. It's senseless to put money in it if I'm not going to get it back. MR. RUEL-What's on that property now, grass? MR. TROELSTRA-Grass. It's dry, too. I don't know where the hang up is on the w~tlamd. MR. PALING-All right. If we're going to require that more detail be provided, lets discuss now, I'm not saying that this is what we ~ do, but what is it that we want added to the detail, specifically? MR. BREWER-Setbacks, parking. MR. PALING-Okay. Setbacks, I think that I understand. MR. RUEL-Well, he says no parking, so how can we ask for it? MR. STARK-No retail customers. MR. PALING-No retail parking. MR. BREWER-How can you prevent people from going looking, though? I guess that's ~ question. couldn't prevent it. in there He told and he MR. PALING-I think the way it looks, the grass is grown high and the sheds are not arranged in neat, lets say retail order. It doesn't look like a real attractive retail display right now. They're just sitting there, from my observation this weekend, and the grass is grown. It doesn't promote, I don't think. MR. RUEL-Especially since samples are on his property. MR. MARTIN-Well, there's no re.son why certain things like, I see on the old plan a 50 foot setback is going to be maintained for placement of sheds for display. There's no reason why that still can't continue. Because part of the problem, quite frankly, has been the placement of the sheds. We've had complaints from the Highway Department, and I think they've also been stored off of this lot. They've been stored on the adjacent lot as well. What was the greatest number you had out there this past year, in the spr i ng? MR. TROELSTRA-Thirty or forty. MR. MARTIN-And I think they've been off site, in an effort to place them so they can be seen from Quaker Road. They've been placed one right next to the other, even off of this lot. Now is the storage going to be contained to this lot? MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, it is. MR. PALING-Now there was a problem with compliance, to setback from the Town road. MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, and I've done so. Upon Jim's Office request, I moved them. MR. PALING-But didn't it take quite a long time? MR. TROELSTRA-No. He made the request and I moved them. MR. MARTIN-Well, lets suggest this as a compromise, then, or I - 8 - '--' -../ - -".' will. Store the sheds at an agreed upon setbä¢kdistance from the front property line,'and have a repórt back; '~t leaèt to the Planning Office, if not to the Board, within a set amount of time, as to the status of the ownershiþL MR. TROELSTRA-I've been cee-ceeing everything ito you anyway. MR. STARK-Jim, are you saying, in lieu of the modification to this, just get that agreed upon and just let it go until he'gets title? MR. MARTIN-Yes. So we stay abreast of wh~t's g6ingon with the title and the ownership, and at that time, the agreement is, you'll, upon ownership, you install the original site plan? MR. TROELSTRA-Or, I'll come in with a¡ it's going to be very close to that, yes. I have, at this point, Jim, no reason to change, unless, but I can't tell you what Earltown is finally going to. MR. MARTIN-I understànd the bind you're in. I understand that. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Staff. When the applicant came in and he showed the Staff people the plan, didn't he, as we see it? MR. MARTIN-It arrived. MR. RUEL-Did you have an opportunity to comment on it then and indicate' that setbacks should be indicated and so fortH? MR. HARLICKER-No. It was just dropped off. MR. RUEL-So the applicant was furnishing what he thought was requi red. MR. TROELSTRA-Based on conversations with you, Jim. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's true. MR. RUEL-And now we're asking for some additional information beyond what was originally accepted? MR. MARTIN-Right, and after they come in, submission. that's typical. We and there's always review applications comment after the MR. RUEL-It's a major comment, though, because it means revising this thing. MR. MARTIN-Show a setback line. MR. TROELSTRA-I can do that right now. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm saying. MR. STARK-Jim, setback, and to where he stands that he will go property, he has if the applicant agreed to like say' a 20 foot keep you abreast, once a month, as to the status, with the property purchase, and the agreement with the original site plan, you know, once the title to the property, is that okay? MR. MARTIN-That's up to the Board. MR. PALING-Don't nail him to the original. I think he might want to modify it a little bit. MR. RUEL-I don't think it's necessary to monitor this. Why? I mean, if we approve this, that's the way he goes. We don't have to monitor anything, if he comes back a year later. - 9 - MR. PALING-Well, okay. Let me just ask a question. you do if ownership dQesn't change, if they back out? What will MR. TROELSTRA-I still have an agreement with Earltown, until that property gets sold to someone else. MR. PALING-Okay, and what would you do about the site plan then? MR. TROELSTRA-I would continue to stage the sheds there. MR. PALING-All application. right, but not do it like the original MR. TROELSTRA-That is correct. MR. PALING-So then what we would approve tonight, if they decided not to sell, is what you would be using permanently. MR. TROELSTRA-Correct. MR. STARK-I was thinking not even have this modification, just have an agreement from the applicant, forget this. Just have an agreement from the applicant to keep Jim abreast of what's going on, and to keep a 20 foot setback, and revert to the original once he gets title. MR. BREWER-He just has to abide by the setbacks in the zone, right? MR. MARTIN-Well, the other element of this permanent structures. They're not affixed They're just placed there. They're temporary. subject to a building setback. is they're not to the ground. So they're not MR. RUEL-George, if what you say is correct, there was no need for this applicant to be here tonight. MR. STARK-Well, Jim had concerns. MR. MARTIN-My concern was the use was occurring and not according to the plans approved by the Board. MR. RUEL-So there is a reason for him to be here tonight. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. BREWER-I'll tell you right now, I'll vote no accepting this plan because I mean it's just, go ahead and do whatever you want, and we're just, I mean, we're not approving anything. We're approving absolutely nothing, no detail whatsoever. MR. PALING-Okay. What is it you want to see on the plan? MR. MARTIN-And that's why we put them on this first meeting, because we saw th¡s, we have a new meeting next week. You have a week to make any corrections and come back, if that's were the case. MR. PALING-Okay. So he could be on next week. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-A!l right. I think we've kind of thrashed it a little bit. Lets start and tell, okay, Tim, lets start with you. What is it you want to see? MR. BREWER-There's a lot of elements on the other site plan that, he had landscaping, and I don't think he should go to a lot of - 10 - "---" '--./ -- --./ expense if he doesn't own the þroperty, but on the same hand, he's using the use, he should do something. He should show some sort of parking, whether anybody uses it or not. It's a requirement that every site plan has. MR. TROELSTRA-I don't agree. MR. BREWER-Well, you can or can't agree. MR. TROELSTRA-It's not retail, Tim. MR. BREWER-I'm saying he should have some sort of parking facilities. Loading I'm not real concerned about, but I think he should do some sort of landscaping or whatever, maybe not, I don't have a big problem with landscaping. At least parking at the minimum. MR. PALING-Okay. So you want setbacks, and you want parking shown as available. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. All right.' Roger? MR. RUEL--I'd like to see the setbacks indicated on the plan, but I would also like to see, as notes on the plan, exactly what the use will be of that triangle, in 'other words, what you will store there, how you will store it, and how you will remove the sheds, or whatever, as a statement, as notes on the plan. MR. MARTIN-Is there an interest i nàny limit, in number of 'sheds, quantity of sheds stored? MR. RUEL-As long as they fit setback requirements. in that triangle and he meets the '! MR. PALING-All right. You don't care about the number because we're spacing, we don't care. MR. BREWER-No. If he has a particdlar setback thai we'agiee upon or whatever, I mean, he could only put so many in there anyway because they're all different sizes. MR. RUEL-And I don't want to see any parking, because I don't want anyone to park there. MR. PALING-And you don't want parking. Okay. Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-I think this has been kind of confusing from the onset, and I probably have that look on my face, but as far as parking goes, I haVe parked over there myself, and if I was' going to purchase a shed ora recreation piece for my children, and it was across the street, and I was going to fork out that kind of money, rO would definitely gb OVèr there.! wouldn't' look at the one that's next to the building on the other side of the road. I would say, I wänt to go over there and see exactly what I am buying, what you're going to put on that forklift and deliver to my house. So, I would definitely go over on that property~ It was very hard for me to comprehend that people would spend that kind of money and just w,"ite up an order form on the other side of the street, arid not make any effort 'at all to visibly just take a look, a close up look, as to what they were buying. So, I just would like a little more detail. What I wôuld'llke is, if, there has to be some kind of parking because I know that people will go there, even if it's just a few people,'I know that they will be there. I've driven by myself on Quaker Road and pulled over in there just to kind of walk around and see what's going on. MR. RUEL-Cathy, are you aware that he has saMple~ of all these - 11 - --.. buil~ings on his property? MRS. LABOMBARD-But I don't think everybody knows he does. If you're just coming down the road, and you see all these storage sheds there, sometimes, I mean, there's people that will just go right over there and say, I didn't know you had them across the street, and I've done that before. I'm talking about, now you and I, we live here. We know that now, but what about the person that comes in from Hartford or Argyle or Whitehall or Rutland or whatever" and'¡i,wqw" løc;>k at those storage $heds; Lets check these out. MR. PALING-But the more attractive display is on the main, across the street. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, but it also depends on what you see first, too. MR. PALING-All right, but what you want, you want parking. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'd like to have some kind of parking, even though, it doesn't have to be for a lot of vehicles, but for a few, and all the other things that you talked about, I have to comply with, the setbacks, keeping us informed, I think, until the property is, the Earltown property is purchased. MR. PALING-Okay. All right, George? MR. STARK-Just setbacks, that's all. MR. PALING-Okay. You want setbacks. Okay. I'm most concerned with setbacks myself, and I think that we've got to ask for those to be on there, and I think we're all in agreement that there should be some kind of a schedule set up so you can inform Staff as to the progress towards the closing of this. Now, parking, we're mixed on that. I don't mean it's an unattractive lot. I'm saying it's not attractive to retail customers, and so I don't have a parking need in my own mind, but where there's a split on that, and We may have to have parking in this. I think we've heard enough from each other now. Does somebody want to make a motion for this? MR. TROELSTRA-To of those sheds, special ordered. catalog. answer Catherine's concern about the retailing nine out of ten of my sheds that I sell are So the people never even see them, out of a MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Well, that's not what I understood when you first talked about it, when you first came in. MR. TROELSTRA-That's the case. Those there are ones that have been ordered, dropped, and then are, I schedule and get them to the different customers. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, then that changes the situation, I would say. MR. PALING-Those are mostly sold units? MR. TROELSTRA-No, not ~ostly sold, no. There are sold units over there. That is correct. MR. PALING-What percentage is sold? MRS. LABOMBARD~Out of thirty to forty sheds that are over there. MR. TROELSTRA-At least a third. MR. PALING-Okay. So it is heavy traffic in the catalog thing. - 12 - --- '-' '- -- MR. TROELSTRA-Because there's a number of different sizes and colors. I can't possibly have each type. MR. PALING-All riøht. Now there So we're not involved with that. a motion for this. is nó'þublic' hearing on this. So we can just go ahead and get MR. RÜ~L-All right. .!( MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. I.1.Mf., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for seconded by George Stark: 30-94 GARDEN its adoption, With the condition that the setbacks be indicated 50 foot setback for the front, 25 foot setback for the rear, and a 50 foot total setback fór the sides, with one side a minimum of . 20 feet, and the sheds be located within the setback requirements. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: MR. RUEL-With the cdndition that the existing plan be modified to indicate setbacks. MR. STARK-Twenty foot, Jim? MR. RUEL-Well, whatever is called for in the zoning. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-There isn't any. MR. TROELSTRA-For temporary structures, I'd like to see 10. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think we have to make drifts and that type of thing, I mean, at the Board. I can tell you the setback, I in the Highway Commercial zone? accommodation for plow a mlnlmum. 'It's up to think, for, what is it MR. PALING-I thought we could just say for whatever the zoning 6alls for, but you're saying no on that? MR. MARTIN-Well, no. M~. HARLICKER-The original plan had 50 feét, the shed set back 50 feet from the property line. MR. PALING-All right. in the' orIginal plan. Then why don't we just stick with what's Fifty feet would cover. MR. MARTIN-That's the front setback in that zone, as well. MR. RUEL-That's the front, but what about the side and rear? MR. BREWER-Front 50, rear 25. MR. MARTIN-The side is a sum of 50 with a 20 foot minimum. In other words, you could have 30 and 20 or 25 and 25. MR. RUEL-Okay. All right. With the condition that the setbacks be indicated, fifty feet setback for the front, twenty-five foot setback for the rear, and a fifty foot total setback for the sides, with one not to exceed a minimum of 20 feet. MR. MARTIN-And sheds be limited setbacks. could I also ask that say, to those areas, then, you and the storage of know, within those MR. RUEL-Okay. With the stipulation that the sheds be located within the setback requirements. - 13 - i,-, MR. BREWER-What are we doing about parking, no parking or parking? MR. RUEL-I'm not talking parking. