Loading...
1995-09-21 SP -- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 INDEX Site Plan No. 48-95 Tax Map No. 6-1-16 Site Plan No. 49-95 Tax Map No. 15-1-3 Site Plan No. 50-95 Tax Map No. 15-1-44 subdivision No. 13-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Petition for Zone Change No. P5-95 Norma B. Baertschi Anthony Koenig Robert Paganelli Kenneth Ermig~r. Tax Map No. 73-1-4 G. Joseph Monsour Tax Map No. 104-1-12.1 --- 1. 3. 6. 7. 11. 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: ' , , ............ '--.,../ -- .-/ QUEENSBLJRY PLANN!NG BOARD MgÊ:TI't':/ß SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK JAMES OBERMAYER TIMOTHY BREWER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. PALING-The last item on the agenda, Vasiliou will not be on. It is taken off the agenda. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and the reason for that is we just, we don't even have the Petition yet. MR. PALING-Okay. It'll be put aside indefinitely. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 48-95 TYPE II NORMA B. BAERTSCHI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A., APA LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT. RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR RELOCATION OF EXISTING DOCK TO ELIMINATE ENCROACHMENT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY (RELOCATING APPROVED BY LGPC ON 7/13/95). DOCKS ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62-1995 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 6-1-6 LOT SIZE: 9,629 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 BRUCE JORDAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. Jim, do you have comments on this? MR. MARTIN-I'll read in, first, the Warren County approved concurring with local conditions, and this was really such a straight forward application, we didn't prepare any Staff Notes. This is really correcting a situation or improving a situation in terms of a dock, apparently, that was encroaching on a property line, and given the narrow frontage of this shoreline area, this is really the only place you can put it, and they did, in the Cross Reference, they did receive a variance for this location from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. PALING-You're representing the applicant? MR. JORDAN-Yes. I am. My name is Bruce Jordan. I'm an attorney in Glens Falls with offices at 119 Bay Street, and I concur with Mr. Martin's summary. This is a pretty pedestrian application. We're here, pretty much, on a technical basis. This deck and the related facilities have been there for 35 plus years in their existing configuration. We're not really changing the configuration. All we're doing is moving the pier which extends into the lake approximately 11 feet to the south, which is shown on the site plan for pier size. Tom Nesbitt's copy is attached to the back of the application, and I've indicated the detail of the proposed dock location. The scale's a little small in order to get it in the format, but that shows essentially what's going on. MR. PALING-Yes. I think most of us have seen it. understand what you're saying. So we - 1 - '~ --- .- MR. MARTIN-And there's no boathouse or anything proposed with this. This is just a flat dock. MR. PALING-No. This is just, they're going to float the dock over, to get away from the property line problem. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-And it's pretty straight forward. Does anyone on the Board have any questions or comments? Okay. MR. 8REWER-I have one question, not to the apÞlicant, but, the property line actually goes right out into the water, underneath the water? Is that how that works? MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't know. I'~ a bit uncomfortable with these property line things extending out into the water. MR. BREWER-Yes, because line on the land. it really doesn't .ffe~t t.he P1; oper t y 'I MR. MARTIN-As far as ¡ know, that's State of New York property out beyond that shoreline. MR. SCHACHNER-The property itself, the bed of Lake George is owned by the State of New York, but there are regulations, princ¡pally above the Lake George Park Commission, that do talk about setback of docks from what I call ,and what they call extended property lines into the water, and there's actually a very complex way that the Park Commission looks at that, in terms of, it's either extended straight out, the way the property line is drawn, or there's an alternative forml.¡.¡.. ,that ¡ don't think < _ .'" 1 I: -: :.' you should get into, that is another way of'looking at that. MR. MARTIN-There is treatment for it in our Code. If you read the Shoreline Regulations. There's a section in there about how you treat a property line out onto the water, and this is in compliance with that. MR. BREWER-I mean, it's just, there's really that.