1989-10-24
'-'
-'
..
.'-...- ~
(
---/
QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24TH, 1989
INDEX
Site Plan No. 59-89 James M. Weller 1.
Subdivision No. 15-1989 James and Pamela Martin Floyd Martindale 1.
Site Plan No. 67-89 Rosemary Threw 2.
Subdivision No. 18-1989 Logger's Equipment Sales, Inc. 3.
Preliminary Stage
Site Plan No. 69-89 Green's Appliances 3.
Subdivision No. 19-1989 Brian O'Connor 6.
Preliminary Stage
Site Plan No. 68-89 Martin Johnsen 10.
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.
',---"
-
./
~~
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24TH~ 1989
'"
------
MEMBERS PRESENT
RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
PETER CARTIER
JOSEPH DYBAS
KEITH JABLONSKI
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
TOWN ENGINEER~THOMAS NACE
JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER
OLD BUSINESS
SITE PLAN NO. 59-89 JAMES M. WELLER HC-lA CORNER OF WALKUP CUTOFF AND BAY ROAD
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,500 SQ. FT. COLD STORAGE BUILDING AS AN ACCESSORY TO THE
EXISTING USE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 48-1-26 SECTION 4.020-K LOT
SIZE: 11.15 ACRES
MICHAEL HUPENCE REPRESENTING JAMES M. WELLER
STAFF INPUT
MR. GORALSKI-Stated the applicant has received a variance for expansion
preexisting nonconforming lot and a variance from the 50 foot buffer zone.
Zoning Administrator has determined that no other variances are necessary.
of a
The
ENGINEER REPORT
MR. NACE-Stated the Board has comments from September 14th, 1989. Have not reviewed
anything since that time.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated he is in receipt of a letter from the Beautification Committee.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated the application was approved by the Warren County Planning
Board two months ago.
MR. HUPENCE-Stated that at the zoning board meeting there was a neighbor who spoke
in favor of this application.
MR. CARTIER-Stated that they decided that this required a variance from the buffer
zone. Asked if they went to the zoning board for the variances?
MR. HUPENCE-Yes. Stated they have received a use variance and area variance.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-89~ JAMES M. WELLER, Introduced by Joseph Dybas
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski:
To approved since he has received a variance for the 50 foot buffer and the Zoning
Administrator has determined no other variances are necessary.
Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1989 JAMES AND PAMELA MARTIN FLOYD MARTINDALE, NORTHSIDE OF
1
',--,
'--- -
./
'---'
ROUTE 149 RR-3A FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION OF 31.5 ACRES.
JAMES AND PAMELA MARTIN INTEND TO PURCHASE THE PARCEL WITH THE INTENTION OF BUILDING
A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. TAX MAP NO. 30-1-10.1 LOT SIZE: 31.5 ACRES
JAMES MARTIN PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner. It appears that the Martin I s have satisfied
all of the requirements for final subdivision approval. (on file)
ENGINEER REPORT
Thomas Nace, Engineer. The percolation test results should include a test pit
log with test date, depth and if groundwater or mottling was encountered, as
mentioned previously in the letter dated September 14, 1989. Would like to see
this on the plans before the plat is approved. (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. MARTIN-Stated he submitted copies for the file after the last meeting.
MR. NACE-Stated
no test pit log
if there is any
to be here for
system.
the' plat that was submitted for final has a perc test
data. There needs to be a test done with a backhoe to
seasonal high groundwater evidence or mottling of soil.
verification of the correct design for the sub-surface
data, but
find out
It needs
disposal
MR. MARTIN-Didn't realize this had to be done by a backhoe.
MR. NACE-Stated Health Department standards are 2 ft. separation. The pit ought
to be at least 6-8 feet deep. Stated this is a minor detail as long as this was
put on the plat this would be satisfactory.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if they were to approve this after having put this on the plat
would this satisfy Mr. Nace?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1989, FINAL STAGE JAMES AND PAMELA
MARTIN,Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph
Dybas:
Approve subject to the submission of a test pit log with the indication of the
presence or absent of groundwater. To submit to the consulting engineer.
Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MR. GORALSKI-Asked that when they put this on the plat to bring it the planning
office and we will forwarded it to Rist Frost.
NEW BUSINESS
SITE PLAN NO. 67-89 ROSEMARY THREW TYPE: UNLISTED LI-IA 516 BIG BAY ROAD, APPROX.
~ MILE FROM CORINTH ROAD. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 40 FT. BY 64 FT. ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 137-2-7.2 SECTION
4.020-N LOT SIZE: 2.21 ACRES
BILL THREW PRESENTING ROSEMARY THREW
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file) Warren County Planning Board
approved. Adding that any recommendations by the Queensbury Beautification Committee
would stand. (on file) Queensbury Beautification Committee disapproved. No one
appeared to show a planting plan. This is a new design from the one presented
2
'---
~'
""
~-
previously and it is possible the same planting plans apply, but the committee
had no way of knowing or a chance to discuss the plans.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Thomas Nace, Engineer (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. CARTIER-Asked if any other chemicals are going to be used?
MR. THREW-No.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked Tom Nace, if some of these things could be corrected and put
on the map before approval?
MR. NACE-Stated the parking layout is something that has to comply with your
regulations. Not sure with this type of a site it is particularly important.
This is not somewhere where parking is critical. The drainage calculations with
soils involved in this area, I don't think it is a major problem. However, there
ought to be something from the applicant's engineer saying what he is doing.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked if this is unique enough that they could waive the parking
requirements? Asked what the parking requirements would be?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated staff has discussed this. They meet the parking requirements
although the parking spaces are not shown the area is available for the number
that they need.
MR. THREW-Stated they're not going to increase the parking.
MR. DYBAS-Asked that if on the map they're are going to show something as to the
parking and have their engineer give our engineer the calculations as to the runoff?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO.67-89 ROSEMARY THREW, Introduced by Joseph Dybas
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier:
Approve with the stipulation that the parking be shown. His engineer must shown
the adequacy of the additional runoff being created.
Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE, TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA LOGGER"S EQUIPMENT
SALES, INC. NORTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD BETWEEN OHIO AVENUE AND MINNESOTA AVENUE
FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION OF 6.89 ACRES. LOGGER'S EQUIPMENT CO. INTENDS TO USE THE
REAR PARCEL FOR EQUIPMENT SALES AND SERVICE. TAX MAP NO. 127-8-25.2 LOT SIZE: 6.89
ACRES
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
SITE PLAN NO. 69-89 GREEN'S APPLIANCES TYPE: UNLISTED PC-lA GLEN STREET BETWEEN
WOODBURY LUMBER AND WENDY'S FOR RETAIL SALES AND WAREHOUSE SPACE. (WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 103-1-20.4 SECTION 4.020-J LOT SIZE: .47 ACRES
THOMAS GREEN PRESENT
PLANS SHOWN TO BOARD
STAFF INPUT
3
"---'
~
"
~.--
--./
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file) Warren County Planning Board
approved. (on file)
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Thomas Nace, Engineer (on file)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ROBERTS-I did have a telephone conversation from a representative of a neighbor
of Woodbury's who apparently appeared at the Zoning Board and said in the past
they've had no problems with this.
MR. GORALSKI-I just like to add that I too had a conversation with the representative
of Woodbury's. When he saw the position on the agenda he figured he be here about
9:00 p.m. He also stated they had no problems with the proposal.
MR. JABLONSKI-What size delivery trucks are we talking about?
MR. GREEN-We will be using the great big truck and then a regular one of our trucks
which has a 20 ft. bed. With one of our trucks there will be no problem with getting
in and out of there. They will be able to do that in the middle of the day with
a lot full of cars. What he is talking about would be the big truck. The reason
the curb had to be moved is so that the big truck what we call the 40 footers can
pull in there and turn and back in that lot without blocking traffic at all. We
have done it, I have seen the truck do it. This is exactly why we are moving the
curb. We have done it several time and has had no problem at all believe it or
not. A tractor trailer is an interesting thing. A 40 ft. bed can turn in 46 ft.
the entire truck can turn around. This is like 90 ft. - 100 ft. wide there this
is not a problem. If in fact there were some cars parked on the right hand side,
11m not saying it couldn't be a little bit of a problem it could be. Again, we
are hoping to take everything in before opening hours. If worse came to worse
when we do get our truck once a week if we had to put some markers out there to
block the two parking spaces that would be the worse case scenario. About the
drywell at the end of the ramp this is something we overlooked. But, we did plan
on having it graveled and being a seepage pit right there.