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Did you want to set up a schedule, or does it make any difference? MR. MARTIN-It depends on the Board's interest in pursuing the original site plan. If you want to leave it as it exists, or if the intention of the applicant is to actually conduct the sales of these from this site, as was the original plan. I mean, you did have a sales booth indicated. MR. TROELSTRA-I don't now, and I still have a problem with the 50 foot setback. Why is that requirement being dictated now? What is the requirements on temporary structures, Jim? MR. MARTIN~There are none, but I would think. MR. TROELSTRA-I would like to go to 10 foot, as you had requested. That's plenty for drift. MR. MARTIN-I will say, there are none, but I will also think the practical effect of the placement of these is that of a permane~t structure, because they have appearance of that of a permanent structure. add that I structures the visual MR. TROELSTRA-You're talking e~st service road of Quaker Road. MR. MARTIN-Right now it's very vacant. What happens if we get a boom and five years from now every lot on that's sold? Then it's going to be different. MR. TROELSTRA-It's a temporary structure, Jim. MR. MARTIN-That's true. MR. TROELSTRA-It could be a camper I could be putting there, right, on wheels, within 10 feet? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TROELSTRA-Should I put them all on wheels? MR. MARTIN-No. You're missing the point. If the Board wants to impose a restriction like that, they have the authority to do so. MR. PALING-Yes. I think we should have it, plus the fact, you've got to realize that you're going in one route and may go another one some day, but then if you're going to stick with what you've got right now, then I think you should stick with the setback that you have in the original plan. MR. TROELSTRA-That setback in the original plan included the parking in, the placement of those buildings in th~t particular plan is made permanent by the fact that there's sidewalks and so fqrth to go in þet¡ween those buildings. MR. MARTIN-If the only use of this s~te is for storage of these sheds, a.od not. display or sales, why is the setback . a problem then? Why do you care ,if you have to store them way in the back cQrner? Y,ou'·re ,just going there, to,pl¡.tt them on, a trailer, you , sai.d . MR. TROELSTRA-The footprint, what if I need to add more buildings to it? There is some woods in the back that 1 have to clear. - 14 - ---/ J '>-, MR. MARTIN-I mean, how does that limit your area? Because it's not shown on the site plan. We have no idea what that vegetated area is. MR. BREWER-We're going way off. We made the motion. Lets vote and get it over with. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard~ Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr~ Þaling NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. , MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer MR. MARTIN~When would the Board like the site plan submitted showing the setbacks? MR. BREWER-Next week. MR. PALING-I don't see anything wrong with it beihg submitted next week. We want a new plan with all the detail. We do like the opportunity to get these in time to go, not'súbmitted the night of the meeting, but I want them in time. MR. MARTIN-This is approved now. I'm talking 'about for my stamp as Zoning Administrator. MR; SCHACHNER-Yes. The way you just did this, you're not going to see this again. Okay, and I'm not sure if the Board understands that or not. MR. PALING-It's got to go to Staff. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. The way you just, you're decision just now is an approval~ with a condition that would be fulfilled by supplying the requisite information to the Staff. If that wasn't your intention, then you should rescind what you've just done. If your intention is to see this information again as a Planning Board, that's not what you've just indicated. MR. PALING-Okay. No. That's all right. MR. MARTIN-Usually, site plan stamping, and we have an agreed these setbacks shown, Fred? How those on? requires Zoning Administrator upon time. When can you get long would it take you to get MR. TROELSTRA-When do you need them? MR. MARTIN-By the end of the week would be nice. MR. TROELSTRA-The end of the week. MR. RUEL-May I ask the applicant, do you know exactly what we want on this modified plan? MR. TROELSTRA-If I don't, I'm sure Jim will help me with it. MR. PALING-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 24-94 UNLISTEDWILLÎAM THREW OWNER:' SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 24,750 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND '37,906 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE. WAREHOUSE IS A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW~ CROSS REFERENCE: SP 80-90 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/8/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-7.25 LOT SIZE: 7.77 ACRES SECTION 179-26 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BILL THREW, PRESENT '- 15 - - MR. PALING-Okay. I have a question before we begin. have a print here I've never seen before, which is What is it different from what I already have? What is, I dangerous. MR. MILLER-This print was created in response to Rist-Frost's comments, wanted to see detail on the septic system, on the fire hydrants, on the water line installations. This was submitted to Rist-Frost and approved. MR. PALING-Then this has nothing discussed, with the placement and Okay. to do with the the removal of print we different? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-95, William Threw, Meeting Date: June 20, 1995 "The applicant has proposed a clean up plan for the site that ties in with the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy. The area near the entrance will be landscaped by June 30 except for where the utilities will be located along the north property line. Phase II, which includes the area around the warehouse addition. will be cleaned up before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the addition. Phase III includes the remainder of the site and will be completed before a building permit is issued. The applicant has indicated that material not utilized in construction or removed from the site will be sorted and stored in a rear storage area that is currently used for storing top soil. The concept of issuing permits contingent on cleaning up portions of the site is sound. It appears the applicant would like to start construction of the addition as soon as possible, so having the issuance of the C.O. contingent on having that part of the site cleared seems reasonable. Phase III is more of a long range plan, so if having the site cleared quickly is a concern, a definite clean up date should be established." MR. HARLICKER-We've got a memo from Rist-Frost saying, "Other than suggesting that bollards be provided at each hydrant, we have no further engineering comments." MR. PALING-Okay. So they're okay with Rist-Frost, then. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. That takes care of that. MR. RUEL-Scott, this other letter from Rist-Frost? MR. HARLICKER-That's the most recent one, yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Now we have heard from the Beautification Committee on this. We've reviewed that and we're okay. Warren County Planning signed off on this. So it's up to us, now, to review this, and I guess, we've all visited the site, I think, several times. I think I'll just throw it open, first, to the Board, for any comments that you might have. Roger, do you have any questions on this? MR. RUEL-Well, there's a Rist-Frost letter here dated June 19th. I don't know whether that was taken care of or whether the applicant knows about it? MR. PALING-Yes. That's taken care of, yes. MR. RUEL-What's a bollard? MR. MILLER-It's a pipe in the ground to protect the hydrant from a truck running into it or something like that. We'll add those. - 16 - >- -../ MR. RUEL-I see. That's a fancy name for it. Okay. No. I don't have any questions. I think we've been through this thing many, many times. Where is Phaae III, while I'm looking at this map. MR. PALING-Roger, lets not go to Phase III yet, please. MR. RUEL-No, no, no, but I Just want to know where it is. not listed on the plan, that's the only' reason I'm asking. It's MR. PALING-Well, it may not be listed. It's this building here. MR. MILLER-This is Phase II. Phase III is in the back. Here's a note here that says, Phase III plans, and that's this area right here. MR" RUEL-I see. Okay. It's hard to tell. MR. MILLER-Well, I can make that very front, we're talking about. line heavier. Phase I is the Phase II is back to here. MR. RUEL-Yes. See, that's not listed, either. See how nice it is here? He should have it heYe and should have it here. MR. BREWER-Well, I thirik this means this building. MR. RUEL-Just th~ building. Yes. All right. I know where Phase I and III are, and, II. I'm very happy with this. MR. BREWER-I guess I've got these, what we're going to going to be issued until all but where are they going to map. just a couple of questions.' All determine tonight, is the CO's not these piles, the circles, are moved, be put? I don't see that on this MR. MILLER-My name is Jim Miller of Miller Associates. MR. THREW-Bill Threw. MR. BREWER-This topsoil area you have here, all this stuff you're going to move and clean up and whatever you're going to do with it, where is it going? MR. MILLER-Right now, the rear lot, which is not included in the construction of the warehouses, is a rear lot of 3.7 acres, back here. This large oval represents the area, now, where the topsoil operation is ongoing. There is a 50 foot wooded setback back here where we abut the residential area. The topsoil is, right now it's being removed from this area of the site, and this topsoil pile is being cleared back in this direction. So the intent is many equipment, some trucks, steel beams, and some of those types of things that are used in construction, that are not labeled to be removed, they would be stored in this back area here, which is surrounded by woods. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you explain, you have circles with numbers. Explain the numbers to us, because I think that's the clue to how this is gOing to take place. MR. BREWER-There's a legend right there, Bob. MR. RUEL-It's on the legend. MR. MILLER-What we tried to do is identify different categories of material on the site. The first one, number one, is debris, such as stumps and scrap iron, things like that, are just going to be removed from the site. Number Two are construction materials that are going to be either used in the construction of this building or another site. For example, the gravel pile, as well as the topsoil, are those type of materials that will be removed. Number Three is the equipment that will be stored on - 17 - '-, the site, and Number Four were some mixtures of things. Some of it wouldn't, and that would be sorted. areas that were, there was would be useful and some MR. PALING-Okay. Within the boundary lines of Phase I and Phase II, do you have any kind of material left after you do all of the things you've said here, one through four? MR. MILLER-Back to this point? MR. PALING-Yes, to that boundary line there, yes. MR. MILLER-Would there be anything left on the site or in this area? MR. PALING-Well, in the whole area, is there anything left, any kind of material left? MR. MILLER-Back to this line, no. MR. PALING~Okay. It's all clear. It's a flat parking lot. MR. MILLER-Yes, and improved according to the site plan. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. Lets just clarify the talking. Building site to be cleared by June 30th. that's the same boundary line that you just explained. dates we're I assume MR. MILLER-That's right. the building as soon as the site and the limits and some of the material in the construction. construction phase, this Phase II line, would be nearing completion, that would look for the co. Mr. Threw would like to break ground on possible. So that would mean clearing of the building, and then the balance, that's here is actually going to be used So what would happen, during the summer, the balance of this, back to the cleared, and then when the building is site work would be finished, before he MR. PALING-Well, all Number One's could be complied with right away. There's no need to delay those. Okay. So the One's can be right away. Now, construction material's different. I can understand where it would work. Can you say that construction material that won't be used in the building will be taken away? MR. THREW-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Say that again, Bob? MR. PALING-Item Number Two, construction materials to be removed. If the material's going to be used in the construction of the building, it would stay, but if it's not going to be, it can be removed now. MR. BREWER-Okay. The only thing that we have a Number Two on, in this second phase, is a brick pile. MR. PALING-No. You've got a brick pile. You've got a gravel. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry. I'm looking at the building. MR. PALING-You've got stone, brick. I've got three Number Two's, anyway. MR. MILLER-Well, some of the material is labeled as Number Four's, also. Some of the things that we looked at, like the conduit. and the metal studs and those items, if they were not used in the building, they would be removed. - 18 - ,,--,' "'--' -'" MR~ PALING-Okay, not in building. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying, Bob, is the brick pile and the tires, they're not going to be used in that building, right, or are they? MR. THREW-They are all going to be used in the building. MR. BREWER-They are? That's right. You said something about the roof. MR. PALING-All right. Then construction materials, the same thing. Okay. Now Four's can be taken out, too, can~t they, because they're going to be moved to the rear. MR. MILLER-The majority of that but there's some items in there, things like that, which would be would also be removed. will be removed frbm the aite, some structural steel and some stored. The majority of those MR. PALING-There's not much time between now and June 30th. Is this underway now? Have you started it already? Will you meet it? Will you meet June 30th? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Is there any time frame to clear the Phase III iite, or is that just? MR. MILLER-Well, what we were looking for is, that this year concentràtion would be to build a Phase II building and the site work around that, because there's quite a pile of topsoil back there, and that's bei ngremoved as it's sold. So that's why' that would b~ finalized next year, in preparation for building the final building. Most of the Phase III is the bark chips and the topsoil. That's the biggest part of that. Most of the mixed material is right in the middle of the site. MR. PALING-Bark chips. Explain. MR. MILLER-Those are wood chips. MR. PALING-I know what they are, but where? MR. MILLER-That's right in here. MR. PALING-That's in Phase III. MR. MARTIN-So, basically, by the end of October, that first bold line, everything will be cleared back to that first bold line by the end of October. MR. BREWER-No. I thought by the end of June? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. PALING-No. He said everything. MR. MARTIN-Site cleared by September 30th~ co date. September 30th. Okay. MR. BREWER-You've got me confused. What's going to happen before June 30th? MR. RUEL-Building site to be cleared. MR. MARTIN-I think he's going to cleár the area for the building pad by June 30th, then, and then by the CO time, you'll hðve the rest of the site cleared up. He's going to just ábout have to because of all the driveway improvements and things that are - 19 - called for. MR. RUEL-Building completed September 30th. MR. PALING-Okay, but we did say, though, that all Item One's, how many Item One's have we got? There's one, that's mostly logs and brush and stumps. Item One's go now, and there's only one Item One. MR. MARTIN-No, there's several. MR. PALING-All right. Where do they go? MR. BREWER-He's got 55 gallon drums back here. MR. PALING-Back here. that. Okay. All right. I was within the border of MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think what's been confusing is the list of those item numbers, One, Two, and Three and Four has no link to the building construction. It's just, quite simply, that that first area around Phase II is going to be done by the fall, and the balance of it will be done at a point in the future. MR. PALING-Well, we can, however, put dates on the item numbers to have them removed. MR. MARTIN-If you want to, yes. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-You're saying that all Number One's should be done by when, Bob? MR. PALING-Well, we said June 30th. MR. BREWER-So that means way back in the back part of Phase III, the logs, the stumps, way in the back here on the top are going to be gone? MR. MILLER-That's like next week. That's going to be hard to do, but. MR. BREWER-:Yes, but we didn't set this last year, ,didn't we? Didn't we set this date last year? MR. MILLER-Well, no. I don't think we spoke this specifically. I think it was left very open, that it was going to be looked into, and I don't think anything happened from that, but I think, in fairness, to have some time to move that, the same time the Phase II building is under construction, we said all those, in Phase III, that were Number One items would be completed, as far as Phase II. It would be done by the end of the summer. MR. RUEL-Excu~e me. Why don't all right. Phase II, and then items that will be removed and the same thing for Phase III. all mixed up. we have a legend set up, by Phase, indicate in Phase II all of the put dates on those, and then do Because the way it is now, it's MR. MILLER-I think that's what we tried to do. I could qualify it if you like. MR. PALING-I think that's what he's doing. In my mind, that's what going to come out of it. It's going to end up as that, with a schedule for removal, a specific schedule, yes. MR. RUEL-Say Phase II, and under Phase II we'll put a listing of all the items, one, two and three, and four, whatever. - 20 - '--' -- '--' -/ MR. MILLER-Yes, well that's what I thought we had. MR. RUEL-No, you don't have thé.t. MR. BREWER-Yes, he does. MR. PALING-It's in there. MR. RUEL-It's buried then. MR. BREWER-Waste to be removed from waste to be removed from the site, 30t h . the site, and Bob said that all Number One's, by June MR. RUEL-Where does it say that? MR. BREWER-Bob just said it. MR. PALING-Well, i t"s also to the left of the phased, right in the left middle of the print, Phase II. MR. RUEL-Yes. In Phé.se II, all Items One will be removed by June 30th. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. RUEL-Only in Phase II, though. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. RUEL-Okay, because Phase III also has item one's, to be done, perhaps, at a lateY date. MR. PALING-Well, yes, but what ~. like II, and we can make that part of the address Phase III. to do is clear up Phase motion, and then we'll MR. RUEL-Right. Whatever's left over, actually. MR. PALING-Yes, because it's all got to be done. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-And any other comments, lets look at Phase II, okay. MR. BREWER-What you're saying is all the Number One's in Phase II have to be done by June 30th. ! MR. PALING-Yes, all the One's in Phase II. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's just that one circle. MR. PALING-That could be. MRS. LABOMBARD-When we were there last week, we thought the whole building site, this whole area, was going to be free of all this stuff by June 30th. MR. PALING-Okay. No, that wasn't my understanding, not going to be using brick on the roof of the building. He want to move it back. if he's doesn't MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. All right. I understand that. MR. BREWER-No. He's going to be using the tires on the roof. MR. THREW-Everything over there in that old area, is going to be gone by June 30th. Everything. second phase, i MR. PALING-All right. You agree that Number One's have gone, in - 21 - Phase II. MR. THREW-Everything in Phase II, in that outline that we have, is going to be done by June 30th. Everything. MR. PALING-Scrap iron, steel angles, brick, everything. MRS. LABOMBARD-That was the general agreement last week., MR. PALING-That simple. MR. BREWER-Right. Lets just make it real simple. Everything in Phase II, building envelope, will be cleared by June 30th. MR. PALING-That's what I heard. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's it. MR. BREWER-He said he's got it written on his paper here. By the CO time for the occupancy of Building Number Two, Phase III will be clean. MRS. LA80MBARD-Right. MR. RUEL-Yes, but Phase II here is only the building, isn't it? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. It's the whole area. I mean, you can't dig a foundation for that building and do all that unless that other stuff gets out of there. MR. MILLER-Phase III cleared for building mea n . won't be cleared permit of Phase for the CO. III, þec~use It will be that would MR. BREWER-I'm speaking to the Number One items. MR. MILLER-Number One items. Okay. Yes. MR. RUEL-Your Phase II indicated here on the plan, is that the building alone, or is that a whole area? MRS. LABOMBARD-It's the whole area. MR. MILLER-There's two Phase II's. The Phase II, they're actually tied together. Phase II's clearing is actually tied in with the Phase II building. MR. RUEL-Yes, but it's not shown as such. MR. BREWER-Phase II of this structure it's going to be, this is the Phase II, but he's going to have to do all this stuff. MR. RUEL-All plan, okay. area. I'm saying is It's shown as that Phase II a building. is not shown It's not shown on this as an MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, it's shown as area up there where he has the green, Roger. Jim's outlined it in green up there. See. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know. That's great, but it's not on here. MR. MILLER-No. It's this line here. It's all of this here. MR. RUEL-I agree with you, but I'm saying, it's not on the plan, and we're supposed to approve the plan, and I don't have that gr€;!en one. MR. MILLER-I will darken those lines up. MR. PALING-We do have it, Roger, in dark outline here. This is - 22 - ',-" ~ '--' --'" Phase II. MR. RUEL-All right. Okay. So all right. Items One, Two, Three and Four, all to be done by June 30, 1995, for Phase II. MR. PALING-For Phase II. MR. RUEL-Okay. Now we go to III? MR. PALING-All right. Lets go to Phase III. Now these will be done by, can we put a date on this of September 30th, well, it says October 30th, sitè work to be completed. MR. MARTIN-Phase III it says, May 1st of '96. MR. BREWER-I think we have to stick with what he's building right now. MRS. LABOMBARD~Yes. MR. BREWER-Lets not call it Phase III. MR. PALING-All right. Phase III? Can we do this without doing anything to MR. BREWER-He's got to come back in for Phase III anyway, right, Jim? MR. MARTIN-It's up to you. I mean, you could apþrove the whole thing. MR. BRËWER-Why don't we approve the whole thing that he's going to come back for Phase III, and would he have to, well, then he'd have to reapply. with the then we idea 'can, MR. MILLER-Well, what we were looking to do is ,if we could agree on the Phase lines, and divide the dates i~to the site 6lean up, so that we could go, we get a building permit for Phase II, when we complete the front planting, and the buildIng site's cleared, we get a building permit, and to g~t the CO, all the Phase II site work area would be complete. Everything. Grading and seeding and the landscaping, and the rear site would be cleàned before we got a building permit on Phase III, and then the co would be tied Into completing all that site work. MR. MARTIN-Are those dates realistic, that you've got shown here for Phase III, projecting so far into the future? MR. THREW-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Because I don't have a problem with that Phase III site is way back from the road. as he sticks to these dates, and it's agreeable. that. I mean, I mean, as long MR. PALING-What do you mean by cleared? MR. THREW-That means that if I don't rent the building, I will still clear the site. MR. PALING-Okay. Cleared meaning? MR. BREWER-Free of debris. MR. THREW-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-So that you can walk through there and not run into anything. MR. THREW-It will be completely free of debris, anything that's not meant to be on that. - 23 - -.-' MR. RUEL-Isn't it adjacent to residential property? MR. BREWER-But there's a buffer provided there. MR. MILLER-There's a 50 foot required buffer there, and that's all heavily wooded back there. MR. BREWER-Right. Remember when we went back there that time? It's real thick woods so you don't have to worry about it. MR. RUEL-Okay. Now Phase III will be completely free of debris by? MR. PALING-May 1, 1996. MR. MARTIN-And we're clear on what debris is. I want it to be, well, that's something I'm using for Even things that you consider good stuff, because I and, okay, as long as w.'re cl.ar. mean, I don't my business. 'look at stuff MR. PALING-Mr. Threw has stated that if it doesn't grow, it's debris. MR. THREW-I'll agree to that. MR~ PALING-Thank you. MRS. LABOMBARD-What about if the price of steel isn't good and you can't sell it? MR. THREW-I already plan to get rid of that. It's already on its way. MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, would you recommend that the dates for Phase II and III be on the plan? MR. PALING-They are on the plan. MR. HARLICK~R-The dates are on the plan. MR. RUEL-The same ones we were talking about? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Staff, do you have any more comments? MR. MARTIN-No. ~ehav. enoug~'~uid~nce out of 'the site plan to enforce that site plan. MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing's still open. anyone here from the public who would like to comment? Is there PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-You've got a SEQRA Review. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 24-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, $econded by George Stark: - 24 - ..- -- -.. WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before W~LLIAM THREW, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmèntal Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Ouality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Oueensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the appl icant . 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 ~èt fotth 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 b~ underta~en by this Board will havi no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessafy a ~t~tement 'of non-signiflcande or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. ~uel, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO APPROV~ SITE PLAN NO. 24-95 WILL~AM THREW, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Star k: As written. That the debris removal is considered to be anything that doesn't grow, and that these conditions be contingent upon CO. No CO issued without these conditions b~~Q~ met, temporary or f i na 1 . Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application, file I 24-95 to construct an addition to an existing warehouse and a second warehou'se;and ' Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 4/27/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet SP-l, 2. Sheet SP-2, 3 " Sheet ." SP-3 , )'6/16/951 4. Sheet SP-4, Site Plan, revised 5/2/95 Grading and Erosion Control, dated 5/2/95 Sanitar,y Sewer and Water Plan, revised . ~, ' ; , ~ ..< ¡ - ' Clearing and Phasing Plan, dated 6/5/95 , , ' Whereas, the above file is supported with the following - 25 - "--" documentation: 1. Staff not~s, dated 5/25/95, 6/20/95 2. Engineering comments, dated 5/19/95, 5/31/95, 6/19/95 3. Stormwater Management report, dated 4/27/95; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/25/95 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). ' Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve, deny site plan # 24-95. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. ' , 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced 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 20th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer; Mr" Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. MARTIN-Just to let the applicant know, too, as standard practice, we, try and have preconstruction conferences on commercial site plans with John Goralski. So ,if you want to come in before your building permit's issued and sit down with John and go through that. Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 29-95 TYPE II DARWIN AND CYNTHIA DELAPPA OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: SEELYE ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING DOCK, THEN ¡NSTALL A CANVAS COVER OVER BOAT SLIP. DOCKS ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. LGPC, APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-15.2 LOT SIZE: .45 ACRES SECTION: 179-60B GARY ZIBRO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, site Plan No. 29~95, Darwin & Cynthia DeLappa, Meeting Date: June 20, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to construct an 8' x 36' addition to their dock. The project also includes a canvas cover over the boat slip. The application was compared to the relevant portions of Section 1789-60 of the Zoning Code regarding docks. The project complies with the requirements of the section with one exception. The applicant should clarify the length of the addition so that the dimensions - 26 - ------' '- ..-' of the dock can be accurately assessed." MR. HARLICKER-It appears that the addition, if numbers, it apþears that it's goin~ to be 41 length of docks are restricted to 40 feet. Drawing Number One, existing and proposed. you add up feet long, I'm looking the and at MR. ZIBRO-My name is Gary Zibro, contractor, Finishing Touch. DARWIN DELAPPA MR. DELAPPA-Darwin DeLappa. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to address Scott's comment. MR. ZIBRO-I don't understand where he's getting the 41 foot from. MR. HARLICKER-Well, if you add 36 and 5 is 41 feet out from the shoreline. MR. ZIBRO-No. The 36 goes to the shoreline. The five foot just shows the width of the walkway. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. RUEL-The existing one is 37 feet. MR. ZIBRO-That's correct. MR. BREWER-Right. The shore comes out. MR. RUEL-Yes, and this one is actually shorter, but it's even in ,the front. MR. DELAPPA-Yes. Because it is short it will be even in front. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MARTIN-It's a Type II Action. SEQRA Review is not required. MR. PALING-Okay. Good. MR. RUEL-I have a question about the canvas top. You've indicated that it's green color, arched, three foot section. What's the whole width, 20 some odd feet? MR. CELAPPA-No. The width will be approximately 12 feet 6 inc~es, just to cover the slip. MR. RUEL-It will be three feet high, twelve feet wide, right? .~~~ DELÄPPÄ-¿orf~c~. i,'"j . Ii ,. ; ..: " M~. FÙJË:t-Two of' 'th'el~1? : ,1' " ,,', ^f ' MR ~ DELAPÞA'JWiell,: the' arch sides on this. ,.,1.' I !...; " , " itsel~f~ ihre~'fodf 'tàll. 'There's no MR. ZIBRO-The arch is basically the radius of the curve. MR. RUEL-Yes. It's a radius. MR.ZIBRO-So from the lowest point on the tarp to the highest póint on the tarp is thre~ foot. MR. RUEL-And you take it down in the winter. MR. DELAPPA-Yes. MR. RUEL-What is it, steel construction, pipe? - 27 - '- --- - MR. DELAPPA-The trusses. MR. RUEL-You leave the pipe up? MR. DELAPPA-Yes. MR. RUEL-Any lights in there? MR. DELAPPA-Not planned, no. MR. PALING-Okay. There should be a public hearing on this. Unless you gentlemen have anything further, we'll open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that cares to comment about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT ,PUBLIC ,HFARING CLOSED' .;. MR. P4L..ING,-Okay.' We're ready for, 'ª mot,ion., MOTION H) ~RÞ~~)VESIT(;P~AN NO~' ~9-95 DARW'i~ &ìÇYNTHIA DEI.r,.APPA, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its' ~doptlon, seconded by George Sta," k: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 29-95 to construct a 8' x 36' addition to an existing dock and ins~al~ a canvas cove,"; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 5/9/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, Plot Plan, dated 3/24/95 2. Sheet 2, Elevation, dated 3/24/95 3. Sheet 3, Docking and Facility, existing and proposed, dated 3/24/95; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 6/20/95 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/20/95 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 havè been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, 'after considering the above, hereby move to approve, deny site plan # 29-95, DARWIN & CYNTHIA DElAPPA. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced - 28 - ,-,/ ---- ..-/ 4. site plan to the Zoning 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 process. 5. 6. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Rú~l, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. PalIng NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Oberffiayer -'Ii' SITE PLAN NO. 30-95 TYPE II JOHN BROCK, ,OW~~R: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: 1ST HOUSe: N:E. OF MOORING 'POST PROPOSAL IS TO MODIFY A PRE-EXISTING BOATHOUSE TO PLACE RAIL AROUND TOP OF BOAT HOUSE AND CONSTRUCT STAIRS FROM THE DOCK TO THE TOP OF THE BOATHOUSE. APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/95 TAX iMAP NO. 13.i3UieÎ LOT sIZE: ~35AêRËS'SEC'~tÎÖN(: '179'.:..6Ò B JOHN BROCK, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. The Warren County Planning Board has been heard from, and they approve this, approves the railing only in their approval. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 30-95, John Brock, Meeting Date: June 20, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to place a railing around the top of a flat roofed boathouse and stairs to access the top from the shore. The only modification to this boathouse is the railing and the ~tairs. The boathouse complies with relevant portions of Section 179-60 of the Zoning Code regarding docks and boathouses.- MR. MARTIN-The other item I'd like to just raise is that the application indicates present use of the property is a marina and proposed use is a marina. This sundeck' is a new use of the property. In other words, there has not been past use of this as a sundeck or a place for people to go. So therefore the use would be limited to residential use only. It would not be part of the marina. MR. PALING-Yes. property usage. Okay. That's what I assumed. This is private This has nothing to do with the marina. Okay. MR. MARTIN-I just want that part of the record and acknowledge that. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. MR. BROCK-John Brock, Mooring Post. MR. PALING-Okay. Any comment? MR. BREWER-What's the height? MR. PAL,ING-The height of the railing? MR. BREWER-No, I mean the overall height. , ' " t~\ '~'; i .' ',; , , ¡ , MR. BROCK-It was measured today~ The Lake George Park was there today. I measured it. It was 13'6". - 29 - ......., MR. MARTIN-Yes. Fourteen feet's the limit. MR. PALING-Right. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's the only question I've got. MR. RUEL-Would you explain to me why we need 30-95 and 31-95? MR. PALING-Well, they're different total. MR. MARTIN-That was the applicant's choice. He could have come in as one. MR. RUEL-Well, I thought it could have been combined, and save some paperwork. MR. MARTIN-Yes. He had that option. MR. BROCK-Someone actually told me I should do it as two separate ones. MR. RUEL-Okay. I thought there was a specific reason for it. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions? All right. public hearing. MR. MARTIN-We do have a letter, also. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you read it, please? We need a MR. MARTIN-All right. This is addressed to James Martin, Scott Harlicker and Susan Cipperly, "Ladies and Gentlemen: This is written in reference to application for Site Plan No. 30-95 to be considered by the Queensbury Planning Board at a meeting on June 20, 1995. It specifically speaks to two issues of concern with respect to this application. Firstly, on the form on which the applicant has responded to a number of items related to the proposal, two questions appear consecutively. The first asks, 'What is the present use of the property?' The next asks, 'What is the proposed use of the property?' To both q~estions the applicant has responded "Marina". The property is identified and located on tax records of the Tow~ of Queensbury as Section 13, Block 3, Lot 18. That parcel of property is clearly classified as 'one family residence' on such documents. Further, it lies within a zone which is similarly classified as residential. How, then, may the applicant state that the present and proposed use of the new structure will be as and/or for a 'Marina'? Adding a deck to the structure does not alter the 'one family residence' classification and permit its use as a marina simply because a marina exists on adjacent property. The matter of present and proposed use should be clarified and made unequivocal. Moreover, if the intent of this application and construction is to achieve a change in ,the use of this property from its present status as residential, this is intended to object to such alteration. Secondly, it is my understanding that the construction of stairways from docks or the gro~nd to deck level on structures of this nature has commonly been accompanied by the recommendation or requirement that such stairways be placed in a manner through which they parallel the shoreline. In virtually all instances, the this makes the stairway considerably less obtrusive. As you know, in this already completed project, the stairway has been erected perpendicular to the shoreline. Had t.his project been conducted in the usual manner namely, through securing of approve before the completion of construction - this matter might have been discussed and reviewed toward the goal of maintaining a reasonably consistent pattern of construction techniques. It is regrettable that any such consideration would now invoke factors which are more complex and extensive. It is my hope that the forgoing is sufficient to clarify these concerns and is consistent with procedures for bringing these matters to the - 30 - '-' '...../ '-' -' Planning Board at the specified meeting. If I may respond and/or clarify further, please so advise me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, William B. Wetherbee" This is a record of a telephone conversation conducted 6/19/95 at 10:55 a.m. in the morning between Chris Dittus and Pam Whiting of the Planning Office. Subj~ct, John Brock Site Plan 30-95 and jl-95 Called to say that they, Chris and Thomas Dittus, have no problem with John Brock's proposals, and that's the extent of the note. MR. PALING-Okay. Why now. Is there anyone this proposal? Okay. speak against it? don't we open the public hearing on this here that would like to speak in favor of Is there anyone here that would like to PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHERYL EVANS MRS. EVANS-My name is Cheryl Evans. I have property adjacent to the Mooring Post over on Mason Road, and I also have property across the street from Mason Road, adjacent to the Mooring Post. I'm not really here to oppose the project, because' '1 think everybody should have a deck on top of their boathouse. The only thing I question. ! mean, it seems like a nice deck. I'm not personally affected by it, per se, in view, because I'm on the other side of the peninsula, but I am affected in being a property owner in what's going on at the Mooring Post. As you know, we're in litigation right now, with the Article 78, based on using hls permit for, I'm sure you're aware of the project. The question I have is, he has this house, his residential house (lost word) he has this deck that he built on top of this boathouse. Now in front of his house, he's been storing marina boats. So it's part of the marina, which is okay, because it's been there since, I don't even know, probably forever, but the question I have here, he claims that he would like to have the deck on top for residential purposes. So now yoU have one boathouse, residential on top and commercial on the bottom. I have a hard time with that, because right now, my feeling is, if he has a deck connected to the marina, he has no place, right now he parks all his cars 'on the waterfront property. The business has;been expanding. He has more cars parked allover the place. There's really no place for somebody to have lunch or whatever the case may be. My concern is that these people that are coming to Cleverdäle for boating äre going to be using the deck, and it's going to be change of use on this property. So it's going to be an increased use onto Clev~rda1e. That is my main concern. I dOn't know what to recommend to you, but it's either he has a deck as a residential. Down below I think the whole thing should be residential, or the whole thing can be commercial. Then he's increased his use on the comme~'cial property. The reason why I'm saying this is we're fighting this lawsuit, and you can say, well, we'll have it stipulated that he can't have any of the boaters have lunch up there, but most of the boaters end up being a friend. I mean, you do business with them. You have lunch with them up on tôp or whatever the case may be. There's land across the street from, which is adjacent to the marina that he owns, residential lot, that he's not even supposed to 'use:as a marina, and he's bee~ using it. You can tell him that he's not supposed to use it. He still uses it. We don't want to be there enforcing what goes on on top of this deck. Love to have them on the deck. I mean, it's so nice to be able to have a deck. I have: One mysel f, but in any event, I'm really scared about how this deck is going to be used. We've gone through all the processes of variances and whatever the case may be before we go for decks. I myself have stairs going down onto my deck. That's how I was told to build my deck. They did not want it out to shore. I look at ~ property, it's a1 ready been bui 1 t onto shore. I have a problem with that. It's a nice looking deck. I'm not telling you to take it down, but I just want you to be aware' of what's going on in Cleverdale. I'm just a little - 31 - concerned. The application, I thought, was a little misrepresenting, what he submitted. His waterfront, in front of his house, is only 70 feet wide. It's not the 100 and, I don't even know what the numbers are. He only has residential at 70 feet. It seems like it's awful close. I asked him if he measured from the dock into the next neighbor's property. To me, I think it's a little closer than 20 feet. I could be wrong. I didn't look it up, but I think (lost word) a variance for that. I don't know. I'd love to have him keep the deck, but I just want you to be aware of, they have picnic tables coming in. I have a picture of the marina at day use, where you can see where all the cars are parked allover the place. There's no place, and this is during the week. It really didn'~ make too much of a difference, but there's no place for these people. MR. BREWER-Now, this, where you're showing the cars, is that residen~ial property, or is that ma1-ina property? MRS. EVANS-No, that's the marina property, and if you look to the right of the picture, you'll see his house. There's a row of hedges. They usually park all the way around. It's very easy to get from the marina to this new deck. It's very inviting, I should say. Right now there's been such an increase in the amount of boats across the street because all the old (lost words) have b~en torn down, the bigger boats. There's more quick launches. To, my understanding, there's no quick launch permit, and this is what's been going on. So we have all the cars parked on the waterfront. I'm just concerned for the area. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this? PETER LEWIN MR. LEWIN-My name's Peter Lewin. I live on Mason Road. The only concern I have is, how are we going to police the deck, regarding the commercial use? Because we all know it's going to happen. It's right next to the marina. That top deck will be used for commercial purposes. There's no question about it. The question i have to the Board, to the Town, is how are you going to enforce it. It's impossible. I would recommend that a railing is fine and the stairs are out. That way we don't have a problem. Because there will be a problem, and you can't enforce it. MR. PALING-You'd recommend, what? I didn't get that. MR. LEWIN-A railing is fine and the stairs should be out. Then there's no question that the deck would not be used as a part of the marina. MR. PALING-How would you get up to the deck? MR. LEWIN-How are you going to police it? That's the question we have. MR. PALING-We accept your question. MR. LEWIN-Because as you know it's impossible. it. So it will be used for commercial purposes. right thing to do? You can't police Now is that the MR. PALING-Take the stairs away, I guess, like YOU said. We understand your question. MR. LEWIN-Right. That's all I have to say. MR. PALING-All right. Thank you. Anyone else? - 32 - ',-" --./' -oJ --- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Mr. Brock, would you want to address, the major concern seems to be the use of it. Well, lets talk about usage first, because that seemed to be the main concern. MR. BROCK-I have mentioned the plan was strictly for residential use, okay. It's in front of my house. It's attached to the residenti~l property. The stairs come on to the residential property. I don't use it for commereial use, and I have no intention of using it for commercial use. There are never cars parked over in front of that deck, because that's right in front of my house. I have a picture I can show you where it's located. I don't know. Maybe you probably just saw it in the other picture. I asked to have the deck with the condition that it's not for commercial use.' It is str ietly for residential use. I have talked to both of my neighbors on both sides of my house, one to the south and one to the north, on clevérdale, on Sandy Bay, and neither of those neighbors have a problem with the deck, and as long as it's not for commercial use. Right now I have a chain across the bottom of it, okay, across the bottom of the stairs, that when we go up there, personally, we tak~ it down. No customers have gone up there, and they don't. They don't come to my house. They know that it's, you know, my private residence. MR. PALING-Okay. So it's a chain that you're using across the staircase. MR. BROCK-The bottom of the stairs, yes, that blocks it off, and it looks like it's private. I mean, there's no doubt about it. MR. BREWER-Can we see the pictures you have, John. MR. BROCK-This doesn't show the deck. It shows the roof. This is my house. This is a hedgerow that's on the Marina property. As you can see, the cars always park over in this area. Okay. This would be right in front of my lawn. They'd have to drive across here, in front of my house to park there. They never do that. MR. PALING-What is this right here? MR. BROCK-That's a timber that~s laying there. in front of the hedgerow. This is a hedgerow. That hedgerow is on the commercial property. MR. PALING-These boats here, they're on the residential, looking at the residential part. MR. BROCK-Yes. This, this, and that one are in the residential part, yes. MR. RUEL-And you want to put a railing on that structure right there? MR. BROCK-This structure over here. MR. RUEL-That one there? MR. BROCK-Yes. here. This is the one, the main Marina structure over MR. PALING-But this is used commercially, too? MR. BROCK-I do rent those docks out, yes. They've always been rented out. The stairs go here. They come right down to the ground behind it, going the other way. Here is a note from one of my neighbors, if you want, my neighbor to the north. - 33 - -- -' MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you want me to read this letter? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-This letter Mr. Brock just gave to us is dated today, June 20th. "To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this in reference to the notice I received concerning the dock that John Brock built over his boathouse at the Mooring Post Marina. As the next door neighbor on the north, I have no objeètion to this dock, as long as it is not used for commercial purposes. This should be clearly stipulated. Very truly yours, Esther Frederick" MR. BROCK-I think she means deck, not dock. MR. RUEL-She's only talking about a dock. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm sorry, no objection to this deck as long as it is not used. I'm sorry, I said dock. I'm sorry. I meant deck. MR. PALING-Well, how about the statement that the dock on the bottom is commercial and the top is residential? MR. BROCK-All of this property was originally useq as a Marina, back in 1906. Back in 1906 is when the Marina was established. All of that property was used commercially. There were boats all over, and I guess they did the zoning, they moved the house over on that part, ,and it was used as a residence, okay. The docks have been used forever. My customers don't use that deck. There are only three boats that are effected on the other side there that are Marina boats that, I mean, I have my boat over there also, and then there are three others, Marina customers. Then they rent dock space over there. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then what they do, then, John, is they just? MR. BROCK-They park over there on the other side of the hedge. They walk over and get on the boat and they go out, or sit on their boats or whatever they do, but most of the time, they just on their boats and go out. MRS. LABOMBARD-But there's nothing to prevent you, because I know we have friends at the la~e that we rent dock space to, and they don't like to impose on us, but sometimes they'll come down to get into their boat and we'll ask them to Join us for a drink or something or some,pleasant conversation. So then right away somebody could say, aha, now the commercial end of his business is, you know, like Cheryl was saying, you're being friends with them. So you're just going to welcome them over and, well, stay, that type of thing. MR. BROCK-I try not to do that type of thing. To have a drink with a customer, I can't say I'll never do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I mean, like ice tea or something. It doesn't have to be an alcoholic beverage. MR. BROCK-Well, whatever, but socializing with a customer, I can't say I'm never going to do that. I do that on occasion. Okay. To have a Marina party, or a group of people on that deck or have people going up on that deck to have, lunch, that's not going to happen. I'm asking for the deck for my private residential use, and I don't mind a stipulation putting in that the deck is for residential use. MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, we could, be part of a motion to indicate that the deck would only be used for residential purposes. MR. PALING-Sure. - 34 - '-' '"--'" '-' -- MR. RUEL-Because if the property were sold, for example. MR. BREWER-Still, bottom line, it's a residential piece of property. MR. RUEL-Yes. The whole thing is, right? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we've addressed some of the questions, but there was another question ràised about a vertical relative to the shoreli ne 'IIersus parallel,' for the. staircase. I don't think there's an actual requirement for tha~, is there? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. MARTIN-It's up to the Board on that one. MR. PALING-Okay. don't know what to setback violation. The setback clarification was asked for. I say to that. I don't know that there's any MR. MARTIN-The structure may be not complying with the 20 foot setback, but this is not an expansion or encroachment to expand that nonconformity. It's essentially adding a railing and a staircase. So that would not be a concern. MR. PALING-I was thinking that you might consider putting a sign on your chain that said'Private. MR. BREWER-Would you ~ènt to put a sign on your d~ck? MR. PALING-See it all the time on private property, yes. MR. BREWER-On your deck? MR. PALING-Sure. MR. RUEL-I have a question. about the staircase, vertical some explanation of what the than the othe1-? I guess, Jim, you read that letter versus parallel. Can you give me difference is in, why one is better MR. MARTIN-That may have been past practice, before my term here with the Town. I was on the Board two years before this position. I don't remember ever requiring parallel staircases. MR. RUEL-I'm not saying it's required. MR. MARTIN-I think the case where it may be required is if you can't meet the building code requirement for height of risers and distance of the stringer, you know, the staircase stringer'; and all that. There's requirements for that, and hand railings and all that, and you may have to put a landing in to meet the State Building Code requirements. MR. RUEL-I thought maybe it had something to do with visibility for neighbors or something. MR. MARTIN-On occasion it could, depending on th~ placement of the dock. It's how it sits on the shoreline and its relationship to other neighbors. MR. RUEL-Who's recommendation is that? MR. MARTIN-It might come up from Staff. It may come from the Board. It would likely come from neighboring property owners who would, their the ones who would be directly 'impacted. MR. RUEL-I don't have any problem with it. I just wanted some - 35 - -' explanation. MR. MARTIN-I've seen, I think Tim can remember, we've had like Walt Rehm in for example who has an applicant, you know, they'll show site distances and, I mean, I've even seen charts showing lines of view and vision and that type of stuff. If it were a concern, it's usually been expressed by the adjoining property owners. MR. RUEL-It doesn't go any higher than the level of the deck anyway. MR. BROCK-No, it comes to the bottom of the deck. You have to step up to get on to the deck. MR. RUEL-Right. MR. MARTIN-Basically, what we're looking for, though, is from a bui ldi ng p'~rmit ,,~pncer n, th!ê'-t the stairca$e is Code compl ia nt. There's requirements set forth in that. , MR. PALING-All right ."If there'$ no ,more €Qmment , I'll entertain amotion.". !, ,d:, . MOTION TO APPROVESIT~ PLA"'NO~ 30-9~ JOHN BROCK~ Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written, with the stipulation that the deck be limited for private residential use only. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 30-95 to construct a railing around the top of an existing boathouse and stairs to access the roof; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 5/24/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, Plot plan, dated 5/24/95 2. Elevation, dated 5/24/95; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 6/20/95 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/20/95 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 Sect¡on 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, pS follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve, deny site plan 30- 95, JOHN BROCK. 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 - 36 - -- ----" ~ signatu,"e. 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 condition on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: MR. BROCK-May I ask what "Private" means? MR. PALING-It's not open to the public in any way. MR. BROCK-All right. AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer SITE PLAN NO. 31-95 TYPE II JOHN BROCK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: MOORING POST'MARINA, CLEVERDALE PROPOSAL IS TO REPAIR RAMP BY INSTALLING TWO PRE-CAST CONCRETE SLABS 6' X 40' X 6° THICK IN LAKE GEORGE TO COVER AN EXISTING STONE BOAT RAMP. ALTERATION OF SHORELINE IS PERMITTED SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/95 APA, DEC TAX MAP NO. 13-3";19 l(jfr( '$IZÊ': .6S"ÄCRES Sê<f::tION: '1'9-60 S' ; JOHN BROCK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 31-95, John Brock, Meeting Date: June 20, 1995 "The project was compared to Section 179-60 of the Zoning Code regarding alteration to shoreline. The activity will not alter the naturalbontours of the shoreline or disturb vegetation. The project should actually reduce the amount of fill being placed into the lake; it should eliminate the need to periodically replace the existing stone boat ramp. The applicant has received a permit from DEC for this project." MR. PALING-This is Type II, so we don't need a SEQRA. Warren County approved, provided that all permits are ,"eceived from all the interested agencies, specifically the Lake George Park Commission and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and they did get a DEC permit? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And again, the record of the phone conversation with Chris Dittus, with Pam Whiting, dated 6/19/95, 10:55 a.m. Called to say that they, Chris and Tom Dittus; have no problem with John Brock's proposal regarding the site plan. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MR. RUEL-I've got one question. These are pre-cast assemblies that are brought in by truck? MR. BROCK-What we will do is we'll make those on site. We'll just put the iron into the concrete. We'll make a form that's six inches thick, six feet wide, forty feet long with all the material in them (lost word) okay, and then I'll just have a crane come in or an excavator and pick those up. They'll be parallel, and they'll lay, right now, my ramp is like 12 feet, it's actually 13 feet wide, okaYi and these two will sit right in there. it, -'37 - MR. RUEL-You just lay them right on the stones? MR. BROCK-Lay them right on the stones. All we do is rake the stones, so they're level, because what happens now, the boats going in and out, (lost word) and we'll just rake them all out level, and then just set these. MR. RUEL-How many of these pre-cast? MR. BROCK-Two. MR. RUEL-Two? Okay. Thanks. MR. BREWER-What holds that in place? MR. BROCK-You just drive metal okay, and just drive the rods slide. Other marinas, they're going to do the same thing. '".' rods, a hole in the concrete, in to hold them so they don't driving the rods through, we're MR. BREWEB-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll oPen the public hearing on this. Is there anyone here that would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-This is underwater, right? MR. PALING-Well, most of it is. MR. BROCK-The bulk of it is. Maybe about, depending on the water level, Qkay, if, i,t~ ¡s;,real high water" there WQl,;Aldn'tbe q;ny of it out, but at Ipw~1~ater, apor~ion¡of it wQµldbe sticking ,out on the ;ramp" maYb~about: 18 $,nches ~'n_' ,t1R .PALI;NG-I think ,t,his is ;êln, improveme¡l1t, in' a, lot of different ways. ~t.l1ink it!ll Q~;,~es!3damagi:f\g,to the. lak~, if YOL w;ill. ,Once that'se¡et in,that':~ not ,goin~ to mOVE) any ·place., , j: ~ ; MR. RUEL-These stones won't move und.f ,~here? MR. BROCK-No. MOTION TO APp,ROVE SIT~ PL~N NO. 31-95 JOHN BROCK, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As written. Wherea$, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of application file # 31-95 to repair an stone boat ramp by installing two concrete ramps; and site plan existing pre-cast Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 5/24/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, Site Plan, undated 2. Elevations, undated; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 6/20/95 2. DEC permit, dated 4/5/95 - 38 - "---' ---- --./ ~' Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/20/95 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirjments of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has' considered the envi ronmental' factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queen~bury '(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, deny site plan 31- 95, JOHN BROCK. 2. The Zoning A~ministrator 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 Zoni ng Ordi nance and si te p1!ärf!åppróval:' 'prbdès$. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1995, by the followT~S' vbte: AYES: Mr. B"ewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr . Stark, Mrs. LaBorrll!>è1'd,1 ,I, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3·95 MARVIN & JANET HAUTALA OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: PART OF CLINE MEADOW DEV., ON WEST SIDE OF MEADOWBROOK RD., SOUTH OF QUAKER RD. WETLAND PROPERTY INVOLVED: GF-19 PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 15~66 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS WHICH INVOLVES A DEC :REGULATED WETLAND. A SUBDIVISION IS tONSIDERED A REGULATED ACTIVITY REQUIRING A WETLAND PERMIT. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 8-1989, FW1- 89 SUB. 9-1995 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 15.66 SECTION: WETLANDS RËêuLATIONS ' JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Now oniii'£he next on~:,i ~"HaL1tâlå', we''1'~':r'onl yfl, d6'í the Wetlands permit tonight. MR. MARTIN-Yes. There was a mistake on the notification to the neighbors, resulting in that being delayed until next week. MR. PALING-The subdivision will be on next week, but we~ll do the Wetlands permit tonight. MR. MARTIN-Now the Freshwater Wetlands Code is a section of the book that you don't have, but our Wetlands law dates back to 1976, ánd according to our definition of a regulated ~ctivity, subdivision falls in that category, whereas DEC does not. They regulate activities that actually require a physical disturbance of the land, in other words, placement of a building or something like that. So this is not the typical case where we have a DEC required at this time. Should there be any proposal to disturb - 39 - - the wetland area or any, the area within 100 feet of that wetland boundary, then a DEC permit's required, and that's the time that they would have to obtain a permit. So, that's the reason we're a wetland permitting agency in this regard, but DEC is not at this time. MR. RUEL-What are we asked to do here, with this application? MR. MARTIN-Well, a wetland permit is required from the Town. Usually, we do have overlapping jurisdictions, here. In other words, a DEC permit is required, and we'll have some sort of, like, site plan or something that would warrant the need for a DEC permit, and usually we defer to any conditions set forth in a DEC permit, but in that regard, we do not have any DEC permit required in this case. So, there's nothing really to cite there, not unless there's something of an overriding concern that you want mention at this time with the wetlands permit. The remaining issues would be dealt with at subdivision review. MR. RUEL-Well, woùldn't they require a DEC permit at site application, for instance? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-Why can't we postpone that until then? Why do we get involved at this time? MR. MARTIN-Because we have, subdivision is a regulated activity, according to our wetlands law, whereas in DEC it is not. MR. RUEL-Well, how much can we know about what the total intended use of the property is going to be? Are we allowed to get into that? MR. MARTIN-I think it is a reasonable thing to get into wetlands permit. Is there any proposed disturbance wetland area, or what is the long term plan for it. at a in the MR. PALING-Because it seems it's mostly wetlands we're looking at. There's not much'building room in it. MR. RUEL-What percentðge? Is it a large percentage? MR. HARLICKER-Úther don't have any. We have comments when buildability of that than the comments that Jim made, I really were going to defer until, you know, we will it comes for subdivision regarding the smaller parcel. MR. PALING-Okay. SEQRA tonight. Now we have, it's unlisted. So we'll do a MR. MARTIN-No, that'll come next week. MR¡ PALING~That'll come next week at the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-All this basically does is just allow them to go to the subdivision. : MR. HARLICKER-Yes, to go to subdivision review. MR. PALING-To go from to'the subdivision from here. Okay. MR. RUEL-It's very limited activity here~' MR. MARTIN-You're essentially approving, from a wetlands permit standpoint, the idea of creating a property boundary here. Then you've got to get into your whole subdivision review nêxt week. - 40 - "--, "- --' MR. BREWER-If we go into the subdivision~ we give them this permit, we go into the subdivision next week and, say you can't build within, well, we have regulations you can't build within 100 feet anyway. So we're ørotected in that. MR. PALING-That doesn't change any of that. Right. MR. MARTIN-Well, you can't build without a DEC permit. MR. BREWER-All we're doing is allowing them to subdivide, basically. MR. MARTIN-Or proceed to subdivision, and there's other things we'll get into next week about setback distances from the edge of the wetland and things like that. MR. PALING-Well, we'll discuss it, hear from the applicant, have a public hearing. MR. MARTIN-We also have a public hearing scheduled for next week, as well. MR. PALING-I can close the one that's open tonight, and there's a new one that's opened up next week? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-It won't be pertaining to this, though. pertain to subdivision. It will MR. PALING-Pertaining to subdivision, and we'll see about closing the one tonight or leaving it open. Okay. Lets here for the applicant if we can. MR. RICHARDS-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Richards. I'm the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hautala. Mrs. Hautala is here, if yoU need to ask her any questions, but as Jim said, been brought out, this is a very limited purpose tonight. I'll take full responsibility for misreading and misunderstanding the notice requirements for the subdivisÜ:>n publ ic hear'i ng which is now scheduled for next week and proper notifications have been made. So this is strictly for the wetlands. It's very limited. We're not proposing any kind of physical alteration~ This is strictly a paper line that we're asking to be drawn and we're asking for your permission with respect to, the wetlands aspect. As Jim said, this is one of those kind of strange situations where the Town of Queensbury is the only entity that requires us to be here for this thing. DEC doesn't require any permit for just drawing a line, nor does the Corp of Engineers. So this is strictly a Queensbury animal, and we're here to address it and answer any questions. I would like to ask, when we're done with the wetlands permit, I have one comment which I would like to make relative to the subdivision, but I'd like to stay on the wetlands right now. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you give us a forecast, or whateverj for what the long range plans for this piece of land is. MR. RICHARDS-The long range plans, Mrs. Hautala and I ' 'Were just going over that again this evening, are totally flexible. We have no specific plans. We just want to keep the options open, and we just really want the right to buy the property. We're not asking for any permission at this time to make any physical alteration to the lot in any manner. There may never be any. We don't know. MR. RUEL-You want to subdivide it to sell the property. - 41 - -- MR. RICHARDS-Probably, but not definitely. MR. BREWER-Just Lot 7? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-SevenA, I think it is. MR. RICHARDS-What we're proposing is that Lot 7 to be divided, bisected. MR. BREWER-To 7A and 78. 7B, I mean. MR. RUEL-It's useless. MR. BREWER-Pretty much. MR. RICHARDS-Well, there's any number of things you could do, in combination with other properties. I don't think it's, and certainly it's wetlands here and we're not asking for permission to do anything to 'the property. All we're asking for is to be able to draw that paper line across and we'll face the subdivision issues next week in a little more detail. MR. BREWER-I guess, what is the purpose of it, though? ask that? Can we MR. RUEL-Yes. There's very little land left for anything. MR. RICHARDS-You know, it could be, and I'm not saying because we don't have any specific plans, but it could first step in combining it with another piece to make it more (lost word). We're not asking for your permission anything to the property. it is, be the much to do MR. PALING-Yes, but I think we're required not to let you get yourself into a position of having an unusable piece of property. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RICHARDS-I'm not sure I agree with that, but certainly to the extent that you're concerned about our awareness of what can be done and not be: done and what the setbacks are. I think we're, I've met at length with the Planning Department again this afternoon and I talked with the Hautala's about it, and we know what we're facing. MR. MARTIN-There's a fine distinction to be made. The lots as proposed would be conforming to the regulations. It's not that they're not conförming. Your point's well taken that there's very restricted area on what is shown as Lot 7B, given the presence of the broad area of wetland there that, you know, the buildable area there is very small, if non existent, for any practical use, but in terms of meeting the requirements of the Code for frontage on a public street, size of the parcel, that type of thing, width of the lot, it is a conforming lot. MR. RICHARDS-We don't need any variances to do what we're asking tonight. MR. STARK-The applicant has made clear that he's well aware of the restrictions that he's·self imposing on this Lot 78. Take it at that. He knows what he's getting into. MR. RUEL-But why subdivide it? MR. STARK-Why not? MR. BREWER-I think what hardship for somebody? Roger's saying, If they were to are we creating a sell it, and then - 42 - ~ ,~ -...../ ~' somebody wanted to do something with it, are they going to be able to do anything with it? MR. STARK-Buyer beware, Tim. MR. BREWER-Yes, I know, but. MR. STARK-He's not asking for that, Tim. We'll get into subdivision next week. This is for freshwater permit. MR. RUEL-If that 78 lot was all wetlands, would we allow a subdivision? MR. STARK-If he wants to, why not? Who are we to say,he can't subdivide a piece of property? MR. RUEL-It would meet all the requirements that Jim said, right? MR. STARK-It meets all the requirements. MR. MARTIN-John, is the boundary shown for the wetland the actual flagged boundary, or is that the 100 foot? MR. RICHARDS-It certainly hasn't been recently flagged, not with the Hautala's ownership. No, I don't think that indicates a particular flagging boundary, but it might be done back in '89 or earlie~', in connection with the Cline Meadow application. MR. MARTIN-Typically what is shown for wetlands is the wetlands boundary i tsel f, and then that 100 foot. distance that's required by DEC as a buffer, because this is a DEC regulated wetland. MR. RICHARDS-If at some point the plans were such that we wa~ted to try and build something there, that's the first step we'd do. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We like to have that shown on the subdivision plat. MR. RICHARDS-All I'm saying is, we're really not hiding anything. We're not asking to do anything but draw the line. MR. MARTIN-No, but I'm saying" that is an area that's worthwhile to be, illustrated because that is, you know, that's a requirement of DEC permit; that you stay 100 feet outside of that ,boundary, without permit. So that's why it's useful to be shown. MR. RICHARDS-We've been in touch, I've personally been in contact with Bill Merman at the DEC who confirms nonjurisdictional. We've receivedcommunications from the Army Corp of Engineers that confirm the same thing. We're aware that if we planned or when we plan, .if that does occur, to do anything specific, we'll be back to your office. ,MR. MARTIN..,.No. I'm not saying that you're not. I'm just simply saying that there should be two lines shown, the wetland boundary itself. and then that 100 foot buffer line~ MR. RICHARDS-All that we have used is the already approved plat for the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Well, that was approved in '89, different staff, different people. I'm just saying, two lines are typically shown. the wetland boundary and the 100 foot bl,lffer zone. ' MR. RUEL-What is that line on 78, that I See here? MR. MARTIN-That's what I meant. I don't know if that's the 100 foot buffer line or the wetland boundary itself. That could have a tremendous impact. - 43 - MR. RICHARDS-I don't see how it effects the approval of a wetlands permit this evening. We're working off an approved, filed map under the current Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-I understand that. I'm just saying that that is an area that is regulated by DEC in their permit, and, theYefore, it's typically shown. I'm not saying that it's not necessarily, you can't approve the wetland pérmit tonight. I'm just saying it should be shown. Can I make it any more plain than that? MR. PALING-I think we understand your point, and I think we understand yours, too. MR. RUEL-What I'd like to see on this plan is perhaps a legend indicating what these lines are. MR. PALING-Well, wait a minuté. that tonight. I don't think you can ask for MR. RUEL-No, in the future. MR. BREWER-Why can't he ask for them tonight? MR. RUEL-If somebody gives mè a plan, and they don't have a legend with all the lines on here. MR. PALING-You want a definition of what's on here? That's fine. Okay. MR. RUEL-I asked a question. What's this line across here? No one seems to know what this line is. MR. PALING-All right. Do you care to comment on that? MR. RICHARDS-If the Board feels it's important to have a legend, I'm sure we cðn get the surveyor to supplement this already approved plat with a lette1", answering questions about what's on there, if that's the gist of what the Board is concerned about. If y6u want us to revise the entire subdivision map, to add legends to it, I'm not so sure that's really appropriate, but we'll be glad to clarify anythi~g in the letter. MR. PALING-Well, I think when you submit a print, we've got a right to ask you what it says. MR. RICHARDS~I'm a little surprised, since there's an ou~standing DEC permit fof the subdivision, this map was extensively reviewed. We went through the whole three stages of the planning process in '89, and I think '90 it was finally approved, but if you want more clarification than that, we'll be glad to give it to you. I just don't see how it's essential for tonight, but if that's what you want, we'll do it. MR. RUEL-You mentioned a moment ago, you called it a pre-approved plat? MR. RICHARDS-No, for Cline Meadows subdivision. Let me take one more step back. The only reason we're going through any of this is because this two lot subdivision exists in a, well, it's not entirely true, it's got wetlands, too, but the only reason we have to go through the subdivision process before this Board is because this two lot subdivision application involves a lot in an already approved subdivision. If the Hautala's own 15 acres farther up Ridge Road that wasn't a pre-approved subdivision, they would have gone in to see Jim and work it through an administrative process, as you know, for the two lot subdivision. MR. RUEL-But the fact that it wàs pre-approved has no bearing on what we're looking at now. · - 44 - ""--r -....--' ....../ MR. RICHARDS-No. All I'm saying is, if there are questions about the map. MR. MARTIN-That's why it's here, Roger, because there were, this was part of a subdivision referred to as the Cline Meadow subdivision that ,entailed seven lots, six of which fronted on Cline Avenue. and Meadowbrook Road, and this seventh one, which was a larger lot, that's shown here, and that's why we have the notation, Lot 7, and as a Planning Board approved subdivision, any further modification or change to that subdivision, or further subdivisiOn, requires this Board's approval. MR. RICHARDS-If Cline Meadow didn't exist as a subdivision, we wouldn't be here for 'subdivision approval. MR. RUEL-Okay. Well, I'm jumping the gun. I'm talking about subdivision and all we're talking about is a permit. MR. RICHARDS-Exactly. This is a very rooted thing tonight. MR. STARK-I think, you know, he's just coming in for a Freshwater permit tonight. If Roger ~eeds that by next week, he'll 'be happy to have what the terminology is on the map by next week. It doesn't have anything to do with tonight. MR. RUEL-Right. I agree with you. MR. PALING-All right. Well, what is it we're approving tonight? MR. MARTIN-A Freshwater Wetlands permit. MR. BREWER-Which allows him to subdivide the land. MR. STARK-Only with our approval next week. MR. PALING-But I'm not sure what criteria I would use on this. MR. MARTIN-My point in introducing the wetland permit as I did and reciting the date is it was done in 1976. It's a rather old law. There's bèen many changes to the State and Federal regulations concernin~ wetlands since that time, and, rea1ly, jurisdiction over wetlands has come under State and Federal agencies, and the localities, mea,ni ng the towns and so on, are not that much involved in it anymore. We don't have the means or the staff to make, you know, biological observations over wetlands like a staff,Biologist for DECmight, and so we usually defer to that age~cy for their input, but in this case, they are not issuing a wetlands permit, in that, there is no regulated activity for DEC. There is for us~ though, because ,we are creating a subdivision line. So I have no permit conditions in a DEC permit to reference or anything like that. WeJre stand alone on this one. MR. PALING-Yes, because, see, I don,'t feel very qualified to ask the right questions, and the questions I've asked were shot down. So I don't know, really, what I'm doing here. MR. BREWER-How about if we make some kirld of an approval that!1 any activi ty on Lot, 7B, is that 7B, if the subdivision does happen, any activity come in for site plan, on 7B. MR. MARTIN-That would be a reasonable type of an example. MR. PALING-Okay. That's going to happen anyway. Good. MR. STARK-Well, that would take effect next week. All he's asking is for his Freshwater permit tonight so he can go ahead wi th subdivision next week. Then, next week" if you want to ask that, then I would say, fine. - 45 - ',/ MR. PALING-This has got to go to subdivision nex,t: week. MR. RICHARDS-If I could just say, this is something that I would take a position, I'm not sure Jim would disagree with me, that both DEC and "the Corp of Engineers don't think is important enough to merit permit~eview. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Subdivision, yes, that's true. MR. RICHARDS-I mean, it's just a paper line. I think a lot of your questions can come up next week, when we really have the subdivision approved. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think Tim's point, though, about a reasonable condition would be, should this subdivision be approved, any development of Lot 7B would be subject to site plan approval. That would be a reasonable type of a condition. MR. PALING-Isn't that redundant? anyway? Isn't that going to happen MR. MARTIN-No because site plan may necessarily not be needed. Like, for example, a single family home would be permitted by right, but if you put that kind of condition on it. MR. BREWER-It's just a double protection type of thing. it wouldn't hurt to have. I mean, MR. STARK-For next week, not for tonight. MR. BREWER-Suppose he doesn't come back next week? Suppose he comes back in two years. I'm just saying, if we put that in there, what can it hurt? Mark, what can it hurt? MR. SCHACHNER-I donft think it could hurt anything. I doubt the applicant would have any objection to it, but for what it's worth, I agree that, I would agree with the policy statement that the paper transaction of subdivision is one that, I mean, I deal a lot with the State and Federal agencies that have wetlands jurisdiction, and the paper transaction of subdivision is one that they feel is not sufficiently important to warrant detailed review. There are, I mean, not necessarily right now, but some time in the future, Bob, if you're groping around for exactly what you should be looking at and what your jurisdiction is. I mean, I think you have to look at Section 94 in Town Code, the Freshwater Wetlands section, and it does talk about some very general things like, for example, one of the standards is the proposed regulated activity is reasonable and necessary, and in this context, I think that's perfectly appropriate. The proposed regulated activity is compatible with the public health and welfare. I'm not the decider, you are, but I don't see any problem with the public health and welfare. These are somewhat loose standards, but they do exist. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we should then move along to the subdivision. Well, wait a minute. We've got to have a public hea ring. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's the first step. MR. PALING-All right. The public hearing on this matter is open. MR. RICHARDS-I'd just like to, after we handle this wetlands permit application, I'd just like to take one minute to address the Board relative to the procedure on the subdivision. MR. PALING-No problem. Does anyone care to comment on this? - 46 - \-~ '- --- --- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS BOCKO MS. BOCKO-Hi. I'm Chris Bocko., My concern at this point is I realize they're just trying to split tbe,land into two lots, but this is a Class I Wetlands. It was, at one time, a Class II, it has since been changed, and being a Class I, it means that they meet most unusual circumstances that are compelling to the social and economic need of our area in order to go in and disturb it in any way, and to me a residential home wouldn't meet those requirements at all. Now maybe that's not what they're trying to go for. I don't know, but it just seems that, in splitting them in that way, that's what they'd be going for. The other concern I would have, which I guess will be addressed next week is where ;the entrance to this property will be so located. Wil1 it be on Everts or will it be on Cline, of will it be on Meadowbrook? Again, that's not clear:, and that'll come next week. We've been here, I guess, (lost words) '89, and we went through the same thing, and at that time, the property was zoned for seven lots and seven lots only, and at that time, we were told that that is the way that it would stay, and since then, we're coming back again, and I feel that in another few years, will that five acres try and be zoned again and again and again. Now that whole tract of land is 15.6 or some odd acres. DEC will regulate a tract of land that is 12.4 acres or larger. So when you take away the 12.4 from the 15, you're not left with a lot of useable land to begin with. MR. MARTIN-I think you're a little confused there. DEC will regulate a wetland that is 12.4 acres or greater in size. The fact that they subdivide this and create a lot of four acres or whatever will not change that. Their wetland is still a certain size. I think this carries a designation GF19. That is a regulated DEC wetland no matter how you subdivide it. MS. BOCKO-I know, ,but how much land is left over that's useable. MR. MARTIN-The subdivision won't effect that. remains unchanged, and the fact that it's remains unchanged. The wetland size regulated by DEC MS. BOCKO-Okay, then if it's split into two properties, how much out of that five acres is really buildable land, is what I'm after. MR. MARTIN-That's a different, and we can find that out. That's why. it is important to show the 100 foot buffer along the wetland, because that area is also subject to a DEC permit. No disturbance can occur in there until you have one. MS. BOCKO-I' have a map that's being sent, as of today (lost words) DEC map of this area. I should have it by. MR. MARTIN-We have the same map in our office as well. MS. BOCKO-Okay. That's all I have to say. MR. PALING-Okay. I think you'll have a better hearing next week. Next week your remarks will be more appropriate. MS. BOCKO-Yes, that's what I thought. MR. PALING-Thank you. Would anyone else care to comment? SHARON MOYNIHAN MRS. MOYNIHAN-I think she really covered everything. Moynihan. We live in the adjacent property at 9 Cline It's been very difficult to understand exactly what it Sharon Avenue. is we're - 47 - -- here for. We had gotten some letters in February or March from the DEC concerning the wetland, and we spoke with them one or two times, and made sure nothing was going on, no one was doing anything. We just received, so we would know that the wetlands were as they were, and that we could not put anything near it. MR. MARTIN-What happéned' with ~ notice is DEC will periodically go and monitor the status of the wetlands, and when they do that monitoring, they will note if the wetland is expanded or changed in its configuration at all, and we got that notice, also, as a municipality, and I think they noticed that there's thfee neW ,wet.lJsnd areas' iinour !regi'on'; ':,:okay, and then some of the existing ones have been changed ot modified or potentially even expanded, and that's the point of that notice was to notify people that you may now have a wetland area on your property that you didn't have before or the wetland area you did have changed, and they put you on notice the maps have been changed. I think they invited you to come view the maps; because that could effect your property values, obviously. MRS. MOYNIHAN-Right, and we saw that as a protective way, also. They were doing nothing there, if anything, it would increase the wetland. The other thing is (lost words) we were coming about concerning the subdivision. So I'm not absolutely clear what we're really talking about tonight. MR. PALING-Well, tonight is a wetlands permit only, and the subdivision application has been deferred 'til next week, and then the subdivision hearing will be held in complete next week. MR. MARTIN~What happened with that was that we have a requirement that the public be notified and a notice be posted at the site 10 days prior to the night of the meeting, and that was missed. So it had to be postponed a week in order to allow for that proper time frame. MRS. MOYNIHAN-So these questions are for next week? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm sorry for bringing you out twice. MR. PALING-Does anyone el~e care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Now, we'll stick to wetlands permit only, for the moment. Any other comments by anyone? Okay. Now we don't need a SEQRA at this point, or do we? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you definitely do need a SEQRA review, and that review really should be for the overall "project", meaning it should be for the wetlands permit and the subdivision. So you either have to do the entire SEORA review tonight, and make your SEQRA determination prior to issuing the Freshwater Wetlands permit tonight, or making a decision on the Freshwater Wetlands permit, or you would have to table the Freshwater Wetlands permit to next week if you're going to do the SEORA review next week. MR. PALING-Yes, I suggest we table it until next week, and then I think this will. . MR. BREWER-After we have the public hearing for the subdivision. MR. PALING-Right, after the public hearing next week. MR. BREWER-For the subdivision. Then we can do the SEORA for the wetlands permit and then move into subdivision. MR. SCHACHNER~Well, it wouldn't be SEORA for the wetlands permit. It would be SEQRA for the entire project. - 48 - ...- --,' -- MR. BREWER-Right, but I mean we would have a bétter feel for what the subdivision would be. MR. MARTIN-Right. I think you'll have more public comment at that time, too, to consider, and usually that's the course of action we take, because the wetlands permit and the subdivision falls on the same night, but we had this delay with the notice, and that's why it was split. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. We need a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE "FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO~ 3-95 MARVIN & JANET HAUTALA, Introduced by Timothy Brewer,who moved fo,' its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Tabled until 6/27. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Pal i ng NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer MR. PALING-All right. It's tabled then. MR~ RICHARDS-I certainly misread the posting requirements for a subdivision, but they've all been complied with. So we'll have our public, they·re properly noticed and posted, next week. My request is this. The Board, I know, 1 i kes to have the Preliminary and the Final subdivision review spread across more than one meeting. Given' the fact that ,this Board has received the data and information that they need, my request, is, can we have our final determination on the 27th? This arises, this request and, frankly, this application, arises, werre a little bit under the gun, by virtue of a contract of sale that was signed, in all good faith, on the understanding that no subdivision review would even be required. This would be done through an administrative two lot subdivision approval. and there apparently was a misunderstanding or change from the Planning Department's standpoint, and then the Hautala's were~notitied by the Planning Department that they would, in fact, be a subdivision approval. So my request is, can we have the final determination next week, rather than waiting for three weeks, into July? MR. PALING-I don't think we can do that. MR. SCHACHNER-As far as I'm aware, there's no legal prohibition or impediment to doing that. MR. PALING-Okay. How about Staff. What's your comment in that? That's taking preliminary and final subdivision approval the same night. MR. MARTIN-It's really a matter of, you know, if you have all the information you need next week, to make a final decision, it's really your call. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-The reason why there's a staged process there is to allow adequate time for information to be obtained, should there be a question at preliminary. MR. BREWER-It doesn't have to be advertised, a final application? MR. MARTIN-There is a separate application and fee assigned with - 49 - final. It really comes to a matter of, if you have all the information you need to proceed to a final point next week. MR. PALING-All right. Does anybody on the Board have any objection to doing it on that basis? MR. BREWER-I don't have any objection~ only one thing I would suggest that we obtain from them is one of those lines, the lines that Jim spoke about. MR. MARTIN-Scott indicated they are shown on another plat that was filed in the subdivision. " MR. BREWER-Can we have that, that indicates the setback, the wetlands line and the setback on the same map? MR. MARTIN-We'll talk with the surveyor tomorrow. MR. PALING-Okay. That's to your earlier comment. I agree with Tim. We've got to have that. I wouldn't have a print at that time that doesn't have anything on there that you can't explain, we can't ask you about. MR. RICHARDS-Will that be all the information you need, then? There's some question about Mr. Ruel, he needed something else. I just wanted to make sure we had everything you need. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I would say is I would deal with this type of request on a case by case basis, and I certainly wouldn't want to have it be an expectation of policy. This is maybe some extenuating circumstances here and you would consider doing that. I don't want. MR. PALING-Then we have two Board hope this doesn't get into any members individually to comment, this, combining the two steps. members missing tonight. So I kind of, but I will ask the or if you have any objection to MR. STARK-No objection, as long as we get a map that shows what the lines are. MR. PALING-All the details that we need, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. MR. BREWER-I'll just make one other comment. I think we should be hesitant to guarantee that, because we don't have any idea what the public is going to come up with next week. MR. RICHARDS-I think that's alwâys understood. MR. BREWER-Well, I just want to make that known on the record. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Then I agree with what Tim says. If that public comment, or some other comment, not necessarily the public, could throw it aside, but with that in mind, we will try our best to do the two stages at the same time, preliminary and final. Okay. We'll consider that case closed and get to miscellaneous items. Okay. Just a couþle of comments. The situation about SEQRA preceding a public hearing is in the hands of legal, and we'll have a better answèr on it, and we'll also have, when everybody's present, we'll be discussing it further. This is what came up that night in regard to the Lester case. Okay. Now, I won't be here next week. So be very diligent, if you would please, if you're going to miss, about calling in, if there's anything wrong, because Tim is out and I'm out. We're down to five. So lets be very careful about that. - 50 - ''''--" ---" -- "- MR. BREWER-If you don't have a quorum, ,1 could probably , I'll be able to come up, but I'd just as soon not. MR. PALING-I can't. I'll be too far away. ,Okay. I haven't got my calendar with me, but I'm quite sure the dates for next month are site reviews Thursday the 13th, and meetings the 18th and the 25th. Now, Jim, you had a letter ,on Hudson Pointe,datedJune 6th. What did you want us to do about that, you know the one where, in the PUD, you wanted to put ,that little piece of property into the commercial? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think the applicant is going to be proposing a rezoning of, there's a little squared piece there where the commercial area fronts on Corinth Road. You've got the memo there? MR. PALING-Yes. Do you want me to read it? MR. MARTIN-Everybody should have gotten a copy of it. MR. PALING-They did. MR. MARTIN-And it's that highlighted squared piece. just, yes, right there. It really MRS. LABOMBARD-It's where the Stewart's store was going to be, right? MR. MARTIN-They want to include that into the PUD. MR. PALING-All right. What do you want us to do? MR. MARTIN-You don't have to do anything. MR. BREWER-What do you mean, include it? I thought it ~ part of the commercial part? MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I thought it was, too. MR. MARTIN-No, it was not. The strip of land was, the green square was not. That was just SR-l Acre zoning. MR. BREWER-They didn't own that at the time of the? MR. MARTIN-No. They've since acquired it, and I think it makes all sorts of sense to, include that in the PUD, so it falls under the same,restrictions as the rest of the commercial development there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Who'd they buy that from? MR. MARTIN-I think. the name is on there. MR. PALING-Can we just say we agree with you? MR. MARTIN-No, no. It's coming. You'll be seeing' it as a rezoning, and you'll, there'll be a petition. You'll recommend to the Town Board as you usually do. MR. PALING-Okay, and then that letter on the Draft DEIS. gave us a whole references, but there was no paper itself. They MR. MARTIN-What's this about environmental regulations for the the SEQRA law? now? The changes to the State, DEC proposed changes to MR. PALING-There's no detail. We'd have to have a whole report to really know what's going on. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You'd have to, they have instructions on the - 51 - ~ ..-' back there how to access it through a comþuter modem, on-line system. MR. PALING-What do you want from us? MR. MARTIN-You're just notified of it. If to offer, you can either do it directly Actually, I'm disappointed in the changes They've watered it all down to where it's through it. you have any comments or through our office. that they've left out. almost pointless to go MR. STARK-I know Dier had ruled, but what was the official ruling? MR. SCHACHNER-We won. MR. STARK-That's it. Thank you. MR. BREWER-We won as far as? MR. MARTIN-Story town, the Great Escape. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. There's a multiple page decision, but what it really does is say, reiterate all the claims that the people that brought the lawsuit made. Then it reiterates our position, basically, and the Great Escape's position, mostly ours, ahd then there's one paragraph at the end that says we did everything that we were supposed to do, that we took a hard look at the enviro~mental impact, that we followed up all the procedures', and that, therefore, om" decision is upheld. MR. MARTIN-And I promptly sent a letter to Mr. Hako asking if he wanted to go on a ride with me. MR. PALING-That's all I have. MR. BREWER-Does everybody know about the other deal, Seeley? Did you tell everybody? MR. MARTIN~Yes. We lost on our stroeam crossing case with Seeley. That was a while ago, now, probably about three weeks ago. Remember the big thing about them cro$sing, it's not now been determined to be a stream. The judge ruled in Seeley's favor, that that was not a stream. We didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. MR. STARK-What judge? MR. MARTIN-Backus, Town level. Even though we had a DEC guy there, Saltsman, on the witness stand that said in his opinion he thought it was a stream. MR. STARK-What was Backus' opinion, I mean, how did he base his opinion? MR. MARTIN-He said we didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. He had some of his workers there take the stand and say they didn't see water running that morning when they were working, even though they were laying pipes on the ground, before they fill it in. The pipes were there just for air passage, I gUess. MR. STARK-Jim, does the Town have a right to appeal that? MR. MARTIN-You could, but it's really a decision of the attorney's if he wanted to take it, and I don't think Paul would want to pursue it any further, and then you'd be opening yourself to liability, too, if you take it to the next level. Then he can make a claim for damages and things like that; MR. BREWER-As far as the Story town land excavation up there. - 52 - '~ ,---" ~' -' MR. STARK~What's the latest with that? MR. MARTIN-I sent the stuff up to Paul, awaiting his decision. I would also like to consult with Mark on it~ too. MR. STARK-Have they stopped hauling out of there now? MR. MARTIN~They may have as a practical matter, because they don't need anymore sand. MR. STARK-But they haven't really ceased. MR. BREWER-So what are we waiting for? See, that's my own personal opinion. Paul to do things is Paul has so many whole Town that it's just. We're waiting for him to? Our problem with asking things going on in the MR. MARTIN-I know. Now he's going on vacation next week. MR. BREWER-Why don't, in the future, can we request to give it to ~ attorney? I mean, it might cost you more dollars to start. MR. MARTIN-Well, see, the point's well taken that it's more than just a Planning Board issue. It's a Town wide zoning enforcement issue, too. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It's really not, I meam,don't get me wrong. I'm happy to do it if you want, and Paul and I do work together on some things, including things that are not Planning Board things, as you know, but, technically, it's not a Planning Board issue. MR. BREWER-The thing with Charlie Wood? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. BREWER-Why isn't it? MR. SCHACHNER-It's an enforcement issue. It'll become a Planning Board issue if the de,termi nation is they need to submi t an application for site plan approval. Then it'sa Planning Board issue, but the issue of whether or not we have jur isdiction.. MR. BREWER-That's a fine line. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, with the issue of whether or not we have jurisdiction over it is technically not a Planning'Board issue. MR. BREWER-I guess what the whole issue was to start with, though, Mark, was, does he need to submit an application? Because he came in for an extension, and we said his extension ran out. So you've got to come in with an application. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I gave extension, about the time frame. longer being challenged? my legal I mean. opinion about the I take it that's no MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Now the issue is whether, as ¡.understand haven't seen any papers on this, but I think what Jim's to me in the past is the issue is that the Great Escape the position that the Town of Queensbury Zoning regulations do not apply to this. Correct? it, and I described is taking Ordi nance MR. MARTIN-Or in a great many ways do not. MR. SCHACHNER-Or in a great many ways do not, because it's subject to State jurisdiction on the DEC Mine Land Reclamation. - 53 - ~~ MR. MARTIN-My initial discussions with Paul, his focus has been that the local involvement is restricted now to essentially two areas. In the first instance you can say, in your overall zoning map, where you want these things located. You can regulate it from that standpoint, but once you identify an area as permitting gravel extraction, then you're limited, basically, to the means of access to that gravel pit. That's my basic understanding. MR. BREWER-Pretty much yes, you can go ahead. access. what Paul's going to end up saying is, The only thing we have control over is MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-So why should we even worry about it? MR. MARTIN-And I don't want to drag them in here and go through a full blown thing, if we have no basis for it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 54 -