Loading...
1995-09-19 -- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 INDEX Subdivision No. 13-86 MODIFICATION Herald Square, Phase III 1. Subdivision No. 3-1988 MODIFICATION Maple Row Farms 4. Tax Map Nos. 60-7-16.1 & 16.2 subdivision No. 21-1989 MODIFICATION Cross Roads Park 6. Tax Map No. 48-3-34 subdivision No. 12-1995 FINAL STAGE Leon McCotter 10. Tax Map No. 134-1~1 Site Plan No. 45-95 Joseph Tornabene 11. Tax Map No. 7-1-16.2 Site Plan No. 46-95 Robert Kladis 15. Tax Map No. 13-1-16 Site Plan No. 47-95 Stanley & Beverly Juckett 17. 109-1-6 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. i' I" ..., ','-, ~ . ,; I -j ;, ¡ " '--' ~ '- ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 7:00 P.M. ,MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER JAMES OBERMAYER CRAIG MACEWAN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 18, 1995: NONE July 25, 1995: NONE August 10, 1995: NONE August 15, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MINUTES, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 MODIFICATION HERALD SQUARE, PHASE III OWNER: PASSARELLI/FITSCHER ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: VAN DUSEN & LUZERNE RDS. REQUEST IS FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOTS 18 & 19. SECTION A 183-13 F REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-I think it's written pretty clearly. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, subdivision No. 13-86 Modification, Herald Square Phase III, Meeting Date: September 19, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to modify the lot lines of lots 18 and 19 of Phase I in Herald Square and lot 147 of Phase III. It appears that the land swap between lots 18 and 147 will result in lot 147 being slightly larger than is currently indicated. This should be confirmed since the entire lot is not shown on the submitted plan. Upon approval of this modification a new mylar should be signed by the Chairman and filed in the County Clerk's office." MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any questions by anybody on the Board at the moment? I don't think so. - 1 - ~ - MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz. I'll put it up on the Board, but it's not a large map. MR. PALING-We all have a copy I think. MR. KRANTZ-What happened is, from the original lot layout, two of the three lots in question have homes on them, and the sole reason for the change is that when the houses were built, they were built as you might expect facing the street, and in doing so, the original lot line went at an angle which provided for a less usable side yard for both houses. So the new proposed relocation of the common boundary line between lots 18 and 19 just gives each property owner a more desirable side yard, and it was mentioned also by Staff to make this adjustment. Also, there's a small swap between two of the lots which affects Phase III, and that's the only change to that lot in Phase III. MR. PALING-Okay. I don't think that answers the lot 147 being larger, but not shown. We can't picture. question about see the whole MR. KRANTZ-These are the only changes to lot 147, as shown. MR. PALING-All right. Now, John, does that answer your question? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I believe so. I just think when the new mylar gets filed that that entire lot should be shown. MR. KRANTZ-We'll show all of it. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-I have a question. yellow that I have, right? The old lots are the green and MR. KRANTZ-No. configuration. The dashed line is the original lot MR. BREWER-They're just squaring it off. MR. PALING-And the colors are the new boundaries. MR. KRANTZ-Right. MR. RUEL-That's a very awkward back yard for lot 147. MR. KRANTZ-Well, it's a large lot. MR. RUEL-What's the acreage on that? indicated on here. There's no acreage MR. KRANTZ-Maybe Guido remembers. 20,000 square feet. He said they're all under MR. RUEL-Yes, and that one has decreased, actually. MR. GORALSKI-Well, it increases slightly, maybe 100 square feet. MR. KRANTZ-And both property owners aTe desirous of the change. MR. RUEL-The second house, the one on the yellow lot, actually was originally built pretty close to the lot line. MR. BREWER-Well, it still had to meet the setbacks, and it met them. MR. RUEL-Yes, so this is an advantage. MR. KRANTZ-For both properties. - 2 - ~ ---' '- ~ MR. RUEL-Yes. So that it isn't right on the lot line. quite a distance. He's got MR. PALING-Any other comments, questions? MR. RUEL-I have a question. It has to do with the approval of the Phase III. MR. PALING-I don't think that's the subject. MR. RUEL-It isn't? Because this submittal is predicated on Phase III. It says Herald Square Phase III. MR. PALING-Right. MR. RUEL~So, therefore, Phase III is part of it. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I can clear that up. Lot 147 is part of Phase III, which you have not given final approval yet. MR. KRANTZ-Right. MR. GORALSKI-They still have to come back for approval for Phase III. MR. RUEL-Okay. You've answered my question. Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Any other comments or questions? Now there is not a public hearing scheduled on this, but is there anyone here that would like to comment? Okay. Now this is a modification. We don't have a public hearing. So we can move right into a motion, it would appear. MR. OBERMAYER-The only question I have is have the owners of the lot that live there, they approved this, right? MR. STARK-They're in favor of it, he said. MR. KRANTZ-Yes. Both property owners are desirous of the change. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Great. MR. KRANTZ-We still have to get the consent of the two mortgagees. They'll have to be notified to consent to the lien of their mortgage being adjusted, but conceptually both lenders are in agreement. MR. GORALSKI-Just one suggestion, would include in your motion that your former SEQRA determination, environmental impact. i'f you you do make a motion, I don't see any change to there's no significant as MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MR. OBERMAYER-Why do we have to do that? MR. BREWER-Because it's a modification to the subdivision. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. If you remember, I've given you the advice that any time you're approving a modification and you're not going back through a public hearing, and new SEQRA review process, the reason should be, if you see no material changes in the project that would warrant new environmental review. So John said it as well as I could. You should say, as part of your motion, there's no significant environmental changes requiring additional SEQRA review. MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead, Roger. MR. RUEL-I'll make a motion. - 3 - MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD SQUARE. PHASE III, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: There is no significant requiring a new SECRA. environmental impact. Thus, not Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, I~r. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. Just so I understand the mapping requirements, the mylar you want, John, to show these two lots as well as 147? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. KRANTZ-As long as we have a map showing that, to present t ha t? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-Well, don't you want to show the total? That's what I thought your note said, you wanted to see the total. MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you, I believe that, to the attorneys, does the modification have to be the entire mylar? MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't. MR. PALING-It doesn't. All right. MR. KRANTZ-Show these three lots? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, if you could. Right. MR. KRANTZ-Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1988 MODIFICATION MAPLE ROW FARMS OWNER: VALENTE BLDRS./RICHARD BROWN ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TAX MAP PARCELS 60-7-16.1 & 16.2. SECTION A 183-13 F REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-16.1, 16.2 RICHARD & CHERYL BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. John, did you have any comments on this? MR. GORALSKI-I would only reiterate what I said before, that the map should be filed, and that if you determine you're going to approve this modification, you should include the statement about the SECRA. MR. PALING-Okay. applicant? Do we have someone here representing the MRS. BROWN-We're the Browns, and I believe you have all the information for consideration. MR. PALING-For the record, would you identify yourselves, please. Nì (,\.) Jt.. c~ MR. BROWN-Richard Brown and Cheryl Brown. I Okay. Doés anyone on the Board have any comments or questions at the moment? I have - 4 - ----- ~ '-' '"-,.... one question. I'm not sure it's int~lli~ent, but I'm going to ask it anyway. I've got two layouts. One shows me a lot that's 150 by 700. That's this one here, okay. Now, is that lot within this drawing here? Place this lot on that map, I guess is what I'm aski ng. MR. OBERMAYER-Number Six is right here. MR. PALING-Here's Number Six. This is it down here, the dotted line here, is that what you're telling me? MR. BROWN-This is Country Club Road. This is the 700 foot. MR. PALING-Okay. That's the top one or the bottom one? MR. BROWN-Actually, you're looking at the map this way. MR. PALING-And where's that line right there? Is that this line? MR. BROWN-That line right there is this one here, yes. MR. PAlIi'1G-Okay. So this is it down here. Then that answers my other question. Okay. All right. MR. RUEL-It's about a half acre on that side. MR. PALING-One fifty by seven hundred. MR. RUEL-It's 30 by 700. MR. PALING-The addition? Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes, 21,000, a half acre. MR. PALING-Okay. That's the only questions that 1 have. Any other comments or questions? MR. BREWER-What is the purpose? MR. BROWN-Where the width of the house, to get the boundary lines (lost word) from each side, I'd shift the house farther to the north, therefore I'm too close to the original boundary line. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-t...¡hat 'sthe, zoning in that area, SFR-1A? MR. BREWE~-~FR-1A. MR. PALING-Okay. There's no public hearing scheduled on this, but we'd ask for comments that anyone might have anyway. No comments? Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question, just to get my reference point for myself. This lot is really not part of Maple Row Farms? MRS. BROWN-No, it's not. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, and, did I see a foundation dug there, a hole dug, when I drove up tonight? MR. BROWN-They're clearing topsoil. MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought I saw a hole dug in there. this frontage will be on Country Club Road? Okay. So MR. BROWN-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. - 5 - '- '---' ......- MR. PALING-All right. I think, then, we can go right to a motion, also, on this, to include John's request. MR. RUEL-John, did you have a request? MR. GORALSKI-Include that same statement about the changes. MR. RUEL-Environmental? Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. ROW FARMS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for seconded by George Stark: 3-1988 MAPLE its adoption, There is no significant environmental impact. Thus not requiring a new SEQRA. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 MODIFICATION CROSS ROADS PARK OWNER: BAY ASSOCIATES ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: BLINDROCK RD./BAY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY BOUNDARY LINES AND DRAINAGE. SECTION A 183-13 F REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 21-1989 Modification, Rich Schermerhorn Cross Roads Park, Meeting Date: September 19, 1995 "This modification will result in two changes to the filed subdivision plat. First, the stormwater management plan will be amended so that the clearing of vegetation to construct an extensive berm system will no longer be necessary. The new plan will allow stormwater from the roadway to be infiltrated through drywells placed within the road right-of-way_ It is the opinion of the Planning Staff that this proposal will result in less environmental impact than the previously approved plan. The second change to the approved plan is the elimination of the lot lines between lots 7 and 8, lots 10 and 11, and lots 13 and 14. The lot line between lots 6 and 7 will also be adjusted. the applicant has provided a conceptual plan to illustrate his rationale for these changes. The Planning Board is not approving the design of the individual lots at this time. Each lot will require a site plan review to address on site stormwater management and other related issues. If the Board approves this modification a new mylar showing the new lots and the new stormwater management system should be signed and filed." MR. GORALSKI-And you should also consider the SEQRA statement that we included in the other two. MR. PALING-Okay. Bill MacNamara? Will there be any further review of this by MR. GORALSKI-Bill MacNamara has done a review. I have a letter here I think you got in your packets. It may have come too late. MR. PALING-I don't have it. No, but could that be read for the record? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. "Rist-Frost has reviewed the proposed drainage modification plans received September 13, 1995. We agree with the overall plan of action proposed by the applicant, namely, to - 6 - "-' -- -- --./" manage street runoff with a series of drywells, and manage individual lot runoff using individual on-site methods where possible. The details of each specific lot system would be addressed in the individual site plan submittals. (The applicant should keep in mind that any proposed on-site septic system will require adequate separation from the on-site stormwater systems, typically 50 ft. minimum.) Regarding the proposed drywell layouts, the new Stormwater Management Report refers to an existing drywell at the boundary of Phase IIPhase II, . in the center of the 'horseshoe'. From a previous dràinage plan modification in 1993, it appears this drywell is actually locàted more westerly, just off the right-of-way of the future roadway extension, between lots 6 and 7. The existing DI/CB on Hunter Brook Lane is now connected to this drywell via 470' of perforated pipe, in an infiltration trench beneath the existing 20' wide easement along lot lines 4, 5, 6, and 7. We suggest this existing trench/drywell system remain functional, connected to the proposed to the proposed Phase I drywells, for the following reasons: - The new calculations provided only account for roadway drainage. However, Phase I was designed to have all lots drain to the roadway also, and two of these lots are currently developed, with portions draining to the street. Design storm overflows from the existing stormwater basin/drywell to the rear of developed lot 4 are also directed to the street. - The trench and drywel¡ are already installed and appear to be functioning well. - The area in genera¡ ha~little reI ief si nce the i nitia,l gradi ng, an.d has exper ienced pondi ng on more than one occasion, during wcit periods (see attachments). This additional infiltration area should serve to further reduce the possibility of reoccurrence, particularly with the additional drywells proposed. If the retention basins previously proposed for lots 11, 12, 13, and 14 are not installed, the existing easements (if finalized) for those lots would no longer be required." That's from Bill MacNamara at Rist-Frost. MR. NACE-My name is Tom Nace, from Haanen Engineering, and with me is Rich Schermerhorn. MR. PALING-Had you seen these comments before? MR. NACE-Yes, I had, and I have no problem with them. MR. GORALSKI-And there are a couple of additional comments which Tom knows about. I spoke to Paul Naylor about this. Two minor changes. He'd like the six inch connecting pipes to the drywells to be changed to twelve inch, and he'd also like an overflow line that would outlet to the ditch along Blind Rock Road. Tom seemed to have no problem with that. MR. PALING-What was the last one? MR. GORALSKI-An overflow pipe from the drywells to the ditch along Blind Rock Road, in case of heavy storm event or failure of one of the drywells. MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments, questions? MR. RUEL-Does Staff have a copy of the previous plan, so that we can compare? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-Because when we get a but we don't get the previous there? plan that shows all the plan, it's difficult. changes, It's in MR. GORALSKI-Yes, right here. MR. RUEL-Okay. I see. - 7 - -../ MR. GORALSKI-It would be in the engineering and stormwater management report. MR. PALING-Okay. Would it help if we asked them to explain this map? MR. RUEL-Yes. I had one more question, and that had to do, there was a lot of talk about placement of drywells in right-of-way. The right-of-way is not their property, right? MR. GORALSKI-The right-of-way will be the Town's property, once the road. MR. RUEL-The Town's property. Now who installs these drywells? MR. GORALSKI-The developer. MR. RUEL-And who maintains these drywells? MR. GORALSKI-Once the Town accepts the road, the Town maintains them. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thanks. MR. BREWER-This is going to come back as these lots are going to be developed, correct? MR. NACE-Each lot will come back for site plan review. Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. SEQRA? At that time, Mark, will we have to do another MR. SCHACHNER-It depends whether you consider the development of each lot to be its own action, or if, right now, you feel capable of reviewing the overall development of the project, including the individual developments of these specific lots as the overall action. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess I'm confused because development proposed in front of us tonight. line adjustment. there's no actual It's just a lot MR. NACE-We're here simply for subdivision modification. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That being the case, it sounds more logical to me to treat each subsequent thing as a separate action, subject to its own SEQRA review. MR. BREWER-As a separate action when we get to it. I know, only because we talked about it previous, and I'm just kind of, a little bit confused. When I look at the lot line adjustments, I don't have any problem, but when I look at it with all the buildings on it, then it starts making you think about what's going to happen where, and I just wanted to. MR. NACE-We put, the buildings are on there just to give you a basis for why we want to move the lot lines. MR. BREWER-Looks like a great plan. MR. NACE-Each lot will come back as a separate site plan application, complete with an Environmental Assessment Form. MR. BREWER-Now, when you do that, where's lot one, or the first lot you'll start at, probably thirteen, fourteen? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Lot nine and eight, probably. MR. BREWER-So you'll build half the road then, Rich, or all of it? - 8 - --- ---- '...-/ "-- MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, hopefully, as many as I can within a year, as I rent them, I'll build. MR. BREWER-Well, you've got to build a road to get back to it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. We'll put the road, and lot nine and eight will be the first two that I'll construct. MR. BREWER-So then before you, when this comes back to us, we can have Paul Naylor look at the road and all that, like we normally do any~..,ay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Let me just clear one thing up. fronts on the existing cul-de-sac that the accepted, although it's not paved. Lot nine actually Town has already MR. NACE-As well as lot eight. MR. GORALSKI-Lot eight also, yes. So, theoretically, he could come in and ask for a building permit tomorrow, as long as those lots are accessing from that cul-de-sac that's already built. MR. NACE-We have to go through site plan. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. NACE-Our intention is to take these first two lots which do access the cul-de-sac, and come back fairly immediately for site plan review on those, and then the remaining would not come back until the road is constructed. MR. BREWER-You mean the first two lots you're going to build on, you're going to access from the cul-de-sac? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. BREWER-Doesn't that change the layout here? MR. NACE-No. The cul-de-sac is actually, you know, into those lots. MR. GORALSKI-You can see on the map of the drainage plan. MR. NACE-The cul-de-sac's really right in here. MR. GORALSKI-This is Prudential right here. MR. BREWER-So this is the road? MR. GORALSKI-This is the existing road, and then the cul-de-sac is right here. MR. BREWER-All right. Then you're just going to extend the cul- de-sac? I see what you're doing. MR. NACE-The cul-de-sac is up here. So we'd access these two lots from the cul-de-sac. MR. BREWER-So actually you won't have to do any building of the road until after you build those two lots, pretty much. MR. NACE-Right. MR. RUEL-What's all this "Out", "Out", "Out"? MR. BREWER-That means gone. MR. GORALSKI-It means those berms. - 9 - ........... MR. RUEL-The berms are out and the drywells are in. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-Okay. It's just that in the motion, I guess we'll have to indicate that, you'll have to change the size of the pipe between drywells from six to twelve. MR. PALING-Six to twelve. MR. RUEL-And also that they have to place an overflow pipe to Blind Rock Road. Is there a size indicated on that? MR. GORALSKI-I think Mr. Naylor would like a mlnlmum of twelve inches. Twelve inches is, from what he explained to me, he feels is the minimum you can go and still be able to clean out the pipe. MR. OBERMAYER-From which drywell will you be doing that, though? MR. NACE-We'll be doing that from one of the new drywells. They are numbered. It would be one of these two drywells. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone here thaf would like to comment on this application? All right. I think we can entertain a motion. MR. BREWER-Does the original plan, Tom, show that loop road, or does it just end in there? MR. NACE-The origiral plan, here is a copy of the original plot plan. We haven't changed the location of the road at all. MR. BREWER-I'm just curious. MR. NACE-The road stays where it is. MR. RUEL-Do you want a motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. PALING-Yes, please. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 CROSS ROADS PAR~, Introduc~d by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded b~ George St~rk: With the following conditions: Number One, change the six pipes to the drywells to be twelve'inches in diamèter. install an overflow pipe from the drywell to ditch on Blind Road. Three, there is no significant environmental impact, far. Thus requiring no new SECRA. inch Two, Rock thus Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1995, by the following vot,e: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, I~rs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1995 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LEON MCCOTTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH END RYAN AVENUE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 2.464 ACRES AND 2.548 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 43-1995 TAX MAP NO. 134-1-1 LOT SIZE: 5.22 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON MCCOTTER, PRESENT MR. PALING-We're still considering the public hearing open, and we'll complete that tonight. - 10 - -- ---- MR. RUEL-Is this the case where? MR. PALING-The mailings weren't sent, and I don't have the original prints on it, but I matters. If there are no questions by anybody will turn it over to the applicant for now. think most of us do n 't t hi n kit on the Board, I MR. RUEL-Yes, because the mailings are the only outstanding item. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MCCOTTER-Leon McCotter. MR. PALING-And were the mailings all complete? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. They're all complete. We have the record. We have the slips. Everything is all set. MR. PALING-Okay. I had no further questions on anyone else did. Now the public hearing is open there anyone here that cares to comment? this, unless on this. I~3 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1995 LEON MCCOTTER, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 45-95 TYPE II JOSEPH TORNABENE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT. PAST THE MCCALL HOUSE ABOUT 1/4 MILE ON THE LAKE SIDE. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 18' X 40' SUNDECK OVER EXISTING DOCK. BOATHOUSE IS A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/95 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.2 LOT SIZE: .83 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 JOHN CREEDE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. John? MR. GORALSKI-I have no comments. It meets all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. There is a letter from an adjoining, there are two letters from each of the adjoining property owners that I can read into the public hearing. Do you want me to read them now? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. The one is. from Robert McMillen, "Dear Planning Departmønt: As the OWne1"S of the,property adjoining the Tornabene property on the north, we wholehe~rtedly support 'their application to construct a sun døck over thøir existing dock. We believe this will be a most appropriate improvement which is completely in character with the majority of residøntial properties on Lake George. We have always found the Tornabenes to be exceptionally fine neighbors who have consistently - 11 - maintained and improved their property. We hopefully anticipate the approval of their application. Sincerely yours, Dorothea M. McMillen Robert S. McMillen" And then there's one from Mary Trello "Property line has error. Please hold proceedings until resolved. I oppose project because my north view will be obstructed considerably. Also, my guests, etc., will be in a 'fish bowl' as Tornabene's guests, etc. will be in a position to observe them from their top deck. I feel this is an invasion of privacy." MR. PALING-Well, there's nothing we can do about the property line. We accept comments otherwise, but property line is not the function of this Board and there's nothing we're going to do about that. Are those the two letters, John? MR. GORALSKI-That's it. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Do you have a letter or approval from the Lake George Park Commission? MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe they've issued a permit yet. MR. CREEDE-I'm John Creede. I'm representing Mr. Tornabene. We're just waiting for approval from the Park Commission. MR. PALING-Okay. So you don't have that yet. MR. CREEDE-No, that's in the process. MR. PALING-All right. The County Planning Board says no impact. So we don't have to worry about that. I don't think we can pass that until we know about this, can we? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, we can. MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. PALING-Can we? Okay. MR. BREWER-The height is on the button, 14 feet? MR. GORALSKI-Exactly. MR. PALING-Would you talk about the height please? That's the same question I have. How high is it above the mean highwater maT k? MR. CREEDE-From what I understand, your rule book says no higher than 14 feet from the mean highwater mark, and that's what we will construct it. MR. PALING-Is that what this print tells us? MR. RUEL-I see 13 feet to the dock. MR. PALING-That's 14 feet there, but that doesn't look like a mean highwater mark measurement. MR. CREEDE-The mean highwater mark is, at this time of the year, I can just give you an estimate, it's about 18 inches out of the water, okay. The dock is well over two feet out of the water at this present time. This drawing is just a rough idea of what we will be measuring the overall height of both. MR. PALING-All right. If you're telling us that it's going to be 14 foot or less above the mean highwater mark, that's all we need. It' 11 be c hec ked, bu t t ha t 's a 11 ~ need. - 12 - '--' MR. RUEL-That's not indicated on the plan. MR. PALING-Well, it depends upon how you look at it. MR. GORALSKI-Well, no, the mean highwater mark doesn't change. The water level changes. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. BREWER-Do you check that, John? MR. GORALSKI-I do the best I can. MR. OBERMAYER-That's a tough one to check, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, unless you have a bench mark, how do you check the elevation? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-There is a bench mark, but there is a calculation involved, too. MR. GORALSKI-There's a bench mark on Roger's Rock, but. MR. BREWER-The reason I question it is because when you see something right exactly at 14 feet, there's no room for error at all. MR. PALING-Well, what we have is assurance that it's going to be no more than 14 feet above the mean highwater mark. MR. RUEL-It depends on what plan you look at. I have one that says 13 feet. MR. PALING-No. I'm looking at the applicant's representative who's telling us that he will build it that way, and I think I will take his word for it, and John will see that it's done right. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. PALING-Regardless of what the print says. The print says 14 feet. MR. RUEL-Thirteen and fourteen. MR. BREWER-If we approve a print, isn't that what's approved? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-The answer's yes, but two things. One is if you have a differing representation from an applicant, then I think you better sort that out, and figure out which one is specifically what you're approving, and the second one, of course, is there are conditions, sometimes, that you impose that are different than what's on a print. MR. BREWER-Okay. 14 feet. Roger's The only reason I say that is because mine says says 13 feet. MR. GORALSKI-If you look at that, those drawings different drawings. One says 13 feet from the dock, other one says 13 feet from the water to the framing, inches of framing, and three feet of dock. So they both to 14 feet. arB two and the then 12 come out - 13 - ----- MR. PALING-And we can make it part of the motion about 14 feet above the mean highwater mark. MR. GORALSKI-The other thing feet, that 10 foot dimension, there a reason it has to be little bit? is if you're concerned about the 14 you know, that's pretty tall. Is 10 feet? Can you bring it down a MR. CREEDE-Mr. Tornabene's boat has a very tall head room. MR. OBERMAYER-As long as he keeps it under 14 feet, he's okay. MR. GORALSKI-He meets the requirements if he keeps it under 14 feet. MR. 08ERMAYER-Right. MR. RUEL-John, do you know what the variance is in tides, there, roughly? MR. GORALSKI-Well, this year the lake is very low. They can adjust the height of the lake probably an average of 18 inches in the course of a year. MR. OBERMAYER-Especially this year. MR. mark in to, PALING-The source I'm using when I talk about mean highwater is the Lake George Park Commission, that's the one we go by measuring that, and that's the one we'll hold the applicant as far as I'm concerned, when you go up with your ruler. MR. GORALSKI-Well, since you have an existing dock there, if you'd like, you can say, you can give him a dimension off the top of the dock. If you feel uncomfortable with what they're proposing, there's an existing dock there, and if you want to give them a dimension off the top of the dock, I can go out there and measure that. MR. PALING-Why change from the way we've always We've got a good reference point, and we can ask same, to be on the same standard. been doing it? everyone the MR. RUEL-Yes, but it's difficult for him to measure it. MR. BREWER~To find that reference point. MR. PALING-It isn't difficult. MR. RUEL-Mean highwater mark? MR. PALING-That's right. I've got the whole thing here, if you want, we've been through before. It's not that hard to do. MR. 08ERMAYER-Yes. We're not sure, the only thing, as you guys say, using the existing dock, we're not sure where that elevation is in comparison to the mean highwater mark. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. 08ERMAYER-So we still have a discrepancy there, and that's why if we use the highest high water mark we're all set, even though it might not be verifiable. MR. PALING-It is verifiable. MR. GORALSKI-I will be honest with you. The only way that I can verify the m~~n highwater mark is to have ,a surveyor go out there and give me qn elevation. MR. PALING-Well, you can also dheck the applicant's calculations - 14 - '--' -...../ '-' .....,../ on it. MR. GORALSKI-Well, then the only way the applicant's going to do it is if they have a surveyor go out there and give them an elevation. MR. PALING-Well, I believe that the way that the regulation reads is that it's measured relative to mean highwater mark, and this is the way we've approved every other one. MR. GORALSKI-That's fine. If you want to approve it 14 feet above mean highwater mark, that's fine, and I will do my utmost to make sure that's exactly where it is. I'm just giving you another option if you're uncomfortable with that. That's all. MR. PALING-I think we ought to do what we've done in the past, and revert to the same standard, and not come up with a different one for this tonight. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. Nobody's arguing that, Bob. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MACEWAN-·I had a question for Staff before we go on too much farther here. In a CEA, aren't we supposed to be doing the Long Form EAF? MR. GORALSKI-This is a Type II. This is an accessory structure. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-I think, hea,· i ng on this. Is on this application? at this point, we should open the public there anyone here that would care to speak PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now, this is Type II. There's no SECRA. Then I guess we can move into a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-95 JOSEPH TORNABENE, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To construct an 18' by 40' sundeck over the existing dock, with the following conditions: That getting his approval from the Lake George Park Commission, and, Two, that the maximum height of the sun deck shall not exceed 14 feet above the mean high water mar k. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer SITE PLAN NO. 46-95 TYPE II ROBERT KLADIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: CLEVERDALE RD. TO MASON RD., BROWN HOUSE BEHIND MOORING POST MARINA - LAKE SIDE HOUSE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE ALL OF EXISTING "F-SHAPED" DOCK AND BOATHOUSE AND BUILD A NEW U-SHAPED DOCK AND OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE. PRIVATE BOATHOUSE AND DOCK ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN - 15 - REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: LOT SIZE: .46 ACRES SECTION: 9/13/95 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 13-1-16 179-16, 179-60 JOHN CREEDE, REPRESENTING APÞLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. John? MR. GORALSKI-Basically the same as the last the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. else to say about it. one. It meets all So there's not much MR. PALING-Okay. You're working with the ZBA, but that has nothing to do with this application. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. The question in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals was for a new house. MR. PALING-Separate items. too. I have a height question on this, MR. CREEDE-John Creede. I'm representing Robert Kladis. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Ahy comments? MR. RUEL-Again, Lake George park Cpmmisiion cipplication was submitted, right? MR. CREEDE-Yes. It's under review, sir. MR. RUEL-Did you get it back yet? Did you get approval? , .~" MR. CREEDE-No, it's still under review. MR. PALING-Okay. There is no problem there. This is a Type kind that we just did. County impact. II, but I assume So there's no it's the same MR. GORALSKI-Right. There's no need for SECRA review. MR. PALING-No need for SECRA. All right. Anyone on the Board with any questions or comments? MR. BREWER-Yes. How tall is this one? MR. MACEWAN-Just under 13 feet. MR. RUEL-Yes. th'(ee feet. Twenty-one inches, eight feet, ten inches and MR. MACEWAN-Thirteen, seven, I think. Is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-I believe that's right. MR. RUEl-And that's indicated this plan. So that makes requirement. from the mean it easy, and highwater mark, on that meets the MR. GORALSKI-Yes, lt does. MR. PALING-So that should be okay. Everyone okay on this? All right. Then we'll go right to, the public hearing on this matter is open. Is there anyone here that wishes to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Now we know about the Park Commission. We've - 16 - '-.- '---'" ~--- "-"'" talked about that. We'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-95 ROBERT KLADIS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Star k: To remove existing F-shaped dock and boathouse and build a new U- shaped dock and open-sided boathouse, predicated on approval of the Lake George Park Commission. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 47-95 TYPE: UNLISTED STANLEY & BEVERLY JUCKETT OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION: QUAKER RD. TO RIDGE RD., NORTH ON RIDGE RD., 2ND BLDG. ON EAST SIDE OF ROAD (BETWEEN CONKLIN PLUMBING & HAIR DESIGNS) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RE-ESTABLISH USE OF BUILDING AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN ATTACHED PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PER REQUESTED CHANGE OF ZONING (P3- 93). ALL LAND USES IN THE NC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 9/11/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/95 LOT SIZE: 3/4 ACRES SECTION: 179-25 3(b)(4) STANLEY JUCKETT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 47-95, Stanley & Beverly Juckett, Meeting Date: September 19, 1995 "On May 24, 1993 the Town Board approved a change of zone for this parcel from SFR-1A to NC-1A. The resolution explicitly limits the use of the parcel to professional office. Because the property is currently being used as a residence that use can be maintained. Since no new construction is proposed, parking and vehicular access appear to be the only issues. Parking appears to be adequate. I would recommend limiting the access to the site to a 24' - 0" road cut. " MR. JUCKETT-I'm Stan Juckett, the owner. MR. PALING-Okay. There's a note about the Beautification Committee, here, John, but I don't have anything from them. MR. JUCKETT-Could I comment on that? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. JUCKETT-I called. I didn't go to the meeting. She called me and said she went down. I don't know who the woman was, but she was the head of Beautification, and she said, see, the house is empty right now. I'm trying to sell, and she said that what I had there was fine now, and after the site plan, like for the wheelchair part, when that was put in, we'll need more, flowers or something, dress it up a little more, but at this point, until we change the wheelchair ramp, which I believe John said was necessary within the year, because it's going to change one whole side on the office side. MR. PALING--The note in the agenda is that it it's' dated 9/11. Do we have something from them? MR. GORALSKI-From the Beautification Committee? No. MR. PALING-No. I haven't seen it. Planning, and that's? We have the Warren County - 17 - MR. GORALSKI-No County Impact. MR. PALING-No Impact. Okay. we're just doing this for use. So there's no impact there, Okay. and MR. BREWER-This resolution from the Town says that it's changed from Residential to. MR. GORALSKI-It went from Single Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial, and then they limited, they didn't allow all the uses in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, only the Professional Occupations. MR. SCHACHNER-With the further limitation about what type of Professional Occupation. MR. BREWER-So if he wants to go back to residential, then, he'd have to go back to the Town Board. MR. GORALSKI-Right now, he can Okay. If he puts a Professional wants to go back to residential, liar ia nce or. continue the residential use. Occupation in there, and then he would have to either get a -' MR. BREWER-I don't understand why he has to re-establish it. MR. GORALSKI-Re-establish what? MR. BREWER-Re-establish use of the building as a ~ingle Family home. Why is he back before us? MR. GORALSKI-That's probably a poor description. What he's doing is he's getting a site plan review to have half of the building be a residence and the other half be a professional office. MR. PALING-Okay. So we're doing a site plan review, but he doesn't have permission to use it as such, right now? MR. GORALSKI-No, he does. That's why he's coming here. MR. SCHACHNER-He has permission, but he needs site plan approval to do it. MR. BREWER-Didn't he come before us two years ago? MR. GORALSKI-For a change of zone, a recommendation for a change of zone to Neighborhood Commercial, which he received. You have their resolution. MR. BREWER~But if they approved that use, I just don't understand v.Jhy he's here? MR. SCHACHNER-It was approved subject to site plan approval. MR. BREWER-He still never got the site plan approval? MR. GORALSKI-No. All the require site plan approval. uses in Neighborhood Commercial Zone He never got a site plan approval. MR. JUCKETT-See, I had rented, after that I couldn't sell it. I rented it as a Single Family, and as long as it was rented, if it's empty 18 months, is what they explained to me, correct me if I'm wrong. After 18 months it could no longer be rented as a Single Family, and I'm just trying to cover, because I'm going back to Florida, and I'm trying to cover myself, and still trying to sell, and hopefully I don't have to rent it, but at this point, I still am on the fence, but I'm trying to cover everything, because I don't want to get messed up like I did in the past. I'm trying to do it right. - 18 - -- ----' ~ --' MR. PALING-Now the only real print that we have to go by is this, right? MR. JUCKETT-There's previous prints on file. MR. PALING-No, no. I mean, that's all I've got. MR. JUCKETT-Yes. That's what I had the fellow make up for me. MR. PALING-And, John, you're talking about a 24 foot drive? MR. GORALSKI-Well, what I'm saying is right now that road cut is lÞJide open. MR. RUEL-There is no road cut. MR. GORALSKI-Right. You just pull off the road anywhere. MR. GORALSKI-You might want to limit that and channelize it, so that if there's, you know, if you establish a Professional Office, there may be more than one car coming in or out it at a time. MR. RUEL-So you would say 24 feet in the center of the building? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-And you want to curb the rest of it? MR. GORALSKI-Well, some planting or something to define that. MR. RUEL-Is there a garage on this building? MR. JUCKETT-Yes. There is a two car garage. The only thing on the 24 foot, I'm not sure what my width is right now, if somebody bought that, there's a chance that they might black top, where the garage is on the side, it's a two car. You may have noticed that. They might expand with black top because it would be handier for parking on that side, because the house is on the left side as you face it, where the office would þe on the right, and one party I had interested, and I'm afraid I lost him, but I never know, but the thing is, he had mentioned doing that, putting it all the way, you know, out to the garage to go even straight in. MR. RUEL-So you have three parking spaces? MR. JUCKETT-I had my real estate there for years. I've parked as many as 12 cars there when I had the real estate office. MR. RUEL-Yes, but on the plan it looks like three or four parking spaces. MR. JUCKETT-I think that was put in to show four because I was told you have to have one wheelchair parking now with a sign, and I'm just showing three or four places. MR. RUEL-So you have one handicapped and, what, three others? MR. ,JUCKETT-And three others. I mean, there's more than that, but that's all we have to show, be approved when the handicapped. MR. RUEL-Aren't there three others in front of the two car garage? MR. JUCKETT-Not completely in front, because there's a section there of about probably eight feet that would bring it out in front of the two car garage. MR. RUEL-Is that adequate parking for that? - 19 - MR. JUCKETT-We have plenty of parking. MR. GORALSKI-There's plenty of parking there as it exists today. MR. RUEL-If not there, elsewhere. MR. GORALSKI-I mean, there's plenty of parking. MR. RUEL-Will this be paved do you know? MR. JUCKETT-I think when it sells more. It's paved now, and I've north, for expansion for parking. I'm going to finish paving it got it almost 60 feet going MR. RUEL-Yes. I see that. MR. JUCKETT-There's 180 foot frontage. There's actually three 60 foot lots, under the old way they used to map them out. MR. BREWER-Still, if you made the entrance 24 foot wide, 24 and it's back far enough that if somebody wanted to come in and make that paved over there, they could do that pretty easily. So, if we make it 24 foot wide. MR. RUEL-Yes. It doesn't matter where he puts it, as long as it doesn't exceed 24 feet. You say it's wide open. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Right now it's wide open. MR. BREWER-So you can make your opening 24 feet wide, and then put some shrubs or whatever else on either side of that. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. There's a public hearing scheduled for this tonight. So we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that wishes to speak in this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. This is Unlisted. We need a SEQRA on this. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 47-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: l-JHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning STANLEY & BEVERLY JUCKETT, 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 RESOL ~lED : L No federal agency appears to be involved. ...., .... 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. - 20 - -- "---' ...-' --- 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant aTeas 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 19th day of September, 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 can go right into a motion, then. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-95 STANLEY & BEVERLY JUCKETT, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Star k: To re-establish use of building as a Single Family home with an attached Professional Office, with the following two conditions: One, applicant will abide to Beautification Committee comments, and, Secondly, that the applicant shall limit and identify on the plan the location of the access, 24 foot maximum, road cut. Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 1995. by the following vote: MR. JUCKETT-Excuse me. I think I'm close to 24 foot wide now, aren't it? MR. GORALSKI-Well, right now, there's really no definition to where there's a road cut at all. My concern is that if there's a professional office there, people are going to, b~ driving in every direction. So I'm just looking for some d¿finítion. MR. JUCKETT-Well, there was a road cut for the as you go in, and then, as I say, black top right, we'll cover it all the way through. regular dr i velrJay on the left and MR. RUEL-Mr. Juckett, I don't believe we're saying that there's inadequate access. It's just that it's not defined. MR. JUCKETT-Right. MR. RUEL-You've got to pick a spot. MR. JUCKETT-It would have to be defined when we put the wheelchair ramp in. I'm sure that will take care of the access. MR. PALING-Well, no it's got to be part of the resolution, though. We might want to re-visit that, but we've got to limit access and we've got to define the access, and that's what Roger is saying. So why don't you just re-do the resolution, so there's no misunderstanding. MR. JUCKETT-Could I intercede once more? There to protect myself. I don't have the building don't have to rent it as a Single Family, but I if it was rented as all offices, which I have a again, I'm trying sold. I hope I have the option, right, you know, - 21 - -- -- as a neighborhood professional. Like, I have contacted several that I had, but they're a year away because of leases, but, for example, I had one, for example, a chiropractor, and I had a podiatrist, and like a chiropractor would probably want more parking. Now am I covered for this, or if I sell it to someone like that, do I have to come back again next year? MR. BREWER-As far as use goes, you're completely within your bounds. All we want you to do is define a drive to go into that property. MR. JUCKETT-But that wouldn't interfere, in other words, if someone went all professional? MR. PALING-That has nothing to do access, definition, and width. access and define it. "'Ji th that. l-Je vsa nt to We're only talking differentiate the MR. OBERMAYER-Do you understand that, sir? MR. JUCKETT-I do, now. It will be defined, because on the wheelchair parking, don't I have to paint the yellow stripes for par ki ng? MR. BREWER-Yes, but that's a parking space. MR. GORALSKI-That's a parking space. We're talking about the driveway. When someone comes in to put their professional office in there, I'm going to be looking for a plan that shows me a 24 foot wide road cut at the road. They can put it anywhere along your property line, but it can't be more than 24 feet wide. MR. JUCKETT-Okay, coming in? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-And you can do that with bushes, or you can do it with a curbing or however you want to do it, but it's got to be def i ned . MR. JUCKETT-Right. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a couple of questions. Jewel's Donuts, and I'd also like to hear Board appointment. I'd like to discuss about this Planning MR. PALING-Excuse me a minute. Mark, I'd like both part of this conversation. Okay. The suggestion Jewel's Donuts. Are we okay? Can we do that? you and John is ~"'e suggest MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's not until the 26th, but if we get out late Thursday night, we might be better off discussing it tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-It's an open public meeting. MR. PALING-It's not on the agenda. MR. SCHACHNER-You can discuss the thing informally. MR. PALING-All right. Cathy, you've got the floor. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I just wanted to know how we all felt, after going back again to Jewel's Donuts, and checking it out, and kind - 22 - '---' ~' ',--, .-' of Just discuss it. That's all. MR. GORALSKI-Did everyone receive the plan from Mark Kennedy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. BREWER-I didn't really look at it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I didn't look at it either. MR. BREWER-I still feel the same as I did last time. MR. PALING-And, Mark, I have a question for you on that one. We have a print from DOT which tells where the entrance and exit, like this. Does DOT mean that they put their stamp of approval on this, or are they saying that if you've got to do it, you've got to do it this way? Does DOT ever come out and say it's unsafe? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, sure. MR. PALING-All right. Then they are, in a way, saying, here's the way to do it, and we'll allow it. We will, not bless it, but we won't get in your way. MR. SCHACHNER-I have no idea what DOT said in this particular case. MR. GORALSKI-I spoke to Mark Kennedy, okay. What Mark Kennedy said is, first of all, whether or not Warren County Department of Public Works is going to issue a driveway permit, DOT feels they have Jurisdiction, and they will issue a driveway permit, or they must issue a driveway permit. The only way they will issue the driveway permit, is if it is laid out the way it is shown in the information I gave you. Now, the other thing Mark Kennedy said is, legally, they cannot deny access to the highway. Okay. They have to allow access to the highway. So the only way they will issue a driveway permit is if it's laid out this way. MR. PALING-Well, suppose, lets this Board says that it's unsafe, just say, hypothetically, that in our opinion, to do that. MR. STARK-Just deny the site plan. MR. RUEL-Sure, why not. MR. BREWER-We have a right to do that. MR. SCHACHNER-Under law, you're allowed to do that. MR. PALING-Okay. That's why, I don't know, I guess I'm a little surprised that DOT isn't being a little towgher on the thing. They've come out with a print and sàid, you've got to do at least this, or nothing's going to happen. MR. GORALSKI--Not "at least this". The>"re saying this is it. This is what you have to do. They will take nothing else. MR. BREWER-Has anybody given this to the applicant, a copy of this? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, and actually the applicant was supposed to drop off a revised plan to me today, and hasn't done it, because I wanted to get that plan to you before the meeting, so that you had a chance to take a look at it. MR. PALING-Yes. We have the plan. MR. GORALSKI-No, a revised plan. The applicant is drawing a revised plan based on DOT layout, and they haven't gotten back to - 23 - me with that yet. MR. MACEWAN-So what, basically, DOT's saying with this thing is that they won't allow any eastbound turns out of that parking lot. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. PALING-That's right. depart to the west. You can only enter from the east, and MR. GORALSKI-No, you can enter from. MR. PALING-You can enter from the west? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. You can enter either way. hand turning movement out of the site. There's no left MR. PALING-But there's left hand turn movement in? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. BREWER-I think it's a nightmare. MR. RUEL-Absolutely. MRS. LABOMBARD-It is. I agree with you. MR. STARK-I don't think anybody's in favor of this. MR. BREWER-Can anybody define that building there? I saw some stakes out front, but I presumed that that was where it was going to go in. That's the driveway, right? That's supposed to be their driveway going in and out. That's the only stakes L saw. MR. MACEWAN-One's relatively close to the house. The other one's amongst the trees and shrubs over there. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Right. MR. PALING-Does anyone on the Board want to speak in favor of this, as outlined by DOT? MR. MACEWAN-I would be a lot more in favor of this project if it was farther west up Dix Avenue. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, me, too. MR. RUEL-It's a very bad place. Maybe the year 2002 it might be a little better, when they change the road configuration. The way it is now, it's terrible. MR. PALING-John, would it be right to just caution the applicant of how the Board is feeling, to see if they want to scrap it or modify it? MR. RUEL-No. MR. SCHACHNER-I'd be careful about too much informal, you know, you haven't reached any decision, nor are you allowed to reach any decision here. MR. MACEWAN-You have to give them the benefit of coming up with at least maybe a modification to their original plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, they certainly have the right to be heard at their meeting, when they're on the agenda, and to hear your deliberations, and to hear you voice your opinions. MR. RUEL-They have a right to be here. - 24 - -- ~' '')......... / .......... MR. PALING-All right. Donuts? Any other comments on Jewel's/Dunkin MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I just want to know about this Planning Board appointment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Advisory Board. MR. PALING-The thing I know is the letter which I've read myself, and it's in the Town Board's hands. I've had one of you come forward to volunteer to work on it, and I've so recorded it, although I don't know where I figure in on this, but I've recorded one individual who wants to volunteer, and I'll just keep checking, or whatever, or wait for a letter, as to what, it's got to go through the Board, first, then it's got to come to us. MR. OBERMAYER-Who's the volunteer? MR. PALING-Roger. MR. OBERMAYER-Great. MR. RUEL-Now, I want to know, is involved in zone changes, or does right ahead and make a zone change? the Planning Board always the Town Board sometimes go MR. GORALSKI-My understanding of the, I know everyone has always been referred. I don't know if it specifically says in the Ordinance that they have to be referred. MR. MACEWAN-I think it's been primarily protocol. It's not mandatory that they come this way. An applicant can go directly to the Town Board and ask. MR. RUEL-Right, and the Town Board doesn't even notify us? MR. MACEWAN-That's true. MR. RUEL-But what kind of planning is that? Board. We're not planning anything. We're a Planning MR. GORALSKI-We're looking it up right this second. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. The zoning law does require referral to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and as far as I'm aware, the Town Board always does that. MR. GORALSKI-They always do. MR. SCHACHNER-And it's specifically required under Section 179- 94, which is Article 13 of the Zoning Law called Amendments. It says, when directed by the Town Board the Town Clerk shall submit a copy to the APA, but then it says, the Town Clerk shall simultaneously refer such proposed amendment to the Planning Board. MR. PALING-So, they must come to That's for real. U"" "" . It's not just a gesture. MR. MACEWAN-Did you have something particularly in mind, Roger? MR. RUEL-No. It's just that many times I saw zone changes, and I didn't recall, I didn't remember the Planning Board ever being involved in a determination or notification. MR. BREWER-We're always notified. MR. GORALSKI-Let me make one clarification. The Town Board does not have to consider a request for a petition for change of zone. It's a legislative action. So, you know, it's not like this Board, if you don't act within a certain amount of time, it's an - 25 - automatic approval. legislative action. acknowledge it. They like to. A petition for change of The Town Board doesn't can just completely ignore zone, it's a even have to it, if tr',ey'd MR. BREWER-Kind of like they did with a plan up there on Aviation Road. They kind of just ignored it and hoped it would go away. MR. SCHACHNER-That's exactly correct. MR. BREWER-That's exactly what they did. MR. SCHACHNER-It's an unusual provision of law, but it's just like if you were to say, tomorrow I want to propose to the Queensbury Town Board that they enact a law banning automobiles in the Town. Well, you go to the Town Board meeting and they say, thanks. That's great. That's a lousy idea, and we're not going to entertain that idea. It's just like that. It's a legislative action, like John said, and they basically are not obligated to process it under the lav.J. So, in that context, if somebody goes to the Town Board for a zoning amendment, and the Town Board decides not to process it, then we won't get it. It won't be referred to the Planning Board, and it won't go anywhere in any process, but once, if they accept an application for a zoning amendment or a re-zoning, then I believe they adhere to that provision and refer any such amendment request to the Planning Board. MR. RUEL-I have other items that are somewhat related, and one of them has to do with phasing. The Planning Board must be involved in the approval of Phase II or Phase III or whatever? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. You approve one phase at a time. When a phase has 60 percent of the lots with Certificate of Occupancies, then they can submit for Preliminary and Final approval for the next phase. MR. RUEL-The Herald Square Phase III, a long road was cut in, several roads. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-They can do that without an approval from the Planning E30ard? MR. GORALSKI-What happened there was the applicant came to the Highway Superintendent and the Zoning Administrator and asked that he be allowed to cut in those roads, or clear those roads, so that he could do additional topography. ApParently, on Phase I and Phase II, the topography was inaccurate, and asked if he could go in and cut. MR. RUEL-Okay, but back to my first question. Martin are not the Planning Board. Na}' lor and/or MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. RUEL-So, how does that happen? ,..