MR. CARTIER-I just want to make sure I understand about the tractor trailer. The
trailer is going to have to stop on Glen Street and back in?
MR. GREEN-Not at all.
will pull in.
Refers to map to show the Board how the tractor trailer
MR. CARTIER-They wonlt be backing in off Route 9?
MR. GREEN-Not at all. If your asking what will he do if he is coming this way
it's just like he has to do in any other case. He goes up and turns around some
place else and comes back.
MR. CARTIER-How many time a week are we talking about with a truck that size?
MR. GREEN-Once a week. Our entire warehouse is only 2,000 sq. ft. and one of these
trucks is pretty close to 1,000 sq. ft.
MR. CARTIER-This is something I I d like to see address tomorrow or the day after.
The hole in that parking lot, Halloween is coming kids are not suppose to be back
there, but there are a lot of glass windows back there to soap up. Is there someway
the hole could be covered?
MR. GREEN-We will have the hole covered so nobody can fall into that. I will have
this done tomorrow.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JABLONSKI-Asked John about his question of having more than one tractor trailer?
MR. GORALSKI-Feels they have addressed our concerns. We wanted to bring up the
fact that in the past on other sites in the town there is a problem of trucks
stopping on the main roads and backing in off the main roads.
MR. CARTIER-Asked about hours of operation?
MR. GREEN-Stated 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
4
"---"
--'
/
",-. --
'-
'- ...-/
MR. ROBERTS-Stated the roadcut would probably not be a problem with D.O.T.
MR. GREEN-Stated the permits have been sent. Stated they have added about 30%
permeability. The water will go into the ground much better than it has in the
past.
MR. JABLONSKI-Asked about the location of the sewer connection?
MR. LACROIX-Stated he has check with the sewage department. They said it will
be hooked up somewhere behind Woodbury's, but could not give me the exact location.
MR. NACE-Stated then you can't show it.
MR. GREEN-Stated what's going to happen we are going to hook up to the sewer behind
Wendy's.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked Tom if he wants this on the plat?
MR. NACE-Stated he thinks it will not be necessary.
connection records of the sewer department.
It will be on the sewer
MR. CARTIER-Asked if they were going to be in operation before they are hooked
up with the sewer?
MR. GREEN-No.
MR. LACROIX-Stated the seepage pit the water table there is only 5 feet, asked
what they should do about this?
MR. NACE-The seepage pit for the loading dock. Asked how deep is the loading dock?
MR. LACROIX-Stated about 5 ft. below the floor level.
MR. NACE-Asked about the groundwater table?
MR. LACROIX-Stated the base of the ramp is 4 ft. below.
MR. CARTIER-Stated that between the bottom of the ramp and the top of the water
table is 1 feet?
MR. LACROIX-Stated they decided to raise it up to 3 feet.
MR. CARTIER-Stated now there is 2 feet between the bottom of the ramp and the top
of the water table.
MR. LACROIX-Yes.
MR. NACE-Stated this is a design problem. Stated they can't use a normal seepage
pit will have to find other means of a trench grade in the slab with crushed stone
below it or something like this.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if the ramp has to be there?
MR. GREEN-Stated you have to have a differential of at least 3 feet.
MR. DYBAS-Asked how the trucks are unloaded?
MR. GREEN-Stated with a hand truck.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 69-89 GREEN'S APPLIANCES,Introduced by Keith
Jablonski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybas:
Approve with the intent that they are going to add the drywell on the plan and
the roadcut permit is in place. The drywell and runoff control measures per
applicant design and the approval of our engineer.
