Loading...
1991-01-22 ~ -.,/ CJ,IEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22110, 1991 INDEX Subdivision No. 14-1988 FINAL STAGE Hickory Acres Owner: Sidney H. Timms 1. Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 2-90 Sidney H. Timms 1. Site Plan No. 17-90 J. Paul Barton d/b/a Docksider Restaurant 1. Subdivision No. 12-1990 FINAL PLAN Alene Brown 13. Site Plan No. 23-90 Site Plan No. 5-91 Site Plan No. 6-91 Lloyd DeMaranville, Jr. 14. Andrew D. Tellier 15. Robert Northgard. Jr. 21. 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. CJ,IEENSBURY PLAflNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY UNO, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEJIƒRS PRESENT PETER CARTIER. CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY NICHOLAS CAIMANO JAMES HAGAN JAMES MARTI N EDWARD LAPO I NT DEPUTY TOlIN ATTORNEY- KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST. REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-One quick item. The first two items of Old Business on the regular agenda. 14-1988. Final Stage, Hickory Acres, Owner: Sidney Timms, and the Freshwater Wetlands Permit associated with that same application, we have a request from Mr. Timms to table both of those applications. He is hung up with DEC. I don't know that anything else needs to be said about that. If no one has a question or comment, I'd be glad to entertain a motion to table those two items until a future date. fl)TION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION (I). 14-1988 HICKORY ACRES AND FRESHWATER IIETLAIIDS PERMIT (I). 2-90 SIDNEY H. TIMMS UNTIL A FUTURE DATE, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. HAGAN-Mr. Chairman, before you go on, did we review the minutes of November 20th? MR. CARTIER-No. I just got those in the mail today and some members haven't gotten them and we've got to go through those. I was going to leave those until the February meeting. SITE PLAN NO. 17-90 J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCICSIDER RESTAURANT MR. CARTIER-Okay. Another bit of Old Business. We had, at our last meeting. gotten some information about what a 3-3 vote means on the Docksider. Legal Staff has, fortunately, looked into that and we've got some clarifications on that. Mr. Dusek has requested to take us through that clarification and once we hear from Mr. Dusek. we can decide how we wish to proceed. MR. DUSEK-Paul Dusek, Town Attorney. for the record. I guess at the last meeting, after the last meeting, there were some questions that developed concerning a vote that was taken on the Docksider and I was asked to come here tonight and clarify it and actually I volunteered that as well, to be here. It's my understanding that there was as 3-3 vote taken by this Board, in connection with the Docksider Restaurant and the issue that was before the Board, that was voted on, was whether to approve the site plan. In my opinion, a 3-3 vote by the Board results in no action taken by the Board. In order for this Board to have action. you !!!Y.!l have at least the majority vote, 4-3, or at least a majority of the quorum present. In addition to that, if you have a Warren County disapproval on your hands. you need a majority plus one. Now. what that means is that if a motion is made to approve and that motion is either defeated, voted down say 3-2 or if it was tied 3-3, that means that that motion hasn't achieved anything for you. At that point, you would have to go back and create another motion to see if you could garner support of the members for that motion. Now, that motion may be an approval with modifications. It may be rejection. Whatever motion that the members care to make at that point to try to reintroduce. Obviously, you have to get a second following parliamentary procedure. In addition to that, I would just comment to the Board that if in fact a decision has not been reached by the Board, or cannot be reached by the Board, in other words, a continued stalemate, the current state of affairs is that we have. in the Town of Queensbury, an Agenda Control Law which was developed a little over a year ago now which would mean that the Board is required, by your current Local Law and your own Rules and Regulations to decide the case within six months from the date of your public hearing, or there could be some. I guess, argument that it could be the last time it came before you, but for the sake of argument, lets go with the public hearing. If you do not decide, within that time frame, the applicant may be in a position to go to court and request an order, making you decide. The court won't decide it for you, even then. but they would tell you you've got to decide. So, at this point, you're looking at roughly, I would say. six months from the public hearing in which to decide this case. -.-/ MR. CARTIER-Okay. What I'd like to do, here, with the Board. is layout all of our options and go from there and I have a question for you, here. In that six month time, lets assume, Option One is that we let the vote stand. It sits there, 3-3. for six months, what options does the applicant have? Could the applicant request a tabling? Could the applicant withdraw the application and re-submit a new application? Could that occur within that six month time frame? MR. DUSEK-Sure. Those are all possible options. MR. CARTIER-Those are all possible options. Okay. Thank you. I think that covers it, unless somebody else has a question. MR. MARTIN-The other part I'd like to add to that is, I think also, and this was the way it was explained to me. that from the point forward of a 3-3 vote, it is not simply a majority that's required anymore. Some night, if we only have five people here and the matter's brought up or the motion is made. a 3-2 vote simply doesn't do it. It requires a four vote decision. one way or the other. MR. DUSEK-It must be a majority of the full Board. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Full Board, right. MR. CARTIER-That governs every decision that we make. All of our decisions have to be based on a minimum of four votes. MR. DUSEK-I think maybe the example I gave you might have been misleading. I said 3-2. I should have used better numbers, 4-3. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have a question of Mr. Dusek? MR. HAGAN-Before we go on with the issue. I think before we took the vote, we naturally closed the public hearing. Are we in a position to re-open the public hearing before casting another vote on a new motion? MR. CARTIER-I'm looking for direction from the Board on that. If the Board cares to re-open the public hea ri ng. MR. HAGAN-Well, then. my sentiments are that I would be agreeable to re-open the hearing. giving the applicant another chance to try to satisfy what the Board has tried to portray would be more palatable than what they previously had heard and also to possibly let the public influence the applicant further in his final presentation. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me, how do the rest of the Board members feel? MR. DUSEK-Can I just say one thing, that if you do want to get into opening the public hearing, again, I gather it's been formally closed, it would be my opinion that you've probably got to re-advertise. in fairness to the public and everybody else, because you just can't open it, tonight. because you wouldn't have given any notice of that new public hearing and there might be people out there who would claim prejudice for not being able to come in and re-speak on the issues. MRS. PULVER-Now, the applicant can still speak on the application? We don't need a public hearing for that? MR. DUSEK-After the public hearing has been closed. this Board is free to hear from any given person that they feel may help them towards making that decision. It just simply means that the public does not have a right, as a matter of course, to speak. It's up to the Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Well, the public.!! represented tonight, as well as the applicant. So. you're saying we can invite all groups. MR. DUSEK-You can have anybody appear before you to give you further information that you feel is relevant, but my recommendation is that you don't formally open a public hearing, because if you do, I think you've got to really go back and re-advertise. MR. HAGAN-Well, that would be my request to the Chairman. to open the general hearing. Let anybody present tonight speak for or against the application. as we've heard it, and also to give the applicant a chance to possibly reconsider what he is presenting to us. MR. CARTIER-Is that not a defacto public hearing, however? 2 .~ ...../ MR. DUSEK-That would be the concern that I suppose people could raise that argument. MR. CAIMANO-We're on awfully shaky ground. MR. CARTIER-One of the things I want to be sure we do, here, whichever way this application goes. is that we do it by the numbers. We seem to have gotten awfu11y tangled up in some issues, here, and directions and I want to be very sure that we do this by the numbers. MR. CAIMANO-Not to disagree with you, Jim, because I think you're right. I just think we may open a can of worms unnecessarily. What about if we go back. we promised the applicant a vote tonight. MR. HAGAN-We did? MR. CAIMANO-Yes, we did. MR. CARTIER-We11, hang on. Let me lay some options out. Let me finish my thing, and then you can get into this. We have two options. Number One is we can let the vote stand, okay. Number Two. and I think I hear the Board going in that direction, but I just want to be sure that we're a11 on the same wavelength here. We can let the vote stand 3-3 or we can consider a re-vote. Do I hear the Board saying that they wish to consider a re-vote here? MR. MARTIN-Well, I would just like to raise one point, though, before this is given further consideration. I think that the driving force behind us even taking the second vote that we took the other night was that we were hearing, or we were of the impression that a 3-3 tie meant automatic approval within 45 days without stipulation. MR. CAIMANO-That's true. MR. MARTIN-And that was the driving force behind, I believe, Mr. Caimano changing his vote. and understandably so, thinking that it's better to have a site plan with stipulations than none at a11 and now we're not bound by that any further. So, I think that's a point to consider as we discuss this. MRS. PULVER-I still think it's unfair to the applicant. MR. HAGAN-Our Counsel's directions said we are permitted to ca11 upon anybody present, if it wi11 help us in deciding a vote. MR. CAIMANO-Jim, I think you're absolutely right. That was one of the reasons why I ca11ed for the vote. In the meantime, however, there has been some new things come forward, including a copy of a letter from Mrs. Popowski, and I think that it is proper to go back and rethink this thing and re-vote. If you're asking for my sentiments, Mr. Chairman, my sentiment is to go back at it again, as far as the vote is concerned. MR. HAGAN-When? MR. CAIMANO-Tonight. MR. HAGAN-O kay . MR. CARTIER-Okay, even though we are not going to open the public hearing, tonight. simply because it has not been advertised. MR. CAIMANO-That's right, but as Mr. Dusek said, we can ca11 on anybody to say what they want. It is not a formal public hearing. MR. HAGAN-Counsel said we can call upon anybody. MR. CAIMANO-I think that we're walking on thin ice. MRS. PULVER-And last week. in front of the public hearing, we announced we would vote again. MR. DUSEK-I think you kind of have to be careful in the conduct of things, here. If you're, in essence, trying to accomplish, and I guess you have to ask yourselves this. If you're, in essence. trying to accomplish a public hearing by having the best type of public hearing you feel you can have, under the circumstances, then you shouldn't do it. If, on the other hand, you have selected individuals who you feel might be able to help you in making your decision and by asking for additional information or questions, I mean, there's certainly nothing improper with that, but just be aware, I think, what I'd like to advise you. just be aware of that very grey area you're in, here, and that if you're going to selectively call on people. there's nothing wrong with that, but if you're going to try to hold a defacto public hearing, here and now, I would advise against that. MR. CAIMANO-We11, what if we were to hear from the attorney for the applicant, in a limited capacity, and also enter into the minutes Mrs. Popowski's letter. 3 -- MR. HAGAN-On1y if he has something new to present. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. HAGAN-I don't want to hear a11 about the stuff we've gone through, the sewers and a11 that bit. We know about it. MR. CARTIER-Just for the sake of my c1arification, Jim, are you referring, specifica11y, to the 1etter from Mrs. Popowski or are you ta1king about some other things that you are aware of that's out there? Do you have anybody e1se you'd care to ask a question? I guess what I'm asking is. we're ta1king about asking specific peop1e in the audience specific questions? MR. HAGAN-Right, and I wou1d 1ike to start by asking the app1icant or his representative if he has anything ~, from his origina1 p1an. to present to this Board tonight? MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can answer that 1ater. Before we ask the app1icant, Car01? MRS. PULVER-Okay. Before we ask the app1icant anything. I wou1d 1ike to speak. MR. HAGAN-Certain1y. MR. CARTIER-Go right ahead. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Are we ready? I have spent a 10t of time going through a11 these minutes and researching everything and there's a few things I wou1d 1ike to bring up to the Board before we hear the app1icant and anyone e1se who's going to speak. On August 21st, this app1ication was tab1ed and it was tab1ed with the agreement of the app1icant so that various concerns that had been raised cou1d be addressed and some issues c1arified. As part of the motion, direct the app1icant to consu1t with the Zoning Administrator to c1arify, Number One, the definition of F100r Area as it re1ates to the outside deck and. second1y, to c1arify the number of uses present on the property, marina, bar, restaurant, etc. Tab1ed for a period of 30 days. Okay. That was on August 21st. September 20th, the Zoning Administrator made a determination, and I have these minutes from September 20th and the rough thing is. basica11y. the Board didn't agree with it. Mrs. Popowski asked for the Zoning Board to come up with a figure for seating for the deck and a1so to make a determination on the property. On Ju1y 17th. John Gora1ski states in his notes. if I go to the Staff Notes. here, it is his opinion that the project as current1y proposed wi11 not have a significant impact on the environment. That's from our own Staff. He has reviewed it according to Artic1e V, on August 10th. he reviewed it according to Artic1e V, and these were his concerns: Stormwater runoff, etc, but there was no hea1th or safety of anybody out there on the Lake. Mrs. Popowski's 1etter, which we just got in themai1 . says, the app1icant himse1f has continuous1y changed the current seating figures a number of times over the course of these proceedings and a true figure has been difficult to come by. I have gone through a11 the minutes and the app1icant has never said anything other than 44 seats on the deck. However. Mrs. Popowski, in the minutes, states she went over thère and counted 28 seats on the deck. This is November 27th, because there are seven tab1es of four. Sudden1y. in order to keep our seating in balance. we have 44 seats on the deck. Now. maybe we have 44 seats 1ater on, with something e1se. I think she has confused her own count, and there may be on1y 28 seats on that deck. Maybe that's a11 he has. However, he's a1ways ta1ked about 44. Maybe he on1y puts 28 on there. I can't find where the app1icant has tried to mis1ead this Board at a11, on that. She a1so states the desire not to increase the noise prob1em and reduce the deck from the proposed 44. That is what he is entit1ed to have. That is what he has a1ways been entit1ed to have and whether he has 26 seats or 28 seats out there. he's a1ways been enti t1ed to have the 44 seats. I think the Board shou1d rea 1 ize that. The 1ast thi ng is on December 4th, Mr. Hatin. who we had decided, I think it was November 27th, no, it was December 4th, a11 right. I'm a 1itt1e bit mixed up, but, anyway. you can go through it. A11 right. We as a Board said we wou1d take whatever Dave Hatin decided to be the number for parking. Then we met and we weren't sure whether we were going to take that number or not, and we kind of reviewed our minutes where we did say yes, whatever he determined we wou1d accept. A1so, we had asked for a determination as to the uses and I wi11 read this right here. Mr. Hatin says. the discussion as to whether the Docksider is considered a restaurant or a tavern or both, for the Board's information, it is considered a restaurant. That decision 1ies s01e1y with me. This Board cannot determine that nor question that anymore. A decision was made. back on August 29th, 1990. to the Board. You had 30 days from that date to appea1 it. It was appea1ed by Mrs. Popowski and the Zoning Board ru1ed in our favor. Therefore, it's a dead issue. You. whether you agree with it or not, have to consider that it is a restaurant and that's where it has to 1ie and you are stuck with that decision. MR. CAIMANO-Who is that from. Dave Hatin? MRS. PULVER-That is Mr. Hatin's decision. Now, I don't know. Do we want to not support the peop1e that work for our Town, that are trying to enforce the approva1s or disapprova1s or whatever it is this Board makes? I mean, that's what Dave says and he says you ca1cu1ate the seating based on the restaurant. not a tavern. 4 -- -- MR. HAGAN-Nobody's arguing that point. What point are you making. Car01? MRS. PULVER-We11, that it's one use and we need to come up with the seating for that use and the parking for that use. MR. HAGAN-Okay. That has not been our bone of contention. MRS. PULVER-We11, if you read the minutes, though. Jim, it has. MR. CAIMANO-Onward and upward. MR. HAGAN-Our bone of contention, or at 1east mine has been the added seating capacity and that does not enter into anything you've presented. I'm ta1king about the seating he proposes to increase. MRS. PULVER-We11, Jim, I'm not disputing that. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MRS. PULVER-There's going to be 14 added seats, but 1ast week it was over Artic1e V. whether this was going to endanger the hea1th, safety, and we1fare of the neighborhood and whether it was a mu1tip1e use restaurant, tavern. marina, whatever. I agree, there is going to be 14 more peop1e. If there's no motion and no approva1. Number One, he can have as many cars parked in that parking 10t as he possib1y can squeeze in. So, if he can get 100 cars on that 1ot, he can get 100 cars on that 10t. At 1east we have the opportunity, now, to say. 100k, you can't have any more than 46. (END' OF FIRST DISK) 5 '--' --./ MR. HAGAN-Are you finished? MRS. PULVER-Yes. You. also, as a Board. you can say he can't have 14 more people. I think maybe we should ask how many times a year he has 129 people there, that he's serving. MR. HAGAN-Can we hear from the applicant? MR. CARTIER-Mr. O'Connor, would you care to address the Board. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor and I'm here speaking on behalf of Paul Barton. I will try to observe what the Board requested and not re-hash we've gone over in the past. I think we've gone over this as much as you can possibly go over it. I do, for the purpose of the record, take exception to a little of what Paul Dusek has said, insofar as Local Law 3 and the effectiveness of Local Law 3, but I think that's an issue that's decided in a forum not presently here this evening. So, I will simply say I will, for the record, reserve any objection that I have as to some of the comments made by Mr. Dusek. I have not seen the letter that has been sent to the Board, so I can't really comment on that particular letter. I understand that we're in a predicament. The applicant wishes to go forward. Unfortunately, we're not dealing, here, in the abstract. We're not dealing with a vacant parcel of land which even if you don't go forward, if you leave it hung up or if you were to deny it, you still have a present use there. You have a present use there that has many of the characteristics that this Board has talked about and perhaps this Board has some objection to, but this Board really has no control over that present use and those objectionable things that this Board has found because everything that is there is grandfathered. The applicant, I think. has been very gracious and has tried to approach this in a business like manner and has come forward and said I understand this. I am willing, though, to bring myself up to speed, bring my project up to speed, and I am willing to accept some controls. I don't know what else the applicant can do to please the Board, other than what has been done. except for, perhaps, one question and I will put that before the Board. The Board had a very long motion before it the other evening. It had many conditions and those conditions the applicant could live with. I would suggest, perhaps, a further condition and the applicant can live with that. We really are talking about 11 seats for restaurant purposes. We have never talked about less than 125 seats at any time, as for the present use. We have talked about 56 seats interior in the building for seating for restaurant purposes. We've talked about 44 seats on the deck and that was right on the very first plan, I think, and we've talked about 15 seats for the bar. So, presently we have operating 125 seats at the restaurant. We would accept a condition by this Board that we not, after this Board's approval, have more than those 125 seats for service of customers at this facility. MR. HAGAN-Where do you get the 125? Your present seating that you gave to me was 115. 56 dining, 15 bar. and 44 deck. That's 115. MR. O'CONNOR-115, I apologize. It's 115. We would accept the 115. We've got the 56. 44, and 15. I've done the numbers so many times that it has become a little bit meaningless to me. We would cut back the seating interior from 66 to 56. We would leave the deck as is and we would cut the bar back from 16 to 15, which would give us the same number of seats for restaurant purposes. We would still have three seats near the fireplace area as a waiting area. I think those are open to discussion. I don't think they're going to lend to the problem that we have. They aren't really meaningful in the sense that we've been talking about. MRS. PULVER-Mike, let me ask you a question, and that is how many times a year would you have 115 people at the restaurant, other than say a special event like the Kowanas or the Rotary or something meets there? So that those three waiting seats probably you could have them because you wouldn't be using all the dining room seats. MR. O'CONNOR-Very, very few. If you had it five times a year, that would probably be .!!!Q!!!. than what we presentlY have. Am I correct Paul? PAUL BARTON MR. BARTON-That would be a lot. MR. O'CONNOR-And that's basically it. What we're trying to do, and as I've indicated from the very beginning is to get a restaurant of a size that it's meaningful to make these improvements that we're going to make and operate during the winter months, and what I would be understanding of the Board if they would accept that type of condition or that type of restriction is that we would design everything. Everything is designed, actually, in excess of the 115 seats. At any time during the year we can have 115 seats on the premises for service of dining room customers. MR. HAGAN-Mi ke, are you telling me, other than the summer months when the deck is in use. the total maximum seats that you will have in this entire facility, to facilitate the public, is 74 seats. per se, 56 dining·. 15 for the bar, and three for the waiting room. I think that comes to 74. Is that what you're saying and agreeing to? 6 ''"--' -/ MR. O'CONNOR-No, Mr. Hagan. MR. HAGAN-Then what are you agreeing to? MR. O'CONNOR-I'm agreeing to have not more than 115 seats at anyone time at the premises. MR. HAGAN-Even when the deck is closed? MR. O'CONNOR-When the deck is closed, you won't have 115. The space wouldn't a110w it. but I don't know if you're going to have exactly 56 and 15. MR. HAGAN-We11, that's what I'm trying to make you say is exactly what you're .9.Q.Ì.lliI. to have when the deck is closed and I'm afraid you're deviating from your original presentation this evening. MR. O'CONNOR-No. I'm not. MR. HAGAN-Okay. then let's do it one more time, ~ way. Fifty six dining, that's what you agreed to. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Fifteen at the bar. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. HAGAN-You agreed to that, and three for the waiting. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAGAN-And my arithmetic says that adds up to 74. In other words, you're saying the maximum capacity when the deck is closed will be 74, and you're telling me no? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Inside the restaurant, that's all you can have. MR. O'CONNOR-Inside the restaurant MRS. PULVER-That's all you can ever have inside the restaurant is 74? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I'm saying that we would want it understood that what you are approving ~ 110 dining seats at this facility. MR. HAGAN-That's with the deck open. MR. O'CONNOR-And if the deck is not open, we can have some of those people sit inside. MR. HAGAN-I want you to establish what your maximum seating capacity is going to be. inside the enclosed four wal1s of that establishment and if you don't do that. you're deviating from what we're trying to get you to say. You said your maximum total seating would be 115. that includes the deck. So, I'm saying when the deck is not in use, your total maximum seating capacity a110wable would be 74. MR. O'CONNOR-What determines my maximum capacity, my parking, my size, and my building. My size and my building actually allows me to have 144 seats. MR. HAGAN-Okay. Well. tell me what you're going to have. That's what I'm after. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I want permission to have 110 restaurant seats on premises. MR. HAGAN-Okay. that's with the deck? MR. O'CONNOR-With the deck and without the deck. If some of those people are not sitting on the deck, they can be sitting inside. MR. HAGAN-A11 right. We 11 . that's the part that origina11y bothered me because when the deck is open and you have that additional capacity available, come hook or crook, it's going to get used and that's the basic part that I'm against on your original plan. MR. CAIMANO-Jim, if the total is only 115 and it's a beautiful sunny day and a11 115 are sitting out on the deck, I'm sorry, they won't. but if they could, that doesn't mean he could put 50 people inside the restaurant. 7 -- MR. HAGAN-No, but he's going to have the seating there and I'm saying, when it's avai1ab1e, there wil1 be times when pressure wi11 be put upon that estab1ishment, when they wi11 be a110wed to be used. MR. CAIMANO-What's the Fire Marsha1 say is the capacity? MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not trying to be cute, but there is a 1imitation outside of the zoning that's a1so app1ied. Present1y. right now. the 1imitation on the inside of the bui1ding, I think, is 70. which inc1udes the bar and the seating and that's so many square feet per customer of the service area. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but, Mike, you're getting back to the same theory that you had in the beginning, that when the deck wou1d be in use, you wou1d c10se off a certain amount in seating and that's the part that I don't agree with because if that seating is there peop1e are going to demand to be ab1e to use it and when there's enough pressure put on management and it's business. It's money in their pocket. They're going to say, okay. go ahead. MRS. PULVER-He's not ta1king about c10sing any part of the restaurant anymore. He's ta1king about the wh01e seating. MR. HAGAN-I know it. but he's saying 115 seats with the deck c1osed. Now when the deck is open. that means he's going to have 115 p1us 44 whether he uses it or not. They wi11 be avai1ab1e. MRS. PULVER-No. He's not saying that. MR. O'CONNOR-No, Mr. Hagan. MR. HAGAN-We11, what's he going to do, take the seats out of the p1ace in the summer time? MRS. PULVER-No. he's saying al1 he's ever going to have is 115 dining seats there. whether he uses the deck or the inside or whatever. 115. It doesn't matter if it's summer or winter. the most he's ever going to have is 115. MR. HAGAN-You mean the 44 that you put on the deck you're going to take out of the restaurant? That's what I'm trying to pin you down on. MR. O'CONNOR-We're not going to have more than 115 on site. MR. HAGAN-Seats? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Or peop1e? MR. CAIMANO-Seats. MR. HAGAN-There's a difference. MR. O'CONNOR-Seats. MR. HAGAN-Al1 right. Then 1isten to what I ask, when the deck is open. are you going to physical1y remove 44 from the dining area and put them out on the deck? That's what I'm trying to pin you down on. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We have a parking 10t designed for 110. We have a septic system designed for 120 some, so I don't know what impact there is if the peop1e are in the bui1ding or out of the bui1ding, basi ca l1y. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but what I'm afraid of is that there wou1d be both. MR. O'CONNOR-We11, every approva1 that you give has an enforcement e1ement to it. MR. CAIMANO-Right. it has that potentia1. MR. O'CONNOR-And it has a number, whether it's 56, 110, or 400. Somebody has to be ab1e to go out and make a judgement as to whether or not you're comp1ying with your approva1. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. I think we're ramb1ing again. MRS. PULVER-So, you're not asking for any more than 115 dining seats? MR. BARTON-Which is what we have now. MR. PULVER-Right. 8 -..-/ MR. O'CONNOR-115, and I'm asking for your c1arification whether you're concerned about the three by the fire p1ace? MR. LAPOINT-Cou1d I ask Mrs. Popowski something without danger of getting into the pub1ic hearing rea1m? MR. CARTIER-If you wish. MR. CAIMANO-We11, not without danger. but... SUSAN POPOWSKI MRS. POPOWSKI-I'm Susan Popowski. I think you need to understand that I know that the seating figures are not from your minutes and the on1y difficu1ty I had with them and the reason I mentioned that in my 1etter was, months ago. when I began coming to meetings in August, the seating kept coming up and coming up and coming up and the figures never seemed, we cou1dn't get our finger on the figures and I harassed John Gora1ski. I did. I just kept saying, what is the seating for the restaurant. what is the seating for the restaurant. Fina11y, I be1ieve it was in October I wou1d guess, he asked the app1icant, and I be1ieve it was the attorney who said to him 105 seats. Now I know it's word of mouth and that was the figure that came back to me and that is why the 105 was sticking in my mind and sUdden1y when we jumped to 115 current seats, I became very agitated, as you know, and I wrote you a 1etter November 30th regarding this issue because my fee1ing was that 15 seats appeared on the deck, at 1east, that weren't there before and in a11 honesty. I wou1dn't even mind taking 15 of those and putting them into a dining room somewhere, get them off the deck. I wou1d be thri11ed, but if there are 44 seats, now. and if somehow somebody cou1d prove that, that's fine. That's why I suggested maybe going to the 1icense and finding out what we're 1icensed for. That was my suggestion. MR. LAPOINT-Wou1d that satisfy the paragraph in your 1etter, "If a proposa1 were made with a11 the specifications of the current site p1an, but with a cut back in seating to the present 1eve1, I wou1d withdraw my opposition to the project."? That if 115 is indeed the number of present seats... MRS. POPOWSKI-I guess my question wou1d be, can you determine what the current number is, for me? MR. CAIMANO-We11, we've made a number. We've made 115. We've taken it out of the air. We've fina11y said, there it is. It's 115. MRS. POPOWSKI-We11, I disagree with it. I mean, I wou1d prefer you go to the Department of Hea1th. MR. CAIMANO-I was going to ask you the question, too, because I 1ike the 1etter. I asked the question. 1ast time, is there a midd1e ground, but 1isten to what's happening here now. The app1icant is agreeing to 1eave the seating as he had it. We have put stipu1ations on him that I don't think anybody e1se in the wor1d has. We have fixed up the property in terms of septic, etc. So, there is a p1us and minus to this wh01e thing. MRS. POPOWSKI-That's abs01ute1y right. I agree. MR. CAIMANO-I actua11y think. whi1e I was a1most dead set this in the beginning because of where it was. the app1icant has shown unbe1ievab1e abi1ity to ra11y, here. and I don't know how we can turn this down. MRS. POPOWSKI-I appreciate that and I think you've accomp1ished most of your goa1s, I rea11y do. I wou1d hope that in consideration of the neighbors they wou1d recognize the noise and try to contr01 the deck. I can't do any more than ask that and I wou1d hope, as a good neighbor that they wou1d do that. MR. CAIMANO- I thi n k he's shown that he wants to be a good nei ghbor. MRS. POPOWSKI-And under those circumstances, I wou1d withdraw my opposition, if those restrictions were put on it, yes. MR. MARTIN-I wou1d just 1ike to make the comment that from a p1anner's point of you that you're p1acing yourse1f in an extreme1y weak position by getting into the interior of somebody's bui1ding and saying we're on1y going to a110w 'you so many seats. That is why the entire Ordinance is based on square footages and bui1ding size, because you're ta1king about components to the nature of the bui1ding that are very mobi1e and can be moved and stored away and can be taken up and put down and can be rearranged by different owners in the future. That is why parking ca1cu1ations and use ca1cu1ations are done strict1y on square footage and bui1ding size and we're putting ourse1ves in a very weak position by saying. we're going to go into this man's estab1ishment and say we're on1y going to have 56 seats here and 14 seats in this area and 44 seats out on the deck. I mean, if you get the wedding party in there or something happens and they take a11 the seating out and they want peop1e to stand up. I mean. I think it's a very weak position and wi11 resu1t in very poor enforcement. 9 ~ MR. CARTIER-Does anyone else on the Board have a question or comment? Okay. Before we get to. I assume we're going to redo a motion, here. Before we get to a motion, let me pick through some things in the Ordinance. in here. Al1 I ask you to do is listen to them. If you care to make comments, feel free. The definition of a restaurant, "A Restaurant means a place for the preparation, serving, and consuming indoors of food and beverages other than a tavern. That's from our 1ist of Definitions. Article IV. under Waterfront Residential. "Waterfront Residential Zones are divided into areas with two different densities, WR-1 where one principal bui1ding is a110wed for everyone acre within the zone. Purpose of the zone: To protect the delicate ecological balance of al1 Lakes and the Hudson River while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the shore1ine." Article V, which, this, as far as I'm concerned, is the bottom line for a consideration of this application. "The Planning Board sha11 not approve a use unless it first determines that such site plan review use meets the site plan review standards and requirements of Sections 5.070 and that such site plan review use meets any additional standards and requirements of Article VII applicable to that use. Requirements for site plan review: In order to approve any Type I and Type II or unlisted site plan review use, the Planning Board shall find that. A. The use complied with al1 of the requirements of requirements of this Ordinance including the dimensional regulations of the Zoning District in which it is proposed to be located." Be aware that variances have been granted which deal with 5.070 A. "B. The use would be in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this Ordinance, specifically taking into account the location. character, and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the District in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and faci1ities which wi11 al10w the approval of the proposed use. and C. The establishment. maintenance, or operation of the proposed use would not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town and D. The project would not have an undo adverse impact upon the natural scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational, or open space resources of the Town or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting faci1ities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential. recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making this determination, hereunder, the Planning Board sha11 consider those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth under Section 5.071 of this evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in Section 6.040." I'm not going to go any farther with that. Otherwise I could sit here and read Ordinance a11 night, but basica11y that's what it comes down to. We, individual1y, for ourselves, have to decide whether or not this application complies with Article 5.070 and we need, individually, to base our vote on that portion of the Ordinance. Having said that, if no one else has any comments or questions that they wish to address. I believe we are at a point where we can entertain another motion. MR. CAIMANO-Do we have to rescind the original one? MR. CARTIER-No. we do not. MR. CAIMANO-We do not? MR. CARTIER-We do not. There was no action. It was 3-3. We do not have to rescind. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Let me ask a question. Are we agreed to the 115 seats or do we feel. like Jim said, that maybe we should just make it comply with what the Ordinance states for square footage and what is al1owed? MR. LAPOINT-Could we add the 115 to the motion? MR. CAIMANO-I certainly want to, in view of the give and take with the residents, I certainly want to at least have the number regarding the outside deck. I understand what Jim said. I agree with him, but I'm comfortable with mentioning the 115, whether it flies or not. That's why we pay lawyers, but I understand what Jim said. I think you're absolutely right. However. given the circumstances, having listened to the Chairman, I'm perfectly happy with the 115. absolute must for the 44 on the deck, as far as I'm concerned. MRS. PULVER-All right. How about the must for the 44 on the deck and whatever he would be allowed to have inside the restaurant? Not give it a specific number. Is that better, Jim? MR. CAIMANO-What do you guys think of that? That's not a bad idea. MRS PULVER-Restrict it to no more ever than 44 on the deck and that the restaurant itself, the seating cap~city, to be whatever would be allowed, within the Ordinance, for the square footage and everything for the restaurant? MR. LAPOINT-I would still have to say 115 or less. whatever works, 115 or less. 10 -..-/ MRS. PULVER-So you want to give the whole project a number? MR. LAPOINT-No. I agree with the 44 and then I agree with 115 or less total. unless it is lower, the square footage dictates lower which I don't think it does. MR. HAGAN-Because if you don't. Carol, in my opinion, you're making it tough for the Enforcement Officer because everybody will be interpreting.... MR. CAIMANO-The wrong way. MRS. PULVER-All right, so we're saying no more than 44 seats on the deck at the restaurant. MR. CAIMANO-Total. MRS. PULVER-Total. MR. HAGAN-And the parking be restricted to 46 vehicles. MR. MARTIN-You really don't have to get into an issue of seating requirements and square footages because you're mixing apples and oranges and it's not going to work. If you're just going to accept the site plan as it is. the quickest and simplest way to get to this is just say, we're simply going to limit the parking in the parking lot to 46 cars. End of story. MR. CARTIER-And by doing that, I would assume that avoids setting a precedent that you are referring to. MR. MARTIN-Right, because you can't say there is no calculations for number of cars as it relates to number of seats in a restaurant. That exists for a theater. but not for a restaurant. So. therefore, we have to keep it along square footages and if we're going to disregard that in this particular site plan. then you simply limit the cars in the parking lot. MRS. PULVER-I think I'd still like to stipulate the 44 seats on the deck. It would make the neighbors very happy. MR. MARTIN-That's true. in that regard, it would. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. POPOWSKI-The only dilemma I have with that is, because the site plan has a new dining room in there, you are in fact increasing the establishment and you are setting the precedent which is my major concern is setting that precedent. There's a new dining room. in addition to the other one, and the deck. No. there's not another one? MRS. PULVER-Well, there is, but he can only have 46 cars. MRS. POPOWSKI-Is a car limit considered not an increase? Well, actually your car limit, your parking lot is smaller, in fact actually than it is now. Is that enough to say you have not set the precedent of allowing an increase in this establishment? I mean, you're allowing the building to get bigger, the parking lot to get smaller. Where are you going, here? MR. MARTIN-That's been my point from the beginning. MRS. POPOWSKI-It's actually sort of foolish to say, okay, have a smaller parking lot and a bigger restaurant and we'll all just sort of sit there and hope that something doesn't go crazy, which it's going to go. I don't know where the people are going to go. So, you've really got a dilemma with that, I'm afraid. MR. CAIMANO-I think we should pass the site plan as put before us, with the restrictions. MRS. PULVER-Of? MR. CAIMANO-Of the night time laws and all that kind of stuff and I still think we should put the 44 on the deck and that's it. MRS. PULVER-I do, too. 44 on the deck, parking. MR. CAIMANO-And that's it and the site plan as is and then Jim is right. There's a problem with enforcement, but that's enforcement's problem. MRS. PULVER-I think as long as the applicant has agreed to no more than 44 seats on the deck, to no service after 10 o'clock and the deck will be closed after 11. correct? I mean, the applicant agreed to that the last time. Do you still agree to it? 11 '"--' MR. CARTIER-Just a word of caution. I don't know where you're going to go with this. I hope we don't end up with the same motion we had on the floor last week. MR. CAIMANO-No. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-The motion's going to be different. I hope. MR. CAIMANO-It's going to pass, or fail. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I just wanted to make that point. MR. MARTIN-Why don't we call for a motion. MR. CARTIER-I think we're working on a motion. are we not? There was a call for a motion on the floor and I think the details of the motion are being hammered out, at the moment. JOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-90 J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A DOCKSIOER. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: With the following restrictions: That there be no service after 10 o'clock on the deck and the deck be closed at 11 p.m. and that Mr. Barton try to control the noise on the deck for the residents. That there can be no more than 44 dining seats on the deck and that the parking be restricted to 46 vehicles and they remove the three docks in front of the Docksider before any of the construction is done. No launching of personal water craft. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan NOES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier MR. CARTIER-Just a quick question, if this comes out 3-3. can I assume that the motion will stand and we get into the six month routine. that we are not going to consider another motion? MR. LAPOINT-Unless he re-applies with changes. MR. CAIMANO-This particular motion? MR. CARTIER-This particular motion. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-I'd just as soon let it stand. MR. CARTIER-The reason I raise the issue is if we end up with another 3-3, I don't want to have to go through this again. MR. LAPOINT-I agree. MR. MARTIN-You may opt to reintroduce it at such a time as you have a seventh member and decide if you want to give he or she an opportunity to... MR. LAPOINT-That would be Old Business. Again, if it was truly a new member, I mean, we have to have him on Board a while. MR. MARTIN-And he'd have to have an opportunity to review all the site plans and the minutes and so on. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. MR. CARTIER-That's a possibility. Okay. Gee, there are other options out there. Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Can I say, there was a statement brought up, Carol, that I just feel. from a personal standpoint, I need to answer. Number One, I agree with you. I never mean to impugn the character of another Town employee. However, questioning Mr. Hatin or anybody else in the Town, I think, is the purview of any of us and I don't think that's going to stop, certainly not on my part. Number Two, I don't think, Article V is a long, arduous Article that gives us all a chance to think about what we're talking about and I don't think it should be reduced to just a health and welfare Article. I don't use it that way and I'm really concerned, and not with you personally, but I'm really concerned about the fact of questioning Mr. Hatin. I think Mr. Hatin's comments, as you read them. were fine for him, but if we choose to argue with him. that's our right to argue and it doesn't mean that Mr. Hatin is a jerk or a nice guy or a bad guy. It just means that I don't agree with him. 12 '- MRS. PULVER-Right, Nick. and I did not mean to imply that you were not supportive of him. What I was doing was trying to bring up to the Board things that had been brought up that maybe we had lost track of, because even 1 had lost track of that. MR. CAIMANO-I agree with that part. That part was great. I just didn't want the public to think we were fighting with him. MRS. PULVER-And that we need to reconsider what we asked him to do. We asked him to do it and then he did it and we didn't like it and it's okay to say we didn't like it, but it's not okay to forget it and don't like it. which is what I thought we might have done. MR. CAIMANO-Right. I agree. (7:55 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-We can now get on to our regular agenda. OLD BUSIIESS: SUBDIVISION JI). 12-1990 FINAL PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ALENE BROlIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE INTERSECTION (SOUTHEAST CORNER) OF RIDGE ROAD AND CLEMENTS ROAD FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP JI). 27-3-1.2 LOT SIZE: 11.02 ACRES STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 12-1990, Alene Brown, dated January 11, 1991, Meeting Date: January 22, 1991 "This three lot subdivision has met all conditions for final approval. The only issue which may concern the Board was a public comment regarding the stream at the southern end of the property, and the protection of that. The applicant has identified this area on the plan and has indicated that the septic system will be a minimum of two hundred feet away. There was also concern on the part of the neighbor that storm drainage and si1tation would enter the stream. This concern was adequately addressed at Preliminary approval. I recommend final approval be granted for this subdivision." MR. CARTIER-I believe that the public comment you were referring to was Dr. Bannon. Is that the comment you were referring to? MRS. YORK-I'm not sure who the gentleman was. MR. CARTIER-And I think that was addressed. MRS. YORK-Yes. it was satisfactori1y addressed, the comment was, at the time. I just wanted to bring it up in case there was any misunderstanding. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Tom. please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, Dated January 11, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have no further engineering comments. Required sewage disposal design data outlined in the previous engineering comments dated 12/17/90, can be furnished to the Town Enforcement Officer for approval prior to systems construction." MR. CARTIER-So. you're saying something needs to be submitted prior to Bui1ding Permit issuance, is that correct? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. That would be Test Pit and Perc Test information for the particular locations where the septic systems will be built. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so that needs to show up in any motion that's made with regard to that application. MR. YARMOWICH-It should. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is the applicant present? Would you care to address this issue? Okay. Thank you. There is no other correspondence in reference to this matter. The public hearing was c1osed. SEQRA was dea1t with. Does the Board have any questions or comments on this application? It is Final Plan. All their ducks appear to be in a row, with the exception of what Tom is indicating needs to be submitted. Does anybody care to make a motion regarding this application? M)TIOft TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISIOI JI). 12-1990 ALENE BROlIN, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: 13 '-/ Only that test pit and perc test data must be submitted prior to receiving a Building Permit. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE (8:07 p.m) SITE PLAN JI). 23-90 TYPE II 23-90 WR-lA LLOYD DEMARANVILLE, JR. OIßIER: SAlE AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO PILOT KNOB ROAD, TO PULVER ROAD (~ MILE), BEAR RIGHT AT FORK AND TAKE LEn UP HILL, HOUSE ON TOP OF HILL ON THE RIGHT FOR AN ADDITION OF A SECOND BOAT DOCK AND BOATHOUSE TO THE EXISTING BOATHOUSE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP JI). 