Loading...
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