Duly adopted this 24th day of October, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybas, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts
NOES: None
5
"---"
"-
"'-'-
/'
-'---.-./
ABSENT: None
SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1989 PRELIMINARY STAGE BRIAN O'CONNOR 3 MARTELL ROAD OFF HAVILAND
ROAD SR-lA TYPE: UNLISTED TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.50 ACRES LOT INTO TWO 1.25 ACRE LOT.
TAX MAP NO. 54-5-6.43 LOT SIZE: 2.5 ACRES
LEON STEVES REPRESENTING BRIAN O'CONNOR
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. GORALSKI-Stated they were in touch with D.E.C. today.
not been able to get out and flag the wetland to determine
The Board has a couple of options here; (1) To give this
D.E.C. will be out there within the next few days to flag
until D.E. C. flags it. Doesn't know if a wetlands permit
Town or D.E.C.
They had as of today
where it is located.
preliminary approval.
it. (2) To table it
is necessary from the
MR. ROBERTS-Doesn't know
subdivision.
MR. STEVES-Each of these
groundwater and types of
subdivision was approved by
why the wetlands would be applicable within
this
lots have had that because of the presence of
soils encountered which is basically silky clay.
the Planning Board.
high
The
MR. ROBERTS-Stated this is something that might not have been approved today.
MR. CARTIER-Stated they are talking about a sitky clay and the perc rate is 6-20
in./hr.
MR. STEVES-Stated there is about 1 ft. of topsoil on the site.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated that the map that was used for the master plan was not site
specific.
MR. CARTIER-Stated between now and final the perc rate has to be clarified.
MR. 0' CONNOR-Stated he had a perc test done when the original house was put in.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Thomas Nace, Engineer (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. NACE-Stated the location of the septic system on Lot III is not shown. This
has to be shown so we can show the minimum separation between the propose well
and existing septic system. Referred to Comment IÞ4. Not sure whether leaching
beds are proposed.
MR. ROBERTS-Asked Leon Steves to clarify this?
MR. STEVES-Stated the subdivision was done 15 years ago. A lot of this work was
done at that time. The site was investigated by Charlie Main, believes some of
them should be on this map.
MR. NACE-Stated as long as he sees them by final he has no problem with this.
MR. STEVES-Stated that in the planning departments soil analysis percolation rate
it is 6 in/hr. Feels this is unsuitable.
MR. CARTIER-Stated he thinks what the Ordinance is saying is that you have a perc
rate 6-20in./hr. We're going to take a closer look at it.
MR. NACE-Stated he is not sure without looking at the maps where the comment, limited
to unsuitable development came from. There maybe some other classification such
as soil with high groundwater table or soil that normally very sallow underlying
by clay. It could be some other instance in the soil classification other than
6
""--"
-----'
'-
"'----
just perc rate.
../
---~
MR. CARTIER-Feels Tom has brought up something they need to pay attention too.
The Town Ordinance has it recorded one way and the Town Engineer another way.
Feels this needs to be cleared up.
MR. NACE-Stated in general terms the soil analysis maps that were done are for
general planning purposes and are not to be interpreted on a site specific instance.
They are not intended for this purpose.
MR. CARTIER-Stated before SEQRA can be done on this he feels the wetland should
be flagged.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated SEQRA cannot be done until preliminary.
MR. STEVES-Feels that the wetlands map is available to everyone.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated this is close enough where you can't read it so it needs to
be flagged to be able to tell if you're in or out of the wetland.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated the problem was that the scale of the D.E.C. maps is so large
we could not figure out the site specifically. Secondly, Martell Road is not on
the D.E.C. map. We had requested that D.E.C. at least address this and they have
not done it.
MR. STEVES-Asked in the plan itself if you put the building and the septic and
the water all to the front half of the lot leaving at least 100-150 feet of property
line with the contours as shown do you believe that this would be influenced by
the wetlands?
MR. NACE-Stated he hasn't look at the property from the topo map. I would probably
agree with you, but I have been caught off guard before by looking at it on a map
then going out and looking at it in the field. I cannot speak for D.E.C.
MR. STEVES-Stated he is seeking preliminary approval.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated New York State Law precludes us from giving preliminary approval
until SEQRA has been satisfied.