~yes, tha~~s the property lioe. I roean, Ìt ~ s Justconf'Usi ng, to say the least . no way to judge ~pu pan look out. MR. JORDAN-You're right. There arø different ways of looking at it, and there is an area where the dock extends beyond the high water mark and the low water mark from Lake George, where it's a little bit esoteric, but when you get closer to the shoreline, there is conceivably an area where a portion of the dock in the related approach does extend across the property line by anyone's definition. So our intent here, even those this was a pre- existing structure for some 35 years, it's a lot cheaper to just slide it over. MR. BREWER-No. I understand exactly what you're doing and why yo,u're doing it, b,l.,.ItI'm"just,curiol.¡.Sì as to the wat,er, It really "d,oésn't a, l,o,t . of se,ns~ .If å ,guy puts a dock in, .and it floats over likEf, , 'that, ,then tec;b,n,i'cal,ly it's, Ç>O sqmeþody else's propérty', ):?L¡.~ it's "r¡:ó;t,~ !!' MR.,!S¿,HAp-1NE'~t,¡"¡el,~. it's l1,ot that .it's .on, S?omeþody else's prop'ertý, physfcallY~,ÞlJta~ ,jimRoints out, weh!qve, a specific prov ision\in' the Zo'ni ng :q;:r~~ nancè' 'that deals w¡t;,n ,this, , and it actually is exactly the ~ame as the Lake George Park Commission that talks about a minimum setback for docks of 20 feet from what they call the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line runs on shore, where it meets the lake, or, this is the complicated part that I didn't want to get into, but just to fini$h the thought, or at a right angle to the mean highwater mark, whichever results in the greater setback. It's a difficult, or a paper exercise, but the bottom - 2 - '--'" '-- '--'" line is that the idea is to avoid putting docks so that they are situated in a fashion so that boats and boat traffic and things like that are going to create a problem for your neighbor. MR. MARTIN-If you're interested, you indicate either scenario that Mark extended, line perpendicular to, di fference. can see, this diagram does just said, property line so that shows you the MR. JORDAN-Right. drawing so that setbac k . We asked the surveyor to reflect both you could see the comparison between in the the two MR. PALING-All right. Are there any more comments from the Board? All right. We have a public hearing on this, so we'll open the public hearing now. Is there anyone here that would care to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MARTIN-I do have one letter. It's very short. "James and Rosemary Davidsen support Mrs. Norma Baertschi in her efforts to replace a dock at Assembly Point. Rosemary Davidsen." MR. PALING-Is she a neighbor? MR. MARTIN-It doesn't indicate. I would assume so. I imagine she was part of the 500 foot notice. MR. PALING-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is a Type II. MR. MARTIN-SECRA's not required. MR. PALING-SECRA's not required in this case. Okay. So I don't think we have anything more to do except entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-95 NORMA Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for seconded by George Stark: B. BAERTSCHI, its adoption, Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 49-95 TYPE I ANTHONY KOENIG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE~ WR-1A, C.E.A., APA LOCATION: ROCKHURST RD., WHITE HOUSE ON WEST SIDE, 3 HOUSES NORTH OF MARINA. PROPOSAL IS TO RAZE 1/2 OF EXISTING ROOF LINE TO ACCOMMODATE A BEDROOM AND BATH ON THE 2ND FLOOR; ELIMINATION OF ONE EXISTING BEDROOM DOWNSTAIRS. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A C.E.A. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-3 LOT SIZE: .09 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 49-95, Anthony Koenig, Meeting Date: September 21, 1995 "This proposal requires Site Plan approval because it is an expansion of a nonconforming structure - 3 - - in a critical environmental area. It does not create any new or additional encroachments on the setbacks. The Warren County Planni~g Board determined that this proposal would have No Action. It does not appear that this project will have any impact on the standards set forth in Article V of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board may wish to consider whether or not this proposal will impact the views of the adjoining property owners. Because this is an unlisted action in a critical environmental area the full E.A.F. should be reviewed prior to making a SEQRA determination." ' MR. MARTIN-Now, while we've touched on the issue of the EAF. Mark and I had a couple of comments to make in that regard. I think there is an argument to be made, and one which Staff would support, that this is, in fact, a Type II Action, and I read from the SEQRA Reg's. Construction'or placement of minor structures, accessory or appurtenant to existing facilities, including garage, carports, patios, home swimming pools, fences, barns or other buildings not changing land use or density, including upgrading of buildings to meet building or fire codes. We've conferred with Mark on this, and that is a listing from the Type II list, and we think this may fall into that category. MR. PALING-I'd much rather that it would fall into the but what happened to the rationale to get it in submitted? Type II, as it is MR. MARTIN-Well, if you have an unlisted action, normally that would be then a Short Form, and you'd go through the Short Form as an unlisted action, but