18-1-6.2 LOT SIZE: 1.82 ACRES SECTION 4.020 BILL ROBINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:07 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-We went out and looked at this last spring and this was tabled because the dimensions were not correct. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner. Site Plan Review No. 23-90. Lloyd DeMaranville, dated January 10, 1991, Meeting Date: January 22, 1991 "This application was tabled in April of 1990 so that the applicant could provide a more accurate plan. At the time the proposed dock was located directly adjacent to the existing dock. In this revised application the proposed dock will be located 20 feet north of the existing dock. It appears that the proposed dock meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and will not impact the view from the neighboring properties. The Board may wish to consider whether there would be less visual impact by clustéring multiple docks on a property or by evenly spacing the docks along the shoreline." MR. CARTIER-Does anybody have a comment on John's last paragraph? The last time we dealt with something like this was the Freihofer thing and we made him separate it. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. HAGAN-Well, this is shown. MR. CARTIER-Right. I'm just bringing up the point. Okay. Do we have anything from Warren County on this? MRS. PULVER-They don't do docks, do they? MR. CARTIER-Is there anybody that does not do docks? MRS. PULVER-Warren County doesn't review docks. do they? MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think they do. MRS. YORK-Warren County Planning Board approved this with No County Impact. on 4/11/90. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. ROBINSON-Hi. I'm Bill Robinson, a contractor for him and I've built docks on the Lake. We've got, the LGPC has to give it 's approval, which is being processed. ENCON has to give it's approval which we have. Warren County gave us approval and as far as, I talked downstairs before we even made our application, about your laws and things and it fell into, we changed the project, basically, just to go right along with exactly what your Zoning Laws call for, and it was close before, it actually kind of did. but it was something that. whatever. It falls into your laws, now. It also is, the height of it. it kind of actually falls underneath the height of the bank if anybody's visited the site. MR. CARTIER-We've all been there. MR. ROBINSON-So, you don't even see it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Wonderful. I assume the public hearing was left open back then. Is there anybody here who would care to address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 14 MR. CARTIER-This is a Type II. It does not require a SEQRA. If no one has a question or comment, we can entertain a motion on this app1ication? Does anybody care to comment? MRS. PULVER-No comment. MR. CARTIER-Wou1d someone care to make a motion, p1ease. MJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 110. 23-90 LLOYD DEMRAfIVILLE, JR., Introduced by Nich01as Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Car01 Pu1ver: For an addition of a second dock and boathouse to the existing boathouse. subject to Lake George Park Commission approva1. Du1y adopted this 22nd day of January, 1991, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint (8:13 p.m) NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 5-91 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-I0 ANDREW D. TELLIER OIIfIER: SAME AS ABOVE MALLORY AVENUE BETWEEN NATHAN AND COWMBIA STREET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE 111) FAMILY BI-LEVEL HOUSE FOR RENTAL PURPOSES. ALSO. CONSTRUCTION OF A 111) CAR GARAGE. TAX MAP 110. 117-5-4.1 . 4.2 LOT SIZE: 0.48 ACRES SECTION 4.020 E ANDREW TELLIER. PRESENT (8:13 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior P1anner. Site P1an Review No. 5-91, Andrew Te11ier. dated January 15, 1991, Meeting Date: January 22, 1991 "The app1ication of a dup1ex on a 180' x 115 ft' 10t in a UR-10 zone. The 10cation is Ma110ry Avenue. During review of this project res01utions regarding the first dup1ex p1aced on this 10t was checked (Site P1an No. 48-86). This action occurred prior to the subdivision of the 10t. There are no outstanding conditions which would prohibit or impact this deve10pment. I reviewed this plan with regard to Section 5.070: 1) The 10cation arrangement and size of the structure is compatib1e with the site. 2) Vehicu1ar access is not a prob1em. 3) Parking and 10ading are not an issue 4) Pedestrian traffic and convenience is not an issue. 5) Storm water drainage does not appear to be an issue. 6) Town water is avai1ab1e on the site. Septic faci1ities seem adequate. 7) Vegetation is not a prob1em. The app1ication p1an states the 10t wi11 be graded and seeded. 8) Emergency vehic1e access is adequate. 9) Erosion and f100ding are not a concern." MRS. YORK-I do want to address a memo that I sent to the P1anning Board regarding recreation fees (dated January 21, 1991). "P1ease be advised that I have contacted the Attorney's Office about confusion in the P1anning Department regarding the Recreation Fee Law (Loca1 Law #6, 1988). Kar1a has responded." Kar1a responded that indeed Mr. Te11ier is responsib1e for payment of Recreation Fees. and I have attached the part of Local Law #6 of 1988 which states. "The P1anning Board sha11 then require as a condition of approva1 of the site p1an a payment of recreation fees in 1ieu of 1and in an amount equa1 to the assessment per dwe11ing unit estab1ished by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury as set forth herein. times (x) the number of assessab1e dwe11ing units," and I wanted to bring this to your attention because there has been confusion about it and now we have a c1arification on this issue. So, any approva1 wou1d have to be contingent upon payment of those fees. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So. that needs to be incorporated. Has Mr. Te11ier been made aware of this? He understands? MRS. YORK-Yes. he has. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-I be1ieve he has ta1ked to Kar1a persona11y. MS. CORPUS-Yes, he has and I have given him a copy of the Loca1 Law this evening. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. ENGINEER REPORT 15 Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, dated January 17, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. (a) In accordance with current NYSDOH Wastewater Treatment Standards, Section 75-A.4(3) (pursuant to the Town of Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance Section 3.010.A), the subsurface disposal system will require soils to be modified by blending or replacement to obtain a properly permeable soil to reduce the infiltration rate because permeability of the existing soil is less than 1 min/inch. (b) The design percolation rate should be the rate of the modified soil. Test pit data indicating both depth to seasonal groundwater or bedrock or a statement on the plans indicating that neither is encountered, should be provided. 2. Gravel drives are considered as permeable green space, however, permeable area is sufficient." MR. CARTIER-Ed, how does this fit in with your... MR. LAPOINT-It sounds to me like they are going to have to mix some soil to make it less permeable. MR. CARTIER-It's a fill system. We're talking about a fill system. MR. LAPOINT-It's a fill system, right. The sand is too permeable for the type of sewage disposal. MR. CARTIER-Yes, it's a high perc rate. MR. TELLIER-Could I address that? MR. CARTIER-I guess I'm raising the question, is this something that needs to go back for redesign? Tom. we're on your 1A. on the Tellier site plan. Is this, 1A or B, is this something that has to go back for redesign or is this something that can be taken care of as part of a motion? Where we. in terms of the LaPoint Plan, I guess is what I'm asking? MR. YARMOWICH-I feel that we're within the confines of the LaPoint Plan and that these are relatively minor comments, but should be addressed by furnishing data or a revised plan that we can look over to make sure these things are properly addressed. They're relatively straightforward. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Warren County Planning was not involved in this, I take it? While Lee's looking for that, would you care to address the Board, please? MR. TELLIER-I'm Mr. Tellier. In my recollection in talking to one of the local engineers as well as somebody in the Building Department about that. this is a cOlllllon occurrence in Queensbury because of the texture of the sand and the coarseness or the lack of it and one of the things that can be done, since it's marginal and this perc test was taken, like. in August of last year at one of the driest times and what we would like to is have the option of being able to have another engineer do a perc test say in April to find out the validity of the first one because we think that maybe the first one was done in haste without properly saturating the soil and if this was done, it would show that it would have an over permeability. So, this is what we'd like to do and then if it is indeed showing that we have this problem, then we would naturally truck in a coarser sand or something and mix it and get it to the right consistency. MR. HAGAN-Who performed the first perc test? I mean, was it a licensed engineer? MR. TELLIER-No. It was not a licensed engineer. MR. YARMOWICH-Was the adjoining property subject to a recent site plan review? Is my recollection correct on that? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-And you do you have that information. MRS. YORK-I sure do. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. What I would like to do is refer to that. The perc test information for that is quite the same. MR. CARTIER-You are in an area in Town where the soils are high perced. That I can guarantee you. Unless you have something specific to that site. Now, what occurs to me, are we willing to pass this? MR. LAPOINT-I was a bit confused by your statement. You seemed to indicate that it was not permeable enough and you'd bring in coarser stuff. That's not correct. MR. TELLIER-It's got to go the other way. I'm sorry. MR. CARTIER-Yes. 16 '---" MR. TELLIER-Well. I mean a different grain. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-You need to slow down the perc rate, in other words. MR. TELLIER-Right, exactly. MR. CAIMANO-Well, at any rate, we're waiting for the engineer who is the one who's going to give us the answer. MR. YARMOWICH- I have a question. When thi s perc test was conducted. were these perc tests conducted on different locations for these two site plans, do you know, or was it just one that was used? MR. TELLIER-Yes, there were, but they were done at nearly the same time. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay, because they are in fact identical. That could be coincidental. It could be that you were using the same result for both designs. That would effect it, looking at both pieces of data. If they were at separate holes and they are so identical. I don't think that you'll find any difference. You certainly can re-test that. but that doesn't relieve you of the obligation of reporting these resul ts. MR. TELLIER-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-That would be a question for the Enforcement Officer. The requirement to blend the soils is something that became effective December 1, 1990, with updated Department of Health Rules. The fact that this previous site plan was approved without that stipulation was merely a matter of the timing. MR. CARTIER-So that first application was prior to December I? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. So, the fact that the rules changed while the game was the same is something that was through no fault of the Town and just became a matter of the review as a result of the implementation of the new regulations. The new regulations have been available since early in 1990 with an effective date of December 1. These perc tests, in my opinion and knowledge of the area, are relatively representative. If the perc test was conducted properly. and we have to assume that the applicant's information is warranted as correct and if now you're saying that it's not, it kind of leaves in question the validity of previous approvals. I suggest that you not contest that and ask for another perc test for that result. It would cause questions about the other design. MR. TELLIER-Well, my question about the way it was done was that I know that the water was trucked in in a 55 gallon drum and I know that now there is water available at the neighbor's house and it could be saturated properly before the perc test is taken like it's supposed to be done. MR. YARMOWICH-These particular sands are very difficult to presoak. MR. CARTIER-But this perc test could not take place until when, the earliest, May? MR. YARKJWICH-No. Perc tests can be conducted at any time of the year provided that the test pit information can properly identify groundwater. That is, in a case like this where you have a very great depth of clean sand and you don't find groundwater any deeper than six feet or no evidence of it, there's no restrictions. As long as the perc test is conducted in a region of the soil where it's not subject to seasonal groundwater, then it's valid any time of the year. You can do a perc test any time. You just can't do a test pit any time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-And that these are very deep well drained soils. there's no question as to the applicability of test pit results. MR. HAGAN-This is merely a question. When the perc test is done properly you really have to have three readings. consecutively, that agree, so that if the ground happens to be dry, as the applicant states, when he takes a second test in that hole, it's going to keep getting slower and slower as the ground absorbs the moisture. So. he'll get two perc and it takes three readings, as I understand, to establish that it in fact is a true reading. MR. YARr«JWICH-There are three readings at the termination of this perc test that would indicate it does have a stabilized rate. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. YARr«JWICH-The comments that I make, I think, still apply to the information included with the site plan and I think the Board has to determine whether or not they want to wait on that. 17 ~ ---" MR. CARTIER-I think you are certainly within your rights to hold this up to do another perc test, but as Tom points out, I think you're going to get the same results. The bottom line is going to be the same. You're still going to end up doing a fill system. MR. CAIMANO-Well. when was this taken? MR. TELLIER-August. MR. CAIMANO-August? MR. HAGAN-That shouldn't have any bearing if the test is performed properly. That's why I asked that a licensed engineer perform it. Who in fact did perform the test? MR. TELLIER-Shane Davis. MR. YARMOWICH-There's no requirement that the perc test be conducted with anyone with specific credentials. There is an established procedure for it. The data that's shown on this indicates that they did achieve a stabilized perc rate and, therefore, there's no reason to question the data. MR. CARTIER-Knowing what I know about the area. and I'm not an engineer. I don't mean to suggest that I am, but knowing what I know about the area, I don't think you're going to find, unless there's some rea11y unusual circumstance over there, a different perc test that's going to be slow enough so that you can avoid a fi11 system, based on, as Tom is pointing out. the results that you have from the very nearby one, but that's entirely up to you. MR. TELLIER-Well, we'll do whatever's necessary, that's notwithstanding. need not to be said. MR. CARTIER-As I said, it's up to you. I think you're going to have another expense that you don't need, though. You're going to end up getting the same results, but, again. that's entirely up to you. okay? MR. TELLIER-Sure. MR. CARTIER-So, do you still want to do another test? MR. TELLIER-We have a lot of time. We're not going planning to break ground until the ground softens anyway and it gets warmed up so at that time we could probably do that. MR. CAIMANO-Then let's table it. MR. CARTIER-Then we can table this application until that is taken care of. MRS. YORK-I do want to mention, since I was asked by the Board, this applicant was not Warren County applicable. So, Warren County did not vote on this. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Before we table it. though, we've got to conduct a public hearing, okay. Nick, you had a comment? MR. CAIMANO-My only comment was. I just thought these two were together. the Northgard and this one and if the same problem was going to be with the Northgard, then could we do two together? MR. CARTIER-No. They're not the same. That's a different application. Did you have anything else, sir? MR. TELLlER-We11, I'd rather not table it. I'd rather go on with the project because we have a lot of things to do. MR. LAPOINT-Does he have to demonstrate this to the Enforcement. to the Building Inspector? MR. YARMOWICH-The Building Inspector would accept this information for the issuance of a Building Permit. I'm not sure exactly what the procedure is for entering new information and that's something that the Building Department can determine. MR. LAPOINT-We11, if the Building Department accepts this information, then he wouldn't need a fill system? Is that what you're telling me? MR. YARMOWICH-No. This information indicates that he has to blend the soils beneath the bottom of the trench for a depth of approximately two feet. Typically. that means either importing all new soils or taking the sand on site and blending it with a loamy material. something to reduce the percolation rate and this has to be done throughout the entire field area. So, it does mean excavation and soil blending on site and replacing it and rebuilding the area. 18 "-' ~ MR. LAPOINT-So the Bui1ding Inspector wou1d rea1ize he wou1d have to do that before this was insta11ed? What I'm questioning you. here, is wi11 the Bui1ding Inspector h01d him up? MR. YARMOWICH-The Bui1ding Department is aware of the requirements of the new regu1ations. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-I've had conversations with Dave Hatin about that. MR. CARTIER-But is that something you want to review? MR. YARMOWICH-The design of the new system? MR. CARTIER-No, the new test? MR. YARt«:IWICH-According to the requirements that once the soi1 is b1ended it has to be re-tested to demonstrate that, in fact. the perc rate fa11s within the one to five minute range. MR. CAIMANO-So you've got to get a re-test anyway. MR. TELLIER-Yes. but I'd rather do it then. MR. CARTIER-We11, there's a possibi1ity that you're going to have to have this re-tested twice. MR. TELLIER-Twice? MR. CARTIER-The one time you want to, and second1y if it is determined from that test that you need to b1end those soi1s, then then you b1end those soi1s and they've got to be re-tested again. So, you're 100king at one required and, based on this, or two optiona1. Correct? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-But he's a1ready said he wants to move on with this. MR. CARTIER-We11, so does everybody. MR. CAIMANO-He had requested the tab1ing. Now, he says he doesn't want the tab1ing. so move on with it. MR. CARTIER-No, he didn't say he wanted the tab1ing. I didn't hear him say he wanted to tab1e it. MR. TELLIER-I said 1et's not tab1e it. MR. CAIMANO-So, 1ets move on with it. MR. TELLIER-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open the pub1ic hearing. Is there anybody who wishes to comment on this app1 i cation? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES INGRAM MR. INGRAM- I'm Cha r1 es Ingram. I 1 i ve on Sunset Avenue. My wi fe and I di scussed thi sin depth and we fee1 that mu1ti dwe11ing, two fami1y apartment houses, I don't think it's right for the neighborhood because there may be other peop1e that want to bui1d other apartments there and I'm quite concerned about a 10t of traffic and there's severa1 chi1dren around the area. MR. CARTIER-Understand this, the density on that piece of property is the same as it wou1d be for two sing1e fami1y houses. In other words, in order to bui1d a dup1ex, a two fami1y house, what is this, UR-lO? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-He is required to have 20,000 square feet. correct? In other words. the density. in fact, comes out the same as if two sing1e fami1y houses were bui1t on the property. It's not 1ike density is being increased. A11 right. It's not 1ike we're packing houses in here. MR. INGRAM-We11, that's one thing I was concerned about. 19 ~ -- MR. CARTIER-Okay. The Ordinance covers that. In other words, he could either build two single family houses on the property he's building this duplex on or one duplex. The density remains the same. MR. INGRAM-Another thing that concerns me, also, is there are two other houses right in the immediate area on Nathan Street between Mallory and Sunset that have been for sale for over a year and they haven't been sold yet and you're building another one? MR. CAIMANO-Duplexes? MR. INGRAM-No. MRS. PULVER-Single family. MR. CAIMANO-Single family. MR. INGRAM-It's getting ridiculous throughout the whole Town. People building houses and they're for sale and who's buying them? No one. MR. CARTIER-Unfortunately. or fortunately. depending on your point of view. I guess. but unfortunately, I don't think this Board has the authority to turn down an applicant on the basis of the number of units still available that are unsold or unrented. There are people who raise that issue on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, this Board has no authority to make that kind of determination that we can turn it down on that basis. MR. CAIMANO-It's interesting. however, though, that when we approve a subdivision, we approve it and then we put a stipulation on it that there has to be phasing so that we don't have just what we're doing with single family things. I think you're right. I mean, I know you're right. There's nothing we can do about it, but that's interesting that we do that. MR. CARTIER-I don't think I've satisfied either one of your questions. I try. MRS. PULVER-Well, he could be building this for his own personal use, an in-law or something. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MRS. PULVER-So, we don't know who's going to occupy it. MR. CARTIER-Is there anyone else who would care to comment on this application? If not, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-This is an unlisted and we are required to do a. I believe, Short Form SEQRA. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION NO. 5-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: constnlction of a one bco family bi-level house for rental purposes. Also, constnlction of a t.o car garage., 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 20 ',----- -- as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compi1ation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board wi11 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 22nd day of January, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier, NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion for disposition of this application. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-91 ANDREW D. TELLIER. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For construction of one two family bi-level house for rental purposes. Also, construction of a two car garage. with the fo11owing stipulations: That a test pit and percolation test be conducted in Apri1 of this year prior to issuance of a Bui1ding Permit. Two, that the recreation fee be paid prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. TELLIER-Concerning the recreation fee, I'd just li ke to have this put on there that provided that it is shown that we fit under the conditions of the recreational use Ordinance. I'm still not convinced that we're there. MR. CARTIER-We can get an answer to that right here. Karla? MS. CORPUS-It's our Office's opinion that you do, Mr. Te11ier and that the Board has the option to either take that advice or not, but we've given our opinion and they wi11 ultimately make that determination. MR. CARTIER-You certainly have the right to explore that with whatever department you need to. MR. TELLIER-Right. I'd just like to be able to explore that and say, no, because I was here and you said it, that's me accepting it and now I have to pay it. I'd just like to pursue that. MS. CORPUS-We11, Mr. Te11ier, the Board is bound by the Local Law that says that they must make their approval conditional upon payment of the Recreation Fee if one is determined to be due. They must do that. Your rights, as far as questioning that and challenging that will not be denied if an approval is granted on that condition. MR. TELLIER-That's good. That's what I wanted to hear. MS. CORPUS-Obviously. if you don't pay the Recreational Fee and it's our determination or the Town's determination that it's due. then it just does not become final approval. MR. TELLIER-Right. I understand that. I have no problem with that. In my reading of it, I'm a layman. In reading this thing, it seems to indicate that it has more to do with subdivisions and this is not a subdivision. MR. CARTIER-I'll let you settle that with the Legal Department. MR. TELLIER-All right. We will. (8:40 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 6-91 TYPE: UNLISTED ÞR-5 ROBERT NORTHGARD, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WISCONSIN AVENUE AND CENTRAL AVENUE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BI-LEVEL DUPLEX FOR RENTAL PROPERTY. TAX MAP fI). 