The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-12-27 '~ Subdivision No. 14-1990 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 84-90 Site Plan No. 80-90 Subdivision No. 13-1990 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 9-1990 PRELIMINÄRY STÄGE Petition for a Change P12-90 of Zone Site Plan No. 91-90 Subdivision No. 17-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE Site Plan No. 92-90 Subdivision No. 18-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 27TH, 1990 INDEX Inspiration Park Adams Rich Associates Charles Freihofer, III William Threw Owner: Rosemary M. Threw Robert & Margaret Reid Madison & Diamantis Frank & Teresa Rollo Richard Diehl Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. Marcel Demers Eunice Engwer -./ 5. (Cont'd Pg. 19. ) 5. 6. 8. 9. 11. 22. 23. 27. 33. 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 MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 27. 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, ACTING CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER. SECRETARY JAMES HAGAN JAMES MARTIN EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT CONRAD KUPILLAS NICHOLAS CAIMANO TOWN ENGINEER-RIST FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS PLANNER-JOHH GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-One quick thing. We have a request on Site Plan No. 84-90 to table that. Charles Freihofer, III. to construct a U-shaped crib dock of approx. square feet on Lake George. If there's anybody here to discuss that or comments, that is going to be tabled I think. We'll let that go until we get to it. The first order of business is to conduct a public hearing on a proposed Amendment to the Rules and Procedures of the Planning Board regarding special rules relating to Expedited Matters and I think what I'd like to do is maybe kill two bird with one stone. Basically. this is a proposal to expedite relatively minor applications and see if we can't speed up the process and simplify some of this work that's done by various applicants. What I'd like to do is read this item. paragraph for paragraph, open the public hearing, if anyone has any comments either on the part of the Board or from members of the audience, please feel free to jump in at any point. I'll ask you, if you address the Board, to use the microphone and to identify yourself. Okay. "I. PURPOSE A. In order to expedite certain site plan review and subdivision applications, which do not require a review as extensive as others that may require more involved and lengthy review due to the size of the project and the significant issues raised. said site plan review and subdivision applications will be handled as Expedited Matters." Any questions or comments on that? I'm just going to read through this. If somebody has something where they want to jump in, please do it. "B. Such Expedited Matters will be handled in a manner which will comply with the requirements of Town Law and the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury." "II. TYPES OF EXPEDITED MATTERS A. SITE PLANS 1. Applications for a change in use for Type II Site Plan Permitted Uses in Recreational Commercial (Section 4.020-1), Plaza Commercial (Section 4.020 j). Highway Commercial (Section 4.020-k). Commercial Residential (Section 4.020-L). and Neighborhood Commercial (Section 4.020-M) Zones which do not involve any physical alteration to an existing structure or the site, 2. Applications for first time expansions of nonconforming structures of less than 50% of gross floor area, which expansions are not located within Critical Environmental Area, 3. Type II Permitted Use applications for lots in commercial subdivisions. which subdivisions have previously been approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board and for which no modification to the original approval and filed plat is intended. and 4. Application for residential duplexes in those zones where they are a permitted site plan review use." In other words. those are the types of items that would be considered for expedited application process. "B. Subdivisions Any two (2) lot subdivision, where the density in the zone would not allow further subdivision of the parcel, and no new roadways or infrastructure are proposed, which is not located within or contiguous to, a Critical Environmental Area. III PROCEDURE A. The Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury shall notify the relevant applicants of their selection and inclusion in the expedited process, including providing an explanation of the procedure." Jim, you had a question about that one you said. MR. HAGAN-No. I just thought that was kind of cumbersome, that the night of the meeting, you would read all those applications that were going to be expedited through and at that point if anybody had any questions before we made the motion they could do so. MR. CARTIER-I think this refers to beforehand. MR. HAGAN-Yes, I know it, but I don't see the point because it sounds like you're excluding the public when you do this. I mean, the applicant is going to know whether he's notified or not, isn't he? Supposing we notify him beforehand and then there are people in the neighborhood who object or who have objections to this application and after their objections are voiced. we decide maybe they have a point and for some reason we disapprove it and the applicant isn't here because he things it's ~ to be approved. I think it should be left out. 1 '-- -- MR. CARTIER-Okay. but this doesn't say, I may have misled you. This doesn't say he's not required to be there. MR. HAGAN-No, but it sounds as though you're telling him beforehand that it's going to be approved and that in itself is essence to believe that the public objections are not going to be allowed. I see this serves no purpose. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, if I might explain why it was put in there? I think that not everyone would be aware that this amendment has been made to the Planning Board's Rules and Procedures and I think that they should be informed of this amendment and that is what the Planning Department's job will be to do is to explain this sort of expedited procedure to the applicant. Then the applicant £!!l go through with it if they choose or not and the applicant should have the opportunity to either say yes, you know, go through the expedited process or not. MR. HAGAN-I'm not going to belabor this, but if I was an applicant and the Planning Department called me up and said, your application is going to be handled in an expedited matter on an inclusive motion, then I would assume that my application was going to be approved and I wouldn't show up. Then if I didn't show up but half the neighborhood did and for some reason that the Planning Department couldn't see. they objected, and then the Planning Board said, hey, you're right. We're going to disapprove it. Then you call me up and say, hey, your application was disapproved and I wasn't there to defend myself. I'd be madder than a wet hen. MR. GORALSKI-Well, the only thing I can compare that to is often people call us and say, do you think my site plan is going to be part of the blanket motion at the County Planning Board and I might say to them. well. yes. it probably will be, but you should still be there anyway because there's no guarantee that it's going to be. We always advise people that they should be at every meeting where their application is going to be considered. MR. HAGAN-Again, not to belittle the County Planning Board. but they don't notify. The applicants all show up and then when this all inclusive motion is made. they all get up with a sigh of relief and leave happily. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. HAGAN-No problems. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. HAGAN-Enough said. Put it in there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-I think it's a nebulous paragraph. MR. CARTIER-Item 3. "B. (1). The Planning Department shall visit each appropriate site. review the application and issue a written report to the Planning Board, recommending approval or further Planning Board review and citing their reasons, for every project which falls within the expedited process," Do I read this to mean that the Planning Board members are not going to be expected to visit these or should we consider that we should check those out ourselves anyway? I think we should still include those. MR. GORALSKI-I recommend that the Planning Board visit every site. MR. CARTIER-Okay. "(2). The criteria which the Planning Department will use to determine if a project should be placed on the expedited agenda may include but not be limited to: The Planning Department Resource Maps. Town of Queensbury Zoning Law. Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations, DEC Freshwater Wetlands Maps, Flood Plain Maps, and concerns from other Department Heads raised at Staff Review. C. All projects to be included as Expedited Matters shall be included on the Planning Board Meeting Agenda as the first item of New Business." Here's where I have a problem. with this. "D. All matters placed on the said first item of New Business as Expedited Matters will be heard, considered and decided at the beginning of each regularly scheduled Planning Board Meeting." I thought we had talked about making it the first item of New Business? MRS. PULVER-That's what the last thing just said. C said that. MR. CARTIER-C says that, but D says we're going to do this first at the beginning of the meeting. MR. GORALSKI-And we do Old Business first. MR. CARTIER-And we do Old Business first. So, if we made a minor change in that. 2 '- ........., MRS. PULVER-No. it says, "All matters placed on the said first item". Business. It's the first item of New MR. HAGAN-It already says that. Peter, as far as I'm concerned. MRS. PULVER-All D says is, the first item of New Business will be "heard. considered and decided at" MR. CARTIER-"the beginning of each regularly scheduled Planning Board Meeting." MRS. PULVER-Well, it should be at the beginning of each item of New Business. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. There is a conflict with that. MR. CARTIER-Right. MRS. PULVER-Yes, there is. It starts out right. It just ends up a little. MR. CARTIER-At the beginning of New Business. third line. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, do you want it heard at the beginning of the meeting or the beginning of New Business? MR. CARTIER-The beginning of New Business. MS. CORPUS-Okay. we can change that. MR. MARTIN-The New Business portion or whatever. MR. CARTIER-Okay and all we have to do is add in, after the phrase. "beginning of", the words New Business for each. Will that do it? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-So, it would read. considered and decided at the beginning of New Business. MS. CORPUS-We could also delete D, if that would be.... MR. CARTIER-Delete D? That's right. Okay. delete D. Good. MS. CORPUS-And then E. becomes the new D. MR. CARTIER-E becomes D and we move all those accordingly. Okay. Item E.. or new D. "The Planning Board shall consider these Expedited Matters and comply with any Public Hearing requirements of Town Law, the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. In doing so, the Chairman will advise the applicant that his/her comments are unnecessary, unless the project is recommended for further review by the Planning Board. In those cases, the applications will be placed at the end of the New Business agenda. after having commenced or having held the Public Hearing. for handling and consideration as is accorded all other matters on the meeting agenda. This will constitute an exception. and will amend and vary the Special Rules applicable to the Meeting Agenda. which Rules provide that only four (4) Matters of New Business will be heard, in view of the fact that the applicant will already be before the Board, and the Public Hearing has been commenced or held." MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, if I can clarify one point, at this time. I know the Board had discussed having one large public hearing for all of the expedited matters and Paul and I discussed it. We did some research and, legally, we should open and close each separate public hearing in order to avoid confusion and in order to clearly state on the record which matters for public hearing are being opened and closed. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but we can still do a comprehensive SEQRA? MS. CORPUS- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Item F., or new E. "After opening and closing the public hearing for those expedited applications to be approved," Do you want to revise that to reflect that for each? "After opening and closing the public hearing for each expedited application to be approved"? MS. CORPUS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-"the Chairman of the Planning Board will ask the Board members if they have any questions or wish to discuss any of the expedited projects. If no comment or discussion is forthcoming, the Board will then entertain one SEQRA resolution for all expedited site plan applications, and another 3 '- -- for all expedited subdivision applications. Item G., new F. "After passage of the aforementioned resolutions, the Board shall entertain ~n~ approval resolution for all expedited site plan applications, and another for all expedited subdivls10n applications. "IV. EFFECTIVE DATES The rules enacted herein pursuant to Town Law Section 272 shall be effective immediately upon the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury." So, if we recommend approval of this tonight. that's going to go to the Town Board? MS. CORPUS-The first regularly scheduled meeting is January 7th. MR. CARTIER-Great, and in hopes that they will act on it that night. MS. CORPUS-Yes, hopefully. MR. CARTIER-So, best case scenario, this can go into effect as of February items, correct? MR. GORALSKI-No. it would be January items. MS. CORPUS-January. MR. CARTIER-January even too? Great. Okay. Does anybody have any further questions or comments? Does anyone in the audience care to comment or have a question? PUBLIC HEARIIIG OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Would you care to introduce a resolution? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And I think we may want to add a phrase in there somewhere to the effect, as amended. RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE RULES AND PROCEDURES OF THE PLANIIIJIi BOARD REGARDING SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO EXPEDITED MATTERS INTRODUCED BY: CAROL PULVER WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: JAMES HAGAN WHEREAS. the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury is desirous of amending its Rules and Procedures to provide additional rules which will provide for the expedited review and approval of certain matters. and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Amendment to the Rules and Procedures has been presented at this meeti ng, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly held by the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury on the aforesaid proposed Amendment to the Rules and Procedures. on December 27, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road. Queensbury, Warren County, New York, and parties in interest and citizens were heard as to whether the proposed amendment to the rules and regulations should be adopted by the Planning Board, NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that adoption of the proposed Amendment to the Rules and Procedures constitutes a Type II action under SEQRA and further SEQRA review is not necessary in accordance with Section 617.13 of the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that. pursuant to Section 272 of the Town Law of the State of New York. the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adopts the proposed Amendment to the Rules and Procedures presented at this meeting. subject to the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 27th day of December. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano 4 '---' ¡ --J! MRS. PULVER-Now, we want to add, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,... MR. CARTIER-In terms of the amendments? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-They will be changed on the record. MRS. PULVER-Okay. As amended it will be changed? Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-20 OWNER: ANTHONY P., CAROL A., IUfD ROBERT RICCIARDELLI, JR. MILE NORTHEAST OF WEST NT. ROAD FOR A 42 LOT SUBDIVISION. 22.48 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS INSPIRATION PARK ADAMS RICH ASSOCIATES SOUTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD, APPROX. 0.1 TAX MAP 110. 148-1-7.1, 7.3, 7.4 LOT SIZE: MR. CARTIER-Thank you. With regard to the next item on the agenda, which is the regular agenda, we are awaiting the arrival of one, hopefully, two members of the Board. We have one member. for sure, who's not going to show up. We do not know the location of the other member at the moment. The assumption has been. all along, that he would show up. He normally notifies us when he's not going to be here. What I'd like to do is just put that one on hold for the evening in hopes that he will show up. Okay. All that refers to Inspiration Park, Final Stage. SITE PLAN NO. 84-90 TYPE II WR-3A CHARLES FREIHOFER, III OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L, IIJODS POINT AREA TO CONSTRUCT A U-SHAPED CRIB DOCK OF APPROX. 524 SQ. FT. TO EXTEND AN EXISTIIE SUN DECK OUT OVER THE PROPOSED DOCK SYSTEM. (1fARREfI COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP 110. 2-1-3 LOT SIZE: 1.2 ACRES SECTION 4.020 D MR. CARTIER-We have a request. with regard to the next item, to table it, Site Plan 84-90 Charles Freihofer. We're going to need a motion for that. We have a letter, let me read it into the record. "To: Queensbury Planning Board. From: Joe Roulier. Re: Charles Freihofer, Dock application I respectfully request that the application of Mr. Freihofer continue to be tabled to a January 1991 meeting. I have not. as of yet, received information from the L.G.P. Comm which I believe is necessary for our meeting. Sincerely, J. Roulier" Is there a slot open on the January meeting? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. there is. MR. CARTIER-Okay, then it's up to him to get in in a timely fashion and fill that slot up. MR. GORALSKI-Well. I don't know that there's any other information that he is actually required to submit. MR. CARTIER-Well. the reason I raise the issue is, I don't want him assuming he's automatically on a January agenda. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, well, what I'm saying is, I don't know what he has to submit to be on in January. MR. CARTIER-He's waiting for information from the Lake George Park Commission. which I believe is necessary for a meeting. according to his letter. We're obviously going to table tonight. He's not here. MR. GORALSKI-Right, but I would recommend that you just table it until January and it would automatically be placed on the agenda in January. MR. CARTIER-And bump another item off? MR. GORALSKI-No, I think there are two spots open for January's meeting. MR. CARTIER-Suppose they fill before he gets his stuff in? MR. GORALSKI-The deadline was yesterday. MR. MARTIN-Yesterday, right. because this is a Special Meeting. We're delayed. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, we're prepared to make a motion to table it. MOTION 10 TABLE SITE PLAN 110. 84-90 CHARLES FREIHOFER, III. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Tabled until the January meeting. 5 -- --- Duly adopted this 27th day of December. 1990. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas. Mr. Caimano SITE PLAN (I). 80-90 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA WILLIAM THREW OWNER: ROSEMARY M. TIlREIf BIG BAY ROAD, CORINTH ROAD TO BIG BAY ROAD, SOUTH ON BIG BAY ROAD 1/2 MILE FOR INSIDE STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP (I). 137-2-7.3 LOT SIZE: 7.77 ACRES SECTION RAYMOND IRISH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner, dated December 20, 1990, on Site Plan Review No. 80-90 William Threw Meeting Date: December 27th, 1990 "The application is to add a storage facility of 24.751 square feet to an existing Light Industrial area off of Big Bay Road. The property currently is 7.77 acres and has two buildings on it which total 7,441 square feet. Site re-grading will take place to remove soil piles on site and to modify a pit so it can be used as a retention basin. The plans indicate that appropriate erosion control measures will be taken. I reviewed this with regard to Section 5.070. 1. The location arrangement and size of the buildings are not a problem. The Board may want to review what exactly the storage facility will house. It would certainly improve the site if the construction equipment and materials currently stored outside were placed in the building. The Board should also ask the applicant where storage of fuel, oil. gasoline. and any other chemicals will take place. 2. Traffic access and circulation are adequate. 3. Sufficient parking and handicapped access are provided for. 4. Pedestrian access is provided for in front of the building. Traffic circulation is adequate. 5. The engineer will address stormwater drainage. 6. The engineer will address adequacy of water and septic facilities. 7. The Beautification Report is attached. This site could certainly be more orderly and hopefully, this new structure will help the effort. There is a wooded buffer area along Big Bay Road which will remain. Also. the wooded area to the rear of the proposed structure will be maintained. The pit will be partially filled and used for retention, and the piles of dirt will be removed. 8. A fire hydrant with curb protectors around it is at the front of the facility. We have not had any comments regarding the site plan from the district fire chief. 9. The area does not appear to have a susceptibility to flooding." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. from Rist-Frost. Town Engineer, dated: December 18, 1990 RE: William Threw Site Plan No. 80-90 "Previous engineering comments have been addressed." MR. GORALSKI-And the attached Beautification Committee Report indicates their approval. MR. CARTIER-Okay. thank you. Mr. Irish. MR. IRISH-Hi. My name's Ray Irish. I'm the engineer for Mr. Threw. I believe there were two questions there. One was regarding the materials that would be stored and the other was regarding fuel, where the fuel storage would be on the site. I think Mr. Threw would be best to address those questions. BILL THREW MR. THREW-I'm Bill Threw. There will be no fuel stored in this building whatsoever. MR. CARTIER-Okay. they're not going to be in the building, but I think the question that has been raised here is where they're going to be stored? MR. THREW-Where they are right now on the existing garage. There's two 1,000 gallon tanks there. One for off the road. one on the road which has gone through DEC and the Town of Queensbury so far. There would be no others. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What exactly the storage facility will house, I think the statement was made the last time that a lot of the material that's outside now will be stored in this new building. Is that correct? MR. THREW-Right. Ninety percent of what you see there now.li. the building that's spread all over the property. Once we get that off the property and into a building. it will decrease it, ninety percent of what you see. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The problem with this before was the site plan wasn't clearly drawn. 6 ',- '--" MR. CARTIER-Yes, and we wanted to see everything incorporated in it, everything that was there. Okay. Do Board members have any questions or comments? MR. HAGAN-I just had one minor question. Do you plan on steam cleaning or cleaning in any way the equipment before you put it into storage? In other words. outdoor cleaning? MR. THREW-Yes. this will still be at the old building that we've got right now. We've got a cleaning area where we clean it off on. MR. HAGAN-Inside the building? MR. THREW-No, it's outside the building. It's just outside that 100 by 42 building. MR. HAGAN-How do you take care of the grease and other? MR. THREW-We've got an area filled with stone, right now. with nothing else in it. When it accumulates, we get grease and stuff like that, then we take it up to the landfill. MR. HAGAN-Okay. That's all I had. MR. CARTIER-Anybody else? Okay. I suspect I left the public hearing open because we did table. Does anybody from the public care to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-I believe we have a Short Form SEQRA to review. Is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Would somebody care to take us through that, please. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF II) SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION (1). 80-90, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: MR. MARTIN-(Referring to Short Form EAF) "Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: 1. Existing air quality. surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion drainage or flooding problems?" MR. CARTIER-Mr. Threw, just to go back to what you said about steam cleaning. That's high perc'd sands over there. Does any of this material percolate down into that sand when you steam clean? MR. THREW-No. It's right on the top, one foot surface. We've got two feet of stone in there and when it fills up with this... MR. CARTIER-That's a non-permeable surface is what you're saying? MR. THREW-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. That answers that. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: inside storage of construction equipment and .aterials, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed proje,ct 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 7 '--'" '--"" 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. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of December, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin. Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-We can now entertain a motion to approve or dispose of this application. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 80-90 WILLIAM THREW. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For inside storage of construction equipment and materials. Duly adopted this 27th day of December. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA ROBERT I MRGARET REID O_R: SAME AS ABOVE WINCOM DRIVE. NORTHERLY ALONG RIDGE ROAD FROM QUAKER ROAD TO WIfICOM DRIVE. CONTIfIIE NORTHERLY FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. RETAIN 5.73 ACRES SURROUNDING EXISTUIi RESIDENCE. CONVEY WESTERLY 1.66 ACRES FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDIIIG LOT. TAX MAP NO. 55-1-2.11 LOT SIZE: 7.39 ACRES ROBERT REID, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner. Subdivision No. 13-1990 Robert & Margaret Reid, dated December 18. 1990 Meeting Date: December 27, 1990 "The request is to subdivide approximately 7.39 acres into two lots in an SR-1A zone. The smallest lot will be 1.66 acres and will have new construction. The other lot will be 5.73 acres and has an existing residence on it. Access to both lots will be from Wincoma Drive. The Planning Board approved the preliminary review of this subdivision on November 27, 1990. No further planning concerns have arisen since the previous approval." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer. dated December 18. 1990 "We have reviewed the project and there are no engineering comments." MR. CARTIER-And we have someone here representing the applicant, I believe. Okay. Does anybody have any questions on this application or comments? None? Okay. Dr. Reid. do you care to make any comments? Okay. We've already held a public hearing and that was closed. This is unlisted, so we need to do a Short Form on this. MR. GORALSKI-No. You did SEQRA already at Preliminary. MR. HAGAN-This is Final. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. If there is no discussion, we can entertain a motion. 8 '---' Jl)TION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 11). 13-1990 ROBERT & MARGARET REID, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a 2 lot subdivision. Retain 5.73 acres surrounding existing residence, convey westerly 1.66 acres for residential building lot. Duly adopted this 27th day of December. 1990. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Martin. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano SUBDIVISION 11). 9-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA MADISON & DIAMNTIS OIlIER: CURTIS L. MADISON, JR., LlOYD DIAMNTIS, RENE DIAMANTIS SOUTH SIDE OF HAVILAND ROAD, OPPOSITE SOUTHERLY END OF MARTELL ROAD. PROPOSED 4 LOT SUBDIVISION, 00 LOTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, TWO LARGER LOTS TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED. TAX MAP NO. 54-~6.6 LOT SIZE: 18.8 ACRES CURT MADISON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner. dated December 17, 1990, Subdivision No. 9-1990 Curtis Madison, Jr. - Lloyd Diamantis - Rene Diamantis, Meeting Date: December 27. 1990 "This application was tabled on October 25. 1990 so that the applicant could address several engineering concerns. If these concerns have been addressed I would recommend Preliminary Stage approval." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost, dated, December 18. 1990 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Regarding sewage disposal systems design: a. A 100' separation distance between the well and the edge of absorption field fill should be maintained on lot 1. b. Test hole data to determine high seasonal groundwater shall conform to Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance Section 5.030 B.7 and Appendix F. Data shall be collected within the time frames stipulated or the data should be certified by a qualified person approved by the local Board of Health. The requisite test hole information/certification can be made a condition of approval by the Board sUbject to acceptance by the Enforcement Officer prior to construction." MR. CARTIER-And we have a letter from the Enforcement Officer, too, dated December 12. MR. GORALSKI-I can read that if you'd like. It basically says the same thing Tom just said. MR. CARTIER-Let me ask a quick question here. Do I understand that, lB., do I understand that to mean that if it's certified by a qualified person, approved by the Board of Health, then it does not have to be done within the time frames given? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Currently, there are two people who have been certified by the Board of Health. MR. CARTIER-Two people in the Town of Queensbury. Okay. Mr. Madison. MR. MADISON-Hi. My name is Curt Madison and I've had the project in front of you for the last couple of meeti ngs and we've tabled because of a mix up and ti mi ng to get permi ts and si nee the 1 ast meeti ng I have received the DEC Permit and we have made changes on the engineering part of it, as far as the septic system and I think answered most of the questions that have been brought up by the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Engineer's Comment 1A. "A 100' separation distance between the well and edge of the absorption field fill should be maintained on lot 1," does that show? MR. MADISON-Yes. MR. CARTIER-That shows on the plans? Okay. So that's taken care of. MR. YARMOWICH-Is the well on that lot existing? MR. MADISON-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-It is? Okay. You understand the comment in that the regulations require 100 feet from the edge of the fill over to the well? 9 '---' -../ MR. MADISON-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Have you had a chance to look at that? MR. MADISON-No. I guess we haven't gone over it with a surveyor. As far as I've known, that part of it was taken care of, as far as a permit from you for lot 1. MR. CARTIER-Well, remember. we're at Prelim, here and those things can be addressed at Final. We don't necessarily have to hold up this Preliminary application because those things can be taken care of at Final. They can show up on the map, on the blueprint. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's something you can take care of between now and the time you bring in your final application, if there is a change that needs to be made. MR. LAPOINT-It's shown as 100 feet. I guess I don't understand Rist-Frost's comment. It's shown as 100 feet on the drawing. MR. YARMOWICH-What it's showing is 100 feet to the edge of the distribution system for the septic system as opposed to the edge of the fill. This is a special design septic system and the separation distances apply to the edge of that fill which is actually part of the system by the definitions. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. You're clear on that so that he can talk with your engineer on that and make sure that the fill was 100 feet away. MR. GORALSKI-What I recommend you do is have your engineer contact my office and we can go over that comment with him and remedy it. MR. CARTIER-That's a relatively minor thing. MRS. PUL VER- Yes. MR. CARTIER-That's not a major issue. It's something that can be done on the blueprint. MR. HAGAN-Because there's no leach from the distribution box so you've got that much leeway, as far as I'm concerned. Right? MR. LAPOINT-True. MR. HAGAN-Okay. So you've got a cushion. as far as I'm concerned. MR. CARTIER-And the same is true of Item lB. That's something that can be addressed between now and fi na 1. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. It certainly can. We did not do a SEQRA Review on this the last time, I recall, because there were going to be some changes that we hoped would be addressed. They would raise questions in the SEQRA process. MR. MARTIN-And we didn't have the Permit. MR. CARTIER-So we need to go through that, I believe. MR. MARTIN-Short Form or Long Form? MR. CARTIER-Long Form or Short Form, John? MR. GORALSKI-Long Form should be included. Well, there's a Short Form in the application and you can use the Short Form for the, typically, the Board uses the Long Form. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I've got a Long Form here. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF III SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION 110. 9-1990, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: MR. LAPOINT-(Referring to SEQRA Long Form) 19. Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to the potential adverse environmental impacts? No. 10 -- '--" --- MR. GORALSKI-I believe the public hearing was held open last time. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Is there anybody who would care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: proposed 4 lot subdivision. two lots for construction of single family residence, two larger lots to ~in undeveloped, and 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. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having consi dered the cri teri a for determini ng whether a project has a si gni fi cant en vi ronmenta 1 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 27th day of December. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-We can now entertain a motion for disposition of this application. I think we're going to want to include some stipulations with regard to engineering concerns that need to be addressed at final. IIJTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1990 MADISON I DIAlWlTIS. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: With the following stipulations: One. that a 100 foot separation distance between the well and the edge of the absorption field fill be shown on the plat for Lot One. Two. that a test hole certification by a professional certified by the Board of Health approve the determination of high seasonal groundwater or conduct the test pit data next spring within the time frame of the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 27th day of December. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano liEN BUSINESS: PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE PI2-90 FRANK I TERESA ROLLO CURRENT ZONING: SR-lA PROPOSED ZONING: HC-IA TAX MAP NO. 52-2-1.34 SOUTH SIDE OF RT. 149. NEXT TO LEN AND PEG'S RESTAURANT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) u "-' -../ MIKE TASIK. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, P12-90 Frank & Teresa Rollo, dated December 18. 1990. Meeting Date: December 27, 1990 "The request is to re-zone a lot on Route 149 currently designated as SR-1A to Highway Commercial. The properties around the Rollo property and in the same zone are either vacant or residential. This particular property was zoned highway commercial prior to 1988. During the re-zoning which took place the highway commercial designations along Route 149 were reviewed. This particular area was changed from a commercial designation. At that time the properties in the area which were vacant or residential were changed to a less intense use than highway commercial. There were a number of reasons for this which are identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Some are: To maintain the rural character in the community. To restrict strip commercial development on collector and arterial roads. Limit highway commercial zones to reduce commercial strip development along arterials especially Route 149. Increase lot sizes for highway commercial activities to a minimum of one acre. I reviewed this property with regard to the resource maps in the Planning Dept.: Water Resources -Aquifer Recharge Area Soil Analysis Percolation Rate - 6 - 20" per hour - Limited to unsuitable. Intrinsic Development Suitability - Limited needs, design alternatives The land to the south and east of this particular property is zoned Land Conservation 10 Acres. This was done partially because of the 3 hazardous waste sites in the area. (Queensbury Landfill, Glens Falls Landfill. and the West Glens Falls PCB Disposal site) I reviewed the site plan review permitted uses in the Highway Commercial zone. A number appear on the list which would be inappropriate if the desire of the community is to maintain the rural character and limit strip development. As time goes on pressure for commercial property will be increased in this area. The Town Board has recognized this and the Planning Department has been directed to investigate creation of a zone which will meet the needs of this area while achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan." MR. CARTIER-John, let me back up to the top paragraph up there, where it says "Queensbury Landfill, Glens Falls Landfill and the West Glens Falls PCB Disposal site". That doesn't apply there. does it? MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you, I've never heard of it. MR. CARTIER-Yes. There's an area in West Glens Falls where there are some PCB's. I'm aware of that, somewhere near Exit 18, I believe. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not sure. I have to apologize. MR. CARTIER-That's okay. I just want to clarify that. MR. MARTIN-I think it's that pit that's right adjacent to the landfill. MR. TASIK-Finch Pruyn Landfill is close by there. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think that may be what she was referring to. One other thing, John, the map you have with you. that you included in that, on the next page, the 1.33 acres just to the west of the property in question. that is SR-1A also, right? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-So we'd end up with, we've got Highway Commercial on the corner, which is Len and Peg's. Then we'd have an SR-1A lot and then we'd have another HC-1A. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Before we get into a discussion here, Warren County looked at it and approved. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board have any questions or comments? MRS. PULVER-Yes. What's the 47 acres? Is that a farm or is it a riding stable? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. MR. CARTIER-You're talking about this piece right here? MRS. PULVER-Yes. Who owns it? MR. MARTIN-That's basically vacant. 12 '--' -..../ MR. CARTlER-I think that's vacant. That's U26 feet on the road. the road the Finch Pruyn entrance is? Do you remember, John. how far down MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. MR. CARTIER-It's right. just before the line. just before the Queensbury line. MR. GORALSKI-I was going to say it's just before the Town line. So, it's not real close. MR. MARTIN-It's quite a ways down from there yet. but to the north of this site there is some commercial development. There's a restaurant a little farther up. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Well. the gas station's right here. We've got a gas station here. The Mason Jar, is that in Queensbury? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARTIER-That's in Queensbury? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess what 1'm picking up on are two things. Number One, I can understand their reason for wanting to go Highway Commercial there and it may be appropriate to do, but now by doing that we're sandwiching in a residential lot in between two Highway Commercials and going back to Lee's last paragraph, is that being actively worked on. John. at this point. in terms of that particular corner? MR. GORALSKI-It's being worked on. We have several projects we're working on. but it is being worked on. I wouldn't say it's something that's going to happen in the next month or so. MR. CARTIER-All right. It's not on the front burner. I guess my feeling is I'd like to see us or recommend to the Town Board that maybe they wait and see where that's going to go because I know there was some neighborhood concerns, well that would show up. I suppose. when this came out, but there were some neighborhood concerns up there when we did the Stewarts on the corner, about expanding the commercial properties on that corner. MR. HAGAN-Could a compromise be made to change the zone? Instead of changing the zone on the entire 47 acres. MR. GORALSKI-It's the 3.81 acres. MR. HAGAN-Show me. MR. LAPOINT-This is what they want to go HC with. That would sandwich that lot, SR-1A. MR. CARTIER-Is there anybody here who is familiar with this application? MIKE TASIK MR. TASIK-My name is Mike Tasik and I have the purchase option on this property if it's turned to Highway Commercial. The property adjacent to this between Len and Peg's and this particular lot is owned by the Hastings and they are presently filing an application with you people to change it, also, to Highway Commercial, so the whole, from the corner to the end of this particular lot will be all Highway Commercial. So there will be no lot sandwiched in between that will be SR-1. Does that help at all? MR. CARTIER-Yes. What was your question? MR. MARTIN-What is the proposed use? They say there's a buyer under contract. What is that? MR. TASIK-That's us. MR. MARTIN-For what? MR. TASIK-If you change it to Highway Commercial. then we're going to have to present some things to you people. whether it be retail or whatever. There's a myriad of things that could be put there. It's just a matter of what you people will approve. MR. CARTIER-You don't have any specific ideas as to what you want to do yet? MR. TASIK-No, we do not. 13 "'-' -' MR. LAPOINT-Do you intend to go for the Hastings property also? MR. TASIK-No. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. TASIK-If you were to look at their property, the restaurant is directly adjacent to this parking lot which they now use as a parking lot and that is the SR-1. but they do use it as their parking lot for the restaurant and they want to change it back. They were unaware that it was even changed to SR-1. MR. HAGAN-I'd like to take a little different approach on this. Personally, I could say yes to all the SEQRA questions easier if this ~ zoned Highway Commercial then I could if it remained zoned Single Residence One Acre. Being familiar with this area. there's a gas station across the street. I don't think the property lends itself to being properly used as zoned. MR. MARTIN-I agree. MR. HAGAN-So I would feel more comfortable with this project if it were zoned Highway Commercial. MRS. PULVER-Yes, the 47 acres would work very nicely as one acre lots if it's a large parcel. MR. MARTIN-I can't say I feel that way about the 47 acres, but this here is a different story. MR. LAPOINT-Is the 47 acres the Land Conservation zone? MRS. PULVER-No, that's down here. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-John, the 1.2, 47 acres? MR. GORALSKI-That's part of the Land Conservation. MR. LAPOINT-That's part of the Land Conservation. due to the landfills. MRS. PULVER-It is? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. HAGAN-That's not bordering on 149? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is. runs down 149. then goes along lot 1.31 and then zone. The line, if you see on your map there's kind of a shaded thick line that south along the Rollo property. It looks like a dotted line, continues down turns west along the bottom of that lot. That's all the Land Conservation MR. LAPOINT-The LC-10A? MR. GORALSKI-The LC-10A. MR. MARTIN-Didn't you just say that 47 was Land Conservation? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, here's this 47 acres. MR. MARTIN-Yes. and we've got to maintain 50 foot buffers then or he's going to have to. MR. CARTIER-Well, he's got 3 acres though. MR. LAPOINT-I agree with Jim. I don't think. looking at it this way, it doesn't seem suitable for a single family residence. MR. HAGAN-The only hardship we have with it is the fact that the owner of the 1.33 acres is not applying for a zoning change also. MRS. PULVER-No. He just said that he is in the process. MR. HAGAN-Well, he said they're ~ to. but that's hearsay. 14 '-' -- MR. TASIK-No. they have. I believe they have put it in. MR. GORALSKI-We have not received it. MR. TASIK-From Hastings. you haven't? MR. GORALSKI-We have not received that. However, the Town Board can re-zone any property with or without an application. If this Board feels that both of these properties should be re-zoned to Highway Commercial. that's a recommendation you could make. MR. HAGAN-Okay, so be it. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well, I'd like to hear from those people in between though. I mean, to make sure that that's their intent. MR. GORALSKI-And they will. if they object to this. there will be a public hearing in front of the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-And they will be notified. MR. GORALSKI-They will be notified by mail. MR. MARTIN-From a Planning standpoint, I think that makes sense and you have a nice physical barrier, then, with that L-Shaped property, that 47 acres, so to speak, where it wraps around and sort of acts as a barrier. MRS. PULVER-It's almost 77 acres, with the two pieces. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but the 47 acres is SR-IA. MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. GORALSKI-No. MRS. PULVER-No. That's what he just said. It's LC-10. MR. GORALSKI-It's LC10. MRS. PULVER-Because then I said that makes a difference then because this is and this is the same. MR. CARTIER-I'm misreading something on the map, here, then. No. I don't think that's right, John. MRS. PULVER-Well, that's what he said. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I know, but, okay, here's the Highway Commercial One Acre. MR. GORALSKI-This map is inaccurate and you have to go by the tax map. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-This is a copy of the actual tax map. This heavy line here with the dot on it, that's the lot. MR. CARTIER-So, this is LC-10? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. MR. HAGAN-All we're doing is making a recommendation to the Zoning Board anyway. MR. CARTIER-Town Board. MR. HAGAN-I mean the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Well. there are a number of ways we can go at this. We could tal k about this one piece of property. or we can make recommendations regarding that 1.33 acres. What about that 1.31 acres, also. that's listed as vacant? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I wouldn't want to leave them, that would put them in a sandwiched situation. MR. GORALSKI-If you do that, then that 1.06 acre lot that has an existing residence on it would be.... 15 '--- '-"" MR. MARTIN-What's the current zoning of that one, John? MR. GORALSKI-That's all SR-1A. MR. CARTIER-And if they get re-zoned Highway Commercial and they want to do something to expand their residence on their house, then they have to apply for a variance. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. The other thing that sets the 3.45 acre lot apart from the Rollo lot and the Hastings lot is that that lot has frontage on Ridge Road where the Rollo lot and the Hastings lot have frontage on Route 149. MR. HAGAN-I think we should concern ourselves with that property bordering on 149 only. MR. MARTIN-Yes. right. I think we should include in our recommendation for that other lot also. don't like that sandwiching. MR. CARTIER-Which one? Are you talking about these two? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And then leave these two alone. MR. CARTIER-And then leave these two. MR. MARTIN-Because they're fronting on a different road and they're next to a Land Conservation and this here would create a Highway Commercial zone right here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. but these, so these are SR-1A's. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and this is all LC-10. MR. CARTIER-So, you're talking about the 1.33 acres, the 1.34 Rollo acres. In other words. what we can do is if you want to. well, I guess I'm bothered by the same thing some of you are. We're not hearing from residents in the area, but that will, as has been pointed out, come out at a public hearing held by the Town Board. So, there are a number of ways we can go here. We're talking about approving or recommending to the Town Board that they approve the change and also consider changing the 1.33 acres in that same zone. MR. LAPOINT-I agree. MR. GORALSKI-It's lot 1.33. It's a 1.62 acre lot. MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's how it should be referred to in the resolution. MR. CARTIER-Right, and if we're going to do that, I think we ought to state reasons for that and you want to also, the other two lots, the residence and the vacant. you want to keep those SR-1A. correct? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-That will all come out in the public hearing. MR. CARTIER-I don't know. Do you want to recommend that, that they stay SR-1A and if we do, we ought to state the reasons. MR. LAPOINT-We're really stretching when we go to those other two, aren't we? MR. MARTIN-Our only reason here is because we're fronting on the same road and we're trying to continue it. MR. CARTIER-Well, the thing is now, this residence. the one marked residence. is boxed in on two sides by another zone and they may want to consider. I don't know. I can't sit here and guess what those people want to do. That's going to have to come out at a public hearing. MRS. PULVER-I would tend to recommend that all of it be turned to Highway Commercial and the people would be notified and if they objected to it, that would be the time. that would bring it to their attention. the fact that they were being notified. MR. MARTIN-I agree with Jim. We should stay concerned with 149. 16 '----' ........" MR. HAGAN-That's all they're asking us to concern ourselves with. MR. CARTIER-Yes. but I'm also mindful of Lee's last paragraph. here and that they're looking at this. MR. HAGAN-I think if we anticipate the future, we'd probably never get through anyone night's business. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's part of the Planning process though. The reason I'm bringing that up is I'd like to see a comprehensive look at this whole corner. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but I think what Lee's last comment. and again. I'm not sure, but I think what she's saying there is that they're considering developing a new Zoning District that may result in a change from some of the property which is currently designated as Highway Commercial to a new more well defined District. MR. GORALSKI-The plan, as I understand it, is to develop a corridor along 149 that may not be as intense as Highway Commercial. but would allow for certain commercial development. MR. MARTIN-What I'm saying is, that if that District did come into effect. it would be something that would take the existing Highway Commercial property on 149 and say, now it's this new District, right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's correct. MR. CARTIER-The only thing I don't want to see happen is we start a strip development, a commercial strip development out there that just starts going. marching down the road, east and west and north and south out of there. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think what you've got here, what we're adding on is another 500 feet of road frontage, Highway Commercial, from the corner. MR. CARTIER-Yes. okay. Does anybody else have a question or comment? MRS. BURNHAM-Is this open to public comment? MR. CARTIER-Does the Board care to take comments? MRS. PULVER-Sure. MR. HAGAN-Why not? DOROTHY BURNHAM MRS. BURNHAM-Dorothy Burnham. Boulderwood Drive. This area is the. last approach to the Town of Queensbury which has not been destroyed by strip development of small miscellaneous type businesses and while I have to agree that it is rapidly becoming a commercial area, I would like to see a great deal of care taken to make sure what types of enterprises would be allowed in there and perhaps with planning a new type of zone this could be addressed, but it really is the last entrance to the Town where we have an opportunity to preserve the rural character and attractiveness of the Town which was one of the things I believe addressed in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and we're seeing. little by little, a what I would like to call creeping commercialism in the Town where you allow one commercial activity, you change the zone for one small area and then a neighbor comes in and wants that area changed and I really would like to see a great deal of care taken in this area both for the concerns which Lee mentioned and also from an aesthetic viewpoint. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-I think her point is well taken in the sense that. I agree that this lends itself to some commercial development of some sort, but maybe a commercial residential zone as we currently have it or a neighborhood commercial zone as we currently have it would be a little more appropriate. I'm just throwing this out for discussion. I mean, you say Highway Commercial, then you're talking heavy equipment sales. I think there's junk yards in there. for example. I know it's only three acres. but I'm saying we're opening up, whereas, I don't know whether a commercial residential, because commercial residential, you're still talking about restaurants, gasoline stations, hotels, motels, retail business. I mean that seems to cover more than a limited range. MR. CARTIER-The commercial, I can address that pretty specifically I think. First of all, recognize that that's only 15,000 square feet and there's a one acre thing there. I think the Commercial Residential zone was developed for those areas that were in transition. They're old residences. They're slowly going to commercial. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think where you typically see those types of zones are where you're making a transition from a highly intensive commercial use to a residential area and I think you can see that along here. That's just something for consideration. 17 '- --- MR. CARTIER-That's what I just started to look up, what could pop up in a Highway Commercial. Is that what you were just reading from? In terms of Dorothy's comments, some of those things would be appropriate and some of them wouldn't be. in terms of the last clean exit into Town. MR. HAGAN-Isn't that a consideration at site plan. though? MR. MARTIN-Yes, but once you have a Highway Commercial zone then, someone has a permitted use. MR. HAGAN-It becomes an allowable use. MR. CARTIER-Well, what's your druthers, here? What would you like to recommend to the Town Board on this? There's still some unanswered questions I think. We can make a recommendation to the Town Board and incorporate into that recommendation that they look carefully at some of the issues we've raised. Is that a comfortable approach here? MR. MARTIN-Can we make a recommendation for approval of either of two zones? MR. CARTIER-Sure. MRS. PULVER-Sure. MR. CARTIER-We're not locked into anything here. MR. MARTIN-Just to open them up to that alternative? MR. CARTIER-The HC-1 and what? What other zone are you considering? MRS. PULVER-Yes, we need something between Plaza Commercial and Highway Commercial. MR. MARTIN-I think Commercial Residential would be a little bit more appropriate. MR. HAGAN-How about Highway Commercial with limited use? MRS. PULVER-What Page? MR. MARTIN-Page 52. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Well. so you can have retail business. commercial residential, veterinary, home occupation, gas station, banking, restaurant. That's pretty broad. That's pretty much what's there. MR. MARTIN-Yes. given what's already existing in that area. retail business. You have the restaurant across the street. a 1 ready there. You have the gas station. You have the Those are all types of things that are MR. CARTIER-On the southwest corner. MR. MARTIN-That's vacant. MR. CARTIER-That's being filled. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And that is also for sale. MR. MARTIN-That's Highway Commercial. MR. CARTIER-And that is Highway Commercial. That's a rather large portion. I've heard all kinds of rumors to the effect that a Ramada is going in there. I shouldn't even say that. I don't have anything to base that on. That's just a rumor I heard. MR. MARTIN-I heard a restaurant. MR. CARTIER-You heard a restaurant? Okay. Well, the corners are going to develop commercially. MR. MARTIN-I would lean towards a commercial residential, myself because it lends more to that residence there and that Land Conservation zone that surrounds it. MR. CARTIER-In other words take that whole Highway Commercial section? MR. MARTIN-No, just the Lot Number 1.33 and 1.34. 18 '-' ..-' MR. CARTIER-Make those Commercial Residentials? If I remember the Commercial Residential zone, it was for an area that was already intensely residential and it was becoming more commercial. The place that I remembe: working o? whe? we did this was Exit 18 of Corinth Road where you had this main drag that was becomlng commerclal wlth a lot of the residences mixed in. In other words, eventually, that zone is going to be entirely commercial. It seems like it would be simpler to stay with a Highway Commercial zone right next to it because it's already part of a Highway Commercial. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other on this thing. MR. HAGAN-In all due respect to Mrs. Burnham's remarks which I appreciate, but even worse than having strip commercial joints, I'd even further hate to see a residence, a business, a residence and a business, a hodge podge type of thing. I'd rather make a clean cut with some controls on it. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think no matter what we do, we've got to include that lot in the middle in whatever recommendation we make. MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Well, where are we? Is somebody at a point where they're ready to make a recommendation to the Town Board. or do we want to kick this around some more? MR. LAPOINT-I guess we've just got to wordsmith our resolution as we go on the fly. so to speak. MOTION TO RECOIIEfI) TO THE TOWN BOARD APPROVAL OF PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE PI2-90 FRANK I TERESA ROLLO, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Recommendation to approve the request for a zone change of Lot 1.34 to either a Highway Commercial One Acre Zone or a Commercial Residential CR-15. Also for consideration is a zone change for Lot Number 1.33 also for a Highway Commercial One Acre or Commercial Residential CR-15. Also. consider the comments by Lee York dated December 18th and urge that the Planning Department be directed to investigate creation of a zone which will meet the needs of this area while achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Duly adopted this 27th day of December, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas. Mr. Caimano (OLD BUSINESS) MR. CARTIER-We're going to go back to the first item of Old Business, SUBDIVISION rI). 14-1990 FINAL STAGE INSPIRATION PARK ADAMS RICH ASSOCIATES FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. It's obvi ous to those of you sitting in the audience that we do not have enough people to vote on this because apparently we have a member maybe somewhere between here and St. Louis. What we can do is we have 30 days in which to vote. So, we can do our business tonight with regard to Final Stage and then schedule a Special Meeting for a vote and we have a choice of either tomorrow or Monday and I think Monday would be more appropriate, simply. I know that's cutting it kind of fine, but that will give us a few extra days to get this member back from wherever that member is. If no one has any objections to that, we will proceed on that basis. CHARLES ADAMS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner. Subdivision No. 14-1990. Adams & Rich Associates - Inspiration Park dated December 13. 1990. Meeting Date: December 27, 1990 "As I see it, the only outstanding issue pertaining to this project is phasing. The applicant has denoted Phase I and Phase II on the plan. but wishes to construct all infrastructure related to this project during Phase I. This seems reasonable given the nature and design of the project. I recommend approval of Phase I of Subdivision 14-1990 and that the applicant be allowed to install the infrastructure for Phase II. The only clearing allowed in the area of Phase II should be that necessary to install the infrastructure. The clearing of lots in Phase II should be held in abeyance until Phase II is approved." MR. CARTIER-And that's something we would incorporate into a motion when we vote, correct? MR. GORALSKI-Right. The only thing I'd like to add is there was a letter requesting that the applicant not be required to pay the recreation fee, I believe, until CO's were issued. That is an issue that the Town Board would have to decide and not within the purview of the Planning Board. 19 ,r ',- '-..-" MR. CARTIER-Thank you. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated December 24, 1990 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Homeowners Association data as required by the application checklist is not included. The applicant has requested that the Board approve final stage plans with the condition that Homeowners Association documents will be furnished for Board review/ approval at a later date. All previous engineering concerns have been addressed." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Is that Homeowners Association document in the process of being prepared? MR. ADAMS-I'm Charles Adams, the applicant. It's in some stage of preparation. I think I would just address both of these letter requests very, very briefly. We have line items in the budget submitted to the State, in the funding application for this. for the recreational fee for Homeowners Association documents and all that sort of thing. There's actually quite a lot of money involved there, well in excess of $30,000. On the other hand. we don't know that we have a project. Until New York State says you've got a project, we don't really have any basis on which to expend those funds or to disperse those funds to do anything. So, we're kind of stuck. We can't get the State to make a commitment for the grant until we have final approval, but, on the other hand, we don't have the basis for expending $30.000 or so on a project that may never be funded. MR. CARTIER-$30.000 being the recreation fee? MR. ADAMS-Well, the recreation fee is about 22. I think. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. ADAMS-Homeowners Associations are not cheap either and we really just don't want to spend unretrievable funds of a substantial magnitude for something that's really quite straightforward. earlier than we have basis or justification to do it and so that's why we made the request. We understand now that the Town Board certainly is involved in making a decision as to at what point that recreation fee, we have not asked that the recreation fee be forgiven. We've simply asked that it be paid in at a different time. MR. CARTIER-A different time line. MR. ADAMS-Yes, at a different time. So. those are the considerations. Yes, we have the attorney retained to do the Homeowners Association, but we haven't spent any money on it yet. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Ultimately. that Homeowners Association has to be approved by the Attorney General. MR. ADAMS-Yes, sir. MR. CARTIER-And once we have that in hand. MR. ADAMS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ADAMS-And the safeguards are also included in the re-zoning resolution that the Town passed. There's a provision in that resolution that the Town Board passed in the Change of Zone Amendment which refers to the Homeowners Association being required to be filed. MR. MARTIN-I imagine all these provisions are transferable in the event of the sale of the property also. MS. CORPUS-That's correct. In the re-zoning it says that the Homeowners Association is to be set up. However. the terms of that Homeowners Association are not specified in the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that already have been filed. The Board has the option. as far as the Homeowners Association data going, of approving this with the condition that the Homeowners Association data be provided by a certain date or that approval will expire after that date. There really isn't a whole lot of control over the issuance of Building Permits from this Board's point of view. MR. CARTIER-Right. Yes, I had a comment to myself on a time deadline. How long does it take to get something back from the Attorney General's office. Are we talking about 60 days? MS. CORPUS-Six to twelve weeks. MR. CARTIER-Six to twelve weeks. 20 "-' -../ MR. MARTIN-I think another limiting factor. too, is the time frame associated with the application for grant funds. Everybody knows the throws that the State Budget is in and unfortunately affordable housing is one of those that may fall into that pit. MR. CARTIER-Well. I'm not so much concerned about putting a time deadline on the applicant because I suspect the applicant is under far more pressure from other sources than we could possibly impose by imposing a time deadline. MR. GORALSKI-Possibly what you could say is that the Homeowners Association documents be approved by the Department of State. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MS. CORPUS-And they can also be submitted to our office for review and comment. MR. CARTIER-Okay. With a little luck, and I don't hold out for this. but I'm an optimist anyway, perhaps Mr. Caimano will be here before the end of the meeting. If that's the case, we can hold a vote. If not, what I'd li ke to do right now is call for a Special Meeting. Can you make a Special Meeting strictly for voting on this issue for next Monday, December 31st? What's a convenient time for everybody? MR. GORALSKI-Whenever you want. MR. CARTIER-2 p.m. Does that create a problem? MR. GORALSKI-You can do it in the morning if you'd like. MR. CARTIER-The problem is, this revolves around getting Nick here. I want to be sure he's going to be here. MR. GORALSKI-I'll get in touch with him between now and then. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-10 a.m., Monday morning? MR. MARTIN-That's reasonable. MR. CARTIER-A Special Meeting at 10 a.m. for the purposes of holding a vote on 14-1990. So, you can be here at 10? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay, then we are done with that issue until such time. Does anybody else have any questions or comments on this? MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, at this point, normally, the Board would vote to hold the Special Meeting. The other option you have is at the time that it's held is to vote to ratify the date and time of the Special Meeting the day it's held. MR. CARTIER-I don't understand that. I'm sitting here with three members. We can't vote on anything. MS. CORPUS-Right. However, the meeting can be called and a resolution to ratify, which the Town Board does, sometimes. when the Supervisor signs things prior to official resolution being done by the Town Board. This Board could ratify it's actions tonight with the resolution when all the members are there on Monday, including holding a Special Meeting. MR. HAGAN-The two members that find themselves in conflict could come in and vote on that issue. MR. CARTIER-Is that right? MR. HAGAN-Why not? They're not moving on the plan. They're voting on a Special Meeting. MR. GORALSKI-You're just voting to hold a Special Meeting. MR. CARTIER-One member could come in. MR. GORALSKI-Can I make a suggestion? Why don't you just do it the way Karla suggests. When you get there Monday, you vote to ratify your actions tonight and then you vote on the Subdivision. MR. CARTIER-Yes. We don't have to do that tonight. MS. CORPUS-Right. 