¡r it ten? Should this document be re- MR. GORALSKI-No. It was certainly at the risk of the developer. If the Planning Board decides, when he comes in for Preliminary and Final approval, that those roads should be moved, he'll have to move them. MR. PALING-I think what Roger's question was, should we have been consulted in the first place? Should we have been brought into the thing? MR. BREWER-I think so, because Al Cerrone wanted to do exactly - 26 - --- " , ... the same thing last winter or the winter before, on a completely different subdivision over on Clendon Ridge, and Rich Schermerhorn did the very same thing this spring with Sherman Pines. So, why does this guy get to go in there and just say, I'm going to do it, and not come to this Board, where the other two developers had to do exactly just that? MR. RUEL-That's not the way it's written in this document, okay, and all I'm saying is, if what transpired is correct, then this document should be re-written. MR. PALING-Could we then ask for comment on that from Jim or yourself, whatever, for the next meeting? MR. GORALSKI-Sure. MR. RUEL-Article 10. A183-36, Page 18370. MR. PALING-I have an inkling, I don't want to say which way I feel on this right now, because I have an inkling, I think I know why it was done, but I'd like to see it play out and get all the inputs we can before we decide anything. MR. RUEL-Well, if it helps expedite things, great, but it's not the way the document is written. That's all I'm saying. Okay, and I have another item similar to that, and it has to do with waivers. Many times I see that waivers have been, I don't know, have they been submitted or approved by Planning staff before we get them? MR. GORALSKI -1\10. MR. RUEL-In other words, every time there's a waiver, the Planning Board should be involved in giving approval? MR. GORALSKI-The Planning Board has to grant any waiver from the Subdivision Regulations. MR. RUEL-Okay, but sometimes we get a document that lists several waivers, like drainage or whatever. We must approve these waivers before we go on with the application, right? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. RUEL-And we can deny the waivers? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, you can. MR. RUEL-Thank you. MR. BREWER-We have done it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have one more question. This might sound crazy, and I probably knew this answer a long time ago, but I forget it. Every time we answer the first question on the Short SEQRA, Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6NYCRR Part 617.12, where should I refer to find out, what does that mean? Because we kind of answer it no, but nobody really goes, NO! MR. SCHACHNER-That is something that Staff screens for you in advance, but what that reference is to, in the SEQRA Regulations, there are lists of Type I Actions, and that's a specific reference to the Type I Action list, meaning larger action, and if something does appear on that list, then you must prepare a Long Form Environmental Assessment Form, instead of a Short Form EAF. So, as Tim just said, if the answer to that question is, yes, you're not going to continue on the Short Form, because you're going to need a Long Form. MRS. LABOMBARD-But my question is, how do we know, the Staff - 27 - _/ already tells us the answer's yes? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. They look at the Type I list and see if the proposed action is on there. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, when the people fill this out, then they would have checked, the Staff would have checked yes? MR. GORALSKI-Hopefully, and missed, but what we try to do the Type I list, and if it is fill out a Long Form EAF. If with the Short Form. If you'd SEQRA Regulations. I think it happened last week we is, before it gets here, we review on the Type I list, we have them it's not on the Type I list, we go like, I can get you a copy of the MRS. LABOMBARD-I have that. MR. SCHACHNER-You guys have that, and the list is in there. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what I wanted to say. MR. SCHACHNER-If you look at that reference, there's a list that says, the following are Type I Actions. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know I've read it before, and like I said, Mark, it escaped me. MR. PALING-Okay. I have one, and this is regarding the SEQRA Lead Agency thing that we've talked about several times. We've had several meetings on this, and I think the last one was final, and we're going ahead with a program that'll avoid trying to do a SEQRA without a public hearing, and what's going to happen is there's going to be a basic list put together that ~ill designate either the Planning Soard or the Zoning Board of Appeals as the lead agency in advance. In other words, when they come up with this list of different type of applications, ZBA will take these, Planning Board will take these, and they will automatically be the lead agency in that case. So, if something comes through, and the ZBA is the lead agency, they will do the SEQRA, and when it comes to us, we ca~have a site plan or whatever, and we don't need to do a SEQRA. The SEQRA will be done by the lead agency. MR. RUEL-Who will make that definition? MR. PALING-Jim Martin is putting it together, but it will come to both Boards, this isn't just goi 09 to go in. It'll go to both Boards for approval before anything is done. So I'm just telling you the status of it, and you'll get to see it, read it, and vote on it as to whether you agree with it or not, but I think you'll li ke it. MR. BREWER-I've got one item. Our policy with the late, permits expired to renew them, or extensions. Have we got to have a public hearing on that, or can we set policy? I think last month I asked you about a public hearing, if we could set one, so we can adopt that as policy, about extensions of applications for approvals. . MR. PALING-We had a motion on it. MR. BREWER-We have to have a public hearing on it. We have to hold a public hearing for public comment. MR. SCHACHNER-What we said about that was although the document which is called Planning Board Rules and Procedures does not indicate that you need to have public hearings to change it, nor are we aware of any legal requirements to do that, we did see that that had been done in the past. That back, for example, in 1989 when some changes were made, there was a notice of public hearing on proposed amendment to the Rules and Regulations, and I - 28 - '- ~ think it's a good practice. MR. BREWER-Can we When can we do it? do that, John? Can you have it advertised? We don't have time, natu," a 11 y, this month. MR. GORALSKI-I can find out. Tuesday. If we could advertise it for next MR. BREWER-That would be squeezing next Tuesday, fine. If not, we'll to do is add a policy that if an There's no renewal of an expired basically what we're saying? it tight. If we can do it for do it next month. All we want extension expires, it expires. extension, right? Isn't that MR. MACEWAN-That's fine by me. MR. BREWER-Now, what happens to those extensions we discussed about, that brought this whole thing up? They're dead, right? Do the applicants know it? MR. SCHACHNER-You haven't granted those. MR. GORALSKI-You haven't granted them. MR. SCHACHNER-In fact, I think you denied some and informed applicants. MR. MACEWAN-We talked about this at great length. What's the purpose of even needing to put it in the Procedures? MR. BREWER-Why not? What does it hurt? How many times has it come up in the last three months, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I guess I don't understand why you need to put something in our procedures and practices. MR. BREWER-Because then it's in black and white. There's no grey area. MR. MACEWAN-It's already in black and white now. MR. BREWER-It's come up in the last couple of times. So lets just set the policy and end it, ever have to come up again. months several so it doesn't MR. PALING-The motion didn't go through seven nothing. It went through six, ona, and I'm the one. So maybe you better have something, so that I don't get up on ~ high horse some meeting and raise the devil. MR. PALING-Okay. Are we going to have a public meeting on this? MR. GORALSKI-That's what you asked for. MR. PALING-I think we'd better. MR. GORALSKI-I will have, either Jim or myself will draft a resolution for you, or with the help of Mark, and we'll set a public hearing as soon as possible. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 29 -