MR. 0' CONNOR-Stated he is confused with the issues of the wetlands since this is
in an already in an approved subdivision.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated this subdivision never excited anybody of the Planning Board
at the time it was approved. Doesn't think it would have been approved today.
It's in a very low area fill has to be brought in 3-4 feet deep for every house
site.
MR. STEVES-Stated his recollection is that this has not been classified as a wetland
and is not in a wetlands map. The question is whether or not the wetlands
classification is on the north side of Haviland Road or west of Ridge Road.
MR. GORALSKI-Stated there is a Class II wetland on that side of the road.
MR. STEVES-Stated the official wetlands map would show an area designated as a
wetland.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated this is an amendment about 18 months ago from the original
wetlands map it moved into that area. It may not be on the original.
MR. STEVES-Stated he remembers the old map and it didn't show it.
MR. ROBERTS-Stated it has moved to the north side of the road.
MR. CARTIER-Asked if the wetlands map is detailed enough to be site specific?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated the wetlands map that they have from D.E.C. does not show Martell
Road on it. It was not detailed enough in our department to determine whether
this property was within 100 feet of the wetland.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
UNKNOWN-Asked if this was going to be a single family dwelling?
7
c"--'
-.-/'
\...
\......-.
.;
--
MR. ROBERTS-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-I don't think there is any argument that some fill is going to have
to be brought in.
MR. ROBERTS- I think we're on the horns of a dilemma here. If the Board thinks
we need more information until we deal with SEQRA then we can't proceed any further.
I'm I right council?
MR. DUSEK-Before I answer that I just have one question? Why was the long form
done is this case?
MR. GORALSKI-We always do long form on all subdivisions. Subdivisions are an
unlisted action and our board felt they wanted the long form on any subdivision.
MR. DUSEK-There is no problem with that this is perfectly legal so to speak. I
was curious I thought there was a special reason. Is there any other involved
agencies?
MR. GORALSKI-If D.E.C. has to give a wetlands permit then they would be an involved
agency. We notified them of the project and they have not responded to us the
30 days hasn't 1asped yet.
MR. DUSEK-Is there any other involved agency besides D.E.C.?
MR. GORALSKI-No.
MR. DUSEK- I'd be inclined to go along with what the term is indicating that if
we don't know D.E.C. is involved we may want to wait it out and not take any action
at the moment. If there are involved the board may want to do a coordinated SEQRA
review with D.E.C. especially in light of the concerns with the wetland.
MR. ROBERTS-We really don I t have a choice we have to whether we want to or not.
I think this has to be clarified before we go any further.
MR. GORALSKI-Like I say, we called them this afternoon because we expected an answer
from them and we still hadn't gotten it as of this afternoon.
UNKNOWN-Did you say they have to be 100 feet from the wetlands?
MR. ROBERTS-My statement was, I think as I recall, if your within 100 feet of a
wetland you need a permit.
HOWARD HOLCOLM-I live on Martell Road. When the subdivision was started it was
3 acre lots all approximately 300 feet deep. If he is building on Martell Road
with the sewage on Martell Road, then he is bound to be within 100 feet of the
wetlands.
MR. CARTIER-The property line?
MR. HOLCOLM-The lots are all 300 feet deep.
MR. ROBERTS-I think that point was made a little bit earlier it does look as though
there is over 100 feet from any septic system and the back of the lot. We still
don't know where the wetland is, of course, the wetland has come into being since
the subdivision.
MR. HOLCOLM-The wetland is the property that you originally owned down on the corner
is that right?
MR. ROBERTS-I never owned down by the corner.
MR. HOLCOLM-The church owns 10 acres down by the corner. That was the property
that was wetlands after it was sold to another guy and he found out his property
was wetlands. The property on Martell Road is all 300 feet deep or there about
from Martell Road to what was considered the wetlands and or the brook that runs
down through.
MR. ROBERTS-I think that is probably true.
MR. HOLCOLM-If this is of any help. There is also a house on the corner, I haven't
8
-...-/
./
"'-
~
-.-.-/
seen your plans, but the house on the corner was approved and was built about 1-2
years ago.