127-8-1 LOT SIZE: 1.183 ACRES SECTION 4.020 E BOB NORTHGARD, JR.. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 6-91, Robert Northgard, Jr., Dated January 15, 1991, Meeting Date: January 22, 1991 "The applicant is requesting to construct a duplex on a 21 "'--' lot which currently has an existing single family dwelling structure and a duplex. The property is located on Wisconsin Avenue in an MR-5 zone. The density is allowable by zoning. When this property was reviewed by the Board for placement of the first duplex (Site Plan 64-90), the applicant was told that having incremental development rather than a concept plan for build out could limit his usage of the lot. He is aware of the Board's concerns in this matter. I have reviewed the site plan with regard to Section 5.070: 1) The structure will be in a densely developed neighborhood. The development on this lot would not be inappropriate, although the house is larger than most others in the area. 2) Traffic access is not an issue. 3) There is adequate parking. 4) Pedestrian access is not a problem. 5) The applicant states that grading and storm water management will be maintained by the gentle slope and permeable area. 6) The duplex will be on Town water. According to the Town of Queensbury Septic Ordinance the horizontal separation distance between the house and the absorption field must be 20 feet. The applicant has ±18 feet at his septic field on the north side. This problem could be alleviated by moving the house to the south. 7) Plantings and green space seem adequate. 8) Emergency access is not a concern. 9) The applicant states that the parcel will be graded and seeded. The soil is very permeable, and, therefore. ponding, flooding and erosion do not appear to be a problem." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost. Town Engineer, dated January 18. 1991 MR. YARMOWICH-Prior to reading this letter. there is a correction that needs to be made and I think the intent is pretty clear. It appears in Comment Number One, and I will read it as corrected, and not as written. I apologize for the error. This is a typographic error I thought had been addressed, but apparently it got only more confused. "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1) Gravel areas are considered to be '!!!!permeable and are not to be considered ~ permeable, however, permeable area is adequate. Spot elevations, contours or arrows should be shown to indicate proposed drainage patterns and to demonstrate that the site is graded properly to insure additional run-off developed does not impact leach field and adjacent properties. 2. (a) In accordance with current NYSOOH Wastewater Treatment Standards Section 75-M (3). (pursuant to the Town of Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Di sposal Ordinance Section 3.010A), the subsurface disposal system will require soils to be modified by blending or replacement to obtain a properly permeable soil to reduce the infiltration rate because permeability of the existing soil is less than 1 min./inch. (b) The design percolation rate should be the rate of the modified soil. Test pit data indicating depth to seasonal high groundwater or bedrock and a statement on the plans indicating that neither is encountered should be provided." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Is Warren County involved here? Well, before we get into Warren County, this is also subject to the recreation fee, correct? MRS. YORK-Yes, it is. MR. CARTIER-And Mr. Northgard has been made aware of that, I assume. MRS. YORK-Yes, Mr. Northgard has. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-This is not Warren County applicable either. MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. Mr. Northgard. would you care to respond? MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I guess. the first question. do you have these comments? MR. NORTHGARD-Yes, I do. MR. CARTIER-Comment Six from the Planning Staff, regarding the 18 feet between the septic system and the house, we need to make a two foot adjustment. here. somewhere. MR. NORTHGARD-Yes, if the Planning Board finds that to be a problem, it is two feet. If it is significant, it was never our intention to be at 18 feet. To adjust the setting of the house two feet will not be a problem. MR. CARTIER-Or the septic system. You don't have to move the house, as long as you have 20 feet on the design. Correct? MRS. YORK-Well, if he moves the septic system, he's going to be too close to the property line. MR. YARMOWICH-Right. 22 ~ '--*" MR. NORTHGARD-Right. MRS. YORK-So, he's got to move the house two feet to the south. MR. CARTIER-Okay. This is a paper house we're moving, so no problem. MR. NORTHGARD-Right. It's not a problem at this point. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any problems or questions regarding Engineering Staff? Do you understand all that? MR. NORTHGARD-Question, the comment seemed minor that we need some arrows showing direction of drainage and so forth. That's something that can be done after the fact or as a contingency to approval. Would that be correct? MR. YARMOWICH-We believe this is, again. the rules which we're operating under, we can allow that because of the minor nature of that. yes. MR. NORTHGARD-We can allow that? Okay. That's not a major set back, then. A" right. Now. I would also, obviously, the permeable soil and the perc test is a problem. As a contingency, I suppose you would also want an acceptable perc test? MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. NORTHGARD-Which we wi" do, whether we have to do another perc test in April. there again, or. if in fact we do find that we're going to have to mix the soils, then we'" mix the soils and get a good perc test. MR. CAIMANO-Well, if I understood ~ right. Tom, you're aSking. you're saying that it has to be mixed and if it has to be mixed, there has to be a perc test afterwards. anyway. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct and then you have to design it based on the rate of the modified soil. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. NORTHGARD-Yes, sir, but if we are taking an assumption that the perc test is not correct, was not properly done and could be done again and came up to acceptable levels, would we then have to mix the soil s? MR. CAIMANO-That's not the problem, though. MR. YARMOWICH-First of all, we don 't want to hear you say that because that raises questions on the design which you presented. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-On the basis of the design that you've given us. you will have to provide a blended soil system, two feet deep, below the bottom of the trench. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. MR. YARt'OWICH-And that can be done by blending soils of slightly lower percolation rates with existing soil, putting it back in the entire area and then testing that to show that it comes out greater than 1 min./inch. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. So. that's what we want to do. MR. YARMOWICH-If you achieve a rate between 1 and 5. you don't need to increase the amount of drain field. If, through in error in mixing. you go to 6, 7, or 8 minute perc, you'" need a bigger drain field, so it's to your advantage to control your mixing operation to get it right in the 1 to 5 minute range. MR. NORTHGARD-Okay. Then that, of course. would be a contingency and a stipulation which I would not have a problem with. Now, what I do have a question about, in regards to the Recreation Fees. if we can set aside lands of 1,000 square feet per lot for recreation, would that be acceptable in lieu of Recreation Fees. as it states in the paperwork you gave me. I'm not sure exactly what it is. MS. CORPUS-You would have to come back with a revised plan. You could get an approval on this plan or table this or whatever. You'd have to come back with a revised plan and according to the terms of the Local Law, the Planning Board has a certain period of time within which to review that and get back to you whether that's acceptable or not. So, at this point I couldn't tell you that unless you submitted a plan to the Engineer and to the Planning Board and it was discussed within parameters of the Local Law. 23 ''-"' -..-/ MR. NORTHGARD-Well, what we're looking to do here is possibly get this approved, instead of tabling it, with certain stipulations that if we've got to come up with a revised plan with 1.000 square feet of recreation area that we can then draw that in and just go ahead with the project. as opposed to bringing us back here, a month or two from now. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute, if you come in with a revised plan, you do have to come before us again. MR. NORTHGARD-Well. I'm not looking for a revised, modified. In other words, it's not hard to draw out 1,000 square feet. MR. CARTIER-You still have to come back. We still have to look at a site plan that has this 1,000 feet delineated on it. Correct me if I'm wrong, here. I think that would still require going back through the process. It's a revision of an approved plan. MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-If we approve this and it gets revised. it's a revision of an approved plan. It has to return and go through the process again. MRS. YORK-Yes. First of all, let me just clarify something, that the Planning Board would certainly look at any dedication of recreation lands, however, it would be the choice of the Town Board to accept your offer of land in lieu of the fee. The Town Board only can accept property in lieu of the fee. okay. MR. NORTHGARD-So we have to have an either/or type of stipulation to approval. MRS. YORK-Yes. you do. and the Town Board has. in the past, always asked the Recreation Commission for their input on this. So, what I would advise you to do is, get your approval tonight and then consider discussion of donation of land with the Town Board. MR. NORTHGARD-That's the kind of answer I'm looking for. MRS. YORK-O kay . MR. NORTHGARD-We can go ahead tonight, if we have an either/or scenario to that particular problem. all right, that we have to have that either/or. whether it be lands dedicated or the fee. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-As long as you understand that if you go the dedication of land route, you're still going to have to come back to this Board for approval of that revised plan. MR. NORTHGARD-Of that revised plan, but that would not necessarily hold up the process. We're just talking about that these lands have been set aside. MR. CARTIER-No. What's going to take you a lot longer... MRS. YORK-Mr. Northgard may be making consideration of dedicating land in a different area of Town which would not impact this particular site plan. I don't know what his thinking is. I mean. if there's no impact on this particular plan because of the dedication of land or something else then he wouldn't, of necessity. come back before you. MR. MARTIN-Was that your intent. that land be located elsewhere or adjacent to this property? MR. NORTHGARD-It could be adjacent or it could be elsewhere. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. NORTHGARD-It's something that should be taken up with the Town. I just would like to have that option. MR. CARTIER-Yes. that's a good point. Lee's brought up a good point. Are you talking about, would the particular piece of property we're approving tonight be changed by a dedication of property? MR. CAIMANO-He doesn't know. MRS. PULVER-He's saying it might or it might not. He doesn't know. yet. MR. CARTIER-Well, he said adjacent land. 24 '--' MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. NORTHGARD-Whatever would be acceptable to the Town of Queensbury. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NORTHGARD-If we're talking about something that's not acceptable to the Town, then we, there again, decide, do we take another parcel or do we take a fee. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. NORTHGARD-I would just like to have that option, as opposed to having it approved in just one fashion, that the fee be paid or in just one fashion that this piece of land be dedicated. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NORTHGARD-I'd just like to have that freedom. MR. HAGAN-That's a negotiation he can afford to the Town that has no impact on this particular plan before us. MR. CAIMANO-May not have. MR. CARTIER-May not. A11 I want the applicant to understand is if the design of this particular piece of property changes, he's going to have to come back before this Board and I think he understands that. MR. NORTHGARD-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody who cares to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-This is unlisted. We need to do a Short Form SEQRA Review of this. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIG'UFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 6-91, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: construction of a bi-level duplex for rental property. 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 effect 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. 25 '-' Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion regarding disposition of this application. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-91 ROBERT NORTHGARD, JR.. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: For construction of a bi-level duplex for rental property, subject to payment of the recreation fee or land in lieu of as subject by the Town Board. Two, all aspects of Tom Yarmowich's letter of January 18th, 1991 are to be complied with. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay, bits and pieces. Paul has provided us with a revised description of the Zoning Administrator's position. Does anybody have a comments. questions of Paul on that item? Okay. Karla's asked whether or not we have any questions regarding the Expedited Agenda Resolutions that she gave us at the last meetings and the stuff's pretty much cut and dried, unless somebody had a question or a comment about those. Do we need a motion to you? We don't? Okay. So, those are in effect as of? MS. CORPUS-The Board will have the option of using those at the time that the Expedited Matters are put on the agenda. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Correct me if I'm wrong, we will have two members missing at the 2119. February Meeting, correct? MRS. PULVER-Well, possibly. MR. CAIMANO-By the way, Mr. Kupillas, at your request, I called him and he said he has contacted you and his letter is on the way. MR. CARTIER-And it has been received. I was remiss. I should have called you back the following day. We do have a letter on file. MRS. PULVER-Back to your previous comment about the two Board members, I will let you know definitely. MR. HAGAN-I'm letting you know. now. I won't be here. MRS. PULVER-Yes, right. We know Jim won't be here, but I will try. MR. LAPOINT-Do we have an agenda and everything scheduled for that already or do we still have a chance to move that? MR. CARTIER-Move that meeting? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I don't know. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. because it is vacation. MR. CARTIER-Lee, question. The 2/19, February 19 meeting, is it possible to move that out of that week? That's a school vacation week. MRS. YORK-Let me get my calendar. MR. CARTIER-Can we change that meeting date? MRS. YORK-When would you like to have it. MR. LAPOINT-I just threw it out because two people aren't going to be here and I have nothing planned. but it would better. MRS. PULVER-It does create a hardship, though, because you don't have five to override the County, if you want to. 26 '~ --' MR. CAIMANO-How's the agenda, Lee? MRS. YORK-To tell you the truth, I haven't really checked on what's come in so far. The submission deadline date has not been reached. So, we really wouldn't have a conclusion on what kind of agendas you've got until after January 30th. MR. CARTIER-When is the deadline, January 30th? MRS. YORK-Yes, January 30th. MR. CARTIER-Could we decide then? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I guess. if I hear what you're saying, if we have two short agendas, maybe we can put them together into one meeting in February. MRS. PULVER-Certainly. Okay, so the Board wants to be individually contacted on the 30th. MR. CAIMANO-Or just contact you. MRS. PULVER-Or contact Mr. Cartier. MR. CARTIER-With regard to possibly moving it to Tuesday, the 12th. MR. CAIMANO-Well, see if we could combine them or go with it. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. The 19th, or combine the meetings. MR. CARTIER-Paul, everybody's breaking calendars out here. MR. DUSEK-Whatever that the Board wants to go with is fine with me, obviously. The only thing I would like to bring to your attention is that we will have a lack of Counsel during the week of the 18th. Karla is taking a vacation during that week and I have tentatively planned to go to the Association of Towns Meetings which is a three day affair. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to reschedule for the 12th right now? Would that make it easier. to reschedule for the 12th, right now? MR. LAPOINT-I believe so. If we don't have Counsel, I'm not interested in being here. MRS. PULVER-Me either. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think we need a motion to that effect. ÞIOTION TO tIlVE THE FIRST REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING IN FEBRUARY TO FEBRUARY 12TH INSTEAD OF FEBRUARY 19TH, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hagan MR. CARTIER-Five to one approved. Last bit and piece, here, that I've got. You've got, in that pile of stuff that was sent out, I believe, a list of questions that I kicked out sometime ago regarding our putting together something to review petitions to re-zone. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I've got it. MR. CARTIER-I'd li ke you to take some time to think about that. Look it over again and at that next meeting. I'd like to get rolling on something formal with that. MR. CAIMANO-Petitions to Re-zone? MR. CARTIER-My problem is. we have no formal procedure for looking at a Petition to Re-zone. We just kind of wing it and what I'm trying to do is to get some sort of formal questionnaire, checklist, whatever you want to call it. format to go through. 27 ~ --- MR. MARTIN-I never got it. MR. CARTIER-You got a pile of stuff. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but I don't remember seeing that. MR. MARTIN-I don't remember seeing it. either. MRS. PULVER-Yes you do. I'll tell you when we got it. November 13th. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but Lee also sent it out again. MRS. PULVER-Did you? Well, I've got November 13th. MR. CARTIER-Here it is, right here. MR. CAIMANO-I've got it, right here, yes. Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. There's a cover letter and some questions. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I've got that one. MRS. YORK-Excuse me. We are looking at the time frames for advertising. here, if we move the meeting to the 12th and it's going to be very difficult. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Tuesday nights are not chiseled in stone. What about Thursday the 14th? MRS. YORK-That's Valentines Day. MR. CAIMANO-Give us the answer. What's the earliest we can meet? MRS. PULVER-How about two meetings the last week. one on Tuesday and one on Thursday. the 26th and the 28th? MR. CARTIER-That means. so that we keep the agendas right. well, the stuff hasn't come in yet anyway. MRS. PULVER-No. but the stuff for the 19th would be the 26th and the stuff for the 26th would be the 28th. MRS. YORK-What do you think, Paul, the 13th or the 14th? MR. DUSEK-As long as ~ have enough time to get out your mailings, is your biggest thing. MRS. YORK-Yes. We could probably do the 14th or the 15th which is Thursday or Friday. The 14th is Valentines Day. The 15th is a Friday. MRS. PULVER-What about the 26th and 28th? MRS. YORK-We could do that. MR. CAIMANO-Let's do that. MRS. YORK-The problem with that is the 28th is the day after the submission deadline date for the month of February. MR. CAIMANO-What's wrong with the 14th? What is so sacred about Valentines Day? MR. CARTIER-How about the 15th? MRS. YORK-That's a Friday night. Do you want to have a meeting on a Friday night? MR. CARTIER-No. I'm just throwing out suggestions. Apparently other people are throwing my suggestions out. Is the 12th definitely out? MRS. YORK-I don't feel that we could get the advertising out. If we could move it until the 13th, I would feel more comfortable. MR. CARTIER-Okay. the 13th. MR. CAIMANO-The 13th. MRS. PULVER-The 13th. 28 '----' -..-/ MR. CARTIER-That doesn't put us in conflict with the Zoning Board? MRS. YORK-No, that's the third Wednesday. Yes, you will be fine. MR. DUSEK-Lee, the 13th is not going to give you any more time than if you had it on the 12th because you're on a weekend when you start off. Part of the problem is, the 30th is the cut off date. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. DUSEK-Friday's the first. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. DUSEK-That's the one work day you have to get everything out and after you've gotten it all in on the 30th. Monday you can't get it out. It's not going to help you because you're going to be too late. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-That's the only concern I have is whether she physically can get that out on Friday. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-What's the problem with 26th and the 28th, again? MRS. YORK-Well. the only thing that I want to make the Board aware of. here, is on the 28th, the meeting of the 28th would be the day after the submission deadline date for the month of February for the agenda in March. MR. CAIMANO-How about extending it one day? MRS. PULVER-I was going to say, how about extending the submission deadline, since March is a big month? MR. CAIMANO-Or just having the meeting on the 19th and saying to hell with it. MR. CARTIER-That's another possibility. MRS. YORK-How many members would be missing on the 19th? MR. CARTIER-Right now, definitely Jim. Right now, possibly, Carol. Is there a possibility we'll have a new member by then? MRS. YORK-I have no idea. MR. CARTIER-That's a month away, almost. MR. CAIMANO-Well, our problems will be solved if the agenda is short and we can consolidate the meeting. So, why don't we wait until the 30th? MRS. PULVER-Why don't we plan the 26th and the 28th and we look at the agenda and decide whether or not we need to change submission deadlines then. We don't need to do everything now. MR. CAIMANO-Fine. Let's do it. MR. CARTIER-So, we're going to hold this in abeyance until we see what..... MR. CAIMANO-No. MRS. PULVER-No. We're going to plan the 26th and the 28th for our meetings. MR. CARTIER-But then we have to move another date. MR. CAlMANO-May. MRS. PULVER-Well. this is the submission deadline. but we won't do anything about that until we see what the agendas are going to be. MR. CARTIER-I don't understand how that helps. MRS. PULVER-Well, we may move the submission deadline. Well, because these people who are here on the 28th might have to make just a minor change where they could have made the submission deadline to be on the following month, but if the submission deadline is the day before this meeting, then they have to wait another whole month, that would be two months. See, they wouldn't be on the next month's. It would be two months. 29 "---' --" MRS. YORK-Do you want to have the submission deadline for March be March 1st. I mean, tentatively. MR. CAIMANO-Tentatively. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. YORK-All right. MR. CARTIER-Is that a problem for Staff? MRS. YORK-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So. we're looking at the 26th. the meeting of the 19th norma11y scheduled for the 19th will be held on the 26th. The meeting for the 26th will normally be held on the 28th. MR. HAGAN-You're not saying that right, Peter. MR. CARTIER-And March 1 wi11 be the submission deadline date for. let's firm it up. Let's not leave it up in the air. MRS. PULVER-Okay. March 1st is the submission deadline. MR. CARTIER-We need a motion. MOTION TO IIJLD THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS FOR FEBRUARY Olt FEBRUARY 26TH AND FEBRUARY 28TH AT 7:00 P.M. AND THE NEW SUBMISSION DEADLINE FOR THE IIIJNTH OF MARCH WILL BE MARCH 1ST AT 2:00 P.M., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: We rescind the previous motion. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CAIMANO-And this rescinds the previous motion regarding the 12th. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 30