21 ~ '-"" MR. CARTIER-Okay. I misunderstood. SITE PLAN NO. 91-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA RICHARD DIEHL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POIIT TO CONSTRUCT A 12' BY 12' ADDITION TO EXPAND EXISTING MASTER BEDROOM. PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 8-8-2 LOT SIZE: 7,SOO SQ. FT. SECTION 9.010 CHESTrIIT LANE, (WARREN COUNTY RICHARD DIEHL. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner, Site Plan Review No. 91-90, Richard Diehl, dated December 18, 1990, Meeting Date: December 27, 1990 "The applicant has received a side yard setback variance. This variance allows the applicant to maintain a 10 foot setback from the westerly property line. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of the proposed addition is to increase the size of the master bedroom. That being the case, there should be no impact on the existing septic system. The proposed addition is 144 sq. ft. It is surrounded by permeable area and should have minimal impact on stormwater management. The addition should have no impact on the character of the neighborhood." Because of the small size of this addition, there was no engineering review done and Warren County Planning Board indicated that there was no County impact. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you care to make any comments Mr. Diehl? MR. DIEHL-I'll answer any questions. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody who cares to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 91-90, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICHARD DIEHL, to construct a 12' by 12' addition to expand existing .aster bedl'OOll, and 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. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of December, 1990. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano 22 "-" -../ MR. CARTIER-We can now entertain a motion for disposition of this. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 91-90 RICHARD DIEHL, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To construct a 12' by 12' addition to the existing master bedroom. Duly adopted this 27th day of December. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas. Mr. Caimano SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. OWNER: SILVER BOW RESOURCES I CHEMICAL CORP. COUNTY LINE ROAD, NORTH OF DIX AVEfIIE NEXT TO TRANSMISSION LINES. FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION TO BUILD A SUBSTATION. TAX MAP NO. 109-5-13.2 LOT SIZE: 75.03 ROBERT MACFARLAND, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner, Subdivision No. 17-1990, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.. dated December 26, 1990. Meeting Date: December 27. 1990 "Niagara Mohawk wishes to purchase 3.02 acres of a 75 acre parcel for the purpose of constructing an Electrical Distribution Station. The Zoning Administrator has determined that this is allowable in this zone and that only subdivision approval is required. During meetings with the applicant. the Planning Staff recommended that the applicant request a waiver from the requirement for contours on the entire 75 acres. As suggested. the applicant has provided contour information on the parcel to be developed. There is residential property immediately north of the proposed Distribution Station site which could be impacted by this proposal. Maintenance of the existing hedge row along the property line should minimize the visual impact. The applicant should describe the type and amount of activity that takes place on the site. The Board should then determine if any other mitigative measures are necessary. This will also be helpful in addressing SEQRA." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost. Town Engineer, dated December 24. 1990 "We have reviewed the above-referenced project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Proposed contours and spot elevations should be shown on the site plan. The applicant should consider requesting a waiver from showing topography beyond that discussed above. It is recommended that the Board entertain such a waiver request if made. 2. Unidentified symbols on the plan should either be labelled or noted in a legend (i .e. fences. drainage flow lines). 3. Adjacent properties should also be identified by lot and parcel numbers. 4. The drawing shall be sealed by a licensed professional per Town requirements. 5. The proposed action may not be a permitted use in an SR-1A zone. 6. The treatment for all surfaces (lawn, gravel, pavement) should be shown on the plan. 7. Culvert materials of construction and grading details should be shown for the proposed 12" culvert and culvert sizing calculations considering all tributaries. 8. The location and elevation of proposed monuments should be shown as per checklist item 3 g. 9. A grading and erosion control plan should be provided in accordance with Article IV-B. 6 of the Subdivision Regulations and the "New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control". 10. The drainage report methodology is acceptable, however. in order to verify post-development stormwater flows the proposed grading plan (Item 1) should be completed and re-submitted with supporting drainage calculations." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Warren County was not involved in this? MR. GORALSKI-No. They don't review subdivisions. MR. MACFARLAND-My name is Robert MacFarland. I'm a land surveyor representing Niagara Mohawk and basically we've covered all the items. I'd like to speak to the items that you've requested. I'd like to talk about the engineer's review and it's my understanding that it's common practice on a small one lot. two lot sUbdivision. to waive the requirement for a drainage plan and contours. If that's the case. I would like to do that for our final approval and so that you would see. basically, just what you would see here. You would not see a drainage plan. MR. YARMOWICH-As I indicated in my letter, I feel that it's appropriate to waive the requirements for showing contours and spot elevations off the site. This is a site where the drainage is currently going under a culvert of fixed size and capacity under the road. There is a certain amount of impermeable area being created where there now is none. the approach taken by the applicant in defining their method of stormwater management is acceptable and I think you should, in fact, be required to make sure that there are no impacts related to drainage. I don't see these calculations and so forth, as they're normally done, in a way where the grading plan supports their approach to be a problem for 23 --- -- approval at this stage, but I think the Board should require the applicant to follow through with the drainage plan that can be monitored through construction to make sure that this site is constructed in a way which will minimize the impact of stormwater runoff. MR. CARTIER-In other words, you want to see the drainage calculations? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, and I think that we need to see a grading plan showing that the site is going to work. In one case. there was an indication that there was going to be a lot of fill at one side of the driveway. Just to fill you in, the applicant has suggested a method of stormwater management where they're going to divert the flow in a circuitous path to detain it, basically, on site before it gets released and it's a very acceptable way to do it. It doesn't require any fancy or sophisticated work. It just requires some controlled earth work, and that's what we'd like to see on the plan and we think the Board should see on the plan before they final this subdivision. MR. CARTIER-And that's something that could be done between now and final? MR. YARMOWICH-I think so. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I just want to raise a question. and I'll direct it to John. At the end of your first paragraph, "The Zoning Administrator has determined that this is allowable in this zone and that only subdivision approval is required." MR. GORALSKI-This use is not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-Well, then why is the Zoning Administrator taking it upon him or her self? MR. GORALSKI-This has been discussed with the Legal Department and, I mean, no Zoning Ordinance addresses Electric Distribution Stations. I think the people from Niagara Mohawk can explain that there are certain criteria as to where you're going to put your electric distribution stations. You have to put them in areas where they're needed and where they're appropriate with the rest of their infrastructure and therefore these are allowable in any zone. MS. CORPUS-Pre-empted by State Law. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. MACFARLAND-I do have two other representatives of Niagara Mohawk here that can answer any technical questions with regard to the grading or the electrical foundations. anything of that nature. Again. if it's common practice to waive a site plan that has contours and final drainage studies, I would respectfully suggest that we be treated the same. MR. CARTIER-It's not necessarily common. It's done on occasion. That doesn't make it common. MR. GORALSKI-I thin~ Mr. Chairman. if I can clarify. What's common is that the remaining 75 acres, there's no requirement to do contours and drainage on that. but where you're actually doing the development on this small parcel it's, I would say, always required. I don't remember that it's ever not been. MR. MACFARLAND-Is there a cut off on the size of the lot or lots? In other words. if you had two 10 acre parcels. would you require that? MR. GORALSKI-Where the development is taking place. usually they do. yes. MR. CARTIER-Well, let's not get hung up on hypothetical applications, here. Let's stay with reality. We have enough problems with that. MR. LAPOINT-I think this is easy enough done between now and final. MR. MARTIN-Yes. right. MR. LAPOINT-I don't see what the big deal is. here. MR. CARTIER-I don't think it's a major issue. MR. MACAFARLAND-In all probability it can be done between now and final. The problem is getting it to the engineer and getting it back so that we have it. In other words. last time we just got these requirements. There was no way that we could get them changed in order to come in here and have these all addressed for this meeting. MR. CARTIER-That's not the way it's supposed to work. 24 '-' '-"" MR. MACFARLAND-Okay. MR. CARTIER- Thi s is a publ i c meeting. Thi s is a meeting at whi ch these issues are brought before the Boards and applicants and the general public and that's the purpose of this meeting where we get to talk about these things in public. We do not expect you to have these in hand and all of these things addressed before you come to this point. MR. MACFARLAND-Okay. MR. CARTIER-That's why we go through this process of Preliminary and Final. Okay. MR. MACFARLAND-Other than that. on Item One. the other items are pretty straightforward. Item Five we've already addressed and I did look into it today. It is a permitted use. It's not stated, so I would assume it's permitted. With regards to Item Eight, I'd like to propose that I show Setting One. concrete monument, the other corners will be iron rods and I will have an elevation on the one concrete monument. MR. CARTIER-Is that all right with you. Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, that's fine. Just something to set it up. That's all we need on the plat. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MACFARLAND-I guess that covers it. We'll be glad to answer other questions that you may have. MR. CARTIER-Okay. You don't have any questions about the other items that are on here? MR. MACFARLAND-No. They're pretty straightforward. MR. CARTIER-Okay, the assumption is that they will be taken care of? MR. MACFARLAND-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing on this. This is Preliminary Stage at this point. Is there anybody here who would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD GRATTON MR. GRATTON-My name is Ri chard Gratton. I 1 ive on Lower Dix Avenue and we got a noti ce about thi s and I wonder if we're going to have an opportunity to see where it is? MR. CARTIER-If you go down to the property. If you go down along. you will see posted a black and white sign that says Subdivision and the number will be on it. 17-1990, Public Hearing Notice of December 27. 1990. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARTIER-So, it'll be right there. MR. GORALSKI-It's right next to the where the Niagara Mohawk power lines go across Queensbury Avenue. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MACFARLAND-Well. where' is it located, on County Line Road? MR. CARTIER-Yes. It's on County Line Road where the power lines cross. it's on the flat section. It's about a half a mile north of Dix Avenue and it'll be on the right hand side or east side of the road. MR. GORALSKI-If your traveling north. MR. CARTIER-Just slightly north of where the power lines cross. and there is a sign there. MR. MACFARLAND-But this would be adjacent to the road? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. 25 -- --- MR. YARMOWICH-Well, it's set back quite a ways. It's not right up next to the road. MR. MACFARLAND-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-But the property in question is on the road? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, but the set back of the facility is substantial. MR. MACFARLAND-The proposed improvements will be setback 100 feet from the property line. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have a question or a comment? All set? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct a Long Form on this, okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 17-1990. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pul ver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NIAGARA JOIAIIK POWER CORP. for a 2 lot subdivision to bund a Substation. and 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. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of December, 1990. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion for disposition of this. I think we're going to want to include a waiver request in the motion along with comments that need to be addressed by the applicant from the engineer, from our engineer. IIJTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1990 NIAGARA IIJHAWK POWER CORP., Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Hagan: For a 2 lot subdivision to build a substation at Preliminary Stage. With this motion I would also like to include a waiver from the requirement for contours on the 75 acre lot, with the following stipulations: that Items 1 and 4 and 6 through 10 of the Rist-Frost letter dated December 24th be addressed at Final Stage. Duly adopted this 27th day of December. 1990, by the following vote: 26 --- -' AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MR. MACFARLAND-Could I ask one question? If we come back with all these points addressed so that we can think about our schedule, is it entirely possible that we would get final approval at the next meeting? MR. CARTIER-If you have all of those items addressed satisfactorily and you get in on the deadline. which is when? MR. GORALSKI-For February's meeting. it would be the last Wednesday in January. MR. MACFARLAND-Okay. The 26th? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-You're welcome to have Gary, who I've talked to, Gary Violet. meet with me, as we started off the project with Roger. So, if that's the pleasure of the Town of Queensbury, they want to be involved and they want to allow this to occur. we would be happy to do that. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, as far as we're concerned, if you would like to meet directly with the engineer to settle these issues, that would be fine. MR. MACFARLAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. GORALSKI-Understand, though. that you will be charged for the engineering review. So. you will be charged for their time. MR. MACFARLAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 92-90 TYPE: UIILISTED PC-lA MARCEL DEMERS OWNER: AND QUAKER ROAD FOR ADDITION OF STORAGE AREA AND WAITING ROOM. NO. 103-1-13 LOT SIZE: 21,569 SQ. FT. SAME AS ABOVE LAFAYETTE STREET (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP CHARLES JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner. Site Plan No. 92-90. Marcel Demers - Queensbury Automotive Center, dated December 27, 1990. Meeting Date: December 27, 1990 "The proposal has received a Use Variance and a setback variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is an extremely well kept site. To insure that this situation continues the Board should restrict the storage of damaged or disabled cares on this site. I recommend that no more than three cars that are in for service be stored on this site. that no more than one unregistered vehicle be stored on the site and that all vehicles stored on the site must be road worthy. This will help prevent the property from becoming unsightly and protect the commercial character of the area. The existing parking spaces shown on the plan are only 9'-6" wide. Ten feet is required. However. because there is ample area to expand the parking and because there is no increase in the garage portion of the building. I recommend that they be allowed to maintain the existing parking area and be required to expand that area if the Zoning Administrator deems it necessary. " MR. CARTIER-At what point would the Zoning Administrator deem this necessary or when would he or she look at this? MR. GORALSKI-Well, the Section of the Ordinance that allows the Planning Board to do that. to leave area in reserve. really doesn't specify. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-What has happened in other cases is. if the Code Enforcement Officer has noticed a problem or if a neighboring property owner has made a complaint. they are usually required to expand. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so we leave it the way it is. We leave some space in abeyance for addressing potential future problems. MR. GORALSKI-Right. 27 --- - MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Tom. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated December 24, 1990, "We have reviewed the above referenced plan and have the following engineering comments: 1. The site area tabulation shown on the plan does not agree with 0.565 acres which is the apparent site size. Tabulated permeable areas are at least or greater than shown. 2. The total building area (existing and proposed) is 2,676 sf. The proposed site design parking requirement is based on only 2,200 sf. The proposed 12 parking spaces provided are not adequate if the total building area is subject to parking spaces requirements. 3. Parking spaces to meet the proposed project parking area requirements must be 10' by 20' as stipulated in Zoning Ordinance Section 7.071. Designated handicapped parking is not provided. 4. It should be noted on the plan that erosion and sediment control measures shall be provided in accordance with "Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control in Urban Areas of New York State"." MR. GORALSKI-In addition, the Queensbury Beautification Committee approved and the Warren County Planning Board indicated No County Impact. MR. CARTIER-Okay. and we also have a letter from the Citizens Advisory Committee on Access for the Handicapped, to Chairperson, dated December 12. 1990: "According to N. Y.S. Codes, Rules and Regulations, all new buildings and additions should be made handicapped accessible to the disabled. One handicapped parking space should be provided." Are the new sections that you're adding on customer accessible? I'm trying to remember. MR. JOHNSON-My name's Charles Johnson, architect for Marcel Demers. Yes, the addition will be accessible. MR. CARTIER-Handicapped accessible? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right, would you care to address any comments by Staff? MR. JOHNSON-Sure. It appears that the number of parking, well, handicapped parking will be accommodated. We'll stripe the lot and provide a handicapped parking space for that. That's not a problem. MR. CARTIER-Do you understand the dimensions of that. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. CARTIER-8 by 16. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Plus 8 by 16, I'm sorry, not 8 by 16. MR. JOHNSON-No. 8 by 20. MR. CARTIER-8 by 20, thank you. A total of 16 by 20. MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-The other dilemma here is the number of spaces that are going to be requi red. We probably have 3 to 500 square feet, not including the addition which is another approximate 600 square feet which, I'm adding storage space in here. That could be used by people. The rest is designated for garage space. So, to require the garage space to have parking sort of is awkward until you consider customers using it. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody on the Board have a problem with leaving his parking as it is, as long as space is being held for potential future problems. if any. Does anybody have a problem with that? MRS. PULVER-No. I think as long as he's got the space. I happy to leave it as is. I don't believe we should pave the entire world with blacktop for parking. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-And it looks like that I erred on the side that it was less than I needed on these tabulations so that's really not a problem. I'm well under the requirements anyway. MR. CARTIER-Right. Okay. Which leaves us with Item Four. 28 -- -..I MR. JOHNSON-Which is a simply matter of adding the note on the drawing, which I can do and then re-submit so we can have a resolution for acceptance with that note if you'd like, put on that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody who would like to ask questions or make comments on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-This is Unlisted and we need to do a Short Form, I believe. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICAJlCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 92-90, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MARCEL DEMERS, for an addition of storage area and waiting I'0OIII., and 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. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 27th day of December, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas. Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're ready to entertain a motion. We want to be sure in our motion that we require that a handicapped accessible spot of 16 by 20 be provided and erosion control and sediment control be provided on a blueprint and also that the an area be held in abeyance for future parking. I guess that would cover it. MR. MARTIN-What about John's comments? MR. GORALSKI-I think that was it. Well, would you like to restrict the junk vehicle type of thing? MR. CARTIER-Yes. Thank you. lOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 92-90 MARCEL DEMERS, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: 29 --- -.../ With the following stipulations: One, no more than four vehicles that are in for service be stored over night and outside on site. A handicapped space. 16 by 20. be provided and shown on the Site Plan. An area be held in abeyance for future parking. It should be noted on the plan that erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control in Urban Areas of New York State. The revised plan needs to be submitted to the Town Planning Department on or before January 14th. Duly adopted this 27th day of December, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MRS. PULVER-How do we know this is not creating a hardship on this business? I mean. I don't particularly like doing this without the. I mean. Charlie Johnson's here representing the applicant, but without having the applicant to say. wait a minute. you know, sometimes I have four cars out there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think maybe you could handle that by changing it to "outside" storage and I think that covers it. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. JOHNSON-Mr. Demers is here if you want to get his reaction to that or comments. MRS. PULVER-Yes, let's have your reaction. MARCEL DEMERS MR. DEMERS-I'm Marcel Demers. owner of Queensbury Automotive Center. This would be a hardship for me, really. because sometimes it takes a couple. three days to fix a car. Now the car is going to be disabled out there. MRS. PULVER-Exactly. MR. CARTIER-What's the maximum number of cars you've had in the past. stored outside, that you've had to have stored outside? MR. DEMERS-Many times, ninety percent of the times. none. MR. CARTIER-Ten percent of the time, maximum number. MR. DEMERS-Ten percent of the time, usually my weekend my parking lot is clear. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but how many cars, maximum do you have stored outside? MR. GORALSKI-During the week. MR. DEMERS-During the week? MR. MARTIN-Worst case scenario. MR. DEMERS-Six to ten cars. MRS. PULVER-Tops? MR. JOHNSON-No. How many cars are going to be kept. overnight. stored on your lot. MR. MARTIN-Outside. MR. CARTIER-Outside. MR. DEMERS-Maybe one, two. maybe three cars. They're not the same cars though. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's not a problem. We're talking numbers here. MR. LAPOINT-Can you live with the three outside at night? MRS. PULVER-With not having any more than three cars outside your building at any time, that's what they're saying. 30 ---- ~ MR. CARTIER-John's got four. MR. LAPOINT-John's got four? MR. HAGAN-At any time. that would be a hardship. MR. DEMERS-That would be a hardship. MR. GORALSKI-No. I mean stored overnight. MRS. PULVER-Overnight. MR. DEMERS-Overnight, yes. I could take that. MRS. PULVER-Okay. No more than four cars overnight. MR. DEMERS-No more than four cars would be fine. MR. CARTIER-Stored outside. MR. DEMERS-Outside. MR. CARTIER-You can park whatever you want inside and that's not a problem. MR. DEMERS-Right. MR. GORALSKI-When I use the term "stored", I mean, you're leaving them overnight, not parking them for the day. MR. CARTIER-Overnight, outside storage. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-Everything that I'm reading says that this property is well maintained and neat and now we're. MR. GORALSKI-My concern is that Mr. Demers may not own this property forever. MR. MARTIN-That's right. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. GORALSKI-And there are other properties in this Town that we've had problems with. MR. MARTIN-That's exactly it. Point well taken. MR. CARTIER-I don't even know that you need to distinguish. Is it that important to distinguish the character of the cars? Can't we just total this and say no more than four cars in outside storage? MR. GORALSKI-You may want to say no more than four vehicles be stored overnight. MR. CARTIER-Outside. and let it go at that. MR. GORALSKI-Outside. MRS. PULVER-Now, this is acceptable? MR. DEMERS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And normally we put a deadline. That this plan needs to be submitted by such and such a date. MR. MARTIN-When what's reasonable? MRS. PULVER-Give them 30 days. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-You can somehow get the information back, if you have the applicant agree that it occur before next meeting in the event that there was any problem with them meeting these requirements. Two weeks probably, unless they have any objection, should be adequate to do this. 31 '--' ~ MR. CARTIER-Okay. The next meeting's the 17th of January? MR. GORALSKI-The 15th of January. MR. CARTIER-The 15th of January. MR. MARTIN-Let's say two weeks then. MR. CARTIER-Let's come up with a specific date. On or before January 14th. MR. JOHNSON-That's fine. MR. CARTIER-What it amounts to is no more than four vehicles stored outside overnight. (END OF FIRST DISK) 32 -- -- SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A BlNICE EJlGWER OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF MOONHILL ROAD, SOO" EAST OF TEE HILL ROAD TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO 8.14 ACRE LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 48-1-6.3 LOT SIZE: 16.28 ACRES LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 18-1990, Eunice Engwer, dated December 18, 1990. Meeting Date: December 27. 1990 "This applicant is requesting a two lot subdivision on 16.28 acres of land to provide homes for the children. The lots are to be 8.14 acres each in a RR-3 acre zone located on Tee Hill Road. The applicant is requesting relief from the two foot contour requirement and the Stormwater Management plan requirement. Given the size of the lots and the amount of permeable area to be maintained. I do not believe there is a problem granting the waiver from the two foot contours. I believe there was some confusion about the Storm Water Management plan. The applicant was not required to do this. I believe the applicant wanted to request a waiver from the Drainage report. Given the nature of this subdivision (size and amount of development) the on site drainage will not be a problem. No new roads are anticipated. The plans indicated that 75% of the lots will be permeable. The neighborhood is single family residential with on lot septic and wells which will not be impacted by this subdivision. The Glen Lake Wetlands are far enough away not to be impacted. The soil test pit information was done in October. This is not applicable under the Town of Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance, which requires that determination of depth to high groundwater be determined in the months of March, April, Mayor June. David Hatin has recently sent a letter to all engineers and surveyors about this. In this particular case the applicant has the option of hiring a certified individual or waiting until the designated months to do the test. Exclusive of the test pit data, I do not have any planning concerns about this subdivision." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost. Town Engineer, dated December 24. 1990 "We have reviewed the above referenced plan and have the following engineering comments: 1. An Environmental Assessment Form should be submitted." MR. GORALSKI-That has been submitted. We do have that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-"2. Regarding the sewage disposal system design: a. Test pit to establish high seasonal groundwater for septic systems design shall be conducted in accordance with the methods stated in the Sanitary Sewer Ordinance Section 5.030 (B) (7). and Appendix F. In the event high seasonal groundwater is not determined in the time frame stipulated. the determination must be certified by an individual approved by the local Board of Health. b. Test pit #2 data indicates less than four feet of usable soil as required for a conventional absorption trench design by current NYSDOH Wastewater Regulation Section 75-A.8b. Therefore. the absorption field at test pit #2 may need to be a shallow trench system in accordance with Section 75-A.8e. c. The septic tank size and details on the plan are not in accordance with the current NYSDOH Wastewater Treatment Standards (Section 75-A.6. Table 3). The 1.000 gallon minimum capacity now applies for up to 3 bedrooms. A 1,250 gallon minimum capacity is required for the 4 bedroom residence noted. d. The following dimensions and notes should be added to the septic tank design detail per Section 75-A.6 of NYSDOH Wastewater Treatment Standards: - Minimum liquid surface area. - Minimum distance between the inlet and outlet. - Distance between the outlet baffle and outlet. e. The distribution box detail shows a dimension from the outlet pipes inverts to box bottom which is not in accordance with NYSDOH Regulations 75-A-7. 3. The well detail should indicate the minimum yield necessary to adequately supply the proposed use. 4. A negligible increase in stormwater flows is expected as a result of the proposed use. It is recommended that a stormwater management waiver be granted. 5. A system of proposed monuments must be indicated on the final plat per Subdivision Regulations V B.1d." MR. STEVES-For the record, my name is Leon Steves. I'm here representing the applicant, Eunice Engwer. As indicated, it's a two lot subdivision, each lot being eight acres and plus in size. The rules have been changed since we did the October testing and I think, basically, what I should say is that these are just engineering details, technical details. that can be resolved between now and final submission and we'll be glad to comply with everything that he has listed. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody have a problem with granting a waiver on two foot contours in the stormwater management? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would care to comment on this application? 33 -- ~ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COIUŒJfT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to entertain a SEQRA Review Long Form on this application. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF II) SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-1990, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pul ver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: EUNICE ENGIÆR, to subdivide into tw 8.14 acre lots., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has detennined 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 agencies appear 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 Fonn has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 671.U 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 27th day of December. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're ready for a motion on this application. I think we want to include a request for a waiver from two foot contours, from stonJIWater management be granted, and that Staff and Engineering comments will be addressed. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1990 EUNICE ENGIIER, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: To subdivide into two 8.14 acre lots. Included in this resolution is the granting of the waiver from the two foot contour requirement and the stormwater management plan. A stipulation of this resolution is that the Engineering Comments from the Rist-Frost letter of 12/24/90 be addressed at the point of final review. Duly adopted this 27th day of December. 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano 34 -....- -...-' MR. CARTIER-Okay. Bits and pieces. First January meeting at a Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary positions. regarding our concerns. He could not be here tonight. whichever of the January meetings we have a lighter agenda. is a reorganization meeting. You're looking Paul Dusek. I had a conversation with him He said he would be here to discuss it at All we need to do is let him know. MR. GORALSKI-The second. MR. CARTIER-The second? Would you let him know, then, if we already know that. Let Paul know that we'd like him there? MR. GORALSKI-Karla knows now. MR. CARTIER-Basically. to reduce the conversation down to its bare essentials was that I understood his client concept, but it wasn't working for us and we've got to find a better way to do it somehow. We had asked for attendance by Zoning Administrator at our meetings. Dave Hatin bagged me in the parking lot last week and talked to me about that and I said I would appreciate if you would address a letter to the Board outlining his concerns about having Zoning Administrative Staff attending our meetings. MR. MARTIN-Could you briefly explain what those were? MRS. PULVER-Yes. what were his concerns? MR. CARTIER-Overtime. We're going to have to go through the Town Board and so on and so forth. That's basically it. I don't know that he got into everything with that. but I said, spell out everything in a letter to the Board. I'm not going to make a deci sion for the Board. That's up to the Board to decide what they want to do on that. Okay. MR. HAGAN-You mean this Board? MR. CARTIER-This Board, correct. Okay. If we're going to change the time of our meetings from 7:30, our regular meetings, from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., we need a motion to that effect. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO CHANGE THE TIME OF THE REGULAR QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS FROM 7:30 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M.. Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 27th day of December, 1990. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-That is for regular meetings. John. take us through the Aviation Mall thing please. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. The Site Plan for the Aviation Mall, the tentative agenda for January places that Site Plan Review on the January 15th agenda. MR. MARTIN-I thought we were going to make a special meeting for that? MRS. PULVER-Separate, yes. MR. GORALSKI-That's what I'm bringing up right now. You discussed a special meeting. Lou Gagliano called me and said they would be willing to set up any type of workshop, special meeting, whatever you needed and they would be available whenever you needed them. MRS. PULVER-Our regular meetings are the 21st and the 28th? MR. GORALSKI-No, the 15th and the 22nd. MR. HAGAN-But you're proposing that we handle that on the 15th. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not proposing anything. I'm just saying the tentative schedule, that's where it would be placed. MR. HAGAN-And we didn't want it in the regular schedule. MR. GORALSKI-Right. So. you would have to set up a special meeting. MRS. PULVER-So. what's good for everybody? 35 , "-" -../ MR. CARTIER-What's the previous Tuesday? MRS. PULVER-The previous Tuesday is the 8th. MR. CARTIER-The 8th of January? Does that conflict with any other meetings. MR. MARTIN-I can't make it. MR. CARTIER-You can't make it? Okay. The 8th is out. We're not stuck with just Tuesdays are we? MR. GORALSKI-No. Well, you can do it the 9th. That would be the second Wednesday of the month. MR. MARTIN-The Zoning Board has... MS. CORPUS-No. They're the 14th. MR. CARTIER-So, we're talking 9. January? Special Meeting, and by the way, there's no such thing. that's another thing I found out from talking to Paul. There's no such thing as workshop sessions anymore. They're either regular meetings or special meetings. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. 9, January. Special Meeting with Aviation Mall. MR. CARTIER-At 7 p.m. We have to make a motion to that effect. MOTION TO SCHEDULE A SPECIAL IEETING FOR THE 9TH OF JANUARY TO REVIEW SITE PLAN FOR AVIATION MAlL, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kupillas. Mr. Caimano MR. GORALSKI-Then they will not be on the 15th's agenda? MRS. PULVER-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Karla, let's get Paul at the meeting of the 9th of January. MRS. PULVER-No. not the 9th. the 15th. rather than 22nd. He was coming the 22nd. MS. CORPUS-He may want to attend the 9th's meeting, in that he's been working very closely with the whole Pyramid issue. I'm not really sure whether he plans on being there or not. I can certainly ask him that. MR. CARTIER-If he's not there for the 9th, then let's get him there for the 15th. MS. CORPUS-The 9th or the 15th. okay. MR. CARTIER-That's a 7:00 p.m. meeting, right? MRS. PULVER-7:00 p.m.. yes. MR. HAGAN-What is the condition of our other member? MR. GORALSKI-I spoke to Bud before the meeting tonight. He is now in a wheelchair. MR. CARTIER-What's the protocol here? I've never been through this issue. We have a Board member who has difficulty attending meetings for obvious reasons. We are all in sympathy with his situation, but we also have some concerns here. MS. CORPUS-This Board has the ability to make recomffiendations to the Town Board regarding action. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think we ought to recommend something to the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Such as? MS. CORPUS-Replacement member or perhaps contacting the member, contacting Mr. Kupillas and illicit, now with the change in conditions perhaps his response would be different. 36 --...... .,J MR. MARTIN-I think it would be a nice interim step to have Steve contact Bud. MRS. PULVER-And find out his condition and is he interested. MR. GORALSKI-Or possibly a representative from the Board call him. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Make it more personal even. MR. CARTIER-I can do that if you want me to. MR. GORALSKI-I think out of respect to Bud. I think it would be better that the Board contact him directly and just ask him what he intends to do. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Because my understanding in talking to him in November was that he was on the mend and he figured that by December he'd be well enough to start making meetings. MR. LAPOINT-Well. we'll find out what he thinks, now. MR. MARTIN-Yes, we're having a special meeting. You can update us then. MRS. PULVER-I would almost think. at this point, he would be relieved not to have this obligation, even just hanging over his head that he isn't fulfilling. you know. MR. CARTIER-He did not want to give it up. He did not want to give it up. MR. HAGAN-Well. I would say that when his health returns to normal he can always re-apply. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Sometime between now and the 9th I will contact Bud and find out. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier. Chairman 37