MR. ROBERTS-That was Part of the original subd" . d· d '
:vis~on map ~t ~ n t raise any
questions.
MR. HOLCOLM-Okay, he's dividing.
MR. ROBERTS-He is increasing the density.
MR. HOLCOLM-Thank you.
MR. ROBERTS-Do we still think we need D.E.C. input before we go any further.
MR. JABLONSKI-To protect the property line that's going to be the issue.
MR. ROBERTS-Since there has been some controversy in that neighborhood, I think
we want to protect ourselves in dealing with.
MR. JABLONSKI-If we get the wetland flagged then we know what we're dealing with.
MR. STEVES-I guess we would have to agree, however, D.E.C. has been notified and
D.E.C. how long ago?
MR. GORALSKI-At least three weeks ago.
MR. STEVES-I can understand their busy, but I would think that they should at least
respond within the 30 day period.
MR. GORALSKI-They have 30 days.
MR. STEVES-We can hold this thing up forever, but let's play by the rules.
MR. CARTIER-Whose responsible for getting on the horn to D.E.C.?
MR. GORALSKI-They have been notified of this project. Stuart Baker has spoken
to Al Catchline at least twice and the last word we heard from them was that they
were going to send someone out within a week to flag it to determine whether or
not the D.E.C. permit was necessary.
MR. ROBERTS-I guess staff has done what their suppose to. I agree we will follow
the rules.
We should hear soon and as soon as we hear you should know so you can do whatever
you need to do.
MR. STEVES-By tabling we can come back next month?
MR. ROBERTS-That's a good question.
MR. GORALSKI-I think that's up to the Board since really the reason you're tabling
this in my opinion, it's not the applicant's fault. It's certainly in the board's
purview to have us place them back on the agenda without any new information being
submitted by tomorrow.
BOARD-Does not have a problem with that.
MR. ROBERTS-If we hear from D.E.C. we
coordinated review or something without
we've given that authority haven't we?
can start the wheels in motion
waiting for our next meeting.
for a
I think
MR. GORALSKI-We already sent them a letter saying that the Planning Board would
like to be lead agent. This is what we've been instructed to do and is what we've
done they have not responded. The reason they have not responded is because they
have not decided if a permit is required or not. When I hear from D.E.C. I will
give Mr. O'Connor or you a call.
MR. CARTIER-It is possible that D.E.C. may not require a wetlands permit, but the
town does?
MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe so. I will check and make so, but we check and
typically when D.E.C. requires the permit our regulations coincide with their
9
'"---,,
----/
,/
"-
~
regulations so the 100 foot buffer is the cutoff point.
/'
----./
MR. ROBERTS-As you can see we're not in total control.
this?
You have agreed to table
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. JABLONSKI-We're going to asked that they be put on the next agenda do we agree
to that?
MR. ROBERTS-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-The only only other thing I would like to clarify is Mr. Nace, has
a comment which is not on is list of comments regarding location of the septic.
PUBLIC BEARING TO REMAIN OPENED
TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 19-1989, PRELIMINARY STAGE, BRIAN O'CONNOR WITH AGREEMENT
OF THE APPLICANT
SITE PLAN NO. 68-89 MARTIN JOHNSEN WR-LA TYPE: UNLISTED 1730 GLEN LAKE ROAD, SECOND
HOUSE EAST OF GLERMOORE LODGE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 180 SQ. FT. ADDITION. (WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-13 SECTION 9.010 LOT SIZE: 7,000 SQ. FT.
APPLICANT NOT PRESENT
MR. CARTIER-Asked if there is a written procedure on tabling when no one is present?
MR. GORALSKI-Stated they have the option to table, approve, or deny it.
MR. DYBAS-Stated the staff comments from John Goralski, that he thinks only the
applicant can answer.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file)
DISCUSSION HELD
MR. GORALSKI-Referred to staff comments. Stated they don I t know if the septic
system is based on bedrooms we don't know if this is a additional bedroom or not.
Can't determine whether the septic system should be upgraded or not.
TABLE SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 68-89 MARTIN JOHNSEN,
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Richard Roberts, Chairman
10