The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-08-22 QUEENSBURY PLANNII'¡I§f"¡ B,Q~f(D! MEI;TIt)jß SECOND REGULÀR ME'E~Tt~'§". I AUGUST 22, 1995 ' INDEX ;'..1 ; ' Site Plan No. 28-94 Leonardo Lombardo Subdivision No. 12-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Leon McCotter Site Plan No. 41-95 Christopher P. Martin (Cont'd on Pg. 28) Site Plan No. 44-95 Frederick & Mary Ellen Tedeschi (Cont'd on Pg 46):1 I, 1. 4. .. 13. 17. Site Plan No. 43-95 Herman Neal . ,! 'r 20. Site Plan No. 42-95 Jewel's Donuts, Inc. ¡ ·!':L: 29. THESE A~E NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL ÄPPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES, (IF ANY) AND WILL STATË SUCH APÞRoVAL OF SAID MINUTES. I'" (l'-") 11 ,¡!'. :"' ,1'-", 1, 1: 1" . . j, t"J, f . ~ :, ,'::' " ~ "~; ( ¡to !: '~ i/¡ ~ " , ) :k"; r : ¡'::, --:' J! 1. , 'j, ; '¡ ! :i J !'. " '._:l --- -../ '/ ~ ... ..1 _ _ ~ _ _ ! QUEENS BURY PLANNiNG.,f,30~RD MEËTING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY CRAIG MACEWAN GEORGE STARK TIMOTHY BREWER ROGER RUEL JAMES OBERMAYER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. PALING-I'd like to talk about the schedule, but before doing that, is there anyone here, is Mr. Allen here, or anyone representing Mr. Allen? All right. If he's not here, that was going to be the first item on the agenda. I'd like to make it the last item, because I want to involve the letter we have from Paul Dusek, and I'd like to involve Mark Schachner in that also. MR. OBERMAYER-Schachner's not going to comment. MR. BREWER-Well, lets just wait and see what he says about the basic notion of it. MR. PALING-Okay. There's some changes The first page is as you see it. The it, and we're going to add a last item Thomas. on the agenda for tonight. second page is as you see under New Business will be MR. BREWER-What is Thomas? MR. PALING-He's the one that's at the lake. MR. GORALSKI-The SEQRA thing that we talked about last week. MR. BREWER-That we were going to decide on tonight? MR. PALING-Yes. We should, and then I want to, afterwards, discuss the combination meeting with the Zoning Board and next month's schedule, and anything else that you might want to talk about. So the first agenda item is Leonardo Lombardo. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 28-94 LEONARDO LOMBARDO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A MODIFICATION LOCATION: NORTH OF RT. 9, WEST SIDE OF RTE. 9 AT LAKE GEORGE TOWN LINE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION INVOLVES PLACING THE PROPOSED ADDITION SO IT IS IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING. THIS MODIFICATION REQUIRES A VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 36-1995 TAX MAP NO. 33-1-10, 11, 13 LOT SIZE: 3.851 SECTION: 179-23 RON RUCINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-You're representing Mr. Lombardo? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, I am. Ron Rucinski. MR. PALING-Did you get the variance from the Zoning Board? - 1 - ~ MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, we did. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUCINSKI-But the variance was not ~xactly as requested. MR. PALING-Okay, MR. GORALSKI-I don't have any written notes. ~ike I told you last week, we're trying to scramble. So, Qn this particular one, I don't have any written notes. Let Ron explain to you how they've changed the variance. It's a slight change, and then the modification. MR. OBERMAYER-I didn't get any drawings on this at all. MR. PALING-Nobody did. MR. BREWER-Why didn't we? MR. RUEL-I guess they were the same drawings as before, weren't they? MR. GORALSKI-You should have gotten this. MR. BREWER-Yes. We all did. I remember we got them. MR. OBERMAYER-A long time ago. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-I don~t think any of us retained them. MR. OBERMAYER-I thought we finalized it then? MR. BREWER-No, we couldn't. MR. GORALSKI-My understanding is th~t they came in fo~ a varianceJ I mean site plan modification, It required the setback variance from the 75 foot setback from an arterial, and that's what they went to the Zoning Board for. MR. PALING-All right. Lets see what we can do with what .we have got. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, it's the same drawing as before, though. MR. PALING-And we've got it right up on the board. MR. GORALSKI-The Zoning Board asked them to move the building back a little bit. MR. RUCINSKI-For the record, I'm Ron Rucinski. I'm the architect for Leonardo Lombardo. The variance requested and the drawings that you have received were to permit this addition to have a setback in line with the existing building, which would have been 41.73 feet from the property line. The variance that was granted, and I believe we've discussed this possibility when we were here a couple of weeks ago talking about your recommendation to the Zoning Board, the variance that was granted wa~sort of the standard 50 foot setback that would apply in the Highway Commercial Zone, except that they made it 10 feet back from the existing building, from the corner of the existing building, which results in a setback of 51. something every other feet, and the drawing I have here indicates how that addition would be, with that 51. something every other setback. MR. MACEWAN-Why did they require the additional setback? was their reasoning behind it? What - 2 - '- -' \):-- -../ MR. RUCINSKI-Convoluted. MR. GORALSKI-That's an opinion. MR. RUCINSKI-But there was considerable discussion as to, I guess there was, I'll let the decision speak for itself. MR. GORALSKI-The reason they wanted the setback to have some articulation in the building, addition a little bit from the building so it expanse of elevation. was really just just offset the wasn't one long MR. RUCINSKI-We did not have a problem with their decision. What we were trying to do is get higher visibility for this addition, and that we have achieved, and in terms of its site plan impact, it moves a few parking spaces from the front of the building here, to the rear of the building here, and then at our meeting, one Planning Board member asked that we eliminate a parking space here, and we will do that. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you end up with the same number of parking spaces? MR. RUCINSKI-We will come out with the same number of parking spaces. The green space, the paved area, the covered area, those statistics will hardly change by more than a couple of hundred feet one way or the other. MR. PALING-Now the difference between the two sketches, one has the jog, it looks like a jog out, and the other is flat across, or am I seeing things? Okay. They made you move that back? MR. RUCINSKI-Let me discard this cover sheet, which is what we asked for. MR. PALING-Okay. That's what you asked for. Okay. MR. RUCINSKI-Right. Now, here is what this Board approved a year ago, and here's what we'll have now. The rear of this addition will line up with the rear of the addition to the existing T- shirt shop. MR. PALING-And this is as requested by the Zoning Board. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Is this what the variance was granted as? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. What I'm showing here is what the variance was approved for. MR. RUEL-So, actually, I had requested the movement of one parking spot. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, that's this parking space. We agreed to that, and I believe that was commented on. Well, maybe it wasn't commented on during the Zoning Variance, but it was commented on in your Planning Board minutes. MR. RUEL-Is there more space now, with this modification? MR. RUCINSKI-In terms of the aisle? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-There is? - 3 - '- -' MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay, because that was my concern at the time. MR. BREWER-Is that southerly most exit closed now, or it will be closed? MR. RUCINSKI-It will be closed. MR. BREWER-When you build the building. MR. RUCINSKI-When we build the building, and then we have any agreement with this Board to close another exit when these stores are built, and that is commented on in th~ Zoning Bo~rd's decision, that they re-affirm that agreement as', part of their Zoning Variance. MR. PALING-Okay. I don't think there was anything else, as far as I know. It looks okay to me. MR. RUEL-Yes. I don't have any problems ~ither. MR. PALING-All right. public hearing on this. right to a motion. Now we've done the SEORA and we've had a So it would appear to me that we can go MR. RUEL-AII right. MQTIO~ TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-94 LEONARDO LOMBARDO, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To modify existing approved site plan, and that. all other conditions of the previous approval be taken care of. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan MR. RUCINSKI-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. RUCINSKI-I'll leave this with Staff so they have a record of what you saw. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED PRELIMINARY STAGE LEON MCCOTTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH END RYAN AVENUE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 2.464 ACRES AND 2.548 ACRES,. CROSS REFE~ENCE: AV 43- 1995 TAX MAP NO. 134-1-1 LOT SIZE: 5.22 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON MCCOTTER, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And the public hearing was last week, and I don't think, I think we tabled. This was tabled. MR. SCHACHNER-And, therefore, it's not Final Stage, either. MRS. LABOMBARD-So it's not Final. MR. SCHACHNER-It's Preliminary Stage, even though the agenda says Final. - 4 - '-- -..../ '--- '-' MRS. LABOMBARD-Thank you. Right. MR. PALING-One of the major reasons was the post card mailing to your, yes. Now, John, is this too late? MR. GORALSKI-Well, were the mailings sent out for last week's meeting? MR. MCCOTTER-No. MR. PALING-For this week, for the 22nd? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Remember we talked about this last week. What was noticed in the newspaper for public hearing was Tuesday, August 15th. So the notices should have been sent out indicating that the public hearing would be held on Tuesday, August 15th. MR. MACEWAN-That's why we went through the exercise of opening the public hearing and leaving it open. MR. SCHACHNER-In case, hoping that the notices had been sent out, but that Mr. McCotter simply didn't have the cards yet. MR. PALING-Now, are we okay in going ahead? Do you have to see these cards, John, or what's the procedure there? MR. GORALS~±-We~l, I doh't think' it's properly noticed now. MR. PALING-It isn't? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. PALING-All right. What has to be done that hasn't been done? MR. GORALSKI-Can I see the tickets and the letter you mailed out? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Did someone tell you to talk about the public hearing on the 22nd as opposed to the 15th? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. I thought that's what I was supposed to do. Yes, because they were sent out. So I figured I had a meeting tonight. So they should be sent out for this. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, newspaper publication. MR. GORALSKI-Well, we had newspaper publication for last week, and we have this notification for this week. MR. 'MCCOTTER-W:ell, they were in there last week for both of them. They w~re in therè for t~~15th ~nd the 22nd. MR. SCHACHNER-The newspaper? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. " MR. 'SCHACHNER-The newspaper talked about a public hearing on the 22nd? MR. GORALSKI-No. It talked about Final Stage was going to be on tonight's agenda. MR. SCHACHNER-That's in the paper? MR. GORALSKI-That's in the paper, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And we opened the public hearing last week. It's - 5 - -- not a perfect public notice. If the applicant and the Board want to proceed on less than perfect public notice, yoµ could probably do so, but there is a risk here. It's not D..Q. public notice, because as Mr. McCotter's pointing out, there was newspaper notification for last week and this week. You did open the public hearing last week. You kept it open for this week. He does seem to have proof of sending notices, but the notices were sent only for this week. You might see if anybody's here. MR. PALING-I was going to see if anyone is here~ and also if later an objection comes up, it would have to be honored, but we might try to go ahead. Is there anyone here that's going to speak on the McCotter application? Well, the public hearing is sti 11 open. I suggest that we go ahead, recognizi ng that if someone objects later on, we might have to re-do it. Okay. MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. MACEWAN-Well, seeing as how this is only Preliminary tonight, right, that's what we're doing? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Why don't we just leave the public hearing until final? Can we do that? That way if someone wasn't aware that this was happening tonight, they'd at least have one more opportunity at it. It's listed as Final, but we tabled it last week because he didn't have the information we were looking for. MR. PALING-All right. We can change this to Preliminary, then, rather than Final, as it calls for on the agenda. MR. SCHACHNER-There's no question that you're not yet at Final Stage, because you've not granted Preliminary approval. MR. PALING-All right. Then lets proceed, and we'll again, leave the public hearing open, and, now, what do we do to make sure we're okay when Final comes? What should we ask of Mr. McCotter or whatever? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don't think there's anything else to be done. The newspaper publication has been published and notifications appear to have occurred. They occurred for tonight and they didn't occur for last week, but I don't think there's any additional steps. I think you have to Tealize~ and Mr. McCotter has to realize, that, in theory, this does not appear to be a high profile, highly controversial subdivision. It's a two lot subdivision. Apparently nobody's here to speak for or against it, but there is a risk that we're going forward with less than public notice. MR. PALING-Okay, and you realize this. Should someone object later on, we might have to re-do something. MR. MACEWAN-And it will be posted in the paper one more time, for f i na I . MR. GORALSKI-Right. The agenda will be posted that there'll be. MR. MACEWAN-But you have to come back one more time for Final approval if you get Preliminary tonight. So it'll be p¿sted again that there'll be another meeting on this. So I feel comfortable with it because there'll be ample notice to the public that this is going to happen. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. Everybody agreed on that? - 6 - '-' ~' --" MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I'd Just like to know, Mr. McCotter, were you properly communicated to on what the procedures were? I mean, what's going on here? Why all the confusion? That's what ¡ want to know. I mean, why are we putting the applicant through this scenar io? MR. MCCOTTER-I didn't realize I had to send a letter to them. That was my fault, but I've talked to the neighbors. I've told them that this (lost words) and if anybody had any problems. MR. BREWER-It shouldn't be, not necessarily the applicant, but the agent should sufficiently know that he has to send notice for a subdivision. Doesn't he? MR. GORALSKI-In the case of a subdivision, it's the applicant's responsibility to notice the neighbors within 500 feet. Most people have an agent who informs them of that or, if not, they come in, if they're doing it all on their own, they come in and talk to us, and we explain the procedure to them. MR. MACEWAN-Rationally, the neighbors, even if they weren't felt comfortably notified in time for tonight's meeting, we're still looking at 30 days before he comes back in here for another meeting. They've got plenty of time between now and then to contact the office and say, you know, when is it? I have a concern with it. I want to come and talk. MR. GORALSKI-Also realize that Mr. McCotter had to get a variance for not having frontage on a public road. So those people were all notified directly by the Town of the variance application. So they've been notified several times about this project. MR. SCHACHNER-And there was additional newspaper publication for the ZBA public hearing as well. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Okay. month? So you don't mind waiting another MR. PALING-He has no choice. It's going to Final in a month. MR. RUEL-Mr. McCotter, you knew, last week, that you had to send these notices out, and you sent them out? MR. MCCOTTER~Yes. MR. RUEL-When? MR. MCCOTTER-What's the date on? MR. GORALSKI-The 17th is when they were sent out. definitely had plenty of time to receive them. So they MR. RUEL-You already received some of the notifications? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. If I could. I know it's not standard practice to vote on Preliminary and Final in the same night. However, I mean, this is a simple two lot subdivision that's been. MR. RUEL-We're not voting on Final. MR. PALING-We're not voting on Final tonight. MR. GORALSKI-I'm saying I don't see any reason why you can't. MR. MACEWAN-Personally, for other than the potential being notified, I wouldn't tonight, but I don't feel me, if it was any other situation, problem that we could have with not hesitate for a minute to do them both that comfortable wanting to rush him - 7 - -- through. That's my opinion. MR. RUEL--Yes. MR. GORALSKI-All right. MR. OBERMAYER-Is that Staff's recommendation? MR. GORALSKI-My recommendation is that I don't think that there would be a problem voting on Preliminary and Final tonight. MR. PALING-I'm not comfortable with that at all. MRS. LABOMBARD-John, but did you say they were sent out on the 17th? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-So they've had them for at least thr~e days. MR. GORALSKI-Well, it's been five days since they were certified. So I'm sure they were received by now. MR. MCCOTTER-And I've talked to them. MR. PALING-I don't go along with it, and I think this is twice in a row now we've tried to accelerate something, and I think it was wrong when w. accelerated the Aviation Mall/Burg~r King thing, because something new was introduced. We didn't have a clean plate. We don't have a perfectly clean plate here tonight. If it were, I'd go along with it, but we don't have, and I don't thi nk we should. " MR. GORALSKI-That's fine. I mean, that's your prerogative. I'm just giving you your option~;:;. That's all. MR. STARK-Mr. Chairman, lets go ahead. Do the Preliminary. Poll the Board to see if they want to go ahead with the Final, and go by that. You and Craig said no. Maybe other people feel different. MR. PALING-All right. with the Preliminary, to add to this? I agree with part of it. Lets proceed John, do you have any additional comments MR. GORALSKI-No. As I said last week, it's a simple two lot subdivision. They've received a variance for less than the required frontage on a Town road, and there don't seem to be any other issues. I believe Mr. Obermayer or Mr. Stark, I think Mr. Stark was concerned about some additional topography? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. They wanted the contour maps. I've got those. MR. OBERMAYER~You've got those? Great. MR. RUEL-Mr. McCotter~ I just got this new map here. It was brought up at the last meeting that there was a discrepancy on the acreage on one of these lots. Did you have a chance to correct that? MR. MCCOTTER-It's all in the adding of the pieces together. See, the figures, when you add them all together, they should come out right according to (lost word). MR. PALING-What you have on the map, on the plan, doesn't, though. MRS. LABOMBARD-Even the new one doesn,'t. MR. RUEL-It should add up on the plan. - 8 - ',--, ,--./ '-- " ..- MR. MCCOTTER-It still doesn't add up? MR. RUEL-No. Either the total is correct, or one of Lots One or Two are incorrect. MRS. LABOMBARD-It comes to 5.012, on the map, and in the whole acreage is 5.22. 50 somewhere we've lost two tenths of an acre. MR. MCCOTTER-Well, are they figuring this little piece in the corner, there, that's. MR. BREWER-That's .049, Ai. MR. PALING-That's not two tenths, though. MRS. LABOMBARD-Where's .049? MR. BREWER-Right up in the corner, Cathy, where the red driveway comes in. Right below Ryan Avenue. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. BREWER-And B., that's .092 acres. MRS. LABOMBARD-It still comes to 5.061. MR. PALING-Well, let me ask Mark and John a question. Does this make any difference? We pointed this out to Mr. McCotter last week, and just cautioned to do it so that it wouldn't cause any other problems, does it make a difference? MR. GORALSKI-Where did you get the total number from? MRS. LABOMBARD-There's another parcel that we didn't add in. There's four values for acreage on this map. MR. SCHACHNER-But where did you get 5.22 as the total value? MRS. LABOMBARD-Because it says it on the agenda. MR. SCHACHNER~The agenda, right, but where did that come from, other than that? Because that could just be a typo. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, if you add them all up, they come to, the four things that I just added here come up to 5.224. MR. SCHACHNER-Great. MR. OBERMAYER-Great. MR. PALING-As long as it's not going to cause any trouble, fine. MR. STARK-I was going to say, if it was real close to the one acre limit or something, fine, but these are both obviously over, so. Where do you plan on putting a house on the first one? MR. MCCOTTER-On the other one? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. MCCOTTER-Really I've got no plans right now. It would be in this upper corner, really. MR. OBERMAYER-It would have to be, because it's steep. MR. MCCOTTER-Well, the house is already here. This one is the one that we're talking about. It would be up in this area up in here. - 9 - '''- -- MR. STARK-Gee, that's a hill. MR. MCCOTTER-But on the upper part, on the level part. MR. PALING-Now the Area Variance talks about, residence built on the remaining" there will residence built. You agreed to that. it'll only be be one one MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. PAL¡NG-And that there is, at this point, 40 foot frontage to Ryan Avenue. You also agreed with the ZBA on that? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the reason for subdividing? Do you plan on putting another house on the thing? MR. MCCOTTER-Not right at this point, no. I have a buyer for the house right now, and he only wants part of that. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. That's an honest answer. Great. MR. MCCOTTER-All he wa nt$, is the ,one h,Üf. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. ~ . J MR. MCCOTTER-I have no plans to do anything with this right at this point. No. MR. BREWER-John, how come this came in for a subdivision for two lots? Because of the variance? MR. GORALSKI-Because you'd need a variance. You can't do just the regular. MR. PALING-Okay. Has anybody else We've got to have a SEQRA on this one. Short Form on this? got any comments? Okay. Unlisted. Can we use the MR. BREWER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATI9NQF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-1995, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before LEON MCCOTTER, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. - 10 - '- ,-' "- ~ 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 set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1995 LEON MCCOTTER, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan MR. PAL lNG-All right. No~toJ, the Prel imi nary approva 1 'is through, okay, and unless somebody else wants to bring the discuss further, fine. Otherwise, the matter is closed and comes up at the next meeting, I assume. MR. OBERMAYE~-DoYou w'ánt to'corrle: back next month, or do you 'want to take your chances? MR. MCCOTTER-I would like for this to get over with. MR. STARK-Mark, is there any legal consequence if we do the Final tonight or anything? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, basically the Subdivision Regulations contemplate a sequence of meetings, but you're allowed to waive anything in the Subdivision Regulations. It is legal to do it all in one night, if you wish. MR. STARK-Bob, do you want to poll the Board to see if you want to go ahead with the Final? MR. PALING-Well, I think we'd just go to a vote, because I just want to say that I think that accelerating the process is fine, and it's a business friendly thing to do, if it's possible, but when there's any existing imperfection in it, then I have a hard time going along with it, and I think we've got to be very careful. If it wasn't for the problem with the public notification, I would vote for Final tonight, but we don't have that surety, and therefore I'd like to see it go through the normal process. That's my own opinion. We'll start anywhere. Craig, do you want to? - 11 - ~ -- MR. MACEWAN-I think my vote said it all. MR. RUEL-I agree. would just leave it In view of the outstanding notifications, I as Preliminary tonight. MR. BREWER-I would agree. MRS. LABOMBARD-Fine. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I think that's it, then. That's five against. I'm sorry. I wish it could be accelerated, but I think it's right that we let it go this way, and we'll see you, hopefully, the first meeting next month, and it'll go through fine. John, are there any other cautions or reqUests that we have of Mr. McCotter? MR. GORALSKI-No. When September is published, listed on that agenda. notice there will be. was never closed. your agenda for the first meeting in Mr. McCotter's Final approval will be That will be the only additional public Now, the public hearing, as far as I know, MR. PALING-It's still open right now. Yes. it open? Why don't we leave MR. SCHACHNER-If you want to , doi ng, ,t~chl1.i.~~~ ly, is hav ~ ng, Preli~inarY.,S~age an~ ,~f yoU hearing¡a'tf~h~ Pi,nal stage. do it this con¡.;::h4ct~d ¡,.Jish, )fOU way, what you should be ,,a public. .hea:\~ing at the can re~ppen~he ~ublic "..J' , I; '; f ~1 '! I ~) L'; :: :] J MR.PALIN~i""'Yo,4 ¡mean clo~ø it out now and: reT,?pen-,it?"" 1,,: I' \,;,-, MR. SCHACI¡i/)'l~R.¡~e 11, yes, be,c¡ause i:n,th~<pr'Y,' a nd-.I gli6ss you had done~, that already~ In theory, you should ,public hear ing at .Pre~imir¡alr:Y stage.. before' you Prelimi nar¡)'f, , StJ.age. So I, ;thou9ht YO\,.!. , had done U~at. ' MR. PALING-All right. It wasn't done. That's my mistake. I thought close the ,vote on MR. SCHACHNER-If that's the case, you should just do so, now, in my opinion, and if you want to re-open it at Final stage because somebody comes forward, you can do that. MR. PALING-All right. else that has anything public hearing. If there's anyone else, there's, no one to say on this matter, we'll close the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, I meant to ask this This second plan that Mr. McCotter gave us has it. What was the purpose of that? question earlier. CO'f':to4r Ii nes on MR. PALING-It was requested by somebody. MR. OBERMAYER-George. MR. STARK-That's topogr.aphy, because you know how steep it was there, Rog. MR. RUEL-Does it make any difference in the decision or the evaluation? MR. PALING-Not in mz mind it doesn't. MR. STARK-Well, I wanted to see where he was placing his future house, Rog, that's all, and he told me where. MR. BREWER-Did we grant proper waivers, if any were needed? .- 12 - -... ---' --- --.-/ MR. STARK-They requested many waivers. MR. RUEL-John, there must have been other waivers. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I'm sorry, actually, you're right. should have been, included in your Preliminary motion. There MR. MACEWAN-Lets just make a note and do it at Final. MR. BREWER-One other question, was a Final application submitted? MR. GORALSKI~Yes. MR. BREWER-All right. Preliminary, then. Then we don't have to save this MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. We've made a motion. go to Final at the next meeting. So we you. It's passed. 50 now we should be clean. Thank NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 41-95 TYPE: UNLISTED CHRISTOPHER P. MARTIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: CLEVERDALE ROAD FROM RT. 9L, 1.7 MILES ON CLEVERDALE ROAD TO MARTIN RESIDENCE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PRE-EXISTING TWO STORY HOME SO THAT AN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN OF 3 BEDROOMS WILL BE MODIFIED AND ENLARGED IN SUCH A WAY TO INCLUDE 3 NORMAL SIZED BEDROOMS, A BATHROOM AND A STUDIO. ADDITIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: LAKESIDE - 4' X 23' 4 1/2"; SOUTHSIDE - 8' 8" X 18'; ROADSIDE - 8' X 19'8" (TOTAL INCREASE IS 407'). SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED PER SECTION 179-79 F. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/16/95 MAP NO. 14-2-11 LOT SIZE: .18 ACRES SECTION: 179-79 F WALTER REHM & JOHN MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. I'm going to note that there will be no opInIon from Warren County Planning because they couldn't get a majority vote. So that's just a no vote, and it's only recommendation anYl,AJay. MR. GORALSKI-It's a No Action, not a no vote. MR. PALING-I'm action, then. sorry. They couldn't get a majority'. John, do you want to comment on this? It"s no STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 41-95, Christopher P. Martin, Meeting Date: August 22, 1995 "This project requires a site plan review because it is an expansion of a nonconforming structure. The addition does not require a variance because it does not increase the non-conformity. The addition appears to be well thought out and minimizes the impact on the neighborhood by staying within the existing footprint. One issue that the Board may wish to consider is the obstruction of the view of the lake from the house on the opposite side of Cleverdale Road." MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-Can I make a comment at this time? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-I would like to commend the applicant for the excellent elevation drawings. I know that they're not specifically a - 13 - .- requirement, but they're really nice drawings. I would like to see more of them. They're good quality. MR. BREWER-I've got one question for Staff. confusion on !:!!.X. part. How does this not nonconformity, 700 square foot addition? Just a little increase the MR. GORALSKI-The nonconformity is based on the fact that the building does not meet the setbacks. Okay. There is no place where it's decreasing the nonconforming setbacks. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-The footprint, right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. BREWER-Because he's going up not out. MR. GORALSKI-If he extended any part of the second floor, beyond where the walls of the first floor encroach on the setback, then he would require a variance. MR. BREWER-Understood. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other comments from the Staff? MR. GORALSKI-That's it. MR. PALING-Okay. I don't have any questions myself on this. Is there anything that the applicant, for the record, would you identify yourself, please. MR. REHM-My name is Walter Rehm. I represent the applicant, Christopher Martin, and I would like to correc,t one thing Mr. Brewer said. The actual size of the addition in square feet is 391. It~s a 391 square foot addition. The current square footage is 1,456, and with the addition, the total square footage will be 1,847, and there's really, well, I would just say a few things here, to get the record straight. This is the plot plan which you have seen. The only additions that are outside the existing footprint of the house are the~e two little porch areas on the lower level, and the purpose of this, as you noted from the application, was to really provide a bathroom upstairs, and to provide reasonably sized bedrooms. John mentioned one issue, and that is the possible obstruction of view from t~e other side of the road. Bob and Sue Morris live on the other side of the road, and their primary view goes out into the lake from the west side of Cleverdale, but if they look across the road, there's a corner of this roof that will obstruct probably a mountain view, but I would think not a lake view, and this is the only area that would cause any obstruction. This is the ground level floor plan which shows the two additions. These are open porches, and this is the existing second floor plan showing the roof outline, and then this shows the additions at the second floor. This is about four feet on the front, the lake being this way, four feet on the front. It's about eight feet running back this way, and this is a studio, but this is a pitched roof. So this is really like a small room, and there you have the new bathroom and the reconfiguration of the upstairs to allow for three bedrooms. That is basically it. There are, no new sewage flows are contemplated. The stormwater runoff will be dealt with with eaves drains or similar recharge devices, so that the water that comes off will be recharged into the ground and will not run directly into the lake, as is required by the now proposed Lake George Park Commission Stormwater Runoff Regulations. Really, it's kind of a small and relatively simple addition. I would be happy, and John, as you know, John Mason is the so called Superintendent for this job, and I try to find a different term for him every time I come before this Board. In any event, John - 14 - -- '-- --" is familiar with it and can answer any technical questions that you might have regarding the building. MR. PALING-I have a question, mostly for Staff, I think, though, and that's the septic system. We're adding a bathroom, in this case, and what's the guidelines there, John? MR. GORALSKI-The guidelines for residential septic systems are bedrooms. MR. RUEL-The same number of bedrooms. MR. GORALSKI-There are two issues here. One is that it's technically the same number of bedrooms. The other is that if you have an existing septic system that is currently functioning, then even if you put an addition on, there's no requirement that you update or enlarge your septic system. MR. PALING-Okay. So we do nothing on that. MR. GORALSKI-So as long as it's a functioning septic system, it's okay. If that system ever fails, they would be required to meet the current standards. MR. PALING-Be brought up to date. Yes. I guess everybody's a little uncomfortable with that, but it's not a practical thing to do anything about an individual case. We've got to treat everyone equally. MR. GORALSKI-Well, the thing is, at this point the septic system is functioning properly. You don't want to disturb it. MR. RUEL-Also, you indicated a moment ago that beyond the footprint would require a variance. consider overhangs on entries as an extension? any extension You don't MR. GORALSKI-I do except that that portion of the lot that the house, it's not a nonconforming portion of the house. That portion of the house actually conforms to the setback requirement. MR. RUEL-You mean some portions of the house are nonconforming and some portions are not? MR. GORALSKI-As far as encroachment on the setback. It's a nonconforming structure because in certain, certain portions of the house encroach on the setback requirements. Where they're coming out further from the original footprint, they're not currently encroaching on the setback. The addition will not encroach on the setback. MR. RUEL-On that side, they could extend. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. REHM-That's about the setback line, right there, 75 feet. MR. RUEL-That's the reason it's nonconforming is it doesn't meet certain setback requirements. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. RUEL-Certain, okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other questions or comments before we go to the public hearing? I think that will be our next step here. All right. We'll open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that would like to talk about this, pro or con? - 15 - PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ELIZABETH WETHERBEE WARD MRS. WETHERBEE WARD-My name is Elizabeth Wetherbee Ward. I own property within the 500 foot zone of the Martin:'s property, and I came to express my support and to express n6 objection to this proposal. I've gone down to the property, and it looks fine to me. MR. PALING-Thank you very much. Are there any other comments? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, Warren County Planning Board indicated that they could take no action? MR. PALING-They didn't, they couldn't reach a majority vote. So theH~is 1)othing., MR. :RU5L-Do,they have to· return~ '¡i MR. PALING-NG. That's a dead,i6su~~ MR. RUEL-It ~?ys Return~, What does"that :FI)~an:? , ' ',"I , ., .~ ¡ r: MR. SCHACHNER-The appl ication '~, fetur ned:,h~He wi th no ª~tion. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-I wonder why they couldn't Teach a majority? MR. GORALSKI-They didn't have enough people. MR. REHM-They only had six people at the meeting. MR. PALING-If there's no other questions, lets do the SEQRA on this. Jim, do you want to go ahead? MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. Assessment again. We're going to do the Short Environmental MR. MACEWAN-Let me interrupt and ask a question. Why aren't we doing a Type I? MR. BREW~R-Because it isn't a Type I Action. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I thought somebody said something about a Critical Environmental Area. MR. GORALSKI-It is in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. SCHACHNER-And if that's true, then it is a Type I. MR. PALING-It's called for as Unlisted. It is a Type I? MR. SCHACHNER-I see that it says that on idea, but I thought somebody said Environmental Area. Well, it must be. the zone. the agenda. I have no this was a·, Critical It says CEA right under MR. PALING-All right. Then that's changed. MR. OBERMAYER-They filled out a Short Form) Mark. MR. BREWER-Now what do we do? MR. SCHACHNER-It should be a Long For~. I believe the applicant recognizes that it should be a Long Form. - 16 - --- --/ ........-- -- MR. REHM-It should be a Long Form. MR. PALING-Can we just change it to Type I and do the Long Form? Are we okay? MR. SCHACHNER-We don't have a Part I. could ask them to do a Part I right now. wait, but put them off until later in fill out a Part I. You could do that. That's the problem. You I mean, not make people the meeting. Have them MR. PALING-All right. Do you want to do that? We'll just put this aside. You do the Part I and we'll re-open it then. Okay. MR. REHM-Thank you very much. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. We're going to go on to the next item of New Business. SITE PLAN NO. 44-95 TYPE I FREDERICK & MARY ELLEN TEDESCHI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT. RD., LEFT ON SUNSET LANE; RIGHT ON HONEYSUCKLE LANE, LEFT ON NORTH LANE, PROPERTY IS WEST SIDE OF INTERSECTION OF NORTH LANE AND FOREST ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A ONE-STORY, 12' X 20' ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING CAMP IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA, WHICH REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 8-1-29 LOT SIZE: 7,500 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 FREDERICK & MARY ELLEN TEDESCHI, PRESENT MR. TEDESCHI-I'm Frederick and this is my wife Mary Ellen Tedeschi. We're the applicants. MR. PALING-Okay. What will the addition be used for? of rooms are they? l.Jhat kind MR. TEDESCHI-It's a bedroom. MR. PALING-Okay. How many bedrooms? MR. TEDESCHI-Just one. MR. PALING-One bedroom addition. MR. TEDESCHI-What it is now, it's an A-Frame. It has two lofts to it, and we sleep in one, and I've got three children. One sleeps in the front loft, and our two sons sleep in the living room downstairs, and we have a bedroom to ourselves. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MR. RUEL-Was a variance required on this? MR. PALING-A variance for what reason? MR. BREWER-For setbacks. MR. RUEL-For setbacks. MR. TEDESCHI-I believe this falls in the same category as the gentlemen that preceded me. We're not planning to add to the side that does not conform to the setback. MR. RUEL-The same situation? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. This building is nonconforming because of the eight foot two inch setback on the north side. Okay. They're adding on to the south side. MR. PALING-Okay, and they're on the opposite side. Yes. - 17 - MR. RUEL-I was just reading the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Who fills that out? MR. BREWER-He needs a Long, too. MR. SCHACHNER-They're going to have the same problem he,' e , too. MR. GORALSKI-;-This is going to be the same one. MR. SCHACHNER-You have the exact same situation. MR. PALING-Okay. Now this is listed as a Type I now. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and, therefore, you need a Long Form Environmental Assessment Form. MR. PALING-And we don't have it? MR. RUEL-No. We have a Short Form. MR. PAL ING,-You haven't done Part I . MR. TEDESCHI-I'll be happy to. MR. PALING-Okay. Same thing. MR. BREI,.JER-How come they weren't given these? MR. GORALSKI-Typically what happens is people come in and just pick up a standard Site Plan Review application, which has the Short Form on it. Okay, and I don't mean to make excuses, but what happened was when Scott left, there was nobody checking these as they came in. The secretaries were just taking them, signing them in, and made up the agenda. MR. BREWER-So there was no Staff meeting or anything? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, right. MR. PALING-The Staff is shorthanded by one, and we're having to mend and paste a little bit, but I think we can, lets cover the other items here with Mr. and Mrs. Tedeschi, and so what they are. Then maybe you can fill out Part I and then come on back yet tonight. Is there any questions of anyone on the Board? MR. RUEL-There's an additional bedroom, but the same answer, I guess, as we got on the last application, that it would increase the need on the septic system. but as long as it doesn't fail, it's okay. MR. GORALSKI-There is no requirement in the Cpde that the septic system be changed or modified, unless it fails. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Isn't there some stipulation, I mean, suppose, not this particular application, but suppose someone added four bedrooms to an existin,9 house that had one bedroom? MR. BREWER-We can request them to do that. MR. RUEL-We could request that the septic syste~? MR. GORALSKI-You certainly could, as a condition of your site plan approval, request that. MR. RUEL-Because then it would be extensive use of the septic system that was built for a very small house. MR. GORALSKI-Chances are it would fail. - 18 - '-- --' -- --' MR. BREWER-Do you remember the house on Glen Lake? We did just that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That happens relatively, I mean, I think that's not unusual to have that happen. MR. PALING-In this situation, they're not increasing the size of their family, though. They're just re-distributing them a little bi t. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, we were responding in terms of Roger's hypothetical, where you have one bedroom adding four bedrooms. MR. PALING-Yes.· Okay. MR. RUEL-Okay, but we do have the option to? MR. GORALSKI-Certainly as a condition of the Site Plan approval you could do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now, but the previous applicant didn't change the number of bedrooms, but this one is changing, is increasing it by one. MR. RUEL-That's what I said. MR. OBERMAYER-But they're not increasing the number of people. MRS. LABOMBARD-I guess I thought wrong, but I thought that if, how many bedrooms are allowed on a certain size septic system? MR. GORALSKI-Well, it depends on several factors. It depends on the soil conditions and that type of thing. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. MR. GORALSKI-There's no pat answer to that. MR. BREWER-Okay. Not to pick on this applicant, but because they're not changing the size of their family, potentially, if they added on to the house, another family could, potentially, move in to it. So you have to consider that, I think. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's right. Lake. That was my contention at Glen MR. OBERMAYER-There is a certain amount of bedrooms per gallons in the Code. I mean, there is a specific number. MR. RUEL-It's up to us to ask those questions, at the time. It seems to me that some modification to the Code could be made, to eliminate that, you know, in a case where they would add a substantial number of bedrooms, that it could automatically have to have it checked, rather than wait until it comes before the Board and then maybe we'll look at it. MR. PALING-Yes. I think the point there is I don't think we should try to judge on one particular case, but if there are guidelines that the applicants can see before they come, we can certainly check on them to see that they're complied with, but to nail someone right away, I think this is okay, but we are going to have to be wary of it, and it's a problem that's not getting any better. MR. OBERMAYER-How do you know it's okay? What size is the septic ta n k? MR. PALING-I mean, compared to every other one we do. MR. BREWER-You don't know. If it's functioning, then we leave - 19 - --- well enough alone. If it fails, theD they come in and they get it fixed. MR. PALING-And that's just the rules that we're operating under at the present time. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Do we know when these systems fail? I m~an~ could a person have a failing system and continue to use it anyway? MR. BREWER-I think if it was failing, you'd know. MR. PALING-And the neighbors would, too. MR. RUEL-Well, if he's in an isolated area, it could fail and he could keep using it. MR. BREWER-I think not, because I think when the inspectors go there. MR. GORALSKI-Typically what happens, if the septic system fails, or the leach field or a seepage pit, if it fails, you'll have one of two conditions. One is you'll simply have an odor. The other is more obvious. You'll have standing water on the ground, septic right on the ground. It's $omething you can't avoid. MR. OBERMAYER-Not only that, if you're a family, and you have a septic system that fails, it is a hassle that you've got to repair it. MR. RUEL-So now this gentleman will have to fill out the Long Form? MR. PALING-Yes. Are to talk about? Okay. there any other questions besides the Form Can you fill out Part I of that Form? MR. BREWER-Why don't we do the public hearing, Bob, and then if there's any comments, we can at least know what they are. MR. PALING-Good suggestion. We'll this matter, for the Tedeschi's now. care to speak for or against? open the public hearing on Is there anyone that would PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. All right. We'll put it aside and see you in a little bit. Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 43-95 TYPE: UNLISTED HERMAN NEAL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: EX~T 18. WEST ON CORINTH RD., RIGHT ON VAN DUSEN. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 36' X 60' WAREHOUSE. WAREHOUSE IS A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/7/95 TAX MAP NO~ 126-1-68.1, 69, 70.1 (COMBINED LOTS) LOT SIZE: 1/2 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-All right. John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I have a couple of comments. One is that they received a variance for having the residence and the w~rehouse on the same lot, the same half acre lot at the previous Zoning Board meeting. One thing I would recommend is that the stockade fence that is shown on the, I believe it's shown on the plan, be maintained and possibly even replaced with a permanent fence, so - 20 - ~ -' '-' --- that there's a Light Industrial separation between the use. residential use and the MR. BREWER-Is this one lot or two lots? MR. GORALSKI-The tax map shows that it's three separate lots, but it's been combined. HERMAN NEAL MR. NEAL-I'm Herman Neal. MR. CLUTE-I'm Larry Clute. MR. GORALSKI-It's been combined into one lot. MR. PALING-And through the ZBA they've done that. MR. GORALSKI-Well, through the ZBA they've granted the variance to have the two uses on one lot. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-The combination has to be done by deed. MR. RUEL-Does anyone know what the warehouse is used for? MR. BREWER-That's what my next question was going to be. MR. NEAL-Basically dry storage. It's basically storage of kitchen cabinets and construction equipment. MR. BREWER-Is there going to there, or no work or anything, be any business just storage? transacted out of MR. NEAL-Just storage. MR. RUEL-And you'll use the existing driveway to get to the warehouse? MR. NEAL-Yes. MR. RUEL-And there's a fence there, right, with a gate? MR. NEAL-Yes, there is. MR. OBERMAYER-What kind of building is it going to be1 MR. CLUTE-Two by six construction, Tl11 eiterior, standrird pitch roof. MR. PALING-I'm reading from the comments of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and it says, I do believe it would have an adverse effect on utilitie~' ~nd facilities. I think it would impact traffic flow in that the lot would have a lot of activity on and off Van Dusen Road. MR. BREWER-Bob, -'1 thi nk that's from á previous application. MR. GORALSKI-That's an old variance application. That's not the variance from last week. MR. PALING-This is not a factor now? MR. GORALSKI-That's an old variance that was denied a couple of years ago. MRS. LABOMBARD-Why did they put it in our packets? MR. BREWER-Just to reference, because the lot was in for a - 21 - V¿.H iance before. MR. GORALSKI-Just to give you the history of the lot that was put in. MR. PALING-Well, they've underlined, in mine, the traffic flow. MR. RUEL-Actually, it's a Light Industrial area. It's junkyards along there. MR. BREWER-Right, but there's a residence on,the lot, and previous he came in for, I think it was used car sales. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. BREWER-On that lot, and it was denied, and that's the reason they've just given us a little bit,of history on that piece of property. MR. RUEL-There's hardly any relationship between this and what we're looking at; MR. PALING-And I don't think there's any traffic flow, there would be any traffic problem there either. MR. RUEL-No, I don't think so, either. MR. GORALSKI-The question of traffic problems was related to the used car sales, not to a warehouse. MR. RUEL-And certainly no effect on utilities. MR. BREWER-But as long as this is going to be just dry storage, there's no impact on traffic. MR. RUEL-And utilities. MR. BREWER-Provided that that is exactly what it's used for. MR. RUEL-So I don't think that sheet has any. MR. OBERMAYER-Isn't it required to have an access road, though, around the structure, like we request? MR. BREWER-Not necessarily a road, is it? MR. GORALSKI-Not necesearily. You may be thinking of the fire access requirements, and that is based on the Building Code, the size of the building, distance from hydrants, that type of thing. MR. RUEL-And he's got plenty of space there. MR. GORALSKI-And this building wouldn't be big enough for that to apply. MR. RUEL-Sixty feet on each side, thirty feet in the back. MR. BREWER-No. MR. NEAL-No. It's open. MR. RUEL-What's directly in the back, the Junk yard? MR. NEAL-The Junk yard. MR. RUEL-And on the side? MR. NEAL-On both sides. MR. RUEL-On both sides. - 22 - '-- ~ ',-- ~ MR. GORALSKI-All three sides. MR. RUEL-You're completely surrounded with junk yards. Is this a metal structure? MR. OBERMAYER-No, wooden. MR. PALING-Now, this is a Type I, but we don't have the Long Form. MR. SCHACHNER-Why is this a Type I? MR. GORALSKI-This is Unlisted. MR. MACEWAN-It's Unlisted. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. I'm reading the one above Short Form. Any other questions or comments on Staff? it. Okay. the part of MR. MACEWAN-I had a question for Staff. What kind of fence did YOU have in mind? MR. GORALSKI-Well, some type of stockade fence. I just think it would be appropriate, there's a lot of children playing out there, when I was out there, that there be some definite separation. The fence that's there seems to be falling down, at this point. MR. NEAL-Can I just make a comment. The fence that's there will come down and a new fence will go up. MR. MACEWAN-What kind did you have in mind? MR. NEAL-Probably another stockade fence just like, the one that's there has been there about 10 years. MR. MACEWAN-Pressure treated, something like that? MR. NEAL-Yes, pressure treated it will be. MR. MACEWAN-And if we made that part of the motion, would you have any problems with that? MR. NEAL-I'd be fine with that. That's not a problem. MR. BREWER-When would you be going in and out of this, in the morning or at night? MR. NEAL-It would vary, I would say probably, there'd be a lot of days I wouldn't go there at all. I mean, it's not like I'm going to be in and out of there every day, at different times during the day. MR. BREWER-You're going to build the cabinets at another facility, and then you'll store them at? MR. NEAL-Right. I have a facility at 6 Highland Avenu~ where I build everything. That's pretty much where the job is done. I bring it over here and store the materials and such and have it there. It's not going to be an every day. MR. RUEL-You mentioned equipment also, didn't you? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Well, what type of equipment, construction equipment did you say? MR. NEAL-No, I said materials. - 23 - MR. CLUTE-Yes, things like plywood, dry goods. I'1R. RUEL -0 kay . MR. PALING-John, I see it refers to the Beautification Committee, but we don't have anything from them, at least 1 don't. Do you have something from them? MR. RUEL-I didn't get anything from them, either. MR. GORALSKI-Did you go to the Beautification Committee? MR. MACEWAN-They did. applicant appeared. They disapproved it. No one from the MR. CLUTE-I don't think we had notification of it. MR. PALING~How do you know they disapproved it? MR. MACEWAN-It says so right here. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Do they notify people? MR. GORALSKI-The Beauti f ication Cornmi ttee does ~~nd ,.letters to people, yes. MR. PALING-Do we know what it said, what their reasoning was? MR. OBERMAYER-N~1pn~ appeared. ", ,.,..; MR. GORALSKI-That's why they denied it. Committee, they send the letters directly. they go about notifying people. The B~autification I don't even know how MR. PALING-Okay. Then I suggest, in. í t,I)Ä~'; qase . MR. CLUTE-We also didn't get a letter for this meeting. MR. OBERMAYER-You didn't even get a letter fpr this meeting? MR. CLUTE-No. We got a letter for last week's meeting, but the only reason I knew about tonight's meeting was through John's office. I wasn't notified of this. I was notified of last week's meeting only by mail. MR. BREWER-What do you mean last weeks, the variance? MR. CLUTE-That was the only meeting we were actually notified of. MR. BREWER-Do we send letters to people, John, to say they're on the agenda? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We send the agendas to people. MR. PALING-I think we can go ahead, though. there's any reason not to. I don't thinK MR. MACEWAN-,.Jas this posted, in the paper for tonight? MR. GORALSKI-I believe it was. Yes. MR. MACEWAN-What's the requirements for a public hearing, again, for a site plan? Just pos~ing in the paper? MR. GORALSKI-I believe it's five days in advance. MR. MACEWAN-With the paper. They don't have to do a mailing? - 24 - -- --' '--- --,' MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We do a mailing. The Town does the mailing for site plan, and that was done. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Five days is the newspaper publication requirement for site plan. MR. PALING-All right. MR. GORALSKI-Typically, the mailings coincide with that. MR. PALING-Are we okay on this then? MR. i"1ACEWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Is there any other comment before we open the public hearing on this? Okay. If not, I'd like to open the public hearing on the Herman Neal application. Is there anyone that would like to speak for or against this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. OBERMAYER-We've got to do a SEQRA. We're going to do the Short Fo,-m. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 43-95, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before HERMAN NEAL, and the Planning Boa ni an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Ënvironmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rûles and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. - 25 - Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Is there any other comments from the Board? MR. BREWER-Yes. I have one other question. This driveway, when we were out there, appears to be awfully close to the house. Is there any way to move it over a little bit, so that when trucks go in and out of there, there's no danger of the kids getting run ove1- ? MR. NEAL-The existing paved driveway ,will stay with the house, and then there'll be another road to the right of that driveway. MR. RUEL-There were two driveways. MR. BREWER-Is that allowable? MR. GORALSKI-That's allowable. If they'ye going to have a, new access to the road, they'd have to get a driveway permit. MR. NEAL-No. It's already in place. It's two cars wide. MR. BREWER-So, you don't mind,. ~howing that on the plan, then? Can we make that part of the motion? Do you have a problem with that? MR. NEAL-No. MR. BREWER-We can have him show it on the plan what he's going to do. MR. OBERMAYE~..,.~¡1so ¡w~'want to add the fence ~ MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-I've got the fence. MR. BREWER-So, he's going show some sort of a fence or whatever here, and then a driveway here. MR. RUEL-A fence there? Who said anything about a f~nce here? MR. BREWER-He did. MR. PALING-Stockade fence. MR. RUEL-Existing stockade fence or a new one? MR. OBERMAYER-New. MR. PALING-A replacement. MRS. LABOMBARD-To replace the one that's there. MR. BREWER-What he was going to do was put some sort of a fence. MR. NEAL-We'll replace the old one, and then to block the house from the road coming in, we're going to, it'll kind of end up in the middle of the driveway that's there, and then it'll have to be extended a little bit. MR. BREWER-I see what you're saying. driveway for the house over here? You're going to put the - 26 - "--~ '--' ',,-,~ ....-/ MR. NEAL-It already is. MR. BREWER-It is. MR. NEAL-It's circled driveway on there now. an in and out driveway. The house only has MR. PALING-And there's two different fences. MR. BREWER-Then that definitely separates the two uses. That's perfect. MR. NEAL-Exactly. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-I have one question for Staff. John, warehouse work the same way as residential construction? a co is issued, do you issue a CO for a warehouse as well? does a Before MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We issue a CO, and I would do a final inspection prior to the issuance of the co. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Would the applicants have a problem with these conditions with the fences that we're referring to, that as part of the condition of the approval to make sure that is done prior to a CO being issued for the warehouse? MR. NEAL-I don't see a problem with that. MR. MACEWAN-Just so you understand, that's what we've been trying to drive ourselves, the last few months. MR. NEAL-I see no problem with that. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-95 HERMAN NEAL, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: To construct a 36' x 60' warehouse, with the following conditions: That the warehouse be used for storage only, and that the existing stockade fence be upgraded and that the driveway to the warehouse be shown on the plan with a fence on the north side of the driveway, parallel to the driveway, prior to issuance of co. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-Are we going to include about the CO? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, add to that, prior to issuance of the CO. AYES: I~rs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. STARK-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Why do we have to add that to the motion when that's already? MR. PALING-I don't know, either. It's there. I put stuff in that's already there, because then it. don't like to you complicate MR. MACEWAN-The fence has nothing to do with the warehouse. He could, technically, get a CO on the warehouse without putting up the fence. So if we don't tie the fence into the CO of the - 27 - -- warehouse, we have no way of policing it. MR. PALING-But does he not have to complete whatever's in our motion before a CO is issued? MR. MACEWAN-Not necessarily. MR. BREWER-No, temporary CO's have been given. MR. PALING-Does the applicant have to, if we have a motion, with exceptions or whatever in it, don't they have to complete all those exceptions within the motion b~fore a CO is issued? MR. SCHACHNER-Exceptions meaning conditions? MR. PALING-Yes, conditions? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they do. Occasionally what will happen is we will work with the applicant. if thereaJe conditions that for some reason he can't meet, and he needs to get in there, we'll issue a temporary CO, or sometimes we issue the permanent CO, with the understanding that things are on ord,er or things are going to be done. If t.he motion specifically says, the conditions must be met prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, then there's no negotiation. It's got to be done. MR. BREWER-I think that gives us a better handle on making sure the conditions are met. MR. GORALSKI-The conditions will be met one way or the other. MR. BREWER-If we sit here and make conditions on all of these approvals that we give, and don't include that into our motions, we're wasting our time, because, I won't say we're wasting our time. I'm saying applicants, and it's happened to us before, we went for a year trying to get a guy to put a fence up, because he was given a CO. MR. PALING-I remember that one, and that was quite an exception, but I think most all cases, they get a CO, they're either going to comply'orhave,complied. MR. BREWER-The Olive Garden plaza. I can give you examples all night long. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets proceed to the next item. MR. SCHACHNER-I just wanted to point out, at least one of the applicants from earlier is prepared to proceed whenever you want to fit them in, if you want to fit them in before the end. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Lets go back. MR. PALING-All right. Then we'll go back to Martin. CHRISTOPHER P. MARTIN (Cont'd) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESQl¡.VTION NO. 41...,.95, I nt'1',odl)ced q,y Roger Rue I v4)Q moved for its adoption, seconded by Jam,§!s Oberm'ayer~,iseconded by, : WHEREiAS" ·,there application for: is presently befo~e- the Planning CHRISTOPHER P.HAR1~,N, and Boa )"(;1 an WHEREAS, ,this PIa nni n~~ BQard has; de't~r ~i:Be~/;1;.hat the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the state Environmental Quality Review Act, - 28 - '-' ~ '-' '.--- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL.VED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the 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 set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-If that's the case, then we can go to a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-95 CHRISTOPHER P. MARTIN, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: To modify preexisting two story home. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Is the other applicant ready? I guess not. Tedeschi is hot ready. Then, now we can go to Jew~l's ~onuts. SITE PLAN NO. 42-95 JEWEL'S DONUTS, INC. DBA/DUNK1N DONUTS OWNER: SYLVIA ADAM ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: QUAKER RD., EAST TO DIX AVE., LEFT ON DIX AVE., 1/4 MILE TO 86 LOWER DIX AVE.~ ON LEFT. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 1,074 SQ. FT. NEW DUNKIN DONUTS SATELLITE STORE. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/7/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-19 LOT SIZE: .67 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 - 29 - '-- -- ROBERT LINDSELL & RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. I think we might have a littl~ bit different kind of a situation going on here because I think there may be some disagreement in regard to the way the site's located, relative to passage of traffic, and I'm going to note that the Warren County Planning Board disapproved this, and I wonder if we shouldn't get right to that issue, rather than cover the others, because they're not going to mean much if we can't get by this one, and I would suggest that we just discuss the safety factors first, and then come to the, and there's quite a number of engineering comments. It's rath~:H e:-:tensive. I'm suggesting we leave that until second and get right into that part of it first. Okay for everybody? All right. John, do you want to comment? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I would. I feel that the location of the access drive on this site has provided for optimal site distance. If you stand on the site where that entrance and exit is, you can see to the intersection of Dix and Quaker, and you can see back to the signal at Queensbury Avenue. There's more than adequate site distance at that location in both directions. MR. PALING-Okay. We were there, and I did not read it the same as you're reading it. I read it that I would rather have seen the driveway pushed one way or the other, maybe even go into an adjacent lot, rather than that one, I didn't think the vision was very good either direction. Now that's just one opinion. Let me ask, because I think we better poll the Board on this one. Lets start with Cathy this time. Cathy, would you like to comment on this? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I'd rather not comment right now, because when I went out there, I was really alone. So I didn't have a chance to confer with all of you, which is a loss. MR. PALING-Tim? MR. BREWER-I would agree. I think the, we looked it from both on the site and across the street, and I think the visibility was terrible, and I think it's going to create problems. I don't know what yoU can do with the access point, but I just think it's a, I don't know. As I look at it there, though, it's right at the point where it starts to curve, but on the other hand, the curve coming the other way creates some kind of. MR, STARK-It's right opposite the Highland Avenue. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. BREWER-I just think, with the traffic coming out Highland Avenue in the afternoon, we talked to a gentleman that lives there. It's difficult to get out of there. I don't know how it's going to be any easi('3r to get out of here. I just think it's a difficult site, and if the lot was bigger and the access was down further or the building was down further, maybe, but I just think it's going to create problems. MR. PALING-Okay, Lets continue with the polling. Roger? MR. RUEL-I agree with John, in that the visibility would be approved, looking at the plan there. However, I don't think this is a case of better visibility. I think it's a very dangerous curve, and it's the driveway leading into that road, there's no space next to the road. I mean, when people come in or out, they're right there on the road, and it's a dangerous curve, and I would strongly recommend that a traffic study be made at this spot. MR. PALING-Okay. Jim? - 30 - "-" "--'" '--> >...,/ MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. intersection, and I all by adding an intersection. I think it's an extremely dangerous don't think you're going to help matters at access point and egress point right at that MR. PALING-George? MR. STARK-I concur with Tim. MR. PALING-Okay. Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I guess it's kind of unanimous, isn't it. MR. PALING-Okay. I kind of thought this is the way it might go, and that's why I suggested we get to this first, because if that's the feeling of the Board, we're going nowhere, and I guess it must be the feeling of the County Planning group, too, because they turned it down. Do you have any possibility of getting the next lot either direction? MR. LINDSELL-No, we don't. MR. PALING-You don't. MR. LINDSELL-No. We had initially looked at the lot on the other side of the property, the vacant lot, and they wouldn't subdivide. That was our initial intent to purchase. MR. PALING-I don't think we asked DOT about this. Did we? MR. GORALSKI-DOT never responded. It was sent to Joanna Brunso. MR. PALING-She's not DOT, but it would be the same thing. MR. GORALSKI-She's New York State Department of Transportation. Yes. MR. PALING-She's Glens Falls. MR. SCHACHNER-She likes to point out that she's the Greater Glens Falls Transportation Council, but that is actually a, that is a part of the State Department of Transportation. MR. BREWER-Has there ever been any conversation of across the street, the vacant lot where McDonald's is? MR. LINDSELL-No, not to this point. MR. PALING-Excuse me. Looking at the drawing, I get such a different impression than when we stood there on both sides of the street. I just come away with a different opinion. MR. STARK-Rog, made a suggestion of a traffic study, but I think that if a traffic study was done, that's not going to, you know, I really don't see the purpose of a traffic study. I don't think it's going to mitigate anything. MR. MACEWAN-There was one already done for that stretch right there. McDonald's did one. MR. BREWER-I just think it's a terrible intersection. MR. OBERMAYER-It is a tough intersection. MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, on the Warren County, are there any details on their rejection? MR. PALING-No, unless, John, do you know of any details for the Warren County reasoning? It just says, this application was denied due to the creation of the increased potential for traffic - 31 - ',- --- hazards in that area. MR. RUEL-I think that says it all. MR. GORALSKI-I never applicant was there. spoke to, anyone from Warren County. Maybe they can tell us what happened. The MR. LINDSELL-Soroe of their concerns were the impact it would have on pedestrian traffic, foot traffic, which we didn't understand that. MR. MACEWAN-For the record, who are you? MR. LINDSELL-Robert Lindsell, co-owner of Jewel's Donuts, Inc. MR. PALING-And yourself, sir? MR. JONES-Yes. I'm Richard Jones, the Architect. MR. LINDSELL-One of their concerns was foot traffic, which we didn't understand, having been up and down that road, a number of times, living in the area, we didn't see the foot traffic, and so one thing we didn't understand was that. Another thing, concerning visibility, is once the site is developed, the, tree lines in that one area on the curve that you're concerned with will be brought back, in an effort that will a~d to visibility. He has photos here, in both directions. MR. MACEWAN-Do you suppose that their concern for the foot traffic was not so much pedestrian traffic walking the road, but the potential for people cutting across the road, you know a car load of people going to McDonald's and someone would say, I don't want to go there. I'm going across the street to Dunkin Donuts, and they start running across the street? MR. LINDSELL-Well, personally, I think we're too far away from one another, McDonald's and our proposed site, for someone to, that's just my feeling. I think if they were to take off, they'd probably jump in a motor vehicle and head in our direction. He has photos here, to illustrate some of the site lines. MR. JONES-In looking at the site, we went to the point where we're proposing the access point into the property. When you look west on Dix Avenue, you've got visibility all the way to the light, over 1,000 feet. When you look to the east, you also have visibility of over 1,000 feet to the other traffic light, and I've got the pictures here. MR. PALING-Why do we, having been there and stood on both sides of the street, have a di fferent feel i ng than the dra~.i ng sho~"'s, and perhaps I guess the pictures are going to show? MR. JONES-One of the things, too, the present driveway comes out in about this location. We're moving it adjacent to the property line, which is right on that point. MR. PALING-That would help. If I recall, that would help. MR. JONES-Yes. I think when you look at these pictures, you'll see what we're driving at. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-What was that last comment you just made that kind of changed things? I kind of got lost there. MR. PALING-The moving the driveway? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. - 32 - '-' -- "'--'- ../ MR. PALING-Yes. He's moving it to the, it'll be to the west. MR. MACEWAN-There's a driveway right there. MR. JONES-Yes. There's a driveway there, and there's another one right about in this location, adjacent to the side of the house. We're actually putting our driveway right here. We're moving it to this side of the property, and if you stand right here, you have visibility all the way down Dix to the intersection and all the way up to the light up beyond the Fire Company. MR. OBERMAYER-Did you look at the lot right next to McDonald~s? MR. LINDSELL-No. We did not. For one thing, that's on the wrong side of the road for our business. We need what's considered the morning side, which is the other side, the other side of McDonald's. MR. OBERMAYER-People coming into Glens Falls and Queensbury? MR. LINDSELL-Right. One thing that (lost word) the property the way it is now, it's kind of a closed feeling on the Quaker side. With the tree line and what not, it just gives you the impression, being there, that visibility's limited and things of that nature. Moving their driveway, taking the tree line back, it really opens things up. MR. PALING-Perhaps at this point we should open the public hearing on this entire matter, and we can leave it open, if necessary, before engineering comments, but I think we're all trying to get to the one, to the very important point. Is there anything wrong with opening the public hearing now? Lets get that opinion in and then go back to. MR. SCHACHNER-Bill's got some good thoughts about the traffic that might put this into perspective. You might want to listen to him. MR. PALING-All right. Fine. BILL MACNAMARt" MR. MACNAMARA-It sounds like the applicants may already have some information toward this, but I think, in my own mind, as important as the site distance along, I believe it's Dix that you're referring to that will be so open. I think it's important to keep in mind that people coming onto Highland looking to go into the store, there's kind of an odd angle. In fact, it's a very difficult angle to look back over your shoulder toward the west, and I think that that intersection is so open there, at least i'm curious to see what your own thoughts are about that portion of it, in terms of cars cutting across there from both di rections. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. Isn't there a house on the right hand side that would block the view? MR. MACEWAN-That's coming out. MR. RUEL-No. I'm not talking about the house that's coming out. On the property next door. MR. JONES-No. That's back far enough that it does not cut down the site line. MR. RUEL-That seems to be quite forward. Wouldn't that block the v ie~oJ? MR. LINDSELL-No. I think the pictures indicate that it does not. - 33 - --' --- - MR. BREWER-Well, I just want to make a point, that site distance is important, but if you go to, say, Taco Bellon Glen Street. I mean, you can see up to True Value and you can see down past Woodbury's, but did you ever try to get out of there? The same kind of scenario. I mean, you can see forever both ways, but trying to get out of there, cutting across traffic is another story. MR. PALING-They don't have a curve to contend with there. That's a straight away. MR. BREWER-I'm just talking distance, though. MR. STARK-I have a response to Tim. The Taco Bell you're supposed to turn right. Here you'd be turning both ways. MR. BREWER-Exactly. That's what I'm saying. I'm just using that as an example. I mean, you can see the distance from either direction, but getting out is another story. MR. OBERMAYER-Another situation, and that was our concern with McDonald's, with everybody trying to make left hand turns out of McDonald's. MR. STARK-You can't. It's very difficult. MR. BREWER-It's just difficult. MR. PALING-Bill, did you have further comments? MR. MACNAMARA-No. I just wanted to see if they had addressed that. I'Vè had the benefit of just receiving some responses to some of my own comments earlier, and it sounds like somebody's already put some thought toward that geometry at the intersection. MR. JONES-Yes. One of the things, we have, we were in contact with the Warren County Highway Department. I'm not sure if they had actually been contacted, as part of the initial review by the County. In talking with Roger Gebo, they had plans of re- locating the intersection with Highland and Dix Avenue. They're actually talking, and this is in the preliminary stages, they're talking about taking Highland Avenue and bringing it down here as a perpendicular intersection into Dix Avenue. MR. LINDSELL-And also possibly controlling it with a light. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. PALING-And putting a light in. MR. MACEWAN-I think the key word here is talking or actually planning to do? MR. JONES-It's in the preliminary planning stage. MR. RUEL-That may not happen for many years. You can't predicate this application on that. MR. OBERMAYER-We're still waiting for 149 to be widened, too. MR. PALING-Yes. That's scheduled for this year. Okay. Lets go to the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to talk for or against this proposal? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED L.AWRENCE POWERS MR. POWERS-Lawrence Powers. I own property on two sides of this, - 34 - -- ',- '.--' one side in the back, where that green part is there is mine. See, these pictures here, he took these pictures up near the road. He didn't tak~ them where the driveways is, where you'll be seeing both ways on the road. MR. PALING-I understand what you're saying. MR. OBERMAYER-Can you show me where your property is, where you live? MR. PALING-The green part. MR. OBERMAYER-He owns something else, too, though. He owns that. Okay, and do you own across the street, tool MR. POWERS-No. My sister owns across the street. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. LINDSELL-The green area is actually ours. pavement area. This is part of our back line. across the front and runs back 350 feet. This is our It's 97 feet MR. PALING-Who owns the green spot? MR. LINDSELL-We hope to purchase the green spot. MR. PALING-But it's this gentleman's right now? MR. LINDSELL-No, not at this point. MR. GORALSKI-If you look on your map, the full lot is shown. MR. BREWER-And the back of that, where S785732 is his property? Is that what you're saying, John? MRS. LABOM8ARD~And that's not even on that drawing right there. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Back beyond that line is where his property is. MR. PALING-Is this gentleman's property beyond that? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. BREWER-That is his property, then. MR. GORALSKI-No. See, if you look on. MR~ BREWER-There's the jog right here. MR. GORALSKI-Let me just look this over. See, that map up there ends about here. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. GORALSKI-He owns back here. NATALIE POWERS MS. POWERS-I'm Natalie Powers. I live at 11 Highla~d Avenue. I do own the property on Dix Avenue directly across from the Bruce property. This is my brother Lawrence. He owns the property on the same side of Di x Avenue as Bruce's t+o¡, tQ$ e.a~t q:f the Bruce property and out behind Bruce's property. MR. PALING-Okay. I understand what you're saying. - 35 - MR. POWERS-If they're going to move the driveway, they're going to put it right exactly on the worst part of the turn, and when you're coming up Highland Avenue, somebody else, they can't pull across in there without tying up traffic, and they can't get out of there. You can't see either way. These pictures here were taken from out on the road. They weren~t back in the driveway. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. So, it's the placement of the driveway that you're objecting to? MR. PO\..JERS-No. there. It's the people trying to get in and out of MR. PALING-Just in total? MR. PO\"JERS-Yes. MR. PALING-~kay? MR. POWERS-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this matter? PAT JAMESON MRS. JAMESON-My name is Pat Jameson, and the trees that they mentioned they would cut down, the lady that owns those trees said she would,not cut them. MR. PALING-I don't think they can cut somebody else's trees. MRS. JAMESON-That's what I'm saying. The people that own the property to the west, they said they're not interested in cutting the trees. They're interested in selling the property, the whole property. So I don't think those trees will come down unless somebody buys the piece of property. Also, McDonald's, in their deed, I believe, is that a fast food business can not go in that third spot. That's in the deed. Burger King requested that. MR. BREWER-I don't think we ever saw their deed. MRS. JAMESON-Well, that's what we heard, and at the same time McDonald's came in, the County said they were going to widen Dix Avenue 12 feet on each side. MR. PALING-Excuse me, but who's deeded did you say that condition is in? MR. OBERMAYER-King's. MRS. JAMESON-Mr. McDonald, when he sold to McDonald's it was with the understanding that a fast food,business would not go on the third property. MR. PALING-Who owns the third property? MRS. JAMESON-McDonald's. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mr. King. MR. PALING-If he owns it, okay, that's why I wanted to settle it. He's talking about his own property when he says that. MR. MACEWAN-But she's saying in order to make a deal to sell that one parcel to McDonald's, McDonald's said, the agreement, they would purchase that parcel if they would not sell it to any other fast food chain, any of the remaining parcels that they have in the subdivision. - 36 - "--- ~ ~' -.