it's an unlisted action in a Critical Environmental Area, then it automatically kicks into a Type I Action. MR. SCHACHNER-That's if it's an Unlisted Action, as opposed to either a Type I or a Type II Action. The issue that arose was that a minor addition could easily be deemed to fall within the language that Jim just read, which is tHe language from the SECRA Regulations, listing Type II Actions. So if the Board wants, you can consider minor, it's Staff's and my opinion, that you can co~side~ minor additions to be Type II Actions, and therefore actions that don't require SECRA Review. MR. PAL!NG-I they're doing environment. think that's the nothing there right that's reasoning, too, because going to affect the MR. MARTIN-Bear in mind, this didn't even require a variance. This and the next application both were in that same category. It didn't even require a variance. Now if a variance was required, then you might want to give this a second look, or further consideration, but this is strictlY here on the basis that, it's expansion of a nonconfo)-ming structure and that, according to our Code, requires Site Plan Review. MR. OBERMAYER-How about if they were to, like, PM~ an e;<t€tnsion off the side or something like that? Would that"change it? I'm just curious. MR. MARTIN-It depends. If it needs a variance it might change it somewhat. If that side extension were to violate the setback, but this is simply, you know, putting an addition on top of a structure and, in our opinion, that's not something that warrants a Type I review. MR. PALING-Yes. We don't need a SEQRA. MR. MARTIN-Yes, if you concur that it's a Type II. MR. BREWER-The only thing I think of is, the application, I'm not saying this is the same as or more so than theqpplication we - 4 - '"--' ~ '..........' --'"' had, was it last month or the month before, with the fellow up on Assembly Point, similar type project, but, that's all he did was raise that roof line, didn't he? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That's all he was doing. MR. BREWER-The same thing. Did we do a SEQRA on that? MR. OBERMAYER-I don't remember. MR. BREWER-I think so. MR. MARTIN-I think we probably have, prior to. MR. SCHACHNER-No question about it. MR. BREWER-That's my only thought on the thing. I don't have a problem with what he's doing or anything. I'm just saying, if you think about that. MR. PALING-I don't either. Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I don't have a problem. MR. PALING-Okay. Ji~, are you comfortable with that reasoning? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. PALING-George? MR. STARK-Yes. Yes. I am, too. As far as I'm concerned, this, and I think the next one, too, can take the same route. MR. OBERMAYER-From now on. MR. PALING-Well, I don't know about that. These two can take the same route. MR. ROULIER-My name's Joe Roulier. Anthony Koenig. I'm here representing Mr. MR. PALING-Anyone on the Board have any comments or questions? I've just got one, on the sketch, the profile, I assume that the 23 and a half foot measurement is to the ridge line? MR. ROULIER-That's correct. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Because the arrow just kind of hangs up there, but that is ridge line, and everything is fine thére. That's the only question I really have on this. All right. If there are no other questions or comments, we'll open the public hearing on this. Is there anyone here who'd care to speak about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MARTIN-There would be one additional comment from a Staff perspective, and that would be stormwater drainage control, if something could be done in that regard, either through guttering and downspouts to an eaves trench or something like that. That would be strongly recommended. MR. ROULIER-Right. Mr. Martin and I had a conversation this afternoon regarding that, and I told him that I would not expect that to be a problem, (lost words) current stormwater proposals. MR. OBERMAYER-How about erosion control while they're doing const ,"uct ion? MR. MARTIN-Well, that's going to be required normally. - 5 - -....... --- MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So we don't have to add that into it. MR. PALING-It~s a regular requirement. MR. MARTIN-If you want to pu't it into your motion, that's fine also. MR. PALING-But it's there anyway. MR. MARTIN-Yes. lake. John follows these pretty closely along the MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Motion? MR. PALING-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-95 ANTHONY KOENIG, Introduced by George Star k who moved fo," its adopt iqr,l ~ ,~.ec90ded by Timothy Brewer: To include stormwater management, use of gutters, as discussed with the Planning Department. Dul~ adopted this 21st day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 50-95 TYPE I ROBERT PAGANELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A., APA LOCATION: ROCKHURST, YELLOW ,HQ,I,)SE WITH RE,D DOOR, 8 HOUSES t-iO., OF MARINé"E,AST S~DE Of ROAD; RodK'H'uRST 'RD ~ APPLICANT PR'ÖPo'SES TO CÖNSTRUCT 'A MASTE~ BEDROOM WITH BATH. EXISTING UPSTAïR~ BEDROOM TO BE CONVERTED TO A SITTING OR T.V. ROOM. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A C.E.A. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-44 LOT SIZE: .09 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay, and this'll'h'ave the same SEQRA ,"easoning that we had on the last one. MR. MARTIN-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. I guess for the record, if you don't mind. MR. ,ROUL I E~-My ,Pa~anelli. , nat1l,e is J oé Roulier. ¡',ro her e, for: M'~. Robe," t , , ~I;, ' i M~. PÀL:ING-T~ank you.. Jim, yoiur comment~, please.. MR. MARTIN-Our comments stand. It's very similar tothi previous application. Some consideration should be given to neighboring views, and also stormwater runoff, and the Warren County Planning Board is the same, they returned the application with no action. MR. PALING-Right, and the guttering and all the same as before? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-We should mention that in the motion. - 6 - "'-' -' "-", '",../ MR. ROULIER-I would just like to tell the Board, at this juncture, we will gutter the entire house, not just the portion that is currently under consideration. MR. PALING-Okay, and does that run under the ground, or what do you do with the water? MR. ROULIER-What we'll do is I'll confer with Mr. Martin and recommendation, possibly, in regard to maybe a couple of 55 gallon drums, so that we can contain water back in the proximity of the house. MR. MARTIN-That's usually sufficient. Something that we can just get the water into the ground, for infiltration. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. Then I think it's appropriate to open the public hearing on this now. Is there anyone here that would care to speak abo,ut this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MARTIN-We do have a, and I just see this now, it does reference Koenig as well. A letter "Dear Planning Board Members: Thank you for the notification of Koenig and Paganelli. As neighbors of both these parties, we have no objections to the proposed improvements to the homes. Susan Sargent & Thomas Sargent. MR. ROULIER-In regard to Mr. Koenig, they're two doors north of him on the west side of Rockhurst. In regard to Mr. Paganelli, they're approximately three doors south of him. Mr. Paganelli is on the east side of Rockhurst. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. We wi II entertai n a mot~'on. '.,. "¡ MOTION TO APP~OV~ Introducedbi George by James Obermayer: With the addition that 'J:.here be gutters onÜ~e¡ whole 'hoUse. SITE PLAN NO~50-9q ROB~RT'Þ~GÅN~LLI, Stark who moved for its adopt,ion ,séconded Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: ,UNLISTED KENNETH ERMIGER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NYS RT.9 (WEST SIDE) PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE AN 8.4 ACRE COMMERCIAL PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 5.6 ACRES AND 2.8 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 73-1-4 LOT SIZE: 8.4 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN RAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. Jim? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-1995 PYeliminary Stage, Kenneth Ermiger, Meeting Date: September 21, 1995 "This is a fairly straight forward two lot, commercial subdivision. Each lot more than meets the minimum lot size requirements as well as - 7 - ........ the other dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. ~ot "A" is currently the site of Whitney Electronics and what appears to be a single family residence. Lot "B" is vaçaT)t at,;þi~ time. Any use of lot "B" will require a site plan revie~ fYom'the Planning Board. The subdivision map indicates that the two northerly drives will be abandoned and the resultant lots will share the southend drive. I would recommend that this be a condition for approval. The only other issue is the location of any existing septic systems. The creation of the new property line should not result in a non-conforming septic system with regard to setbacks. Assuming this is not an issue, I w,ould recommend approval of this application." And just to put on the record right now, we have received affidavit confirming the notification to neighboring property owners. MR. RAY-My name is John Ray. Geon;fe. I'm with Rehm and Ray in Lake MR. PALING-Jim, do you have any other comments? MR. MARTIN-No. I thi nk that sums it up. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I would just question about the septic system, I guess. MR. PALING-Right, the septic system, and I want just a little clearer explanation on the drives. Does anyone on the Board have any questions? MR. BREWER-There's a note, a letter, about waivers. We have to consider granting waivers. I guess. What are the waivers, though, that he's granting? Items Number Eight and Ten of the Subdivision application. I'm just guessing, but maybe they're drainage. MR. MARTIN-Eight through ten. application to reference it. I don't have a copy of the MR. RAY-I proposed PIa nni ng Ten is a li ke to can help you. Number Eight is a description of the use. Number Nine is a description of the previous Town ~9r "ZqTÜD9 c;I~~ermiT)q.t~c>n~ reg?lTdi ng, thi§, ! site,., Number descrlPtion'of'prov'isfons' fOr sewagèdispl6sal.' What'I'd add at this point is Lot A, ~t this pointJ is µnder " contract and presumably, once t,he sale takes plàce,you will be receiving a site plan application for that particular lot. Being located in the zone that it is, you have to receive a site plan for anythin~ that is done th~r~. That's why we requested a waiver. At this time, there a~~ho plans to do anything with that lot, not to make any changes except on paper on the survey. MR. MARTIN-I think, as a practical matter, those points are well taken, and oftentimes we find that stormwater control approaches and things like that are best worked out at site plan. MR. BREWER-Right, but I just want to make sure we grant the waivers if we're. MR. MARTIN-And I think~ also, you're obviously looking at a request of waiver, here, from the Sketch Plan phase. MR. BREWER-Right. That's the only thing I've got. MR. PALING-I have nothing right now, but I understand what you're saying. Now there is a public hearing scheduled on this. We will, therefore, open the public hearing. Does anyone care to speak on this matter tonight? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 8 - '- --../ -- ---/' NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Now what did you say about the drives, Bob? You wanted to know about the drives. MR. PALING-Okay. Just clarify for me, the drives. Jim, what you said, say it again. MR. MARTIN-We're recommending, and I think the applicant is concurring, to a shared driveway, and you'll see notes on the plan, existing drive to be closed, existing drive to be closed. They're the two northerly driveways, and then the southerly most existing drive to be only access. The only further comment I would have along that regard is that we should look for deed language that would reflect the shared driveway for easements or whatever, to accommodate that one driveway access point. MR. PALING-Okay. I see what you're doing now. I missed it when you went through it. MR. STARK-I have a question for the applicant. Now you say it's under contract, Lot A. MR. RAY-That's correct. MR. STARK-Okay. Whatever their planned use is of this, do they have any objection to a shared driveway? MR. RAY-No. They're aware of that. MR. PALING-We'll make it part of the motion, then, for the deed language, so that we'll be okay there. Any further questions or comments? This is an Unlisted. So we've got to have a SEQRA on this. It's Short on this one, isn't it? MR. MARTIN-A Long was submitted. I think you have to go with the Long. That's what was submitted. MR. PALING-Here it is here. Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-1995, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before KENNETH ERMIGER, 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. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. - 9 - '- --- "'- ~ 5. Havingconsldered and thoroughly .nalyzedthe relevant areas of env'i'r.onmental cqncern and having considered the 'criteria fôr determining whether ç¡. ,prqject, h,4~ a si,gnificant environmental impact 'as th~sJfueis se€forth in Se¿tion 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 21st day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYE,S:, ,Mrs. L~Bqmqard, Mr. Brewer" I'1r. ~Ita,r k, ,Mr. Qbermayer, 1'11" ¡,P',ali ng NO'e: $, : N6~E ~ :' , , ABSE'NT:' ~:T' ,MacEW,a n, ,Mr. Rue 1 MR. STARK-Motion? MR. PALING-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION ,NQ. KENNETH ERMIGER, Introduced by George Stark who moved adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: 13-1995 for its With the following stipulation: driveway between Lot A and B. That there would be a shared Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-George, why don't we do a motion on the waivers, too. Details requested in Items Number Eight through Ten, or it says Items Eight and Ten on the lette)'. Right? MRS. LABOMBARD-The descriptions of the uses? MR. RAY-Number Eight is the description of the proposed use, and Number Ten is a description of the provisions for sewage. MR. PALING-How about Number Nine? MR. RAY-Well, Nine is just the description of any previous Town Planning or Zoning determinations. MR. PALING-All right. So it's only eight and ten that apply, and we want to grant these waivers, and the requirements for Sketch Plan, pending site plan review. MR. BREWER-Well, it has to come for site plan review anyway. MR. RAY-It has to come anyway. MR. SCHACHNER-And you also have final subdivision, yet. This is just Preliminary, and you can do it by a motion to amend your previous motion for approval. MR. STARK-Okay. - 10 - --- --' '-. .,/ MOTION TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS MOTION OF APPROVAL TO INCLUDE WAIVERS FOR ITEMS NUMBER EIGHT AND NUMBER TEN ON THE APPLICATION AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SKETCH PLAN, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE P5-95 ONLY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ADJOINING PARKING LOT 676 SFR-1A PROPOSED ZONING: LOT 104-1-12.1 FROM SFR-1A SIZE AND IS LOCATED ON GLEN G. JOSEPH MONSOUR RECOMMENDATION LOCATION: JOJO'S RESTAURANT AND UPPER GLEN STREET CURRENT ZONING: PC-1A REQUEST IS FOR ZONE CHANGE ON TO PC-1A. THE LOT IS .26 ACRES IN STREET (JOJO'S RESTAURANT). JOSEPH MONSOUR, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. Jim. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Zone Change - P5-95, G. Joseph Monsour, Meeting Date: September 21, 1995 "Mr. Monsour owns lots 104-1-18 and lots 104-1-12.1. Lot 104-1-18 is zoned SFR~1A. The request to change the zoning of lot 104-1-12.1 from SFR-1A to PC-1A appears reasonable since it is the only lot on the west side of Halfway Brook in this area that is not zoned PC-1A. Furthermore, since the lot is surrounded on three sides by PC-1A lots and does not have frontage on a Town road, it is not appropriate to use this lot for residential purposes. Finally, I would suggest that the applicant be required to combine lots 104- 1-12.1 and 104-1-18 into one lot as a condition of approval." MR. PALING-Why is that, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think, basically, you have a lot that's there with no frontage. It's a nonconforming lot, and that would clean it up. MR. PALING-Okay. Then the whole thing becomes conforming. MR. BREWER-Besides that, if he ever were to sell that piece of land, then all these listed uses could go on there, and that's such a small parcel that it would be a real nightmare. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MONSOUR-Joe Monsour. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions or comments here? MR. MARTIN-If you remember, we still have a pending site plan application on this site, and one of the issues was, that resulted in that tabling was the buffer zone that would be required around the residential zoning, and I think this was a solution that was arrived upon to get around that buffer zone, or do away with that issue, and this only makes sense, because this really fits nice right into the center of that parcel. MR. BREWER-If we were to make a recommendation zone change, with the recommendation being that parcel with the other parcel, is that a problem? to approve the you join this - 11 - '-- ~/ MR. MONSOUR-That's fine. MR. BREWER-I'll make that recommendation, then. MOTION CHANGE Timothy sta.r k: TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT PETITION FOR ZONE NO.P5-95 G. JOSEPH MONSOUR BE APPROVED, Introduced by Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George With a condition being the two parcels be incorporated into one parcel. Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 1995, by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-What'll happen now, and I acknowledge that this is a little backwards, but this is the way the County requested it be done. This will go on, now, to the County Board for review and recommendation, and that'll occur the second Wednesday in October, and as soon as that's done, it'll go on to the Town Board for their consideration. They set a public hearing for theirs. MR. SCHACHNER-They, the Town Board. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-Mark, I have a question. When something comes back No Action from the County because they don't have a quorum up there, our vote doesn't have to be 5 and 0, it can be 4 and 2? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. It does not impose the super majority requirement on you. The only vote that requires or imposes the super majority vote on you is if the County recommends denial. No Action, No County Impact, no problem, Returned for lack of quorum or for lack of majority. Sometimes at the County Planning Board, they have a quorum, but they don't get a majority voting one way or the other. They'll have a four, four tie, for example. Eight people is more than a quorum, but it's not an action by them, doesn't impose the super majority on us. Only if they recommend denial is that requirement imposed. MR. PALING-Jim, what's the possibility of getting a more microphones? It's okay tonight, but this, last there was one for all three at Staff. What we need is everybody, so we're not. A lot of times we forget somebody the mic, and nobody can hear them, and there is there. couple of Tuesday, one for to give space on MR. BREWER-All we need is one. MR. OBERMAYER-They can have mine, because I can be heard. MR. PALING-No. Talk to everybody should have a mic. the audience, trust me. What can we do to get? I think MR. MARTIN-I can talk to the Building and Grounds Superintendent about that. That's who it would go through. MR. PALING-All right. If it's no big deal, how about two? everybody has one. Then MR. MARTIN-It's not a problem for us, generally. MR. PALING-Okay. One is fine. Would you get us one more mic, - 12 - "- ---- "---, ...-" please? MR. MARTIN-We'll try our best. MR. BREWER-Did JohD mentiori to you about the policy ~e wanted to adopt, he was goirig to set a public hearing, or find out' if we did. MR. MARTIN-Yes. hearing. We have to do that in October, set the public On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 13 -