-/ MR. PALING-Okay. All I'm getting someone else's property to anything. this? at is they can't obligate How does that figure into MR. OBERMAYER-No. We're talking about the lot across the street, Bob. I asked if they had looked at that one. MRS. JAMESON-The County also said they were going to widen Dix Avenue 12 feet on McDonald's side, and they had to move all their buildings. trees and everything, and they said they would do it in two years. MR. MACEWAN-That's true. MRS. JAMESON-So that's going to change that intersection, if they add another strip on Dix Avenue. MR. MACEWAN-Because we had to make that modification to McDonald's site plan, and to the subdivision. MRS. JAMESON-And tractor trailers and trucks stop on the side of Dix Avenue to run into McDonald's because they can't drive in and out. and if you had a Dunkin across the street, trucks stopped going the other direction, either direction, the corner would be worse than it is now, I would think. MR. BREWER-Agreed. MR. MACEWAN-How frequently are tractor trailers stopping along that parcel on Dix Avenue? MRS. JAMESON-I don't know, but somebody had told me that they do stop there and the drivers go in because they can't get in and out of the lot. MR. POWERS-At various times they stop. MRS. JAMESON-It depends, and Dunkins will have a lot of traffic, trucks going through. I would stop at Dunkin before I'd stop at McDonald's. So, I would think there would be truck problems with that site, too. MR. OBERMAYER-Good point. Okay. else that would care to speak? Thank you. Is there anyone BUD MORRISON MR. MORRISON-I'm Bud Morrison, Rob's partner in this venture. She brought up the trees that she says the lady won't cut. Those trees are right on the property line, and just as much on the property that we're trying to buy as they are on the property. I don't know the legality of that, but I assume we have some rights about having the trees come down. I don't really know. You've got big trees in the front, and you've got a whole clump back here, kind of like four big trees that start on our side of the property, and they hang out over her property. That's one thing on the trees. As far as trucks and so on, we own the South Glens Falls store and the Glens Falls store. We don't get trucks in the Glens Falls store. There's no place for them to come in and out unless they're delivering. We have a big, what we call our DCP truck, pulls right in the back, backs up to the door, goes way out around and right off, and that's the way he gets out. As far as customer trucks, you aren't going to see them there. South Glens Falls at one time, when we first opened up, they had parking on both sides of the street. The Village put up ~igns so they can't park there because it was making it too hard to get in and out of our building. Okay. Fine. Here again, you will see a tractor trailer in our parking lot down there once every two or three months at the most. They'll be able to pull in, come around and they park on the side. There's room for that, Glens - 37 - - Falls (lost word). The only other time you'll see a tractor trailer, as I say, when we get our delivery, and we've got plenty of room in the back for them to pull around and back up to the door, then he just pulls around. So there's no problem there, and she's talking about the site line which we have. I think half the problem is that a lot of people can't really picture what this should be like, or the way it would be, when the trees are out of there, which they've got to be, and when the place is set up the way it would be. When we went to the Beautification meeting, you know, we keep running in obstacles. You talk about Beautification, we put in 204 shrubs and trees in our South Glens Falls plant when we built it. We don't know Glens Falls, but we think we did a job over there. We expect to do the same thing here. Some of the objections, as far as the highway traffic, you've got Highland Avenue there. I can't imagine anybody coming up Highland Avenue wanting to come over into the Dunkin Donut shop anyway. I mean, if I was coming up Highland, any time the traffic, I always go to the right. They tell me that people coming out of McDonald's now don't try to turn left because they can't get out. So they come down around. Most of our business is morning business. That's why we want to be on that side. Cars coming up in and out and, they keep on going. They don't have to cross traffic or anything else. You're going to get some once in a while, but not too much. I've seen traffic problems on Glen Street with our store and Wendy's. Sometimes you (lost word) there, but this is a commercial property there. It's a commercial property over her~ on Dix Avenue. You're going to have traffic if you've got commercial property, otherwise, you know, if you didn't want traffic, then you shouldn't have it commercial. That's the way ~ see it. I think everything, from a safety standpoint and from a Beautification standpoint, and every other angle that can be done, we're more than willing to do. We've got some money invested in this now, if it doesn't go through, we're going to lose it. That's not your concern, but it's ours. So we only want to have it done right if we do it. When I first started working on this location I thought, gee, that doesn't look too good, because it's so dark and dismal and the whole bit. You get the trees out of there and all, you're going to have a nice looking location. The traffic situation, yes, that doesn't look too good, but then you get where, if you stand and look, from where the driveway is, yo~ can see forever in both directions. That doesn't mean you're not going to have trouble. You are. You know that, just like you do on Glen Street. I've seen cars pulling into our lot in Glen Street, half in and half out, and somebody from the paint shop is backed up to where they can't get in. So you hear brakes screeching, on occasion, you know what's going to happen. I'm not saying it can't happen. All I'm saying is I don't think that this situation is quite as desperate as what you might think, because it's hard to visualize. You've got to get the trees out of there. You've got to get the thing in before you can really visualize it. I can visualize it. I've been around this business a long time. I can visualize it, but I think it's hard for people who aren't familiar with it to really get the picture. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. like to speak on this matter? Is there anyone else that would MS. POWERS-Do you have the letter that was dropped off at the office today? MR. PALING-The letter that was dropped off? No, I don't. We'll see if we can find it, because it should be read into the record. Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Natalie Powers, 11 Highland Avenue. MR. PALING-All right. Lets read that into the record. - 38 -' -- --' '-- ,-.,/. MR. GORALSKI-"Dear Planning Board Members: As the owner of the Dix Ave. property directly across from the property you list as 86 Lower Dix Ave. owned by Sylvia Adams, I object to Dunkin Donuts or any similar business being permitted to do business on that property because it is on the curve of Dix Ave. and at the 'Y' intersection where Highland Ave. and Dix Ave. meet. There have been many accidents at that intersection caused by Westbound Dix Ave~ traffic making a left turn into Highland Ave. with no regard for East bound Dix Ave. traffic. Most of these damaged vehicles are in Dix Ave., directly in front of the house on this property after the collision. There are probably twice as many rear end collisions in Dix Ave. just east of the property caused when West bound traffic does back up for someone to turn into Highland Ave. Either the West bound driver is going too fast or is distracted for some reason. Also, when traffic is backed up on Dix Ave. in front of this property, waiting for someone to turn into Highland Ave., vehicles pass on the right and have to squeeze between stopped vehicles and the mail box in front of the house. With the increased foot traffic and bicycles caused by K- Mart and McDonald's plus the number of tractor-trailers and pulp t~ucks that follow the state road from Dix onto Highland Ave., I don't believe that curve in Dix Ave. is the proper place for any stop and go business. Last week as I left Dunkin Donuts in So. Glens Falls, I saw a driver park his tractor-trailer on the south side of Saratoga Ave. and walk across to the store. Wouldn't this be creating the same invitation on Dix Ave. if Dunkin Donuts were on that curve? Also, you may not be aware that 90% of the traffic going east from Highland Ave. into Dix Ave. ignore the stop sign. Many never even slow down for the intersection. A few years ago, the Batting Cage was denied permission to put their business just west of this property because their driveways would be too close to the curve in the road. I would be happy to have Dunkin Donuts in the neighborhood, but not on that piece of property. For traffic and safety reasons, I believe a business with minimal traffic should occupy the property. Sincerely, Natalie E. Powers" MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak about this matter? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-You've brought up some points, the applicant has, in regard to relocating the driveway, and the removal of trees, but that's got to be a question because there may be a pyoblem with the adjacent property owner in the removal of them, and we have not heard from the Department of Transportation, and I'm wondering if, at this point, my own feeling is either one of two situations. Either we've got a lot that is not usable for that purpose at the present time, with the modifications that are coming to the intersection, the traffic light and so on, that would be usable later, or I would need a second look, to see in my mind what it's like with the trees down and the driveway moved. I wouldn't, I don't dare to predict what I'd think. Okay. I think that's how 1. feel. Go ahead, George. MR. STARK-I was just talking to Jim about this, and I think if we put it to a vote tonight, it would get defeated. To give the applicant every chance, or benefit of the doubt, maybe we could table it to the first meeting of next month, plan on re-visiting it during the site visits, stand where the driveway is now proposed, and see, actually go over and see the trees, park on that side, like we did, you know, and just get out. Give them every benefit of the doubt. MR. PALING-Just to expand, I agree. point you're making. I would even applicant be there. Just to expand upon ask that someone from one the MR. MACEWAN-They can't. It's considered a meeting. - 39 - --- -- MR. PALING-It's a meeting anyway. MR. MACEWAN-We've been down this path before, and our attorney has strongly suggested that we refrain from talking, discussing with the proposed applicants any aspect of a project. MR. PALING-Well, we're information that someone from the applicant visit. Is this, this we can't do? gathering. Mark, I suggested be there when we make a site MR. SCHACHNER-Well, no, but Craig's concern is very well founded. I mean, the reason being that Planning Board consideration of any application is supposed to occur at the public meeting so the public can be present if they want. There's nothing to prohibit the owner or the applicant or sponsor of a project from being present during one of your site visits, and what I'v~ advised you in the past is that if somebody wants to direct you in the right place, I don't have a problem IrJith that, but Craig's concern is very well founded. You're not supposed to engage in substantive discussion of the merits of an application with an applicant out on the site visits. MR. PALING-Yes. I don't think we do. We have met a lot of applicants out on site, but it's just information gathering. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. We've talked about this before. MR. STARK-That's the way I feel. Why don't you poll the Board and ask the applicant if that's agreeable to him. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Chairman, just a couple of comments. One is, one of the things you might want to do is ask the applicant to maybe stake out the location of the driveway, and maybe stake out the property line, so that when you go out there you can see exactly where that driveway is going to be, where the property line is. This way you can determine where cars are going to be sitting when they're waiting to turn in and out. The other thing I would recommend is that prior to coming back, that the applicant either contact New York State DOT or WarreD County DPW, whoever would be issuing the driveway permit for this particular project. I'm not sure who has jurisdiction over the driveway permits, but that way, I mean, that body may say, well, you can't have the driveway there. You've got to put it here, or whatever, but at least you'll have a definitive answer from the body that's going to be issuing the permit. MR. OBERMAYER-That's a good point. MR. MACEWAN-It's probably Warren County, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-It's a State road, but Warren County may maintain it right there. I'm not positive. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you take those steps, or that step he's talking about? Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Now, the only other thing we were just discussing here was, we might recommend that the Board go and take a look at it in the morning, since that's going to be the peak traffic time, probably between seven and nine. MR. PALING-Yes. there, but yes. I agree. We Okay. Roger? might not get the ~..,¡hole group MR. RUEL-I heard all the comments by the applicant on how property would be improved, visibility, etc. Personally, I'm not a traffic engineer. I don't know that any of us are. So before I'd do anything at all, I would want an expert traffic engineer study to determine the feasibility of this project. Why can't we get an expert traffic engineer to study this and come back with - 40 - -- ---- ',,---, -./ recommendations? MR. BREWER-How about we send it to Joanna Brunso, specifically, and ask her her opinion? MR. PALING-Hasn't that been done, John? reply? You say we have no MR. GORALSKI-We send all the applications highways to her as a general package. If write a specific letter to her about this ask for a specific response. that are along State you wanted, we could specific project and MR. PALING-Would you do that, please? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe we could kill a couple of birds with one stone, here. When we write that letter to her, maybe we could ask her for their ideas on developing, also, that triangle that's remained undeveloped there, that remainder of that subdivision, so that, when this comes up in the future, as that whole area is developed down there, we already have it on file. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. If we could get a schedule of, at least the approximate dates of what they think is going to happen, a forecast, if you will, as to what·s going to happen to that whole intersection. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Actually, we're more concerned, Rog brings up a very valid point, in my opinion, to evaluate that intersection is really what we're after, and the impact a business would have on that specific intersection. MR. RUEL-And we're only second guessing here. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, and it might not be that bad an idea for your own. MR. JONES-In the application, we had provided some vehicle counts, of the number of patrons that we anticipated for this. MR. RUEL-Yes. I read that. MR. LINDSELL-I think we were talking 267 per (lost word). MR. RUEL-Yes. I read that report, but I'm talking something to go beyond that. I'm talking about a traffic engineer looking at this thing in terms of the possibility of accidents, the possibility of people coming in and out of the property. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, because actually the other intersection is going to have some many vehicles per day, plus the cars passing by is going to have so many vehicles per day. So, really, you're not just studying your impact on the area, you're studying that whole intersection. MR. RUEL-And also, I would like to indicate that I don't think we should predicate any of this application on future improvements to that area, because, who knows, it may be five or ten years or never. Lets just consider the road as it is today, and the application should be based on that. MR. BREWER-That's what we're here for, to plan ahead, Roger. I mean, we have to take into account that that whole corner is building up, and it's going to happen. MR. RUEL-Then if you want to plan ahead I say lets wait until all - 41 - the improvements are made, and then we can build something like this. MR. MACEWAN-I think Roger's point was the Warren County expanding that road in millenniums or wheneveT they plan on doing was he was referring to. talk of discussion of the next couple of it. So that's what he MR. PALING-Couldn't that come out of the request to Joanna Brunso? MR. GORALSKI-Right. One of the things we can request is a timetable for what changes are being made, and the applicant could also pursue that information themselves through Roger Gebo. MR. PALING-Then we're going to just have to make a Judgement call on it, as to how the whole thing fits, I think. MR. RUEL-Yes. Just to simplify the letter, the request, to me, would be most of the Planning Board members were quite concerned about the traffic problem there, and possibility of accidents. What do you think about it? Right? That's essentially what I'm looking for. MR. PALING-Okay. Tim, do you have anything to add to this? MR. BREWER-I would suggest that they contact Joanna Brunso and we just end this right now and get it over with. MR. PALING-Okay. to add? That'll be done. Cathy, have you got anything MRS. LABOMBARD-I concur with you guys. MR. PALING-Okay. Craig? George? Jim? All right. With the applicant's permission, what we're going to do is table this, but while it's being tabled, and we're going to ask the applicant if they would pursue the analysis of the intersection, lets say, and also that you get a little more solid reading on what you are going to be able to do with those trees. Because if you're up against someone that won't let you do anything, I don't know. That's a separate matter, but we'll have to know what is going to be, are the trees going to be killed or whatever, I mean, moved. MR. BREWER-Bob, can I make a suggestion? I don't think the trees are really a big issue. If you look where the driveway is and you look where the trees are, ,I don't see that as an issue. MR. PALING-All right. Lets not try to settle that now. It's on their agenda, and we can review that when we go out. MR. LINDSELL-That's what I was Just going to suggest, and see where the trees are and the property lines are marked. MR. PALING-Yes, and then earlier it was suggested, and I agree with it, and George was reminding us, to stake it out, so we can see exactly what you have in mind. MR. OBERMAYER-So you're going to have a traffic study on that intersection, specifically, first? MR. PALING-Not a traffic study. I don't think we asked for that. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. Joanna's going to do. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe it would help, John, when you go through the files, could you take a look at the McDonald's site plan and specifically their traffic study and see if it went up as far as this intersection that's in question? - 42 - --- -./ ~ ----../ MR. GORALSKI-I think there are some numbers in the McDonald's, but I guess what I would recommend is that you have the Glens Falls Transportation Council, through Joanna Brunso, comment on this. I'd also recommend that Warren County DPW comment on it. That way you're getting the people who are responsible for that roadway making comments on it. They may say that, yes, you're right. We won't issue a driveway permit for that lot. MR. PALING-John, who is the name of the last organization? MR. GORALSKI-Warren County DPW. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Why don't you just send them a copy of these minutes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. We can do that also. MR. PALING-Now our next site visit is scheduled to be September 7th at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and what I would suggest is that we make that a dual visit, and that we meet at this job site at, ho~..J's 7: 30? MRS. LABOMBARD-Wait a minute. Where are September 7th? That's the first Thursday of that kind of early? you coming up with September. Isn't MR. PALING-I'm sorry. She's right. It's the second Thursday. It's September 14th. MR. GORALSKI-Can I just ask you a question here? You're planning on all meeting at the site? Is that what you're doing? MR. OBERMAYER-For a regular site visit. MR. PALING-For a site visit, just like we normally do. MR. GORALSKI-Well, we advertise that normal site visit. So that's what I'm trying to find out. If the whole Board or a quorum is meeting on that site, it's got to be advertised. MR. BREWER-We meet here, and then we go on site visits. MR. GORALSKI-That's fine, but if you're traveling as a group, it's got to be advertised. MR. PALING-We would normal visit in the morning. ask you that you do advertise it with afternoon, plus the extra visit in our the MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. However you want to do that. MR. RUEL-I won't be there. MR. BREWER-I won't be there at 7:30 Thursday morning, either. MR. PALING-All right. We'll discuss the time later. It was suggested we visit the site in the morning, and that's what we're trying to accomplish. MR. RUEL-Why are we visiting the site? We were there once. MR. PALING-Traffic. MR. RUEL-We were there once. MR. PALING-Well, they want us to see the morning traffic. - 43 - - MR. RUEL-We're not traffic engineers. MR. STARK-Roger, I the driveway was. to stake it out. is staked out and That's all. brought up that we weren't They proposed to re-locate So we would actually go to see if that would change really sure where it. They're going where the driveway our opinion any. MR. RUEL-Well, we have the plan. So we know where the driveway is. MR. STARK-Well, you know, the plan and actually being there is two different things, I think. MR. pALING-Okay. I think what we better everything except when we're going to be there, visiting this individually, it looks like, but to get there in the morning, because representative of the heaviest traffic, I being told. MR. LINDSELL-When should I stake this out? do is to cover and we may end up I'm going to try I think that's think is what we're MR. PALING-Stake it out as soon as you can, because we'll go by there, and if your stakes aren't out, we'll just go back. All right, now. If it's okay with you, we'll table this, because we have to have your consent to table it. MR. LINDSELL-Yes. MR. PALING-And I would suggest that at the next regular meeting, that we'll, okay. I'll entertain a motion to table. MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me. One more thing. There's a list of engineering comments. I'd suggest that we go through them first, so that if there's anything else that needs to be addressed. MR. PALING-Okay. Now we're at that point. engineering comments? Have you seen the MR. LINDSELL-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Bill, do you want to talk to these folks? BILL t1ACNAt1ARA MR. MACNAMARA-I'll do my þest to be brief. Most of these comments have been reviewed already over the telephone with Dick Jones yesterday, actually. I'll be as brief as I can. Essentially, in the other permits category, we are concerned that whether it's Warren County or DOT, whatever the permit issuing body is get a look at this ahead of time. Also, in terms of the on-site food service, we believe that the DOH wants to have a food service permit or some kind of a disposal permit. An issue was brought up earlier that I do think is a real issue is the fact that actually even single length trucks, are going to have some difficulty, and I've laid this out with some turning radiuses, in that lot, particularly any tractor trailers. Forget it. So there is certainly the possibility of trucks parking in front of this restaurant for quick coffee and doughnuts. I mean, I see it all the time. You pick a Stewarts between seven and nine in the morning, and it's happened in Glens Falls, Hudson Falls or whatever. The drive lane was confusing, in terms of if there was going to be a drive up order, and where the parked cars were going to be, and Dick cleared that up. Apparently it's not an issue. Town Water standards for the water connection want to be shown. Handicapped parking spot wasn't quite big enough, and some off site runoff protection, even though it~s a flat slope, would be good. Drainage plan, the stormwater structures are based on an infiltration, and there wasn't any notes on whether or not the ground could take .ny infiltration, in other words, - 44 - --- '--./ -' -./ where's the ground water. He was going to add some notes to that, in terms of the actual trench depth. He was also going to show that whatever increased runoff there was could be handled by the size of the structures over and above whatever ground water issue was or wasn't there, and in terms of the sewage disposal, again, the ground water is comparative, in terms of pushing the water into the ground, if you will. I did make a mistake, by the way, Dick, on your septic tank. It certainly meets that one and a half number. I wasn't clear if there was going to be a kitchen or not, and if there was, there wants to be a grease trap, and he's indicated no kitchen. The leach field is going to be somewhat of a raised system, and it wants to show some grades back there, so it's clear that whoever does the grading sheds water off it, building sewer, the slope wants to meet the DOH Town guidelines and wants to be noted on the drawing. That's it. Thanks. MR. OBERMAYER-A question I have for you, Bill, is how come you really don't discuss any of the traffic issues either entering or leaving the site? MR. MACNAMARA-Because the first issue that I noted actually indicates that, whether it's Warren County or the DOT, one of those two groups needs to be involved in this entry issue. We are not traffic engineers. We don't purport to be traffic engineers. We do review things in initial view and try to raise a flag, and we do believe that's a concern, notwithstanding site distance, even, it's just the whole turning movements and volume and the geometry of that intersection, and the fact that it's essentially uncontrolled. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. That's what I wanted to hear. MR. PALING-Bill, you went a little fast for me. points is not resolved between the two of you? What of these MR. MACNAMARA-Certainly the entry issue, in terms of the driveway location, in terms of the actual lot having a driveway for this type of business, in terms of driveway permits. Most of the drainage and sanitary issues certainly are straightforward, mechanical, technical issues, if you will, that can certainly be rectified, but again, I think it's worth noting that, we didn't believe, I hope we're wrong, but we didn't believe trucks of really any size could really get in there, and I've got to believe there's going to be people driving trucks wanting to get in there and maneuver, particularly at a busy time in the morning, and hopefully I'm wrong and you guys can show me that. MR. RUEL-I don't believe you meet handicapped space. the requirements on a MR. MACNAMARA-I think they can fit it in, though. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. There's enough room to fit the space. just have it laid out incorrectly. They MR. PALING-Okay. These can be corrected, and John would oversee that. Okay. MR. RUEL-If there's a car parked at the drive through, could a truck get by? MR. MACNAMARA-I'm not sure where the drive through is, Roger, to be honest with you. It sounds like, from what Dick is saying, it could. MR. RUEL-Well, it's shown here. The area is 20 feet wide right there. MR. JONES-Yes. We have two lanes of 10 feet. - 45 - -- -> MR. RUEL-So if you have a car parked at the drive through, there space enough to pass a car? 1, ,-, ,:;. MR. JONES-Ten foot, I would hope so. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anything else we want to pass on to the applicant which they'll be responsible for? I don't think we want to indicate plus or minus right now, at this point. I think you know what our feelings are, and we're trying to give it every possible chance. By the same token, we have other things to consider, safety and so on, too. So, I'll entertain a motion to have it tabled until the next meeting, and hopefully everything that we've talked about tonight will take place, and we'll be in a better position to make a judgement on this. MR. MACEWAN-We don't need a motion. It's a done deal. MR. OBÞRMAYER-If you want to make a mot~on, you ca,n, Bob:~ MR. PALING-If we don't need it, then I don't want it. All right. This is tabled until the next meeting, and hopefully we will all have the information we need at that time, and there will be a visit some time or other. Hopefully it's staked out and that kind of thing. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Cathy, I think \!-Je can, if you would, re-open the TEDESCHI. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. They filled out the first part of the Long Form. MR. PALING-Okay. I have that here, and John, you reviewed this, right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. We have the first part done. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 44-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning FREDERICK & MARY ELLEN TEDESCHI, and Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is u>nl isted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the )-egulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant - 46 - ----' --- ---' environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. We have to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-95 FREDERICK & MARY ELLEN TEDESCHI, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: As noted. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-All right. We've got two subjects left on the agenda. Lets cover the quick one first, and the meetings for next month, we're meeting the second Thursday for site visits, and the second Thursday is September 14th, four o'clock, and then the meetings, the regular meetings, are on the 19th and the 26th. MR. RUEL-And we have a meeting two days from now? MR. PALING-No. We're going to discuss that. Now, there's a meeting proposed between the Planning Board and the Zoning Board to discuss coordination of applicants between the Boards and to make sure ~.¡(~ know what' ,the other 80anj's doing, communication and coordination, and it was suggested we have the meeting on the 29th, at four o'clock in the afternoon, but I've got too many negatives to do that. I was going to suggest the alternate, just make it later in the day on the same day, to see if everybody could make it. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm on vacation. I won't be able to make it. MR. PALING-Okay. You're out anyway. make it? Craig, what time could you MR. MACEWAN-Our normal Planning Board time, if we could, seven o'clock. MR. PALING-Well, could you make it earlier? earlier. Could you make five? They seem to want MR. MACEWAN-That would be too hard for me to get here at five. MR. PALING-Okay. Okay, George, I care. You want seven. All right. You want seven. think you and I are in the same boat. I don't MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm flexible. - 47 - -- MR. BREWER-I've got a dentist appointment at 4:30. So later for me. MR. PALING-Seven? t1R. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-What date are you talking about? MR. PALING-The 29th. MR. RUEL-What day of the week is that? MR. OBERMAYER-Next Tuesday. MR. RUEL-Whatever. MR. PALING-All right. Then what I'm going to do is this. I'm going to say we'd like to have the meeting at seven o'clock, rather than four. If they say no way in hell, I'll say, all right. I'll do what I can to get as many as we can there at four. There'll be four anyway. MR. MACEWAN-Let me know and I'll try to Joggle my schedule. I'm the one who instigated this whole bloody thing. MR. BREWER-I can't do it at four. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the objective of having everybody That's what 1 want to know. I mean, why can't you just meeting with them and report to us? there? have a MR. PALING-We do meet. Well, listen, if you and the Board don't want to come, that's all right, too, but we're talking about coordination between the Boards. MR. MACEWAN-This is supposed to be a conjunction of two Boards working together, that's why, not one Planning Board Chairman and the whole ZBA Board, but a Planning Board, full Board, with as many members of the ZBA. Not all of us are going to be able to be there. That's all. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I didn't think the in between time~ I thought that met less enthusiasm than the other two. MR. BREWER-Yes. Seven o'clock is better. MR. PALING-Yes. Four or seven would be better, and if I can't negotiate seven, I'll keep four. All right. If it's seven o'clock, Jim, you can't be there. Everyone else can be there for seven? All right. I'll try to go for seven and see what happens. All right. I will let you know about that. Now, have you all had a chance, how could you, you want to take a minute to read Paul Dusek's letter of today to me, regarding the Garth Allen Bay Meadows Subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-I read it. MR. OBERMAYER-I read it. MR. BREWER-We all read it. MR. PALING-Okay. What this says is that we cannot grant the extension, and it gave the reasons for doing so, and I don't follow what the reasons at all or anything in the memo, but I'm saying the basic question has not been answered. What are the criteria, if an expiration date has taken place on an approval, regardless of what kind it is, what kind of leniency can we uniformly use in turning a person down or granting an extension after it's expired? - 48 - '-- --../ -...../ MR. RUEL-Why don't you go by Paul Dusek's recommendation. MR. PALING-But he doesn't answer the question. MR. BREWER-Yes, he does. MR. PALING-All right. Show me the place where he answers it. MR. MACEWAN-"Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion that the conditional final approval for the Bay Meadows Subdivision has expired. Further, upon review of the Subdivision Regulations, and the Town Law, I do not find any authority for the Planning Board to extend the time period in which the conditions may be satisfied. " MR. RUEL-Period. That says it all right there. MR. PALING-All right. Mark, are you aboard with this? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. PALING-Is that telling us that the ruling or the advice that you gave us in regard to the Great Escape, which was, we turned them down, is the same as should have been applied to Mr. Allen regardless of the type of approval we're talking about? If it's expired, you can't do anything about it? MR. SCHACHNER-No, I don't believe that Paul's memo addresses that specific question. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, you're saying it doesn't address the specific question, too. MR. SCHACHNER-I believe that Paul's memo specific issue. I think you're asking a than Paul was asked about Bay Meadows. does not address that more generic question MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I think, if I'm on the same wavelength as you, Bob, I think you're asking a more generic question. I also, maybe my memory is failing me, but I don't think that I ended up advising the Board about turning down Great Escape. I don't think that's at all even close to what happened. MR. PALING-You said that you have nothing to extend. expired. It's MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but there were other issues before, you didn't have any application. There were a whole slew of issues in front of you, as I recall, when the Great Escape was here. You're talking about on the sand and gravel mining thing? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-You didn't have an application in front of you. Jim had asked for a bunch of information that they hadn't supplied. They, supposedly, I have no idea if this is true or not, but Jim was taking the position that they were not complying with the existing permit. You had a whole slew of issues in front of you as ¡ understood it that night, and if you recall, my recollection, and I could be wrong, but my recollection is that it never got to the point where I had to give any advice about whether you could extend or not, because Jim's Staff position, shared by some members of the Board, was that there was a whole lot of stuff lacking for the Great Escape to even entertain their request that night. MR. BREWER-And also that point did come up that it had expired and we did say to them it expired. - 49 - MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. PALING-Mark, I did read, from what you said, that there's nothing you can do about extending something that's expi~ed. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. What I said, 1 guess I'm going to try to reiterate what I said last week, and that is that, in my experience, you know, there's a hard line position that can be taken, there's a totally flexible position that can be taken, and there's something in between, and those three, very briefly, are, the hardest line position that can be taken, obviously, is that if something has an expiration date on December 1st, unless it's extended prior to or on December 1st, it is expired. Now if you come at 9:01 in the morning on December 2nd seeking an extension, it's too late. The most flexible position is, obviously, a total open-ended. If something expired on December 1st of 1945, and somebody comes in in 1995 and seeks an extension, and some Board says, sure, we'll grant you an extension retroactive to 1945. A stupid example, and pardon my silliness, but in my experience, most Boards do something somewhat in between, but in my opinion much closer to the first option. Most Boards, for example, if something is expiring in a given month, and there doesn't happen to be a Planning Board meeting prior to the expiratio~ date, it seems to me it's very, very common, and I'm not picking on the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, Town Board, Planning Board, whatever. In my experience, it's fairly common for Boards to grant an extension effective that month, even if date of their meeting is some number of days beyond the date that the extension ~o.as granted. One of the things that Jim has done, and that I commend and you have heard him say this is, he has often suggested that you all make deadlines the last day of a particular month, and the reason he has said that is so that if the time comes and when that deadline is imminent and whatever is supposed to have been done is not yet done, you know there are Planning Board meetings before the deadline runs, because the deadline is the 31st or 30th of a given month. My legal position is what you said, Bob, earlier that if something has, if an expiration date has already occurred, then there's nothing left to extend if that expiration has already occurred, but the bottom line here, and I apologize for being so- long winded, but the bottom line is, if you have something that's going to be challenged, and my legal opinion is that in all likelihood something that's extended after the expiration date ~as already occurred is going to be invalidated. Ninety-nine percent of your situations are not going to be subject to challenge, and many Boards sort of rule with the rule of reasonableness, and if somebody's close, but they just miss something and they don't think it's controversial and it's not going to be bhallenged, then they will ofte~ grant the retroactive extension if it's a short period of time. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is there the possibility of putting in some kind of a grace period? MR. SCHACHNER-You could change your laws. The Town Board could amend your Zoning Ordinance on things that are not governed by State law. You should notice that the issue that Paul addressed is not only governed by the Town Subdivision Regulations, but is also governed by New York State Town Law, which is something I alluded to briefly last week, but I didn't want to get into this, in terms of Bay Meadows. I don't think a grace period makes sense. I do think that a somewhat uniform application of whatever rule you decide on makes sense. I don't know how much else I can say about this topic. MR. BREWER-Bob, I think if you look at the second page, the last paragraph, Paul's words, "since the law uses 'shall expire', I interpret those words to be mandatory, and they will require the conditional approval will actually expire at the end of the time period. Also, since the law is very explicit in terms of - 50 - '-, --./ ---- ,--"'" allowing two additional time periods of 90 days each and does not provide any other authority to the Planning Board, I feel that it must be assumed that the Planning Board has no other authority to extend time frames. MR. PALING-No. He's answering a specific question on that case. MR. SCHACHNER-That is a little different question. di fferent. That 1, ,.~ .;:> MR. PALING-I don't have any quarrel with the specific answer to that specific question. As Mark says, I'm getting a better understanding now, from what Mark is saying. I want, I'm trying to get the question answered generically, and the answer that I'm reading into what Mark says is that you shouldn't shut them off at either extreme by saying that once the date is done, you expire it or let it go on forever and we'll renew it. Somewhere in between, you've got to make a judgement, and a lot of the judgement is going to be based on whether there's going to be any repercussion involved in the thing, and if somebody's going to come UP and object because we extended a date, they're going to win, because we extended something that's expired, which we shouldn't have done, but if there is no impact, and we extend a date, everybody's happy. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I'm trying to include some practicality. MR. BREWER-I don't feel comfortable saying that, well, gee, if nobody's going to object, we'll extend it. I mean, if a guy expires the last day of this month, he should come in before the expiration and ask for an extension. MR. PALING-Well, why did you vote the way you did last time? MR. BREWER-I didn't. I said I didn't know, on anything. I'm jU$t saying I don't think washy and say, well, gee, if Joe Blow's going then we shouldn't extend it, and then next not going to bitch about it, we'll extend it. You've got to be consistent, I think. Bob. I didn't vote we should go wishy to bitch about it, week, if Joe Blow's You can't do that. MR. PALING-Why can't that be part of the reasoning, though? It's not so much if Joe Blow's going to bitch about it. It's what the impact is going to be and what the risk is. If there is no risk in extending something, and it's not a long time, then why not do it? MR. SCHACHNER-There's never no risk. Okay. First of all, there's never no risk, because you never know, and Tim is right. You never know when somebody will or won't be aggrieved and will or won't complain, and let me make, try to make clear my position in sort of a summary fashion. By far, the easiest position for me to legally extend, as your legal counsel, is an expiration date is an expiration date. It's a firm deadline. By far, that's the easiest position for me to defend, legally. I'm trying, as I always do, to sort of include in my legal advice to you at least a small dose of practical reality, and we're going to have people, we have an applicant here, for example, earlier tonight who did not have the benefit of much in the way of assistance from anybody who's real familiar with the system. I'm telling you that in my experience, and I represent and appear before literally, counting the ones I appear before, literally dozens of Planning Boards, it's not uncommon to have Planning Boards say to an applicant, you know, if you miss something by a day or two, and it's a two lot subdivision, and there's nobody objecting, you know, we'll cut you some slack and we'll extend something, but I want to make it clear, I don't disagree with anything Tim is saying. By far the easiest position for me to defend, legally, as your counsel, is a deadline's a deadline. - 51 - - MR. STARK-Why should we have to be responsible, you know, applicants, John Lemery dropped the ball for Charlie Wood that time. Garth Allen, he could have come in at the beginning of the summer for an extension. Why should I have to look out for these guys? If I had a date coming up 'and it was going to expire, I'd know about it. How come he didn't know about it? MR. OBERMAYER-Why should we put ourselves at risk? MR. MACEWAN-I think the situation being, applicant is, if something has expired, it's anything to extend. It's expired. It's no no longer applicable. It's gone. no matter who the that, you don't have longer there. It's MR. STARK-If Garth Allen wants to renew, he can come in. He's got all his old papers, he can come in and renew. MR. BREWER-Bob, I think you're misunderstanding about the extensions. I don't have any problem with somebody coming in and getting an extension. MR. MACEWAN-As long as they do it before it expires. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-We've got so much other stuff to deal with, that this just makes our job a little bit easier. MR. BREWER~I think we're trying to convince you, and last week you were the hardnose. MR. PALING-Well, that's what I'm saying. MR. GORALSKI-You have one more issUe to discuss after this, the SECRA referral to the Zoning Board. The Homer application, I gave you the Long Form EAF last week. You were all going to review it, and if you were comfortable with it, you were going to pass a motion allowing the Zoning Board to be lead agent with regard to SECRA, and include any comments you had regarding the project. MR. BREWER-Homer? Thomas? MR. GORALSKI-Thomas, I'm sorry. MR. MACEWAN-OUT decision is to let them do the SECRA, let it come back here for the Planning Board site plan review. MR. GORALSKI-You need to pass a motion on that. MR. PALING-We need a motion to that effect. MOTION TO LET THE ZBA BE LEAD AGENCY FOR SEQRA ON THE PETER AND MARY THOMAS APPLICATION, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vot,e: AYES: Pa li ng Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer MR. PALING-Lets get back to OUT fight. - 52 - '-' --./ --' ~' MR. STARK-If it expires, you can't grant an extension, period. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. MR. BREWER-I think that should be policy. How do we add something to our policy? I think what we should do now, if that wants to be our policy, we should include it in our policies and procedures. MR. PALING-I guess you were neutral. What made you take the hard view of, if it's expired your out? MR. BREWER-Partially the attorney's advice. MR. PALING-That's not his advice. MR. STARK-No, Paul Dusek. MR. BREWER-No. I'm thinking generically, not about that specific application. I'm thinking Mark said that if an application is expired, it's expired. You really actually have nothing to. MR. PALING-No, but he didn't say that's the way, he talked about ext.remes. MR. BREWER-I didn't say he said that was the thing that we should do. He said that last week that there's extremes, and I just thought about it. I mean, why should we keep track of all the applications that come in here? MR. PALING-I don't think we should keep track of applicants, but I think if there's a uniform way, generally speaking, to give somebody some slack, I would go along with it. MR. BREWER-And I don't think there is a uniform way. In my mind, I think a uniform way would be to say, hey, here's the rules, regulations or whatever, that's the way. MR. PALING-I think what's happening is, we all have our oplnlon, and when it comes up, we're going to exercise it. We aren't going to decide anything as a Board tonight. MR. BREWER-Why not? MR. PALING-You mean as a Board policy? MR. RUEL-Why not? We can have them write it up into the Policies and Procedures. MR. MACEWAN-Bob, can I ask you a question from this standpoint. What if you had an applicant who came in. He was two days late, missed a deadline, and we granted him an extension? His site plan expired, he came in two days late, and you granted him an extension. You have another applicant who missed it by 50 days, and we .~,id, no, it's ~oo far gone by, and the applicant comes back and he researches the Planning Board policies and sees that we granted one to that one that expired. Why didn't we do it for him? He goes back and files an Article 78, takes us to court, what do you think's going to happen? MR. PALING-He's got a case. MR. MACEWAN-We're going to lose. So why are you creating an extra headache or an extra probability of a lawsuit for the Town or spending money to defend a lawsuit that's not defendable? MR. PALING-Because I don't think that the extreme occur hardly ever, if at all, and I think that it case, Craig, of saying two days versus fifty days hundred. It's examining what happened, and how come is going to isn't just a versus five you're late, - 53 - ,.~ and just sloppy or. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think there's any room for arguing, and I don't think the applicant has any basis, there would be, to me, no excuse good enough. They have their own staff. They have their own lawyers or whoever's following through for their site plan or subdivision, and if they aren't on top of their own bookkeeping and knowing that, hey, this thing is potentially going to come up for an expiration, we better get on top of it and ask for an extension on it, that's their own fault. That's their own negligence. That's not our problem to have to police their own shortcomings. MR. STARK-Everybody, I think, Bob, concurs with that policy. MR. OBERMAYER-Really the only way you can get an extension lS that you have to prove hardship, I thought, also. MR. PALING-It appears that we're taking a harder line than any Board we've heard of, based upon what Mark says. MR. SCHACHNER-No, no. That's definitely not true. are definitely Board that. No. There MR. PALING-That do take the hard line? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. No doubt about it. MR. RUEL-Of course. I think you're outnumbered, Mr. Chairman. MR. BREWER-To get back to this, Mark, I asked you how we could get it into our Policies and Procedures. MR. SCHACHNER-There's a document that exists, that I never even knew about until Bob was good enough to help me with it, called the Planning Board Rules and Procedures, and it does not say, right within it, how you can change it, but I do see that once when it was amended back in 1989, it was done by you guys passing a resolution of proposed amendments and then having a public hearing, and then amending it. So it looks like that's the way to do it. MR. BREWER-So, can we set up a public hearing, to make that part of our Policy and Procedure, so that everybody knows. MR. MACEWAN-We did one about two years ago when we well, actually, it wasn't that long ago, when we submission deadline. changed the, changed the MR. BREWER-We never changed them. yes, but we never changed them. that last year? I just want to Procedures. Well, John, can you a public hearing on doing that? Remember? Submission day, Remember we were going to do make that part of our Policy and make note of that so we can have MR. PALING-Are you making a motion? ~1R. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Well, then lets make a motion. MOTION TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND OUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO INCLUDE THE EXPIRATION POLICY. THE POLICY THAT WOULD BE IF AN APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED. THE DATE COMES AND GOES. THEN THE APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: - 54 - "---"' ,--,' .....r AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark NOES: Mr. Paling On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 55 -